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
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- HLP on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- LonnythePlumber on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- LonnythePlumber on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- XXX on Open thread 11/24
251 Comments
The loser, Hillary Clinton was quoted after her Iowa defeat:
“Oh Shit! *od #a@ that S@B!!!”
Then Bill ran away and Hillary started cussing about Obama calling him certain even ampersand-can’t-describe type names.
What a temper she has!
Hope she never gets her finger on that Big Red Nuke Button.
Geologist Dr. David Kear, the former director of geological survey at the Department of Science and Industrial Research in New Zealand, called predictions of rising sea level as a result of man-made global warming “science fiction,” and said the basic rules of science are being ignored. “When youngsters are encouraged to take part in a school science fair the first thing they are told to do is check the results, then re-check them, something NIWA [National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research] appear to have forgotten to do,” Kear said in a April 13, 2007 article. “In looking at the next 50 years, why have they not studied the past 50 years and applied their findings to the predictions? One would think this was a must,” Kear explained. The article continued, “First global warming predictions made in 1987 estimated an annual rise in sea levels of 35mm. That scared the world but since then, the figure has continued to be reduced by ‘experts.’” Kear concluded, “Personal beliefs on climate change and rising sea levels should be delayed until just one of the many predictions made since 1985 on the basis of carbon additions to the atmosphere comes true.”
http://www.dailypost.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3729832&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=
I just learned the top names for the new arena,
*Lugnut arena
*coconut arena
*Hazelnut arena
*Wingnut 2 (the other place)
*Slapnut arena
*locknut arena
*I’M A NUT ARENA
*must b nutz arena
*kick in the nuts arena (only if soccer is played there)
*WALNUT ARENA
*Lords “new dinner” arena
Very funny, Max.
But now that Hillary’s coronation has been put in doubt, and Kucinich went nowhere, I have to REALLY chose between Obama and Edwards.
This one is gonna be tough.
“dog you are the one poster who I just cannot fathom how you can be a Republican“.
Well like a lot of people in some ways it was inherited, both of my parents were and I grew up learning about the great Presidents both Rs and Ds. But also to think for myself.
And yes that seem to be my problem, I do think too much and another family tradition is to be Conservative. Not in the bad way that seem to have earned it the current connotations. Take for instance welfare, there is a real need for a program to help people that are having a momentary hardship or are unable to work. But it was the liberal concept that has made it a trap for those on it.
The fiscal aspect of my learning come from no other then my Uncle who is a now retired Vice President of the World Bank. One of my favor stories about him and my aunt(father sister) is that here they would entertain dignitaries for foreign countries in their home. And at diner was serving drinks in jelly jars, the dignitaries love it! It seems they thought it was cool to be drinking out of a cartoon characters shaped glass jar. But my aunt’s reasoning? Why should I waste good money on fine crystal when you get jelly in a perfectly good glass jar!
I have given thought to switching to being an independent, best of both worlds it is said.
And perhaps I do tend to be on both sides the fence on some issues, but as to the heart of my thinking it is mainly old republican. LOL I do not even have a credit card, those to are a trap too!
Congratulations to Barack Obama. I am glad too see the Majority of the Iowa caucus has decided to help set the pace for change. I am glad too see change in progress. Lets keep up the pace. New Hamshire, see ya next!!! Herbert West III, Publisher/Journalist. west.herb@yahoo.com
“”"The loser, Hillary Clinton was quoted after her Iowa defeat:
“Oh Shit! *od #a@ that S@B!!!”
Then Bill ran away and Hillary started cussing about Obama calling him certain even ampersand-can’t-describe type names.
What a temper she has!”"”
She reminds me of Paris Hilton. “Oh I am entitled to this and you had better give it to me or else!” Sheesh
Congradulations to KANSAS on 2 HUGE wins last night!!!
1. The KU Jayhawks. Hopefully this will not be a fluke but a thing KU can build on to have a football program as good as the basketball program! Double championships!
2. Kansas native son Barrack Obama in Iowa. Won big and made one of the BEST speeches I have ever heard! Kansas should be proud of him!
Obama is from Hawaii, his mom is from Kansas. I’m glad for the Dems’ side, at least Shrillary got beat up. But Shmuckabee? C’mon Iowan’s, sheesh, it’s like they are from Kansas or something.
Time to start the countdown for WEblog. Only hours from now the staff will post a thread reducing Obama to only the color of his skin.
I can see by the hillary comments that the caucus had nothing to do with politics.
Hank, you forgot bustanut orena.
The fact that Ron Paul was able to pull 11% out of the uninformed Iowa vote and downright hostile press and be in a grouping with Thompson and McCain is phenomenal.
The Huckabee and Romney circus can be chocked-up to the lingering hysterical vote which got America into the depth of her problems.
The Ron Paul Campaign is increasing by leaps and bounds as supporters swarmed into Iowa.
With the Huckabee win now standing as an example of America’s problems, Ron Paul’s job was just made all the easier.
Excellent Ed!
Check this out:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article920.html
I love being a “Paultard”.
Dr. Paul didn’t fulfill his Hippocratic oath though, as he killed Ghouliani (not that it was too big of a surprise).
Good morning stumper,
That was a post by Mr. C. Mendoza. We’re in Kansas, should be the ‘Beer Nuts Arena’.
My post was the highly informative daily global warming entry.
“The loser, Hillary Clinton was quoted after her Iowa defeat:
“Oh Shit! *od #a@ that S@B!!!”
Then Bill ran away and Hillary started cussing about Obama calling him certain even ampersand-can’t-describe type names.
What a temper she has!
Hope she never gets her finger on that Big Red Nuke Button.”
Link please, Max.
BTW, there is no “Big Red Nuke Button”.
No, it’s actually an off-white to egg shell colored button.
Actually it’s a key.
Come on “Moaning Max”, tell us where you heard about Hilary’s melt down. Faux News or Rush?
=] Mary.
Very interesting results in Iowa last night. Huge turnout for Democrats, almost 240,000. Repubs, not so much at 115,000. Can the Hillary machine be beat? Maybe so. Obama handed her her head. It’s way too early to draw any conclusions, but it sure looks good for Obama leading into New Hampshire.
Democrats are very fortunate to have 3 top-notch candidates to choose from. Personally, I could support any of the three. Two of the choices are historic. Will Democrats offer the first female candidate for president? The first Black candidate? Talk about Progressive, talk about change!
On the republican side, Huckabee made a great showing, and he has my backing. He’s probably the most beatable candidate the republicans have to offer. He’ll drive Independent voters away from the GOP in droves. IMO, a large majority of voters are tired of republicans claiming to be the party of God, especially when you look at their record.
Congrats and best wishes to Ron Paul, the only candidate on the right that really has something to offer. Paul has mounted a terrific campaign. Too bad republicans don’t see him the way Independent voters do. If he wound up being the republican candidate….
It’s time for a change. Republicans have driven this country into the ground. Candidates on the Democratic side offer that change; a last chance to put this nation back on the right track.
Mary, you heard it here first! Out of the mouth of Max. Why is there any question? lol Max does like to get her digs in and then ignore comments or questions to same, doesn’t she?
Ron Paul. 3 points off third place and 7 points above Giuliani. Romney dropped 20-40 million and still came in second. Can’t wait for the numbers Paul spent. Betting it was about half of the Huckster. People are starting to wake up. Funny how the press listed first through third and skipped right on over to sixth.
If the GOP AND the MSM are afraid of Ron Paul, he is DEFINITELY the right candidate. No more status quo. No more big government. Reap the rEVOLution!!!
Mary
Grow a sense of humor please.
Hiring practically stalled in December, driving the nation’s unemployment rate up to a two-year high of 5 percent and fanning fears of a recession.
Employers last month added the fewest new jobs to their payrolls in more than four years, according to the employment report released Friday by the Labor Department. The report showed that employment conditions are deteriorating, strained by a housing slump and credit crunch that are sapping economic strength.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010401564.html?hpid=topnews
Another sign of an economy headed for recession, or worse.
If the GOP AND the MSM are afraid of Ron Paul, he is DEFINITELY the right candidate. No more status quo. No more big government. Reap the rEVOLution!!!
Posted by: SolDevVB | January 04, 2008 at 08:48 AM
Sol, congrats to your candidate for an excellent showing! He’s scaring the GOP back-room power brokers to death. Paul is the only republican candidate who doesn’t offer more of the sameold, sameold.
ron paul is a kook as he believes in a turtle democracy and diplomacy. he will only stick his head out of his shell when there is a poll that needs to done.
Mary – linda – Max’s link:
http://www.Rush-Rove-BS.GOP
Good one, Ben! Now that’s worthy of a laugh. My sense of humor knows what is funny!
With the price of oil hovering near $100 a barrel and overall economic anxiety on the rise, President Bush said yesterday that he may use his upcoming State of the Union address to propose a stimulus package intended to promote growth and shore up weak parts of the economy.
As the Bush team evaluates possible options, the official said, the priority would be using targeted tax breaks to increase business investment or consumer spending.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303582.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Translate: More tax cuts for big business and the wealthy. Keep those fat cats fat.
Obama gave a pretty god speach last night. I’d probably vote for him over McCain.
I don’t like Romney, Paul is a nut and Thompson (really my first choice now) doesn’t seem to want to play.
I wish Obama luck. He hildebeast is going to get real dirty now.
Ron Paul doesn’t believe in a “Turtle-Democracy”, he believes in a REPUBLIC for a strong people who want to take care of themselves. If you’re into letting bureaucrats micro-managing your life and you’re a scared-of-everything weakling, all the rest are fine to cast your vote for.
Dem turnout in Iowa is encouraging.
Their choice less so.
If we have any Obama supporters abouts, I’ll listen. But the guy strikes me as too young and too accomodating of the right. The Republicans don’t speak “nice”. And I won’t vote for “nice”.
Stocks fell in early trading Friday after the government’s much-anticipated employment report showed weaker-than-expected job growth and a rise in the unemployment rate. The major indexes each fell more than 1 percent, including the Dow Jones industrial average, which lost more than 100 points.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Wall-Street.html
Let’s see,
Unemployment up. Check
Housing market in the crapper. Check
Credit market burned out. Check
Endless expensive wars. Check
Stock market headed south. Check
Oil prices headed up. Check
Get ready for the BUSH recession.
Some say we’re already there, XXX. You know how anything you want to believe or find can be found written down somewhere by someone? Well, I read recently that Kansas is about a year behind the rest of the country and shouldn’t feel the economic downturn until after bush leaves office. Then we will hear how well things were under bush and any blame will run off him like water off a duck.
The rationale for a federal mandate that forces every American to buy health insurance is based on myths, not facts, says Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York and an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
The first myth is that it’s fair to make everyone pay the same price for health insurance. It is not: For young people who rarely use health services, this is a rip-off. If people in their 20s paid attention to politics and voted, politicians wouldn’t dare try this, says McCaughey:
According to the latest Census data, 56 percent of the uninsured are adults aged 18-34.
Forcing them to be a part of a same-price-for-everyone insurance pool will likely bring down premiums because these young people generally need minimal health care ($1,500 a year, on average, according to a Commonwealth Fund study).
In most states, (but not New York and Vermont), young adults who buy health insurance are charged premiums that reflect their low medical needs; for example:
A 25-year-old man can buy a $1,000 deductible policy for a quarter to a third of what a 55-year-old man has to pay.
In Manchester, N.H., a 25-year-old man pays $156 per month, while a 55-year-old pays $542 for the same policy, according to ehealthinsurance.com.
Both the Clinton proposal and the bipartisan congressional proposal prohibit insurers from giving such price breaks to the young. Their mandates would force the young to subsidize the heath tab for the middle-aged generation. This subsidy would come on top of the payroll tax younger people already pay to support today’s Medicare recipients. This is contrary to a fundamental American principle. This nation has always believed in making life better for its children, not exploiting them, says McCaughey.
Source: Betsy McCaughey, “The Truth About Mandatory Health Insurance,” Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2008.
Translate: More tax cuts for big business and the wealthy. Keep those fat cats fat.
Posted by: XXX
*****
If that happens a Democratic Congress will have to sign off on it. Yes, the Senate is Democratic controlled since there are 51 members of the Democratic Caucus, and the Democrats routinely can get 55 -58 votes on almost any issue they want.
If Democrats do sign off on it, maybe more Democrats will see the true colors of Democrats and vote Green.
Green – enough did that in 2000 to elect Bush.
And the Wall Street Journal would be in favor of something that didn’t help huge insurance and health care businesses make more money off the sick?
Excuse me, but I can’t stop laughing.
Not surprised Hillary lost, she has way too many skeletons, unanswered questions — she scares way too many people. I think she will be as divisive as GWB is.
When McCain folded like a cheap lawn chair when the Bush folks trashed him 2000, he showed he could be intimidated, 20 years ago he probably would have made a good president.
I wonder if Obama can keep the racists and bigots at bay …. lot more of them than we would like to admit …. only way he could minimize the possibility of some one shooting him would be to make Hillary his VP ……
I don’t think Huckabee’s Opie / Richie Cunningham image will do it for him —– keep waiting for the Fonz and Potsy to show up for him ….. and how would the Washington elite differentiate him from Bill — both hicks from the sticks?
Romney doesn’t impress me as being very well spoken, at times reminds of some the blustering / bumbling that comes out of GWB.
Don’t know about Edwards, I get the impression he is no longer a DC insider, don’t know if he has the tenacity and respect of colleagues to drive the changes he thinks are needed.
What it looks like though is we again will hear the same promises of fixing the immigration, an effective energy policy, dealing with the war on terror etc….. and more than likely little will change. Special interests will continue to cloud the thinking of our representatives and the public will continue to be ill served.
Yes, the Senate is Democratic controlled since there are 51 members of the Democratic Caucus, and the Democrats routinely can get 55 -58 votes on almost any issue they want.
Posted by: Stop the madness vote Green | January 04, 2008 at 09:41 AM
Green, what dream world are you living in? There are 49 Democrats and 49 republicans in the Senate. Democrats can hardly depend on Lieberman for anything. And as you know, it now takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate due to republican obstructionism.
That’ll change after the next election, heh, heh.
I wonder if Obama can keep the racists and bigots at bay …. lot more of them than we would like to admit …. only way he could minimize the possibility of some one shooting him would be to make Hillary his VP ……
Posted by: ken | January 04, 2008 at 09:52 AM
Ken,
I could see some white arian republican trying to shoot Obama. If Obama gets the nod, look for republicans to show their true racist leanings.
All Liberals are black and gay and all Republicans are rascist and bigoted?
Umm, ok.
XXX, that is over the top!
Good grief man! We may not agree on political beliefs, and we may fight like cats and dogs.
But we are not monsters to be shot in the streets!
Sometimes Archie Bunker labels and mentality really does not apply.
I love Kansas and KU.
DON’T SHOOT!!!!!
Calling republicans bigots and racists is a way to avoid honest debate when you really . . .
DON’T HAVE ANYTHNG
The definition of a bigot is classifying someone by their race or affiliation.
Hank is a republican therefore Hank is a bigot. Hank is a conservative therefore Hank is a racist.
It aint the republicans that are saying Obama isn’t ‘black enough’.
” But we are not monsters..”
I disagree.
That beloved Republican icon, Ronald Reagan was a firm believer in the “trickle-down-theory”. The theory was the more the big boy made, the more the little boy made, there has been some doubt as to its desired effectiveness.
Now it is a proven fact, it works; maybe not the way it was intended but just look at when the price of Oil goes up it TRICKLES down to the price of gas going up. So you see, you skeptics, it does work.
ron paul is a kook as he believes in a turtle democracy and diplomacy. he will only stick his head out of his shell when there is a poll that needs to done.
Posted by: flappy-headed Lib | January 04, 2008 at 09:09 AM
LMFAO
What a clueless idiot. Do keep it coming though. It so shows how truely ignorant you are.
Ron Paul is a kook. Who else is a big government “libertarian”? Ban free speech, ban reproductive choice, ban unions, but keep government out of our lives. Yeah, he’s a hypocrite and a kook who is still obsessed with the gold standard.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html
But since he won’t win the nomination anyway I guess it doesn’t matter.
Translate: More tax cuts for big business and the wealthy. Keep those fat cats fat.
Posted by: XXX | January 04, 2008 at 09:17 AM
Tax cuts for all, including big business and wealthy is EXACTLY what JFK did.
Northern neighbor it’s called conservation. Increase the price of oil, to reduce consumption. It will encourage people to conserve and maybe drive more fuel efficient cars now (instead of waiting for 35MPG in 2022). It will spur development of better fuel efficient vehicles, and other carbon eaters.
Better that the big oil companies reap the profit – and let it trickle down in my returns via 401K, stocks, and mutual funds.
Some quarters have been screaming for increasing the fuel tax, for these same reasons. But if the government enacts another windfall profits tax, that would just be more money for both political parties to squander.
And less for the millions of stock holders to realize.
From John F. Kennedy:
But the most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand — to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past, this could be done in part by the increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the government and our economy. If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency. And I shall say more on this in a moment.
The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system — and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in xxxx.
I’m not talking about a “quickie” or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incenitives [sic] for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government’s most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.
Under these circumstances, any new tax legislation — and you can understand that under the comity which exists in the United States Constitution whereby the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives have the responsibility of initiating this legislation, that the details of any proposal should wait on the meeting of the Congress in January. But you can understand that, under these circumstances, in general, that any new tax legislation enacted next year should meet the following three tests:
First, it should reduce the net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required. Early action could give us extra leverage, added results, and important insurance against recession. Too large a tax cut, of course, could result in inflation and insufficient future revenues — but the greater danger is a tax cut too little, or too late, to be effective.
Second, the new tax bill must increase private consumption, as well as investment. Consumers are still spending between 92 and 94 percent on their after-tax income, as they have every year since 1950. But that after-tax income could and should be greater, providing stronger markets for the products of American industry. When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid-off, investment increases, and profits are high.
Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment. We have done this through the 1962 investment tax credit and through the liberalization of depreciation allowances — two essential parts of our first step in tax revision — which amounted to a ten percent reduction in corporate income taxes worth 2.5 billion dollars. Now we need to increase consumer demand to make these measures fully effective — demand which will make more use of existing capacity and thus increase both profits and the incentive to invest. In fact, profits after taxes would be at least 15 percent higher today if we were operating at full employment.
For all these reasons, next year’s tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes: for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkeconomicclubaddress.html
KansasMax I would be all in favor of returning the tax tables to where JFK had them. MORE tax cuts for the haves and have mores? No.
If we took our fingers out of every pie in the world – read military presence and aid – we could pretty much offset the income tax.
So now we have all of our troops home and we are not pumping billions into nations that will eventually hate us. We have no military presence – read what will the radical Muslims have to hate us for- beyond our own borders. We still have the technology and might to devastate anyone who threatens us. We are secure.
We drop the IRS and replace it with enough folks to manage the other tax revenue. We drop the idiotic Department of Homeland Security. We stop listening in on American phone conversations and emails.
We drop the board of education and let the states manage their school systems.
Think about all the money and trouble we would save ourselves!!! Balanced budget? We would have a surplus that would make the drastic improvement Clinton made look like a drop in the bucket.
Drop the Federal Reserve. They hold billions of dollars. That money belongs to the US. Buy gold with that money and put us back on the gold standard. No longer will the Fed monkey with interest rates and the value of the dollar. Gold would be the standard and you could count on the dollars in your pocket actually BUYING something.
Hey SolDevVB,
Let THEM be the ones who cuss and yell and call names. Take the high road as you apparently already do by supporting someone real. People are waking up but some still prove Hitler right when he said, “if you want to hide something, put it out in the open” and “if you can make the lie big enough, it becomes believable” (or something like that).
KansasMax I would be all in favor of returning the tax tables to where JFK had them. MORE tax cuts for the haves and have mores? No.
Posted by: J R | January 04, 2008 at 11:07 AM
You really expect Max to respond to you with your insults?
Come on J R. All you do is try to incite and anger anyone with conservative opinions on these blogs.
Your calling Max names only demonstrates to all the poster on the WEBLOG your childish behavior.
Can you give it a rest for one day? One good day on the blogs without you and Capn attacking and beating up other posters?
Bush has used up all the tax cut magic dust on his wealthy base! The only thing left to do now, is take some back and re-distribute it to stimulate the economy. The way it should have been done initially.
I didn’t attack anyone “American way”.
AW-
DNFTFT
The Republicans will sit back and watch the Soverign Funds buy up American enterprises, so when the economy eventually recovers under Democratic leadership much of the profits will acrue to the Global Economy (everywhere but the U.S.).
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html
But since he won’t win the nomination anyway I guess it doesn’t matter.
Posted by: Doug | January 04, 2008 at 11:03 AM
“– He opposes the right of women to be free to control their own reproductive systems “
***************************************************************
That is a lie. He believes that it is the state’s place to make that decision, not the fed.
—————————————————————-
“H.R.1095:To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control”
“H.R.777: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds”
“H.R.1548: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds”
***********************************************************************
Get a clue dumbass, he is libertarian. No federal funds where state funds should be used.
———————————————————————
“H.R.2597: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.”
*****************************************************
He is an OB-GYN idiot. He delivered more than 4000 babies. But again, if you could pull your head out of your fourth point of contact you would realize he fights to make that a State’s decision.
____________________________________________________________
“H.R.300: To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.
****************************************
How about you actually read the bills AND the constitution. Do you even know what either say.
*********************************************
You aren’t even worth any more effort. You find some blog spot whose author might possibly be even more uninformed than you. Try reading something real. Try the constitution and the actual text of these bills. Think you can handle it or do you need help with the BIG words?
Paul’s record speaks for itself Sol. Keep on denying the facts, that’ll make you a perfect Paulite.
The reason the Repos want small government is to make it easier for their big corporate bubbies to control it.
Let’s see, in 2000 the top 1% of tax payors paid 37% of the income tax.
In 2006 they paid 39%.
One or two more ‘tax cuts for the rich’ and they’ll be paying it all!
Posted by: Doug | January 04, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Remain ignorant of the rights provided for you Doug. Maintain your nanny state mentality. Someone will be along shortly to tell you what to think.
Do you have any understanding of what your rights are under the constitution? From your ill-researched blog link, it is apparent you don’t.
But hey Doug, let big government run your life. Let the government tell you what to think. You’ve done a stellar job so far. Atta boy.
Gold would be the standard and you could count on the dollars in your pocket actually BUYING something.
Posted by: SolDevVB | January 04, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Great ideas. Too bad it won’t happen. Ron Paul will be remembered like whatshisname, that other old little Texan, Ross…….
Where would we get 9 trillion dollars worth of gold?
The United States government will spend, in one year’s time, a sum equivalent to the current value of all the gold in the world. That is, all the gold that has been discovered and mined, every single nugget and grain, since the dawn of mankind – the equivalent in dollar value of all that gold will be spent by the federal government in a twelve-month span.
http://www.onlygold.com/articles/ayr_2007/Spending_All_the_Gold_in_the_World.asp
Keep on denying his voting record Sol and try to attack me for simply presenting the facts. I guess you are just throwing your typical temper tantrum when proven wrong.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html
“all that gold will be spent by the federal government in a twelve-month span.”
Re-read the post. The first thing I said was to drastically cut spending.
Suppose a group estimates that ’something’ will be between 30 and 70 (midpoint=50)
Later, they issue an narrowed estimate of between 40 and 60 (midpoint still=50)
Would you claim that they “reduced” their estimate?
The nitwit Hank does.
“…but since then, the figure has continued to be reduced by ‘experts.’”
Posted by: Hank | January 04, 2008 at 01:38 AM
From the 2007 IPCC report, (TAR = IPCC’s 2001 report)
“Model-based projections of global average sea level rise at the end of the 21st century (2090–2099) are shown in Table SPM.3
For each scenario, the midpoint of the range in Table SPM.3 is within 10% of the TAR model average for 2090–2099. The ranges are narrower than in the TAR mainly because of improved information about some uncertainties in the projected contributions.
Models used to date do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, because a basis in published literature is lacking.”
Translation — the models underestimate the rise.
The 2007 graph also has a very significant point:
“Model-based range excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow”.
“Let’s see, in 2000 the top 1% of tax payors paid 37% of the income tax.
In 2006 they paid 39%.
One or two more ‘tax cuts for the rich’ and they’ll be paying it all!”
Well they do hold 40% of the nation’s wealth.
You’re right Hank, eventually they will have 90% of the wealth/income and pay 90% of the taxes. That’s the Republicans idea of fair taxation.
Re-read the post. The first thing I said was to drastically cut spending.
Posted by: SolDevVB | January 04, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Re-read the post. You can’t buy 9 trillion dollars in gold.
“Re-read the post. You can’t buy 9 trillion dollars in gold.”
But what about Ron Paul’s plan to organize a nationwide lephrechan hunt to get all their gold.
Doug
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296
Deny his voting record? Hell no. Here are some more links. Please actually READ them. Read the bills he voted on/sponsored. I’m damn proud that SOMEONE votes according to the constitution.
Who is it you support Doug? Do they have a 100% record of no flip flopping? Do they vote by the constitution? Deny it? Hell I’ll kick your ass with it. So c’mon Doug, who do you support?
TypePad won’t let me post them all. I’ll do it one at a time. Give you a chance to read the actual bill instead of someone’s blog. Is this how you research Doug? Someone else’s blog?
http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000583/
So banning flag burning is an example of libertarian values and support for free speech. What ever, he’s a kook and a flip flopper.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000583/votes/
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-voting-record-defends-the-constitution.html
http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/400311_ronald_paul
Sol, the blog simply presented the facts. You can get his voting record from congressional sources (which the blog did). So your ad hominem argument is pathetic, just like Ron Paul.
Posted by: Doug | January 04, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Prove it.
Whom do you support Doug? Too ashamed to say?
Whom do you support Doug? Too ashamed to say?
Posted by: SolDevVB | January 04, 2008 at 11:40 AM
‘Scientists: We’ve Entered a New Epoch, the Anthropocene’
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=4074374&page=1
“We humans are having such a dramatic impact on our planet that some leading scientists think the current era needs a new name. We’re no longer in the Holocene epoch, they say. We’re now well into what they are calling the Anthropocene.”
The problem is Doug, you failed to read the bills and you seem to fail to understand how this country was founded. The constitution pretty much lays it out. I think you will be hard pressed to show how any of the bills are unconstitutional. Please try.
Abolishing the fed:
Read for yourselves, though it is seeming more and more, y’all are more willing to parrot the talking heads than do your own research.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul292.html
So cosmos, how much do the tables predict the sea level rise will be by 2099?
How does that compare with Algore’s documentary predictions?
Just wondering.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002b.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/200207paul.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
So your ad hominem argument is pathetic, just like Ron Paul.
Posted by: Doug | January 04, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Doug,
Can you please show where any of the blog’s reports on Ron Paul show that Dr. Paul has acted against the constitution?
Ah Phantom,
Typical liberal nitwitery. The tax codes don’t tax wealth. They tax income.
The wealthy don’t pay taxes.
The problem is Sol you don’t even read the pages you link to.
Other “libertarian” views of Ron Paul.
Banning adoptions for gays
Forced prayer in school
Banning abortion
Supports taxpayer support for religious schools
Voted in favor of allowing corporations to pollute the environment
Voted in favor of increased government survellience of American citizens without oversight
Supported wasting billions on SDI
And so on and so on. Just another big corporate Republican. Quit whining, accept the facts.
“Doug,
Can you please show where any of the blog’s reports on Ron Paul show that Dr. Paul has acted against the constitution?”
Are you familiar with the 1st and 14th Amendment?
Doug,
Flag burning —
Did you read anything on this?
“Here we are, amending the Constitution for a noncrisis. How many cases of flag burning have we seen? I have seen it on television a few times in the last year, but it was done on foreign soil, by foreigners, who had become angry at us over our policies, but I do not see that many Americans in the streets burning up flags. There were probably a lot more in previous decades, but in recent years it averages out to about eight, about eight cases a year, and they are not all that horrendous. It involves more vandalism, teenagers taking flags and desecrating the flag and maybe burning it, and there are local laws against that.
This is all so unnecessary. There are already laws against vandalism. There are state laws that say they cannot do it and they can be prosecuted. So this is overkill. ”
So he voted against an amendment to ban flag burning. What source do you have Doug that states Dr. Paul supports amending the constitution to flag burning?
Are you familiar with the 1st and 14th Amendment?
Posted by: Doug | January 04, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Yup
14th Amendment
“It was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868″
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:h.j.res.80:
The sponsor is listed as Ron Paul. Was there some other Ron Paul who was promoting legislation to ban the burning of the flag? You’re the only one claiming that it had to be a change to the Constitution.
Good job Sol, you can cut and paste something, now can you apply it to the rights of gays to adopt children which is a right other citizens enjoy?
“So cosmos, how much do the tables predict the sea level rise will be by 2099?
How does that compare with Algore’s documentary predictions?”
Posted by: Hank Price | January 04, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Dear Hank Price,
Are you such a nitwit that you can’t understand that Gore’s hypothetical “if”, with NO time given, does not “compare” with the 2099 projections?
It compares to this, from the IPCC,
“If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m.
The corresponding future temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when palaeoclimatic information suggests reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise.”
http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm
“Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)”
http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm#2003-234
Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration.
Desecration of Flag resolution: Vote to pass the joint resolution to put forward a Constitutional amendment to state that Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. Note: A two-thirds majority vote of those present and voting (284 in this case) is required to pass a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution.
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296
06/22/2005 Flag Desecration Resolution
N
06/03/2003 Desecration of Flag resolution
N
07/17/2001 Flag Desecration resolution
N
06/24/1999 Flag Desecration Amendment
N
06/12/1997 Flag Desecration Constitutional Amendment
N
I must have missed it Doug, whom is it that you support?
Yet there is still this, and I can point to another one if you like:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:h.j.res.80:
Keep on denying the facts Sol.
Well, here’s the change to the Constitution that you wanted Sol.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HJ00082:
Who sponsored it? Oh, that would be Ron Paul but just keep on denying the facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded “I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want.”[
Same-sex adoption
On 1999 House appropriations bill H.R. 2587, for the government of the District of Columbia, Paul voted for four different amendments to prohibit federal funding.[158].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
He voted against federal funding Doug. Get a clue. The more you try to slander him, the better he looks. Keep it up.
Can your candidate handle this scrutiny? Do tell Doug, whom do you support?
“Let’s see, in 2000 the top 1% of tax payors paid 37% of the income tax.
In 2006 they paid 39%.
One or two more ‘tax cuts for the rich’ and they’ll be paying it all!”
Well they do hold 40% of the nation’s wealth.
Posted by: Doug | January 04, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Ahh, the true agenda of Socialist Democrats.
It’s not enough that the Socialists beggers take 97% of the income tax revenues from the top 50% of wage earners.
Doug points out the next goal is to take from the Assets of the upper half, in addition to taking their Income.
Look for a Personal Property or Asset Tax to be proposed by the Socialist Democrats should they gain even more power in the 08 elections.
You see, stealing Income is a relatively slow wait to redistribute wealth.
But if you steal Personal Property (ie. Assets) in addition to Income, then you can equalize everybody much faster!
Posted by: Doug | January 04, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Please show where he has voted for amending the constitution to ban flag burning.
Please show where Dr. Paul has voted to take away rights of homosexuals.
Please show where Dr. Paul has voted to take away any rights granted under the constitution.
Whom do you support Doug? Your silence is deafening.
President Signs H.J.Res. 81 and H.J.Res. 82
White House News
On Thursday, April 13, 2006, the President signed into law:
H.J.Res. 81, which provides for the appointment of Phillip Frost as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution; and
H.J.Res. 82, which provides for the reappointment of Alan G. Spoon as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060413-6.html
Try this Doug,
I’m not trying to be Ron Paul’s advocate but, still, outright distortions and smears are distortions and smears. In an otherwise informative and legitimate (and widely-cited) post today about Paul’s record in Congress, Dave Neiwert claims:
Even though he claims to be a “libertarian”, he opposes people’s freedom to burn or destroy their own copies of the design of the U.S. flag.
He then links to two bills which Paul introduced in Congress which would, in essence, amend the Constitution in order to allow prohibitions on flag burning.
But Neiwert’s claim here is, in one respect, completely misleading and, in another respect, outright false (in both cases, I assume the error is unintentional). Unlike Hillary Clinton — the Democratic Party front-runner who, “along with Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican, introduced a bill that would make flag burning illegal” — Ron Paul was and is vehemently against any and all laws to criminalize flag burning, including the constitutional amendment he introduced. He introduced that amendment solely to make a point — one he makes frequently — that the legislation being offered to criminalize flag burning was plainly unconstitutional, and that the only legitimate way to ban flag burning was to amend the First Amendment.
Indeed, he only introduced those flag-burning amendments in order to dare his colleagues who wanted to pass a law banning flag burning to do it that way — i.e., the constitutional way. When introducing his amendments, he delivered an eloquent and impassioned speech on the floor of the House explaining why he considered anti-flag-burning measures to be “very unnecessary and very dangerous.” And he urged his colleagues to vote against them, including the ones he introduced:
As for my viewpoint, I see the amendment as very unnecessary and very dangerous. I want to make a few points along those lines.
It has been inferred too often by those who promote this amendment that those who oppose it are less patriotic, and I think that is unfair. . . .
It has also been said that if one does not support this amendment to the flag that they are disloyal to the military, and that cannot possibly be true. I have served 5 years in the military, and I do not feel less respectful of the military because I have a different interpretation on how we should handle the flag. But nevertheless, I think what we are doing here is very serious business because it deals with more than just the flag.
First off, I think what we are trying to achieve through an amendment to the Constitution is to impose values on people — that is, teach people patriotism with our definition of what patriotism is. But we cannot force values on people; we cannot say there will be a law that a person will do such and such because it is disrespectful if they do not, and therefore, we are going to make sure that people have these values that we want to teach.
Values in a free society are accepted voluntarily, not through coercion, and certainly not by law, because the law implies that there are guns, and that means the federal government and others will have to enforce these laws.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/
Doug?
Whom do you support? Have you found anything unconstitutional with Dr. Paul? Would you like to put your candidate under the same scrutiny? Betcha don’t.
Can’t get the estate tax back fast enough to suit me Kansasmax.
People who die with more than a 5 million dollar estate SHOULD have their assets taxed. They lived their lives making money on the backs of others. Perfectly reasonable they should give back.
“Please show where he has voted for amending the constitution to ban flag burning.”
He did. Ron Paul’s strategy is a little different. He wanted to give the STATES the right to ban flag burning and the Congress the right to regulate the behavior. It is not the typical flag burning amendment, but it is an amendment.
I know you are a huge Ron Paul fanboy, Sol, and indeed you are not along. You probably see Paul’s efforts as consistent with the constitution.
I do not. Paul is a “state’s rights” libertarian, which is one of the groups of libertarians I find to be the most creepy (although I really don’t like any of them, even the best of them have a naive view of human nature and politics similar to, even though diametically opposed to, American communists). Libertarians like Paul see states as having more responsive governments to their people, but that is a two way street. The legally enforced segregation of the American south is a likely result of such “state’s rights” politics. In a democratic republican form of government, tyranny is often more likely to come from smaller units of government, where obsessive and angry majorities can get their way more efficiently in state governments than national governments. I therefore find the intent of Ron Paul’s flag amendment to be utterly chilling.
I already did Sol, you just chose to ignore it.
H. J. RES. 78
Oh yes, and the two bills that Ron Paul sponsored to ban flag burning. I don’t know why you keep on ignoring those Sol. Clearly you are so deluded by your Paul worship you just can’t see the facts. If you could see the facts then you wouldn’t be a Ron Paul fan. But oh well, seems you are a lost cause.
I wonder if Obama can keep the racists and bigots at bay …. lot more of them than we would like to admit …. only way he could minimize the possibility of some one shooting him would be to make Hillary his VP ……
Posted by: ken | January 04, 2008 at 09:52 AM
Ken,
I could see some white arian republican trying to shoot Obama. If Obama gets the nod, look for republicans to show their true racist leanings.
Posted by: XXX
There are as many racists Democraties as Repubies. Boston was the scene of some of the worst race problems and still is. NIMBY is still SOP for Boston. They love black people as long as they have to live next door.
I agree, I thought Hillary would make a good running mate until I thought about how long Pres. Obama would live if he chose her. She would probably wait until he had serve 2 years and 1 day so she could be Pres. for 10 years instead of only 2 terms.
Obama/Sebellius would be nice, a double for Kansas. She is highly regarded nationally.
“Can’t get the estate tax back fast enough to suit me Kansasmax.”
This is not appropriate. I do not like Max’s politics much at all. I think his obsession with the “horrors” of wealth redistribution to be an extremely petty issue. However, from everythig I have read Max is sincere. Just because he argues for a form of conservative politics you find extremely distasteful is no reason to add the name of a troll to his. Max is no troll. He says what he thinks, and he really doesn’t go for cheapshots (his dismissal of generic “libs” or “democrats” notwithstanding).
KSAg
That isn’t true. Here is the text…
“Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
`Article –
`SECTION 1. The States shall have power to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and Congress shall have the power to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.’.”
He called their bluff just like with the Iraq war.
Check this out…
“Rep. Paul did exactly the same thing with the invasion of Iraq, which he opposed. He argued (accurately) that the only constitutional method for Congress to authorize the President to invade another country was to declare war on that country. The Constitution does not allow the Congress to “authorize” military force without a war declaration. Rep. Paul thus introduced a Declaration of War in the House on the ground that such a Declaration was constitutionally required to invade Iraq — and he then proceeded to vote against the AUMF (because, unlike Hillary Clinton, he actually opposed the invasion). Thus, saying that Paul wants to outlaw flag burning (as Neiwert’s post does) — or that he supported the war in Iraq — is just false.”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/
Doug,
How did Dr. Paul vote on his own bill?
So one more time Doug, whom do you support?
Since Obama is in D.C. does Ron Paul consider him one of those criminals because he’s Black or does he fall into that 5% which Ron Paul doesn’t view as criminal?
Sol, are you a racist for Ron Paul or just a regular Ron Paul supporter?
If the bill didn’t make it to vote Sol then he couldn’t have voted on it. Clearly you are ignoring the huge fact that he is the one who sponsored the two bills. Your desperation is showing, it’s just pathetic.
“From John F. Kennedy:”
Posted by: Max | January 04, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Well looky looky… Max is pushing old RNC/Rush Limbaugh spin.
‘JUST LIKE AL SAID! Russert pushed them RNC points. Somebody go wake Fred Barnes!
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120202.shtml
Dr. Paul wanted to amend the constitution to ban flag burning, yet he voted AGAINST such legislation FIVE times.
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296
06/22/2005 Flag Desecration Resolution
N
06/03/2003 Desecration of Flag resolution
N
07/17/2001 Flag Desecration resolution
N
06/24/1999 Flag Desecration Amendment
N
06/12/1997 Flag Desecration Constitutional Amendment
N
Your ignorance is showing Doug. And the racist remark? The last throws of a dying argument.
Your shame is also showing Doug. Whom is it that you support?
You’ve already been refuted Sol. I’m bored with your temper tantrum and will find something more interesting to do like clip my toenails.
Why so ashamed Doug? You’ve been digging for dirt for hours and you still come up empty. Whom do you support Doug?
Oh, and those interested in Ron Paul’s racism (facts that Sol will deny)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740
100% kook.
You can’t face defeat with dignity Doug. Beaten and pull out some racism tripe.
Whom do you support doug?
Yawn. Sniff, sniff. I smell Sol’s desperation. Ah, the smell of a loser. How pathetic. Keep on wearing that tin foil hat Sol.
Oh, and those interested in Ron Paul’s racism (facts that Sol will deny)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740
100% kook.
Posted by: Doug | January 04, 2008 at 12:34 PM
That has already been debunked. That was written by a staffer whom was promptly fired.
Strike… damn, what are you up to now Doug? 10? 12?
Whom do you support Doug? Your shame is DRIPPING !!!!
Yawn. Sniff, sniff. I smell Sol’s desperation. Ah, the smell of a loser. How pathetic. Keep on wearing that tin foil hat Sol.
Posted by: Doug | January 04, 2008 at 12:36 PM
LOL
You’re pretty funny Doug. None of your mud sticks and you STILL won’t say whom you support.
LOL.
Oh now with the name calling. Now THERE is a debate tactic. Kinda shows who you are Doug.
…only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions…I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
-Ron Paul Political Report approved by Ron Paul. Do people normally associate their name to things they disapprove of? I guess Paul couldn’t have taken the time to review 8 pages (his entire newsletter). Yeah, his views about Blacks isn’t his only extremist view. No wonder the Report was popular amongst racists and conspiracy nuts.
Put that tin foil hat on tighter Sol, there may be a Black man in the White House.
Doug –
Ron Paul wants to ban flag burning…
Ron Paul –
Voted AGAINST it 5 times
Doug –
Ron Paul bans gay adoption
Ron Paul –
Voted AGAINST FEDERAL FUNDING of said adoptions
Doug—
Ron Paul is racist
Ron Paul – fired staffer
Doug – Can’t make anything stick
Doug – To ashamed of his preferred candidate to declare.
Here’s a couple of libertarians take on flag burning http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETiXXf0ZqRQ and would say it does seem Ron Paul’s idea of libertarianism is for the states to have the right to take away freedoms instead of the federal government.
OK. So who do you support Doug. I’ve falsified every single one of your claims and yet you can’t answer a single question — Whom does Doug support?
“There is no such thing as a hate crime, only crimes against person and property.”
“…University of Texas affirmative action law professor Barbara Jordan is a fraud. Everything from her imitation British accent, to her supposed expertise in law, to her distinguished career in public service, is made up. If there were ever a modern case of the empress without clothes, this is it. She is the archetypical half-educated victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism.”
Who said these racist encoded phrases? None other than Sol’s racist buddy Ron Paul. The same guy who thinks 95% of Blacks in D.C. are criminals because they are Black.
Hey Sol, what’s that fired staffer’s name?
Posted by: Tom Paine | January 04, 2008 at 12:44 PM
I can’t get to youtube from here.
Take away rights? No state can redact what is guaranteed by the constitution.
What Dr. Paul wants is for the Federal Government to stay out of the State’s laws as much as possible. If you recall, that is what is demanded in the constitution.
All of Ron Paul’s racist tirade:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5
Psst, don’t tell Sol, he’ll throw another temper tantrum.
Whom do you support Doug?
Who is that fired staffer Sol?
BTW, anything that has been written that was attached to my name which is later proven to be wrong was not written by me, it was written by one of my anonymous staffers and he has been fired as a result and replaced with a different anonymous staff.
Doug,
You’ve been falsified sooo much. Tell you what; you tell me whom you support and I’ll try to get that name for you.
Why so ashamed Doug? Be PROUD of whom you support.
Be PROUD Doug.
Sol, I like a lot of Dr Paul says however is does come across as naive of many issues especially foreign policy, the bigger question is who do you support when he doesn’t get nominated which Ill bet that he doesn’t.
Be PROUD Doug. Don’t be ashamed of whom you support.
Poor Sol, so desperate he’s trying to change the subject since he can’t defend Ron Paul’s racism. Waa waa, that’s you crying.
who do you support when he doesn’t get nominated which Ill bet that he doesn’t.
Posted by: Tom Paine | January 04, 2008 at 12:53 PM
That is a tough damn call Tom. The Libertarian party has not declared a contender. I’ll have to wait and see whom they pick.
I’m not opposed to voting Democratic, I’d just rather see someone honest in the oval office.
Doug,
You’ve been falsified sooo much. Tell you what; you tell me whom you support and I’ll try to get that name for you.
Why so ashamed Doug? Be PROUD of whom you support.
Posted by: SolDevVB | January 04, 2008 at 12:52 PM
BE PROUD DOUG !!!
Don’t be ashamed of your candidate!!!
“Waa waa.” -Sol, supporter of racists.
LOL,
Doug, does it suck to be ashamed of your candidate.
Give me a second and I’ll get you some excerpts from Paul on racism. In the meantime, how abut you dig up some things on where YOUR candidate stands on Racism.
By the way Doug, can you find a single vote in Dr. Paul’s record that might be racist?
BE PROUD Doug !! Be PROUD of whom you support.
BTW, I’m supporting the only Republican truly endorsed by God.
http://www.archangelmichael.info/
Michael Jesus Archangel. He has a sword and a website with a lot of fabulous colors.
Oh Sol, are you seriously saying that racists can’t only be racist if they vote racist? Goodness, you are so utterly pathetic. I mean you are totally outclassing Econ101 and Nathan for levels of absurdity. You are such a joke but then again, you are choosing a candidate that represents that. Are you a racist too Sol or will you argue you aren’t because you’ve never voted that way.
Laughable.
Be proud doug.
Here’s a little bone Doug,
“The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were “60 miles away” from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices. At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics. He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian.
“This was a big operation,” says one source. “And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.”
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822
BE PROUD DOUG!!! BE PROUD!!!
Another little bone,
“This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.
Says one source, “Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.”
Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken “moral” responsibility for them. ”
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822
BE PROUD DOUG !!!
Whom do you support? Surely they are ‘cleaner’ than Dr. No.
Be proud Doug. State your claim.
Be proud Doug. Don’t be ashamed of your candidate Doug!!!
What’s wrong? Why won’t you share who you support?
So Sol, you are arguing that Ron Paul couldn’t fulfill his job as editor, writer and publisher of his own newsletter but he’ll be competent as President even though he hasn’t mastered the concept of fax machines and the mail service.
Michael Jesus Archangel in 2008! Unlike Ron Paul he’s not a racist because he loves all of God’s children.
It must suck to be ashamed Doug. Truly, is your candidate so bad that you can’t acknowledge his/her name?
And if a ghost writter and not proofing a news letter is the best dirt you can find, I am just dying to hear whom you support.
Keep bobbing, keep weaving. Live with your embarrassment.
“The overwhelming media response to recent remarks by Senator Trent Lott shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
In the aftermath of the Lott debacle, we must not allow the term “states’ rights” to be smeared and distorted into code words for segregationist policies or racism. States’ rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution. Most of the worst excesses of big government can be traced to a disregard for states’ rights, which means a disregard for the Ninth and Tenth amendments. The real reason liberals hate the concept of states’ right has nothing to do with racism, but rather reflects a hostility toward anything that would act as a limit on the power of the federal government.”
Dr. Paul
Sound’s a lot like Doug’s bitches. Not enough big government.
Go Doug Go !!! Go Doug Go!!!
So who is it that you support Doug?
Sol,
When you find the term “state’s rights” in the US Constitution, please paste it in.
I’ll wait.
“Yet it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. The federal government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. Americans know that factors other than merit in the free market often play a part in the success of some, and this leads to resentment and hostility between us.
Still, the left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, always implying of course that southern states are full of bigoted rednecks who would oppress minorities if not for the watchful eye of Washington. They ignore, however, the incredible divisiveness created by their collectivist big-government policies.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.”
Dr. Paul
Sol, Michael Archangel is filed to run as a Republican for the 2008 Presidential election and he’s the Republican I support. I know you can’t deal with facts (must be something that racists have a problem with).
Funny, this fired staffer is a ghost writer. Both sound imaginary. At least Hucklebee isn’t a racist but perhaps that turned you off from him.
C’mon Sol, be proud and admit you are a racist. C’mon, can’t you do it?
“Sol,
“When you find the term “state’s rights” in the US Constitution, please paste it in.
“I’ll wait.”
I second the request.
BTW, Doug’s apparently not being a fanboy for a candidate does not disqualify him from commenting on the merits of your candidate. I know what Ron Paul says. I remember him from his PREVIOUS run for president.
Intent with regards to state’s rights is irrelevant. The reality of the matter is, if an individual lives in a state under Ron Paul’s theory of government, then the Bill of Rights doesn’t do him/her a whole lot of good if the state he/she lives in can disregard them. The fourteenth amendment was a vitally needed correction to the constitution.
Goodness Sol can’t you give the Ron Paul thing a rest! All morning and now afternoon?
Are you paid to post for him?
It would be nice to hear comments on any of the top contenders from either party and last night.
But wasting space and time on someone coming up lower than whale shit in the polls, is just a waste of time Sol.
If you haven’t convinced Doug to support your guy by now – don’t you think you never will?
You’ve given it your best shot. Your guy had the same chance as anyone else (except on Fox no spin).
Give it a rest.
If you need me to collect your paycheck from the Ron Paul Committee, give me their email address. I’ll write em and tell em how busy and loyal you were today.
Now, anyone want to talk about someone who might win the presidency?
How about that loser Hillary? Were there not enough minority voters in Iowa to capture her a win?
Edwards and Obama both made comments about “greedy corporations”. I don’t agree with that label, but I’d like one of their supporters to tell me:
If elected as president, “What exactly will Edwards or Obama do legislatively or using executive powers – to “punish” the evil corporations?
Huckleberry won’t win in NH, so where does that leave his momentum?
A federation (Latin: foedus, covenant) is a union comprising a number of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (”federal”) government. In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states is typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of the central government.
Oh, I did not realize the laws of our nation were founded by a dictionary. Thanks for enlightening us all about that Sol.
Sol, there was a reason why the Articles of Confederation were rejected in favor of a federal constitutional republic.
Tom’s challenge still stands.
Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Sol,
I’m still waiting for the “state’s rights” clause of the US Constitution.
:::crickets:::
That just about sums it up fellas.
:::crickets:::
Posted by: Tom | January 04, 2008 at 01:43 PM
Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People
Sol,
There’s nothing there about states having “rights.” It’s all about “POWERS.” It’s right there, on my monitor and yours.
There’s a HUGE difference between “rights” and “powers.”
Rights, according to the Founders, are inalienable and bestowed by the creator (whichever creator you choose to have faith in).
“Powers” are limited, and *granted* to states by the consent of the *governed.* And in our US Constitution, states must limit their powers to those permitted by the Constitution, and by the citizens of those states.
Furthermore…
The Framers understood the difference between “rights” and “powers,” as evidenced when the 10th Amendment is read in context with the 9th Amendment:
Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So if a right or power is not clearly outlined in the constitution, it is left up to the States to decide. Furthermore, the state has no right nor power to detract what is granted under the constitution. So what is your point?
Ksagnostic
Now you know I would not be unfair.
I got some suspicions. Check out last nights comments on the space thread. Hey I could be wrong.
Sol,
You’re incorrect. The 9th Amendment guarantees that unlisted (”enumerated”) rights can’t be violated any more than the listed ones.
The powers granted in the 10th Amendment are done in a limited way, in the context of the preceding Articles and Amendments, and are further restricted by the 14th Amendment.
By jove! I’ve found it! “States Rights”!
It’s right next to “Separation of Church and State” in the constitution.
nimrod
Sol,
I’m still waiting for the “state’s rights” clause of the US Constitution.
:::crickets:::
Posted by: Tom | January 04, 2008 at 01:43 PM
Gay rights aren’t in the constitution either.
:D
There is the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment. Rights which apply to heterosexuals apply to homosexuals as well according to the 14th Amendment.
Glob-of-sewer-slime AKA Lying Troll:
Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Hank,
Even after all this discussion, and all the postings directly from the Constitution, are you still confused on the difference between “state power” and “individual rights”?
:::sigh::: Conservatism in America is dead.
Conservatism may be dead but ignorance is not. The ignorant just adopted the label conservative.
Glob-of-sewer-slime AKA Lying Troll:
Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Posted by: Tom | January 04, 2008 at 01:59 PM
I’m still waiting for the “gay rights” clause of the US Constitution.
:::crickets:::
Can’t get the estate tax back fast enough to suit me Kansasmax.
JR
Well J R, you continue to attack and label Max.
Where is the good Capn? Isn’t it about time for him to jump in and support your troll outing adventure?
You need to grow up and stop this nonsense. I don’t want the weblog growing with threads where you and Capn fill the blog with attacking others as you did Kansas (regardless of their opinions).
It would be real nice if you just apologized to Max.
But that will be the day.
The ignorant just adopted the label conservative.
Posted by: Doug | January 04, 2008 at 02:02 PM
BTW, I’m supporting the only Republican truly endorsed by God.
http://www.archangelmichael.info/
Michael Jesus Archangel. He has a sword and a website with a lot of fabulous colors.
Posted by: Doug | January 04, 2008 at 01:01 PM
So self labeled, Doug is ignorant.
Khan, rights are given to all people of the United States. You might have missed that in the Constitution. (It’s in the 14th Amendment in case you missed it).
Sol, so I’m not supporting Michael Archangel as the Republican candidate? Where’s your evidence for that?
Here is a New Year’s Resolution that all the Libs will enjoy.
I will stop blogging forever.
Primarily because I will be busy from obligations.
That, and the Libs here on the blog will not be able to use me as a target.
Nothing a Lib fears more than not knowing what the other side is up to.
The unknown will absolutely kill them.
Posted by: Kansas | December 24, 2007 at 07:20 PM
When you break your promise and don’t “stop blogging forever,” will you then admit that you are a liar?
Posted by: CapnAmerica | December 28, 2007 at 12:19 AM
I won’t be here to make such a statement Capn.
So, get over yourself, you’ll have to spew out your angst against something or someone else.
Posted by: Kansas | December 28, 2007 at 12:27 AM
*****
Let the record show, the poster KHAN above is the same poster who as Kansas declared unequivocally and without duress that he would “stop blogging forever.”
I hope you enjoy seeing this message, JM-RepubliKhansas, because you’re going to see it every day that you post as long as I read this WEBlog . . .
Khan, rights are given to all people of the United States. You might have missed that in the Constitution. (It’s in the 14th Amendment in case you missed it).
Posted by: Doug | January 04, 2008 at 02:06 PM
Show where being a butt pirate is mentioned in the Constitution.
Doug,
MAN you are slow.
The ignorant just adopted the label conservative.
Posted by: Doug | January 04, 2008 at 02:02 PM
BTW, I’m supporting the only Republican truly endorsed by God.
http://www.archangelmichael.info/
Michael Jesus Archangel. He has a sword and a website with a lot of fabulous colors.
Posted by: Doug | January 04, 2008 at 01:01 PM
So self labeled, Doug is ignorant.
Posted by: SolDevVB | January 04, 2008 at 02:06 PM
Let the record show, the poster KHAN above is the same poster who as Kansas declared unequivocally and without duress that he would “stop blogging forever.”
I hope you enjoy seeing this message, JM-RepubliKhansas, because you’re going to see it every day that you post as long as I read this WEBlog . . .
Posted by: CapnAmerica | January 04, 2008 at 02:15 PM
Can’t you give it a rest CapnAmerica?
Sol has been reduced to repeating himself. I really shouldn’t waste my time with those who support racists.
Dear WEBlog editors—
Thank you for setting up this public blog in which readers can post their views. It is an excellent concept.
But in practice, it needs serious improvement.
As it is now, a poster can steal people’s nicknames and seem to make them say things totally contrary to their beliefs. This has resulted in many misunderstandings and angry responses.
A poster can use a variety of nicknames and seem to be more than one person. Because nic-switching is so easy, any check on the truth of what a “pop-up” poster is saying is virtually impossible.
Racial, ethnic and homophobic slurs of the most vile nature are hurled with impunity. Some posters have even followed through on trying to meet another who has offended them . . . and it wasn’t to shake hands.
We believe the ONLY way to address the problem is some kind of registration. For instance, if post-ers were required to provide a real e-mail address (not a free web address such as yahoo or hotmail), The Eagle could insure that only one user name would be registered for each e-mail account.
Areas of particular concern are as follows:
-Name stealing trolls
-One user posting under multiple ID’s
-Racist / sexist / homophobic language
-Threats of “payback” in real life
-Threats of violence or harm
-Demands to meet “in person”
-Violations of privacy or confidentiality
We request that the Eagle look into a way the problems stated above can be corrected.
We the undersigned have opted to boycott the WEBlog as a demonstration of our desire for change in the way the WEBlog is managed. We look forward to time when the WEBlog can be as edifying and educational as it was meant to be.
Sincerely,
Tracy, WSClark, Mary Caruso, WichiWoman, KSFrmGrrl, Steven Davis, gdub, Ben Huie, XXX, .morg, CapnAmerica, gster, Julie, CF, mrcontroversy, RD, lindainks
Posted by: Fists of Freedom | March 14, 2007 at 09:14 AM
The above written by CraponAmerica, with most of his own objections have been repeatedly violated by the Crapn.
“Show where being a butt pirate is mentioned in the Constitution.”
Piracy is mentioned in the Constitution, but “states rights” aren’t.
Show me where cuddly puppies is mentioned in the Constitution.
Posted by: ***KHAN*** | January 04, 2008 at 02:04 PM
Posted by: Kansas II | January 04, 2008 at 02:05 PM
Posted by: flappy-headed Lib | January 04, 2008 at 02:15 PM
Do not feed the trolls and various sock-puppets.
Sol has been reduced to repeating himself.
Posted by: Doug | January 04, 2008 at 02:18 PM
Doug,
If you could comprehend it the first time, I wouldn’t have to repeat myself. Reduced to repeating myself due to Doug’s inability to read.
I really shouldn’t waste my time with those who support racists.
Posted by: Doug | January 04, 2008 at 02:18 PM
And doug is too ashamed to declare his candidate. What a bafoon.
Hey Crapn,
How come you are violating your own objections and rules?
Doesn’t that make you the blog’s biggest hypocrite?
I think it does.
-Name stealing trolls – Crapn does it
-One user posting under multiple ID’s – Crapn does it
-Racist / sexist / homophobic language – Crapn does it
-Threats of “payback” in real life
Crapn does it
-Threats of violence or harm
Crapn does it
-Demands to meet “in person”
Crapn does it
-Violations of privacy or confidentiality
Crapn does it.
Well, well, there it is – CraponAmerica is officially the blog’s biggest liar, hypocrite and troll.
Can’t you give it a rest CapnAmerica?
Posted by: American Way
No way, AmWay.
The TROLL did it to himself. No one made him declare that he would “stop blogging forever,” but once he said it, he should be bound to it.
Or seen by all as what he is–a f***ing liar with no shame.
I’m starting to wonder just how many posters Kansas is responsible for.
The forum has always been majority Dem. Maybe he felt like making more than one addition to the con population….
Have a good weeknd guys —
Safety Brief:
Don’t drink and drive.
If you drink, don’t drive.
Avoid lubricants and power tools.
Avoid lubricants and small farm animals.
Be safe.
I notice that no one even bothers to ask JMRepubliKhansas to stop what he does.
No use to ask a leopard to change its spots . . .
DNFTT.
Interesting info from my friends at the statehouse I thought I’d share:
2008 State of the State Address
Production and Speech Information
The production of the governor’s State of the State Address is provided by Kansas Public Telecommunications Service (KPTS-TV). The January 14, 2008 address will be broadcast live on Kansas-based public television stations statewide. The broadcast will begin at 7:00 p.m. with Governor Kathleen Sebelius starting the address at 7:05 p.m. House Speaker Melvin Neufeld will give the legislative message following the governor’s address.
Tim Brown and Jennifer Schmidt will host the broadcast. Caption Services of Kansas, LLC, will provide closed captioning.
A press-box with multiple outlets will be available to television stations who wish to capture KPTS’ feed. There is also a mult-box in the House Chamber with additional outlets.
If you do not already have your press credentials for the 2008 Legislative Session, please contact the Office of the Speaker of the House.
Media must have their equipment in place, inside the House Chamber, prior to 5:00 p.m. From 5:00 p.m. until immediately before the speech, the chamber will be closed for security purposes. Media will have reserved parking at bagged meters on 10th Avenue. The Capitol Police must be notified if you are bringing a satellite truck to the Capitol. Sgt. Derrick Mahoney of the Capitol Police can be contacted for any questions concerning security or parking at 785.291.3039.
Kansans can also listen to the governor’s address on Kansas Public Radio. KPR is offering its broadcast to other public radio stations through a satellite feed. WIBW 580 Radio and Kansas Information Network affiliates will also cover the speech.
On the internet, the speech can be heard live at http://www.governor.ks.gov. The text of the speech will be posted on the governor’s website at http://www.governor.ks.gov/news/NewsRelease/default.htm.
The governor’s budget will be available Tuesday, January 15th, 2008.
You leave the blog permanently Crapn and I will.
Till then, you won’t enjoy any safe harbor and I will never leave you alone.
bbl – have to drop some letters in the mail
(chortles)
I notice that no one even bothers to ask JMRepubliKhansas to stop what he does.
No use to ask a leopard to change its spots . . .
Posted by: CapnAmerica | January 04, 2008 at 02:28 PM
Quit whining boy and just leave the blog or face the consequences
Re: KHAN
DNFTT
Why bother with something that has completely discredited itself?
Why bother with something that has completely discredited itself?
Posted by: ksagnostic | January 04, 2008 at 02:31 PM
Agreed, the Crapn has completely discredited himself.
CraponAmerica
WE.BLOG.WORST.POSTER.EVER.
Oh now he’s doing the blackmail thing again.
How many nics are you responsible for “kansas”?
Can there be any doubt that if JMRepubliKhansas had anything to “out” me with, he would have posted it by now?
Just like he did when he posted a link to KSFrmGrrl’s picture or the nastiness with Ken’s browsing history . . .
Payback is indeed just what you said it is . . .
Well Capn see what you started? If you would just stop posting about him, maybe he will stop acting the way he apparently is.
I was giving Kansas the benefit of the doubt. I didn’t suspect these latest posts by Khan
Still, Capn if you are a better person, please let’s stop this.
You leave the blog permanently Crapn and I will.
Till then, you won’t enjoy any safe harbor and I will never leave you alone.
bbl – have to drop some letters in the mail
(chortles)
Posted by: ***KHAN*** |
Above post reported to the editors.
Okay, AmWay, fair enough.
You asked politely, and you got it.
bbl-I have to whine to Brownlee.
DNFTT.
Posted by: Tom
Tom, it appears the trolls like to feed each other, and get some kind of perverse thrill in doing so. There is always the offchance Kansas is CapnAmerica, but I doubt it. I have complained to the WEBlog about the troll issue, but they do not respond.
I suspect if enough people stopped feeding all the trolls, they would permanently leave since they usually want the attention or enjoy disrupting the site. Some sites have an ignore function and you dont have to see responses by the people you ignore.
Hey Khan! If you are Kansas remember you said I could have your old NIC! I have that in writing on a previous thread, but I was waiting nicely for you to leave before taking it.
Now if you are resurrected as Khan, then I cannot really take the Kansas Nic.
Nothing personal, but I like my state and would like the NIC.
I see someone ELSE has played with a variation of it already.
Kansas are you a man of your word?
Thanx
I am going to ask Brownlee if a certain poster is the same as another poster. I will ask him if certain posters are asking him to verify other posters. Copying an alleged Brownlee email response doesnt mean Brownlee responded, esp when the manner and style of writing does not match Brownlee’s responses to me.
Kansas are you a man of your word?
Posted by: Pat Herron (future Kansas) | January 04, 2008 at 02:43 PM
:::eyeroll:::
TYOTI,
I know CapnAmerica personally. He is not the troll posting as “Kansas.”
You can still have the nic Kansas, Pat Herron.
I just dropped back by to give Crapn a shot in his chops for making those remarks in the KU thread.
If he behaves himself, I’ll leave him alone.
If he can’t, then he once again proves himself a liar and
WE.BLOG.WORST.POSTER.EVER
Excuse me. The troll posting as “KHAN”. “Kansas” last week’s nic.
Does anyone know if the new registration process for parts of the Eagle site will apply here? While it wont stop the nic issues, it will cut them down somewhat.
I also can vouch for Capn.
You on the right have only kansas to blame for the situation. He publicly said he wanted a blog where nics were irrellevant . And he works hard to achieve it.
Only a nitwit would think the wealthy don’t make/need income. Assets are used to generate income, if they don’t then they are just consuming their assets through liquidation. NO doubt a few priveleged kids do exactly that. But the majority of wealthy people also enjoy a hefty income off of their wealth.
Kansas are you a man of your word?
Posted by: Pat Herron (future Kansas) | January 04, 2008 at 02:43 PM
:::eyeroll:::
Posted by: Tom | January 04, 2008 at 02:45 PM
The Crapn stated at least five times he wouldn’t bother me if (blah blah)
I even agreed to join his consortium of poster to have Brownlee check my IP to see if I was trolling.
Well, that lasted about 1 day before the Crapn broke his promise and went back to harassing me – that was eight months ago.
Crapn is a liar.
WE.BLOG.WORST.POSTER.EVER.
I think I like this Wordpress. Don’t guess there is a preview option, though.
There’s still no registration. So no end in sight for trolls and sock-puppets.
Oh well.
The lack of a registration is a downside, in addition to the lack of a preview screen. What I do like: 1) the home-page illustration at the top; 2) the poster’s name at the top of the post; 3) alternating shading of posts. It just has a cleaner look to it, which we can only hope has a beneficial effect. But, that is probably being too hopeful. In regard to the troll problem, I wonder if this foremat has more efficient banning measures available?
Tax cuts should be made to stimulate an economy, that is why many economists think relieving the poeople(ie middle class) who actually make America work through their everyday buying habits need the break, not only for them but the economy in general. The very top brackets simply take tax rebated monies and place it where they can make the most return, or pay the least taxes. Think offshore mostly, both areas not generally of benefit to the American work-a-day economy.
The definition of Socialism, from Phantom. Have your Socialist Democrats raise taxes on the rich to steal more Income. Then, have them sieze Assets too.
Just taking the income isn’t enough for you to live on properly, unless you also get a job.
The Phantom
Posted January 4, 2008 at 11:13 am | Permalink
Bush has used up all the tax cut magic dust on his wealthy base! The only thing left to do now, is take some back and re-distribute it to stimulate the economy. The way it should have been done initially.
Just saying, bush has given all the juice to the wealthy, and there is none to be given to those in the middle and lower incomes(where the stimulus to the economy has always been). So, unless we play the republican’s game and cut social programs, the next Dem. pres. will of necessity need to do some take backs and reapportioning to get the economy going. By giving so much to the rich, bush got very little economic bang for the buck, except for the trivial amount allocated to those that really needed and would spend it.
Has anybody look at the new “About” link?
Rhonda Holman has change her looks and Kristin is not pictured on it.
Looks different for sure.
“My post was the highly informative daily global warming entry.”
Posted by: Hank | January 04, 2008 at 07:17 AM
Actually, Hank copy/pasted a false, unscientific attack made in a small newspaper by a retired scientist and coastal home owner, re sea level projections.
Later, Hank incorrectly claimed that Gore predicted a date when sea levels would rise by a certain amount.
In short, Hank made a fool of himself — like he does everyday he posts from Marc Morano’s “400″ list.
Yuck I don’t like this new thing at all.
Where is the recent comments? What do we have to check each category one at a time? This sucks.
I predict the hits are gonna go WAY down. This is too cumbersome. Go back to typepad!!
Nice format for the blog. Doesn’t seem to be much else changed. Even the stupid troll is back.
Here’s something all of you should really get excited about…
=====================
“If you’ve signed up to receive e-mails from Sears, and then clicked on to join the retailer’s “My SHC Community,” it’s likely you’ve been providing more information to more people than you thought. Even more troubling, it turns out that you’re not just sharing information with Sears, but also with a company called comScore, which tracks and aggregates Internet browsing habits.
Installing the software from Sears results in the installation of software called VoiceFive, which provides data to comScore. It’s essentially spyware. comScore is the company behind the (disputed) numbers that indicated more people were stealing Radiohead’s latest album than downloading it legally, as well as the statistics that showed GodTube was the fasted growing site last August.
These sorts of stats come from monitoring and compiling the habits of millions Web surfers who often unknowingly running the comScore software. Likewise, those who have installed the software through links from Sears may not actually know what they’re participating in. Buried deep in the privacy statement users must agree to before signing up for SHC is this frightening statement:
‘Once you install our application, it monitors all of the Internet behavior that occurs on the computer on which you install the application, including both your normal web browsing and the activity that you undertake during secure sessions, such as filling a shopping basket, completing an application form or checking your online accounts, which may include personal financial or health information.’
Sounds scary, especially the part about monitoring “both your normal web browsing and the activity that you undertake during secure sessions, such as…checking your online accounts.” The bit about “personal financial or health information” is scary, too. The above wording would certainly ward off anyone who actually reads these sorts of things, but we’re guessing that the average Sears shopper isn’t thoroughly scanning through the privacy statement.
According to BetaNews, the disclosure may be a little too well hidden to meet the intents of FTC regulations that require companies to make such spyware inclusion very clearly apparent. Many would agree that burying it in the middle of a multi-page privacy statement doesn’t do much for clarity.”
From BetaNews
===========================
Here’s the link to read it for yourself…
http://www.switched.com/2008/01/03/sears-using-spyware-to-monitor-your-personal-information/
What I found the most bizarre was that in the poll about whether readers thought this was okay, 4 people actually voted “YES”. I guess they would all be corporate shills…
They musta changed it sometime after 5.
They are gonna have to have a recent comments.
Is it just me, or is our resident global warming alarmist getting shriller and shriller?
Well cosmos, you have claimed that your mentor, the Goracle, gets his scientific global warming from the IPCC’s peer reviewed scientists.
What is the consensus sea level rise by 2099 according to this august group of scientists?
Does the Goracle make this projected sea level rise plain in his documentary? Or does he talk about an incredible 20 foot sea level rise that is not mentioned at all in the IPCC report?
Now please notice my reading comprehension challenged friend that I’m merely asking for clarification, I’m making no claims.
J R
Posted January 4, 2008 at 7:45 pm | Permalink
They musta changed it sometime after 5.
They are gonna have to have a recent comments.
////
There is a recent comments on the left. Its hard to see, but it is underneath the daily archives calendar. I dont think you cant get to the comment, but you do get to the discussion.
At least some smileys work.
Wow, a new look for a new year… I think I like it… so far!! HAPPY NEW YEAR!!
Hey Chas.,
Happy New Year to you too!
It’s been a great year so far!
“Or does he talk about an incredible 20 foot sea level rise that is not mentioned at all in the IPCC report?
Now please notice my reading comprehension challenged friend that I’m merely asking for clarification, I’m making no claims.”
Hank Price
Posted January 4, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Dear Hank Price,
I ALREADY answered that at 12:05 PM. Please try to improve your “reading comprehension”.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/01/weblog200801open-thread-14/#comment-149442
FYI: 7 meters is about 23 feet
4 to 6 meters is about 13 to 19.5 feet
Many climate scientists have clearly stated that they don’t know how fast the ice sheets will melt.
Larsen B collapsed much sooner than predicted, which sped up the land-based glaciers it held back. Greenland has moulins, and an increasing rate of ice quakes.
And from my 11:30 AM post, from the IPCC,
“Models used to date do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, because a basis in published literature is lacking.”
Translation — the models underestimate the rise.
The 2007 graph also has a very significant point:
“Model-based range EXCLUDING future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow”.
“The loser, Hillary Clinton was quoted after her Iowa defeat:
“Oh Shit! *od #a@ that S@B!!!”
Then Bill ran away and Hillary started cussing about Obama calling him certain even ampersand-can’t-describe type names.
What a temper she has!
Hope she never gets her finger on that Big Red Nuke Button.” {Posted by Max}
===================================
Max, Max, Max — I suppose you hve a link for this tall tale??? I hope so!!
Interesting quote you cite from the IPCC:
“If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m.
The corresponding future temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when palaeoclimatic information suggests reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise.”
It starts out with “If”! How very scientific!
“IF” a frog had wings it wouldn’t bump its ass when it jumped.
nitwit
Ok that is a LITTLE better with the threads at least listed.
Recent comments please??
Julie? I emailed you and posted at Tracy’s.
I’m still waiting for the reply from Cosmos to this question I asked the other day…it’s a little long, but there is a question at the end…
======================
It should be simple enough to prove if global warming really exists, cosmos…and here’s how.
Place a weather ballon at 1000 feet and 500 miles apart, starting 0 latitude and 0 longitude. Equip each with a thermometer and the tools to read relative humidity and CO2 level, and a radio transmitter to continuously send data to a website, accessible to everyone with internet access. From this data, the average temperature for the entire planet could be seen, as well as each individual location. By spreading the balloons in this manner, it would be a true representation of the temperature and CO2 and water vapor levels (since I remember that one of the criticisms of the existing computer models is that they don’t calculate the effect of water vapor on warming). For that matter, using the proper sensors, there could be readouts for methane and other greenhouse gases. I would think that if there truly is a warming trend (and especially if it’s accelerating as some claim) that it would show up in a fairly short time…perhaps even as soon as 6 months. By placing all of this data on an open website, any critics should be silenced, since it’s right there for everyone to see.
What do you say to that, cosmos? After all, it would be direct proof of global warming…
“It starts out with “If”! How very scientific!
“IF” a frog had wings it wouldn’t bump its ass when it jumped.
nitwit”
Hank Price, Posted January 4, 2008 at 9:50 pm
And “IF” Hank Price could understand even the most simple, basic methods of science, he would not make such idiotic posts.
Scientists have to say “IF”, when they are uncertain.
Hank Price, can you provide solid, scientific data, for the next few CENTURIES, for:
* The detailed mechanisms re the melting of the ice sheets in Greenland, and Antarctica?
* The loss of Arctic sea ice, and other albedo features?
* The amounts of CO2, and other GHG’s that humans put in the atmosphere?
* All of the changes in the natural carbon-cycle — oceans, phytoplankton, plants, soil, etc?
* And the multiple other known, and more importantly, unknown factors?
But Hank Price cannot. So instead, Hank will just dumbly continue to copy/paste lies and deceptions from Sen. Inhofe’s pet weasel, Marc Morano.
How much of it can you provide for the last 100 years, Cosmos? Not calculations, not guesses, but solid measured data?
Hey cosmo,
If you are so concerned and convinced of the ‘drastic’ sea level rise, why don’t you go down to the shore and wait and watch for it. Come back and let the rest of us know when it starts and we need to also become worried. Because right now…we aren’t, or even that it will ever happen. At least we might not have to listen to all this doom & gloom dribble.
swallow my nickel Posted January 4, 2008 at 10:23 pm
“…perhaps even as soon as 6 months. By placing all of this data on an open website, any critics should be silenced, since it’s right there for everyone to see.”
Two deniers tried to prove that GISS’ temperature data was flawed — they instead seem to have validated it.
6 months is not long enough, and you need to include natural forcings.
Start at 1900. Include changes in solar activity, cooling caused by volcanoes, ENSO, etc. Compare that to observations since 1900.
Then include human-caused forcings — warming from GHG’s, cooling from aerosols, etc. Add those to the natural forcings, and compare to observations since 1900.
You get graphs like Figure SPM.4 in the Summary at,
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
Natural forcings alone do not explain the observed temperatures — natural PLUS human-caused do.
CO2 measurements are made at many sites worldwide.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
Climate models do include water vapor.
For AgHawk,
“Because we don’t think about future generations, they will never forget us.” Henrik Tikkanen
cosmos, I think you mean well, at least I am giving you the benefit of the doubt on it but we all don’t agree on Man as the causative factor or that man can do anything about it. Even if he could, at what cost to civilization. The cure might well be worse than the problem.
I think this ol Earth will take care of itself, we may not like it but it will work it out. I don’t think man is so omnipotent that we can really alter things that much.
Just a difference of opinion I guess.
Save us if you can.
Setting all GW issues aside for the moment, there are very compelling reasons to develop alternative energy and to cut back on fossil fuels, particularly oil.
So, even if the vast majority of scientist are wrong, and GW isn’t caused by man, America can be so much the better off for taking the initiative in developing renewable energy technology and restricting the amount of pollutants we dump in the environment.
“I think this ol Earth will take care of itself, we may not like it but it will work it out. I don’t think man is so omnipotent that we can really alter things that much.”
AgHawk Posted January 5, 2008 at 10:18 pm
AgHawk, you do not seem to understand how sensitive our Earth’s climate is. In the past, very minor changes in orbit, etc, eventually caused dramatic climate changes.
You do not seem to understand how thin, and fragile our Earth’s atmosphere is.
Humans have quickly changed the composition of it. CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide are now way above levels compared to any time during the past 600,000+ years.
Not to mention human-created CFC’s, SF6, etc, which did not even exist before.
AgHawk, you do not seem to understand…
I respectfully suggest that you try to.