Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- george on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on So they said
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- JWink on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
279 Comments
Well, yesterday, we had the Woman of La Mancha literally tilting at windmills, cause they might have some bad effect on cows; we had some gun slinger griping cause the rich pay Income Tax (duh, why do they call it Income Tax) and the poor dont pay any (cause maybe they have no Income to speak of?)
And we had somebody else who had a typo problem, and couldnt get the numbers typed right, but was still used against that poster, even after the typo had been acknowledged.
Hmmmm all in all, not a bad day on the WE Blog, as days go here.
Hopefully, today will be better!
http://www.aliveinbaghdad.org/
This is a link to a site where Iraqis with handy-cams make reports on what is happening in Baghdad.Some is nice and others is not so nice but it is reporting by real Iraqis and their daily lives.
I wish I could hve just one day, where ZI didnt hear the words, Baghdad, Britney, Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton, K-Fed, Limbaugh, Hannity, or anything with Campaign in it!!! Grrrrrrr!!!!
Can you go Pheasant Hunting in July? Can you watch the Super Bowl in the middle of June? Can you see the All Star Baseball game on Thanksgiving Evening?
Of COURSE not!! Wrong season, right?
WELL, let’s set a Campaign Season! That’s it.. Cannot announce for President any time before 12 months before the Election Date! And NO fund raising earlier than 12 months ahead, either!
Maybe then we would have some decent debates, and keep these candidates to the real issues, instead of all the garbage like we hear on the TV, and read on this Blog!
How are we going to do that? Why, the voice of the People, that’s how!! Let the voice of the People be heard! Let the news media cover that voice for a change!
All this campaigning is going to ruin our form of political governance.
Stand up and be counted America!
I hear ya, “JM” –
The perpetual Campaign Season most certainly contributes to division in America.
After George WMD Bush lost the election but won the Supreme Court vote in 2000, Democrats were willing (spineless as we tend to be) to accept a presidency that recognized the division in America. Instead, Shrub ruled as if he’d been given a landslide.
From foreign policy to FEMA we’ve seen what the George WMD Bush approach to governing gets us.
Is the last six years *really* what “conservatives” had in mind?
Winter is coming and there were several editorials about homeless awareness yesterday. Please give us a WE Blog thread on the subject. I would like to see how public opinion weighs on the issue! Thank You.
Now that Musherriff has imposed “martial law” in Pakistan and had his opposition jailed- all in the name of “fighting terrorism” of course, I wonder if Bush might be thinking along these lines. Especially since Musherriff used Abe Lincoln as a precendent. Maybe Bush is thinking about extending his own stay in office!
And why would that be surprising, Kev? Isnt that what all of Bush’s heavy handed build up with the Patriot Act is all about?
If we had a real Constitutional crisis, who do you suppose the military would back? I’m betting they would back Bush. But would the Reserve units?
Oh noes, Henny Penny is alive and well. :)
I’m not sure our military would know a Constitutional Crisis if they saw one!! LOL
Remember — the non productive are always the first ones to the concentration camps!!
Maybe now we know why Cheney has been hiding in that undisclosed location for most of the past 7 years!! LOL
I heard over night that some people, known as White Trash, want the term “Redneck” to be given the same banned status as the “N” word. They say Redneck is racist!
Hey, if Redneck gets that status, it would improve the chances for Presidential Candidates to visit Kansas, and Alabama, and Mississippi and Missouri, and Tennessee and Kentucky! Wow!
Oh yea, West Virginia, too!
Bush’s myths on SCHIP.On Oct. 17, President Bush explained that he vetoed Congress’s SCHIP expansion because the White House wasn’t “dialed in in the beginning.” But as The New York Times reports, the White House was heavily involved, but unwilling to compromise:Senator Hatch tried to bring White House officials into the negotiations, believing their involvement would produce a better bill. But, lawmakers said, the administration did not want to discuss the child health program except as part of a broader discussion that included the president’s tax proposals. […]But after checking their calendars, lawmakers said they and their aides had had more than 35 meetings and telephone conversations on the issue with [administration officials] Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Hennessey and Ms. Goon from January through September.
President Bush has changed his reasons for opposing the S-CHIP program so many times now his flip flops are doing flip flops.
I’m sure if the Dems. would agree to eliminate the capital gains tax, bush would sign off on the SCHIPS bill!
So. Pervez Musharref suspends Pakistan’s Constitution, invokes emergency rule, detains Supreme Court members and arrests the opposition because he’s going to be held to a two-term limit as President of Pakistan.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20071105/D8SNHLO00.html
Paid for by YOUR tax dollars. To be specific, $10 billion since 2001, which is unlikely to be revoked.
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14555846&vsv=SHGTslot1
Yeah. “Committment to Democracy” and all that, blah blah blah.
When George refuses to leave office at the end of 2008, I guess he’s hoping we’ll all blame Pervez for giving him the idea.
Playing the victim as your first post today shows isn’t the way to win. POOOOOR JM!
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 08:27 AM
===================Huh?
Who victim? What victim?
Heh, yeah, I saw that too, CF2K.
Bush hates Saddam because he’s a tyrant who abrogates the rule of law, but he loves Musharref who does the same thing.
The difference?
Saddam got in the way of making huge money on the oil of Iraq.
Musharref is a key player in help multinational corporations secure oil pipeline and natural gas in Afghanistan.
Bush is all about the money for his rich pals. Nothing more, nothing less.
He’s the Godfather, without the style and panache.
Remember — the non productive are always the first ones to the concentration camps!!
Adios Kansas
You don’t steal two elections just because you want to serve the people. You do it to serve yourself and your cronies.
Here lies
U.S. DEMOCRACY
July 1776 – December 2000
Rest in Peace
All this campaigning is going to ruin our form of political governance. Stand up and be counted America!Posted by: JM
To the contrary, I believe the freedom of speech and campaigning are what make our country great.
It may appear to be an interruption to some of your lives, banausic, or monotonous but to me, it is the reason for it.
Another day of Liberal whine fest.
yawn…
Survival rate for prostate cancer in the USA is 80%.
Survival rate for prostate cancer in Britain is 43%.
But Britain’s health care system is awesome.
A TALE OF TWO CANDIDATES
When Gore says that he helped develop the internet by leading the funding in Washington for it, it is true.
But right-wing operatives spin that into “Al Gore said he INVENTED the internet” and the corporate media repeat it endlessly, they make him into a liar.
Meanwhile, Ghouliani issues a blatant LIE that he knows is a lie — that Britian’s health care would have killed him by now — and the “liberal” media give him a free pass.
Or as Giuliani himself says in the controversial ad: “I had prostate cancer five, six years ago. My chance of surviving cancer — and thank God I was cured of it — in the United States: 82 percent. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England: only 44 percent under socialized medicine.”
Yes, it’s another inspiring and instructive story — or would be, perhaps, if only it were true.
The former New York mayor did survive prostate cancer, but otherwise his statistical claims were not difficult to debunk, as reporters for the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC and other news outlets quickly discovered. Giuliani had picked up his numbers from an article in City Journal, a publication of the right-wing Manhattan Institute, and simply repeated them in public without bothering to check their validity. Unfortunately, they were essentially fraudulent figures, extrapolated inaccurately from old data (by a doctor who also advises the Giuliani campaign on healthcare).
Accurate and current data, easily available from public health agencies and medical authorities, shows that the survival rate from prostate cancer in England is better than 74 percent and in the United States is better than 98 percent. Even that difference, as experts explained, probably has nothing to do with the British National Health Service and much to do with the aggressive screening programs employed in this country. (And for the moment, let’s merely mention another highly pertinent issue, namely that the great majority of prostate cancers occur in men over 65, which indicates that many if not most are treated successfully under Medicare — our version of national health insurance for the elderly — or by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which comes as close to truly socialist healthcare as any system in the world.)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/11/02/healthcare_lies/
Funding something doesn’t mean you help invent something.
If that were the case, then Andrew Carnegie should take credit for inventing the Library because he donated hundreds of millions of dollars to build them.
Funding something doesn’t mean you help invent something.
Posted by: Kansas
And I walked on the moon!!!!
aw shucks look what I found on the google
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/87329.php
The Commonwealth Fund on Tuesday in a statement said that the five-year survival rate for prostate cancer in Britain cited in a radio advertisement recently launched by Republican presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is inaccurate, the New York Times reports. In the ad, which began to air on Tuesday in New Hampshire, Giuliani says, “My chance of surviving prostate cancer — and, thank God, I was cured of it — in the United States? Eighty-two percent. My chance of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44% under socialized medicine.” According to the British Office for National Statistics, the five-year survival rate for prostate cancer in Britain is 74.4%.
Does this continually repeated LIE by Giuliani “speak to the candidate’s character” like Gore’s NON lie did?
Does this show that he has grandiose opinions that can’t be supported by facts, like Gore’s NON lie did?
Does this mean he can’t be trusted because he just make sh*t up, like Gore’s NON lie did?
No, of course not.
He’s a Republican.
IOKIYAR.
JM, your on fire this morning good work!
So, Wingnuts. Ghouliani has gone on record saying that he’s going to keep repeating the above lies regarding prostate cancer. How do you like having a serial liar, philanderer, and cross-dresser (with NO foreign policy experience) as your front-runner?
JM
Damn but you are on your toes this morning.
This WeBlog is an interesting research tool.
The truth on Guiliani and the prostate rumor by a physician who wrote the original article. You know, not some spin by unqualified journalists.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-10-31dg.html
Carnegie should and does get a lot of credit for developing the modern library system in America.
The words that Gore used was “helped develop” not “invent.”
Invent was pure right-wing LIE.
NEW RULE
Every time the right wing re-posts another debunked lie–like FDR wanted Social Security to be voluntary and a private annuity–we get to post a lie in response over and over again.
we get to post a lie in response over and over again.
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 09:21 AM
So what would be different than is already done here now?
George W. Bush to RESIGN over cocaine scandal
“New reports have surfaced that President Bush was photographed snorting powder cocaine off of Vice-President Cheney’s bare buttocks.
“Presidentials aides have confirmed that both Bush and Cheney will resign by the end of the week.”
Read more here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/2/83713/9959
“Heckler” –
November 2, 2007Op-Ed ColumnistProstates and Prejudices
By PAUL KRUGMAN“My chance of surviving prostate cancer — and thank God I was cured of it — in the United States? Eighty-two percent,” says Rudy Giuliani in a new radio ad attacking Democratic plans for universal health care. “My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44 percent, under socialized medicine.”
It would be a stunning comparison if it were true. But it isn’t. And thereby hangs a tale — one of scare tactics, of the character of a man who would be president and, I’m sorry to say, about what’s wrong with political news coverage.
Let’s start with the facts: Mr. Giuliani’s claim is wrong on multiple levels — bogus numbers wrapped in an invalid comparison embedded in a smear.
Mr. Giuliani got his numbers from a recent article in City Journal, a publication of the conservative Manhattan Institute. The author gave no source for his numbers on five-year survival rates — the probability that someone diagnosed with prostate cancer would still be alive five years after the diagnosis. And they’re just wrong.
You see, the actual survival rate in Britain is 74.4 percent. That still looks a bit lower than the U.S. rate, but the difference turns out to be mainly a statistical illusion. The details are technical, but the bottom line is that a man’s chance of dying from prostate cancer is about the same in Britain as it is in America.
So Mr. Giuliani’s supposed killer statistic about the defects of “socialized medicine” is entirely false. In fact, there’s very little evidence that Americans get better health care than the British, which is amazing given the fact that Britain spends only 41 percent as much on health care per person as we do.
Anyway, comparisons with Britain have absolutely nothing to do with what the Democrats are proposing. In Britain, doctors are government employees; despite what Mr. Giuliani is suggesting, none of the Democratic candidates have proposed to make American doctors work for the government.
As a fact-check in The Washington Post put it: “The Clinton health care plan” — which is very similar to the Edwards and Obama plans — “has more in common with the Massachusetts plan signed into law by Gov. Mitt Romney than the British National Health system.” Of course, this hasn’t stopped Mr. Romney from making similar smears.
At one level, what Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney are doing here is engaging in time-honored scare tactics. For generations, conservatives have denounced every attempt to ensure that Americans receive needed health care, from Medicare to S-chip, as “socialized medicine.”
Part of the strategy has always involved claiming that health reform is suspect because it’s un-American, and exaggerating health care problems in other countries — usually on the basis of unsubstantiated anecdotes or fraudulent statistics. Opponents of reform also make a practice of lumping all forms of government intervention together, pretending that having the government pay some health care bills is just the same as having the government take over the whole health care system.
But here’s what I don’t understand: Why isn’t Mr. Giuliani’s behavior here considered not just a case of bad policy analysis but a character issue?
For better or (mostly) for worse, political reporting is dominated by the search for the supposedly revealing incident, in which the candidate says or does something that reveals his true character. And this incident surely seems to fit the bill.
Leave aside the fact that Mr. Giuliani is simply lying about what the Democrats are proposing; after all, Mitt Romney is doing the same thing.
But health care is the pre-eminent domestic issue for the 2008 election. Surely the American people deserve candidates who do their homework on the subject.
Yet what we actually have is the front-runner for the Republican nomination apparently basing his health-care views on something he read somewhere, which he believed without double-checking because it confirmed his prejudices.
By rights, then, Mr. Giuliani’s false claims about prostate cancer — which he has, by the way, continued to repeat, along with some fresh false claims about breast cancer — should be a major political scandal. As far as I can tell, however, they aren’t being treated that way.
To be fair, there has been some news coverage of the prostate affair. But it’s only a tiny fraction of the coverage received by Hillary’s laugh and John Edwards’s haircut.
And much of the coverage seems weirdly diffident. Memo to editors: If a candidate says something completely false, it’s not “in dispute.” It’s not the case that “Democrats say” they’re not advocating British-style socialized medicine; they aren’t.
The fact is that the prostate affair is part of a pattern: Mr. Giuliani has a habit of saying things, on issues that range from health care to national security, that are demonstrably untrue. And the American people have a right to know that.
Why are you posting trash JM?
How about getting to the maturity level of an adult and you might find that people will respect your posts.
You didn’t bother to read the post at the URL I gave did you MonkeyHawk?
That article was written by the original author who Guiliani referenced.
The writer of the article is a physician – not some unqualified journalistic spin artist.
Kansas
Good link.
Gee, Kansas, why dont you show what you mean by trash posts?
Oh excuse me, Kansas, you just did! LOL
No thanks JM.
You know very well which post that is and the only reason you are doing it is to be disruptive, provoke fights and gain attention to yourself.
You may gain more attention than you intended by WE staff if you continue with this childishness you are currently doing.
I wish they would just ban you and get you out of everyone’s hair. Your disruptive comments are a waste of blog space.
JM
If you read the link Kansas gave you would find a good explaination of the data versus biased jounalistic spin in what you posted.
I dont know Kansas. Doctors are pretty good spin artists, especially when they are paid to spin! Think about how they spin when testifying in Court!
http://www.spokesman.com/tools/story_breakingnews_pf.asp?ID=12164
Republican Votes against Gay Rights, then is caught in gay encounter
“I am not gay,” says lawmaker.
Sound familiar?
A state representative dressed as a woman and engaged in oral sex at a Spokane Valley adult bookstore before rendezvousing at a downtown Spokane hotel for another sexual encounter with a man now under investigation for extortion, police reports released Tuesday allege.
The extortion suspect, identified in public records as 26-year-old Cody Michael Castagna, of Medical Lake, told detectives he was offered $1,000 to have unprotected sex with state Rep. Richard Curtis, a Republican from La Center, near Vancouver, Wash.
Castagna, a part-time waiter and porn model, has been featured in explicit photos posted on some members-only gay Web sites. He declined interview requests from The Spokesman-Review on Tuesday. But later, at his attorney’s office, Castagna told reporters that he never threatened the legislator.
Curtis “has completely changed what actually happened and turned it around in his favor,” Castagna said. His attorney is David R. Partovi, of the Maxey Law Offices in Spokane.
we get to post a lie in response over and over again.
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 09:21 AM
So what would be different than is already done here now?
Posted by: Kansas | November 05, 2007 at 09:24 AM
======================
But this isnt a trash post? Hmmmm
“I wish they would just ban you and get you out of everyone’s hair. Your disruptive comments are a waste of blog space.
Posted by: Kansas | November 05, 2007 at 09:37 AM
I guess the irony of this is lost on him?
“When George refuses to leave office at the end of 2008, I guess he’s hoping we’ll all blame Pervez for giving him the idea.”
CF, at 8:27—–
LOL. Is that sky STILL falling?
C’mon, CF, that bet’s still open. I bet Chicken Little will even help you pay off . . .
BTW – tell me again why you aren’t in the streets now . . .
Mocking the WE Editors is not irony, it is disruptive.
A mature person would know the difference.
Evidently, you don’t have the maturity to recognize that behaving like an adult has responsibilities.
Re: The cancer statistics.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_bogus_cancer_statistic.html
Heckler–
Another way of comparing treatment of prostate cancer in the U.S. and Britain is to look at the mortality rates from the disease. Here the two countries are much closer. The graph below shows deaths per 100,000 males in each country. About 25 men out of 100,000 are dying from prostate cancer every year in both the U.K. and the U.S.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/rudy_miscalculates_cancer_surv.html
“Evidently, you don’t have the maturity to recognize that behaving like an adult has responsibilities.”
More irony lost.
I’m laughing so hard at kansas I spilled my coffee!
So JM, you are saying that you are more qualified than a physician to interpret epidemiological results on a disease?
That’s rather arrogant isn’t it?
You know what I would bet on, GMC?
That if GW doesn’t leave office in January 2009, you’ll be the first one defending his actions . . .
LOLOLOL. He doesnt know who’s posting so he doesnt know which of his standard attacks to use. And all the JMs are keeping him busy.
Because, “Kansas” –
The link you provided is written by a senior fellow of The Manhattan Institute.
Look it up.
“The Manhattan Institute received $19,470,416 in grants from 1985-2005, from foundations such as the Koch Family Foundations, the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc., the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Foundations, and the Smith Richardson Foundation. The Manhattan Institute does not disclose its corporate funding, but the Capital Research Center listed its contributors as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exxon Mobil, Chase Manhattan, Cigna, Sprint, Reliant Energy, Lincoln Financial Group Foundation, and Merill Lynch….”
GMC70,
Put that in there for you. I knew you’d snap at it.
As for why “I’m not out in the streets,” time isn’t ripe. Judging from your attempts at being smug, denial’s still a bit thick.
Isnt GMC a prosecutor? He probably would LOVE to put protesters in jail. And why is an officer of the court inciting others to civil disobedience? Does he get paid on commission?
More irony lost.
I’m laughing so hard at kansas I spilled my coffee!
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 09:50 AM
Somehow I doubt that very much JM. You are planning your next post to be disruptive.
Do you realize how pleasant the blog is without your presence?
It is very pleasant and people got along.
You have no idea who’s posting this.
Yes, Kansas, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
Anyone who can read is more qualifying than this lying POS who gave Giuliani the LIES he wanted.
And you know what else?
His health care that was some much better than socialized medicine received public funding–in other words, it was partially socialized.
And you know what further else?
A lot of our good results treating prostate cancer comes from Medicare, which is totally socialized medicine.
So why don’t you quit defending the LIAR and just admit he’s a liar?
So MonkeyHawk,
Regardless of your spin, how are your posts from non-qualified journalists commenting on medicine issues more significant than comments from a qualified physician?
Are you going to take your next physical from a journalist?
Obama On Saturday Night Live – Hillarious!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndQM0X5rhfE
You have no idea who’s posting this.
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 09:53 AM
No, but I have an idea. There are very few people who log on to this blog that disrupt it.
You don’t like me because my opinions differ from yours.
I call your way of thinking closed minded and fascist.
Because, Kansas, you ignorant slut, the journalists get their news from qualified impartial medical researchers, not some partisan hack who happens to have an M.D.
But I suspect you already knew that or you really are an ignorant slut.
CF – yes, I know. There is a time for that, and we’re not there. Should this administration do that (an incredibly unlikely scenario, BTW) I’ll be there with you.
The point, of course, is that I’m simply pointing out what we both know: your projecting such a scenario has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with politics. If it was anything else, you’d be in the streets.
Referencing qualified sources, does not equate into making someone an expert in a field.
If that were true, anyone could claim to be an expert in any field just because they used “sources.”
I see that JM has resorted to name calling once again. It was predicted and expected.
As for why “I’m not out in the streets,” time isn’t ripe. Judging from your attempts at being smug, denial’s still a bit thick.
Posted by: CF2K | November 05, 2007 at 09:53 AM
They Sky Is Falling! But the time isn’t ripe.
The Sky Falls Slowly…..
Good one CF. The Time Isn’t Right!
Is the Time Right for Hillary to detail her Tax Increase plans?
Is the Time Right for Hillary to detail her plan to Save Social Security?
Is the Time Right for Hillary to detail her HillaryCare! plan?
Is the Time Right for Hillary to tell us what she will do in Iraq anad Iran?
Is the Time Right for Hillary to detail her anti-Global Warming plan?
Is the Time Right for Hillary to detail her Gun Control plans?
No, too early. She might give away her true agenda and lose the election.
Can’t risk that.
“When you introduce screening and early detection into the equation, the survival statistics become meaningless,” said Howard Parnes, chief of the Prostate Cancer Research Group at the National Cancer Institute. “You are identifying many people who would not otherwise be diagnosed.”
If we’re judging evidence on the credentials of who says it, try to beat this: “chief of the Prostate Cancer Research Group at the National Cancer Institute.”
To further the analogy of my 10:01 post -
Suppose I spent many hours a week in a Law Library. I post reference case after reference case and post recitations along with precedents.
That still doesn’t make me an attorney, nor does it make me qualified to practice law or give out legal advice.
There is a big difference between being certified doing something according to standards and being informed about a subject and posting sources.
“Because, Kansas, you ignorant slut, . . . ”
Ya know, I avoid the flame wars. But you have to wonder if the term irony isn’t lost on one who complains about other “disruptive” posters and then opens his post as noted above.
Do as I say, not as I do, I guess. Or IOKIYAD.
Either that, or the usual from the left: Free speech for me, but not for thee.
And no, I’m not going to get involved in the flame wars. Call it a drive-by observation.
Even Kerry had a plan.
What’s Hillary’s plan?
Max–
If Bill didn’t take away your guns after 8 years in office, then I don’t think Hill will either.
There are more guns in this country than people.
Get a clue.
BTW, did you bag any pheasants over the weekend.
Iowa is a great pheasant state . . .
GMC, does it make you hard to feel smugly superior?
Hallelujah, the writers strike has begun. The amount of filth, vulgarity, stupidity, and sheer unadulterated lunacy will be reduced by half. If the strike goes on long enough even so called reality shows will have to rerun.
Maybe people will look around them and find there are other people in the room. They may talk to each other, play a game, read a book, go for a walk, attend a ball game, concert or play. Some may even find something missing in their lives and engage in self-introspection.
Yes this could be a very good thing. I hope they stay on strike forever.
JM:
The superior part is easy . . .
your apparant fascination with “hard” is your problem, not mine.
Quoting someone out of context is ineffective and fruitless JM if it is not part of the original conversation process.
I could quote some world class epidemiologists on your statement you provided and prove that out of context statements are irrelevant when spun by non qualified persons.
You provided nothing JM, accept your sources got trumped by a qualified physician and your healing can begin.
Do you read Kansas’s posts at all, GMC?
Because I was just wondering your take on “we have no right to judge Giuliani’s misstatement of fact because we don’t have M.D.’s”
How’s that work for you, as a professional logician?
Here’s what I can’t figure out. Hillary says she has experience in the White House. But when Bill was in his first term, Hillary got crucified when she tried intervening in executive branch politics. So Bill had her step down. I believe she then put in charge of the white house Christmas Ornament, or something like that. So she really doesn’t have any experience as a leader.
But then, is she saying she is bringing experience to the White House because Bill will be with her?
If that is the case, is she suggesting that Bill will in effect be the real leader and wear the pants in the white house?
If so, this bothers me. We have term limits on the executive branch.
Did you even bother to read the URL I posted JM?
There is no spin, but a well explained statement on how the physician reached his conclusion.
You are dragging a dead cat uphill JM, get over it.
More on Bush’s resignation over cocaine charges:
“I did use cocaine,” says the disgraced president, “but I didn’t snort it off of Cheney’s buttocks.”
http://www.dailykos.com/
JM:
This has nothing to do with whether Kansas’ source is correct or not. You wanna challenge his position, go for it.
But tell me again how your opening (and closing, as well) advances that argument?
Go ahead. Try.
One lie for another.
JM, the only reason Bill didn’t get a full gun-ban and confiscation enacted is because of the majority Republican Congress that was elected in 1994, following the Gun Ban of 1993.
Hillary, if elected along with a Democratic majority will go on a full-court press to ban and confiscate guns. Bills have already been submitted by Democrats in Congress today.
Answer the question, GMC.
You can’t do it, because you know Kansas is totally full of sh*t.
Even Kansas knows he’s full of sh*t.
He just posts that canard to make the opposition have to prove an idiotic argument wrong.
Defend it, GMC, or STFU.
Oh and by the by the tenor of the quotes on this thread are immature in the extreme. If you have to call people names or make stupid sexual observations you have already lost any creditability you might have had.
By the way JM magazines like Family Handyman have cures for problems like yours. Just an suggestion. I realize problems like that can make one cranky.
Have a blessed day.
“One lie for another.”
And is this the JM (I’m assuming adult, but it looks like I may be wrong) version of “but momma, he did it first . . . “
Max
If you really believe that, you are one dumb bastard and there’s really no point in talking to you further.
IOWA = Idiots Out Wandering Around
It’s helpful to have an ignorant sidekick on the blog.
Thanks JM.
JM has earned the status of being ignored GMC by posting stuff like the 10:13 and 10:16 post.
He has flipped his cog and going for arm flailing attention getting only.
Time to ignore him and he becomes an insignificant on this blog.
Check it out folks, GMC will not refute Kansas under any circumstances even when he knows Kansas to be wrong.
Way to sell out, sell out.
I would not even bother responding to the poster who is posting names, flames, and games.
It is trying very hard: To get your goat specifically.
Please don’t let it. All of us reading know a caged animal when we see it.
Don’t feed it. You are bigger than that.
It must be painful to be a Democrat today. Democrats are the impotent majority in Congress, they can’t get anything done.
Any Budget bills passed yet?
Dems vote to fund the Iraq war AGAIN?
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119422407666382012-eNBbE4Gg1NfcEWflwxlM_rBFL6k_20071204.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
Frustration Builds for Democrats
Dashed Expectations!
WASHINGTON — The way in which Senate Democrats wavered and then consented to the confirmation of Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general reflects the party’s broader struggle to make headway on its national-security agenda, despite President Bush’s unpopularity.
On questions such as Mr. Mukasey’s stance on waterboarding, warrantless wiretapping and the war in Iraq, Democrats have been stymied by Republicans in Congress and the White House. That has sparked frustration among supporters, especially those on the left, who anticipated that last year’s congressional takeover would force some policy changes.
These dashed expectations are one reason polls give Congress an approval rating lower than Mr. Bush’s.
Why I’m Glad I’m Not a Republican
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/11/anyone_in_the_senate_missing_a.html
Lost a Watch in Men’s Room? Call Larry Craig’s Office
Staffers on Capitol Hill are howling over an e-mail sent from Sen. Larry Craig’s office Friday about a watch found — guess where — in the men’s room!
The e-mail, which is being forwarded pretty much all over the place on Capitol Hill, is from Pat Olsen, the embattled Idaho Republican’s administrative director.
The e-mail announced that a watch was found in the men’s room on the fifth floor of the Hart Senate Office Building, where Craig’s office is located. On its face, the message suggests that a male staffer (possibly even Sen. Craig, the notorious men’s room foot tapper) found the watch.
Olsen confirmed to The Sleuth that she authored the message. Without divulging her e-mail address, here is the text:
From: [Pat Olsen]Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 4:03 PMTo: ADMGR@Subject: Watch found in the men’s room
Watch found in the men’s room on the 5th floor in the NW Corner of the Hart Building. It is not working, but if someone from your office lost it, please let me know.
Pat OlsenAdministrative DirectorSenator Larry E. Craig
We redacted Olsen’s phone number to save her a lot of grief
“Defend it, GMC, or STFU.”
Yea, that advances your position wonderfully. You’re not that stupid, JM (I could be wrong on that); you’re willfully missing the point.
You want to advance your argument with Kansas over whatever you’re fighting about – make your point. Point out the flawlessness of your position. Why would I make it for you? Do you need me to rally to your cause?
Is your position that weak?
Or does Kansas so push your buttons you are reduced to obscenities and name-calling? Or does it just make you feel for manly to write “STFU?”
A waiting world wants to know. But I’m done with you, on this topic, anyway. You’ll have to be a man on your own. You can handle that, can’t you?
Get back to work, loser.
Sheesh.
The man can’t even answer a question.
Actually, no one wants to know. In fact, don’t go away mad.
Just go away.
Kansas: they are trying to get you to explode so they can get you banned like they have been.
It really gets their goat that you passed muster, but they did not.
(chortles) and scurries off to admire his new ride.
A 1972 Chevy Vega . . .
The Libs have fallen into a retreat mode.
After losing out to rational conservative arguments, you see posters like JM for example, being as nasty as possible in order to shut-down the blog.
The Libs can’t let the conservative blogs continue.
And since they can’t win in the world of ideas with a rational argument, the Libs choose to sink the ship and take everyone down with it.
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the WE Eagle did just that – close the blog.
A 1972 Chevy Vega . . .
. . . with a blown 454 on a ladder frame hooked to a upgraded Turbo 400 and a Ford 9″ posi.
Sweet.
Yeah, you know rational argument like Hillary will confiscate 350 million guns.
Nevermind that just about as many Dems have guns as Repukes.
She wants them all. Gonna melt them down and turn them into CD’s that only play one song: kumbaya.
You’re a parody of yourself, Max.
Just wear your rose colored glasses JM. You won’t miss your guns that way.
RE: JM’s post from earlier.
Yes, JM, Max actually does believe what he is posting. Of that I am convinced. Very scary!
Has Hillary answered one question about her position on the 2nd Amendment? Has she pledged to enforce the 2nd Amendment along with the rest of the Constitution?
Has she joined the NRA yet?
All these questions are asked of Republicans.
Is no one asking Hillary or is she not answering?
Hillary Clinton on Gun Control
Keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them
We need to stand firm on behalf of sensible gun control legislation. We have to enact laws that will keep guns out of the hand of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced persons. Congress should have acted before our children started going back to school. I realize the NRA is a formidable political group; but I believe the American people are ready to come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.
Source: http://www.hillary2000.org, “Gun Safety” Sep 9, 2000
License and register all handgun sales
Hillary Rodham Clinton offered her support for a legislative proposal to license hand guns. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer, would require anyone who wants to purchase a gun to obtain a state-issued photo gun license. “I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun,” Clinton said. “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry, such as Chuck is proposing.”
Source: CNN.com Jun 2, 2000
Tough gun control keeps guns out of wrong hands
I think it does once again urge us to think hard about what we can do to make sure that we keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced people. I hope we will come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who have no business with them.
Source: Press Release Jul 31, 1999
Gun control protects our children
We will not make progress on a sensible gun control agenda unless the entire American public gets behind it. It is really important for each of you [kids] to make sure you stay away from guns. If you have guns in your home, tell your parents to keep them away from you and your friends and your little brothers and sisters.
Source: Forum at South Side Middle School in Nassau County Jul 15, 1999
Don’t water down sensible gun control legislation
We have to do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of children, and we need to stand firm on behalf of the sensible gun control legislation that passed the Senate and then was watered down in the House. It does not make sense for us at this point in our history to turn our backs on the reality that there are too many guns and too many children have access to those guns-and we have to act to prevent that.
Source: Remarks to NEA in Orlando, Florida Jul 5, 1999
Lock up guns; store ammo separately
If you own a gun… make sure it’s locked up and stored without the ammunition. In fact, make it stored where the ammunition is stored separately. We’ve made some progress in the last several years with the Brady Bill and some of the bans on assault weapons, but we have a lot of work to do.
Source: ABC’s “Good Morning America” Jun 4, 1999
Speaking of facts, here are some very good statistics on guns in America – and sources for each line of information:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Wow, with a record like Hillary’s, anyone who wants to keep their guns should look for another candidate.
Heckler–
Another way of comparing treatment of prostate cancer in the U.S. and Britain is to look at the mortality rates from the disease. Here the two countries are much closer. The graph below shows deaths per 100,000 males in each country. About 25 men out of 100,000 are dying from prostate cancer every year in both the U.K. and the U.S.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/rudy_miscalculates_cancer_surv.html
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 09:49 AM
“The latest official figures for five-year “survivability” rates for men diagnosed with prostate cancer are around 98 per cent in the United States and 74 per cent in England.”
From the referenced link. 98% vs. 74% not even close. About the same – What are you putting in your coffee.
As one still fairly new to Kansas, I am sometimes drawn to read the opinions and blogs of the local brain trust, but the ad hominem attacks, insults and name calling become tiring and leave me feeling a little embarrassed for the writer, and for Wichita in general. Those attacks are ways to cover up intellectual laziness. It seems the Republican/Conservative contributers just give up defending their position as though they have no passion for it. The Democrat/Liberal contributers certainly seem more passionate — blindly so — but prefer spin, and can’t seem to muster content or original thought. Much of their posting sounds like canned sound bites, as though you drop a coin in a slot and get an pre-produced talking point you have already heard a hundred times before you ever inserted the coin. Mush Brain Syndrome will be … no wait… IS the death of our nation.
The graph below shows deaths per 100,000 males in each country. About 25 men out of 100,000 are dying from prostate cancer every year in both the U.K. and the U.S.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/rudy_miscalculates_cancer_surv.html
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 09:49 AM
====================
25 in 100,000 — BOTH countries… Looks like a dead heat on a merry-go-round to me, eh, ^^???
The discrepancy between 98% and 74% has already been explained, if you would only just read, and stop flaming!! And especially since the figures are posted just above your rant!!
Welcome to Kansas David Atkins. :)
I don’t think any conservatives “give up” as much as they see arguing with a wall is not useful.
With that said, I’m off to make a some soup for lunch. :)
I think the Hillary quotes from 7 and 8 yers ago, posted by “Just the Facts” at 11:11 a.m. show exactly what Hillary’s gun control concerns really are all about >>
Keeping guns out of the hands of children, and others who just shouldnt have them. NOT confiscating guns from ordinary citizens.
Methinks you protest too much Max. WAY too much! In fact, you protest too much to be believable, Max!
READ the quotations Max. Please!
A parting survey:
If, men, God forbid, your life’s journey includes encountering prostate cancer, in light of the “false” facts from Mayor G., and the “identical” healthcare systems of Great Britain (socialized) and the United States (free market), would you prefer to live, be diagnosed and treated in: (check one)
__ Great Britain__ The United States
Perhaps this may slow the spin. =)
Dear ^ ^,
Actually, what we’re putting in our coffee is the subsequent passage that puts “survivability” statistics in their proper context:
“More importantly, the survivability figures tell us little about the differences in the quality of treatment received by prostate cancer patients in the United States and Britain. Doctors in the two countries have different philosophies about how to treat prostate cancer, and these differences have greatly influenced the “survivability” statistics.
In the United States, there has been a big emphasis since the early 1990s on early screening through PSA (prostate-specific antigen) testing. Five-year survivability rates have increased simply because men are being diagnosed with prostate cancer at a very preliminary stage of a slow-developing disease. If you are diagnosed early on, your chances of surviving for another five years are close to 100 percent. Britain is several years behind the United States in the widespread use of PSA testing.
“When you introduce screening and early detection into the equation, the survival statistics become meaningless,” said Howard Parnes, chief of the Prostate Cancer Research Group at the National Cancer Institute. “You are identifying many people who would not otherwise be diagnosed.”
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/rudy_miscalculates_cancer_surv.html
The American health system focuses on PSA testing; thus, even those men who are asymptotic are diagnosed with prostate cancer, and thus are included under the ’survivability’ metric.
Approximately the same number of men die in the United States as die in the UK. This is the metric that matters.
And to turn it around once again, if the UK spends much less to obtain approximately the same result, that’s a failing of the AMERICAN system of health care–not the British.
The best part, though, is when Ghouliani’s assertions are assessed for truthfulness and a judgment rendered:
“The Pinocchio TestRudy Giuliani is simply wrong when he claims that his chances of surviving prostate cancer are almost twice as high in the United States as in England, under a “socialized” medical system. The mayor seems to be making a habit of making sweeping statements with little or no factual support. See our recent posts on his claims about Mikhail Gorbachev and the end of the Soviet Union, the cost of health care premiums, and his own record as mayor of New York.
We award Giuliani four Pinocchios.”
Four Pinocchios = A Whopper. Here’s the Pinocchio scale explained:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/09/about_the_fact_checker.html#pinocchio
Ghouliani is a lying piece of shit. As are all those who, by extension, defend his lies.
Remember, David — The “identical” systems assume that the American (Giuliani) is being treated on the Medicare plan. That makes up the “identical” systems reference.Remember?
In that case, it doesnt seem to matter. 25 out of 100,000 men will die from prostate cancer in either country! LOL
So, you see, no need for ANY spin — To borrow from one poster’s Nic >> Just the Facts!
Ahh, consider JM as our case in point. JM, you won’t mind if I refer to you as a typical Kansas Liberal, will you? You will, of course, note how well your response fit into my description, to which you responded.
The discrepancy between 98% and 74% has already been explained, if you would only just read, and stop flaming!! And especially since the figures are posted just above your rant!!
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 11:30 AM
JM give me a choice between a 98% survivability rate and a 74% rate and I’ll take the 98 everytime.
What did I not understand. Some mortality rate which doesn’t compute?
“Doctors in the two countries have different philosophies about how to treat prostate cancer, and these differences have greatly influenced the “survivability” statistics.”
Can you say socialized medicine and longer waiting period. What doctor would opt for a ‘treatment’ plan with a 24% lower survivability rate if they had a choice?
Think man, think.
While the soup is cooking…
I highly recommend to the WE Editors that attend to this Blog to kill the open thread.
The open thread needs to go away.
Thanks.
Club or Saltines? hmmm
decisions :)
Dear ^^ and David Atkins,
Here’s a “parting survey” to “slow the spin.” As the basis for your medical decision would you weigh more heavily:
__Survivability rate
__Mortality rate
Be sure to know which one you think is a real metric! =)
Ghouliani is a lying piece of shit. As are all those who, by extension, defend his lies.
Posted by: CF2K | November 05, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Your ignorance just continues to show it’s shiny head. When you have nothing to contribute resort to name calling and BS.
You and JM are the best arguments I have ever seen against socialized medicine. Just keep it up. Maybe we can incorporate these into an advertisement against HillaryCare.
Oops! Last line should read “be sure to *let us know* which one you think is the real metric!
Even Republicans like ME make errors sometimes! =)
JM give me a choice between a 98% survivability rate and a 74% rate and I’ll take the 98 everytime.
Posted by: ^
I believe the liberal position is: there are poor Americans, who cannot afford health insurance (or make 60,000 and refuse coverage), or illegal who will NOT get adequate care for their prostrates.
Therefore, you must give up your CHOICE of 98% and instead take the government mandated 74% survival rate.
Take a number get in line. Afterall, what works for 253,000,000 Americans has to go out with the bath water. You must sacrifice what works for the 47,000,000 minority aforementioned.
Hillary Wants Drivers’ Licenses for Illegals, Opposes Carry Licenses for American Citizens
BELLEVUE, Wa., Nov. 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton supports giving drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens, but she opposes right-to-carry statutes that provide concealed carry licenses for law-abiding American citizens and others who are here legally, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
“Based on her comments during Tuesday night’s debate,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “Sen. Clinton must think people in this country illegally are entitled to greater rights than citizens and others who are here legally.
Maybe it’s because she knows that illegal aliens would vote for her, while law-abiding American gun owners won’t.”
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,214669.shtml
__Survivability rate
__Mortality rate
Be sure to know which one you think is a real metric! =)
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Well JM is you are part of the 24% that didn’t survive you are definitely part of the mortality rate. Can you follow that?
And what is the metric=? Are you thinking that a method of measurement is used to calculate data.
“Since Hillary Clinton moved out of the White House early, so she could run for the Senate from New York as an obvious stepping stone toward her own run for the Oval Office,” Gottlieb stated, “she has supported every gun control measure to come along.
She supports registration and licensing, she supports banning sport-utility rifles and magazine restrictions and she opposed legislation to prevent junk harassment lawsuits against the firearms industry.
“Hillary Clinton, like too many of her Democrat colleagues, has given mere lip service to gun owners with vague claims that she ’supports’ the Second Amendment,” Gottlieb said. “It now appears that she is more interested in the welfare of people who don’t belong in this country, than in the civil rights of people who do belong here.”
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,214669.shtml
Common sense you are much to logical for this thread. JM and CF get confused when they have to look at big numbers. And then they get beligerent and get the thread shut down.
NRA rating for Hillary Clinton:
F
Healthcare is becoming so expensive many will be priced out of the marketplace. With insurance my out of pocket expenses are 10 times what they were in 1997.Even with insurance I’m cutting costs in other places. So how is the free market helping me?
you are much to logical for this thread…
Yeah, I know. I used to try that with my dad. His face would turn all red and the next thing you know I’d hear the sound of his belt being quickly pulled off his slacks. Then I’d feel the sting.
Anger management was not even dreamed up yet.
Dear silly man who uses punctuation marks to denote his name,
“Well JM is you are part of the 24% that didn’t survive you are definitely part of the mortality rate. Can you follow that?”
Actually, no. You aren’t making much sense. Try calming down and being less defensive.
Max the lady (Hillary) is scary and now that her opponents are asking her the hard questions she is pulling the ‘poor me’ card. She thinks she should be allowed to play with the big boys but can’t be asked to state positions. Gun control and illegals are just two of them. The tide might be turning. Right now the only solid base she has is the poor, underpriveliged female voter that believes she can make their lives better if only they can elect her. Even the femenists are leaving her.
Annie, you must be listening way too much to the tape recording.
Let me help you to understand why I say that.
What does the term, “many will be priced out of the marketplace” really mean to you?
Could you try and spell that out in words a normal annie mouse would use?
JM just put if where the is is and you should be able to follow it. Then give me a rational answer.
My signature denotes the raised eyebrows I frequently have when blogging her.
^^
Dear Silly, Inconsequential Man With Raised Eyebrows,
24%? To what does that number refer?
And you often “raise your eyebrows” when “blogging her?” That’s more info than we needed or wanted, oh Silly, Inconsequential Man With Raised Eyebrows.
=)
More and more I return to my position that any American citizen should have the right to keep and bear arms… unless they really *really* *REALLY!* want them.
“Max,” you’re getting to be borderline obsessive on the gun issue, so much so you’ve chosen to ignore Rudy Giuliani’s well-documented advocacy of gun control.
You are too optimistic ^^ .
One debate with a couple of hard questions for Hillary, doesn’t mean anything. Hillary’s gotten a pass from the Lib media.
Hillary won’t be pressed for specific answers to describe her gun control agenda, not in the press anyway.
It’s not surprising then, how ignorant many gun owners are about Hillary Clinton’s position on guns.
Many Libs just vote for their Democrat label no matter what. They actually believe Hillary’s lies, er Campaign Promises.
For the doubters, start looking for SPECIFIC positions Hillary has taken on gun control, and look at her Senate votes. Better yet, write her campaign and ask for specific answers as to how she supports the 2nd Amendment, then see what you get!
If you truly want to keep your guns, I highly recommend you join the NRA.
Check em out at:
http://www.nra.org/
Dear Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows,
Oh, I get it! You’re still pretending that the ’survivability’ rate is a meaninful statistic, by adding 24% to 74% to get 98%! You sly dog, you!
But still, Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows, it does make one wonder, doesn’t it, that despite spending far less money, the British health care system comes up the same as does the American with regards to prostate mortality: both can claim a 25% mortality rate.
If I didn’t know better, Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows, I’d say you were deliberately trying to confuse the issue, rather than being confused by it.
=)
JM you silly person – Can you tell me the difference between someone who dies and doesn’t die from prostrate cancer. If you don’t die you are part of the survivability rate. If you die you are part of the mortality rate.
Now if the survivability rate is 24% different from the UK to the USA then how other that lib math do you explain the ’same’ mortality rate for both countries?
I read today something about the Inuit Indians in northern Alaska but Canada living in the artic.
Seems their ancient folklore has them arriving from Asia over a land ismuth between Russia and Alaska. It was made of ice and was called a land bridge.
After reading, I got to wondering, what happened to the ice in the Bering Strait?
Did the earth cycle through a period of global warming which caused it to melt?
What caused the temperature to rise back then? They didn’t have carbon credits back then.
Dear Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows,
And if you’re never tested in advance for prostate cancer, you’re never part of any ’survivability rate.’ British men aren’t thus tested.
One can’t compare stats from a system that uses PSA’s with one that doesn’t, and then expect the results to be comparable. They aren’t.
So, Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows, I see that I misjudged you: you really ARE that confused.
=)
Poor ol’ Hillary,
The best thing about her campaign is her inept opposition in the primaries. Unless one or more of them start to aggressively go after her on her record she’s the shoo in candidate.
If she becomes the candidate, her anti-gun stance will sink her in the south. Her pro illegal alien stance will hurt her in the western border states.
Her negatives are already approaching 50% nationally, almost any of the top republican hopefuls can clean her clock in a debate and following election.
Well JM you finally nailed it. I knew if I stayed in there you would see the light. Why don’t they test PSA? Could it be this is a flaw in socialized medicine that is already running on empty? You just got the $64,000 answer. If you don’t diagnose it you don’t have to count it as a failure. DUH!
We have a better health care system now. But when Hillary care comes along – which I am starting to doubt it will – then our ’survival rate’ will be just as low.
Took a while but I knew you could do it.
Dear Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows,
You may have missed the point upthread, but I’ll highlight it again, so you can move your lips while reading it:
Great Britain has the same mortality rate as the US–whether prostate cancer is tested for earlier or not.
We make early detection a priority; they don’t. But making early detection a priority gets us no better final result than the one they get without it. Their mortality and our mortality are the same. No difference.
So, Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows, you’re arguing that we should be paying for something that creates a false impression of success, rather than asking whether it has any effect on the bottom line–namely, mortality
Do you work for the PSA industry, oh Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows? Starting to sound like it.
“I hope they stay on strike forever.”
I assume this means you’re in favor of unions. :)
How cool that I get to re-view the “filth, vulgarity, stupidity, and sheer unadulterated lunacy” during the strike!
Will the 700 Club be running reruns, too?
Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich
Far from embarrassing, this episode may reflect a dawning Democratic awareness of whom they really represent. For the demographic reality is that, in America, the Democratic party is the new “party of the rich”. More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households. Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Heritage Foundation identified two categories of taxpayers – single filers with incomes of more than $100,000 and married filers with incomes of more than $200,000 – and combined them to discern where the wealthiest Americans live and who represents them.
Democrats now control the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ft/20071104/bs_ft/fto110420071235381693
Stop the presses – the truth is out. What will the dems on this blog do now?
Silly inconsequential JM you are so dense I have ran out of time to explain it to you. Did you attend public schools when they were doing the new math?
98 – 74 doesn’t = the same percentage.
If you are amoung the 2% who die in the US and amoung the 26% who die in the UK and the base number is 100,000 then more of you die in the UK. This is what statisticians do when they are told to make something look good. Some people fall for it.
A more interesting point is what will you do now that you are in the party of the rich? Can you handle it?
“Referencing qualified sources, does not equate into making someone an expert in a field.
If that were true, anyone could claim to be an expert in any field just because they used “sources.”
Posted by: Kansas | November 05, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Kansas… WHERE are your Congressional and the Justice Dept sources re the Sierra Club and levee failures???
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/05/dont_count_on_f.html#comment-70787152
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/05/open_thread_28.html#comment-71041282
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/06/sicko-offers-gl.html#comment-74527572
I guess Kansas thinks he is an expert, because he does NOT use credible “sources”. /sarcasm OFF
Kansas makes false claims, and has ZERO credibility.
Cosmos get a life. Kansas don’t even start with him today. He is pathetic.
^^,
Your logic is that because Kansas posts falsehoods, I am “pathetic”? That’s odd.
You guys must not have heard, Giuliani is not only entitled to his own opinions, he is entitled to his very own facts. Keep up, please.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/rudy_miscalculates_cancer_surv.html
Stop the presses – the truth is out. What will the dems on this blog do now?Posted by: ^^ | November 05, 2007 at 12:45 PM
So because the Senate will not consider a plan to extract billions in extra taxes from mega-millionaire hedge fund managers, I’m suppose to believe they now don’t care about the middle class, low income, and the poor?
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha.
I told you so.
Here you have Hillary’s Energy plan for America -
Taxing businesses to give money to poor people to buy what might you guess – Energy.
Pure Socialist Agenda.
You Libs said you wanted to pay for your own Energy! BS!
The cost of increased taxes on the Corporations will simply be passed on to consumers.
For those corporations who are unable to pass on the increased costs to their customers, these companies will go broke – thus eliminating more American jobs.
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071105/NEWS/71105016/1001Another to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by allowing companies that produce such pollutants to sell the credits they are granted for producing such pollutants, a so-called cap-and-trade system. The proceeds from the system would be used in part to finance a program to help low-income Americans heat and cool their homes more efficiently.
Clinton’s plan would cost $150 billion over 10 years, paid for without raising taxes, aides argued.
The $15 billion would be financed in part with a system of fees on energy company profits and removing special tax breaks for the oil and gas industries. Clinton calls this source the Strategic Energy Fund.
The remaining costs of the proposal would be financed through dedicating savings from closing loopholes for oil and gas producers and dedicating a portion of revenue from the cap-and-trade program.
No Dude the dems can no longer call the repubs the party of the rich. Do you really think the dems care for the poor?
I’d be ashamed to be so stupid and incapbable, that I hold my hand out for every Socialist program Hillary has proposed.
Can you not see she is buying your vote with taxpayers money?
Or you don’t care where the money comes from as long as you get more stuff for “Free”?
Beggers.
Is there a pattern here to ALL of Hillary’s ‘Solutions’?
Free Healthcare paid for by taxing the rich more.
Solving Social Security by taxing the rich more.
Energy problem solved by taxing the rich more.
(Problem of the Day) solved by taxing the rich more.
Careful Max, you are treading awful close to my party line.
MORE FREE MONEY!!!!!!
Max if the dems had any sense this would scare them to death. Well they’ll save all that money on the HillaryCare and pay it out in higher energy costs and food costs and clothing costs and anything else that has to be transported.
And the benefit will be that the quality of healthcare will go down (no more PSA tests) and major job loss will occus when companies can no longer do business because of the higher fuel costs.
You try to warn them!
No Dude the dems can no longer call the repubs the party of the rich. Do you really think the dems care for the poor?
Posted by: ^^ | November 05, 2007 at 01:43 PM
You asked, I answered.
REmember Max she has thousands of ideas – but we can’t afford them all.
Max it’s also class warfare. The democrats are becoming very good at classifying rich successful people as “selfish” and “greedy”.They have almost made it a sin to earn a high salary.
By labeling the rich and their lifestyle and embracng the poor and their lifestyle – they promoteclass struggle and turn Americans against each other.
You can read it even here on this small midwestern town blog. They are feeding off age old jeaolousyand fear.
January 2013, as Hillary starts her 2nd term:
America has been taxed out. The top 50% now pay 100% (as opposed to 97% today) of the taxes, and tax rates have trippled in 4 years.
(So not only is the top 50% paying all the tax, the amount of the tax has trippled!)
Still, despite the massive tax increases, (or because of)unemployment is over 10%, inflation is over 10%, the dollar is worth 20% of what it was worth 4 years before – Tax Revenue has dropped! (Due to the 2010 recession caused by BUSH!)
The $1.1 Trillion Deficit for 2012 is 3 times higher then Bush’s highest deficit.
In order to pay for all the Social Programs, there will now be an Asset test. Tax rates cannot be raised higher then the 85% top rate, so the Government must now start taxing Assets for more revenue.
And if you don’t have the income to pay for the Asset (Personal Property Tax), then you will have to sell Assets in order to pay your taxes.
Look out for Hillary’s Federal Personal Property Tax!
FPPT!!!!!!!
(In some way, she may slip and let this out during the current campaign – so watch for it!)
Max don’t you remember the Clinton plan to tax 401K assets? I’m looking it up but I think she has thought of that one already.
I do recall something about Hillary’s plan to make contributions to 401k’s taxable.
Hillary will means test Social Security too. (After raising the Social Security tax for the rich.)
If you own a home, a car, and have non-Social Security income of >$3,000 per month, then you will forfit ALL Social Security income.
Clinton also said her health-care plan, while mandating coverage for everyone, could ease the burden on businesses and allow insurance companies to remain profitable but wouldn’t create a new federal bureaucracy.
Under her plan, she said, insurance companies would be required to work with the government, corporations and individuals and would imitate the health plan given to federal employees and members of Congress.
To the insurance companies, she said, “We’re going to ask you to guarantee coverage to everyone, including pre-existing conditions, and we’re going to ask you to compete on cost and quality.”
Just a few Hillary quotes that show you how out of touch with reality she really is.
THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER
CLASSIC VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he’s a fool, laughs, and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. Grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.
MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he’s a fool, laughs, and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing “It’s Not Easy Being Green.”
Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the group singing “We Shall Overcome.” Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grass- hopper’s sake.
Al Gore exclaims in an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his “fair share”.
Finally, the EOC drafts the “Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act,” retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.
Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill appointed from a list of multi-generation welfare recipients. The ant loses the case.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around him because he doesn’t maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.
JM writes, “David, we all know the story. You of course are an independent-minded fellow who just happened along….”
Hehehe, right, JM.
And he just happens to work for some MegaBaptist Church here in town.
Because when I think fresh, new ideas, I think Baptist ministers . . .
Alice in Wonderland got the story wrong.
Turns out the grasshopper never worked a day in his life, it’s true.
BUT he’s good friends with President Chimpanzee. Thanks to that, he gets the job of CEO to a band of jackels and wolves in charge of “security.”
The Grasshopper becomes a billionaire thanks to President Chimp.
He buys up all the land the ants farm, and puts a coal-fired plant and a casino on it.
The ants are scattered and destroyed, but a few get minimum wage jobs as janitors for the grasshopper’s many going concerns, while he sits on the porch drinking scotch and bitches about “the damn poor people who won’t work for a living.”
One fateful day the seven dwarfs left to go work at the local coal mine (hey, even little people have to make a dollar) while Snow White stayed home to prepare lunch. When she arrived at the mine around noon with their food she saw that there had been a terrible cave in.
Tearfully, and fearing the worst, Snow White began calling out for them. She prayed her dwarfs had survived. “Hello, hello,” she cried out… “Can anyone hear me? Hello…” For quite some time, without hearing a word.
Just as she was about to lose hope, Snow White called out one last time… “Hello. Is anyone down there? Please, can anyone here me?” She then heard a faint voice, deep from within the mine. The voice said, “Vote for McCain!”
Snow White, relieved that at least one dwarf had survived, gasped “Oh, thank God Dopey is still alive.”
Black helicopters keep you guys up at night? Hey remember the good old when the United Nations were gonna take over the USA, y2k was gonna be the end of the world?What ever happen the militia movement? Been any more ruby ridge incidents?
Childrens needs to learn.
“Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?”
“Laura and I really don’t realize how bright our children is sometimes until we get an objective analysis.” CNBC, April 15, 2000
“She is a member of a labor union at one point.” Announcing his nomination of Linda Chavez as secretary of labor. Austin, Texas, Jan. 2, 2001
Drug therapies are replacing a lot of medicines as we used to know it.
I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is someone who brings people together.” Bartlett, Tenn., Aug. 18, 2000
We ought to make the pie higher.” South Carolina Republican Debate, Feb. 15, 2000
Will the highways on the Internet become more few?” Concord, N.H., Jan. 29, 2000
“You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.” Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001
“I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well.”—Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2001
“It was just inebriating what Midland was all about then.” —George W. Bush, reflecting in 1994 about growing up in Midland, Texas
“I’m hopeful. I know there is a lot of ambition in Washington, obviously. But I hope the ambitious realize that they are more likely to succeed with success as opposed to failure.”—Interview with the Associated Press, Jan. 18, 2001
“Let me put it to you this way, I am not a revengeful person.”— Interview with Time magazine in the Dec. 25, 2000, issue.
“The great thing about America is everybody should vote.” Austin, Texas, Dec. 8, 2000
“They misunderestimated me.”Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000
“Well, I think if you say you’re going to do something and don’t do it, that’s trustworthiness.”CNN online chat, Aug. 30, 2000
“I understand small business growth. I was one.”—New York Daily News, Feb. 19, 2000
“Every day the terrorists think about how to destroy this country. And so do I.” George W. Bush’s Freudian slip of the century
Hey, check it out.
I won’t say the Dems are growing some balls, but they may be growing part of a ball . . .
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5247
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 5, 2007
***Update: House Judiciary Committee Files Contempt of Congress Report with House Clerk***
(Washington, DC)- Today, at approximately 2:45 p.m., the House Judiciary Committee filed its contempt of Congress report with the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives. The full text is available online here.
*****
Let’s see Harriet Miers frog-marched out of her office. Oh, hell yes!
I’ll be watching to see if the Republicans in Congress try to block this legislation or vote against it.
Whitehouse introduces legislation outlawing ‘caging.’
Today Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) introduced the Caging Prohibit Act, a bill which would outlaw a “long-recognized voter suppression tactic which has often been used to target minority voters”:
The Caging Prohibition Act would prohibit challenges to a person’s eligibility to register to vote, or cast a vote, based solely on returned mail or a caging list. The bill would also mandate that anyone who challenges the right of another citizen to vote must set forth the specific grounds for their alleged ineligibility, under penalty of perjury.
In June, Whitehouse requested a DoJ investigation into Tim Griffin, the former Karl Rove protege who was placed as a U.S. attorney in Arkansas, on allegations that he led a “caging” scheme to suppress the votes of African-American servicemembers in Florida.
Don’t take this wrong or anything Amway but..
That has to be one of the dumbest stories I have ever heard.
Emily’s List says it plans to contact and organize 100,000 women in Iowa to help Hog Futures Hillary capture the Democratic nomination for president, as reported by CNN. CNN failed to report, however, that Emily’s List only supports Democrat women who favor partial birth abortion (now outlawed) and taxpayer-funded abortion.- – -
If you were at the shopping mall Saturday afternoon after seeing “Bella” at the early matinee, you likely had to wait for a parking space, probably at the far end of the parking lot.Halloween is over, hail the Christmas rush. The economy will be cited by our biased media as dark and depressing, nonetheless, until Hog Futures Hillary is elected to fix it by taxing the rich.Meanwhile, Hog Futures Hillary has taken thousands of dollars in cash donations from suspected Muslim terrorists under federal investigation for terror-financing, money laundering and tax fraud, while claiming to thoroughly vet all individual donors for ties to terrorism and criminal activity.
Amway, that story was Right on the Money!
No One has their hand out more then these Socialist Democrats!
Yeah better than those boot on my throat Republicans ey Max?
Re that dumb story.
The Republican would not leave books. He’d tell all his tightwad pals about the free haircuts.
Then one of them would find a way to get the barber in trouble on a zoning violation, something, so he could get the barber’s shop and the rest of the block torn down to build a Wal mart.
JR, just say -
Gimme, Gimme, Gimme, Gimme, Gimme, Gimme,
Then Repeat….
Faulty Intel Source “Curve Ball” Revealed60 Minutes: Iraqi’s Fabricated Story Of Biological Weapons Aided U.S.
Curve Ball RevealedBob Simon tells the story of the Iraqi defector known as “Curve Ball,” whose fabricated story of mobile biological weapons drove the U.S. argument for invading Iraq.
(CBS) Did Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction? No, he did not. We’ve known that for some time now. So where did the intelligence come from that he was building up his arsenal? Fantastically, the most compelling part came from one obscure Iraqi defector who came in and out of history like a comet. His code name, ironically, was “Curve Ball” and his information became the pillar of the case Colin Powell made to the United Nations before the war. Who is Curve Ball and how did he fool the world’s elite intelligence agencies?
60 Minutes spent two years, and traveled to nine countries, trying to solve the mystery. We talked to intelligence sources, to people who knew Curve Ball and to people who worked with him. As correspondent Bob Simon reports, Curve Ball’s real name has never been made public, nor has any video of him, until now.
60 Minutes has obtained video of Rafid Ahmed Alwan at a 1993 Baghdad wedding, filmed six years before he became the key Iraqi source known as Curve Ball, six years before he helped launch the war.
Former CIA senior official Tyler Drumheller was an insider and watched Curve Ball emerge from nowhere.
Asked how important Curve Ball was in taking us to war in Iraq, Drumheller tells Simon, “If they had not had Curve Ball they would have probably found something else. ‘Cause there was a great determination to do it. But going to war in Iraq, under the circumstances we did, Curve Ball was the absolutely essential case.”
How did Rafid Alwan become Curve Ball? 60 Minutes’ investigation led us to Germany, where in November 1999, Alwan arrived by car and requested asylum at a refugee center outside Nuremberg. The 32-year-old told German intelligence that he was a chemical engineer in Saddam’s Iraq, and that he had done so well in university he had been made director of a site at Djerf al Nadaf, just outside Baghdad. The Iraqis called it a “seed purification plant.” In reality, he said, the place was secretly making mobile biological weapons.
He told the Germans specially-equipped trucks made their way to one end of a warehouse, entered doors there, hooked up to hoses and pumps and brewed biological agents. The germ trucks then exited hidden doors on the other side.
Alwan’s story fit what Western intelligence agencies feared: that Saddam might turn to mobile weapons to evade American bombs. The Germans hid Alwan in Nuremberg, then later in the town of Erlangen. He was given a code name: Curve Ball. He was interrogated once a week, sometimes twice, for a year and a half. He told the Germans he didn’t want to meet with Americans. Only summaries of his debriefings were transmitted to Washington. Still, there were enough details to convince analysts at the CIA.
“Curve Ball was the one piece of evidence where they could say, ‘Look at this. If they have this capability, where they can transport biological weapons, anthrax, all these horrible weapons, they can attack our troops with them. They can give them to terrorist groups,’” Drumheller says.
One of Curve Ball’s reports was especially alarming: proof that the agents were lethal, something Curve Ball claimed he had seen while working at Djerf al Nadaf.
“He said, ‘In 1998, working around these tanks, there was even an accident and 12 people were killed.’ And that got everybody’s attention,” Drumheller explains.
So much so that in February 2001, German and American experts met in Munich to discuss Curve Ball. The Americans revealed they had located Djerf al Nadaf on overhead imagery; 60 Minutes found it on Google Earth…….
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/60minutes/main3440577.shtml
Ok, Max, let’s see you whine about bush going to veto the farm bill.Bush administration threatens Senate farm bill veto 1 hour, 12 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Bush administration threatened to veto the U.S. farm bill under debate in the Senate because it raises crop support rates and does not reform farm subsidy limits, Acting Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner said on Monday.
“We see very little reform of these programs,” Conner said during a telephone news conference in which he announced the veto threat. “I believe this bill can be changed to reflect good farm and fiscal policy.”
As flaws, Conner cited provisions that would increase support rates for some crops. He said the bill failed to reform farm subsidy limits and did not correct a “pick your price” shortcoming in so-called loan deficiency payments.
Sometimes, there comes a point when I really can not take blind partisan stupidity.
Eyebrows and his/her ideological bretheren engage in what comedian Steven Colbert has christened “truthiness” (and yes, there are counterparts on the left at times as well). Basically, the absolute truth of the basic premises of certain political absolutes is taken to the extent that any information that one comes across that seems to support the premise is (of course!) absolutely accurate, and any attempts to point out the contrary is regarded as “being dense”.
To wit:
Eyebrows: “Silly inconsequential JM you are so dense I have ran out of time to explain it to you. Did you attend public schools when they were doing the new math?
98 – 74 doesn’t = the same percentage.”
No, but they are not comparable if not derived the same way either. From the Fact Check review of Guiliani’s claim:
Fact Check: “Giuliani is wrong about that. Fortunately for the English, their chances of surviving prostate cancer are far better than Giuliani claims: The actual five-year survival rate is 74.4 percent, according to the United Kingdom’s Office of National Statistics. Even those in the U.S. have a better chance than what Giuliani states: The five-year survival rate is 98.4 percent in this country, according to the National Cancer Institute. (Furthermore, Milton Eisner, a statistician with the SEER program of NCI, which compiles these numbers, warns that the two countries’ statistics are “probably not comparable because they’re not done on the same scale.”)”
Me: Specifically, the Fact Check review goes on to relay the following:
“For one thing, according to the American Cancer Society, many more men are screened for prostate cancer in the U.S. than in Britain. This leads to more cases being diagnosed. And many who have prostate cancer live for years, without treatment, whether they are diagnosed or not.”
Me: So, here is the reality. Men are typically screened earlier for prostate cancer in the US than in the UK (there is a caveat on this, but we’ll get to it later). This means that you are comparing two different selection criteria. Included in the US sample are men who are counted as having prostate cancer that would not be counted in the UK sample. Furthermore, this population of men who are counted in the US sample are already to have a longer survival rate because the disease is in an earlier stage. As the Fact Check review explains:
Factcheck: “Thus, a higher number of diagnoses leads to a higher official survival rate. But this tells us nothing about the quality of treatment available to those who have the disease. A spokesman for the ACS told us that comparing rates in the two countries is ‘misleading.’”
Me: Why would it be misleading? Because as I described above, the two populations compared are different. A population that includes men who were identified earlier is going to have a “higher” survival rate because the earlier identified population is in the earlier stages of the disease. Put another way, if the UK sample had included men identified earlier within the same sample, the percentages would have likely been far closer. Or for that matter, if the US sample had been reduced to men who were identified at the same time the UK men were typically identified, the percentages would have likely been far closer. It may be that the UK medical system should be evaluating men earlier for prostate cancer, but it does not follow that the UK’s failure to do so follows from their public health care system.
Eyebrows: “If you are amoung the 2% who die in the US and amoung the 26% who die in the UK and the base number is 100,000 then more of you die in the UK.”
Me: As indicated above, there is no evidence that this is the case. None. For the comparison to be valid, the selection criteria for the two populations would have to be identical. They weren’t.
Eyebrows: “This is what statisticians do when they are told to make something look good. Some people fall for it.”
Me: No, this is the response of shallow ideologues who don’t look beyond the information that meets their confirmation biases. The Fact Check review was unusually harsh with Guliani’s claims, which means that they saw these claims as particularly egregious(Fact Check is a NON-PARTISAN website that reviews the claims made by politicians in campaigns. They do a job that more newspapers and other news outlets should be doing, and don’t).—–
Note how Fact Check dealt with the claims from the Democratic debate.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/hillarys_high-stepping.html
They are equal opportunity BS skewers.
Phantom, I agree Bush should veto the current farm bill.
Those wanting to curb welfare to the rich, and to help control Federal spending pushed for Max Subsidy limits per farmer, that weere NOT included in the final version of the Bill.
The Majority Dem Congress is doing NO BETTER then the Majority Repub Congress in controlling Federal Spending.
Had Bush and the Republican Majority cut back on Federal Spending, the Democrats would still be the minority party.
Finally, Bush grew balls and started to veto some spending bills. He should have been doing this all along.
I think I’ve figured out bush’s little game. He never vetoed a bill from the Repug. congress, but will veto every bill between now and election day to try and disparage the dems.Will only work for 28(and rapidly declining)%ers.
If he’s trying to cut back on subsidies to corporate farmers, or those with thousands of acres, I’d have to back him on it.
‘Climate wars threaten billions
More than 100 countries face political chaos and mass migration in global warming catastrophe’http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/04/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange
“A total of 46 nations and 2.7 billion people are now at high risk of being overwhelmed by armed conflict and war because of climate change. A further 56 countries face political destabilisation, affecting another 1.2 billion individuals.”
More at link… Peru out of fresh water by 2015, etc.
Sorry Cosmos,
If it not in a credible peer reviewed journal then it doesn’t matter.
This is the first open thread in a long time that wasn’t all about Kansas all the time.
JM jamming seems to be working.
Keep it up, folks.
Hang in there, JM!! Today was just as good as yesterday!!
JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT TEENAGERS COULD NOT GET ANY DUMBER!!
Hint: What does your dog and your teenager have in common?
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/421734/jenkem_the_new_recreational_inhalant.html
A: They both like to sniff their own CRAP!
Good job CapnJM!
There’s been a lot of discussion on income levels, what is rich, etc. Here’s the Govt.’s take.http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/103815/Where-Do-You-Stand-on-America’s-Wealth-Spectrum
A remnant of the Senate’s “comprehensive” amnesty bill that was rejected in Congress last spring could return to the Senate floor as early as this week. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D- Calif.) is expected to attach her revised Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007 (AgJOBS) to the Farm Bill Extension Act of 2007. If enacted, AgJOBS would reward an estimated 1.5 million illegal aliens with amnesty (plus their spouses and children which could push the total to three million or more).
Under the provisions of these bills, illegal alien farm workers would be able to obtain a “blue card” granting temporary legal status for themselves and their families if they could show they have worked in the U.S. at least 863 hours or 150 work days (5.75 hours constituting a work day) during the preceding two years. Subsequently, to apply for legal residency, they must demonstrate that they have worked in agriculture here: (1) 100 work days per year each of the first five years following enactment; (2) 150 work days per year each of the first three years following enactment; or (3) over the course of the first four years after enactment, 150 work days per year for three of those years and 100 work days for the other.
The Federal government already offers the H-2A visa that allows farmers to import unlimited numbers of foreign agricultural workers for specific short-term work. Those complaining growers mostly bypass the H-2A visa program because they would have to pay an almost acceptable wage under the program, whereas wages for illegal aliens are far less.
Occasionally, a news story about “rotting crops” mentions that H-2A workers are available, but quotes growers, as saying that going through legal channels of immigration is too cumbersome.
The real reason is that they want o pay lower wages the illiegal workers accept, most without any benefits at all. They are the modern day slave field worker!!!!.
We must use the tools and laws currently on the books to assure those who come here LEGALLY are protected.
Please call and fax your senator to encourage them to vote against any amnesty amendment to the 2007 Farm Bill.
Once they get legal status they will be ready to climb the ladder (not to pick), and they will have to bring in more illegals!
points and laughs at JM
“If it not in a credible peer reviewed journal then it doesn’t matter.”
Posted by: Nathan | November 05, 2007 at 06:06 PM
Unless it’s web pages written by Steven Milloy, a newspaper column written by Bob Carter, etc, and then Nathan will insist that it is 100% scientific, and accurate. :)
Good grief, why cant you guys just agree that its a good thing to encourage everybody to do whatever they can to help take care of our planet spaceship that we all live on??
Wow, this thread is most amazing today! Many different discussions!
Well, my friend in the hospital is getting worse. She might not make it to the baby due date. She is trying, but the cancer is strong!
The baby is taking more energy from her than she has left to give.
Please remember her in your thoughts and prayers. Thank you!
I’m so sorry for your friend Chas. I do so hope things go as well as they can for them.
Thanks PMom… I appreciate that!
When I left tonight, they said she could be comatose by tomorrow. We will have to see how much more energy the baby will demand. At this point, the baby is as close to a lethal parasite as it can be.
ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST
Defense Contractor Convicted of Bribing California Congressman in Corruption Scandal
Wilkes was convicted Monday, Nov. 5, 2007, of bribing former U.S. Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham with cash, meals, trips and other gifts in exchange for nearly $90 million in Pentagon work. He faces up to 20 years in prison.
By ALLISON HOFFMAN, Associated Press Writer
SAN DIEGO (Associated Press) — A defense contractor was convicted Monday of bribing disgraced former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham with cash, meals, trips and other gifts in exchange for nearly $90 million in Pentagon work.
Brent Wilkes was convicted of all 13 counts against him, including conspiracy, bribery, money laundering and fraud, in one of the biggest corruption scandals ever to strike Congress.
The Pentagon contracts Wilkes received after lavishing Cunningham with more than $700,000 worth of perks were mainly for scanning paper documents, prosecutors said.
Cunningham, an eight-term Republican from California, pleaded guilty in 2005 to accepting $2.4 million in bribes from Wilkes and others _ including antiques, boats, a used Rolls Royce and cash to pay the mortgage on his mansion.
Good job CapnJM!
You’re welcome, DummyKansas.
Another stellar special comment from Keith Olberman tonight.
bush has said that the United States does not torture. It seems someone in his administration told him in no uncertain terms that water boarding is torture. The guy should know.
He had it done on himself for the experience.
For HIS trouble he got canned by the administration. YOU know, since water boarding is torture, we HAVE done it, but bush says the US does not torture?
Real Climate Peer Reviewed Science from Real Scientists (not Politician Scientists)
The Global Water Shortage?Is it new or has it always occurred?
Read below introduction for more technical information:
Medieval Drought in Peru (and Elsewhere): What Does It Tell Us about El Niños and Medieval Temperatures?
Because of the facts that (1) heavy winter rainfalls along and off coastal Peru only occur
during times of maximum El Niño strength and (2) El Niños are typically much more prevalent and
stronger during cooler as opposed to warmer periods [see El Niño (Relationship to Global Warming) in our Subject Index], the implied lack of strong El Niños during the period of time from A.D. 800-1250 suggests that this period was truly a Medieval Warm Period.
Studies in the Ollantaytambo areas of Peru for ancient times of the Inca show that the area was
in climate stress over 4000 years ago. There was drought and the area had been deforested due to
poor agriculture practices. The melting of the glaciers caused migration of pollens from high to
low demonstrated that a global wide climate change had occurred and the ice on top of the mountains had melted to very low levels.
=========================Mann’s Hockey Stick Chart Proved Wrong:
The scientific evidence, including the two most recent studies of the climate for the past 1,000
years, strongly indicates that Northern Hemisphere temperatures have been both as warm as and
substantially cooler than the present, absent any possible human influence. Such evidence should not be dismissed or manipulated to support predetermined conclusions, as the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report does.
Most notably, to use their words, “the global Mann curve has no temperature optimum, whereas the
Esper et al. (2002) reconstruction shows northern hemisphere temperatures almost as high as those of the 20th century” during the Medieval period.
And in the final sentence of their paper they suggest that “the occurrence of a Medieval climatic anomaly (A.D. 800-1250) with persistently weak El Niños [our italics] may therefore assist
the interpretation of some of the regional discrepancies in thermal reconstructions of Medieval times,” which is a polite way of
suggesting that the Mann et al. (1998, 1999) hockeystick temperature history is deficient in not depicting the presence of a true Medieval Warm Period.
Mann and his colleagues compiled a historical climate reconstruction – called the “hockey stick”
because of its shape – primarily using tree ring records to infer air temperature trends. Their use
of proxy data is not novel, but the methods they used, and thus the results, certainly are novel.
One of the most important methodological problems is that Mann and his colleagues simply attached the surface temperature record of the 20th century
to the end of the proxy record. This is an apples-to-oranges comparison as air temperature
readings are not directly comparable to proxy records. However, putting the two different sets of data together in this way makes a stunning visual display for the average reader.
Failure to characterize the uncertainty in the instrumental record also gives the false
impression that air temperatures during the 1900s are known without error. This is the only way Mann
could conclude that the 1990s are the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in the last
millennium. Worse, prior to A.D. 1400, the “hockey stick” uses data from nine locations in addition
to statistical summaries derived from data for North America only. Although the “hockey stick”
purports to be a Northern Hemisphere assessment, four of these additional locations are in the Southern Hemisphere, including Tasmania and Patagonia!
More recent studies provide additional evidence that the conclusions of Mann and his colleagues are erroneous. Writing in the journals Climate Research (January 2003) and Energy and Environment (April 2003), astrophysicists Willie Soon and
Sallie Baliunas and colleagues reexamined a large number of proxy records and composite analyses
that describe the climate of the last 1,000 years.
By examining each record independently, rather than merging them into a single time series, they sought to determine whether the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were evident in the
individual proxy records and analyses. Soon and Baliunas concluded that “The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are widespread climatic anomalies,” and there is a wide range of
compatible evidence in a number of studies and analyses.
Two independent efforts, led by Jan Esper and Keith Briffa, produced an alternative time-series to the Mann “hockey stick” by carefully selecting
tree-ring chronologies from the temperate and arctic zones of the Northern Hemisphere. Unlike
the dramatic temperature increase in the “hockey stick,” their results show Medieval warming is
comparable in magnitude with estimates for the late 20th century, and was followed by a long and variable Little Ice Age.
In fact, a direct comparison of the Esper curve with the Mann
“hockey stick” shows that Esper’s curve has a significantly lower mean average temperature
during the Little Ice Age. Esper’s estimate of the temperature difference between the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age is about 1.2C or about four times that estimated by Mann. Note too
that Esper and colleagues did not attach the instrumental record as Mann erroneously did.
Absent the instrumental record, Esper’s estimate of the temperature for the mid-1900s is consistent with that for the turn of the century and shows no
dramatic change after about 1950.
Interestingly, the significance of this observation was not lost on Rein et al. In the introduction to their paper, they note that
“discrepancies exist between the Mann curve and alternative time series for the Medieval period.”
Most notably, to use their words, “the global Mann curve has no temperature optimum, whereas the
Esper et al. (2002) reconstruction shows northern hemisphere temperatures almost as high as those of the 20th century” during the Medieval period. And in the final sentence of their paper they suggest that “the occurrence of a Medieval climatic anomaly (A.D. 800-1250) with persistently weak El Niños [our italics] may therefore assist the
interpretation of some of the regional discrepancies in thermal reconstructions of Medieval times,” which is a polite way of
suggesting that the Mann et al. (1998, 1999) hockeystick temperature history is deficient in not depicting the presence of a true Medieval Warm Period.
Two separate chronologies were thus developed: one from trees that exhibited age trends that are
weakly linear and one from trees with age trends that are more nonlinear. The results, in their
words, were “two nearly independent tree-ring chronologies covering the years 800-1990,” which were “very similar over the past ~1200 years.”
These tree-ring histories were then calibrated against Northern Hemispheric (0 to 90°N) mean
annual instrumental temperatures from the period 1856-1980 to make them compatible with the
temperature reconstructions of Mann et al.
What do the results show? The biggest difference between the Esper et al. and Mann et al.
temperature histories is the degree to which the coolness of the Little Ice Age is expressed. The Little Ice Age is much more evident in the record of Esper et al., and its significantly lower
temperatures are what make the Medieval Warm Period stand out more dramatically in their
temperature reconstruction.
Also, they note that “the warmest period covers the interval 950-1045, with the peak occurring around 990.” This finding, they say, “suggests that past comparisons of the Medieval Warm Period with the 20th-century
warming back to the year 1000 have not included all of the Medieval Warm Period and, perhaps, not
even its warmest interval.”
The authors analyzed decadally-averaged ?18O records derived by them and their colleagues from three Andean and three Tibetan ice cores, demonstrating that “on centennial to millennial time scales atmospheric temperature is the
principal control on the ?18Oice of the snowfall that sustains these high mountain ice fields,”
after which they produced “a low latitude ?18O history for the last millennium” that they use as
a surrogate for air temperature. For the Quelccaya Ice Cap (13.93°S, 70.83°W), this work revealed that peak temperatures of the Medieval Warming Period were warmer than those of the last few decades of the 20th century.
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/studies/l2_quelccaya.jsphttp://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba450/http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V7/N45/C2.jsp
ReferencesThompson, L.G., Mosley-Thompson, E., Davis, M.E.,
Lin, P.-N., Henderson, K. and Mashiotta, T.A.
2003. Tropical glacier and ice core evidence of
climate change on annual to millennial time
scales. Climatic Change 59: 137-155.
ReferencesEsper, J., Cook, E.R. and Schweingruber, F.H.
2002. Low-frequency signals in long tree-ring
chronologies for reconstructing past temperature
variability. Science 295: 2250-2253.
Magillian, F.J. and Goldstein, P.S. 2001. El
Niño floods and culture change: A late Holocene
flood history for the Rio Moquegua, southern Peru.
Geology 29: 431-434.
Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. 1998.
Global-scale temperature patterns and climate
forcing over the past six centuries. Nature 392:
779-787.
Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. 1999.
Northern Hemisphere temperatures duing the past
millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and
limitations. Geophysical Research Letters 26:
759-762.
Philander, S.G.H. 1990. El Niño, La Niña, and
the Southern Oscillation. Academic Press, San
Diego, California, USA.
Wells, L.E. 1990. Holocene history of the El
Niño phenomenon as recorded in flood sediments of
northern coastal Peru. Geology 18: 1134-1137.
Bond, G., Kromer, B., Beer, J., Muscheler, R.,
Evans, M.N., Showers, W., Hoffmann, S.,
Lotti-Bond, R., Irka Hajdas, I. and Bonani, G.
2001. Persistent solar influence on North
Atlantic climate during the Holocene. Science
294: 2130-2136.
Briffa, K.R. and Osborn, T.J. 2002. Blowing hot
and cold. Science 295: 2227-2228.
Broecker, W.S. 1999. Climate change prediction.
Science 283: 179.
Broecker, W.S. 2001. Glaciers that speak in
tongues and other tales of global warming.
Natural History 110 (8): 60-69.
Chepstow- Lusty A.J. Bennett, K.D., Kendall,A.
Galiano, W. Tapyachi, Herrera Tracing 4000 years
of Environmental History in the Cuzco Area, Peru,
from the Pollen Record A. Tupayachi HerreraMountain Research and Development, Vol. 18, No. 2
(May, 1998), pp. 159-172
Esper, J., Cook, E.R. and Schweingruber, F.H.
2002. Low-frequency signals in long tree-ring
chronologies for reconstructing past temperature
variability. Science 295: 2250-2253.
Houghton, J.T., Jenkins, G.J. and Ephraums, J.J.
(Eds.). 1990. Climate Change: The IPCC
Scientific Assessment. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
Idso, S.B. 1988. Greenhouse warming or Little
Ice Age demise: a critical problem for
climatology. Theoretical and Applied Climatology
39: 54-56.
Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. 1998.
Global-scale temperature patterns and climate
forcing over the past six centuries. Nature 392:
779-787.
Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. 1999.
Northern Hemisphere temperatures duing the past
millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and
limitations. Geophysical Research Letters 26:
759-762.
McDermott, F., Mattey, D.P. and Hawkesworth, C.
2001. Centennial-scale Holocene climate
variability revealed by a high-resolution
speleothem ð18O record from SW Ireland. Science
294: 1328-1331.
McManus, J.F., Oppo, D.W. and Cullen, J.L. 1999.
A 0.5-million-year record of millennial-scale
climate variability in the North Atlantic.
Science 283: 971-974.
Oppo, D.W., McManus, J.F. and Cullen, J.L. 1998.
Abrupt climate events 500,000 to 340,000 years
ago: evidence from subpolar North Atlantic
sediments. Science 279: 1335-1338.
Raymo, M.E., Ganley, K., Carter, S., Oppo, D.W.
and McManus, J. 1998. Millennial-scale climate
instability during the early Pleistocene epoch.
Nature 392: 699-702.
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mixed-media/2007/11/05/stewart-will-keep-striking-daily-writers-afloat
Stewart Will Keep Striking ‘Daily’ Writers Afloat
If the writers strike fails, it won’t be on account of Jon Stewart.
In a show of solidarity with his fellow scribes, the Daily Show host has told his writing staff that he will cover all their salaries for the next two weeks, according to a well-placed source. He has also vowed to do the same for writers on The Colbert Report. A Comedy Central spokesman referred my inquiry about this to Stewart’s personal publicist, who has yet to respond.
Stewart’s intention, says the source, is to ensure his writers will face no financial hardship should the strike, which kicked off at 3 a.m. local time, conclude within that timeframe.
Meanwhile, both Stewart and Stephen Colbert are reportedly working on their contingency plans in case it doesn’t. “There are indications that Mr. Stewart and Mr. Colbert will come back in tweaked form if the strike is a long one, leaning on interviews and other writer-free approaches to keep both programs alive in a very busy political season,” reports today’s Times.
It should come as no surprise that Stewart is a union die-hard: He tells the current issue of Rolling Stone that his childhood heroes included socialist leaders Eugene V. Debs and Norman Thomas.
As long as there is a lower class, I am in it. As long as there is a criminal element, I’m of it. As long as there is a soul in prison, I am not free.
Eugene V. Debs
Interesting, isn’t it?
Before the white man came to America, there were perhaps 20 million native Americans, and not a single PRISON on the continent.
No rulers either.
Go figure.
Holy mackeral!
Kansas gets the award for longest, most boring post.
since water boarding is torture, we HAVE done it, but bush says the US does not torture?
Posted by: J R | November 05, 2007 at 09:35 PM
Good point, JR.
We sent Japs to prison for six years for waterboarding our guys during WW2 (you know, when we were fighting for our very existance in a real war).
But in Bush’s elective war of convenience, waterboarding is no longer torture.
Fourteen more months until the American tyrant is kicked out of Al Gore’s house.
You know JM all these ten thousand posts by the “JM team” will be ignored, you are wasting your time.
No one wants to read a blog site that has dozens of the same name entry.
You and your team are nothing but sad remnants of your former self.
For your own self esteem, try doing something else other than making a fool of yourself.
“Kansas gets the award for longest, most boring post.”
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 09:43 PM
And another award for being so dense that he is unable to understand that PAST natural climate changes do NOT EXPLAIN the CURRENT, human-caused global warming.
Yeah, you’re right, Kansas.
That’s why you’ve been utterly neutralized.
Or perhaps neutered would be a better word for it.
Besides, THE NIC DOESN’T MATTER.
Isn’t that what you keep saying over and over?
I mean, feel free to clarify, Kansas. I thought that’s what I heard you saying . . .
And I quote: “Argue against the POST, not against the poster.”
But, JM, that would take all of the “buzz” out of it for him!
Correct, JM.
Now when he steals our nic, he’s stealing his own nic, and it just becomes part of the JM jam spam.
Damn, are we good or what?
If not good, at least creative!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pw4Bhmm22xo
Our president has gone senile
also he was kinda sexy 10 years ago!!
“Hmmmm all in all, not a bad day on the WE Blog, as days go here.
Hopefully, today will be better!
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 02:52 AM ”
So much for that….
Speaking of COAL-fired power plants…
“http://www.co2science.org/... ”
Posted by: Kansas | November 05, 2007 at 09:38 PM
That group is,http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change
“In October 1999 Craig D. Idso and Keith E. Idso mentioned that they had “recently completed a project commissioned by the Greening Earth Society……The Greening Earth Society, a front group of the Western Fuels Association.”
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html
“Greening Earth SocietyThe Greening Earth Society (GES) was founded on Earth Day 1998 by the Western Fuels Association to promote the view that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are good for humanity. GES and Western Fuels are essentially the same organization. Both used to be located at the same office suite in Arlington, VA….The Western Fuels Assocation (WFA) is a cooperative of coal-dependent utilities in the western states that works in part to discredit climate change science and to prevent regulations that might damage coal-related industries.”
Also more about the Idso’s at UCS page.
interesting video. speaks many words about this administration!
What’s wrong Nathan? We have had nearly everything as usual! Gays, Guns, Global Warming — maybe a little lite on God today, but –
Still pretty good day! The Ed’s didnt shut it down at least!
Good on Colbert and Stewart!!
Double good on them!
These are men who respect where they came from and those who follow. Bully say I.
Oh and “kansas” JM
TOTALLY neutered.
Probably his xwife can confirm.
It’s 10:24 pm and the government still hasn’t confiscated all my guns they must be stuck in traffic.
On a lighter note investment bankers have admitted to losing 20 billion dollars 3rd quarter 2007.
Canadian dollar is now more valuable than then the greenback.This morning it was 1.07 to 1.
Things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser! Where will it all end? What a mess!
Neutralized? :)
I’m still posting and with my TypePad nic.
The only weapon you want to use now is a personal attack eh J R?
Go ahead and try it J R, you will find yourself more and more isolated and joining the banned.
You are a non-factor J R, you always have been because you choose to cause trouble on a blog instead of participating discussing topics.
10:35 p.m. post not related to the comments of JR — but to previous remarks of annie moose. Just a point of clarification. tyvm
Wow, I havent seen anything for the past two days now that should qualify to get anybody banned. Of course, it isnt midnight… yet!
JR,
Day after day I see a 10 to 1 ratio of posts by you and others attacking Kansas for being a troll and whatever else you accuse him of.
Now I see this JM character being at least 10 times worse than what you accuse Kansas of doing.
For the most part Kansas just posts here like anyone else. You guys spend so much time pushing his buttons and going after him that eventually he does turn on you.
Don’t sit here and act like you are better than Kansas.
I have said several times that the things you and others do makes you no better than he is.
Now this JM character is even worse.
Have fun posting, I’ll take no part in this stupidity.
Yes tis strange times JM I fear the empire is coming to a close. We may have to mind our own bizness and be content to meddle in our affairs sigh.
JR,
I have not been confused.
You and several others are so obsessed with Kansas being a troll that you don’t even see that your obsession is 10 times worse than any actual trolling Kansas may or may not be guilty of.
…, sexy? Nauseous.
However, notice how he wanted the state to put in more money per pupil because the tax burden was too great on individual districts.
Now note as at the federal level, he wants more tax burden on the individual states.
Say what? Isn’t it the exact same principle in reverse?
He’s all worried about kid’s educations, but keeping them from dying of lack of healthcare? Not so much. What is he- wild kingdom’s survival of the fittest?
Whoever is posting as JM, really needs to be banned..both their normal ID’s and this one.
I’m outta the loop. I’m hardly around anymore, but I am the real PM.
So, JR, are you defending the whole JM thing?
This is bullpucky and downright juvenile. I expect this from trolls, because THEY Don’t care about it. I expect this from neocons.
I do not expect this kind of behavior from people who actually want to see this board stay. SO the rationale is…if we do it too, we’ll gain what? To prove what point? That you can destroy it too?
That’s exactly what happened when all the Kansas.com forums were taken over by the trolls. And I left for good.I can do it here too. I don’t want to, but I will.
Whoo whoa shake and bake Oklahoma——————————The nation’s strictest immigration crackdown went into effect this week in Oklahoma after a federal judge refused Hispanic and immigrants rights groups’ attempt to block it.
The new law prevents illegal aliens from getting driver’s licenses, denies them every possible public service or benefit not required by federal law, gives state and local police the ability to enforce immigration laws and, beginning next year, requires employers to check new employees’ identities through a federal database.
“It is the toughest state-level immigration reform bill in the nation,” said state Rep. Randy Terrill, the Republican who wrote House Bill 1804, which became law on Thursday. “The judge has effectively validated this approach, and he has effectively given the green light to other states to begin to proceed with measures that are similar to House Bill 1804.”
As important as the new law was this week’s decision by U.S. District Judge James H. Payne, who rejected immigrants rights groups’ request for an injunction. In his ruling on Wednesday, Judge Payne said the groups didn’t have any evidence to support their claims of harm.
The judge allowed the law to take effect while the case proceeds. The parties will be back in court next week.
It was the second time Judge Payne rejected a challenge, and Mr. Terrill said that’s a testament to how carefully the law was drafted not to step on federal agencies’ toes or to discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.
I havent seen Kansas called a Troll even once in two days time now. That is an improvement.
heres a look at the new Oklahoma law !!———————
http://www.captc.org/pubpol/immigration/HB1804_ENR.RTF
Jose, it looks good on the surface. I can only hope it doesnt result in any sort of vigilante style justice. It IS Oklahoma, you know!
Oh, BTW, I have ALSO not seen any of Kansas unleashing ad hominem attacks against other posters in terms of their “relationships” or “bodily functions” or “body parts” — also an improvement!
Didnt want to leave Kansas out of any “favorable” comments.
“If I can help it, I’ll not let some miscreant turn this into a nameless faceless free fire zone.”
[chuckle]
You’ve got to be kidding me. JR, you and the endless JMs are the primary movers in attempting to make it exactly that. That, and you’ve simply caused any post by any JM to be ignored.
You’ve neutered (your word) yourselves.
Congratulations. You’ve become what you claim to hate.
Hmmmm That leads me to a possible solution to some of the ongoing problems on the Blog –
What if the Blog simply removed the use of Nics on the Blog, and thus forced posters to stick to discussions, instead of rantings against other posters?
Maybe that would be beneficial to all?
You do know J R, that one phone call to your ISP and you can lose the privilege of using it. That also applies to the JM thing whoever is behind it.
Try contacting the WE Blog without an ISP.
You better read your terms of service about disruptive practices and threatening behavior (like threatening to expose my identity here.)
It is very serious and you can lose all Internet privileges permanently.
I would advice not pushing it very far.
But if you want to test the system, go ahead, but don’t say I haven’t warned you on the consequences.
In fact, I’m surprised the WE Blog hasn’t contacted your ISP’s by now.
Be careful and be cautious. I don’t mind you participating on the board, but try not to be disruptive or threatening. Or, you can lose it all.
Oh, I have also noticed an absence of the Sock Puppet Ballet the past couple of days as well.
Tha, too, is a huge improvement!
:-)
Uh oh — a Threat! That isnt a good way to end the day!
Okay J R, I will be reporting your posts to Phillip Brownlee and your ISP.
You had your chance.
J R — dont push the issue. Let’s not rehash all that has already passed before. OK?
“You know I am fair.”
Uh-huh. Say it enough, and even you will believe it . . .
“SOME posters are giving you the forum that “kansas” JM wants.
And yes I am in favor of what they are doing so as not to make this forum all that way all the time.”
Take a long step back, and read that. Tell me it makes sense. C’mon, JR, you’re smarter than that. This amounts to “gosh, X is childish, so to prove a point, I’m gonna be childish too.”
Yea. Brilliant. You must be very proud.
You all had a point, once. But the “solution” has long since eclipsed the problem as the the problem.
And the “solution” is simple. Grow up. Respond to arguments, not nics. Ignore the obvious bait. Be responsible for yourself, and quit worrying about policing the blog. It’s a free form forum; it is what it is. No matter how much you want to make it so, it’s not your personal playground to dictate terms on.
Sometimes liberals have a tendancy to tilt at windmills. You’ve got a big windmill here. You can live with it, or drive yourself nuts (and readers too) trying to fix what cannot be fixed. If you can’t live with it, find another forum. Your call.
GMC – Would that many actually would respond to what is posted, and not respond to posters, with false allegations, and constant mockeries of vocations, and body parts, and various relationships.
I believe that is what needs to be fixed. On the part of ALL posters!
JR,
The only thing you have proven is that you and whoever is doing all the posting as JM are far far worse than you accuse Kansas of being.
I have been posting here for quite a bit.
I have yet to see all this evidence against Kansas for trolling.
All that I continue to see is constant posting by you and others attacking Kansas and Kansas trying not to get sucked into it.
If you are trying to show how stupid you can be, well, congratulations you have done just that.
I have seen various posters castigated terribly for such simple things as “typos” instead of dealing with the issue posted.
I think it is that kind of thing that has caused a momentary diversion away from using Nics.
Perhaps you might encourage folks to stop with the highly personal attacks, involving a wide variety of subjects/topics.
And yet, another personal attack!
Maybe it’s hopeless. I hope not.
“What if the Blog simply removed the use of Nics on the Blog, and thus forced posters to stick to discussions, instead of rantings against other posters?
Maybe that would be beneficial to all?”
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 11:37 PM
No, I’m sorry JM, but that would NOT work.
For example, how could Kansas use his false, ad hominem rants about me being an 8th grade dropout, if I’m not “cosmos”?
Kansas would have to instead post rational, logical responses to the content of my posts.
Guys just get along, I know a 5-year old that can do a better job than you guys!
I enjoy these blogs, but some people ruin them!
Phillip where are you at!
Whoever or Whomever is posting as JM needs to know that you are not exactly innocent either.
You’re long list of calling names, assigning body parts and various relationships is well known and often displayed here on the WE blog.
Just look at your own posts and you will find what you have (all of you) have done is as bad and usually much worse than I ever did.
The problem is/was is that you can’t let it go. You carry grudges around with you like a warm fuzzy. You feed on grudges and need them.
The difference is I can let things go and press on.
Evidently, the multiple personality JM, you cannot because of what you are doing now.
As I said before, I don’t run, I don’t care and I don’t cower under the tactics you are using. The only time you are wasting is yours.
I also recommended that the open thread be killed as it no longer serves any purpose.
Maybe they should invite a person to watch the blogs all day long!
No that would be wrong!
Actually it does serve a purpose, it shows that bad side of what an issue can do to a crowd of online people.
this isn’t nathan click on my name. I’m not him, I’m ashley.
For example, how could Kansas use his false, ad hominem rants about me being an 8th grade dropout, if I’m not “cosmos”?
Kansas would have to instead post rational, logical responses to the content of my posts.
Posted by: cosmos | November 06, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Please cosmos, everyone knows your tactic of posting off topic in threads that have nothing to do with GW or anything that we discussed before and you’re usual posting involves in calling me a troll, a liar and etc.
You are a poster that most here on the blog agree are very disruptive as you take things to personal and will post nonsense and personal attacks with off topic remarks in threads that have nothing to do with the topic.
Get real cosmos, you are among the worst abusers of attacks.
JR,
I don’t want you banned. I don’t want anyone banned.
I would like to come to the blog and not have to wade through 50 posts of you, CapnAmerica, KFG, and whoever else doing nothing but calling Kansas a troll and attacking him.
If you think he is a troll then ignore him.
XXX had you all pegged though. You just can’t resist post after post after post of trying to get Kansas.
Maybe Kansas did do some nic switching, maybe he did troll, but all I see anymore is non stop attacks on Kansas from you and several others which doesn’t do anything.
Now you guys are being even worse with the JM crap.
The only thing you are doing is pissing away any credibility you might have had in calling Kansas a troll.
See ya’ll later. Lights OUT!
Actually, I kinda like the “JM” tactic. Since my RL initials are JM, some people have accused (or credited) me for what’s been going on here.
Not guilty.
But it comes back to how these forums (fora?) should work. A real “Max” post on Hillary’s gonna steal your guns or a real “parkay” post about how every sperm is sacred, or a real “Kansas” post about how George WMD Bush is second incarnation of the Christ means more than any or all of the graffiti trolls’ sophomoric rhetoric.
If you’ve got an opinion, share it and stand by it. You can be anonymous by using a nic, but at least be honest enough to be associated with what you think or believe or advocate.
Or, in the words of the poet, STFU.
I’m sorry Nathan — But I have only seen a small handful of posts attacking Kansas “personally” the past couple of days.
I have seen some others that have attacked some of Kansas’ tactics in dealing with other posters.
Other than a very few, I just havent seen the personal attacks on Kansas that you are talking about. Sorry!!
JR,
I did see that. So what?
And you are exactly right about one thing, you are acting like a little kid with this.
Just as I was wrong to be so absurd with you and saying the things I did about you and your son to prove a point, you too are just as wrong to do the same things Kansas is doing to prove a point.
The only thing you are doing is driving even more people away from this blog including me.
When it is just you and a couple of other liberals left, have fun in your little circle jerk.
You can all rejoice in the rewards of your stupidity by constantly telling each other how wonderful you are uninterupted.
Well said as ever Monkeyhawk.
What we say here means something or it does not.
It is our choice.
CLEARLY the editors have no interest.
We can have this forum be credible or not.
I work to the former.
“When it is just you and a couple of other liberals left, have fun in your little circle jerk.”==============================
And yet another reference to body parts or something sexual, when totally unnecessary. This is exactly the kind of thing that is objected to by so many!
Nathan that comment was so totally not necessary! But, it would seem that you were compelled to use it.
Good God.
JR, grow up. JM,JM, JM, JM, grow up. Kansas has done his mea culpas over and over again. Stick a fork in it. Get on with a life.
If there ever was a point to this, you’ve pissed it away. At this point, I’m with Kansas. There’s no point to an open thread if it devolves to this, over and over again.
I’ve had enough of this for one night. Perhaps tomorrow, adults will act like adults. Or this endless idiocy will continue. There are other places to read, other blogs to contribute to where one can actually exchange ideas, and disagree, without the endless carping. I enjoy this one, because it’s local. But there are other options.
You’ve got a good thing here, provided to you for free, by the Eagle. Rather than enoy it, and behave like a guest, you all are proceeding to abuse your privilege. At some point, the Eagle may decide the hassle is not worth it.
How many bitching e-mails will the editors get before they decide a blog, which generates no revenue, is not worth the trouble?
Any wonder that the number of regular posters has dwindled? Most people won’t put up with this crap; they move on.
And they’re right. Move on. Get over it. End it.
Grow up.
“Kansas has done his mea culpas over and over again. Stick a fork in it. Get on with a life.”
Posted by: GMC70 | November 06, 2007 at 12:30 AM
You are 100% right GMC70…
Your friend Kansas’ “mea culpas” are posted just 20 minutes before your post.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/11/open-thread-1-4.html#comment-88875396
/sarcasm OFF!
Well cosmos,you calling me a liar twenty times a day does get old.
Perhaps you should learn to be more civil instead of being a jerk.
Posted by: GMC70 | November 06, 2007 at 12:30 AM
GMC70, thank you.
And the “solution” is simple. Grow up. Respond to arguments, not nics.
******
GMC, that’s EXACTLY what we’re doing by posting as JM.
Since no one (i.e., Kansas) knows who we are, they have to respond to THE POST, not the POSTER.
What you don’t like apparently is that you and Kansas and the others of your ilk on the right can’t needle us with personal cheap-shot.
If you really believe what you say, you’d be posting as JM too. After all, “respond to the post, not the nic.”
Isn’t that what you just said.