Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - kidcoyote

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 258 Next
1
OT / Re: Racism - homophobia discussion
« on: March 30, 2015, 11:20 AM »
I've found (in general) that the people who are preaching that we should be tolerant are among the most intolerant people of all. People who preach for tolerance have to accept the intolerant themselves or else live their lives in contradiction. 

When Michael Sam came out, my original thought was cool, good for him for not being afraid to say who he is. Then moved on with my day. Hopefully Derrick Gordon will not be judged for who he loves and can go to a school that will accept him for who he is.

Whenever someone needs to tell you how tolerant and accepting they are of other stuff, they are generally not practicing what they preach at all. All say and not enough do. I'm cool with other cultures and the like. But it's okay to admit that some cultures aren't for you and you won't understand them.

I was at Joe Rogan's stand up show last October in Philadelphia. The comic he had on before him was Ian Edwards. Ian (who is black) asked the audience a question, "if you saw three black men in hoodies walking down the sidewalk towards you, would you cross the street?" Pretty much no one raise their hand except for the black guys in the audience and he was laughing at all the non-blacks for trying to be so accepting (and he made it far funnier than I did). It's cool to admit that you'd be uncomfortable in that situation, just like it's cool to admit that some elements of some cultures make you feel uneasy or you don't understand them.

Interesting comment about those preaching tolerance being the most intolerant. Isn't it the left preaching tolerance, diversity, etc? So, how do you feel about the left's tolerance of religion and on those who depart from climate change dogma? I mean, are Al Gore, Michael Mann, Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben tolerant of opposing views, or is it, "the science is settled, so shut up?" Just askin'. I have yet to find any group more closed minded than liberals. They're tolerant only to the extent that you agree with them. You may want to look at your own views on this.

This topic has nothing at all to do with climate change.  So I'm not responding and I hope other follow that lead.

It's about tolerance. You just proved my point. It doesn't matter what the subject is. I also mentioned religion, but I guess you missed it. Climate change just happens to be the most dominant, omnipresent, overwhelming position of liberals. I mean, almost everything is viewed through the prism of climate change, the latest being that it causes prostitution. There is not a single more intolerant position today, based on news coverage, threads, websites, etc., than by those who don't tolerate skeptics of CAGW. Skeptics are compared to racists and tobacco deniers. If it's intolerance we're speaking of, this is #1, by a long shot. It has nothing to do with climate, but intolerance. Isn't that what the issue is here?

Are Conservatives More Tolerant than Liberals

2
OT / Re: Re: 2015 NCAA Men's Basketball Transfer Speculation
« on: March 30, 2015, 09:30 AM »
I've found (in general) that the people who are preaching that we should be tolerant are among the most intolerant people of all. People who preach for tolerance have to accept the intolerant themselves or else live their lives in contradiction. 

When Michael Sam came out, my original thought was cool, good for him for not being afraid to say who he is. Then moved on with my day. Hopefully Derrick Gordon will not be judged for who he loves and can go to a school that will accept him for who he is.

Whenever someone needs to tell you how tolerant and accepting they are of other stuff, they are generally not practicing what they preach at all. All say and not enough do. I'm cool with other cultures and the like. But it's okay to admit that some cultures aren't for you and you won't understand them.

I was at Joe Rogan's stand up show last October in Philadelphia. The comic he had on before him was Ian Edwards. Ian (who is black) asked the audience a question, "if you saw three black men in hoodies walking down the sidewalk towards you, would you cross the street?" Pretty much no one raise their hand except for the black guys in the audience and he was laughing at all the non-blacks for trying to be so accepting (and he made it far funnier than I did). It's cool to admit that you'd be uncomfortable in that situation, just like it's cool to admit that some elements of some cultures make you feel uneasy or you don't understand them.

Interesting comment about those preaching tolerance being the most intolerant. Isn't it the left preaching tolerance, diversity, etc? So, how do you feel about the left's tolerance of religion and on those who depart from climate change dogma? I mean, are Al Gore, Michael Mann, Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben tolerant of opposing views, or is it, "the science is settled, so shut up?" Just askin'. I have yet to find any group more closed minded than liberals. They're tolerant only to the extent that you agree with them. You may want to look at your own views on this.

3
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 28, 2015, 12:25 PM »
Eric Holder is right after all. There is racism in the US, and we are cowards for not having a discussion. Our President is an anti-Semite. A nihilistic, narcissistic anti-Semite. What a petty, petulant, self centered loser. A scholar? Anyone have a single brief he's written? Harvard Law Review editor without a single legal publication? How is that even possible? I mean, don't editors sort of write things before being annointed editors? Yes, Virginia, this is "The Emperor's New Clothes" in real life. Wow, what a cipher. This is an unprecedented breach of a security relationship honored by every other US President. Little man. Loves Iran though. Congress will crush him on the Iran deal.

A Shocking Breach


So kid, when Italy's high court upholds Amanda Knox's conviction, but the State Department refuses to hand her over, is Obama going to be an self-centered anti-Italian loser who refuses to abide by international law?   Or when he does hand her over is he going to be an anti-american coward who fails to protect his citizens from the vagaries of fascist foreign courts?

Care to take a stand on this one ahead of time?   Or will you, like usual, just wait til Obama does something, then rant against it?


Haven't followed this one closely, but as she was not only acquitted, but found not guilty of the crime, a moot point. Don't change the subject. He's an anti-Semite. Releasing nuclear plans for Israel is outrageous. He's a petty, self centered, thin skinned man. Mark Levin is right, he's a nihilistic, narcissistic anti-Semite. He cares more about filling out basketball brackets and playing golf than Israel's security. Only an idiot would put Iran as an ally over Israel. Then again, maybe you support Iran's treatment of women, gays, dissidents and non-Muslims. Academia also has rampant anti-Semitism, and what they allow(or don't allow) on campuses is revealing. Disinviting Ayaan Hirsi Ali at Brandeis? Lewis Brandeis is turning in his grave. He was the first Jew on The Supreme Court, and now the school named after him does this. Wow. Thank goodness Congress, both sides of the aisle have Israel's back, but I'm sure the WH will put enormous pressure on Congress to siphon off support, through bribes of funding for pet projects. No Godwin's Law here, Lar. He's an anti-Semite. Yes, racism is alive and well in the US. Let's not be cowards in not having a conversation, right?

And his tone creates the atmosphere for more anti-Semitism, like this. But Columbia has Ahmadinijead as a featured speaker. Outrageous. The 2016 election is in the bag. Not supporting Israel is a fringe position. It cost Carter big time, even New York State, due to our UN delegation at the time, condemning Israel, something it looks like Obama will do again regarding Iran. If he sells out Israel at the UN, the Dems will get destroyed in 2016. Any deal with Iran has zero chance in Congress. They have to face voters, and don't give a s*** about Obama's feelings and pettiness, but their jobs.

Virginia Bar Disgraces Itself


4
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 27, 2015, 10:56 AM »
Eric Holder is right after all. There is racism in the US, and we are cowards for not having a discussion. Our President is an anti-Semite. A nihilistic, narcissistic anti-Semite. What a petty, petulant, self centered loser. A scholar? Anyone have a single brief he's written? Harvard Law Review editor without a single legal publication? How is that even possible? I mean, don't editors sort of write things before being annointed editors? Yes, Virginia, this is "The Emperor's New Clothes" in real life. Wow, what a cipher. This is an unprecedented breach of a security relationship honored by every other US President. Little man. Loves Iran though. Congress will crush him on the Iran deal.

A Shocking Breach

5
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 27, 2015, 10:47 AM »
Wow, now that's neat science! Have these people no shame?

Climate Change Will Turn Women Into Prostitutes


6
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 27, 2015, 09:56 AM »
mjg, not sure what you're asking. But I'd say the sexual assault epidemic is totally false, and that colleges are safer than non-campus for women. And second, men are being charged and convicted without due process. Like the Duke false rape case, schools are paying big settlements. This is an easy case for an average plaintiff attorney, and I suspect a major area of growth. Schools are going to get blasted handling cases as they are. And IMO, that's the epidemic, false charges and lack of representation.

Re the 1,000 cases per year at a school the size of PSU, if 5% of cases were reported to police, this would be major news in the local papers. So, we're supposed to believe that all of these cases go unreported? Why? Are 50 cases reported to police in one year in State College? I doubt it. NFW. If so, where are the arrests? Arrests are listed in newspapers. There are no arrests as there are no cases reported to police. Many of these cases are reported to school authorities, sometimes months after the incidents. And while perpetrators are named, the victims are not. This is not right. They're ruining men's lives.

Here's a number for you. In 2012, there were 1,162 reported rapes in NYC, a city of 12,000,000. And we're supposed to believe there are 1,000 sexual assaults in State College in a typical year? It's laughable it's so stupid. In addition to the size, is State College more a rape place than NYC? While NYC is most safe in decades, I'd still put SC as a much, much safer place per capita. NYC had 419 murders in 2012. How many did SC have? 1? 2? Any? Feminist, liberal BS, nothing else. And it's men's rights being violated, like the Duke rape case. It used to be innocent until proven guilty, still the legal standard, but not on college campuses. There, the PC KGB rules. Colleges suppress legal and free speech rights like no other place. And they get killed in court. Duke paid millions to settle the Duke rape case. One of the kids is from Long Island, and several people I know, know the family. He got millions, over $5 million I think. Big biz for plaintiff lawyers, as the egregious behavior at colleges is so outrageous and so easily defeated in court, they settle first as they have zero chance of winning based on their flouting of legal norms.

7
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 27, 2015, 09:35 AM »

Are there really 100 rapes per year at PSU? Just stupid.


Not stupid at all.  In fact, it would be ignorant to think that there isn't a whole lot more. 

I'd find it hard to believe that a Friday or Saturday night goes by that here isn't at least one woman assaulted somewhere in town given the amount of alcohol that is consumed here most weekends.   Do they all get reported?  Of course not.  Are they all forcible rapes?  Also, certainly not.   But that doesn't change the fact that they are, by strict interpretation of the law, sexual assaults.  Do they go as high as 1 in 5?  Wouldn't surprise me if you use the most strict interpretation of the law.

First of all, wiseguy, the WH is suggesting 1,000 sexual assaults per year as an average at a school the size of PSU. It's preposterous. 3 per day. 1 in 5 is ludicrous. You don't get that in a war zone, for goodness. More liberal BS. Total fabrication.

How many of these are reported to police? So, they're all unreported? I bet there's not 10 annual sexual assaults reported to police in State College. You're talking "strict interpretation". Strict interpretation should include reporting to police. How the F does a girl who invites a boy over, telling him she has condoms, then report sexual assault? Are you freakin' kidding me? Show me the police reports. That's a strict interpretation. And guess what? There aren't many. Are there one night stands that women regret? Sure, absolutely. I've had one night stands that I regretted. Women need to grow up and make up their minds. Do they want free, unrestricted, woman in charge of their own lives sex, or are they fragile beings who need to be protected, and need to be loved and cared for prior to giving it up?

8
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 26, 2015, 12:15 PM »
mjg, this really addresses what's happening, It's by Harvey Mansfield, a prof at Harvard since his student days in the 1940's. A conservative, he couldn't get hired there today. But as he has tenure, he writes what he wants, fearlessly. Students have called for his firing. Ah, free speech, alive and well on campuses today.....not.

Feminism and Its Discontents

9
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 26, 2015, 12:02 PM »
And what has happened to sexual freedom?


Is that a serious question?


Yes. Here's an example of what is happening on campuses. A female texts a male and asks him if he wants to come to her room. She includes in the text that she has condoms. He goes over, they have sex, and a month later she accuses him of rape. He gets interrogated by campus personnel, is not allowed to have representation, and the board who interrogates him, finds him guilty, and he gets expelled. He gets an attorney and the school settles, but this is just outrageous. Men have zero rights. 

Women need to make up their minds. Are they sexually liberated, able and willing to control their own bodies and sexuality? Or are they unwilling and unwitting fraglile beings unable to make decisons on sexual matters?  A higher ed bubble collapse is already starting. This just expedites it.


Is this situation some sort of an epidemic that most of us are unaware is happening?  I've seen an example or two here or there.  But I had no idea this was a real problem on our campuses.  I was apparently under the false impression that actual rape was the more prevalent issue.


It's understandable that you thought that, as the WH is pushing this BS stat, that almost 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted. Think about that at PSU. What do they have, 40,000 students? So, let's say, 10,000 per year, half women? That would mean, 1,000 of the 5,000 are assaulted before they graduate. It's laughable. This would suggest that campuses are more rape oriented and riskier than US cities. It defies logic and common sense. Do you really think more women are assaulted on Ivy League or Big 10 campuses than in major US cities? Do you really think campuses are less safe in terms of any violent crime than major US cities? If so, while there are 10 gun murders per week in Chicago, why aren't there 10 gun murders per week on campuses? Aren't gun murders on campuses a rare event? And don't sexual assaults/rapes often lead to murder? So, where are the correspondent murders on campuses to go with rapes? So, in the cities, they rape and kill women, but on campuses, they rape them but don't kill them? Asinine stats. So ridiculous it's not worth discussing. Even these stats are inflated:

The Bureau of Justice Statistics' "Violent Victimization of College Students" report tells a different and more plausible story about campus culture. During the years surveyed, 1995-2002, the DOJ found that there were six rapes or sexual assaults per thousand per year. Across the nation's four million female college students, that comes to about one victim in forty students. Other DOJ statistics show that the overall rape rate is in sharp decline: since 1995, the estimated rate of female rape or sexual assault victimizations has decreased by about 60 percent.

Of course, there are still far too many college women who are victims of sexual assault. But there's little evidence to support the claim that campus rape is an "epidemic," as Yale student activist Alexandra Brodsky recently wrote in the Guardian.


http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/10/24/statistics-dont-back-up-claims-about-rape-culture

Let's go back to PSU, with 40,000 students, half women. If 1 in 5 is raped, that means 4,000 rapes per 4 year cycle( 1 of 5 of 20,000 women). You went to PSU, no? Were there 1,000 rapes, or 3-4 per day(9 mo. school year), in your 4 years there? Any of these make the papers? This is nothing but an agenda. You'd think they'd pick numbers more sensible, as these are so ridiculous, they're absurd. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. The number is certainly closer to 1 in 500 women, or 400 over a 4 year cycle. That's still unacceptable, but certainly closer to reality. But even that seems high, no? Are there really 100 rapes per year at PSU? Just stupid.

10
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 25, 2015, 02:16 PM »
And what has happened to sexual freedom?

Is that a serious question?

Yes. Here's an example of what is happening on campuses. A female texts a male and asks him if he wants to come to her room. She includes in the text that she has condoms. He goes over, they have sex, and a month later she accuses him of rape. He gets interrogated by campus personnel, is not allowed to have representation, and the board who interrogates him, finds him guilty, and he gets expelled. He gets an attorney and the school settles, but this is just outrageous. Men have zero rights. 

Women need to make up their minds. Are they sexually liberated, able and willing to control their own bodies and sexuality? Or are they unwilling and unwitting fraglile beings unable to make decisons on sexual matters?  A higher ed bubble collapse is already starting. This just expedites it.

11
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 25, 2015, 11:33 AM »
How does the college system not blow up? First we have the phony Duke rape case, then the phony UVA rape case, and we get Condi Rice and Ayaan Hirsi Ali disinvited to speak and/or receive awards. In the Duke and Hirsi Ali case, more than 80 professors sign letters, in the former, indicting Duke lacrosse players, convicting them without a trial, and in the latter, comparing Islamic violence with domestic violence as the reason for reneging on an honorary degree for Hirsi Ali. College campuses have become indoctrination camps. Didn't colleges used to stand for free speech, defense of liberty and open debate? And what has happened to sexual freedom? WTF has happened? And to pay $60k per year for this c***? Nuts. And how did Duke handle the fallout when the players were exonerated? Pay something like $50 million in settlements, then raise tuition. Delightful. How about firing the letter signers? Where's the outrage?

If one is spending good money at a college, like $50k, would you rather have speakers like Hirsi Ali and Condi Rice address your kids, or like at Yale, have Sex Week, where prostitutes speak to your kids on the joys of anal sex?

Walter Russell Mead: The Wrong Time to Coddle

12
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 24, 2015, 06:13 PM »
IMO, as public figures go, the bravest woman in the world, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  It's easy to do a TED talk and bash America. How about one that supports views like Hirsi Ali's? Where's the empathy? Or would liberals rather trash women like her and make believe there is support for gender and other equality within the Muslim tradition? Gender equality? I must have missed the memo.

Huffpo: From Selma to Tunis

Calling Western feminists: People like me -- some of us apostates, most of us dissident Muslims -- need your support, not your antagonism. We who have known what it is to live without freedom watch with incredulity as you who call yourselves liberals -- who claim to believe so fervently in women's and minority rights -- make common cause with the forces in the world that manifestly pose the greatest threats to just those things.

My question to the liberals of 2015 is this. You are very sure about what side you were on in 1965. But whose side are you on today? Ouch.

Over 700 years ago, Dante Alghieri, a Florentine, was execommunicated from the Catholic Church by Pope Boniface, who also issued a death sentence on him. Dante then wrote "The Divine Comedy" about his spirituality, a poem about his journey through Hell, and through Purgatory and into Paradise. Today, Hirsi Ali has a fatwa issued against her for views on Islam. But like Dante, she can't be silenced, though the US media and academia do their best to either denounce or ignore her. 87 professors at Brandeis wrote a letter criticizing her views on Islam for the basis of her disinvitation. Disgraceful, closed minded, cowardly bigots. Dante's "Inferno" became the model for the church's image of Hell. Maybe Hirsi Ali's views on Islam become widely accepted over time, though I doubt in our lifetime.

13
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 24, 2015, 02:54 PM »
mjg, i think this explains it pretty well.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/09/14/obamacare-has-failed-to-collapse-but-that-doesnt-make-it-a-success/

That may lead to a spike in premiums in 2017. Indeed, insurance companies heavily lobbied Obama consigliera Valerie Jarrett this year to spend more on the “three R” subsidies, threatening substantial rate hikes if they weren’t accommodated. They were accommodated
So, healthcare costs going down? Yeah, right. Insurance companies are essentially bribed not to raise rates. Delightful. This is what you get with government incompetence, a system where bribes are necessary to make things look better than they are. Corruption. Always. Lord Acton was right, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

14
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 24, 2015, 12:07 PM »
Just heard on the radio something interesting about Obamacare.  In the last three years we've seen a drop in healthcare costs after years of double digit increases.  Dying to hear Kid's take on this information.

That's a pretty generic statement.  What do they mean by a "drop in health care costs"?

No clue. That's all they said.

Remove the subsidies and see the true cost. I do hear that overall increases are lower than anticipated, but it's still a train wreck. Patients are being subsidized, and that's what the King v Burwell case is about. And insurance companies are being subsidized.

Central planning just doesn't work. Whether it's Western Europe, Venezuela or Cuba, the more centrally planned, the worse it is for citizens. I went to Canada over the weekend(poker club on Indian reservation), and gas is about C$1.20 per liter, which is about US $1, so it's close to US$4 per gallon, maybe $3.65 or so, and the Canadian dollar is currently way down. Two years ago, it was at US $1.05 or so, now it's only $0.83. And Canada not really centrally planned, but government healthcare is very expensive, and lousy. And Canada also has a 17% retail tax to help pay for these things. These things just kill the poor. And in Canada, like Europe, the business community avoids hiring, and subcontracts work out, rather than pay for mandated healthcare. I know this for a fact. A Canadian friend mine, who owns his own business, tells me that this is how it's done in Canada. Nobody puts people on payroll, not in the private sector. Too expensive. Everybody works for themselves, and provides their own healthcare and retirement funding. This will happen here should Obamacare stand. Or else, everything gets outsourced to China, India, etc.

Things are just better left to the private sector. Many leftists hate Walmart, but they employ 2.2 million people, earn only 4% after taxes(less than 1/6th of Apple, Microsoft, Google), offer healthcare to full time employees, significantly cheaper than Obamacare, subsidized by Walmart, not taxpayers. Many say they throw people off healthcare, but on part timers, they have to. Obamacare is so much less a burden for Walmart, that they have to do this, throw people onto taxpayers to stay competitive. All companies will be doing this eventually if Obamacare survives. That said, anyone notice that Walmart, in an effort to get better employees, raised the minimum wage to $9 per hour from $7.25? This affects 500,000 workers, which will cost them about $2 billion per year extra.

15
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 23, 2015, 12:17 PM »
From Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Maybe there should be a TED talk regarding empathy for all those killed in the name of Islam. IMO, this is a brilliant piece. FYI, there's a fatwa against her for her death, like Salman Rushdie. A former PM in Holland, she had to resign and leave after the government stopped providing her protection, as she made the movie with Theo van Gogh about Islam, who was murdered shortly thereafter. Hirsi Ali was due to speak at Brandeis last year, but was disinvited to to campus brownshirts complaining. She's married to Krugman nemesis Niall Ferguson. IMO, one of the bravest women in the world. She calls US feminism, trivial bulls***, stating this: "I condemn whole-heartedly the trivial bullshit it is to go after a man who makes a scientific breakthrough and all that we as women — organized women — do is to fret about his shirt?” Hirsi Ali said, referring to the controversy generated by the shirt featuring cartoons of scantily-clad women worn by the scientist who helped land a robot on a comet. “We must reclaim and retake feminism from our fellow idiotic women.”

Why Islam Needs a Reformation

Excellent piece, for those open to new ideas, from someone who's lived Islam.

16
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 23, 2015, 11:55 AM »
When you've lost The Nation, you're in trouble.

Could Liberal Disgust With Campus Brownshirts Be Reaching Critical Mass

From a prof. Ah, yes, the party of diversity and tolerance......NOT! Pretty amazing that a prof, clearly liberal, is okay with confronting conservatives but not liberals. Does anyone realize how difficult it is to be a conservative on campus these days? Talk about discrimination. It's palpable. Both profs and admin give the green light to beat up conservatives. Who in their right mind would send a child, for up to $65 K per year into this stifling, rigid, free speech inhibiting environment, mono political environment? I'd have trouble if they were paying me $65 K per year.


Personally, liberal students scare the s--- out of me. I know how to get conservative students to question their beliefs and confront awful truths, and I know that, should one of these conservative students make a facebook page calling me a communist or else seek to formally protest my liberal lies, the university would have my back. I would not get fired for pissing off a Republican, so long as I did so respectfully, and so long as it happened in the course of legitimate classroom instruction.

The same cannot be said of liberal students. All it takes is one slip—not even an outright challenging of their beliefs, but even momentarily exposing them to any uncomfortable thought or imagery—and that’s it, your classroom is triggering, you are insensitive, kids are bringing mattresses to your office hours and there’s a twitter petition out demanding you chop off your hand in repentance.

Paranoid? Yes, of course. But paranoia isn’t uncalled for within the current academic job climate. Jobs are really, really, really, really hard to get. And since no reasonable person wants to put their livelihood in danger, we reasonably do not take any risks vis-a-vis momentarily upsetting liberal students. And so we leave upsetting truths unspoken, uncomfortable texts unread.

17
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 18, 2015, 04:39 PM »
Lar, some time ago, you complained that I always associate liberals with socialists and communists. More recently, we've had a back and forth on "net neutrality". Well, the 300+ page FCC document is out, and "Free Press" is mentioned 46 times. Free Press is funded by George Soros( who spent $192 million on net neutrality), and run by this guy. So, you tell me, are you with him or against him? If you're with him, if you agree with his policy views, doesn't that make you a Marxist/socialist? If not, why support his views by endorsing his version of "net neutrality"?

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2227

In Nazi Germany, it's not true that people didn't know what they were doing in supporting Hitler. Hayek talks of this in "The Road to Serfdom". The Germans were very supportive of him and enthusiastic of his policies. Heck, Americans were supportive of eugenics, i.e., superior races, and racial elimination and breeding, with people like Margaret Sanger and Woodrow Wilson and ALL the Ivy League schools on board. Google the Fabian Society. It was only Hitler and Dr. Mengele which made it taboo to be supportive of such views, so they faded from being supported by academia. Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood, believed blacks should be sterilized, not able to reproduce. Heck, as 70% of NYC abortions are on black women, maybe Planned Parenthood is carrying on her wishes. So, you may not think yourself as a Marxist/socialist, but then you can't support them in their efforts. So, you either agree or don't agree with Marxism, and you either are with these people or against them. It's that simple. I'm not calling you a Marxist or socialist, you determine that yourself by your support or lack of it. But one cannot support them without being of the same mind, nor being labeled a Marxist/socialist. At least be honest. I abhor these people and what they're trying, to censor the internet and limit it to their views.


LOL - and you were the one complaining about people launching ad-hominem attacks on you.

Take a moment and look up "Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association)".


Hold on there Sparky. Did you not say you were for "net neutrality"? Yes, if you supported Hiter, you were part of the problem. Well, if you are supporting a committed Marxist(I'm not saying this, he is), in his attempt to take over and control the content on the internet, yes, you are part of the problem. That's no an ad hominem attack, that's a fact. Here's the definition of ad hominem:

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

2.relating to or associated with a particular person.


So, I am criticizing McHesney in his efforts, but you're supporting net neutrality, so you're supporting him. That's not an ad hominem attack. I'm directing my argument against your postion, i.e., support of net neutrality, which is promoted by a committed Marxist. Separating yourself from him and what he's doing would be like supporting the Nazis, but trying to separating yourself from Hitler. If you are supporting his vision of net neutrality, you are supporting Marxism.

You either support a Marxist's takeover of the internet or you don't. I mean, do you agree with these views? I mean, this is the driving force behind net neutrality. You agree with him or not? Don't direct me to some BS site. Take a freakin' stance. Or be subject to Gruber's Law, "the stupidity of the American Voter". No in between, Lar. You're either with him, against him, or ignorant of what his plans are.

In 2009 McChesney said that “any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself … to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.” Deriding advertising as “the voice of capital,” he wrote: “We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it, and perhaps even eliminate it.”

18
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 18, 2015, 11:53 AM »
Big Brother Watch

EPA to Limit Showers

Barbecues Targeted by EPA

Here are some facts of LPG vs charcoal from the IPCC.

Charcoal grilling, on average, produces three times more greenhouse gases than propane grilling, according to a study published in Elsevier’s Environmental Impact Assessment Review. Eric Johnson conducted his research using data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and public data from fuel producers as well as experimental measurements from grilling sessions.
 
In the report, Johnson wrote that "as a fuel, [propane] is dramatically more efficient than charcoal in its production and considerably more efficient in cooking." Johnson’s report states that if you look systemically and consider production, transportation and burning together, a BBQ cookout over charcoal averages nearly 15 pounds of carbon emissions, about as much as you emit driving your car to a store 22 miles away. But using propane to grill your food cuts that to around five pounds per BBQ, or driving to a store 8 miles away.


Last week it was disclosed that Michele and Barack Obama took separate jets on the same day to Los Angeles. Last summer at Martha's Vineyard vacation, they took their dog on a separate plane. So, just how much is the carbon footprint of Air Force One under Obama? It's estimated at 41,000 tons of GHG per year. So, how many barbecues is that? Well...

41,000 tons = 82 million lbs. Divide by 5(for propane) and you 16,400,000 barbecues. Wouldn't it be easier to reduce Air Force One, Two, private dog flights,  and all the 20,000 person trips to IPCC meetings in places like Bali, and 1,700 private jet trips to Davos to discuss AGW, rather than continue to restrict 300 million Americans and their choices? David Mamet is right, "it's not themselves liberals want to restrict and bankrupt, but everyone else." I have to cut my shower time and restrict my barbecue methods while these a**holes globe trot, own $7 million yachts(Kerry) and live in 10,000 sq. ft. mansions? It's like we're being ruled by Marie Antoinette.

On another matter, loved the Israeli election. Big Loser? Obama.

19
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 17, 2015, 10:03 PM »
Lar, some time ago, you complained that I always associate liberals with socialists and communists. More recently, we've had a back and forth on "net neutrality". Well, the 300+ page FCC document is out, and "Free Press" is mentioned 46 times. Free Press is funded by George Soros( who spent $192 million on net neutrality), and run by this guy. So, you tell me, are you with him or against him? If you're with him, if you agree with his policy views, doesn't that make you a Marxist/socialist? If not, why support his views by endorsing his version of "net neutrality"?

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2227

In Nazi Germany, it's not true that people didn't know what they were doing in supporting Hitler. Hayek talks of this in "The Road to Serfdom". The Germans were very supportive of him and enthusiastic of his policies. Heck, Americans were supportive of eugenics, i.e., superior races, and racial elimination and breeding, with people like Margaret Sanger and Woodrow Wilson and ALL the Ivy League schools on board. Google the Fabian Society. It was only Hitler and Dr. Mengele which made it taboo to be supportive of such views, so they faded from being supported by academia. Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood, believed blacks should be sterilized, not able to reproduce. Heck, as 70% of NYC abortions are on black women, maybe Planned Parenthood is carrying on her wishes. So, you may not think yourself as a Marxist/socialist, but then you can't support them in their efforts. So, you either agree or don't agree with Marxism, and you either are with these people or against them. It's that simple. I'm not calling you a Marxist or socialist, you determine that yourself by your support or lack of it. But one cannot support them without being of the same mind, nor being labeled a Marxist/socialist. At least be honest. I abhor these people and what they're trying, to censor the internet and limit it to their views.

20
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 17, 2015, 09:39 PM »
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/03/the-real-bullies-at-school/387829/


Pet peeve of mine.  I just don't get what makes this acceptable.


Since when are teachers vilified for being too hard on students? Too soft. On coaches, dead right. The coaches my sons had at HS were atrocious, esp the baseball coach, and my son was the best player in the state. He should have been fired. You know what he actually did one game, in the year prior to my son being on the team? He had kids switch uniforms, to bat kids out of order, or cheat. And he had the kids cheer the wrong player, e.g., Andy was due up, he switched with Ryan, and Ryan batted in Andy's place. The kids cheered, "let's go Andy." Of course the dad of Andy, who told me this story was livid, went to the AD, and informed him, and nothing happened. Scared of the union. A horrendous coach, horrendous man, and 35 years at the job. Think of what he did, not only did he cheat, but had the kids involved. Some message, huh? And the pressure he put on kids. When a kid would be at bat, I heard him yell, "the only way you stay in this game is if you don't strike out." I am not making this up. He panicked, just the opposite of what a good coach does. All the time.

Basketball coach was bad too, a real screamer(like the baseball coach). The way both treated kids was awful. Not my son, he was captain of both teams, but kids that didn't play much? The baseball coach would carry 3 catchers so he'd have bullpen catchers, which is fine. But to never play the 3rd catcher in a game? Maybe 2 games of about 20? Outrageous. They're all out for their own record, know little of fundamentals, and scream at kids for poor play. It's almost unreal how bad it is. Not all schools, not all coaches, but far too many. There was one HS baseball coach who pitched in the pros. He was great. He had knowledge and knew how to impart it, but he was a rarity. Most stink. And one of our girls' basketball coaches, was having sex with a 15 year old. He got 6 years. It's beyond belief how some of these coaches are.

I think there's somewhat of an easy solution, as AD's, often younger than 30 year coaches, are intimidated, and turn a blind eye. They are threatened with grievance filings. Make coaches attend clinics. Make it mandatory, with certification. This way, if the coach balks, fire him. If he attends, he might just learn something and improve. It's a step.

21
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 15, 2015, 10:15 PM »
Hey, I thought the science was settled.

A Big Fat Surprise for Dietary Dogma

How about if we substitute "climate change" in some spots here?

Just about everything we thought we knew about the evils of cholesterol and fats climate change and CO2 has turned out to be wrong. The doctors, the nutritionists, the dietitians, the heart societies, the experts at Health Canada, the food pyramid that hung on the wall in school grant grubbing academics and the rent seekers, relying on Gruber's Law, the stupidity of the American people– the entire health and medical academic industrial AGW establishment, in fact, have been perpetuating a big fat scientific fraud.

It gets worse. Obviously, if you cut down on one food fuel source, you have to replace it with something else. Over the past 30 20 years, we’ve replaced “bad” foods like red meat, milk, eggs and butter with grains, pasta, starchy vegetables and refined carbohydrates laced with sugar energy sources like coal, oil and natural gas, or some tried to. These foods fuel sources, wind and solar primarily,  turn out to be even worse, with horrendous burdens disproportionately on the poor. They’re the reason that rates of obesity, diabetes and heart disease poverty and sickness are soaring among the world's poor, as cheap abundant energy is a life saver. In other words, the diet climate advice we’ve been force-fed all our lives has actually made us fatter poorer and sicker.

Virtually all the increase in calories in the past 30 years has come from carbohydrate foods decrease in CO2 the last 10 years in the US has come from the natural gas boom. Meanwhile,we’ve cut fat intake by 25 per cent. We gave up eggs and butter and switched to lean meat – and got fatterreduced energy prices through the fracking boom, making it easier for the world's poor and the average American and their employers to save literally billions of dollars in reduced costs. “Americans have been the subjects of a vast, uncontrolled diet clmate experiment with disastrous consequences,” Nina Teicholz wrote last month in the New York Times.

Ms. Teicholz’s book, The Big Fat Surprise, Work by Will Happer, Richard Lindzen, Henrik Svensmark and Heinz Hug, among other PhD's, is show an astonishing account of the flawed science, bias, vested interests and groupthink that have gripped the health climate establishment for decades. It all started with a physiologist wing nut NASA scientist, named James Hansen, circa 1988Ancel Keyes, who claimed he’d found a link between fat intake and heart-disease mortality CO2 and climate warming, despite their being zero evidence. Americans ate lots of fat and had high rates of heart disease; the Japanese ate very little fat and had very low rates of heart disease. Evidence for the “heart-health CO2- warming link was shaky, but it soon became an article of faith.


So, it took about 30 years for the food pyramid to collapse. So, maybe another 5-10 for the religious based AGW fraudulent science to collapse? Science is never, ever settled. Those who think so are ignorant. Remember all the abuse Dr. Atkins endured? Turns out he was right after all.

22
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 14, 2015, 05:44 PM »
Only for those who can drop their preconceptions.

Fossil Fuels Will Save the World(Really)

Who cares about poor people?

Still, more than a billion people on the planet have yet to get access to electricity and to experience the leap in living standards that abundant energy brings. This is not just an inconvenience for them: Indoor air pollution from wood fires kills four million people a year. The next time that somebody at a rally against fossil fuels lectures you about her concern for the fate of her grandchildren, show her a picture of an African child dying today from inhaling the dense muck of a smoky fire.

Here is the picture of two countries' border between them. Which one do you think relies on fossil fuels, and which on "renewable" energy?



Give up? The country on the left is Haiti, which uses little fossil fuel, but renewable wood for heat and cooking fuel. They've wiped out their forests. The one on the right is the Domincan Republic, which uses propane as its main heating and cooking fuel. So, which country is raping the environment? And which has better health standards and cleaner indoor air? Don'thca just love facts? Or you can put your faith and trust in one time tobacco crop owner and current coal mine owner Al Gore, or billionaire from coal mines, Tom Steyer.

23
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 9, 2015, 03:45 PM »
Hey, Lar, it looks like now it's only you, Soros and McHesney as net neutrality supporters. And those two are socialists/Marxists. And you?

Netflix Recants on Obamanet


Typical of you - more truth distorting.

Netflix says it still supports Net neutrality, despite CFO's comments

In case you heard otherwise, Netflix still supports the Federal Communications Commission's move to regulate the Internet like a public utility.

"Netflix supports the FCC's action last week to adopt Title II in ensuring consumers get the Internet they paid for without interference by ISPs," Anne Marie Sequeo, a spokeswoman for Netflix, said Thursday. "There has been zero change in our very well-documented position in support of strong Net neutrality rules."



They want to avoid the same fate as Menendez. Backpedaling, that's all. Don't want to get justice or the IRS after them. google doesn't like it either. Of course, there are major benefits for Netflix, but just like all regulation, the parties who support it always think it will be 100% for them. And this is clearly not. It's not truth distorting at all. The CFO said it. He's the freakin' CFO. She's a spokesperson who changed the message.

With all things like this, their are parties who benefit and parties who get hurt. Netflix and google thought it'd all go their way. Now they see that's not the case. Years of litigation. The courts didn't support this type of regulation in the past. Why is the 300+ page document still not available? Another "we have to pass it to see what's in it?"

Liberals Mugged by Obamanet might have to google the title to get full article.

Not sure why people think companies who lobby for preferential treatment for their companies and themselves, is beneficial to them. It's going to be a mess, and the courts will likely kill it. Wait til the document is available. Obamacare II? Hey, Lar, if you like your internet you can keep it. It'll just cost more, be limited in both speed and content. Sort of like in China.

24
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 9, 2015, 03:19 PM »
Fox News Most Trusted National News. And IT's Not That Close

Fox News' dominance puts its frequent complaints about the "mainstream media" into perspective. For millions of Americans, Fox News is the mainstream media.

Guess I'm going to have to stop bashing MSM. Fox is MSM. The others? Extreme fringe. How do you spell fringe? MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS. Who'd a thunk it? Check your preconceptions. The first step in recovery is acceptance. ;)

25
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: March 9, 2015, 11:06 AM »
Hey, Lar, it looks like now it's only you, Soros and McHesney as net neutrality supporters. And those two are socialists/Marxists. And you?

Netflix Recants on Obamanet

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 258 Next