Confederate Yankee
October 26, 2009
Conservatives Top Liberals, Moderates as Top Ideological Group
So sayeth Gallup:
Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.
Let's keep those percentages in mind the next time we see a heavily-slanted poll that significantly under-samples Republicans and over-samples Democrats.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:08 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It's a shame that a lot of 'em stayed home on Nov. 4, 2008.
BTW, don't confuse "conservative" with "Republican".
Posted by: Diogenes Online at October 26, 2009 10:00 AM (2MrBP)
2
Remember though, the staff at the NYT generally considers itself to be moderate.
Posted by: kevin at October 26, 2009 10:45 AM (HjDx5)
3
It is a shame, Diogenes, but not a surprise, as there was no conservative candidate for President running on a major party ticket that time. You had the choice between an ultra-liberal Chicago corrupt Democrat, and a slightly liberal Republican who had shown over the years that he had great disdain for the conservative wing of his party.
In football, sometimes when your team is mediocre, you basically toss out everyone and start fresh - it's painful for a couple of years, but if the right people are put in place, you're usually back winning long before you would have otherwise.
Unfortunately for the Republicans, they didn't do that this time, so we're pretty much resigned to a much longer period of mediocrity.
Posted by: Skip at October 26, 2009 03:01 PM (G2eJS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 24, 2009
Victicrat
Look closely, and you'll see James O'Keefe, the filmmaker who nailed ACORN for supporting child sex trafficking, wearing a pimp suit once again... and dancing.
Badly.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:18 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Badly.
All the girlies say he's pretty fly for a white guy.
Posted by: Pablo at October 24, 2009 11:22 PM (yTndK)
2
Whatchu talkin' bout?!?!? O'Keefe was gettin' DOWN!!!
These posers wouldn't last 30 seconds in Compton but the message was pretty catchy.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 25, 2009 05:41 PM (OX5qU)
3
These posers wouldn't last 30 seconds in Compton but the message was pretty catchy.
Why's that, Lippy? Is there something about Compton you'd like to tell us?
Posted by: Pablo at October 25, 2009 06:38 PM (yTndK)
4
Okeefe is a great dancer, what a unique kinda guy. Wonder why Letterman hasn't booked him and Hannah. Who were the posers?
Posted by: Jayne at October 25, 2009 11:31 PM (dwIL0)
5
Not at all Pablo. You should visit there yourself. You'll love it!
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 28, 2009 02:58 AM (bhNGz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama: Let's Wreck This Economy For The Fictional One I Support
"From China to India, from Japan to Germany, nations everywhere are racing to develop new ways to produce and use energy," he said. "The nation that wins this competition will be the nation that leads the global economy. I am convinced of that. And I want America to be that nation."
A reasonably bright teenager can tell you that a country that powers itself exclusvely by "clean energy"
simply for the sake of being green puts itself at a severe disadvantage against those economies that go with a with a less-restrictive approach that leverages existing technology. It is common sense.
Sadly, you can guess which small-minded ideologue has
very little of that.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:43 PM
| Comments (47)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I understand that you believe global warming is a hoax. Obama, and the scientific consensus he bases his belief upon, understand global warming is a reality.
So he's not suggesting the country and world go green for the sake of being green, he sees it as an essential and inevitable thing, in which case the nation that wins that technology race will indeed be the leader of the new economy.
It's like switching from wax to oil to electricity for lighting your home. Not everyone was on board, but it was reality. The USA sold the world a lot of goods based upon that reality.
And that doesn't even begin to address the dishonesty of your claim that Obama wants "exclusively" green energy, while ignoring existing technology.
If you have to ignore and distort to make a point, you might not be on to something good.
Posted by: Jim at October 24, 2009 04:33 PM (/TDLA)
2
Jim, we don't believe global warming is a hoax, we believe MAN MADE global warming is a hoax.
During the life of Earth there were approximately 6 ice ages. Present global warming began 18,000 years ago as we started leaving the Pleistocene Ice Age. The theory that man-made pollution and/or CO2 are responsible for global warming is not supported by fact and there is no scientific proof.
Damaging the economy in an attempt to solve a problem, that is only a theory, is core stupidity.
Posted by: Rick at October 24, 2009 05:20 PM (FWmwx)
3
The problem Rich is that the people who do this stuff for a living do not agree with you.
Think for a bit about how exactly scientists from around the world could possibly go about coordinating a hoax like this, and then ask why in the world they would do so, you'll end up with quite an impossible story.
Ignoring problems does not make them go away.
Posted by: Jim at October 24, 2009 05:49 PM (/TDLA)
4
Jim, you evidently do not follow this too much. Many scientists agree that man made global warming is a hoax. I suggest you study this issue more and report back with your findings.
Posted by: Rick at October 24, 2009 05:52 PM (FWmwx)
5
Right back at you Rick. I'd suggest you read up on what the guys who work for unbiased places like NASA, ESA, NCAR etc say rather than taking the word of guys who are either being paid by oil and coal companies, or, who have degrees in science but do not work in the field.
Posted by: Jim at October 24, 2009 06:04 PM (/TDLA)
6
BTW, you could just as easily be arguing against evolution with your response to me, and you'd be just as correct. Thanks for being civil about it though.
Posted by: Jim at October 24, 2009 06:07 PM (/TDLA)
7
Your refusal to research the matter, and using methods of the left to discredit others with different opinions, illustrates to me that I would be wasting time with further discussion.
Save yourself embarrassment by researching this matter more first by visiting www.globalwarmingheartland.org, then you can continue from there.
Hopefully CY will post some information for you.
A closed mind is a terrible waste.
Goodnight!
Posted by: Rick at October 24, 2009 06:22 PM (FWmwx)
8
Um yeah, the link you gave is an industry site with financial connections to Exxon. You offer the right advice, now you just need to take it.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41
Posted by: Jim at October 24, 2009 06:36 PM (/TDLA)
9
The problem Rich is that the people who do this stuff for a living do not agree with you.
The problem is, Jim, that people who do this for a living disagree with AGW (please try to the label correct) and know that the hypothesis is far from proven. Even more, much of the so-called proof for AGW has been refuted. Some, as the work from Hansen at NASA, has been shown to be literally scientific misconduct. See the recent refutation of the Mann Hockey Stick (and the scientific misconduct surrounding that part of the hoax) for greater understanding.
Even further, none of the nostrums promoted by Obama and his merry gang of crooks in DC will even reduce CO2 by anywhere near enough--according to their own computer models. It will, however, enrichen the government and their favored cronies.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 24, 2009 07:03 PM (RpES0)
10
Links to the people who do this for a living who do not say there has been, and will be warming due to co2 in the atmosphere that was of human origin.
Not people in the field publishing critiques of this or that specific finding -- that's how science works -- but people in the field stating AGW(if it makes you happier) -- is a hoax.
I have no problem getting my gas from Exxon, I refuse to get my science from them, thanks.
Posted by: Jim at October 24, 2009 07:33 PM (/TDLA)
11
History has proven that "scientific consensus" and "reality" frequently only tenuously correlated.
Real scientists (I am one) understand that man doesn't know squat about how this planet or universe really work.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 24, 2009 08:08 PM (jeb75)
12
Please, scientific consensus certainly gets refined as time goes by but it's a joke to claim that's the same thing as the consensus being only tenuously correlated to reality. Newton didn't have a clue about Relativity, but he his theory of gravity was certainly correlated to reality.
I'd love to know what field you work in PA to have a better understanding of what you do for a living but think is based upon squat.
And again, there is a world of difference between saying "everything is not precisely understood" and claiming nothing is known, and claiming scientists and the government are engaged in some huge hoax.
Posted by: Jim at October 24, 2009 08:22 PM (/TDLA)
13
Jim:
AGW is a hoax, period.
There is no actual, empirical, evidence to support the contention that man has contributed, in any meaningful sense, to warming, period.
The planet has not warmed since 1998 despite an increase in atmospheric carbon concentration over the past decade. (Which actually, demonstrably, trails temp increases, so unless you have an interesting quantum theory of AGW, then atmospheric carbon increases don't even have a correlative relationship to carbon increase let alone a causative one.)
The sun has been unusually quiet for quite some time and, lo and behold, the temperatue, on Earth, has actually gone down.
The temp increases on Earth were actually mirrored in other parts of the solar system. (So unless carbon production (which, again, trails temp increases) was affecting temps on Mars, that's another piece of actual, empirical, evidence that can be cited against AGW.)
Most importantly, the single most important piece of evidence supporting AGW has recently been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked by the actual scientists you seem to think support the theory. (That would be the Hockey Stick (that you no longer hear anything about because a. temps have dropped off in the past decade and b. because it's a bald-faced lie built on skewed, cherry-picked, data.)
I could go on and on and on and on about how much of a fraud this 'theory' is but why bother, right? No matter hwo much actual evidence is presented to people like you, your little cult will not go quietly into the long, dark, night to join the global cooling 'scare' of the 70s and, upon a time, Malthusian-esque, pseudo-scientific 'theories' of over-population, eugenics, and every other nonsense-based 'science' that leftists have a long, bloody, history has supported in direct opposition to readily-available, factual, knowledge. What will be fun for yo, however, is when the edifice finally does come crashing down completely (and it will like all of its idiotic forebears) you can go around pretending you 'knew all along' that it was a hoax and that only the crazies believed such nonsense in the first place. (No doubt those "crazies" characterized as the very people that opposed it in the first place, as is typical for the Left when they want to bury historically-inconvenient facts that they cheered on as millions of their fellow man were murdered or had their standards of living obliterated.)
Posted by: ECM at October 24, 2009 08:38 PM (q3V+C)
14
"My little cult" just happens to include the folks who do this stuff for a living. Not a bad group to be in, whereas your little cult is made up of oil and coal companies, the folks who argued for decades that cigs were safe, and creationists.
I'll take my "cult" over yours any day.
Posted by: Jim at October 24, 2009 08:42 PM (/TDLA)
15
The scientific consensus in the middle ages was that the earth was flat, in the 1880's the consensus amongst physicists was that they understood 90% of all physics. Neither consensus was right was it? Folks who cite consensus do so because they don't wish to debate or discuss. "Scientists" who do not release their raw data along with their means and methods are NOT participating in science.
The amount of feedback (that means money) for issuing science-ish papers promoting AGW dwarfs that for skeptic papers by roughly a couple orders of magnitude. While there is some evidence that CO2 will slightly offset the average surface temperature (by a few TENTHS), there is no evidence of human caused catastrophic warming. None.
Posted by: RicardoVerde at October 24, 2009 08:52 PM (PBTsv)
16
There was no science as we know it in the middle ages, at least not in Europe. What that has to do with the meaning of consensus today is zip.
As for 1880s Physics, like I said, yes they didn't know anything about relativity, but guess what, 99% of reality is predicted just fine using the Newtonian equations. So yeah they were wrong, and yeah they did understand 90% of physics. I would not recommend you jump off a building because the "wrong" physics say you'll fall.
I don't know why you think the money in science is made by defending the status quo, as your 1880s example points out, the fame and money come from demonstrating something new. The fact that global warming denial proponents can't or won't publish in refereed journals isn't about money, it's because their claims don't stand up to professional scrutiny.
Posted by: Jim at October 24, 2009 09:09 PM (/TDLA)
17
I've had my say on the myth of manmade global warming. There is no credible peer-reviewed science to support it, and the cult is collapsing a little more each day as real data contradicts the politicized junk science, and flawed--perhaps purposefully skewed--"research" is rejected.
Like the previous attempt at doomsaying in the 1970s, it is based upon an unhealthy amount of ego, self-importance, opportunism, a quest for power, and fraud.
Not rational facts.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 24, 2009 09:33 PM (WjpSC)
18
The papers you point to in your previous posts aren't from peer reviewed science journals.
You have that part completely backwards, the peer reviewed work supports man made global warming, while the deniers post on their own websites and sell books to folks like yourself.
So are you really a believer in peer reviewed science, or do you just like the sound of it while ignoring the conclusions found in peer reviewed journals? Sadly it looks like the latter.
Posted by: Jim at October 24, 2009 09:42 PM (/TDLA)
19
I'm sure you guys have already seen this, I mean you are exceptionally well read on the topic of climate change, but here's what scientists are telling Congress about man made warming:
UCAR Joins Scientific Organizations Signing Letter to Senate on Climate Change
October 21, 2009
BOULDER—As the U.S. Senate considers climate change legislation, 18 leading scientific organizations have sent a letter to members of the senate reaffirming the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that greenhouse gases from human activities are the primary driver.
Richard Anthes, president of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, added his signature to the letter on behalf of UCAR, a nonprofit organization governed by 75 member universities granting Ph.D.s in atmospheric and related Earth system sciences.
Sent to all senators on October 21, the letter states in part:
Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment.
In the United States, these impacts could include sea level rise for coastal states, greater chances of extreme weather, regional water shortages and floods, and wildfires, the letter said. The organizations noted that a dramatic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will be necessary to avoid such serious impacts and warned that adaptation will be required to address impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation methods include improved infrastructure design, sustainable water management initiatives, modified agricultural practices, and improved responses to incidents of hazardous weather.
In June 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its version of a climate change bill. The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the first of several Senate committees to do so, is expected to begin consideration of climate change legislation later this month.
A PDF of the full letter sent to the Senate is available for download via the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Signatories on the letter include:
Richard Anthes
Richard Anthes (©UCAR, photo by Carlye Calvin.) News media terms of use*
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/senateletter.jsp
Posted by: Jim at October 24, 2009 10:14 PM (/TDLA)
20
So Jim, does it bother you that Mann's graph (replicated in much of the literature, sometimes without citation, and also used in Mr. Gore's film) relies on roughly ten trees to produce the drastic upward trend when nearby trees showed no upward trend? And of that set if one removes one specific tree and you use the remaining data there is only a slight upward trend. Doesn't it bother you just a little bit that so much politics is based upon that one tree?
Posted by: RicardoVerde at October 24, 2009 10:28 PM (PBTsv)
21
No it doesn't bother me, because -- again -- the people who know this stuff backwards and forwards aren't basing their conclusions on one graph. This isn't about Al Gore's understanding of the data, it's about the guys in my previous posts understanding of the data.
Does is bother you that several independent examinations and reconstructions of the climate of the past 1000 years supports Mann's conclusions?
Posted by: Jim at October 24, 2009 10:44 PM (/TDLA)
22
People: Jim is this sites designated AGW shill.
Jim will respond to every comment with the same drivel until everyone else stops posting.
Posted by: davod at October 25, 2009 01:04 AM (GUZAT)
23
Jim,
Just curious, what level of collage math did you have? Calc based physics? Thermo, fluids? Astrophysics, geology?
Just curious because as far as I can tell,you are just better at American English comp than I.
Posted by: Druid at October 25, 2009 02:59 AM (Gct7d)
24
Jim - What is the ideal temperature for the earth? Since you are so concerned about warming you obviously must have a temperature target in mind.
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 25, 2009 01:55 PM (3O5/e)
25
Jim,
NASA unbiased? Get real. They will do and say anything that the government tells them. If you don't believe what is being said to refute you just look at the cap and trade bill. It is a tax. That is all. Now tell me how a tax is going to save the earth. How are any of the so called green measures going to impact temperature change? The fact is that they will do nothing with a big N. If The Great One really was concerned about clean energy he would open up nuclear options. When the Dems do that I will know that they are serious about the issue. But I agree with everyone who has made a comment, this is a total hoax. On a global level it is obvious it is a political move for global government.
Posted by: David at October 25, 2009 05:35 PM (HCm3x)
26
The specialist journals are loaded with catastrophists who referee the submissions as well as make their living off of grants to study the "frightening" phenomena. Of course they know which goose lays the golden egg and they aren't about to let competing science stop the lay. If the refs are being paid by one team then it doesn't mean much when they throw the other team out for technicalities, either real, or made up to suit the need. (Please excuse the abuse of metaphor; sometimes it just spills-out)
Posted by: RicardoVerde at October 25, 2009 06:46 PM (PBTsv)
27
If NASA says and does anything they government tells them they would have had a completely different take on AGW during the 8 years of the Bush Admin. You're claim is ridiculous on it's face.
As for Cap and Trade, I guess one either can choose to believe in the power of incentives in the market or not.
I have no problem with nuclear power. The problem is the very strong NIMBY factor that nuclear plants suffer.
As for my personal choice for the Earth's temperature, I have to say it's a stupid question. That would be like me saying, daleyrocks, you're against Islamic terror, what is the ideal number of Muslims on the Earth?
I'm in favor of a climate where the US coasts don't suffer increased storm damage, where our farms and cities don't get too much, or too little rain and snow pack etc... A temperature range where we don't see millions of displaced people in Africa and Asia. And so forth.
In short, I like the climate as it is thanks, and do not look forward to the economic, political, and military costs of change.
Posted by: Jim at October 25, 2009 06:48 PM (/TDLA)
28
And CY, you commented on AGW, but didn't try to defend your claim that Obama foolishly wants "exclusively green energy". A complete falsehood.
Here are the mans own words on the subject from his speech yesterday:
"-- making the best use of resources we have in abundance, everything from figuring out how to use the fossil fuels that inevitably we are going to be using for several decades, things like coal and oil and natural gas;
figuring out how we use those as cleanly and efficiently as possible; creating safe nuclear power; sustainable -- sustainably grown biofuels; and then the energy that we can harness from wind and the waves and the sun.
It is a transformation that will be made as swiftly and as carefully as possible, to ensure that we are doing what it takes to grow this economy in the short, medium, and long term. And I do believe that a consensus is growing to achieve exactly that."
Your strawman version of Obama's stance is indeed naive and misguided, but it has little if anything to do with his actual policy positions.
Posted by: Jim at October 25, 2009 07:19 PM (/TDLA)
29
Jim,
Good comment. I still stand by NASA being a whore to the left or anyone else with money. But you showed your true colors when you indicated that you desire for us to transform the weather for your comfort. We will wreck what little economy that we have and throw us in a depression that will make the 30's look like a picnic. All so that you can keep the beaches like they are. How is that possible with the minimal change that could occur if every government did what the various treaties call for?
Climate change is part of being on this earth or any other planet. The fact is that most don't know if it will be hotter in 20 years or if we will be in an ice age. If man is truly making an impact, the only answer is to reduce the number of people. So if this is a passion of yours, consider that option and you will be knowing that your carbon unit will definitely be helping the environment.
Posted by: David at October 25, 2009 07:59 PM (HCm3x)
30
David, come on, now NASA isn't a tool of the government, but a "whore to the left or anyone else with money", but strangely not the groups who have the most money, big business. Keep trying, it only gets better. lol
And, no, I didn't say I wanted to transform the weather for my personal comfort. I said I would prefer we kept the climate our industry, cities, farms, infrastructure and homes were built to exploit.
Last but not least, thanks for offering me the choice of suicide, very classy. Instead, I'd prefer to move our economy away from imported oil, and towards homegrown, sustainable and clean energy sources. Do exactly what Obama is calling for, and what CY mocks, have the USA be on the leading edge of the next set of 21st century technologies instead of anchored to 19th and 20th century thinking and fossil fuels.
Posted by: Jim at October 25, 2009 08:11 PM (/TDLA)
31
Good morning Jim.
I do not propose to be that educated on AGW, however I do have quite a bit of commonsense. When AGW advocates propose risking our economy to solve a theory, and have no proof of what they propose would work anyway, then I become wary.
You disparage experts that refute AGW as having financial connections to Exxon and coal companies. I could as easy make the statement that proponents have connections to government employee union needs of maintaining subsidies for their bureaucracies to study the issue, along with their allies in big business that manufacture green energy equipment.
Will you at least admit it would be wise to have proof of AGW before risking our economy? Will you at least admit that if AGW is proven valid we should have proof we can do something about it? Will you at least admit we should evaluate the benefits versus the harm of global warming to see if it would make sense to even attempt the massive effort your side proposes?
Posted by: Rick at October 26, 2009 09:40 AM (FWmwx)
32
From NASA:
The atmosphere is primarily composed of Nitrogen (N2, 78%), Oxygen (O2, 21%), and Argon (Ar, 1%). A myriad of other very influential components are also present which include the water (H2O, 0 - 7%), "greenhouse" gases or Ozone (O, 0 - 0.01%), and Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 0.01-0.1%).
I don't pretend to be either a scientist or a mathametician but if man is responsible for producing 3% of 0.1% of the atmosphere and plants take this carbon dioxide and convert it to oxygen, wouldn't it make more sense for governments around the globe to mandate that everyone simply plant a garden? More plants = less carbon dioxide and more food not mass produced. sounds like a win win to me!
Posted by: Bob at October 26, 2009 01:35 PM (hJyf6)
33
NASA pulled a Piltdown. People still proudly quote a study that was falsified?
If you don't know what Piltdown was, I'll use another metaphor.
NASA pulled a Steven Glass.
Never heard of it? OK.
How 'bout, NASA pulled a Lancet?
Still buying that too?
hmmmm. Let's try NASA pulled a Beauchamp/Green Helmet/McBeth/Daily Mirror/Rick Duncan/Dan Rather.
Posted by: brando at October 26, 2009 04:44 PM (IPGju)
34
Hugh Pickens sends in a Wall Street Journal report that Chinese banks will provide $1.5B to a consortium of Chinese and American companies to build a 600-megawatt wind farm in West Texas, using turbines made in China. The wind farm will be built on 36,000 acres, and will use 240 2.5-megawatt turbines, providing enough power to meet the electrical needs of around 150,000 American homes. The project will be the first instance of a Chinese manufacturer exporting wind turbines to the United States. China aims to be the front-runner in wind- and solar-power generation "The Obama administration is hoping a shift to renewable energy will inject new life into the US manufacturing base and provide high-paying jobs, making up for losses in other sectors. But while the US has poured money into renewable energy through tax credits and other subsidies, China has positioned itself to reap many of the benefits by ramping up its export machine."
Posted by: Aaron at October 30, 2009 02:33 PM (QOsAh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Windows 7 Installation Stories?
When we finally replaced our ancient Dell desktop in August we bought a box that came installed with Vista Home Premium and the promise of a free copy of Windows 7 OS when it came out in October.
Last night I ordered the version compatible with my system, and I'm expecting Windows 7 in the mail sometime next week. Online reviews I've read have mostly been encouraging, but I was wondering if any of you have installed Windows 7 over Vista and what your experiences were.
If you've made the upgrade tell us what you thought of it in the comments.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:26 AM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The move from Vista to 7 Was trivially simple.
Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2009 10:04 AM (AH+8i)
2
I haven't heard any horror stories yet, but as a general rule you're always better off doing a fresh install instead of an upgrade, if you can spare the time.
The good news is that Windows 7 isn't a radical shift internally from Vista, like Vista was from Windows XP. In fact, internally it identifies itself as Windows 6.1, where Vista was 6.0. So as long as all your hardware devices and applications are working correctly on the Vista install, there's a very good chance that they will upgrade seamlessly.
Posted by: Skip at October 24, 2009 10:38 AM (Ur3O5)
3
Yes, the upgrade path is very simple. Microsoft designed it that way, because they want to enable its prime function:
As soon as you finish the install and connect to Microsoft to activate the install, a newly-designed virus is pushed onto your system. This is the first known bio-code virus. Anyone using the system, apparently through contact with the keyboard, will have their brains "downloaded" (sucked out) to Microsoft HQ.
The victims then begin to wander about with a shuffling gait, posting stories about how easy the install was and offering to provide technical support to ease the transition.
To avoid becoming a MicroZombie(R), it is imperative that you NOT upgrade to version 7.
It is possible that only using your keyboard while wearing condoms on your fingers MAY prevent this infestation, but that has not been confirmed as yet.
Posted by: Dubya Bee at October 24, 2009 10:42 AM (jZzVe)
4
Windows 7 is better than Vista.
Posted by: Hotcoupons4u at October 24, 2009 11:15 AM (EbzMS)
5
You will see very little difference between Vista and 7. Some fancier graphics and some operations are streamlined but there's not a huge difference. The upgrade should be seamless but I would still make sure you have a full backup if important files. Oh and make sure any app you have now that uses an online activation scheme (like Acrobat etc.) you deactivate it in Vista before you upgrade.
Posted by: DavidB at October 24, 2009 12:26 PM (AVJaH)
6
*Windows 7 is better than Vista.*
Could you set the bar any lower?
Posted by: Tully at October 24, 2009 01:42 PM (tUyDE)
7
....BRAAAAAIIIIINNNNSSSSS....
Posted by: MunDane at October 24, 2009 02:49 PM (dlS06)
8
I got one of the student download copies that came as a .exe that would not install. Instead of waiting another week for my disc I had to turn the install pack into an .iso and format a flash drive to install it. Otherwise it was a breeze to install reinstall all my programs.
So far I like the new taskbar and the sticky note function has been usefull.
Posted by: tal at October 24, 2009 06:48 PM (8cjjR)
9
I'm still running Windows 2000 on the box I'm typing on and NT4 on some other file server machines. They work fine and do everything I ask of them.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 24, 2009 08:11 PM (jeb75)
10
A friend of mine has been a beta tester for W-7 for the past few months and has very good things to say about it. For those who are silly-stupid fans of XP, W-7 has "virtual XP" that is kind of cool. It also has "virtual vista" but what's the point, it's because of Vista that MS was forced to expedite W-7 anyways but the option is there.
The whole Beta testing campaign for W-7 is really appealing because a lot of regular users and nerds were given W-7 first to iron out bugs ahead of time to roll out a optimal system. I'm looking forward to it but as usual, I'll wait to make sure before purchasing as I did with Vista. This is why I'm still using XP. Good luck with it but I think you'll be better off than with Vista.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 25, 2009 05:30 PM (OX5qU)
11
I've been running the release candidate of windows 7 64 bit for several months now. first off- it's really stable, I had so many problems with Vista (32 bit) that I was always doing work arounds to get it to work. I had to trick vista into working, and windows 7 has worked flawlessly so far (not including the initial upsets with beta drivers not being available until recently). I actually was unhappy going back to XP on my work machine after using 7 for so long! It runs every program i've thrown at it and I've really liked it. I like it better than Vista and XP- I'd consider myself an advanced user. I am most impressed by the small day to day stuff (like MS paint is very much improved). I am a happy future buyer of 7 (once my RC runs out). Good job for once Microsoft!
Hope it helps Bob!
Posted by: Scott at October 25, 2009 11:15 PM (JAC9r)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
About the Obama Thesis Hoax
When you were younger, your parents probably told you that "if it looks too good to be true, it probably is."
That bit of homespun wisdom should have been applied to a
blog post that claimed tertiary knowledge of a Barack Obama college thesis lambasting both the free market system and the Constitution.
The authors claim a defense of satire now that the blog entry was disclosed as such, though that warning came far too late for those that managed to push the story to multiple web sites and even talk radio.
If people had carefully read the entry before promoting it, however, this paragraph offered a big red flag:
In the paper, in which only the first ten pages were given to the general media, Obama decries the plight of the poor: &qout;I see poverty in every place I walk. In Los Angeles and New York, the poor reach to me with bleary eyes and all I can do is sigh.&qout;
When the blog entry claimed that the first ten pages of the President's thesis was given to the general media
and not one soul wrote or talked about it that should have sent up huge warning flares that something was wrong with this story.
That no one bothered to contact Joe Klein to see if the document reportedly released to him been, is an example of shoddy fact-checking.
Sadly, this gives the left wing blog Media Matters more than enough excuse to run a headline that begins "
So desperate they'll believe anything—" and have some justification for doing so. Michael Ledeen was quick to post a column noting that he'd
been duped by the thesis hoax, which was a responsible way to handle such a situation.
Now, if we can only get the same Media Matters partisans that gloated over this incident to develop or even borrow the integrity to admit
they were duped by a lying ACORN Philadelphia employee, we can call it a good day.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:03 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Obama said most of what is written in the bogus thesis.
I cannot get any links to take on this blog.
If I could get anything to take I could link to a radio recording of a debate where Obama said most of the Constition issues in the bogus thesis.
I leave it for others to find and post the details.
Posted by: davod at October 24, 2009 10:17 AM (GUZAT)
2
Based on his own experience, Rush got it right:
RUSH: I'm also told that the blog containing the passage on Obama's thesis is a satire blog. So it's one of these sites like ScrappleFace or The Onion or some such thing. So I shout from the mountaintops: "It was satire!" But we know he thinks it. Good comedy, to be comedy, must contain an element of truth, and we know how he feels about distribution of wealth. He's mad at the courts for not going far enough on it. So we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway. That's how it works in the media today.
Posted by: FakeButAkrit at October 24, 2009 10:35 AM (JuRWt)
3
It's remarkable that the Obama thesis remains confidental to this day.
Perhaps we can hire the people at Columbia responsible for keeping BO's papers under wraps and put them in charge of security at State and Defense.
Of course they are helped along by the fact that the MSM emphatically does not want to know anything about Barry's past.
Posted by: Steve at October 24, 2009 10:57 AM (cDwBw)
4
I'm afraid I was the primary cause of the problem. Ledeen made his post, taking the satire seriously. but no one seemed to have picked it up for two days. Until I did, on Friday. I didn't go to his source site until well after I posted comments about it at The American Thinker blog. That's where Rush picked it up. Not long after I made the post I began to have doubts about the story's veracity and was saying so in comments at AT, but by that time the damage was done. However, the climb downs and corrections made by Ledeen, Limbaugh and myself were relatively fast as compared to similar situations on the left and we needed no prompting much less pressure to do so. The full story of the mess I had a large part in making:
http://keohane.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-thesis-mess-involving-michael.html
Posted by: Denis Keohane at October 25, 2009 01:19 AM (qa33R)
5
PS - Hours ago I posted a few comments to the Media Matters story, addressing some of their claims and providing some details - but the posts don't seem to have made it past review. Maybe I violated some ground rules...
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910230037
I did acknowledge right up front that I was indeed the vaunted right wing smear machine.
Posted by: Denis Keohane at October 25, 2009 01:39 AM (qa33R)
6
"... this gives the left wing blog Media Matters more than enough excuse to run a headline that begins "So desperate they'll believe anything."
The right isn't the only group "desperate" enough to believe fabricated stories, not that the left will ever admit their own culpability. Love the irony that Rush got bamboozled by a lie after being the victim of one.
Posted by: DoorHold at October 25, 2009 12:09 PM (EeTHH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 23, 2009
Obama's War on the Media
Considering last night's failed attempt to censor Fox News, it wouldn't be irresponsible to wonder if the Obama White House had a direct hand in this Media Matters memorandum dedicating resources to the destruction of the only significant dissident mainstream media outlet in the United States.
An official at a Democratic-leaning organization sends on a memo the group Media Matters is circulating today to progressive groups, calling Fox "a lethal 24/7 partisan political operation" and rallying a coalition of groups to join the White House assault on the network.
"The danger to progressive causes and the institution of journalism has become too significant to ignore," says the introduction to a memo by Media Matters founder David Brock. "At Media Matters, we believe it is of paramount importance that progressive leaders have the information necessary to understand exactly what Fox News has become. We hope this brief memorandum will assist you in reaching your own decision on how best to engage this threat."
A co-worker asked me to explain to him why the White House was targeting Fox.
Essentially, the White House views FOX as a gateway between the distributed network reporting being done by the blogosphere and the traditional media.
Fox amplified the charges against Van Jones, leading to his ouster from his White House appointment before other media even reported on the controversy. Fox also promoted the investigation of a pair of filmmakers that exposed a series of ACORN offices as being supportive of tax fraud for the purposes of child sex trafficking. The embarrassing string of videos—with more waiting in the wings that have yet to be broadcast—forced the Democrats in Congress and private donors alike to sever ties with the group, which was trained by the President himself and with which he maintains close ties. Likewise, Fox has helped to focus attention on other radicals in Obama's government with profiles of Administration officials and hangers-on that the President would prefer unreported.
Along with a handful of other responsible watchdog media, Fox News has been the conduit that led these scandals from the political blogosphere to the mainstream news, and the Obama Administration is attempting to retaliate against Fox News in the strongest possible way. The goal is to both stop Fox News from reporting stories damaging to a floundering Presidency, and to warn other news outlets that they will be targeted by Obama and his allies if they step out of line and report those news stories deemed detrimental to the President.
Leaking the Media Matters memo to the
Politico was no accident. It is a carefully-calculated assault designed to terrorize journalists, pundits, newspapers and networks into silent obedience. The goal is to censor all speech against the Administration, by threatening retaliation against critics by the deep-pocketed activist groups that function as shock troops.
In their hearts, the President and his allies share the distaste of a free press which stains all would-be tyrants. They will push back hard against being exposed, and the plot to pummel Fox News into silence is only a small part of a Administration's larger plan to bully the media into submission.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:45 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I have little doubt there is coordination between Dear Leader's politiboro and Media Matters. I wonder, though, who is controlling whom? Since MM is a George Soros front and I am pretty sure that Obama is a wholly owned and managed by Soros, I am not convinced that it isn't Media Matters that is controlling the White House.
Posted by: Steve Hamerdinger at October 23, 2009 01:50 PM (TaHHC)
2
When I first looked at Ben Smith's piece, I thought "good on Politico's resident Obama apologist for exposing the sham." Then I scrolled down... and down, and down.
Ben Smith wasn't exposing the administrations nefarious supporters, he was promoting it.
The old joke about stopping to put on running shoes not to outrun the bear but to outrun your companion is interesting, and sometimes appropriate. Until one recognizes that the bear will inevitably be hungry again. I suspect that the some in the legacy media have recognized this, but they have too often sold their integrity that their colleagues will ignore their retarded epiphanous clarion calls.
Posted by: bains at October 23, 2009 11:13 PM (UoSU0)
3
The famous quote; "I may disagree with what you say,but would defend to my death your right to say it" has been replaced with "I disagree with what you say,so shut up or I will destroy you and your family,friends and co-workers" by the 0bama mis-administration.
Is this the kind of change Americans voted for?
Will americans vote for it again?
Posted by: firefirefire at October 24, 2009 08:59 AM (tbYJ7)
4
Or, as turns out to be the case, this was simply Fox making up a story.
http://www.atlargely.com/atlargely/2009/10/it-is-official-fox-fabricated-the-denied-access-story-.html
Posted by: Jim at October 24, 2009 04:35 PM (/TDLA)
5
This guy Jim isn't quoting a credible source. He is using a URL to a VERY leftist...leftister blog.
Then again, Jim is probably a disenchanted soon to be disenfranchised Obama voter.
Posted by: foxfire2009 at October 24, 2009 07:29 PM (JwFn7)
6
For sure no one should believe anything they read on a blog, especially not one that has a political slant. Oh wait...
Posted by: Jim at October 24, 2009 08:31 PM (/TDLA)
7
For sure no one should believe anything that Jim posts here; just sayin'
Posted by: emdfl at October 24, 2009 09:08 PM (i3Rsc)
8
http://www.atlargely.com/atlargely/2009/10/it-is-official-fox-fabricated-the-denied-access-story-.html
Wrong. To their credit, the CBS Evening News reported it. Go to You Tube and search for "CBS News' Chip Reid on Fox News and the administration."
Larisa Alexandrovna is useless on her best day.
Posted by: Pablo at October 24, 2009 11:43 PM (yTndK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 22, 2009
White House Tries to Ban Fox News From Press Pool
Honestly? I never thought they'd take it this far.
Today the White House stepped up its attack on Fox News, announcing that the network would no longer be able to conduct interviews with officials as a member of the Press Pool. The Pool is a five-member group consisting of ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC organized by the White House Correspondents Association. Its membership is not subject to oversight by the government.
Before an interview with "Pay Czar" Kenneth Feinberg, the administration announced that Fox News would be banned from the press pool. This marks the first time in history that an administration had attempted to ban an entire network from the press pool.
I cannot recall any Administration in my lifetime so desperately intent on restricting and controlling the media's access to information. This is a blatant attempt at censorship by exclusion.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:06 PM
| Comments (33)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hey, how about OUR ACCESS TO INFORMATION and how Fox News stiffles it on a daily basis. I can't believe anyone can defend Fox News in the year 2009. GET A CLUE MAN
Posted by: Eric at October 22, 2009 11:16 PM (bYkcy)
2
Eric: What news has Fox News stifled?
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) at October 22, 2009 11:28 PM (nas9l)
3
What does Eric's "stiffles" mean? Idiot leftists. Geez.
Posted by: paul mitchell at October 22, 2009 11:29 PM (sGGmW)
4
What a surprise - NOT!! It's what libs, progs, socialists, and commies(but I repeat myself) do do.
Posted by: emdfl at October 22, 2009 11:32 PM (FPouq)
5
I watch and read all the news I can to try and get a sensible feel for what's really going on.
Fox is the only one that seems to constantly look for meaningless trivia and make them look like the enemy rules! And they always say it with a smirk on their faces. Unreality t.v. at its worst - and I ain't no liberal or even a Democrat.
Fox is as close to the enemy as anyone.
Posted by: efrcd at October 23, 2009 12:20 AM (83ehI)
6
Does noone seem to CARE what a violation of the First Amendment this is? Did not the President SWEAR to uphold the Constitution? I could SWEAR I saw and heard him say he would.
Posted by: DavidB at October 23, 2009 12:31 AM (BZlP7)
7
What will it take to convince people that Obama is a Chavez type and a tyrant wannabe?
Posted by: RAH at October 23, 2009 07:05 AM (KJr9T)
8
Why does this White House sound like something that stepped out of the history books of the USSR?
Countless socialistic countries have controlled the media for their own goals and aims, and when you control that source of information, you control what the people think.
IF efrcd is not a liberal or democrat (though he sure sounds like one) he then must be even further to the left than those two groups. However, by stating he is not, then it gives him (in his own viewpoint) the right to criticize Fox.
When you compromise freedom, you are heading to tyranny.
Posted by: DaveQ at October 23, 2009 08:16 AM (q67sz)
9
Leftists/Democrats hate Fox News because it is the only true fair and balanced news outlet. They fail to seperate Fox's news outlet from their opinion parts. Funny that they don't do the same with CNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC & CNN.
I've complained about liberal bias in the media since the 70's. Now finally we have a true news outlet in Fox.
This episode is dramatically increasing the numbers of Fox viewers and I think that's great.
Posted by: Rick at October 23, 2009 08:29 AM (FWmwx)
10
Obama's a wannabe Chavez.
Posted by: Steve at October 23, 2009 08:35 AM (uoYYt)
11
"Fox is the only one that seems to constantly look for meaningless trivia"
Obviously, you don't watch TV or read newspapers. Either that, or reality doesn't intrude on your observations. Cable news (and network, especially including 60 Minutes and its ilk) are little more than trivia. The NYT, WaPo, AP, al-Reuters, and the rest are cesspools of unimportant nonsense and vitriol against non-leftists.
Posted by: Dr. Horrible at October 23, 2009 10:35 AM (XxxR5)
12
Fact: The Constitution protects Freedom of the Press. Obama is now circumventing that provision, as he already has the injunction against govt. interfering with contracts. I don't care what side of the aisle you stand on, this is a precedent that cannot be allowed. Because the next time, it might be MSNBC - which, by the way, has already been caught making up stories in order to foment anti-conservative sentiment. But then, so has the NY Times, whose reporters finally admitted that they made up the story about John McCain having an affair with a lobbyist. Fox News is certainly as legitimate a news organization as those two.
Posted by: KSterling at October 23, 2009 11:17 AM (+86uO)
13
When you know that by answering an opponents question or accusations with real answers will get you in trouble with the people, then you attack the questioner and attempt to delegitimize them. Personal attacks deflect attention from the accusations.
Posted by: Frances Dorsey at October 23, 2009 11:50 AM (0icBi)
14
I can't think of any other way for a president to reward those that don't agree with him other than to go to "war" against them. It shows how really stupid these people are. If you really wanted to do something bad you would ignore them, by constantly bring them to center stage they achieve credence.
Now as to meaningless trivia, the times I have turned on the MSM they are constantly going on about Ms. Obama and her wardrobe. I am sorry but she looks like a fat pig and an opinionated one at that. Now that woman is meaningless. Unless you want to dig up the Chicago dirt she has.
Why doesn't Obama try and get us out of the worst depression we have seen and cut the government and taxes?
Posted by: David at October 23, 2009 12:00 PM (Lh/sO)
15
"Why doesn't Obama try and get us out of the worst depression we have seen and cut the government and taxes?"
Because he doesn't want to.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at October 23, 2009 12:05 PM (ZJ/un)
16
Yeah. I've got to say I've not seen anything like this in my life time either.
It really is unbelievable. It shows a posture of arrogance and supremacy.
The moves our government, and I'm not just citing this admin, but the majority of the whole mammoth monstrosity, has been making over the last year plus, is really worrying to me. It looks to me like fascism 101.
Posted by: Hal (GT) at October 23, 2009 12:15 PM (PTknI)
17
CY,
I think you are missing the real issue (or, perhaps, goal) behind why the WH has ‘declared war’ on FNC. Consider what benefit this may give the WH, Congress, and Democrats in general.
I've seen some commentators analyze this ‘war with FNC’ that echo my thoughts. For example: Beck, Newt, and Morris have called the war a 'distraction' or 'sleight of hand'. It is a continuing strategy of this administration when 'something they want' is getting trashed. They put their focus on the 'next thing' (perpetual campaign mode). Obamacare has tanked and they need to get the spotlight off of the negotiations and/or negotiators. Therefore, they attack FNC and the media, as a whole, eats it up.
Notice how distracted FNC is now. Much of their reportage and commentary has been focused on this war with the WH. This 'ban' will only intensify FNC’s focus on it and will leave the WH and Congress time to gerrymander their deals without any significant questions. FNC is the ONLY TV 'news outlet' that is not solidly in the Obama camp.
Obama’s administration is “crisis to crisis management”. Everything they have ‘accomplished’ has been based on the premise of ‘this current issue is solved as long as the legislation that has been written gets passed NOW’... (whether the language is done, read, or even available to be read doesn’t matter) ... and in the very next breath... ’NOW we have to focus on this NEW CRISIS...’. If there isn’t a 'new crisis' then they can’t get anything they want done because sunlight and time are their enemies.
Now to agree with you
– Yes, banning FNC from the WH Press Pool is a big story with respect to the 1st Amendment's 'freedom of the press' component. The problem is 'news' outlets are now focusing on THIS story INSTEAD of Obamacare and the other future ill-conceived policies/legislation (such as Cap & Trade).
By all means devote SOME of your time, energy, and bandwidth to this story but, please, DO NOT drop the spotlight on the other catastrophes in progress!
Posted by: PhyCon at October 23, 2009 12:31 PM (4od5C)
18
OK. So what can we do about this? Calling General Petraeus!! Is it time yet?
Posted by: Razorgirl at October 23, 2009 12:36 PM (gHNO5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama: Republicans "Do What They're Told"
More of that famous Obama post-partisanship:
"Democrats are an opinionated bunch. You know, the other side, they just kinda sometimes do what they're told. Democrats, y'all thinkin' for yourselves."
Yes, he said
Democrats—the same group that demands lock-step conformity from the media and their own followers or else starts a war with them—are the party that thinks for themselves.
Wow.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:47 PM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Bob I'm surprised you haven't covered H.R. 45.
Posted by: Scott at October 22, 2009 02:27 PM (mqy6N)
2
Hey Scott,
I haven't discussed H.R. 45 because it is a dead issue. It doesn't have a single co-sponsor, and has gone off to committee to die.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 22, 2009 02:49 PM (gAi9Z)
3
Republicans do what they're told?
Didn't he just win an election against someone who has been ignoring what republicans want him to do for 30 years?
Posted by: MAModerate at October 22, 2009 05:04 PM (Rn8uU)
4
The funniest part is that he probably really believes that.
My cousin is a hard-core, Move-on loving, Bush hating, angry leftist and she's always accusing me of not thinking for myself.
Which makes me laugh, my family all get very angry at me because I don't take anybody's word for anything and never have.
If you tell me it's raining outside, I'm going to look out the window.
Posted by: Veeshir at October 22, 2009 05:55 PM (xeRif)
5
And that smirk could stand a little smacking off his face.
Posted by: Pandora at October 22, 2009 06:34 PM (/8Bs3)
6
Did the president of the United States actually just say "y'all thinkin' for yourselves?"
It just makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?
Posted by: Jamw96 at October 22, 2009 07:31 PM (0pO8i)
7
Thank God I didn't have any diet coke in my mouth when I read that ..... I can't afford a new computer right now.
Posted by: BD57 at October 22, 2009 08:01 PM (9Xb80)
8
'Did the president of the United States actually just say "y'all thinkin' for yourselves?"'
Yeah, I bet the lefties are just wetting themselves over his eloquence and erudition.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at October 22, 2009 10:49 PM (n2wxa)
9
The day this guy loses his cool in public will be the end.
Posted by: Neo at October 23, 2009 12:20 AM (tE8FB)
10
At least he doesn't represent a demographic that votes Democrat 95% of the time no matter who is running. Oh, wait. My bad.
Posted by: Tim at October 23, 2009 09:03 AM (nc6/K)
11
If They were thinking for Themselves, He would be still be worried about being re-elected to the Senate or an FBI probe of ACORN.
Posted by: Old Trooper at October 24, 2009 06:11 AM (oNzU6)
12
@Jamw96:"Did the president of the United States actually just say "y'all thinkin' for yourselves?"
I guess as long as you can pronounce "nuclear," you're fine. LOL!
Posted by: DoorHold at October 25, 2009 12:16 PM (EeTHH)
13
You know, this country hasnt been this divided since the 1850s. This could end up very ugly. Very ugly indeed.
Posted by: capt26thga at October 25, 2009 03:00 PM (kcPUO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 21, 2009
Farrakhan Angling for Obama Cabinet Position
Nutty statements are a prerequisite, right?
Nation of Islam leader Minister Louis Farrakhan told an audience in Memphis he believes the H1N1 flu vaccine was developed to kill people, a witness said.
Farrakhan, 76, spoke for nearly three hours Sunday at a gathering to observe the religious group's Holy Day of Atonement, which also marked the 14th anniversary of the Million Man March in Washington, the (Memphis) Commercial Appeal reported, citing a source who attended the speech.
"The Earth can't take 6.5 billion people. We just can't feed that many. So what are you going to do? Kill as many as you can. We have to develop a science that kills them and makes it look as though they died from some disease," Farrakhan said, adding that many wise people won't take the vaccine.
The medical research community hasn't exactly
covered themselves in glory in the past, but asserting there is a widespread genocide being perpetrated under the public's already supicious eye is borderline insane by any measure.
Which I guess means he'll end up formulating the administration's economic policy...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:22 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
He wants to be a czar not a cabinet member. No confirmation hearing, no background check, more power, less responsibility.
Posted by: chris at October 21, 2009 07:54 PM (9/zSi)
2
As far as I can tell the vaccine is as good as any flu shot with the same side effects. I have recommended that my 17 year old get the shot. I rarely get anything as most of my patients get a flu shot and come breath on me and insist on shaking hands. Thus the vaccine is passed on to me and my wife. But the swine flu seems to kill a number of adolescents with a rather vigorous pneumonia.
As to the reference study. That actually was a legitimate trial. It involved people with secondary and tertiary syphilis for which it was not known then and not well known now as to whether penicillin would effect a cure like it does with primary syphilis. The fault of the study is that the individuals did not know they were under observation. Thus the development of IRB's in all hospitals. These are ethics boards that monitor all studies. Some of these, like at LSU are corrupt in their on right. But for the most part they operate in a satisfactory manner for patient protection.
Posted by: David at October 22, 2009 11:23 AM (Lh/sO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
It's Time to Question the Depth of Democratic Party Involvement
Remember the claims of ACORN officials that the string of sex-slavery sting operations perpetrated by a fake pimp and prostitute getting advice from ACORN on how to commit fraud were isolated incidents, and that James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles were thrown out of ACORN offices in other cities such as Philadelphia?
Update: Updated with new link.
Alternative, but very slow (due to heavy traffic?) video link at
HopeForAmerica.
type="text/javascript"
src="http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/js/swfobject9.js">
type="text/javascript"
src="http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/js/embed.js">
type="text/javascript">
var flv = "http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/avi/acorn.flv";
var image = "http://www.breitbart.tv/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/sting1.jpg";
embedVideo(flv,image);
Eh, not so much "thrown out" as "welcomed with open arms."
ACORN Philadelphia Office Director Katherine Conway-Russell flat-out lied on camera to the media. ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis continues to lie to the media, claiming that these incidents are isolated. The media repeated their claims unquestioningly.
Now that ACORN has been exposed—yet again—as lying about their willingness to support the creation of brothels for the purpose of juvenile prostitution, will the media outlets that repeated those falsehoods decide to re-report on the truth of this story? Will they issue corrections?
Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe have shown the unedited footage from every ACORN visit they've made, from Baltimore, Washington DC, New York, San Bernardino, San Diego, and the unedited video from Philadelphia will soon be released. Other videos from other ACORN sting operations are rumored to be lurking in the wings.
How much longer can supporters of this criminal enterprise continue to insist they are being unfairly maligned, when
every single meeting that Giles and O'Keefe had with ACORN officials led to cooperation in the furthering of a plot to establish a facility for the explicit purpose of juvenile sex slavery?
ACORN is a cancerous product of the Democratic Party, and cannot be separated from it. It has been trained and given advice from the President of the United States himself. It is closely tied to the SEIU thugs that have attacked and intimidated American citizens. ACORN is a criminal enterprise that has been accused of countless acts of voter registration fraud, and which has been accused of
stealing elections. It's officials have participated in embezzlement, fraud, intimidation, and cover-ups. As this latest sting video shows, ACORN is little better than the mafia, willing to accept even the most depraved criminal activity.
The Americans public must demand that independent prosecutors be appointed and given the resources necessary to thoroughly investigate ACORN, and yes, that is a serious problem for the Democratic party, both politically and perhaps criminally.
ACORN has invasive, perhaps inseverable ties to the very highest level of the Democratic establishment. If the Obama White House and Justice Department continue to refuse to investigate ACORN, then we will have little choice but to assume that they are guilty of collusion and racketeering themselves...
But then, there
isn't much doubt, is there?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:00 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Remember Nancy Pelosi's lies about the CIA? People were stating her lies will expose her for what she truly is and be destroyed. Media will let this slip by like they did for fellow leftist Nancy.
Posted by: Rick at October 21, 2009 10:26 AM (79jCL)
2
Let's not forget the Working Families Party in New York, demon love-child of ACORN and the SEIU/unions, spawned in '98 to stop Pataki (fail) and bolster Hillary Clinton's Senate run (not fail). They have their own scandal going on right now, having been caught red-handed in massive local ACORNish absentee-ballot fraud.
Posted by: Tully at October 21, 2009 11:04 AM (tUyDE)
3
Wasn't Obama's "New Party" an ACORN/SEIU spin-off, as well?
Posted by: Rob Crawford at October 21, 2009 04:13 PM (ZJ/un)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 20, 2009
Hersh: Pentagon Out to Ruin Obama
From the always fascinating Seymour Hersh:
"A lot of people in the Pentagon would like to see him [Obama] get into trouble," he said. By leaking information that the commanding officer in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, says the war would be lost without an additional 40,000 American troops, top brass have put Obama in a no-win situation, Hersh contended.
"If he gives them the extra troops they're asking for, he loses politically," Hersh said. "And if he doesn't give them the troops, he also loses politically."
The journalist criticized the president for "letting the military do that," and suggested the only way out was for Obama to stand up to them.
"He's either going to let the Pentagon run him or he has to run the Pentagon," Hersh said. If he doesn't, "this stuff is going to be the ruin of his presidency."
Funny. I thought Obama was doing a pretty good job of destroying his Presidency on his own.
As for Hersh, he's had some notable successes, and some equally spectacular duds. How are
Dick Cheney's death squads working out for you, Seymour?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:15 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I don't suppose Mr. Hersh ever thought that the Pentagon's position might be that they are trying to win a war. Actually, winning a war might just be what Pres. Obama needs. Not that he will ever get this advice.
Posted by: James S. at October 21, 2009 01:51 AM (J2ejK)
2
Didn't Obama say the war in Afghanistan was the correct war? Or was that only a political lie to make it appear he also was for national security and Bush was just incompetent for starting the wrong war?
We can now truthfully say, "Obama lied men died."
As his hate America Pastor has said, "America's chickens are coming home to roost!."
Posted by: Rick at October 21, 2009 07:34 AM (79jCL)
3
The only thing you can trust about what Hersh says is that it's intended to promote Hersh. It's not that he's dishonest, it's that he has only the barest familiarity with reality.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at October 21, 2009 09:40 AM (ZJ/un)
4
Sy Hersh is still alive? Huh.
Posted by: Pablo at October 21, 2009 11:42 AM (yTndK)
5
Um... "comes with the territory of the position of commander in chief"?
Seriously Barry... if you didn't want this responsibility, you shouldn't have applied for the job.
Posted by: HatlessHessian at October 21, 2009 12:07 PM (7r7wy)
6
Hersh? That guy stays plastered.
Posted by: brando at October 21, 2009 04:31 PM (IPGju)
7
Hersh? Hersh? I thought he invaded Iran along with Cheney's secret assassination squads. How does he manage to send copy back to the states?
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 21, 2009 05:10 PM (3O5/e)
8
Hersh is a perennial self-loather that displaces his self hatred onto his nation. But that is too generous. To him, America is not his nation, it is the enemy. Once you understand that then you know who this gentleman really is and what he is about. Make no mistake, with his comrades running this country our days of liberty may be numbered.
Posted by: Ultraman at October 21, 2009 11:01 PM (PDt2C)
9
Well goodness gracious, people! You have to have priorities, and compared with Obama's political health, what is national security, the lives of our warriors or of American citizens, the continuing existence of Israel, a national, even global economic meltdown and spending and taxation designed to return America to 1820?
You have to have priorities, and that's just what we elected Obama to do.
Posted by: Mike McDaniel at October 21, 2009 11:56 PM (DJR56)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Justice Department: African-Americans in NC Town Aren't Smart Enough to Vote Without Help
Enjoy the post-racial present, where a African-American Attorney General reporting to a mixed-race President can tell a majority-black community that they are too dumb to vote in their own self-interest.
Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.
The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.
The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.
This is a highly insulting and abusive overreach of power from the Holder DoJ, and an arrogant one as well. In no uncertain terms, Holder's DOJ is insisting that their poor dumb country cousins can't figure out how to vote "right" without the visual cue of a party affiliation to guide them.
Presumably, the inherent racism in the DOJ position assuming that African-Americans must vote Democrat to be voting in their own self interest goes utterly unnoticed.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:31 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Amazing. DOJ is saying that these voters are so dumb that they want to vote for the Democratic black candidate but can't unless a (D) is beside the candidate's name?
1. Isn't that racist, or something?
2. Why is DOJ getting involved specifically to assit voters elect Democrats?
Amazing.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at October 20, 2009 03:17 PM (FJRFk)
2
Shouldn't the voter be the one who determines who his "candidate of choice" is?
Posted by: Tim at October 20, 2009 04:15 PM (3Wewy)
3
Dumb is as Dumb does.
How big of an X do I make for a signature?
What if I want to vote for a mixed-race, Obama, candidate?
Where is ACORN when you need one?
Posted by: Oscar Pearson at October 20, 2009 04:25 PM (yKc6m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
No Surprises Here: WaPo/ABC Skews Poll for Public Option
Mercy me:
The sampling comprises 33% Democrats, as opposed to only 20% Republicans. That thirteen-point spread is two points larger than their September polling, at 32%/21%. More tellingly, it's significantly larger than their Election Day sample, which included 35% Democrats to 26% Republicans for a gap of nine points, about a third smaller than the gap in this poll. Of course, that's when they were more concerned about accuracy over political points of view.
Remember when I wrote that poll watchers need to remember the recent Gallup poll on party affiliation? Gallup polled 5,000 adults and found that the gap between Democrats and Republicans had closed to the smallest margin since 2005, six points, and had been reduced more than half since the beginning of the year. For the WaPo/ABC poll, though, their sample gap has increased almost 50% during that time.
Given that skew, it's hardly surprising that they find a 57% approval rating for Obama, up three points since last month, almost the entirety of the gap increase since the last poll. His 48% tie on health care should be a significant disapproval instead, and the 45%/51% slide on the deficit has probably expanded at the same rate as the deficit in a survey with a realistic sample.
The purposeful skewing of the polling data is an old political trick, and one increasingly popular among the media,
especially when they are more interesting in influencing the news than reporting it. That Dan Balz and Jon Cohen of the Washington
Post would use such
obviously flawed data suggests they are more interested in advocacy than journalism.
The public does not support government-run health care.
Americans shocked politicians this summer with their opposition to another government takeover, and the they they were none too subtle about it as they showed up at townhall meetings, rallies, and marches.
No amount of media deception can change the fact that Americans are rejecting Obamacare, the media promoting it, and the politicians that an increasing number of Americans feel were put into office not by the American people, but by the media and special interests.
The media and their allied progressive politicians are increasing playing to an audience of themselves.
No wonder Fox News is causing the White House to scream in anger.
Along with a handful of newspapers and new media,
they're the only "honest" news left.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:35 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The House plan and the one Senate plan have a Government Option, and the Democrats call it the Public Option, because polling has shown that wording polls more favorable then the term Government Option. The Senate Finance Committee has a Public Option that is not the Government Option, as it is structured to be a non-profit co-op. I wonder what the poll results would be if the public would be truthfully informed?
Posted by: Rick at October 20, 2009 03:42 PM (79jCL)
2
Fox News is the only reliable new source?
What has the world come to?
Posted by: MAModerate at October 20, 2009 04:58 PM (Rn8uU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bloody Chicago
This morning, with the image of a honor student Derrion Albert being beaten to death by a Chicago mob still fresh in out minds, we discover that Chicago's police have all but stopped hiring new officers to fill almost 600 vacant positions:
To save $10 million, Daley's 2009 budget slowed police hiring to a crawl -- with only 200 officers expected to be hired all year.
But, as city revenues plummeted, City Hall opted not to maintain even that snail's pace. Only one class of 46 officers entered the police academy this year.
As of Oct. 9, the Chicago Police Department was 591 officers short of its authorized strength of 13,500 -- and that's not counting hundreds of other officers on duty- and non-duty disability.
As citizens are barred from defending themselves by restrictive gun control, expect the decline in the number of officers to be taken advantage of by criminals.
Things will get worse in Chicago before they get better, and the citizens will have no one to blame but themselves for becoming willing victims.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:34 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
..But the economy is so bad in Chitown, even the gangs have cut back on recruiting.
Posted by: Dave D. at October 20, 2009 09:49 AM (0IT+R)
2
Daley's Chicago? Pretty much SS/DD. That's the way it has ALWAYS been. That's the way it will ALWAYS be. Even the Taj Mahal has a toilet; Chicago happens to be ours.
I suspect the International Olympic Committee just breathed a huge sigh of relief!
Posted by: Dell at October 20, 2009 10:39 AM (PQZii)
3
This seems to be typical of most Democratic administrations. The first budgets to be cut are always Police, Fire and Hospitals to put the pressure on the people to accept tax increases. You'll never see them cut appointed positions. Those are worth political power.
Posted by: PeterT at October 20, 2009 11:21 AM (4I9p+)
4
Reports such as this, coming as they do on the heels of Dear Leader's failed attempt at getting Chicago selected for the Olympics, begs the question: Was Obama's personal effort a last ditch "all in" gamble to try and save Chicago from going bankrupt? My guess is that it was...and it failed miserably. Chicago wasn't even seriously considered. Out on the first ballot.
After all, a city that's so broke they can't even hire police officers isn't in any position to spend billions constructing the various venues for Olympic competition!
Californicate and Illinois are right on the verge of declaring statewide bankruptcy and Dear Leader is telling y'all that the "crisis is over".
The financial crisis, dear friends, is just beginning.
Posted by: Dell at October 20, 2009 11:22 AM (PQZii)
5
Well I am tired of paying all taxes. and high taxes to support a bloated police department falls within that range. Pensions so good socialists dream of them. That is the modern police force, and trying to get disability for hypertension due to eating too many donuts. Get rid of police pensions, give them a 401-k like the rest of us, and i will change my opinion. But right now, about 50% of the officers I meet are useless.
Posted by: dukester at October 20, 2009 03:57 PM (FyWoT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 19, 2009
An Armed Society...
The FBI says the number of police officers slain in the line of duty fell sharply last year.
Bureau statistics list 41 law enforcement officers killed in 2008. The list includes one FBI agent, Sam Hicks, who was shot and killed during a drug raid outside Pittsburgh.
Felony killings of police officers haven't been that low since 1999, although police officer support groups — which use different standards to count officer killings — say the number of officers killed hasn't been this low since the 1960s.
It doesn't fit any of the preferred narratives, so don't count on seeing this reported in too many places.
This is especially true considering it occurred during a year where concealed carry permit applications skyrocketed nationwide, along with the sale of ammunition, handguns, and so-called assault rifles.
Gun sales went up, and the killing of law enforcement officers went down. Just another inconvenient truth.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:18 PM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What is the number of officers killed? I used to think that they were in a risky occupation. Then found out that in respect to risk they were at the bottom. They certainly make a big deal about the risk to justify the cruelty they dish out to suspects. The reason for my ire is that I had a 72 year old patient that was roughed up after being stopped for drunk driving. The only problem was that he had not been drinking and his odd behavior was secondary to an insulin reaction. The officer was never subjected to any abuse by this man yet he refused to even remove his handcuffs so that paramedics could start a life saving IV. I feel that the police have developed a very bad attitude that is being fueled by so called "reality shows". They need to get back to earth and start treating people in a reasonable manner. Many of my conservative friends are to the point that they feel it would be wise to remove their weapons.
Posted by: David at October 19, 2009 03:50 PM (Lh/sO)
2
Remove guns from the cops? Are you (and your "conservative friends") completely bonkers? Wow.
Posted by: DavidB at October 19, 2009 04:41 PM (/t8cv)
3
Statistically, cops have a less dangerous job than garbagemen, farmers, roofers, loggers, fishermen and construction workers. That's right, your garbageman is more likely to get killed on the job than a cop.
Cops are just a particularly annoying form of public employee. They routinely abuse disability pensions and their unions manipulate local politics to be sure to have sympathetic elected officials.
Cop unions are the first to use scare tactics when it's time to cut public budgets. Meanwhile, cops in California retire after 20 years with 90%+ pensions.
Posted by: fred suggs at October 19, 2009 05:45 PM (ofze/)
4
Re: '...so-called assault rifles.' Did you mean 'so-called assault weapons'? 'Assault rifle' is a descriptive term; 'assault weapon' is a legal term.
Posted by: RNB at October 19, 2009 05:54 PM (WkjqG)
5
DavidB
That's right. Either remove or significantly reduce the firepower that cops have. I used to live in New Orleans. The cops were so bad there that you actually preferred to confront a bad guy to a cop. I know from personel experience as I was almost rolled by two muggers. They were nice once they knew I would hurt them. On the other had I accidently had some paper caught by the wind and fly over a cop car. I thought the guy was going to kill me.
Posted by: David at October 19, 2009 05:55 PM (Lh/sO)
6
Of course this would not be widely reported in the media. Most journos are so ignorant about guns they think Double Action Only is something offered by an escort service in DC.
Posted by: zhombre at October 19, 2009 06:22 PM (kLU+g)
7
Most of you, I think your Momma still must support you. If you don't see where we going in the near future, you will be dead. Our course and current path is not hope and change. It is death and suffering. I hope you survive, We will.
Posted by: Marc at October 20, 2009 12:33 AM (Zoziv)
8
All you gun huggers should move to Baghdad.
Posted by: Alex at October 20, 2009 09:32 AM (cQhQZ)
9
Or Switzerland. Everyone is in the military there, and keeps their assault rifles at home. It is a very safe place...
Posted by: Grey Fox at October 20, 2009 09:48 AM (d1ae8)
10
All you gun huggers should move to Baghdad.
Posted by Alex at October 20, 2009 09:32 AM
But we won't. We will stay here in our country defending our families, our country, and ourselves.
And all you can do about it is post witless and impotent comments. Shame about that.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 20, 2009 12:08 PM (O8ebz)
11
Been to Baghdad. Been to Kabul.
Armed.
I don't go to Chicago or NYC.
My Concealed Carry Permit is not Honored.
Anywhere my Rights are not honored is a place I shouldn't be.
Next silly question?
Posted by: Old Trooper at October 20, 2009 03:56 PM (oNzU6)
12
Been to Baghdad. Been to Kabul.
Armed.
I don't go to Chicago or NYC.
My Concealed Carry Permit is not Honored.
Anywhere my Rights are not honored is a place I shouldn't be.
Next silly question?
Posted by Old Trooper at October 20, 2009 03:56 PM
Well said sir, and thank you for going to those places so I could sit on my ass in a classroom.
The Departed:
Oliver Queenan: We have a question: Do you want to be a cop, or do you want to appear to be a cop? It's an honest question. A lot of guys just want to appear to be cops. Gun, badge, pretend they're on TV.
Dignam: Yeah, a lot of people just wanna slam a nigger's head through a plate-glass window.
Not so much the racial thing, but the fact that a lot of people join to get the pepper spray, the taser, the baton and the gun. To drive fast, to confiscate property which they then keep, to have people bow and scrape. Then you have people who really do want to hurt people with the protection of the blue wall.
It is a problem, and you don't have a whining ACLU member or a hippie to think so.
The ideal:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles
Can we get back to that?
Posted by: Britt at October 21, 2009 02:22 PM (DcWbe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Yes, We Cannabis
You'll be hearing that quip a lot:
Federal drug agents won't pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.
Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:56 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
One of the only intelligent things this administration has done, in my opinion. The only time pot is hurting anybody is if it is being transported via Mexico, because they actually will kill over some weed. Elsewhere, it's grown by unkempt white kids in Northern California and the Pacific Northwest. They're not exactly a threat to Western civilization.
It's like with traffic stops. The only reason the gov't pursues marijuana like it does is that it is a bulky product with a distinctive odor, even before smoked. Easy conviction. Sending some of those wide-eyed longhairs to prison with meth producers and street-sale crack dealers, drugs that actually do some harm, is almost sadistic.
Posted by: GS at October 19, 2009 10:15 AM (w8ZVR)
2
So the Feds will selectively enforce Federal law based upon adherence to specific State law?
Could this be useful in States that pass firearms laws intended to assert their rights under the Tenth Amendment?
Selective enforcement being well, selective.
Posted by: ThomasD at October 19, 2009 11:15 AM (21H5U)
3
>>"prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time "
Great, this means they'll be spending their time cracking down on illegal immigration.
No? Then what WILL they spend their time doing? Prosecuting conservatives for "hate speech"?
Posted by: Steve at October 19, 2009 11:25 AM (1WsIY)
4
Now if they would only understand that the money being spent on all the other drugs is going to organized crime and terrorist and allow people to buy whatever they desired at the drug store without a prescription, then we will have a measure of returned freedom. Imagine the impact it would have on doctor's offices and ER's if you could go to Walgreens and simply buy what you needed. Some countries allow this without significant consequence.
Posted by: David at October 19, 2009 03:54 PM (Lh/sO)
5
Well, that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? While threatening to tax those that aren't in reasonably good physical shape and taxing certain food items it doesn't approve of the government is now starting to trend towards allowing it's citizens to use a substance known to cause the munchies. Taxing food and encouraging the smoking of pot, that just might just provide enough tax revenues to take care of the deficit!
Posted by: Boss429 at October 19, 2009 07:56 PM (JtAl5)
6
Next up: Dorito Flavored Ice Cream!
Posted by: MunDane at October 19, 2009 08:47 PM (dlS06)
7
How do they know if people are using or providing pot within the strict confines of the law if they lay off and do no investigation? Of course, it's a waste of time to arrest people who are working within the state law - the law which was intended for very ill people who truly need to smoke a joint rather than use a prescription. More dopers for Obama, more decadence, thanks libs, you're really improving society.
Posted by: Jayne at October 19, 2009 10:00 PM (dwIL0)
8
How do they know if people are using or providing pot within the strict confines of the law if they lay off and do no investigation?They're not saying that, though what they actually do remains to be seen. The guidelines to be issued by the department do, however, make it clear that agents will go after people whose marijuana distribution goes beyond what is permitted under state law or use medical marijuana as a cover for other crimes, the officials said.
I agree with very little that comes out of this Administration, but I think they got this one right.
Posted by: Pablo at October 20, 2009 01:43 AM (yTndK)
9
I was going to write my own comment but this, which appeared at NRO's The Corner, covers most of what I would say:
Medical Marijuana and the States [Wesley J. Smith]
It is subversive of the rule of law for a president to refuse to enforce the law, and particularly to announce that unenforcement will be administration policy.
The correct answer to the medical-marijuana issue is for Congress to take it out of Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act (no legitimate medical use) and put it into a different schedule, which would allow the FDA to approve cannabis for prescribing, as is done with stronger drugs such as morphine and cocaine.
Once presidents get to pick and choose which laws they will enforce, we have ceased to be a nation of laws. I made that point in more detail in this San Francisco Chronicle column from a few years ago.
10/19 09:46 PMShare
PS:
I look forward to Obama applying this judicious application of US law to the ATF and firearms.
Posted by: Davod at October 20, 2009 05:14 AM (GUZAT)
10
will somebody please explain how a drug can be approved for medical use when it has never gone through FDA testing? And no it is not harmless.
Posted by: Max at October 21, 2009 10:59 AM (OiGcF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A White House Comfortable with Genocide?
You cannot expect to hold a person responsible all the actions and/or beliefs of their associates, but it is certainly fair to wonder about their judgment if the actions or beliefs are both particularly heinous and part of their core character.
That was part of the reason so many people were concerned about President Barack Obama's long-running association with terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, a relationship that may have extended as far back as the 1980s, when Dohrn, Ayers, and Obama were part of the same community in Manhattan (Obama was a student at Columbia and beginning to explore political activism at the time Ayer's was at Bank Street College of Education. Bernadine Dohrn? She was sent to prison for a short time for
refusing to cooperate with authorities and tell them what she knew about the
1981 Brinks armored car robbery across the Hudson River in Rockland County that left two police officers and a security guard dead).
Ayers and Obama are better known for their collaboration on multiple projects in Chicago, including the Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama's first an only executive experience prior to winning the White House (and a verified failure), and for Ayers and Dohrn hosting Obama's very first political fundraiser in their home.
Through all of their relationship, Ayers and Dohrn were minor celebrities for their terrorism within the welcoming confines of Hyde Park's liberal elite. Obama knew Ayers and Dohrn were leaders of a terrorist group. He knew they had literally declared war against the United States. And he more than likely knew that Ayers, Dohrn, and the other terrorist leaders of the Weather Underground had dreams that included the imposition of communism on the United States, and the
genocide of 25 million Americans in concentration camps.
It turns out Ayers and Dohrn aren't the only associates of Barack Obama comfortable with genocide. We can also include one of his closest four advisers, Anita Dunn. Victor David Hanson is among those outraged over Dunn's admiration of the greatest
">mass killer in human history:
I am not a big fan of saying that officials should resign for stupid remarks. But interim White House communications director Anita Dunn's praise of Mao Zedong as a "political philosopher" is so unhinged and morally repugnant, that she should hang it up, pronto.
Mao killed anywhere from 50 million to 70 million innocents in the initial cleansing of Nationalists, the scouring of the countryside, the failed Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, Tibet, and the internal Chinese gulag. Dunn's praise of a genocidal monster was no inadvertent slip: She was reading from a written text and went into great detail to give the full context of the remark. Moreover, her comments were not some student outburst from 30 years ago; they were delivered on June 5, 2009. Her praise of Mao's insight and courage in defeating the Nationalists was offered long after the full extent of Mao's mass-murdering had been well documented. Mao killed more people than any other single mass killer in the history of civilization.
Once again, someone close to the President is found to be an admirer of political genocide. In that context, perhaps the
Oath Keepers aren't so radical after all... at least as it comes to being willing to resist unlawful orders.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:54 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Just curious, are the ones that have the "Free Tibet" bumper stickers in the same crowd as those who wear Che t-shirts and praise Mao as their favorite political philosophers?
Did the "Free Tibet" people vote the Dunn people into office?
Posted by: SouthernRoots at October 19, 2009 10:09 AM (FJRFk)
2
Learn more about Anita Dunn here at CommieBlaster.com
Obama communist facts organized all in one location: New Party, Ayers, Dunn, Jennings, Jones, Sunstein, Jarrett, Lloyd, Wright, School Indoctrinations, Soros, Cop-Killers, Cuban Spy Rings, Commie Media, Misinformation, Congress Investigation, plus details on Socialist/Communist Members of Congress like Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and over 80 others. Listen to Soviet Spy defector explain how communist takeovers are performed and Reagan's guidance on dealing with Communists. Learn what a Socialist, Communist, Progressive is. Examine ACORN, SEIU's and Union Communist leaders. See FBI files and testimonies. Catch up on Takeover News and study a Communist Takeover Plan from the 1960's, along with how to resist. Videos, links, pdfs.
Commies can run, but they can't hide!:
Posted by: Commie Blaster at October 19, 2009 04:08 PM (5tZ8N)
3
Just a bunch of people that lived in Obama's neighborhood, right? No reason to believe they had any effect on his philosophy, or that his philosophy mirrored theirs, right? We'd never elect a radical communist, socialist, terrorist, whatever, to the office of The President Of The United States, right ... dammit! :\
Posted by: DoorHold at October 25, 2009 12:31 PM (EeTHH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 18, 2009
Applying Rights Equally
A letter to the editor in the Arizona Daily Sun asks an interesting question:
If I understand it correctly, a lot of folks are saying health care is a right for all and we all should help pay for it. I'm wondering: Since owning a gun is a right, do you think everyone can chip in and get me a new rifle?
That sounds like a better use of tax dollars than most.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:56 PM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Tully at October 18, 2009 11:04 PM (tUyDE)
2
Well Announcing something doesn't make it so.
Air, water, and food are more immediately necessary to life itself than health care, and none of them are even mentioned in the Constitution, much less guaranteed as a Right. If you think health care is a right, then you think we are a nation divided into a Dependent class, and a Provider class that does all the work. Which are you? And what happens when all the Providers decide it's their turn to be dependent?
Posted by: Bill Smith at October 18, 2009 11:23 PM (G0jgH)
3
National health care is a "right" if you're a communist/socialist country, for sure! And that, boys and girls, is exactly where the fraud in the White House is taking this country, right down the socialist road.
I'll take a .270 Winchester, please.
Posted by: Dell at October 18, 2009 11:38 PM (PQZii)
4
If it counts for shotguns, I'd like a new 20 gauge Beretta O/U for upland bird please.
That and a freezer box full of Omaha Beef, since food is a right too.
Of course, both suppliers would get paid 75% of what they would bill. That is only fair, since they are providing products that I have a right to own...
Posted by: iconoclast at October 19, 2009 04:46 AM (O8ebz)
5
If it takes two or more people for you to have a right then you don't have a right.
Posted by: inspectorudy at October 19, 2009 08:52 AM (Vo1wX)
6
If healthcare is a right then why does Congress want to fine/tax you for not exercising that right? Will they fine/tax you for not voting? For not exercising free speech?
The healthcare is a right argument is a farce.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at October 19, 2009 09:23 AM (FJRFk)
7
I want to get in on this too. I'll take a 308 lever action please. It's my right. About 3000 rounds to go with it. And a chest freeezer full of beef, venison, lamb, pork, and buffalo. It's also my right. Heck, why not one of those new GMC trucks for good measure. And a bass boat.
And about $120K for personal spending. If Acorn gets millions, then why can't I. $120 is nothing, compared to that. It's my right.
Posted by: brando at October 19, 2009 09:29 AM (IPGju)
8
If healthcare is a right then why does Congress want to fine/tax you for not exercising that right?
It gets even better when you consider that Congress also wants to fine/tax you if you exercise the right to healthcare too much by taxing "Cadillac Plans"--unless you are a member of Congress or a government employees of course.
Some animals are just more equal than others....
Posted by: iconoclast at October 19, 2009 11:35 AM (O8ebz)
9
I'll take an M-24 SWS, please.
Posted by: Anthony at October 20, 2009 01:02 AM (Ich7i)
10
Putting aside the clarity of the Second Amendment stating the government can't INTERFERE with your right to bear arms (as opposed to "granting" you the right to "own" a gun), it's still a clever sentiment, and it begs the question: Even if healthcare were a "right," does that mean the government should tax citizens to pay for it?
With all the talk of bailing out the left-wing media, I'm beginning to think ALL our rights will soon be bought and paid for through taxation.
Posted by: DoorHold at October 25, 2009 12:43 PM (EeTHH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 16, 2009
I Don't Get the Controversy
It's the only thing she's ever posted online that was worth the amount of time it took to understand it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:41 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Welcome to The World, Meghan - you know, the one that existed before you entered it and will continue to after you exit. All women need to understand that in order to look good (whether "good" is professional or sexy or fit or whatever's appropriate for the occasion), they must dress for their particular body type. Meghan has an awesome rack, but she needs to accept that if she posts a pic in which her GINORMOUS boobs are half exposed and the focal point of the photo, she will likely look like a tramp. Don't bitch about it. Just accept it. And put on real shirt.
Posted by: Sif at October 16, 2009 08:28 PM (od0G0)
2
I like her breasts and wish they were attached to a body with a better brain.
Posted by: zhombre at October 16, 2009 10:02 PM (kLU+g)
3
Not a fan of McCain. But I'm starting to think that she's a lot sharper than most folks realize.
Posted by: Steve-O at October 16, 2009 11:26 PM (r5Qnb)
4
she's just a young RINO.... it takes them awhile for them to learn how to pretend well enough to fool most people.
better we send her back to her true kin, the jackasses, now, before she's scared for life. experts all agree that it's better that fledglings grow up amongst their own.
Buh-Bye!
Posted by: redc1c4 at October 16, 2009 11:55 PM (d1FhN)
5
I'm starting to think that she's a lot sharper than most folks realize.
Considering how dumb I think she is, that might be true and she'd STILL be rather stupid.
And people mocked Palin's intellect ....
Posted by: Steve at October 17, 2009 07:58 AM (TzDt5)
6
She'd call them "knockers," if she could spell it.
Posted by: Bleepless at October 17, 2009 06:50 PM (7l1hN)
7
I've read about this on a few forums, and many are saying conservatives are up in arms about it, but on the few conservative websites I've read, they're see it as pretty yawn-worthy.
Posted by: brando at October 18, 2009 10:44 AM (LjEkE)
8
The Democrat party is full of boobs, so I don't understand why they would object to Meggie Mac's ramblings. For most conservatives, she's just irrelevant.
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 18, 2009 12:23 PM (5Fo+S)
9
Like someone else once said, "I'd snork her in the squeaker hole".
Posted by: Boss429 at October 18, 2009 04:32 PM (T/k/7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Re-grinding the Lancet
Reality Check:
Iraq’s government said at least 85,000 Iraqis were killed from 2004 to 2008, officially answering one of the biggest questions of the conflict - how many perished in the sectarian violence that nearly led to a civil war.
What remains unanswered by the government is how many died in the 2003 US invasion and in the months of chaos that followed it.
A report by the Human Rights Ministry said 85,694 people were killed from the beginning of 2004 to Oct. 31, 2008 and 147,195 were wounded. The figures included Iraqi civilians, military and police but did not cover US military deaths, insurgents, or foreigners, including contractors. And it did not include the first months of the war after the 2003 US-led invasion.
The Associated Press reported similar figures in April based on government statistics obtained by the AP showing that the government had recorded 87,215 Iraqi deaths from 2005 to February 2009. The toll included violence ranging from catastrophic bombings to execution-style slayings.
The infamous Lancet study cited by every major media outlet and liberal blog was only off about
half a million. I'll be expecting apologies for pushing this politically-concocted propaganda
any minute now...
I wonder how many of the Lancet guys dabble in global warming research...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:37 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Ah come on -- do you really expect liberal Stalino-Fascists to admit that they've been wrong? We already know that such things don't happen if such stuff is published under the auspices of the George Soros network, which has been well established in this particular case.
Posted by: Mescalero at October 16, 2009 10:55 PM (e7NAO)
2
It's too bad they haven't calculated how many lives were saved or created...
Posted by: Pablo at October 17, 2009 07:51 AM (yTndK)
3
Moving to where the money is:
"A new advocacy and public health movement is needed urgently to bring together governments, international agencies, non-governmental organisations, communities, and academics from all disciplines to adapt to the effects of climate change on health."
Managing the Health effects of Climate Change
Launched in London, UK, May 13, 2009
A collaboration between The Lancet and University College London, UK, resulting in the first UCL Lancet Commission report, setting out how climate change over the coming decades could have a disastrous effect on health across the globe. The report examines practical measures that can be taken now and in the short and medium term to control its effects.
Executive summary
Climate change could be the biggest global health threat of the 21st century. Effects on health of climate change will be felt by most populations in the next decades and put the lives and wellbeing of billions of people at increased risk. During this century, the earth’s average surface temperature rises are likely to exceed the safe threshold of 2°C above pre-industrial average temperature.
This report outlines the major threats—both direct and indirect—to global health from climate change through changing patterns of disease, water and food insecurity, vulnerable shelter and human settlements, extreme climatic events, and population migration. Although vector-borne diseases will expand their reach and death tolls, the indirect effects of climate change on water, food security, and extreme climatic events are likely to have the biggest effect on global health.
A new advocacy and public health movement is needed urgently to bring together governments, international agencies, non-governmental organisations, communities, and academics from all disciplines to adapt to the effects of climate change on health.
www.thelancet.com/climate-change
Posted by: Davod at October 17, 2009 07:56 AM (GUZAT)
4
Lancet is already on the bandwagon:
Vegans forever.
September 13, 2007
Lancet: Eat less meat to combat global warming
The Lancet has released a report calling for a 10% cut in global meat consumption by 2050, a goal that would decrease greenhouse-gas emissions from agriculture and improve health for both rich and poor nations.
According to the report, as much as 22% of greenhouse emissions are from agriculture -- a figure similar to that of industry and, quite surprisingly, more than that of transport. Livestock production, which includes transport of livestock and feed, accounts for nearly 80% of these emissions.
Put into perspective, a kilo (2.2 pounds) of beef generates the equivalent of 36.4 kilos (80.08 pounds) of carbon dioxide, more than the equivalent of driving for three hours while leaving all the lights on back home.
Some quotes from the paper:
"Assuming a 40-percent increase in global population by 2050 and no advance in livestock-related greenhouse-gas reduction practices, global meat consumption would have to fall to an average of 90 grammes per day just to stabilise emissions in this sector.""
Let me see - No meat! Little fish because of conservation programs and warnings about toxity in farmed fish. That leaves grain, corn an vegetables. Grain will be increasingly used as fuel. Likewise with corn. Vegetables will be grown on smallholdings to limit the effect on global warming. www.sentientdevelopments.com/2007/09/lancet-eat-less-meat-to-combat-global.html
The Rich and Government will have its pick of what meat, fish, grain, corn and vegetables is grown and the rest of us will be left to fight for the leftovers to make gruel. That is if we can afford to pay for the water.
Mind you, this is not all bad. In the words of an Australian sometime ago (paraphrased), of the poor (some would say starvation) diet of allied POWS working on the Burma railroad, the diet probably helped explain the longivity of those who survived the war.
Posted by: davod at October 17, 2009 08:18 AM (GUZAT)
5
The Lancet Iraq casuualty fidures, Scott Beauchamp, Haditha massacre tales, anthropogenic global warming "peer" reviewed data, is there anything blinkered, moronic, frothing at the mouth, bedwetting, pillow-biting, fringe, loser lefties won't believe to advance their agendas?
Yes, they won't believe Obama is an empty suit and the least qualified President in history, so they've got that going for them, which is nice.
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 17, 2009 01:33 PM (3O5/e)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 79 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.4564 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.4394 seconds, 197 records returned.
Page size 147 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.