The EXTREME end of that isn't always appropriate. But right now, we need the extreme end of it to straighten things out.

Artful Dodger: We just need someone fiscally conservative at this point. It's the most vital thing.

rod03801: At this point, Animal, the muppet, could lead better than Obama.

Artful Dodger: THAT is clear!

I can't WAIT for November 2012. Going to be SO satisfying to vote him out. Just like how satisfying it was to get decent people in the House in 2010.

Dems/network news//TV/etc, refuse to believe that the PEOPLE don't WANT this incompetent moron and the other libs like him.

And I HOPE a Tea Partier is the winner.

Though unfortunately it'll be middle of the road Romney probably. But that's fine. Whoever can beat Obama will be good. All I care is that he is GONE

rod03801: It's so funny how they spin anything to protect the ONE. It's laughable. Obama is an incompetent moron. History will prove that.

Artful Dodger: Uh oh! I guess it's not "clear" to you!

(V): What an old and lame excuse. All presidents inherit something. But the CURRENT mess is OBAMA'S OWN making. We're far more in debt because of his policies, have far more unemployment after three years with this moron, he's thrown tons of money away on failed enterprises, and now he wants MORE of the same. NO. You're wrong here. The current mess is ALL OBAMA. And it's time for libs like yourself to be honest about that FACT.

rod03801: Good!! It's nice that we don't have to go around in circles.

I remember from watching a few *cough* shows on human behaviour on how some like to think they have the power to change things, sometimes on how a group of people think they can change things/or someone.

...It don't work unless the things/person wants to change.

Same rules apply to humans on a large scale. Or, as an example.. when are MP's got caught with their hands in the public purse building duck ponds. They all said it was the other parties fault. Yet the Tories change the rules so they could do it.. but Labour did not stop the rot until us voters found out!!

(V): Oh, believe me. It's VERY clear.

N' quite frankly the idea of some religious nut (as with the current Tea party/Conservative/neo con candidates) getting in the Oval office.. .. as everyone in the US has to admit is the only kinda right winger will get elected!!

....thinking God is on their side as they go to war.

We'd lock up anyone who thought they had a right to do that in the UK, rather than let them be our CEO. Seriously, we came so close to oblivion during the Cold war.. on more than one occasion.. that anyone with rabid ideology should never be placed where there is a red button.

And anyone thinking that God is going to kill mosta human kind on a bet (re Job) ain't safe in power!!

rod03801: So explain to me where I said Obama gets a free pass?

Is telling the truth of how the US system is a free pass or just admission that through analysis....

...... It doesn't matter who gets in at the moment eg if the hardware is screwed how is any new software gonna make any difference to the machine (aka the USA) ..it's still screwed.

Is that clear?

....Remember only a few Americans own most of America, and as my college lawyer teacher said.

"Property is NINE TENTH'S of the law"

(V): Seems you're keeping to that "prediction" though, because I don't recall accusing any lib of "putting words in my mouth", though you just seem to have done it. That IS quite a moment, eh?

rod03801: No... I never said that. I thought it was us "libs" that were supposed to put words in conservative mouths...

Maybe we had a quantum moment eh Rod!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxqTtiWxs4&

(V): So, basically, it's NEVER his responsibility. He gets a free pass to screw up as much as he can.
Says it all

rod03801: ... you want a politician to tell you before he gets in office that the country is screwed. And even if I get in there is little to do about it because of our political system, and the interference by the masters.... Mmmmmm I can just imagine that as part of the election speech.

Also, you want him to be honest and say that to reverse and fix the problem will take decades, and to ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8lVXQfPXRw

Says it all

(V): And how many years does it take before Obama has any responsibility himself?

He knew what he was getting, and he assured that all would be well.

Artful Dodger: Everything...... I think many things were pretty screwed up before hand, he just inherited a mess

A laser beam that makes molecules vibrate could help detect improvised explosive devises, say scientists.

Every molecule vibrates with a unique frequency - so the laser could "sense" bombs while scanning the ground from a safe distance.

The Michigan State University team's work is another attempt to curb the number of deaths from roadside bombs in places such as Afghanistan.

The research appears in the journal Applied Physical Letters.

An improvised explosive device is a homemade bomb and more than half the deaths of coalition soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have been as a result of IEDs.

The lead developer of the laser sensor, Dr Marcos Dantus said detecting IEDs has always been a challenge because of the chemical compounds present in the environment that mask the bomb's molecules.

"Having molecular structure sensitivity is critical for identifying explosives and avoiding unnecessary evacuation of buildings and closing roads due to false alarms," he said. The invention uses a laser beam that combines short pulses that "kick" the molecules to make them vibrate with longer pulses.

"The laser and the method we've developed were originally intended for microscopes, but we were able to adapt and broaden its use to demonstrate its effectiveness for standoff detection of explosives," said Dr Dantus.

The researcher said he was not able to describe the technology behind the invention in great detail because of the project's sensitive nature.

Gene Roddenberry either was way ahead of his time... or knew some aliens!!

"September 19, 2011
Warmists have new excuse
James Lewis




Oh, ye of little faith! Do you doubt Global Warming? Just because world temps haven't followed the computer models for, ummm, a decade or so?

Rejoice! There is an answer. It comes to us courtesy of Reuters, the official home of Eurosocialist superstitions.

Like the eurozone, which is also breaking down. Global warming and other euro fantasies going down at the same time? Could this be a coincidence?


"Reuters, New York - The mystery of Earth's missing heat may have been solved: it could lurk deep in oceans, temporarily masking the climate-warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions, researchers reported on Sunday.

Climate scientists have long wondered where this so-called missing heat was going ... The world temperature should have risen more than it did, scientists at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research reckoned. ... They knew greenhouse gas emissions were rising ... and yet temperatures were not going up as much as projected"

And so the heat got together and said, "Let's play a trick on the humans and hide on the bottom of the ocean!"

(V): May as well. He's screwed up everything else in the world.

Artful Dodger: UARS entry has changed dates? Is that to be blamed on Obama as well??

(V): check yer calendar

Artful Dodger: Nooooooooo!!

You mean this isn't 2020??

September 18, 2011
Misogynist-in-Chief
M Catharine Evans




According to high level women at the White House, President Obama fits the definition of a male chauvinist pig. Who would have believed it? Too bad liberal feminist voters looked the other way when candidate Obama told a female reporter "hold on sweetie" or when a watchdog group revealed the Senator paid his male staffers more than female employees working in comparable positions. What about when he objectified Sarah Palin in campaign ads?

Now according to his book, Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and The Education of A President, scheduled for release on September 20 journalist, Ron Suskind tells what it's like for women in the Obama White House. I guess electing the most pro-abortion President doesn't make up for being treated like Palin and Clinton in 2008.

One of Suskind's unnamed sources, a "top female official" stated the discrimination was everywhere even in the Oval Office.


"The president has a real woman problem. The idea of the boys' club being just Larry and Rahm isn't fair," she told Suskind, referring to former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Larry Summers, former chairman of the National Economic Council. Obama "was just as responsible himself."

Former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn suggested the commander-in-chief as well as his male advisers may have violated federal laws.


This place would be in court for a hostile workplace...Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.

Christine Romer, former head of the Council of Economic Advisers, found out the hard way Larry Summers, another Obama economics adviser, still harbored the belief "that innate differences between men and women might be one of the reasons women lag behind in science and math career."


"I felt like a piece of meat," Christina Romer...said of one meeting in which Suskind writes she was "boxed out" by Summers.

Oh my. Ms. Romer's indignation brings to mind a controversial cult-like propaganda piece published by none other than Gloria Steinem. Remember Ms. Magazine's 2009 inaugural issue with the One in superman pose? On his chest was the statement "This is what a feminist looks like." Exactly right, Gloria.

(V): I didn't forget that. It's not germaine to the point. Obama is president and you seem to be forgetting that fact.

Artful Dodger: You forget to mention that LightSquared have also supported Bush and gave equal funds (I think more) to the GOP. You also forget to mention that the problem with the GPS interference is in the upper frequency bands and they plan at the moment to just stick to using a lower frequency level.

Also, the GPS problems have been known for EIGHT YEARS, that the interference problems are because the GPS manufacturers are not building their receivers properly to "Department of Defence standards".

Basically cheap and nasty gear!!

September 16, 2011
Worse than Solyndra
Thomas Lifson




Add the name LightSquared to your crony capitalism watch list. The story emerging has elements even worse than the squandering of half a billion dollars on an Obama bundler's venture.

Brendan Sasso of The Hill reports:


LightSquared plans to provide high-speed wholesale wireless service nationwide through a network of satellites and land-based cell towers, but tests earlier this year revealed it interferes with GPS devices, including those used by the military.

One of the major investors in LightSquared is prominent Democratic donor, Philip Falcone.

The Daily Beast reported Thursday that the White House asked Air Force Gen. William Shelton to alter his planned remarks to lawmakers and their staff in a secured briefing about LightSquared.

According to the report, Shelton was pressured to change his testimony to show he supported the White House's policy to expand wireless broadband access and that the Pentagon would try to resolve the GPS interference issues with more testing within 90 days.

The Center for Public Integrity reported Wednesday that LightSquared sent emails to White House aides, at times mentioning its fundraising for Democrats and President Obama.

"We cannot afford to have federal telecommunication policy, especially where it affects national security, to be made in the same way this White House has parceled out a half billion dollars in loan guarantees to the failed Solyndra Corporation, a large political campaign contributor of the president," Turner said, referring to the bankrupt solar firm that received government loans.

rod03801: "survival of the fittest has nothing to do with right or wrong."

I'm talking about two irreconcilable points of view. I'm not attempting to mix the two as though they are same the thing, because that would be inaccurate as well as confusing. It's better to talk about them as if two purists were comparing notes.

An evolutionary purist doesn't believe in God, or is willing to allow the possiblity but doesn't acknowledge His involvement. He doesn't acknowledge morality because it is grounded in God. His own sense of 'morality' is grounded in himself (what man deems is right) and not in God, so his own version of 'morality' is called ethics.

The idea of right and wrong can transcend what we might find convenient, or beneficial only to ourselves. For reasons that should be obvious, a lot of people don't like the concept of morality, because what is right and wrong is ultimately determined by God and not by ourselves.

When an evolutionist talks about how evolution occured, he never puts it in terms of right and wrong. He never says morality played a part in evolution.. because evolution just happened, and the only forces in play were those that enabled a living thing to continue living and progress to becoming other living things. Survival of the fittest means whatever it takes to survive, and ultimately dominate and/or replace creatures who are not as fit as they are for survival.

If you watch nature shows you can't miss the fact that one of the features that enable survival is deception. I see it especially when they show ocean life.. or when someone here (not you) attempts to divert my attention to defending Christian principles, when the only point I was making was that it's okay to own a weapon if it's used for self defense. I was also accused of name calling when it was obvious I wasn't. An attempt to intimidate by alerting the moderator?

(V): Who said the American constitution is perfect? It did provide a templet for wrongs, which were already established practice, to be corrected. You talk about it as though the change should have been instantaneous. A better question would be, how did an established and approved of way of doing things, and practiced all over the world (including your own country), become abolished?

The constitution was built upon, among other things, judea-christian principles and laws and your own magna carta.

Were non white folk banned in England from owning guns immediately after your own slaves were freed?

So.. if the Constitution is so perfect... why were non white folk banned in many states of America from owning guns after the civil war?

Hardly fair and balanced.

Justaminute: Of course anyone who is not right wing is silly here. It's like Fox news

Justaminute: Simple quick answer. No.

This board is about Politics, not moderating. Future moderating conversations need to be held via PM.

Thank you.

From Carville no less:

"CNN:


People often ask me what advice I would give the White House about various things. Today I was mulling over election results from New York and Nevada while thinking about that very question. What should the White House do now? One word came to mind: Panic.

We are far past sending out talking points. Do not attempt to dumb it down. We cannot stand any more explanations. Have you talked to any Democratic senators lately? I have. It's pretty damn clear they are not happy campers.

This is what I would say to President Barack Obama: The time has come to demand a plan of action that requires a complete change from the direction you are headed.

I don't know how else to break this down. Simply put:

1. Fire somebody. No -- fire a lot of people. This may be news to you but this is not going well. For precedent, see Russian Army 64th division at Stalingrad. There were enough deaths at Stalingrad to make the entire tea party collectively orgasm.

Mr. President, your hinge of fate must turn. Bill Clinton fired many people in 1994 and took a lot of heat for it. Reagan fired most of his campaign staff in 1980. Republicans historically fired their own speaker, Newt Gingrich. Bush fired Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. For God's sake, why are we still looking at the same political and economic advisers that got us into this mess? It's not working."

rod03801:
Rod, I was wondering whether you thought you had a conflict of interest in offering your right wing views on the politics board and that of being staff? For example if a notoriously “silly liberal” who you had argued with many times before got his posts censored, on another board could you be seen as being unbiased?

I appreciate you are not the moderator on this board but if it seems a bit like the referee playing centre forward for Right Wing United.

Iamon lyme: Oh no! Don't get me wrong! I'm FULL on with agreement on the right to bear arms, etc! I'm not a silly lib! lol

rod03801: Your point is well taken, but I don't see how defending yourself, your family or your property is not crucial or beneficial to a societies survival. In a "perfect world" we would not have to deal with people constantly on the prowl looking to do violence and take what is not theirs. Like it or not we do not live in a perfect world. I might expect to see Ubers argument coming from someone hoping to fool me into believing I have no right to stop him from harming me.. I may be a fool, but I'm not that kind of fool.

I wasn't just blowing smoke when I said (in a previous post) that nothing could live in a 'perfect universe', where all mass and energy is evenly distributed. Nothing works where there is even distribution. Not the economy, not the universe, not anything.

If you think about opposing forces as conflict, then the moon is orbiting the earth precisely because of a conflict.. the moon is trying to fly away and the earth is trying to get the moon to come crashing down on it. The opposing forces keep the moon orbiting the earth, which is highly beneficial for those of us here living on the earth. So conflict in the physical universe is not a bad thing.. that and the fact that everything is NOT evenly distributed works very well for us here living on this earth.

There is another kind of conflict, I don't fully understand it but I have the sense that it too is neccessary if for nothing else then maybe for some higher purpose. And the universe is a staging area for that higher purpose to be worked out.. btw what I believe created that conflict in the first place is free will. The universe doesn't make free will choices, but we do, and that is why we experience a different kind of conflict. It won't always be unresolved, but I think there is a purpose for that conflict and some good will come from it.

Iamon lyme: I think I disagree a bit with "survival of the fittest has nothing to do with right and wrong"

I personally can see how knowing what is acceptable and not acceptable in one's society would be pretty crucial/beneficial to "survival". (Without your morality being grounded in "God")

Of course I could be misunderstanding your point completely.

Übergeek 바둑이: Okay, I can see now why you might not understand my point. My bad.

If your own sense of morality doesn't come from God, it would have to come from something else. If there is no God and everything we have is owed to evolution, then it follows that whatever sense of morality we have would have neccessarily been derived from eons of evolutionary development.

I've sudied evolution, so I know what the forces are that enable simple organisms to change into increasingly complex ones, the primary one being whatever change that brings about an advantage to survival.

Morality does not play any part in this, as it implies a higher responsibily to a creator who, in the mind of the evolutionist, either does not exist or only exists in some far away place, and does not intervene in our affairs.

This is already getting too long, so I'll stop here and ask you why it even matters what people do or don't do, since survival of the fittest has nothing to do with right or wrong. The concept of right and wrong are MORAL precepts. Not evolutionary precepts. According to evolution, there is no such thing as right and wrong, only what works for you and what doesn't.

The condratiction in your argument, which I admit is based on an assumption of your own particular world view, is evident in how your own sense of morality finds it wrong that anyone should own a weapon for ANY reason.

If I'm wrong about what you believe (about God or about evolution) then I appologize for assuming too much. Of course, then you WOULD be a phonie and a fake for suggesting you actually care one way or the other about Christian principles.

I'm sure you will suggest that neither is right, and that there is some middle ground here.. can't wait to hear it.

Übergeek 바둑이: "?? What does evolution have to do with any of this?"

It has to do with your own particular world view, and how perceptions are filtered through that view.

I've taken a leap of faith by assuming two things:
1. You don't believe in God, or if you do you don't believe he created life on earth
2. You believe we are all here because of evolution

If my assumptions are correct, and I admit they are only assumptions, then you are free to show me how you do not contradict yourself.

Übergeek 바둑이: ???

I wasn't calling you a phonie or a fake. If you are a 'Christian' preacher, then you would be. Are you?

It takes two to carry on an intelligent conversation. I've done my part, so I'll just have to wait for you to stop repeating yourself and actually address what I've said.

Weiner's NY District elects Republican Turner in special election (updated)
Thomas Lifson

It is time for Democrats across the United States to panic, as a Congressional district that has not elected a Republican in almost 90 years handed an easy victory to the GOP candidate. The victor Bob Turner cast his effort as a referendum on President Obama, a chance to send a message to Washington. As the Washington Post put it, "President Obama suffered a sharp rebuke Tuesday when voters in New York elected a conservative Republican to represent a Democratic district that has not been in GOP hands since the 1920.

Übergeek 바둑이:
Ever heard of typos?

And yes, most stuff out of that book is quoted out of context. It makes my point in a weird way, that anything in that book can be used for whatever someone wants it to be used for.

I personally couldn't care less if it's Christian or not Christian to own a gun. It's a constitutional right, and I stand behind it. I have TON more respect for THAT document, than the Bible.

rod03801:

> How about Luke 23:36?

To correct the post, it is Luke 22:36. You quoted it out of context. However, this is the great lesson that Jesus taught to us all, and the one that Christians too often forget.

The passage occurs right during the Last Supper. Jesus has finished the Last Supper with the disciples, and he beings to make his predictions:

34 Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”

“Nothing,” they answered.

36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.

On the surface, it seems that Jesus has just ordered the disciples to buy swords. They come up with two.

Later in the passage, the mob comes to arrest Jesus:

47 While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, 48 but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?”
49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.

52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? 53 Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns.”


And therein lies the lesson. Jesus could have told the disciples to strike and kill as many as necessary to escape. Instead he stops them and performs a miracle. He heals the man's ear and surrenders peacefully to the mob.

Hardly an exhortation to violence. Rather, a lesson in peace and self-sacrifice.

Unfortunately, humanity is not enlightened like that.

Iamon lyme:

> You are missing the point. Jesus recognised the reality of living "in the world." Paul talked about having to deal with wild animals and bandits, how far do you think he would have gotten if he didn't believe in defending himself?

The answer is that Jesus set an example that few human beings can live up to. Jesus could have defended himself physically. He could have grabbed a sword, ask his disciples to arm themselves to the teeth, and then fought against the Romans who came to arrest him. Why would Jesus do that? He could have called on angels to come to his aid. He could have put the Romans and the Pharisees to the angel's sword. Why would Jesus not even be remotely tempted by a violent solution to his unjust incarceration and execution? The answer is that Jesus was giving us all a lesson. Violence among human beings is pointless. It is nothing but a sin in the eyes of God.

Of course, we are not enlightened like that. We make excuses for ourselves. We own weapons for "sport" and "entertainment". We say to ourselves that the guns are there to defend ourselves and our families. We justify ownership of weapons on legal grounds such as the Constitution. But deep inside (and this is where God looks) we know that something is wrong. We want peace, and it comes out of the barrel of a gun. So we contradict ourselves.

Iamon lyme:

> then why am I being tutored in moral principles by someone whose own sense of morality is derived by eons of evolutionary development.. ???

?? What does evolution have to do with any of this?

> We have enough phonies pretending to be just that. We don't need any more fakers trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Sure I am a phony and a fake. You still haven't proved that there is no contradiction between possessing weapons and Christian ethics. Find me a Bilbical quote, or a sensible argument. Calling me names proves not your point, but your inability to make intelligent arguments.

Übergeek 바둑이: It's not my job to make you want enlightenment. And if you are really all that concerned about 'contradictions', then why am I being tutored in moral principles by someone whose own sense of morality is derived by eons of evolutionary development.. ???

According to you, the law of tooth and fang should not apply to me. If your own world view is correct, then why wouldn't the same evolutionary principles apply to me as well?

And please stop pretending you know anything about what I believe, you would have more luck if you pretended to be a Christian preacher..

Strike that last thought. We have enough phonies pretending to be just that. We don't need any more fakers trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Übergeek 바둑이: You are missing the point. Jesus recognised the reality of living "in the world." Paul talked about having to deal with wild animals and bandits, how far do you think he would have gotten if he didn't believe in defending himself?

Where do you see me promoting needless violence against anyone? If I manage to deter someones intended violence against me or my family, then I have successfully stopped violence from happening.

Where do you see virtue in allowing yourself to be a victim when that doesn't need to happen? Are you seriously suggesting I should allow someone to harm someone in my family when it's in my power to stop it? You seem intent on telling Christians what they should or should not do. What would you do if someone threatened to rape and or kill your wife and children? What makes you believe Christians should not protect themselves and the ones they love when it's obvious you would if it was in your power? Or perhaps this is not so obvious. What would you do?

rod03801: Aye... He did, but that was so prophecy (Isaiah 53:9-12) could be fulfilled. 11 disciples and two swords were not exactly a challenge to those who were arresting him.

Taking things out of context don't work.

As to "what parts are "figurative" and which parts are "literal""

All at the same time and more...

as for the whip. He chased them with it is all I see, he drove the money changers out of the temple. Something that needs doing today seeing all those wearing bling that are paid for by donations to help fight the DeViL!!

Personally it's good to question, without that we'd still be ruled by the RCC.