Free Republic

Mariner, I live about a mile from the Twelve Rounds Brewing Company, and drive past it every day on my way to work. While Sacramento is a pretty moderate city, they chose to put their business in the city’s most liberal neighborhood.

No, the Bee was not trying to hurt the business; they were merely reporting a local story, as did the TV stations here. What made the story notable was the large size of the backlash.

Yes, because of its location, the business *did* have plenty of customers of the pussy-hatted ilk, and they were glad to take anybody’s money. I drove by yesterday, the place was a ghost town, and for once, there were no cars parked on that side of the street.

Of course, the guy’s timing couldn’t have been worse for him to shoot a hole in his own boat. When people saw his Facebook post, they then dug deeper on his Facebook page, and found a bunch of all-muslims-want-us-dead, Obama-is-a-muslim stuff, and reposted it, causing even more of a storm.

To any of our knowledge, he's never had a course in science. He certainly has no degrees in physics or engineering.

Ole, I don't believe that any president in modern times has had such a background. They certainly haven't applied my rules of logic! And no president can be expert in all things, and that is why they have advisers in addition to the heads of the various governmental agencies (which often have their own quirky agendas).

A few years ago, I was acquainted with President Reagan's science advisor, George "Jay" Keyworth. In many ways, he is a far-right version of Obama's far-left science advisor, John Holdren. The very top concern for both men is the worry of nuclear materials (or capabilities) falling into the hands of Islamic extremists. And yes, both men understand how the increase in atmospheric CO2 is affecting the climate, but that concern takes a back seat to those crazies.

As Obama was getting elected the first time, I was in a conversation with several people including Dr. Keyworth when I suggested that an Obama EPA might jack up the fuel economy for new cars, greatly reducing or eliminating our dependency for oil from the middle east, and starving those crazies of money. He is a smart man who could have shot me down in any number of ways, but he just rolled his eyes and politely reminded me that the folks who pulled off 9/11 did so with less than half a million dollars.

I believe that you (and George Schultz) are on the right track. From the Clinton era: http://www.theonion.com/articles/dea-chief-winners-occasionally-use-drugs,971

Probably? PROBABLY?

I wouldn't get too stressed; I think that she meant that she will probably vote. Yeah, it's sort of an alien thing for her to do, but her advisors suggested that it would be a good idea this time around...

Wally, I have seen similar surveys with similar numbers, but those who understand constitutional law are less likely to support such efforts. I’m sure that a brief survery of those taking the relevant classes in college would confirm.

Also, most people are moderate. They might not wish for people to smoke at home, but they would stop short of supporting a constitutional amendment mandating a governmental discrimination against those who smoke at home.

aruanan, it wasn’t just donuts, but ice cream as well:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1641536/posts

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned that when we ride to work (instead of driving), we are avoiding funding those loonies in a far away land who want to kill us all.

Wow, an incredible amount of common sense here. :-)

In 2002, I was walking a friend’s dog when we were attacked by two pit bulls. I sued the low-life owner, won a judgement, and he of course defaulted on that judgement. At least I can take comfort that the doo-doo left on his credit report kept him from financing a car and from getting a job (the prospective employer did a credit check).

I had to give a deposition at the county’s Animal Control as they had to fully document their case against these dogs (who had shredded the arm of the letter carrier in a previous incident). Afterwards, the officer there told me that he puts all of the blame on what are almost always horrendously irresponsible owners (even though it is the dog that gets euthanized). He also said that roughly half of these cases involve pit bulls, yet pit bulls are only about five percent of the dog population.

More laws aren’t the solution (there isn’t enough manpower in the world to enforce the existing laws), but if everybody who was such a loser got sued, there would be some disincentive. Yeah, I know, lawyers... (sigh)

Roger, my point is that Al Gore is as irrelevant as is Rush Limbaugh. They are entertainers! While both of them have probably spent a couple of hours googling on the subject, it is clear than neither of them have any background in the sciences. And no, I am not trying to advise others on what to think; quite the contrary, I encourage people to become informed. It drives me nuts when somebody says, “I believe in global warming.” Right or wrong, that implies a blind faith, rather than an understanding of the issue.

Again, science knows nothing about ideology. Where ideology comes in is how to deal with these issues. I don’t believe that sticking one’s head in the sand is ever the way to deal with a growing problem, but I also don’t believe in many of today’s kooky proposals like “cap and trade” (which I liken to papal indulgences).

The author makes the case really well that people of all stripes often tend to go with that which makes them comfortable, rather than making an effort to understand an issue. BTW, the “3%” number comes from a variety of sources. I would take stock in any of them that are not political bodies long before I would the IPCC.

Fortunately, Swordmaker was wise to not hitch his wagon to a stupid star (those who some forty years ago thought that we were going to enter into another ice age). :-) I don’t know if he made the right choice because of his complete education, but again, the numbers of ice age believers (I don’t know what else to call them) were small, they were in the minority, and ultimately, science is always right and the history speaks for itself.

No, I am not saying that the majority (even a vast one) is always right. There was a time when a majority of folks were in support of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Sadly, many people didn’t engage their brains, and many followed him onto the ash heap of history.

In any event, I found the author’s insights engaging, and sadly, nobody here wanted to engage him (calling his writing ‘crap’ doesn’t count). One of the challenges of conservativism is the double-edged sword of being resistant to change. While it is a good trait, one has to accept that the world is a changing place. When I was born, the CO2 in the atmosphere was 330 PPM; it is now 390 PPM. There has undeniably been a change!

It is very risky for any group of people to put all of their eggs into the basket of an extremely small minority of folks in the scientific community. Al Gore might be an blowhard (and a groper!), but in the end, that doesn’t matter; science always wins.

Scientific realities are not defined by party or ideological affiliations. If the conservative movement hitches its wagon to a poor hunch that ultimately becomes The Flat Earth Society, the conservative movement will cease to exist, and that is not good.

This fellow explains the danger quite well: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/science+Global+warming+deniers+liability+conservative+cause/3284292/story.html

> Everything is political these days, from the weather to your gas pedal.

No, this is about engineering.

The 2008 Prius’ engine can get it from 0 to 60 in about 11 seconds.
The 2008 Prius’ branks can get it from 60 to 0 in about 3 seconds.
You can do the math. :-)

Another thing that the MSM never mentions: some of these alleged unintended accelerators are several years old, why are all of these cases suddenly happening now? Hmmm...

The reporter was a bit sloppy. CO2 is at 385 PPM now, is going up at about 2 PPM, so 450 PPM is *many* years off, and by then, this bill will seem like the least of our problems.

Also, where goes “climate emergency” appear in the bill (H.R. 2454)? I searched this ungodly monster for that text, and it does not exist.

Sheesh, there is enough real news to report, we don’t need to make it up.

The reporter was a bit sloppy. CO2 is at 385 PPM now, is going up at about 2 PPM, so 450 PPM is *many* years off, and by then, this bill will seem like the least of our problems.

Also, where goes “climate emergency” appear in the bill (H.R. 2454)? I searched this ungodly monster for that text, and it does not exist.

Sheesh, there is enough real news to report, we don’t need to make it up.

You are right, and I suppose that we should also assume that these programs operate without any oversight. Mr. Gonzales should simply state, "We know what's best. We are doing this for your own good. Just trust us."

"There is no reason why the Congress can't write a budget that will be in balance, except they would then be replaced in the next elections by voters who demand their programs be expanded."

This is really a defeatist attitude. In the latter half of the nineties, the executive and legislative branches all supported balanced budgets, despite their differences. Today, one party runs the whole show, so why can't they get it do the same? Our grandchildren will be paying for the irresponsible behavior of the last few years.

I wrote Santorum on his legislation to deny public access to public weather data. It so happens that AccuWeather is in his district, and they had ponied up big time. The response that I received was more hostile than any than I had ever received from any Senator, including Barbara Boxer. I had once been a polite fence sitter, but I sure am not now. The arrogance from this guy's office reveals a remarkable sense of entitlement, and, sadly, this was no isolated incident. Vote the bum out!

think of the orgs that have been co-opted to full blown socialist agenda since the '50's - from conservative apathy... Sierra Club, League of Women Voters, ACLU, NAACP, etc...

Well said. And in this context, the GOP has really lost its way. Ask any liberal historian who was the best environmentalist ever, and most will tell you that it was Teddy Roosevelt. Ask any liberal historian who did the most for racial equality in this country, and they will tell you that it was Abraham Lincoln. Both men were real conservatives like Barry Goldwater, not posers like the neo-con-men of today. It is a shame that the GOP has abandoned such issues and given them to the Democrats.

Another writer wrote that he was embarrassed to have once been a member of the ACLU, and there were followups about how it was founded by commies. There is a huge omission here about how the ACLU changed, purging commies, then changed again. The writer should feel no shame; the ACLU was once a great organization, that, like the others listed above, lost its way big-time.

Yes indeed, and it is rather pathetic to see China making the same mistake (increasing dependence on foreign oil) that our leaders have been making almost without exception for half a century.

In another thread, in response to my "not all Muslims should be treated like terrorists" sentiment, "Marine Uncle" wrote some very thoughtful comments explaining why their faith is in many ways centuries behind Judaism and Christianity, and about how each of the three regards the others. Please read it:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1438508/posts?page=20

And on the lighter side of things:
http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=4/d/i/281120022

Wow, I am humbled by a most impressive response! I am glad that there are thoughtful Freepers who know more about religious history than I do.

You are obviously well aware that almost any religion can be perverted as such, and people should speak out when they see it happening. This is easy for us because the Muslim faith is a minority, and we are fortunate to have freedom of speech. Those in 1930s German weren't so lucky. It is hard to imagine, but that was our Christian faith on the stake less than a century ago. Even today, our country is divided amongst religious lines on some issues. Fortunately, there isn't much disagreement about the fate deserved by terrorists.

Yes, there are plenty of folks like your neighbor Araf who see the world through a strange lens (and indeed some worse), but there are plenty more good Muslims like my relatives who are normal folks just like you and I. We even celebrate Christmas together (though I'll admit to being generally clueless about their observances).

Debate like this is finally starting to force the Muslim community to address these issues, albeit too slowly for my taste. A look at today's leading articles on Al-Jazeera demonstrates that quite clearly. While my relatives are okay, maybe your neighbor is a fence-sitter. Talk to him. Ask him what good (in a secular sense) can come from the slaughter of innocent civilians. Then ask him about those portions of the Quran that you know so well. Ask him how he thinks the Muslim community and its representatives should respond. And tell him that he was smart to choose to live in the best country on earth!

I do apologize for my crafty wording regarding mosques and terrorists. Yes, that was indeed intentional, and you are of course correct about the correlation, but that does not show causality. Black people are disproportionatelly represented in the prison population, but that doesn't mean that every black person is predisposed towards criminal activity.

It is my hope that the majority here communicates to the Muslim community not only what we expect from them, but to understand that there is no gray area in the minds of real Americans when it comes to terrorists. There is only one acceptable option.