Two Quick Articles for Your Judgement

With tonight’s guest commentary being posted I don’t want to take away to much of the attention away from it. But there were two articles that caught my attention and I wanted to post them in the open mic format so that folks can give their thoughts on them. The first falls into the Twilight Zone peripheral while the second falls more into the WTF are we doing area. As a side note, I have postponed the article responding to Mathius until he returns. He had asked for some thoughts on the elitist attitude from both sides and I have begun writing it. But it makes no sense to post the article he requested while he is not here to be a part of the discussion. So rest easy, Mathius, you won’t miss it. And enjoy your time away. Because you know we will all be waiting here to tear up your arguments when you come back 🙂

Advertisements

Comments

  1. USWeapon Topic #1

    Fla. Woman Denied Protective Order From Stalker Before Murder

    A 23-year-old woman killed outside her Orlando office by a stalker had asked for a protective order but was denied, MiamiHerald.com reported.

    Alissa Branton, 23, reportedly turned in more than 70 pages of documents, some e-mails from the stalker, to a judge. The judge denied the request and scheduled a hearing for next week, Fox2Now.com reported.

    Police say Roger Troy, 61, fatally shot Branton and then fatally shot himself in an AT&T call center parking lot, when she returned from her lunch break. Her co-workers placed calls to 911 describing the scene.

    “This gentlemen just shot this woman several times, and then he shot himself,” said another caller, who was clearly flustered and confused. “Can we tell if they’re breathing?” asked the 911 dispatch operator. “Oh my God. I don’t know, ma’am. I can’t go closer,” the caller responds.

    Read the rest of the article at Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585535,00.html?test=latestnews

    This was the WTF article. So the woman turns in 70 pages of documentation to the court to show that she is being stalked and harassed. And she is denied a protective order. Then the stalker shows up at her work and guns her down in the parking lot. It just floors me that the judge denied her protective order. Wouldn’t a more prudent action be to grant the protective order immediately? Then, if the judge has more questions, which seems to be the case since he scheduled another hearing for next week, he can ask them and remove the order should he find that it is not warranted.

    I am not under the foolish impression that this protective order would have absolutely saved this girls life. If someone is intent on killing you and then killing himself, the order from the courts isn’t going to stop him from doing so. Only an armed escort would have prevented it at that point. But it seems to me that this is beside the point. The point is that this man was harassing her, she gave 70 pages of documentation to prove it, and the judge didn’t see fit to ACT on that documentation and issue the order. What if the guy would have listened to a protective order? What if before the protective order gets issued he went to talk to her one last time in the hopes of rectifying the situation and it simply got out of hand when she screamed leave me alone?

    With all of the madness that the courts do these days, it is borderline criminal for them to fail so miserably in acting to protect someone who was going through the proper procedures to be protected. When it comes to a protective order such as this one I would think we should be erring on the side of caution rather than the other way around. Now, that being said, I have never worked in the legal system or as a police officer. Is there something that I am missing here or do we have a judge that simply failed miserably?

    • What a shame. I have a feeling O’Reilly will have Jesse Waters hot on this judge’s trail.

    • My understanding is that, generally, a temporary restraining order will be issued immediately. A hearing will then be held to assess if it should be made permanent. That the judge chose not to issue even a temporary restraining order suggests that either the judge was incompetent or that he was not impressed by her 70-page filing.

      The thing about 70 pages is that it doesn’t necessarily prove anything. There are hundreds of thousands of pages on global warming and no consensus. So, without knowing what’s in the pages, I don’t see how we can know if this is a failure on the part of the court. She may have been incoherent and/or paranoid or the documents may have reasonably appeared benign to someone unfamiliar with the man in question. I’m not saying this is necessarily the case, but it seems premature to blame the courts without more information.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        It could also suggest a procedural error by the attorney.

        My initial thought though is the same as yours — 70 pages doesn’t mean anything. A single page could be more than sufficient; A thousand pages could fall far short of the burden of proof.

        • I agree with Buck here too.

          70 pages of nothing is nothing.

          We do not know what contents were in such pages.

          If the judge acted prematurely where no such risk really existed then he’d be ridiculed as showing the “Police State” expansion ….

          Now, he sits showing the Police States enfeeblement.

          But we cannot judge as we do not know the whole story.

          The lesson:
          Guard yourself. No one else truly can do it for you.

      • But Matt..you have always told me that it is better to err on the side of caution. Change your mind?

        • Oh, definitely not. I would personally err on the side of caution. But if I thought the claim was completely unsubstantiated, I would still refrain from issuing the order. Generally, I would say if you are unsure, it’s better to be cautious, but if the judge was fairly confident that this was bulldookie, then it makes no sense to override his judgment just to be cautious.

          Otherwise, why have a court at all? You would just be able to file for a restraining order and it would be automatically granted, no?

      • Matt,

        I have to throw the BS flag. You cannot compare the woman’s murder to the AGW hoax. Look at motivation. The woman’s motive was to remain alive. The hoaxer’s motives are obscene amounts of money and power for their pleasure. You also forget that a murder victim is damn good evidence of a problem, whereas, weather doing what weather has always done, and predictions that are consistantly wrong, kinda confirms the AGW is a hoax. (I’m still waiting for my house in FL to be flattened by all those more powerful and frequent hurricanes. I mean, I’ve been paying the quadrupled rates for homeowner’s insurance for five years now. Where are those damn super storms? If I’m not going to get the storms, I want my money back.)

        • Cyndi,
          I throw the BS flag too! 😉

          You cannot compare the woman’s murder to the AGW hoax.

          There was no murder at the time the protective order was requested.

          AGW hoax is your opinion, not fact.

          The woman’s motive was to remain alive.

          I’ll accept that.

          The hoaxer’s motives are obscene amounts of money and power for their pleasure.

          Again, your opinion stated as fact. The motive could be to save our environment and mankind.

          You also forget that a murder victim is damn good evidence of a problem

          Yes, but this evidence did not exist at the time the protective order was requested.

          weather doing what weather has always done, and predictions that are consistantly wrong, kinda confirms the AGW is a hoax

          No, this confirms weather is weather and climate is climate.

          (I’m still waiting for my house in FL to be flattened by all those more powerful and frequent hurricanes. I mean, I’ve been paying the quadrupled rates for homeowner’s insurance for five years now. Where are those damn super storms? If I’m not going to get the storms, I want my money back.)

          Sorry, we don’t give refunds. But feel free to cancel your policy if you want to save some money…

          • Todd,

            AGW hoax is your opinion, not fact.

            No, Todd, it is a fact.

            Global Warming is a fact, and it is not caused by man, another fact.

          • I just love those claims that the record snowfalls prove AGW. What else could cause such a significant change in our weather than mankind’s influence? BTW, what were our emissions like last time it snowed really big?

            the previous snowfall record occurred back in 1899, more than 100 years ago or question the plausibility IPCC models after the ClimateGate scandal. Instead, he went with carrying the global warming alarmist argument that these storms could have been caused by global warming.

            Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/02/12/dueling-chalkboards-msnbcs-
            ratigan-mocks-beck-after-global-warming-charge#ixzz0fLTkBRPb

            (Must have been all those soccer moms in their model “T’s” heheheheheee) ( I know, not invented yet)

            • Wait…LOI…..so we just had a record snow fall here…Fort Worth…12.5 inches…and wet. So, all this shoveling I had to do to get the weight off a flat roof is the fault of AGW? I can blame that? Cool.

          • Todd,

            Big Green had a little lamb, little lamb, little lamb
            Big Green had a little lamb who’s brain was made of mush.

            Anything that Big Green said, Big Green said, Big Green said,
            Anything that Big Green said the lamb was sure to love.

            La-la-la-la-la-la-la…….

            BTW, if I don’t pay for homeowner’s insurance, my mortgage company will buy it on my behalf and send me the bill. Since your so full of compassion and sincerely believe the crap from Big Green, why don’t you send me $1500 bucks a year, plus about $5000 in back payments.

            • $1,500.00!!! I live just north of New Orleans…mine is $2,300.00 a year. I dream of the $1,500.00 days. Thas said, I feel your pain…but as you say, either have it or have it purchased for you. BTW…WHO DAT!!!!!!

              • Actually, that’s the amount it INCREASED per year. When I bought house the big Green disn’t have the stranglehold over Americans that it has now. Originally, my insurance was about $450 per year. Since Big Green got involved, the rates went beyond what I could afford. I purchased the smallest amount they would sell me. My insurance agent tried to scare me into buying more using Big Green’s propaganda. As usual, I did my own thinking and saved some money. Now that property values have tanked, I’m adequately covered, though, still very much over charged. I’ll take my chances with nature rather than Big Green and its lackies.

              • Cyndi,
                Big Green? Believe it or not, everything in your life is not a conspiracy by liberals…

                Your insurance rates are not determined by the “Green” movement, they’re determined by loss history and future risk. Katrina and Rita set a pretty steep loss history in the southeastern US.

              • Wrong again, Todd. The rational provided was because of AGW. For YEARS, the little guy paid the money to cover the losses while there were few storms and little damage. then we one hell of a season, that BTW, didn’t damage my house on the east coast of central Florida at all. I lost a total of 5 shingles. My house is in Rockledge. Check it out on Google earth. We the policy holders, pointed out that the insurance money was paid for years when there was little activity. The insurance industry and Al Gore came out telling us we had to pay more because of AGW. Don’t give me that shit Todd. I WAS THERE AND I STILL PAY THE EFFING MONEY. WHY DON”T YOU TRY PASYING IT FOR A FEW YEARS. YES, I’M YELLING BECAUSE I’M TIRED OF BEING LIED TO AND SCREWED OUT OF MY HARD EANRED MONEY.

              • Todd

                I got to tell ya that during the Clinton years the Algorians worked hard to get insurance rates jacked up in areas they felt sensitive for other reasons. That included reclassifying flood plaines to include the entire “riparian” area of a stream/river.

                More recently they have been working hard to to the same to homes in the urban/rural interface. Higher costs would cause people to stop building in the woods.

                It is not the only factor, but this has been happening.

                Hope your weekend is good.
                JAC

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “An armed society is a polite society.” Robert A. Heinlein.

      Don’t expect others to defend you against violence. The only person you can trust to be there to defend you against violence is YOU!

      • Peter,

        Sadly, too many people listen to the Dian Sawyers out there, not right wing extremists like you or I.

        http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/2020-mocks-use-of-guns-for-self-defense/

        20/20 Mocks Use of Guns for Self-Defense

        Diane Sawyer pulls out all the stops to convince you to remain unarmed.
        April 14, 2009 – by AWR Hawkins

        Last week’s programming on ABC was full of commercials aimed at drawing viewers to a special April 10 edition of 20/20 titled “If I Only Had a Gun.” The promotions described how gun sales were skyrocketing in and around areas where recent mass shootings had occurred, therefore giving the appearance of an honest documentary. But the real premise of the show was 20/20’s contention that private citizens with guns aren’t capable of using those guns effectively, thus 20/20’s website headline: “Carrying a Gun Wouldn’t Necessarily Get You Out of a Shooting.”

        In other words, before you get too self-reliant, please give Diane Sawyer 20 minutes to convince you that you’re not capable of defending your own life.

        • I saw this on 20/20.

          Of course, the shooter was a trained government assassin who also knew who the guy with a gun was in the classrooms.

          Yeah, right, that’s a real scenario.

          Further, let’s base ALL shooting responses and ability on these scenarios – and wholly ignore the ones where, for a real example, a shooter was staking a victim and was stopped by a passerby with a gun. Of course, Dianne ignored these incidents – doesn’t fit her mantra.

          • What I thought the most dishonest, the Virgina Tech shooting, in that scenario, an armed student would have time to prepare and respond. But of course, that was not one they wanted to explore.

      • Coffee and the Second Amendment Don’t Mix, According to AlterNet

        By Sarah Knoploh

        The popular chain coffee shop, Starbucks, is known for a lot of things, but up until recently guns were not one of them. Some patrons of the Seattle-based coffee shop have recently started exercising their rights to carrying guns while they enjoy a cup of coffee. While the Starbucks customers have been expressing their right to bear arms, as allowed by the Second Amendment, there has been some resistant to Starbucks.

        Liliana Segura, of AlterNet, painted a bleak picture and wrote, “So you’re at your neighborhood Starbucks, maybe with your kids, and you notice a man sitting at the next table with a revolver strapped to his waist. The man next to him has a pistol. In fact, you realize as you look around, there’s a table full of gun-toting customers just a few feet away, sipping coffee and doing nothing to conceal their deadly weapons. Aside from steering clear — or else getting the hell out of there – what can an unarmed citizen do?”

        Well, not much. (Except maybe relax and consider that the establishment you’re in is at the moment quite safe from armed robbery and other violent crime. Go ahead, buy Junior another triple mocha latte.) Thing is, Starbucks does “not have a corporate policy regarding customers and weapons,” according to a spokesman. Segura explained that some states, such as California, have an “open gun” policy and many people in California are gathering at Starbucks to openly exercise their rights.

        Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sarah-knoploh/2010/02/11/coffee-and-second-amendment-don-t-mix-according-alternet#ixzz0fL6qeUfD

        • Wow…someone came to a Starbucks in Texas recently?

          • D13

            You guys got those Seattle yuppyfied and overpriced coffee shops down there?

            You just lost some of the luster.

            LOL

            • Agreed… Starbucks can’t begin to touch a cup of real joe from a roadside diner. I refuse to drink the fancy yuppie stuff.

              Now get me a cup of hot Dunkin Donuts coffee and we are talkin… American runs on Dunkins!

              Stay warm up there (add a touch of liquor to that coffee for the cold nights)

              USW

            • Hi JAC….even Texas has its Yuppies….we try to discourage them but they are here…..but the first thing they do is buy guns….LOL

              So….however….you would think 40 years in the service I would drink coffee…(cup o joe) but I do not drink it. But give me DP and it is gone….

    • The court has no obligation to protect the woman. There is no consequences for bureaucratic indifference. A private company or individual could be sued for failing in a duty, not the government.

      Police cannot protect — and are not required to protect — every individual

      * The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. D.C. the court stated “courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
      Warren v. District of Columbia
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a U.S. Court of Appeals case in which three rape victims sued the District of Columbia because of negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. After repeated calls to the police over half an hour, the roommate’s screams stopped, and they assumed the police had arrived. They went downstairs and were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to commit sexual acts upon one another and to submit to the attackers’ sexual demands for 14 hours. The police had lost track of the repeated calls for assistance. DC’s highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability

    • I don’t know the details, but if the judge was derelict in his duties, there should be consequences. That is one of the problems in governement today. No consequences for bad decisions.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Her complaints obviously had merit.

      This is definitely a failure on the part of the judge and the system. He should have used a “better safe than sorry” approach and issued the protective order. Of course, as you pointed out USW, It wouldn’t have necessarily stopped him. But I guess we’ll never know.

      I suppose the judge could have issued an arrest warrant to have him locked up until the date of the hearing. He can’t kill her from jail.

      Giving a little(very little) credit to the judge…I’m sure he’s seen a few cases where there was a clear abuse of the system by women with unsubstantiated claims. I can see how he may have misinterpreted the situation by neglecting to have taken a closer look.

      Not that I’m excusing the judge…He should have given it more thought.

      This “Mr. Troy” was obviously obsessive and mentally unstable. He crossed the line from being social to behaving as a stalker. IMO, the judge should have taken this into consideration. This is clearly NOT a case of her playing “hard to get”.

      It’s understandable to me how he became a regular at Hooters and was initially perceived as just a harmless friendly patron. This would explain how she befriended him in the beginning.

      At whatever point he began to focus on Mrs. Branton and became obsessive to the degree of following her around, he became a “stalker”.

      Common sense and pragmatism suggests that you don’t go following people around trying to get close to them. This guy was a total whacko. He didn’t know better?

      There are a few questions that remain unanswered as the articles didn’t specify and go into that much detail.

      Not that I am suggesting she has any responsibility for this situation, but something that comes to mind concerning a legal premise is…

      Did she at any point, make it clear to him that his actions were unacceptable? Did she tell him that she was uncomfortable with his behavior? This should have been questioned by the judge. Perhaps he did, but the articles didn’t say.

      Like I said, I’m not blaming her. I mean come on…he should have taken a hint after she started ignoring and avoided him.

      Another question that comes to mind is in regard to her husband.

      If someone were to do that to my wife, I would have had a talk with him and given him a stern warning to keep his distance. If he didn’t heed that warning, I would have put his ass in the hurt locker.

      Not that I’m blaming her husband either…I can understand how he would want to do things the legal way as to not bring about more problems by getting arrested for beating his ass.

      Putting myself in his shoes,…I think I would whooped him right and proper though. To me, an assault charge is a worthy sacrifice in order to deter someone from hurting the Mrs.

      Either way, this is a tragic story.

      R.I.P. Mrs. Branton.

    • The lesson here:

      The government cannot protect you. Ever.

      Those that pretend the reason government exists is for protection need only look this far to see it false.

      • BF

        That’s not exactly true.

        The problem with the position is that we may never know when it does protect us. But we always know when it fails.

        To assume govt will protect us is a fallacy.

        But to assume it never protects is also false.

        • It cannot protect us as it is not stationed outside of my door 24/7.

          The rest is by accident or coincidence.

          Its actions to pretend to protect you threatens me.

          • BF

            “The rest is by accident or coincidence.” Doesn’t matter does it. It DOES happen.

            Thus your original statement is inaccurate. “EVER” is pretty much an absolute. Yet you have now admitted that EVER isn’t really EVER.

            And the govt at accidentally protects me also accidentally protects you from time to time.

            And yes the same govt also threatens us both.

            Come on, be a big pirate and just admit your mistake.

            JAC

        • Bottom Line says:

          Government primarily protects you because the consequence of criminal actions function as a deterrent…not because you are actually physically protected.

          Remove the consequence of prison from the equation, and what is left?

          …a cop sitting in his car parked two miles away?

          • Bottom Line says:

            After reviewing my above post about being in the husbands shoes and whoopin’ some ass, …and then comparing it to what I just said…I realize the flaw in my logic.

            A simple ass whoopin’ is insufficient.

            I guess the answer would be to break his knee caps and hands, or else just kill the S.O.B.

          • BL

            Or a cop driving through the neighborhood. Or the cops who catch a murderer from one state while running to the next. We will never know if any more would be murdered if he wasn’t caught.

            Obviously the protection comes from the fear of being caught and thus prosecuted. But it is still protection when it occurs.

            My point is that protection does occur. However, the govt can not protect everyone, all the time. Simply impossible. Neither can private security forces. Simply not enough people to watch over all the other people.

            It is simply wrong to state the govt does not protect us from harm, ever.

            Best to ya BL.
            Its almost beer time.

            JAC

            • Bottom Line says:

              I agree JAC.

              I was just trying to articulate the logic in regards to the flaws of the concept of government protection.

              Indeed there is a certain amount of protection provided.

              I will argue that the protection is due more more so to the psychology than in an actual psychical sense.

              I.E. – Risk verses Reward

              I was trying to be careful in the way I worded my reply.

              Note the first words were…

              “Government primarily protects you…”

              Of course this can get complicated when we start to contemplate the tactics involved.

              I.E. – response time, patrol grids, etc…

              Best to you as well JAC.

              Crack one open for me while yer at it.

              BL

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      I commend Buck and Matt in wanting to stand up for the judge. Perhaps the 70 pages were not in the proper legalize but what we are left with is that the Judge was wrong, the woman right and she is now dead.

      When a 61 year old man is at the very least harassing a 23 year old woman, something is very, very wrong. The judges, lawyers, psychiatrists and psychologists should not need any of their advanced degrees to recognize a dirty old man. Nor, should they have to be rocket scientists to see how this could end.

      When you become a judge or a member of a parole board, you are entering a world where you have the power of life or death. You enter this world voluntarily and seek the office. When you are wrong and in this case tragically wrong you should forfeit something. What you forfeit should be based on the degree of the error you made. In a perfect world, this judge should forfeit his life.

      If personal honor still existed, the judge himself would have already taken steps to rectify this blunder. No, I am not necessarily talking suicide, but at the very least resignation with a profound apology to the citizens he was supposed to be protecting. Somehow, without severe external pressure, I doubt this will happen, Bill O’Reilly or not.

      • Good post SK. We also have to be informed about not only the pols but the judges that we elect. Don’t know if this particular judge was elected or appointed but we still must know who we vote for.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        SK, it’s not about standing up for the judge – its about refusing to pass judgment without knowing all the facts here.

        You are actually arguing that the judge should what? Be tried and sentenced to death? Life imprisonment? For what? Simply declining a motion for a protective order? We don’t know what evidence was put forth. We don’t know what arguments were made. We don’t know the judge’s reasoning.

        And as BF posted before – had the judge ‘wrongly’ issued a protective order you would be arguing against the judge as an example of all thats wrong with our ‘active judiciary’.

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          Read my post more carefully. The judge decided there was not sufficient cause. A 61 year old man is stalking a 23 year old woman. May I ask what more you need?

          Girl says guy is dangerous/nuts. Guy kills girl. Girl is posthumously proven right. Judge is wrong (this part is very important). Girl is dead. How hard do I have to shake you and Mr. Flag to get this point across.

          Before we became a nation of wussies, when I was young, some family member of the young lady would have rightfully kicked his ass. But, now we are supposed to let the law do it and here, the law failed as it usually does. The law is so concerned with not making a mistake that it makes more mistakes than ever before. Girl asked for a freakin order of protection to keep him away. She did not ask to send him to Devil’s island or to have him strung up by the family jewels (in retrospect a good idea). One lousy phone call from the dirty old man or a note, flowers or card should have been enough for a judge with half a brain to get a hint of where this thing was going.

          When it was my daughter a few years ago and it was a dirty young man, I had a talk with him about his prospects for a future. No threats, nothing but how it would look on the internet if I posted some of his drivel especially when it came time for him to find employment.

          Do I want the judge tried? Haven’t really thought about it but it might work. He is in fact the enabler who made her death possible. Now, who is to say that if he issued the order it would not have been violated and she still killed? We don’t know, we can’t know but we do know it was not issued and we do know she is dead. We also know that this lame brain is still on the bench drawing a paycheck and she is dead. Does the judge have any personal honor? not if he is still sitting.

          Actions not only have consequences but should have consequences based on their egregious nature.

          Put yourself very personally in the judge’s position. If you had failed to act, how would you see yourself? Would you be a totally innocent bystander? Would you pass it off as a minor error which should not cloud your otherwise sterling record? I know why he did what he did and he was wrong and it cost a life.

          If I accidentally ran a new stop sign on a road I traveled a thousand times where there was no stop sign before, and in the process killed a 23 year old, I could argue I have no responsibility. How far could I get with that argument? Maybe the judge should just be fired and sued for everything he owns by the affected family a la OJ. No, wait, judges are protected against being liable for stupid and dangerous behavior aren’t they?

    • It really comes down to who can lie convincingly enough to the judge. There are too many true psychopaths who can lie well enough to convince any judge they pose no danger. I’ve witnessed someone testifying under oath he didn’t touch his wife but, in reality, he knocked her down in front of her kids and the judge lifted the restraining order.

      BF is right – buy a gun, protect yourself and don’t expect the police even to respond to a 911 call. Shoot first, ask questions later.

      Sounds harsh, but there are plenty of examples of abused women(not being sexist) who have sustained injuries and been killed because judges let their tormenters back on the streets and/or removed restraining orders. Evil truly walks around in human form.

      • Kath,

        Use the “sss” principle.

        Shoot
        Shovel
        Shutup

      • Kelly

        I have one for you.

        Some many moons ago while residing in the Spud state there was a woman who shot her husband because he was abusing her and the child. Seems the county prosecuter didn’t think it was justifiable as she shot him in the back with a hunting rifle from a hundred yards or more, as he was departing their property.

        As I recall, the jury took less than an hour (after weeks of trial) to render its NOT GUILTY verdict on murder and YEA on Self Defense. Seems the country folk don’t take kindly to men who beat their wifes and kids for sport. The logic was sound. Didn’t matter if he was leaving. Everyone knew he would return under cover of darkness.

        Thought that might bring a little smile given your obvious exposure to the trash left around.
        Best to you and yours
        JAC

  2. USWeapon Topic #2

    Republicans Object to Biden Taking Credit for Success in Iraq

    As senators, Barack Obama and Joe Biden both opposed the troop surge in Iraq — and Biden even wanted to divide the country into three sections.

    But as vice president, Biden is taking credit for success in Iraq.

    “I am very optimistic about Iraq,” he said. “I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”

    But Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, a member of the Armed Services Committee, said you cannot oppose the surge and then claim it for your legacy.

    “When Joe Biden was in the Senate and Obama was in the Senate, they authored and were the chief architect of the resolution opposing the surge,” he said.

    The vice president also took credit for the troop drawdown.

    “You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer,” he said. “You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

    But the drawdown was negotiated in the Status of Forces Agreement before the Obama administration took office.

    “The reduction in U.S. forces that is under way right now is in fact important and it’s largely the continuation of the policy that President Bush had set in place when he negotiated the drawdown schedule with Prime Minister Maliki at the end of 2008,” Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution told Fox News.

    In fact, the agreement called for having U.S. troops out of Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat troops out by the end of 2011.

    “The timetable for withdrawing those troops had been worked on for a long time, way preceding this administration coming into power, and that timetable really centered on success in Iraq,” said Col. Bill Cowan, a Fox News contributor. “That success starting really after the surge that was implemented by the previous administration.”

    Read the rest of the article from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/11/republicans-object-biden-taking-credit-success-iraq/?test=latestnews

    This was the Twilight Zone article. I read this and I was simply at a loss for words. I literally looked at my computer for a couple of moments simply wondering if I had been magically transported to the site of “The Onion”. In a moment that shows us all just how stupid the leadership in America thinks the American public is, Joe Biden actually stands in front of a crowd and says that this could be one of the great achievements for the Obama administration.

    The article does enough to refute his claims. It was Bush who pushed for the surge. It was Democrats who opposed it for the most part. And Biden and Obama (otherwise known as “The Obama Administration”) opposed the surge. I distinctly remember Joe’s little plan for dividing the country into three parts. Iraq is going to end up as a “successful” (and believe me I do question the definition of success on this one) action IN SPITE OF Obama and Biden. And they have the gall to stand up there and take credit for it? There is spin and then there is outright lying. I think we can plainly see which one this is.

    So I will give those on the left a chance to either denounce Biden’s claim or defend it. Robert Gibbs chose to defend it, and rather weakly I might add. Given that the GOP pushed for the surge and Obama and Biden opposed it, and given that the troop withdrawal plan was put in place before the Obama administration was in place, is there anything that anyone can point to that would lead me to believe that Iraq would be a great achievement for the OBAMA administration? Anyone, anyone….. Bueller.

    Perhaps it is time that the GOP takes a new tactic with Joe. They should perhaps attempt to have him removed from office on the grounds that he is no longer competent to serve. He has obviously lost his mental faculties.

    • Truth Seeker says:

      I was also perplexed that Biden would have the gal to claim this an achievement for Obama’s administration. If it was up to them, there would have been no surge and they would of pulled out as fast as humanly possible.

      And besides, if you look at all the news, wouldn’t the health care reform be one of the greatest achievements? You can only have so many “greatest” achievements…

    • Yep, read this last night nad started laughing hysterically. Biden is clueless. Well, at least they found one thing they won’t blame GWB on! 🙂

      G!

      • v. Holland says:

        Not so sure Biden is as clueless as people think-look at it this way-if Biden says it and it isn’t true people just say look at crazy Biden-but how many people hear his words and don’t know the difference-Biden is a great way for the administration to get a thought started -whether it is true or not.

    • The more the media tries to spin and cover-up for these liars, the more credibility, and viewers they loose.

      ABC Highlights Joe Biden to Deride ‘Out There’ Comments by Sarah Palin

      By Scott Whitlock

      Good Morning America’s Kate Snow on Thursday highlighted a clip of Joe Biden for a piece on Sarah Palin and her “out there” comments. The Vice President, who has made several verbal gaffes of his own, derided, “Some of the comments made are just so far, sort of, out there, I just don’t know where they come from.”

      Snow apparently didn’t see much irony in featuring Biden, who once exhorted a paraplegic man to “stand up,” for a segment on a new poll showing 71 percent of Amerians don’t think Palin is qualified for the presidency. Instead, she included a clip of White House Press secretary Robert Gibbs mocking the former Alaska governor for writing on her hand at a recent speech. He joked, “I wrote, eggs, milk and bread. Then, I wrote down hope and change, just in case I forgot.”

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/02/11/abc-highlights-joe-biden-deride-out-there-comments-sarah-palin#ixzz0fKtsjJtf

    • I seem to have missed something.

      What success in Iraq?

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        Well, Flag, I guess that they will not be building “Weapons of Mass destruction” anytime soon.

        Also the succession controversy over which one of his two sons would succeed Saddam, has been settled.

        • I guess the US can invased any country and call it a success because they wouldn’t be able to build WMD.

          Of course, the fact that they weren’t building WMD’s seems irrelevant to the politics.

          • Bottom Line says:

            There is a difference between having “no doubt” and being “certain”.

            Having “no doubt” means leaving room for error, thus providing a legal strategy/loophole in the event that WMD’s are never discoverd and you are proven to be wrong in your accusations and premise for war.

            Having “no doubt” means kicking UN weapons inspectors out before they discover that there are no WMD’s, therefore nullifying the premise for war.

            Being “certain” means being able to tell UN weapons inspectors exactly where the WMD’s are located so that they can be confiscated, therefore neutralizing the “perceived” threat and premise for war.

            Being “certain” can also mean knowing where to perform a precision strike to neutralize the “perceived” threat, therefore nullifying the premise for war.

            Being “certain” that you have no WMD’s in your nation means being confident enough to allow UN weapons inspectors to have free reign because you know they will find nothing.

            The premise for invading Iraq was absolute total “BUSHIT”.

          • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

            In the tortured Catch-22 logic we live with these days, yes you are absolutely right.

            That they were not does not mean that they could not in the future. It is therefore ok to shut anyone down anytime for any reason to prevent them from doing something that they have not done but may do in the future whether they do it or not.

            Simple no?

            And don’t forget the succession issue with, what was it Uday and Kusay. In any event, it was not their day.

    • Not even The Onion could have concocted this – truth is stranger than fiction. I read it this morning and almost blew coffee through my nose. All I want to know – was Nancy behind him clapping when he said it?

    • usw,

      Why are you surprised? Didn’t you watch the vice presidential debate? Maybe because I had to attend too many political dinners that I recognize BS without any real facts to back it up, but I knew during that debate Biden made many incorrect or as Politifact says “barely true or mostly false” – and the only one that made any reports was his statement that he goes to the local diner to talk to folks to see what they’re thinking – the diner which closed 5 or 10 years before !!

      For forty years in the democratic circles he’s known as a dunce but can project down to earth (means stupid) sincerity no matter what he says ! He knows its just political campaigning BS !! It just so sad that he and others can get away it and have for so long that if they ever are directly questioned they can be honestly shocked that they would AVER be questioned.

    • Typical tactic from the left…change the topic.

    • Mathius

      No reason to run for cover.

      This article is a lie. Dud’s don’t hurt you because they have no effect.

      The actual numbers have been posted on this site before. BF posted the total deficit numbers just last week, I think. I have posted the explanation of the supposed “surplus” as well as the reality that the surplus was GONE by July 2001.

      Lies on the left,,,,,,Lies on the right.

      Hold firm men, its time to fight.

      Top O’ the Mornin to Ya Matt
      JAC

    • Matt,

      So your defense of the Vice-President, a heartbeat away from being the most powerful man in the world, is Texas Congressman Jeb Hensarling is also a dufus?

      Or if you want to talk about the economy, by all means, lets compare Bush to Obama?

    • Buck The Wala says:

      Is it just me or am I seeing a ‘damned if you do, damned if you dont’ type of situation forming.

      Obama is lambasted for placing the blame on Bush — he has been president for a year so he must ‘own’ all of the problems out there, whether it be the economy, Afghanistan, etc. But when Obama takes credit for something there are screams in the other direction.

      You can’t have it both ways. I will concede that Obama cannot place the blame for everything on Bush and must step up and try to solve the problems we are currently facing. But if he deserves the blame, then he also deserves the credit.

      • It is just you…

      • Well then tell him that if he gets the credit, then he also gets the blame. HE is the one who is trying to have it both ways. One of the first things that I learned as an Army Officer is that you get both the credit, and the blame for anything that happens while you are in command. You accept the blame, you don’t pass the buck. Conversly, you ensure that the people responsible for your successes are rightly recognized, and ensure that they get credit before you do. This administration (yes the previous one did it too) tries to do the opposite.

        • That is the way…but a Redleg? Ahhh..thas’ ok….you guys bailed my ass out of trouble more than once.

      • Kristian Stout says:

        Credit for what? What has he done that deserves any credit other than running this country into an economic hole we may not be able to crawl out of? I know that Bush helped put us there but Obama has been driving this train for a year now and things have gotten worse, not better. The surge was Bush’s plan and it is working, Obama and Biden voted against it, so he gets to take credit for it now just because he sits in the big chair?

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Ah, I knew when posting my above comment it would cause a stir.

        I said myself that Obama deserves some of the blame, but he also deserves some of the credit. Over the past few months I have read posting after posting of people pouncing on Obama for continuously blaming Bush. Now when he takes credit for something, he is pounced on for NOT giving credit to Bush.

        The story here should not be how Biden is wrong — Biden is correct in that the administration does deserve some credit for this. The story here should be how Obama is trying to have it both ways himself, as Redleg correctly points out.

        • Buck,

          That is silly. The comments here have been that every time something goes WRONG he blames Bush. And now to refute that you point out an instance where he takes the “blame” for something that goes right. Your idea would have merit if he were taking the blame for something that goes wrong. In this instance he has done exactly what everyone here has lambasted him for: Blame Bush for everything wrong and take credit for anything that goes right.

          USW

          • Buck The Wala says:

            The way I read this posting thread – and I apologize if I misread it – is being very critical of the Obama administration for taking credit for any successes in Iraq.

            My point is that should not be the story. I am in agreement that Obama must take a certain amount of blame. But he must also be granted a certain amount of credit. We are in agreement with what the real story here is.

            But your original posting, at least how I read it, was nothing more than an attack piece criticizing Obama for taking ANY credit here.

            • IMO, it is not so negative on the administration as it is on Biden…Gibbs doesn’t help things, but I think he was more in a damage control situation…as he is more often than not finding himself in. As does most every press secretary for any recent president have.

              You have to admit, Biden is an expert at oral foot insertion…

            • That is fair Buck, but I think if you back and read it again you will find that the tone I took was against Biden for making the claim, not against Obama.

              The point was that it seems politicians each day get a little bolder with the lies they arrempt to pass through to the public.

              USW

      • Buck,

        It’s really simple. A lie is a lie. If Obama blames Bush for something he bears responsibility for ,like the stimulus, and its
        effect on the economy, it’s a lie. And that is both a good and bad example, because the economy he inherited was Bushes fault, but what he has done with it since then is clearly on him and his Democratic
        congress.

        It is very clear that taking credit for Bushes policies that he and Biden opposed is a boldfaced lie.

        • Lets not forget that Obama was in the majority congress since 2006. So he has more connection than just saying ” oh this is what I inherited!”

    • from American Thinker

      Deception as a Principle of Governance
      By James Long
      The Democrats all agree that President George Bush received a surplus when he took office after President Clinton’s term, and then he passed a deficit to President Obama. Democrats are outrageous prevaricators.

      David Axelrod in the Washington Post, 15 January 2010:

      The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus — with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion.

      Hillary said much the same thing on “Meet the Press,” 15 November 2009:

      It, it breaks my heart, David (Gregory), that in 2001 we had a balanced budget and a surplus; and if we’d stayed on that path, we were heading toward eliminating our debt.

      Similarly, Senator Robert Menendez on “This Week,” 24 January 2010:

      And, you know, I love my dear friend (Jim DeMint) talking about, you know, fiscal responsibility, but when George Bush came to office, he had a $236 billion surplus. Barack Obama was handed a $1.3 trillion deficit.

      And a 07 February 2010 NYT editorial put it this way:

      When President Bush took office in 2001, the federal budget had been in the black for three (four, actually) years, and continued surpluses were projected for a decade to come.

      President Obama in his first State of the Union address also mentioned the large surplus that President Bush inherited in contrast to the deficit that Obama himself inherited.

      Every one of the above statements is patently and provably false. The dot-com bubble crashed almost exactly one year before Clinton left office, and the value of the NASDAQ (symbol ^IXIC available on YAHOO!) fell by $2.5 trillion dollars (half its total value) before the end of the Clinton administration. When the dot-com bubble popped, as all economic bubbles do, the NASDAQ fell sharply. Every economic indicator during Clinton’s last year in office turned decisively downward — the surplus, government revenues, and the markets included. Economic projections made at the very top of an economic bubble are foolish, but the dot-com bubble had long since popped, and everything was going south by the time Clinton left office. Consequently, the Democrats’ projections of surpluses years into the future at a time when all indices were falling are not just foolish, but dishonest.

      A lot of things happened in the economy during Clinton’s last year, all of them bad. Besides the dot-com bubble crash in January 2000, the DOW also peaked and started down shortly before Clinton left office, and the S&P started down shortly after that. The NASDAQ continued to fall for an eventual loss of $4 trillion, and the collapse of the DOW and the S&P also resulted in more trillions of dollars lost in the markets.

      With the markets crashing, federal revenues were reduced, and GDP growth slowed as President Clinton left office. The vaunted Clinton surplus fell from $236 billion in FY 1999 (ending 30 September 1999) to $128 billion in FY 2000 (ending 30 September 2000), Clinton’s last year. Axelrod’s and Menendez’s claims that the surplus was $236 billion on “[t]he day the Bush administration took over” were off by just sixteen months, during which time markets, government revenues, and the “Clinton surplus” were falling like rocks. At the end of the first FY of President Bush’s term (2001), the budget had a deficit of over $157 billion. The “Clinton surplus” fell $393 billion in twenty-four months (FY 1999 to FY 2001) following the dot-com crash, and Clinton was still in office for sixteen of those months.

      Empirically, if the American voters in late 2000 believed that the Clinton surplus was as high as the Democrats now claim, and if the long-term projection for the surplus was accepted as valid by those voters, Al Gore would have won the 2000 election in a landslide that would have rivaled President Reagan’s victories. In reality, the voters in 2000 were nervous about the economy, having just witnessed trillions of dollars lost in the dot-com fiasco, and Bush won.

      Not only did Bush inherit a plunging economy, but given the magnitude of the dot-com crash, this was an extremely perilous time for the American economic outlook. In the event, President Bush applied the proper corrective measures and the damage was minimized, with unemployment limited to a relatively benign 6.1%. The economy went on to register solid jobs, growth, and productivity from 2003 to 2007 until the next Democratic disaster hit: the unaffordable housing bubble.

      Sandwiched between the stupid Clinton dot-com bubble and the deliberate Democratic housing bubble, the Bush economy did quite well from 2003 to 2007, with deficits steadily being reduced and government growing at a slower relative rate than the economy. But President Bush had to pay for the considerable costs of Clinton’s dot-com bubble (unemployment compensation, job training, lost tax revenues, etc.) until the economy began to recover in 2003, and then, at the end of his term, Bush had to stop the economic collapse that was triggered by the Democrats’ mortgage follies. Democrats have hung a bad rap on President Bush because they want to achieve power, and dishonesty is one of the tools they have used successfully (and frequently) in their quest to tell us how to live.

      Every economic crisis we have suffered since WWII has been the result of Democratic Party malfeasance or misfeasance. LBJ’s wasteful and corrupt War on Poverty did almost nothing to lessen poverty, cost $6.6 trillion over a thirty-year period, and ended when President Clinton signed off on a Republican initiative to end it. In comparison, the total national debt was $5.2 trillion at the point when the fraud-ridden, $6.6-trillion War on Poverty was mercifully ended. President Obama has now substantially reinstituted the War on Poverty with his non-stimulating stimulus package.

      President Reagan and President Bush pulled us out of the first two Democratic disasters described above, but Obama’s disaster is much worse. Obama is adding fuel to the raging inferno as the economy melts down, rather than taking known corrective actions similar to what Reagan and Bush (and Kennedy, in a similar scenario) did.

      If Hillary is really interested in “heading toward eliminating our debt,” then she could tell the Democrats to quit spending our money foolishly.

      In the Soviet era, Pravda was the major official Soviet newspaper. The term “pravda” is usually translated as “truth,” but as Russians use the term, pravda would be more accurately translated as “the official word.” The official Democratic word and the official words of all declining mainstream Pravdas is that everything is President Bush’s fault, even if the disastrous dot-com bubble and its inevitable crash happened during the Clinton administration.

      • Clinton also got the benefit of the peace dividend as DoD spending was down substantially during his years. This was a result of the Reagan/Bush I years. Bush II not only handled the dot.com bust but also weathered the Enron/accounting practices scandals (people did go to jail), 911 and the airline meltdowns that followed, and two wars. Considering all that, the economy did well under Bush II until the housing bubble burst. Bush did warn about FMae & FMac but should have made more noise than he did, not that it would have done any good. I certainly would not give Bush a failing grade as many are giving him. His economic performance was not stellar so I would give him a B- to C, probably the lower grade because he did nothing to stop earmarks and pork. Obama in my opinion rates a D at this point bordering on an F.

        wrt: Biden and Iraq, I will give this administration credit for not changing the Bush plan in Iraq. However, they should take a que from Bush and show the class he has with respect to predecessors and successors to the office.

        • TRAy

          While I agree that most who chastize Bush don’t really understand how it all plays, it is also true that Bush simply did what the left now wants Obama to do.

          He propped up the economy with tax cuts and FED funny money. It prevented what should have been a cleansing of the system after the dot.com bust. It simply delayed and magnified the eventual purging.

          This Admin seems hell bent on doing the same. Which will of course make the eventualy reckoning that much worse.

          I would agree that Obama gets worse grades but primarily because he let the politics control the entire “bailout” effort.

          Happy weekend to you and yours
          JAC

          • Personally, I never had any problems with Bush’s tax cuts. Where I ding Bush is he was a terrible adminstrator letting things go in the wrong direction for too long and he did not control Congressional spending. A few vetos early in his first term might have straightened out his own party. Obama is making the same mistake. Go after the excesses of your own party since those are the only ones you can control. Then it will be easier to have bipartisan discussions with the opposition. Instead, he lets his own party run wild, then blames the opposition for being the opposition, then pleads that he wants bipartisanship. That is not an effective strategy. As a result of not restraining Congress, deficits have ballooned.

            You must give Bush credit for attempting to take on SS. I see no difference in the reteric of the Dems on SS and that of the Rebubs on healthcare. I would like to see here a discussion on how to fix SS. I have been thinking about it and wondering if now is the time to kill it. Since SS receipts are now less than payments, should we just start tapering it off and kill it over the next 10-20 years. Tell those that are 50-55 and under to forget about receiving any benefits and to start saving for their own retirement. Enhance IRAs and 401Ks to make it attractive. The alternative is massive tax hikes or printing to pay back the money that should have been in the “lock box”. Many will scream and say I payed in for years and earned the benefit. In reality, we paid for our parents not ourselves except for the excess receipts collected since ’84 and spent by Congress (us).

            • T-Ray

              I would say Bush was a good Administrator but a poor leader/polititician.

              I saw several articles praising the Bush Admin for reorganizing and improving the efficiency of govt. All done under the radar.

              And I agree on SS. I gave him big kudos for his attempt. But he didn’t realize his victory in term 2 was probably more a rejection of Kerry. He overplayed his hand before having his ducks all lined up.

              And the Dems absolutely demagogued the whole thing. Tit for tat, first the D’s then the R’s, but all are rats.

              Heres to ya TRay
              Peace and freedom
              JAC

              • Maybe the MBA did do GWB some good. I was looking at Iraq and the fact that corrective action was called for long before it was implemented. One thing you can say is that Bush had some classe and did not toot is own horn or blame his predecessor for everything. He did say the job ahead was hard and would take a long time to accomplish. I predicted when we invaded Iraq, we would be there a generation. We are almost half way there.

                Yes Kerry was rejected and Bush had no super mandate to make changes but at least he had the courage to try. He botched it horribly as far as I was concerned. There were much better arguments for privatization that could have been made. I frequently feel the Repubs need to go back to debating school.

                So JAC & FrankC, I would still like to see a debate on SS. Either we fix it or let it die. We cannot continue on the present course without a serious correction as we are doomed to failure/default. I, like many here, have contributed to SS for 40 years, so I hate to see it lost but the reality is it is lost. How can we save our kids from this dissaster. I frequently tell them the last place the want to put their money is in government. I have saved for my retirement on the assumption that SS would not be there. Now I have to worry that inflation and excess taxes to save SS will take that away.

                SS was never intended to be a retirement plan or a welfare benefit. I do not see how it can survive without becoming a welfare system. This means that those who were frugal and planned for retirement will get screwed compared to those that lived for the moment. It is what it is.

                I am open to suggestions.

            • T-R – They – any knowledgeable elected politician know and have known since the 70’s (if not before) that SS and Medicare would blow up sometime in the future if something wasn’t done. But no one had the courage and fortitude to see it through.

            • T-Ray,

              Fear not, I am already working on an article about social security. Will probably run somewhere around the 23rd or 24th. It will be part of a new series I am working on.

              USW

  3. Joe, Joe, Joe, botox on the brain.

    I believe this statement was made on Larry King Live. However, being the great journalistic wonder that he is, did King challenge Biden with a follow-up question or two on how he could possibly make this statement? Of course not.

    Gee, I wonder how Politifact will rate this one…….

  4. LOI, you wondered a couple days ago what Lincoln was getting for her health care vote. Certainly not the Louisiana Purchase or Nelson’s Nebraskan payout, but it looks like she was promised some things.

    http://wsbradio.com/blogs/jamie_dupree/2010/02/jobs-bill-as-poultry-bailout.html

    Jobs Bill as Poultry Bailout

    Update though is that Reid has put the halt on the second stimulus, ie “JOBS BILLS” as it contains too much pork and not enough job creation. Harry can’t even get his meat right, it’s too much poultry, not pork.

  5. You know that SuperBowl Audi commercial that was just a little frightening? Well welcome to Cambridge, MA.

    Harvard Hometown Plans Coercive Taxes, Veganism to Stop Climate ‘Emergency’

    Congestion pricing to reduce car travel. Elimination of curbside parking. A carbon tax “of some kind,” not to mention taxes on plastic and paper bags. Advocating vegetarianism and veganism, complete with “Meatless or Vegan Mondays.” Those are just some of the proposals put forth by the Cambridge Climate Congress, an entity created in May 2009 to respond to the “climate emergency” plaguing the Massachusetts city.

    Read entire article:

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/12/cambridge-plans-taxes-veganism-climate-change/

    • These people have lost their minds. They should be institutionalized for our protection.

      🙂

      • No, Cyndi, let them all congregate in Cambridge and let them be.

        • Can’t we at least put a fence around them and hang signs on it saying “Please don’t feed the animals. They’re on special diet”?

          😛

    • Picture those elites (for Mathius!) running around Cambridge, screaming “what to do?” “what to do?”

      Becoming vegetarian ‘can harm the environment’

      Adopting a vegetarian diet based around meat substitutes such as tofu can cause more damage to the environment, according to a new study.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7219223/Becoming-vegetarian-can-harm-the-environment.html

      hahaha, just too funny.

      • Forget the environment..

        http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill

        This is fantastic

        • Mathius

          did you read the link to PETA’s response. Hilarious.

          Apparently cruelty and murder is a “relative” thing.

          Seems I remember that popping up somewhere else in history.

          LOL
          JAC

          • I’ve read that entire site at one point or another. It’s a shame he doesn’t really post anymore.

            Interesting thing though, now that I think about it… he fancies himself as a pirate.. It even has a picture of him with a hook and eye-patch..

            I’m sure it’s just coincidence.

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          So, how would you like that steak prepared for ya?

          Hope all is well with you Mathius.

          • Medium rare, please..

            It would be heavenly if you could put some Montreal seasoning or peppercorns on it. Talk to Emilius.. she knows how to make a killer steak.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              I thought we already went over this — the only way a steak should be cooked is Rare. You should know better…

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                EWWWWWWWW! MOOOOOO!

                Why not just wave a match flame to it. The only way I like it is, medium well. Can’t stand it still mooing when trying to cut into it.

              • Buck

                Cooked Rare is an oxymoron is it not?

                I’m with Matt on this one.

                But we may have differing definitions of Medium Rare. Mine still drips red from the center, but is warm through and through.

              • Warmed through, dark red center..

                Slow cooked, if you please.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Wht not just throw it on the plate raw. Why even bothering to to cook it. Rare is one thing, but bloody, sorry Jac but ICK.

              • Sometimes, I’ll drive through the countryside and see a cow in a pasture. I’ll get out of the car, walk over to the cow and just start chewing on it.

                This happens more frequently than you might think.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Oh, too funny Mathius.

                Hope the cow doesn’t bite back.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                No oxymoron – it is still cooked since you need that wonderful seared quality on the outside.

                And I’m sorry but I’m not going to debate this point – steaks are meant to be eaten rare.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                But, Buck, that’s just your opinion.

                Hope you and your wife re doing good.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Everything else I write on this site is always in my humble opinion. I don’t mess around when it comes to my steak!

                Hope you’re doing well too – enjoy the extended weekend!

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Doing good Buck, and thank you.

                Just razzing you, that’s all.

                You have a good weekend too.

              • D13 We need a hand over here. Have some slow learners to deal with

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Hi Anita

                Let me guess, you like your steak practically raw too.

                How ya doing today?

              • No way Judy:!: Pink in the center. Juicy not bloody.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                A little pink I can tolerate, but not bloody. If it’s too pink, I’ll send it back. Like I said, I don’t want my steak moving around on the plate when I’m trying to cut into it.

              • Ahhhh…Anita….sorta like politics….Each to his own….if they prefer to, ummm, ruin their steak…ok. 🙂 Some probably even use steak sauce for something other than marinade.

                As to Matt…..tip the beef first, Matt….our longhorns are some perscickity if you start chewing before tipping. You think a RAPTOR is bad…chem on the steak side of a longhorn steer before tipping…..ghastly.

              • Damn keyboard still does not know how to spell…..chem = chew.

              • v. Holland says:

                Personally, I like steak just about anyway it is cooked except burnt-My preference- slightly red in the middle/ with ketchup to dip it in -having a fit now aren’t you. 🙂

  6. Judy Sabatini says:

    I hope this works. This video I think fits in with topic #2. It’s called Thank Your Military, Thank a Soldier.

    Hope all is doing well today.

    Judy

    http://media.causes.com/576542?p_id=28931771

  7. A few weeks back we talked about banking and foreclosures and short sales and how confusing it all gets. I ran across this clip this morning. These places are downright incestuous.

    Why Underwater Loans Are NOT Being Negotiated

    http://rightsoup.com/

  8. Judy Sabatini says:

    I received This Email this morning, and thought I’d pass it along here. Seems to fit to fir with topic #1. Maybe if that gal had a legal concealed permit to carry, she might still be a live today. Personally, I think the justice system is flawed. How many times has a woman applied for a court order against someone to the hopes that it will/would/could save her life, say from an abusive husband or boyfriend? Granted, not all court orders help, and in some cases, by the time it’s okay ed, it’s to late.

    I guess if someone is out go get some one else, they will find a way. It just make me angry when these stalkers lurk around spying on some one with the attempts to kill them, and when they do, they then kill themselves. If you want to take your own life, fine, go ahead, but don’t take others with you.

    To give you an idea of what to expect from NAGR emails, here is an example of the important news we bring our members.

    I thought you would enjoy this story out of Atlanta, Georgia. If you do, please forward it to your friends.

    College student shoots home invader, saves 10 lives

    Yet another reason to keep a gun in the house . . .

    Several months ago, in the notoriously dangerous neighborhood of College Park in Atlanta, Georgia, two armed criminals broke into a house party of students.

    After confiscating the group’s valuables, the invaders split the men and women up into different rooms.

    Witnesses say the perpetrators then counted their rounds and discussed if they had “enough” ammunition.

    The students believe the gunmen were going to rape and murder the entire group of students, who were celebrating a birthday at the end of the semester.

    However, one male student, whose identity is being protected by police and local media, retrieved a handgun from his backpack and fired at the thug who was detaining the men.

    (That is: One smart student had prepared for a night in College Park, Atlanta.)

    The criminal fled the apartment under the threat of injury and never returned.

    The student, continuing on into the girls’ room, found the other thug, 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, preparing to rape his first victim.

    The student exchanged gunfire with Lavant, lethally wounding him in the process. Lavant fled through a window and died in front of his apartment, only one building away.

    One of the female students was injured during the exchange, but doctors expect a full and complete recovery.

    So what’s the point

    A student saved the girls from rape, and saved the whole group of 10 people (including himself) from murder . . . and he did it with a handgun.

    This is a perfect example of how ludicrous “big city gun laws” are. What if this had happened in New York, Chicago, or any of the other big cities that criminalize their citizens’ self defense?

    Yes, we would be reading an entirely different story — one so horrendous that we would shudder at the very words.

    Either this whole group of friends would have been raped and murdered by these two sorry excuses for human beings . . . or the hero of this story would be facing prison time for firearm possession and murder.

    Thankfully, however, Atlanta hasn’t outlawed self-defense yet. And since someone had a gun and was willing to use it, innocent life was preserved.

    Congratulations to the unnamed hero of this story. You saved your friends’ lives.

    In Liberty,

    Dudley Brown
    Executive Director
    National Association for Gun Rights

    To help the National Association for Gun Rights grow, please forward this to a friend.

    To view this email as a web page, please click this link: view online.

  9. posting for comments, have a good weekend everyone

  10. Judy Sabatini says:

    The FBI Knows Where You Are, Thanks to Your Cell Phone

    By Jeremy A. Kaplan

    A federal appeals court will begin debating on Friday a privacy issue you probably hadn’t considered: the government’s ability to track your location at any time, if you carry a cell phone.

    A case being heard by a federal appeals court today aims to investigate the government’s ability to track an individual’s location based on cellular phone data.

    A federal appeals court will begin debating on Friday a privacy issue you probably hadn’t considered: the government’s ability to track your location at any time, if you carry a cell phone.

    As cell phones have morphed from cordless communication devices into pocket-sized PCs, cellular providers have developed and honed the ability to pinpoint your location fairly accurately — potentially to within 150 feet. This helps network operators connect your phone to the nearest cell tower and locate you in an emergency, a federally mandated feature called e911.

    That feature could be a lifesaver if your car runs off a rural road on a dark night. But it also enables the authorities to know your location at all times when you’re carrying your phone.

    “Most people don’t understand they are carrying a tracking device in their pockets,” Kevin Bankston, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Newsweek.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia will hear arguments on Friday in a case that centers around Philadelphia FBI agent William Shute, who testified that he obtained records 150 times in recent years to track the location of federal fugitives.

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union will argue in court Friday that the practice raises serious privacy issues.

    Location information is generated when you place a call on your cellular phone; most carriers store that data for a period of time, which varies by carrier.

    They don’t store the information for long, and they also don’t track your location when you’re not making calls. But they easily could, says PCMag.com cell phone analyst Sascha Segan.

    “At any moment, if your cell phone is on, your provider can tell where you are. Right now, they don’t store that bit of information. But if the government makes that a legal requirement, they might have to.”

    It’s technically feasible, Segan explains, and it’s not discussed in your cell phone contract. Contracts detail certain privacy regulations, but all are subject to government laws and regulations. A change in the law would supersede your contract.

    The Fourth Amendment guards against illegal search and seizure and will be cited frequently in Friday’s case, but the “right to privacy,” while implied in the Constitution, is not explicitly guaranteed, explains Dr. Abbe Forman, a professor and civil rights expert with the computer and information science department at Temple University’s College of Science and Tech.

    “Many Americans believe that the Constitution guarantees us the ‘right to privacy,’ but that’s not the case,” Forman warned.

    She said tracking is a critical tool in emergencies, but she worries that the government may play upon our fears to enhance its snooping powers.

    “If we tell people they will be safer because they can be found in case of emergency, most people will look no further for information, even though the great majority of them will never be lost to that extreme,” she said.

    Of course, you can always turn off the tracking by simply turning off your cell phone. And if a criminal picks up a new pay-as-you-go cell phone at the corner store rather than one with a contract — and then throws it away a day later — the government won’t be able to keep up with the IDs on those phones.

    “These cases therefore revolve around stupider criminals,” jokes Segan, “the ones who keep a single cell phone and have a monthly relationship with a carrier.”

    • Bottom Line says:

      They can also eves drop on your conversations:

      • Bottom Line says:

        They also sell software that allows everyday citizens to eves drop and track you:

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Hi BL

          I have to agree with what that gal said, it is an invasion of privacy, and if they’re that hard up to listen to your calls, then we’re all in trouble. It looks like there is no escaping big brother’s eyes and ears now.

          So much for freedom of anything.

          Hope you’re doing well today.

          • Bottom Line says:

            I am well today, And wishing the same for you Judy(as always).

            There is one escape from big brother spying on your cell…

            Simply don’t own a cell.

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Well, I guess I’m good then, because I don’t have one. Hubby and both son’s do though. I’ll have to show them the article and see what they have to say.

              Glad to hear you’re doing well today BL.

  11. I have posted several times that our actual national debt is somewhere north of 90 trillion.

    This based on about 13 trillion budget debt and 60 trillion in SS/Med/MAid obligations plus an estimated 23 trillion in actual Bank Bailout obligations. Well turns out is was a few billion off on my bailout estimate.

    Anybody want to caluculate the payment required to pay off 96 trillion over 50 years at say 3% interest?

    Remember, 1 trillion has 12 zeros after it.

    Happy calculating.
    JAC

  12. From the It must be Global Warming file
    Cold weather splits 1,200-year-old oak near Wrexham

    Cold weather is believed to have caused one of Britain’s oldest trees – known as the Great Oak at the Gates of the Dead – to split down the middle.

    The 1,200-year-old oak, near Chirk, Wrexham, has a 34ft (10m) circumference trunk and is thought to date back to the reign of King Egbert in 802.

    It is near the site of the Battle of Crogen in 1165 when the tree is thought to have been spared by King Henry II.

    Local historian Mark Williams said he was “devastated”.

    Mr Williams and fellow historian Deryn Poppit discovered the damage on Tuesday.

    ‘Great shame’

    He added: “It seems to be a victim of the very cold weather.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/north_east/8508158.stm

    • From the Global Warming archives

      A first for recent memory and first in history (though I haven’t confirmed)

      every State in the USA has snow! All 50!

  13. For Judy

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Hi Flag

      SO, I’m taking it then, that, that black squiggly line represents the difference in warming and cooling, right?

      • Correct – and that is has been a whole lot hotter in earth’s history then now.

        We are an ice cube in a temporary melt.

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          I’m almost afraid to ask this, but what exactly do you mean? That we’re going to gradually start to get hotter next?

          I still don’t quite understand the global warming thing really, but I always thought that it has to do with the constant changes in the weather patterns, or am I far off base here?

          • Let me help Judy.

            The earth warms and cools naturally. High sunspot activity will cause slight warming, lack of activity will cause cooling. There’s lots of other “natural” events that do this as well.

            When MT. Pinatubo erupted, the ash that went into the atmosphere caused cooling for a couple years.

            If not for scientists, we would never notice these slight changes, and if we ignore them alltogether, it would not harm us at all.

            The fraug called AGW, is just that, a big lie that does not exist.

            So, for what you ask, what the earth is doing, in our lifetime, will not matter. It’s not like the earth is suddenly having a global super summer, it’s not. We won’t notice the slight changes that we are having shoved down our throats. So Don’t worry, be happy 🙂

            G!

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Hey G

              I’m not worried, Was just asking my usual questions.

              Al I know, when it’s hot, I’m miserable, and when it’s cold, I’m miserable. Can’t get warm when it’s cold, but can cool down when it gets hot. It’s called Air conditioning.

              BTW, how goes it there? Is it still snowing, or has it tapered off any? Don’t have to tell you what we’re having since you already know by listening to the radio.

              • On and off snow showers, like normal. Still ended up plowing for several hours at work, but the weekend looks good, no storms, yet, did here a rumor of one Sunday/Monday.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                I just hope it stays nice, at least for tomorrow and tomoorow night. Me and Jimare going to the Reno Events Center to see Jeff Dunham, and it’s a pretty long walk to get there where we have to park and all.

                Nice that you get a break for a couple days anyway.

              • Jeff Dunham is great, enjoy!

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                We will, and thank you.

                Jim plans on taking his Peanut with him as well. The boys got his that for Christmas.

        • So what I don’t unde4rstand, is how does or did Al Gore make millions off of AGW ?

          • He is paid up to $100,000 a speech.

            He gets royalties from his movie.

            He is the founder and major shareholder of the largest Carbon Trading company in the USA.

            He is the founder and major shareholder of an multi-billion dollar venture capital firm specializing in investments for “Green” economy.

            • Carbon Trading company – now that sounds like a Madoff scheme.

              Billion $$ green venture – where did that billion come from? shez..

    • BF- How many times do I hafta tell you- It’s the weekend! Let Judy have a nice weekend. 😛

  14. For G-Man,…. 😉

    a post from somewhere else…

    America…a little bit of background for you.

    Senator Jay Rockefeller is the ‘nephew’ of David Rockefeller…well known and active member of the Bilderberg Society…put it in your search engine!

    —————————————-

    Speaking at the Sept. 23, 1994 United Nations Ambassadors’ dinner, David Rockefeller remarked,

    “This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long.” “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” 38

    ——————————————

    America…do you think that this “financial crisis” declared in our Republic was this “major crisis” that he said would bring about the New World Order?

    Here is another bit of information for you on the Trilateral Commission of which Bill Clinton and others are a part of…

    —————————————–

    The Trilateral Commission was founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller with Zbigniew Brzezinski as executive director, after Brzezinski published Between Two Ages, which became the blueprint for the TC. David read and appreciated his ideas, which included,

    “Though Stalinism may have been a needless tragedy for both the Russian people and communism as an ideal, there is the intellectually tantalizing possibility that for the world at large it was, as we shall see, a blessing in disguise.”

    “Marxism represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man’s universal vision. Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the external man over the inner, passive man and a victory of reason over belief.”

    “Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control.”

    “The Soviet Union could have emerged as the standard-bearer of this century’s most influential system of thought and as the social model for resolving the key dilemmas facing modern man.” 33

    1973 founding members of the Trilateral Commission also included Jimmy Carter, who chose Zbigniew Brzezinski as his National Security Adviser during his presidency. Brzezinski, also a member of the CFR, wrote in his Power & Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Advisor, 1977-1981, on page 49, “The new President’s specific views on foreign affairs–going beyond his desire for a foreign policy governed by humane and moral concerns–had been formed during his time with the Trilateral Commission. Contrary to the myth, the Trilateral Commission is not a conspiracy designed to dominate the world but genuinely strives to engage Americans, Western Europeans and Japanese in a common endeavor to shape a more cooperative world…”

    On page 289, he wrote, ‘”Moreover, all the key foreign policy decision-makers of the Carter Administration had previously served in the Trilateral Commission….”

    —————————————-

    Dominated by the elite, America? The elite of the Bilderberg?

    That although communism was not good for Russia…it would be good for the New World Order?

    —————————————–

    It is interesting to me just a regular citizen…that Jay Rockefeller comes up now against Bilderberg Bush-Obama!

    Bilderberg Bush-Obama was ‘chosen’ to be our President and pushed to be our President by the Bilderberg!

    Now that America is waking up and they see that he has no further influence and no further use for them to put forth their agenda to usher in the New World Order…they are going to see that he is removed from power!

    America…we are being run by outside forces and it needs to stop!

    That is why I support Debra Medina in Texas for Governor!

    Governor Perry went before the secretive Bilderberg Society in 2007 and I believe ‘he’ is being groomed to be the next President in 2012…if we don’t wake up and elect people…regular people like Debra Medina who are going against them!

    Here is the article from 2007 in the Dallas Morning News about Governor Perry before the Bilderberg!

    [www.dallasnews.com]

    America…I am not fantasizing…I am not a conspiracy nut…I am an average American connecting the dots of “FACTS” from various sources detailing the truths of what ‘is…is’!

    Everyone needs to do the same!

    We need the truth…because the truth will set us free from this New World Order and all it will bring upon us and all the world!

    Wake up and connect the dots…yourself…before it is too late!

    • Hi CP!

      As we discussed a few weeks ago, there are alot of happenings going on that most will not pay attention too. It’s just too unbeleivable, they will say. They will be the first to board the train bound for nowhere, but don’t tell them that, they might think we’re kooky! 🙂

      G!

      • They already think we’re kooky. 🙂

        Years ago my mother told me about this stuff and I thought she was kooky. Then, I couldn’t deny that things weren’t what I thought. The more time that passes, the more I think my mom is right. But don’t tell her that. It’ll go to her head! 8)

        • Mom’s are great! They always know best, even if we think they are kooky, they’re usully right.

          I heard Anita yelling at Todd, maybe we should find them and calm things 😆

          G!

          • That was you! 😆

            Sorry, I thought the email said Anita. Calm down girl, it’s only Todd. He means no harm! 👿

            G!

            • I’m watchin ….. 😆

            • He does mean harm because he supports the whole con game. If it was his money I bet he’d be PO’d just like I am. BIG GREEN is the problem. People who support Big Green are a part of the same problem. They hate Big Oil but Big Green gets a free pass. WTF????

              I want my money back.

              👿

              • Cyndi, Cyndi, Cyndi,

                Calm down sister! I can hear ya 7000 miles away! Grab a coconut full of alcohol and everything will be ok 🙂

              • Okay, I can laugh now. Thank you for that 🙂

                I do need to get a grip. I have date tonight. My sweetie is taking me to the Valentine’s dinner at the Country Club (at least what passes for a CC out here). I need to decide if I’m going to bring out my Mr.-T 22k gold starter kit to wear with my new dress, or if I’ll go with the island style. Hmmmm, decisions, decisions, decisions.

                Yep, this is much better than growling about how much money Big Green is costing me.

                8)

              • Now yer talkin..have fun 8)

              • Thanks!

  15. Confirmed

    “The snow blitz … is truly a rare event that has no parallel in the historic record,” wrote Weather Underground’s Jeff Masters Friday morning.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      They have said, that Reno has had snow even in June and July, and the only month it hasn’t had snow, was in August.

      But when exactly, I couldn’t say. Maybe JAC would remember since he liver here when he was younger.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Darn keyboard, I meant lived here not liver. OOOOPS!

      • Judy

        I used to make money betting on snow around 4th of July and again on labor day each year. If a cold front was moving in with big black clouds I would announce snow on the mountains by the end of the week.

        Never lost a bet in those days.

        The snow field on Mt. Rose never disappeared when I was young. You could see it from Reno all year. It was the remanant of an old glacier but had lost that distinction.

        Don’t ever remember snow in August but Labor day weekend for sure.

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Hey JAC

          That’s why I said, they said that was only time it didn’t snow here. You can see snow on top of MT Rose up until June, and maybe the first part of July, but it’s just a little patch of it by then.

          That’s where my son’s go snowboarding at, it’s there favorite place around here.

  16. Bottom Line says:

    It’s kind of lengthy(2:24), but it’s most interesting…

    Enjoy!

    “Fall Of The Republic”

  17. Judy Sabatini says:

    From the beginning of time we have known that it is not good for man to be alone. The most basic of all human needs is the need to love and be loved. Yet, our mobile lifestyles create shallow roots resulting in 70% of Americans claiming to have many acquaintances but few close friends. The following are 10 thoughts on why we need meaningful relationships:

    1. Mother Teresa: “Loneliness is the leprosy of modern society.”
    2. 4 out of 10 admit to frequent feelings of loneliness. (Gallup)
    3. The absence of relationships results in absence of affirmation, shared experience and disclosure.
    4. A life unshared is only half lived.
    5. Nothing so shapes us as the relationships we have in life.
    6. The average American moves 11.7 times in a lifetime. (U.S. Census Bureau)
    7. Ecclesssiastes 4:9 “Two are better than one.”
    8. Self-absorption leaves little room for quality relationships.
    9. The intimate family relationships that nurtured us in our early years are rarely replaced once the family unit disperses.
    10. Social networks alone will not create the trust and shared experiences of face-to-face friendships.

    Never has there been so great a need for meaningful relationships. In a fast-paced, high-tech, highly mobile society we must be intentional in cultivating connectedness and community. The joy of living well is found in stepping beyond our independence and isolation towards a quality of life only to be found with others.

    Rev. Bill Shuler is pastor of Capital Life church in Arlington,
    Virginia.

    #1. No, not all people are lonely, some prefer to be alone.

    #2. Could be a lot more than 4 out of 10.

    #3. You don’t need to have a relationship to have disclosure with anyone.

    #4. No, again, some people prefer to be alone. You can still have a full life with friends and family around you.

    #5. It depends in the relationships we have. Some relationships can shape us in the worse way, while others can be the best relationship ever.

    #6. No, not necessarily so. I think it depends on the situation.

    #7. Two may not be better than one. One might be more controlling. Depends on the two who are involved.

    #8. I think that is true. One can be so absorbed in what they’re doing or doing something that doesn’t involve the other person or person’s, that they don’t realize it until it’s too late.

    #9. I think it depends on how you were raised and how you choose you life’s path. But it doesn’t mean that it disperses once you get older. You can still have that close family unity, it doesn’t have to go away.

    #10. That, I think is totally false. None of us here have ever met in person that I am aware of, but you can have trust and shared experiences with those on the network, especially here. How many times have all of us, or some, or just a few shared the most intimate details of some of the relationships, or friendships, or some other little dark secret we might not have told anyone else we may have told on this site?

    I would trust any one of you with my life if it ever came down to any situation that would call for it, and I hope any of you would trust me as well. I think of all of you as my close nit little family here and I would do anything for any one of you. I have trusted in telling you people things, I think I have never told anyone else.

    I find #10 to be totally wrong.

    Those are some of my thoughts on these 10 items.

  18. Great quote!!!

    “”Vote to Raise Your Own Taxes, Not Mine

    In my world, democracy is voting to raise my own taxes (or not). Voting to raise someone else’s taxes is mob rule.

    Mike Konen “”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704820904575055081470075168.html

  19. As I sit here with the family watching the Olympic Opening Ceremonies I’m thinking wouldn’t it be cool if everyone in the world could just get along. And FTR Sarah McLachlan rocks!

  20. PHILIPPIANS 2:12-18 ” Become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world.”

    That scripture pretty much sums up in as few as words as I could think; my philosophy towards living a good decent life.I am well read with the scriptures and am of the mindset that if I could apply a tenth of the general wisdom contained with those scriptures to my life then I would be set upon a fulfilled path that I would never look back upon with regret.

    Going to do a little bible thumping this evening with you ladies and gents! There have been comments made in reference to myself in the past on the blog in various discussions alleging that I am indoctrinated in the mindset of forcing my beliefs upon others.That is absolutely false.There is a huge difference in not allowing someones elses beliefs to affect my family, friends and myself versus saying “It’s my way or the highway.”I daresay that those that have made those statements have had negative interaction with some christian belief sets.I know I have.I just question that persons interpretation of whatever belief and then determine whether or not I believe it true.Normally it involves discussing the belief in detail with that person.

    Now by no means am I politically correct.I never will be for the simple fact that I do not believe it logical to compare the good manners of being couth to the litany of rhetoric used by some groups to force their beliefs upon a people.Well, that and the fact that my very core yearns to always tell it like it is rather than sugarcoating.That stems from being honest and having a heartfelt belief in at least attempting to be a sincerely righteous person and adhering to my moral code.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      Yes, yes, and yes again.

      There are in fact certain truths that are self evident and cannot be shaded. If you chose to eliminate me as a friend because you choose to believe that some things can only be gray when I think they are black or white, then it is your loss. I will listen and argue with you, I will try to influence you to see things through my eyes but I will not cut you off. If you choose to cut me out of your circle then it says a lot more about you than it does about me.

  21. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hello Everyone:

    I thought this wa an interesting article, but not sure if all has read it or not, but thought I’d put it up anyway.

    Hope you will have a great day today.

    Judy

    Scientists and politicians on both sides of the climate change debate have been pointing to the record-breaking snowstorms in the Mid-Atlantic states to promote their theories on the earth’s changing temperatures — and the debate is getting downright nasty.

    Joseph Romm, a climate change expert and former Energy Department official; Jeff Masters, a meteorologist who writes on the Weather Underground blog; and others argue that this winter’s snowstorms are, counterintuitively, evidence of global warming and not cooling.

    “It’s absurd for the ‘anti-science side’ to say we’re in a cooling trend when we’re in an overall warming trend,” says Romm of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “Heavy snow is not evidence that climate science is false,” he added, noting that “the snow we’ve seen is entirely consistent with global warming theory.”

    But Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and state climatologist for Virginia for 27 years, disagrees. “Global warming simply hasn’t done a darned thing to Washington’s snow,” he wrote on National Review, adding that “if you plot out year-to-year snow around here, you’ll see no trend whatsoever through the entire history.”

    Politicians are jumping on the bandwagon, too. “It’s going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries ‘uncle,'” tweeted Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

    Global warming advocates feel under attack as skeptics use the record-setting snowstorms — and the recent discoveries of errors in the U.N.’s climate science study, a growing scandal called climate-gate — to question the theory that climate change is a manmade problem.

    Romm explains that cold weather doesn’t cause snow. What brings the flakes down is a combination of cold and precipitation. And since warmer air holds more moisture, global warming and heavy snowfall can coexist, so long as temperatures keeping dipping below 32 degrees.

    Bill Nye, the Science Guy, agrees, going so far as to tell MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that scientists who doubt climate change’s manmade origins are unpatriotic. “If you want to get serious about it, these guys claiming that the snow in Washington disproves climate change are almost unpatriotic — it’s as if they’re denying science,” Nye said.

    And though the science debate heats up, unlike the weather, the snowstorms have set off even more questions: Why is the East Coast getting hit, while Vancouver needs to truck in snow for the Winter Olympics? Can we accurately link extreme weather with global warming?

    Not really, says meteorologist Jeff Masters of Weather Underground, an independent forecaster. “You can’t take regional events and link them to overall climate change,” he said. “There’s a huge amount of natural variance.”

    But some skeptics say the science isn’t that innocent, even though they acknowledge global warming as a measurable anomaly. “As climate change critics, we’re not denying an increase in temperature,” says Dan Miller, publisher of the Heartland Institute, a group that favors free-market solutions to public policy problems. “We’re skeptical of the crisis level and the cause.”

    Miller says climate-change scientists have a conflict of interest, as many stand to receive “a huge amount of money” from the government to support continued research. “There is no upper limit of money at stake,” he warns.

    Conversely, Miller says his firm is impartial, having no financial investment in climate change; it would lose a mere 4 percent of its funding if it ends up on the wrong side of the debate. “There’s no money at stake for critics,” he points out.

    Masters says in a perfect world he’d need “200-300 years worth of records” to accurately predict further climate change. But since that’s not available, “We’re forced to make decisions on a limited data set.” Nevertheless, Masters feels the possible dangers of global warming outweigh the risks of remaining idle. “We need to take action even in the face of inadequate data,” he says.

    Miller disagrees, arguing that we should collectively return to the drawing board — in light of all the controversy, confusion, and potential conflicts of interest — before we draw any conclusions.

    “The science isn’t settled,” he says. “Yes, the climate has warmed — that’s not a hoax. But can’t we go back and reconsider the science? Let’s just step back and reconsider.”

    • So as I sit here watching Fox there is consideration of a Global Warming Agency complete with a czar and all the bells & whistles 😯

    • Romm explains that cold weather doesn’t cause snow. What brings the flakes down is a combination of cold and precipitation. And since warmer air holds more moisture, global warming and heavy snowfall can coexist, so long as temperatures keeping dipping below 32 degrees.

      Let me see if I know my weather. LOL, It’s been this way since the dawn of time. Storms are caused by warm moist air rising (warm air rises, remember) and then it meets (wait a minute, this what he fails to mention) with COLDER AIR. Once the warm moist air reaches it’s dewpoint within the colder air, the moisture begins to fall. Gee! Now I learned this in second grade even before the ice age scare of the 70’s.

      These idiot AGW blowhards should be hung by ears with constant screaming of the words “your an idiot” blasting in their ears.

      Peace!

      G!

    • Rush has videos on his website, of Warmers blathering on how lack of snow was proof of global warming. These videos go back to the early 2000’s. Many Warmers used lack of snow and warmer temps to declare proof of global warming. So now, a few years later when temps are cooler and there’s more snow shows up, they change their tune and expect us not remember what they screamed just a few years back. I wonder how they’ll spin an increase in polar ice sheets? Ice is bound to increase with all this cold air. Will they still scream “its melting!”?

  22. Judy Sabatini says:
  23. Why doesn’t he just declare martial law already, and dispense with the pretense….

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/us/politics/13obama.html

    WASHINGTON — With much of his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities.

    • Well…ya know Cyndi… since the American people don’t “really” know what’s best for them; ya’ know with all the tea parties and people contacting their representatives; not to mention that incredible Scott Brown Republican fiasco in Massachusetts; trying to get their voices heard ya know.Speaking out against the path he is trying to lead our country down with his agenda.He just has to use that executive power to save us from ourselves!

      • Oh, okay…I understand now! Thanks for clearing that up for me, TC. 🙂

        Maybe he’ll let us call him ‘Popi Barack’.

        Eeewww, I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit…….. 😈

  24. v. Holland says:

    I was channel surfing a few minutes ago-stopped on Bill Maher doing a “comedy routine” He said that there was one thing that conservatives really wanted to do-they want to call Obama the “N” word but since it wasn’t 1950 we just couldn’t so we used other words like socialist, or community organizer or something else-Now keep in mind this was supposed to be a comedy routine and people were actually cheering him. I am going to go to bed now absolutely disgusted but it’s my own fault I know better than to listen to anything this man says.

  25. This post is directed to Black Flag and Todd, but the video is quite interesting in it’s entirety.

    BF and Todd, you guys have had a long running debate about 9-11 and the collapse of the towers, to include WTC 7. This link is for a lenghthy video, done by Alex Jones in 2004. The part I’m speaking of begins at the 50 minute mark, it directly discusses, and based on what the owner of the building says, that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives. Here’s the link, fire away!

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/martial-law-911/

    G!

  26. To ALL the ladies here at SUFA

    A very special Happy Valentines Day from me to ya’ll.

    The biggest hugs I can give are all for you and what you bring to this world. Mothers, daughter, sisters, wives and sweethearts.

    Best of the best to each and everyone and may you and your families be happy, happy, happy.

    JAC

%d bloggers like this: