B-Man
-
Posts
68,280 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by B-Man
-
-
Astronauts condemn NASA’s global warming endorsement
In an unprecedented slap at NASA’s endorsement of global warming science, nearly 50 former astronauts and scientists--including the ex-boss of the Johnson Space Center--claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world’s top space agency.
Challenging statements from NASA that man is causing climate change, the former NASA executives demanded in a letter to Administrator Charles Bolden that he and the agency “refrain from including unproven remarks” supporting global warming in the media.
“We feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate,” they wrote. “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.”
The letter was signed by seven Apollo astronauts, a deputy associate administrator, several scientists, and even the deputy director of the space shuttle program.
NASA had no immediate comment.
.
-
This is rich! He wants people to stop blaming him for his tax cuts. When will the left take responsibility for these tax cuts?
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/t/blogEntry?id=16108722
I wish they weren’t called the ‘Bush tax cuts’,”
A sadder post than usual by davey.
President Bush opines that if the tax relief bill he passed wasn't referred to by his name, then perhaps it would be easier to extend them.
No blame
No regret that it was passed
No criticism of the current administration.
Mr. Bush continues be all class,
Dave in Norfolk to be all ass.
.
-
*notice how so many have been proven wrong about the supposed racial slur on tape,
*wrong about the video proving no injury,
*wrong about a doctored NBC tape.
*They dont seem to care that a rare rubric white Hispanic was introduced uniquely in this case for similar purposes of polarization,
*or that photos were published with the intent to mislead the public about the size and age of the victim,
*or that there have been calls for an immediate arrest, before the review of probable cause is finished, as if arresting someone through mob pressure is a compromise solution.
Most will be glad to see Zimmerman charged if a review of the evidence suggests that there is probable cause to think he was not endangered physically by Martin and so shot the latter without sufficient reason. But so far the media and commentators have not been interested in ascertaining that, at least in comparison with hyping a supposed white/black racial incident for careerist purposes.
FTA:
.
-
I'm talking actual numbers here.
4.3 millions jobs lost after Obama took office. Since then, 3.6 million jobs have been gained back. 700k before November isn't impossible.
Lets,
Unemployment Rate Or Unemployment Reality?By Andrew C. McCarthy
April 9, 2012
Through the magic of Washington Math and the Obama Labor Department, the metric “unemployment rate” has become as nonsensical as “jobs created or saved” by the stimulus. The Obamedia creates a free campaign ad out of the purported drop from 8.3% to 8.2% (i.e., from appalling to marginally less appalling), but meantime millions have been added to the black-hole category of “Not In the Labor Force” — people who are so discouraged that they are not looking for work.
That number is at an all-time high: 88 million. Thus the labor force participation rate, at under 64%, is lower than it’s been in 30 years. Mish Schedlock concludes, “Were it not for people dropping out of the labor force, the unemployment rate would be well over 11%.”
Instead of giving the Left ammunition by bizarrely implying that our outlook is improving, maybe the Romney campaign could give some thought to breaking through the fudged “unemployment rate” chatter. Something like:
Total Population of Germany: 82,000,000
Population of U.S. Not in Labor Force: 88,000,000
.
-
Of course the ones that have show fraud are manufactured. You expect someone to commit voter fraud and say "hey, I think I'll film my act of voter fraud and post in on the internet." God are these people !@#$ing stupid.
I respectfully disagree........they are not stupid.................................they are dishonest.
.
-
The Story Unravels: New Questions about Trayvon Martin's Final Hour
By Jeff Lipkes
Once upon a time, a nice young man set off from his dad's fiancée's home before the NBA All-Star game to buy some Skittles and Arizona Tea for his stepbrother. Although the lad was seventeen, he looked like a cute twelve-year-old. Along came a burly ex-con racist vigilante who didn't like the idea of a young African-American male walking around his gated community at night. The cop-wannabe stalked the frightened boy, cornered him, and then shot him. But the racist police didn't arrest the murderer. The conscience of the nation was stirred. Protests erupted from coast to coast. The gunning down of young, unarmed black males by white Rambos -- and the occasional "white Hispanic" -- is an all-too-common occurrence in the US of A.
Now the MSM narrative is unraveling, thanks to Al Gore's nifty invention, the internet. The average MSNBC viewer may not have the smarts and curiosity to do a Google search, but other people do. A lot of the searches wind up at the sites of the Orlando Sentinel and the city's Fox affiliate, Channel 35, both of which have provided good coverage.
{SNIP}
We are being asked to chose between two stories:
1.that the teen was intercepted by Zimmerman, asked "why are you following me?," and was pushed; or
2.that he came back for Zimmerman; asked, "Do you have a f-ing problem?"; and, when told no, said, "You do now," and leveled Zimmerman.
As for the killing itself, those who are curious know that the only eyewitness who called 911 reported that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, pummeling him. Zimmerman was crying out for help. The witness ran upstairs, heard a shot, and saw the guy who was on top dead on the ground. Zimmerman himself reported that the teenager suddenly confronted him and, after a brief exchange, decked him with one punch. Martin got on top of Zimmerman and began slamming his head against the concrete. The physical evidence corroborated the stories of the neighborhood watch captain and of "John": Zimmerman's back was wet and had grass stains, and he had a broken nose and lacerations on the back of his head. "I was yelling for help and no one came," he told police.
.
-
Holder’s opposition to ID laws comes in spite of the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in 2008, authored by liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, that upheld the constitutionality of Indiana’s tough ID requirement. When groups sue to block photo-ID laws in court, they can’t seem to produce real-world examples of people who have actually been denied the right to vote. According to opinion polls, over 75 percent of Americans — including majorities of Hispanics and African-Americans — routinely support such laws.
One reason is that people know you can’t function in the modern world without showing ID — you can’t cash a check, travel by plane or even train, or rent a video without being asked for one. In fact, PJ Media recently proved that you can’t even enter the Justice Department in Washington without showing a photo ID. Average voters understand that it’s only common sense to require ID because of how easy it is for people to pretend they are someone else
Filmmaker James O’Keefe demonstrated just how easy it is on Tuesday when he dispatched an assistant to the Nebraska Avenue polling place in Washington where Attorney General Holder has been registered for the last 29 years. O’Keefe specializes in the same use of hidden cameras that was pioneered by the recently deceased Mike Wallace, who used the technique to devastating effect in exposing fraud in Medicare claims and consumer products on 60 Minutes. O’Keefe’s efforts helped expose the fraud-prone voter-registration group ACORN with his video stings, and has had great success demonstrating this year in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Minnesota just how easy it is to obtain a ballot by giving the name of a dead person who is still on the rolls. Indeed, a new study by the Pew Research Center found at least 1.8 million dead people are still registered to vote. They aren’t likely to complain if someone votes in their place.
In Washington, it was child’s play for O’Keefe to beat the system. O’Keefe’s assistant used a hidden camera to document his encounter with the election worker at Holder’s polling place:
Man: “Do you have an Eric Holder, 50th Street?
Poll worker: “Let me see here.”
Man: Xxxx 50th Street.
Poll Worker: Let’s see, Holder, Hol-t-e-r, or Hold-d-e-r?
Man: H-o-l-d-e-r.
Poll Worker: D-e-r. Okay.
Man: That’s the name.
Poll Worker: I do. Xxxx 50th Street NW. Okay. [Puts check next to name, indicating someone has shown up to vote.] Will you sign there . . .
Man: I actually forgot my ID.
Poll Worker: You don’t need it; it’s all right.
Man: I left it in the car.
Poll Worker: As long as you’re in here, and you’re on our list and that’s who you say you are, we’re okay.
Man: I would feel more comfortable if I go get my ID, is it all right if I go get it?
Poll Worker: Sure, go ahead.
Man: I’ll be back faster than you can say furious!
Poll Worker: We’re not going anywhere.
Note that O’Keefe’s assistant never identified himself as Eric Holder, so he was not illegally impersonating him.
Nor did he attempt to vote using the ballot that was offered him, or even to accept it. O’Keefe has been accused by liberals of committing voter fraud in his effort to expose just how slipshod the election systems of various no-ID-required states are, but lawyers say his methods avoid that issue. Moreover, he has only taped his encounters with election officials in jurisdictions that allow videotaping someone in public with only one party’s knowledge
{SNIP}
But the groups opposing voter ID won’t let the facts get in their way. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking member in the House Democratic leadership, compares voter-ID laws to “Jim Crow” provisions that blocked people from voting in the last century, and said he is “very, very anxious” that the Supreme Court “as it is presently constituted” will support the new laws. But as previously noted, the Supreme Court already has supported voter ID, with its opinion authored by its most liberal member at the time.
Some criticism of voter-ID laws has morphed into intimidation. This week, Color of Change, co-founded by former Obama special adviser Van Jones, threatened a boycott against Coca-Cola and Walmart because they financially supported the American Legislative Exchange Council, which has helped state legislators draft some of the voter-ID laws. Within hours, Coca-Cola resigned its membership in ALEC. So far Walmart is holding out by arguing that ALEC is involved with dozens of issues, many of them of direct concern to Walmart shareholders.
.
-
"The sky is bluer than a bathroom wall" - Dan Jenkins
.
-
The relevant part about that is that NBC flat out lied. There was no "mistake."
This is true.
.
-
I refuse to let anyone create a thread everyone agrees on.
What if I create a thread that says DC Tom is the best poster here ?
.
-
That's a hard one because I have not actually met god yet.
Just look around.
B-large, you're stacking the deck with this one.
The Westboro nuts are not Christians.
-
Healthy polar bear count confounds doomsayers
The debate about climate change and its impact on polar bears has intensified with the release of a survey that shows the bear population in a key part of northern Canada is far larger than many scientists thought, and might be growing.The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt. The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic.
The debate over the polar-bear population has been raging for years, frequently pitting scientists against Inuit. In 2004, Environment Canada researchers concluded that the numbers in the region had dropped by 22 per cent since 1984, to 935. They also estimated that by 2011, the population would decrease to about 610. That sparked worldwide concern about the future of the bears and prompted the Canadian and American governments to introduce legislation to protect them.
But many Inuit communities said the researchers were wrong. They said the bear population was increasing and they cited reports from hunters who kept seeing more bears. Mr. Gissing said that encouraged the government to conduct the recent study, which involved 8,000 kilometres of aerial surveying last August along the coast and offshore islands.
Mr. Gissing said he hopes the results lead to more research and a better understanding of polar bears. He said the media in southern Canada has led people to believe polar bears are endangered. “They are not.” He added that there are about 25,000 polar bears across Canada’s Arctic. “That’s likely the highest [population level] there has ever been.”
For years, polar bear experts have reported a growing number of underweight polar bears heading south for food. Far from being signs of an apocalyptic extinction, those are classic signs of overpopulation. The habitat is not shrinking; over-breeding that has the species overrunning the land (in this case the sea. We stopped hunting to beef up the herd, so to speak. Now the polar bears suffer as there are too many of them.
.
-
-
One theory is that he’s trying to intimidate the justices into deciding the case his way. But if that’s his aim, it would be odd to wait until after they’ve heard the case–and, it is believed, after they’ve privately voted on it–to begin the campaign. Moreover, while we’d say a politician’s trash talk is unlikely to have any effect on the justices at all, the odds that it would influence them in his favor are surely minuscule. Judges jealously guard their independence, as the Fifth Circuit demonstrated yesterday. They’re right to do so…
As we noted in our August essay, “Everyone loves a winner, and progressives are angry and disconsolate with Mr. Obama because they increasingly see him as a loser.” If the Supreme Court strikes down ObamaCare, Obama will be a loser again. If he shows what normal people regard as due deference to a coequal branch of government, the Angry Left will see him as a weak loser and may turn their anger against him…
If this theory is right, then Obama is attacking the Supreme Court in order to deflect the rage of his own followers. He has a problem with his base, all right, and he wants to turn it into someone else’s problem.
His problems are always someone else’s problems
-
CNN to George Zimmernan:
Gee, George, sorry we pretty much declared you a racist in front of all of America before having all the facts, but Obama's all-in on this one and we're all-in for Obama and since you're a registered Democrat, we think you'll understand.
XXXOOO
-The Most Trusted Name in News
-
Obamacare’s Partisan History
By Avik Roy
A blizzard of post-SCOTUS commentary, from the Left, expresses the view that Obamacare was an attempt at bipartisan compromise from Democrats, and that, if Obamacare goes down, it’s No More Mr. Nice Guy time from the Dems, who will start an all-out push for single-payer health care.
But a review of the history shows that it was Democrats, not Republicans, who scotched efforts to forge a bipartisan health-reform compromise. The reason that Democrats liked Romneycare as a template for national reform is because Romneycare, as a state-based plan, contained no changes to the big federal entitlements: Medicare, Medicaid, and the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance.
{SNIP}
Max Baucus’ original November 2008 blueprint for health reform “had made known [baucus’] intention to use changes in the tax treatment of health insurance as his major financing source to pay for reform.”
But the President, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) were having none of that. As Roll Call reported at the time, “According to Democratic sources, Reid told Baucus that taxing health benefits and failing to include a strong government-run insurance option of some sort in his bill would cost 10 to 15 Democratic votes; Reid told Baucus it wasn’t worth securing [Republican] support.”
McDonough, who was on the inside during these discussions, notes that Democratic leaders felt that it was unnecessary to solicit Republican support because Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate. “Reid’s directive, backed by the White House and supported by the House, was motivated in part by the seating of Minnesota’s Al Franken, the Democrats’ elusive sixtieth vote, meaning that Republicans were no longer needed to pass a bill. This directive, though, left Baucus’s plan with a gaping financial hole.”
Democrats, unwilling to budge on broader reform, then tried to ram through a partisan expansion of coverage, with substantial tax increases and an individual mandate, and zero structural reform to Medicare, Medicaid, and the employer tax exclusion. They got what they wanted. But blaming Republican intransigence for this outcome is myth-making, pure and simple. The blame goes to left-wing Democrats, who refused to entertain a more balanced approach to health reform.
Put simply, liberals’ principal goal was and is universal coverage, and conservatives’ principal goal was and is entitlement reform. These two goals could have been simultaneously accomplished in a bipartisan bill, but liberals had no desire to reform entitlements.
-
"So, if the Republican budget approach is, as President Obama says, “SOCIAL DARWINISM,” then does that mean that Obama’s approach is some sort of Social Creationism?
Because I’m not seeing any evidence of an Intelligent Design there". . . .. . . . . . .
Glenn Reynolds.
-
On a conservative board I visit, they have to post a picture of Catherine Zeta Jones on every thread Dowd is mentioned.
A fine tradition...................I lurk there often.
.
-
The above video from the RNC compares Obama’s 2011 speech on the House budget to Obama’s 2012 speech on the House budget.
The orator in Chief is often accused of rehashing used talking points in speeches, both from lack of imagination, and due to the fact that, having failed to tackle any problems effectively, he constantly has to address the same problems.
As you can see above, it’s a valid criticism.
.
-
Remember how during the 2010 elections, the Republicans promoted ‘Constitutional Authority Statements,’ proposing that all proposed legislation include a citation to some specific constitutional authority?
Remember how the Democrats heaped ridicule on that idea, saying that decisions on the constitutionality of legislation was the sole domain of the Supreme Court?
Just sayin’.”
.
-
Dr. Krauthammer on Mr Obama's remarks;
"Here's the president talking about respect for the law and implying there's partisanship if the law is overturned. We all were witnesses to the oral hearings in which Obama's case for the constitutionality of the law was utterly demolished to the point where one liberal observer called it a 'train wreck,'" Charles Krauthammer said on FOX News' "Special Report" this evening."It's perfectly natural for a majority of the Court to side with the side that actually won the argument intellectually. That's not partisanship, that's logic. What is partisanship is when the four liberal justices are in such lockstep with the administration that they end up supporting the case that's been utterly destroyed in an open argument and be humiliated," Krauthammer said on the panel.
"Second, the president talks about the deal as unprecedented. What' he talking about? Since 1803, our system has been one in which the Supreme Court in the end, judges, whether the law is constitutional or not. And in this case, he talked about the law passing by majority. He had a strong majority, with 75 Democrats outnumbering Republicans in the House. Obamacare passed by seven votes. It was a very narrow majority. It wasn't a broad of a majority that he implied," he added.
"On every count he doesn't have an argument. This is liberals in shock over watching their side being demolished in oral argument and trying to bully the Supreme Court into ending up on their side in a case which they clearly lost intellectually and logically," Krauthammer concluded.
.
-
I can't wait until spring break is over...
No matter, the school library probably has computers.
.
-
Newt Gingrich responds to Mr. Obama using a quote from him in his speech today.
“
Once again the president shows just how willing he is to distort the facts to score cheap political points, and how dangerous his reelection would be for the future of this country. In fact, I have enthusiastically endorsed the House Republican budget, including the Ryan-Wyden optional premium support plan in Medicare. My concern over previous versions of this budget was limited to the fact that the premium support plan was mandatory rather than optional. That concern has been addressed. For the president to so blatantly distort the facts while offering no plan of his own just shows how little he is concerned with governing and solving the debt crisis enveloping this country.”.
-
Obama’s America
By Yuval Levin, April 3, 2012
On February 16, at a hearing of the House Budget Committee, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was asked by committee chairman Paul Ryan to describe the administration’s plans for addressing the mounting risk of a debt crisis. His reply was: “We’re not coming before you today to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem. What we do know is we don’t like yours.”
Today’s presidential speech to the annual Associated Press Luncheon was basically just a long, dishonest way of saying the same astonishingly irresponsible thing. In essence, the president argued that our country’s future depends on allowing our government to grow uncontrollably, and that any attempt to restrain its growth and to keep the size of government in relation to the economy where it was during the fifty years preceding his election would be heartless and irresponsible. Keeping that growth in check—not reversing it, mind you, but allowing the government to grow only about as quickly as the economy does—would, we are told, subject our nation to unimaginable horrors. If all of Ryan’s cuts in the growth of spending were “applied evenly,” the president argued,
{SNIP}
There is of course lots about all this that is simply dishonest and false. The Ryan budget doesn’t call for across the board cuts. And that budget calls for the Ways and Means Committee to propose a revenue-neutral tax reform that would lower rates while eliminating loopholes—so it wouldn’t deny the government revenue it now has but would seek ways to obtain it that are more conducive to growth (and of course those loopholes benefit the wealthy above all). But the dishonesty is not the most extraordinary thing about this speech. The most extraordinary thing is the basic vision of American life it lays out: The president talks as though the liberal welfare state were not crumbling all around him, as though his budget does not abide (indeed, prescribe) an unprecedented explosion of debt that will crush American prosperity in the coming decades, as though all the money earned by all Americans were simply a pot for the government to spend as it wishes and allowing people to keep more of their earnings were just one way to spend it.
He speaks as though the problem—our unsustainable entitlement state—were the solution, and as though the solution—a budget that restrains the growth of spending, modernizes and reforms our collapsing entitlement and welfare programs to avert their collapse, and charts a path toward economic growth—were the problem. In this upside-down, inside-out world, Barack Obama accuses Paul Ryan of putting the future of America’s younger generation in danger and inviting American decline.
A psychologist might call this projection. The president’s political advisors probably call it all they’ve got. Let us hope that voters will know what to call it this fall: reckless denial and cynical dishonesty from a failed president with nothing left to offer.
Or, if we are lucky, perhaps the last straw.
.
Trayvon Martin Case
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
You mean ..........like this?
Bob Owens
.