Monday February 8, 2016
Jump to content
John Hansel, you have your wires crossed. You have never heard me or read of me attacking anyone personally rather than addressing the issues provided they have addressed the issues. Rarely do I EVER attack someone on a personal level even when they do attack me repetitively on a personal level, as Ted Paulk ALWAYS does. I made an exception in his case above simply because he is so ignorant of decent civil debate that he understands nothing else. When I do call someone a name it is not gratuitous, it is because they are conducting themselves in that manner -- such as Marxist apparatchiks, who have a specific manner of communication designed to divert the attention from the subject at hand.
Now, then: Your Fact #1: Granted. Los Angeles and Beijing and quite a few other megalopolises prove it. Your "Fact" #2: Bulldust. And given the leftist support for the totally illegal EPA's efforts to bring the entire country to its knees and back to the horse and buggy days, all for the purpose of leftist control of energy, it would take an awfully lot to convince me of the veracity of any study saying otherwise. Your "Fact" #3: Crap. No one has died of air pollution as a result of the Four Corners plant. The level of pollution from that plant is insufficient to cause death or even discomfort. Your "Fact" #4: So you say, but I doubt it seriously, because she does not believe that. Have you ever made a slip of the tongue because you were thinking in one context and your remarks came out subject to some other context? Your "Fact" #5: "Almost everyone" is not a fact, and even if it was it would be irrelevant here. The issue is not what "almost everyone" believes; the issue is whether climate change is manmade, and it is not -- and even if it were, there isn't a darned thing 'Man' can do about it short of renouncing the industrial age and going back to the agricultural age, which would kill off a larger percentage of the world population than your much-vaunted climate change would. Besides which, nobody I know is denying climate change and nobody I know is denying that air pollution causes premature deaths. We are denying that climate change is manmade and we are denying that shutting down Four Corners would significantly improve air quality as good as it is already. Your Fact #6: I'm not certain of that, but if he isn't, you can blame the absolutely asinine gerrymandering by that infiltrated redistricting commission. Unbelievable! Your Fact #7: Good! As Davy Crockett found out the hard way, from a constituent who refused to vote for him again because he (Crockett) voted to provide money to the victims of the Georgetown fire, there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to rob the people's treasury for anything but Constitutionally-authorized expenditures. Gosar was supporting the U.S. Constitution. Why aren't you? Continued next post.
Ted, it is absolutely amazing to see again and again some fool thinking that he can win a debate by calling his opposition condescending diminutives and kindergarten-level names. It is almost embarrassing -- or it would be if I didn't consider the source: A low-level leftist operative who can hardly put two words together without making an ass of himself.
Just FYI, Teddie, you poor badly-abused enfante, over 400 world-class scientists are questioning the climate change pseudo-data and just because that doofus Michael Mann wrote another misleading and already discredited (by MRC Newsbusters) article claiming statistical proof from a study in which he threw out all data that didn't agree with his thesis, doesn't come close to justifying the claim that your opposition is the only group in the entire world who thinks that climate change is not real.
Besides, as usual, you misstate the terms of the debate. We aren't saying climate change isn't real. We're saying it is 1) not changing in the direction the climate change doofuses say it is changing, and 2) is not caused by, or even materially accelerated by, mankind's use of fossil fuels. We are also saying it is consistent with the natural climate changes that have occurred in history before we even had industrialized nations.
Thirdly, once again you reveal not only you incompetency in debate, but also your total lack of human decency in your final uncalled-for comments about Senator Sylvia Allen. More than one asshole has had his nose splattered all over his face for making comments like that about a woman the rest of the community loves and respects, and sometimes I think it is too bad society has moved away from expecting redress for such churlishness.
You owe her an apology on your hands and knees.
Ted, your whole argument was destroyed by two other letters in the same issue of the Roundup, so I won't bother with you there since you never learn anything anyway. I will point out to you, however, the stupidity of claiming Senator Allen believes the planet is only 6,000 years old. If you watch the video where the doofuses on the left and in the media claim she said that, you will find -- provided your observations skills are better than your thinking skills. which I doubt -- she didn't say the planet was 6,000 years old. She said Mankind's presence and work on this planet is 6,000 years old.
And John Hansel, were you assigned, by the Rim Country Democrat Club, the duty to come in and prop up Ted's ignorance with your own? Didn't work: All you did was drag yourself down to his level. Your claim about Gosar was even more idiotic and divorced from reality than Ted's.
"...or pretending that universal visibility of loaded guns portend no harm,..." Oh, NOW we get to the heart of your issue, don't we? Newsflash, Raymond: We have a right to keep and bear arms that is beyond the reach of government, and we will continue to exercise it whether you like it or not. And we have awakened to the violation of our 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendment-guaranteed rights represented by compelled background checks, and we intend to stop them with extreme prejudice: We do not need to ask government permission to exercise a right any more than we need to ask government permission to provide for our own health care choices without government interference or choose who is deserving of our charity without government interference. And when ISIS arrives and shoots up your entertainment video, what are you going to do about it besides die?
"... or willingness to sacrifice our beautiful environment for the sake of inconvenience, ..." Eh? I have no clue what you are talking about beyond the totally illegal regulations imposed by the totally illegal EPA. Are YOU willing to give up the "convenience" of electricity and close the power plants that aren't interfering with the ecology in any measurable way?
"... or misdirecting taxes intended for public education for the sake of increasing corporate profits, or allowing life-threatening conditions to perdure just because they are difficult to change, or taking a purely intractable opposition of obstruction instead of seeking solution to difficult issues, ..." Again, you sound like some Marxist apparatchik bitching about problems that don't exist just to give "useful idiots" an excuse to fawn over you.
"... or making it more difficult for citizens to vote, ..." Why, so your party can bus in hundreds of illegal aliens to vote for your candidate? No, thanks, Raymond, that is a fraud that we will not allow.
"... or advocating regressive methods of taxation, ..." We sure don't want your "Progressive" forms of taxation! Socialism is too expensive for any country; have a look at Venezuela and Argentina.
"... or betraying the interests of their own constituents, ..." You've certainly proven YOUR interests are not the interests of the constituents around here.
"...or otherwise making our state a mockery before the entire country." You mean like Washington, and Oregon, and Colorado have made themselves worthy of mockery before the entire country by voting into (color of) law requirements that citizens must ask government permission before they can hand a firearm to a buddy to marvel over, do it again when he hands it back? Don't worry, we won't -- or if air-headed doofuses do vote it into (color of) law, we won't comply, for it violates at least five of our Bill of Rights Amendments.
Lastly, Raymond: Do you have a government political officer come in and wipe your nose and change your diaper every day? Do you really think everyone else needs one?
Raymond, if there were awards given for hypocrisy, you would win the award hands down. Or perhaps I should say, "hands out." First, you set the context of your remarks by prefacing your rant with "In a country that was birthed in revolution and violence, ..." and then you argue for no restriction on incivility whenever the legislature does anything supporting the principles the founders of our nation fought and died to etch into the Rule of Law for us! You are incredible!
'... such as: denying every human’s right to health care, ..." Where did the founders of our nation argue for the right of those in need to rob everyone else at the point of government's sword to pay for their medical care, Raymond? Your premise makes government a thief of the public treasury!
"...or proposing to take food out of the mouths of poor children, ..." Where did the founders argue for the right of children to rob everyone else at the point of government's sword to pay for their food, Raymond? We have a duty to children, but it is OUR duty, not government's. WE have the right to determine the nature and extent of our assistance to needy children, including the right to deny assistance to the mothers of needy children who use them as cash cows. If the mother can't support the children, she should stop having children and stop being a societal leech. If YOU want to support societal leeches, YOU support them. That is your right: But you have no right to demand others do so.
"...or refusing to implement the decisions of the court in matters such as educational funding, ..." No one is required to obey the orders of a Court not pursuant to the Constitution, or if pursuant to the Constitution, not pursuant to reality. If there is no money, money cannot be paid.
Continued next message.
Reference my comment above about Obama running a sham war to keep his fan base dazzled, please see U.S. Air Force Lt. General McInerney comments on the subject: http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/top-u-s-general-we-are-not-trying-to-destroy-isis/
You know, Ted; it is almost embarrassing to show how out of touch you are with reality, you do such a great job of it yourself. Tell me, do you get down on your knees and worship the Great Peter Aleshire as a God-like "truthteller"? (No insult intended, Pete; I'm sure you are as embarrassed by his fawning attention as he should be.)
Ted, is it your fantasy that the "President is going to overthrow America with his foreign army and then retire to Kenya to live off the pension"? I know of no one on my side of the political fence who believes that, and I seriously doubt you do. On the other hand, he is doing a pretty consistent job of violating our laws: For a partial list, see http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/obamas-real-reason-he-wants-your-guns/.
As for whether Obama is a Muslim or not is academic; he is most certainly a radical Muslim sympathizer as evidenced by several deferences to radical Muslim States such as Iran (see above link) and by the fact that he is preventing our airmen from pounding 75% of the clearly available ISIS targets. He is pretending to fight ISIS to maintain credibility with America's liberal doofuses, but he is wasting huge resources and accomplishing nothing. And then he calls 150 Parisians dead and over two hundred wounded at the hands of radical Muslim monsters "a setback."
If you think "The President hasn't taken anyone's guns nor has he tried; " ... well, Peter rightfully objects when someone calls an idiot an idiot, so I won't, but anyone giving you or Obama the slightest credibility should consider the evidence: https://pjmedia.com/blog/obama-admits-that-he-wants-to-confiscate-your-guns. That is exactly what he wants to do. He has no interest in "addressing" the virtually nonexistent problem of people violence that has been declining steadily as the private ownership AND CARRYING of firearms has increased. His interest is in violating our 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendment-guaranteed rights on his way to finally violating our 2nd Amendment rights, all of which are violated by illegal "background checks" compelled as a precondition to "allowing" the exercise of a right government has no authority to allow or deny.
I will agree Obama has no plans to invade Texas; he would have his a-- handed to him on a smoking platter if he tried.
Lastly, Ted, you are nearly the last person on this planet qualified to identify or advocate the publishing of "true facts": You have no conception of the meaning of the term.
You're here; I presume voluntarily.
Last login: Tuesday, January 26, 2016