Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $21,067
Woo hoo!! And the first 23% is in!! Thank you all very much for your continuing support!!

Posts by Matchett-PI

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • BILOXI: Coliseum prepares for big time rally for Donald Trump Saturday night (Expect heavy traffic)

    01/02/2016 6:59:54 PM PST · 537 of 778
    Matchett-PI to onyx; sheikdetailfeather; MinuteGal


  • An early look at tomorrow's Preakness Stakes

    05/15/2015 8:01:07 AM PDT · 19 of 39


  • George Zimmerman Shooting Apparent Assassination Attempt

    05/14/2015 8:03:38 AM PDT · 37 of 45


  • Environmentalists: The World Could Use A Good Pandemic Or War

    10/30/2014 6:22:43 AM PDT · 31 of 52


  • Free Republic is a fringe right-wing Christian fundamentalist site

    10/29/2014 9:20:14 AM PDT · 3,077 of 3,108
    Matchett-PI to HiTech RedNeck

    You wrote: “But to care about God at all, even in the wrong way, is better than not caring.”

    “....a fundamentalist who thinks that the world was created by God in six days is actually much, much closer to the truth than any doctrine that leaves the divine mind out of the equation....”


  • Benghazi Bombshell: Clinton State Department Official Reveals Details of Alleged Document Review

    09/15/2014 6:24:07 AM PDT · 34 of 63
    Matchett-PI to sheikdetailfeather


  • 10 Places Where Climate Change Is Being Felt the Fastest

    09/14/2014 11:45:13 AM PDT · 59 of 68
    Matchett-PI to rockinqsranch

    You wrote: “Seems to me the bottom line is the computer models are not correct”

    bttt Nor will they ever be. Here’s why from the world’s greatest living physicist:

  • Remembrance Archive: Free Republic Threads From 9-11-01

    09/12/2014 6:54:03 AM PDT · 495 of 534


  • Rush Limbaugh Show,"Never Forget!",September 11, 2014,WOR AM,EDT,M-F

    09/11/2014 9:54:16 AM PDT · 42 of 158


  • Rush Limbaugh Show,M-F,12NOONPM-3PM,EDT,WOR AM,September 10,2014

    09/10/2014 9:21:49 AM PDT · 15 of 90


    Here’s my take on Obama’s speech tonight, for those interested:

  • Unsettled Science: 53 different explanations for the failure of computerized climate models

    09/10/2014 9:15:09 AM PDT · 11 of 15
    Matchett-PI to SeekAndFind

    Here’s WHY COMPUTER MODELS CAN NEVER REFLECT REALITY. See todays paramount living physicist:

    “... all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do _a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in_. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.”.... Freeman Dyson, (8/8/07)

    As it pertains to climate science, for example, anyone who approaches it with an open mind is struck by the many exceptions that refute its central claim. So many black swans! It will not progress until those black swans can be reconciled with the white, and yet, proponents try to pretend the former don’t even exist.

    In this regard, climate science is more like neurosis than science, since it operates via repression, rationalization, compartmentalization, wishful thinking, projection, etc.


    Thursday, August 07, 2014
    Myth, Science, Scientific Myth, and Myths of Science


    If spending is what counts, Republicans are far more pro-science than Democrats


    4 Warning Signs That Impartial Paper On Politics And Science Really Isn’t
    By Hank Campbell | September 8th 2014 12:25 PM

    Talk of a ‘secret sauce’ in decision-making and charges that government groups like the Environmental Protection Agency are politically motivated are not new. Every president has its opposition party contending that the administration is manipulating science to suit its agenda - in the 1990s, Democrats got it for scuttling the Superconducting Super Collider and gutting the NIH and NASA while a decade later Republicans were called anti-science for limiting federal funding for human embryonic stem cells to existing lines.

    No one voted or did not vote for a candidate because of the SSC or hESCs, they were simply talking points to confirm decisions.

    In the modern instant news and social media environment, such stories can easily become magnified, and they do. As a result, the public increasingly regards government science policy as just another political marketing tool, no different than mobilizing voters by claiming the opposition is going to impeach the president to drum up voter turnout for November.
    Credit: NYU

    The result is a public just as divided over science as they are Obamacare and taxes. Even environmental science. It’s not like some people actually hate or love the environment more based on how they vote - global warming deniers conserve electricity and recycle as much as financial donors to Sierra Club do - they just filter their belief in what is meaningful action through the latest political prism.

    As politics has become more polarized during the Obama years, so have positions, according to a new paper. Though a Republican created National Parks laws, the Clean Air Act and the EPA, and President George W. Bush made the Lacey Act finally effective against illegal logging, the gap between conservatives and liberals on environmental policy has broadened drastically, according to a new sociology paper.

    Based on what? Spending by Congress.

    That is to conservatives a flawed premise right out of the gate - you can’t spend your way to success, as we have seen trying to buy solar energy science breakthroughs by throwing money at them. Sociologists are overwhelmingly on the left so they may regard spending as what really matters but lead author Aaron McCright of Michigan State University knows money has little to do with it. He wrote a paper last year saying that people who accepted climate change accepted mitigation ideas regardless of being Republican or Democrat.

    Fewer people on the right accept climate the same way fewer on the left accept vaccines and agriculture, but it isn’t because the right spends more on food.

    Spending as a metric is also flawed because if spending is what counts, Republicans are far more pro-science than Democrats, so contending they are less concerned about environmental science is a hard claim to prove. Reagan was the greatest proponent of government-funded basic research in US history. Bush and a Republican Congress doubled funding for the NIH and boosted funding for NASA after declines in the Clinton years. In the Obama years, the NIH is again barely treading water and numerous NASA programs have been cut, like the Constellation.

    The basis for the claim is annual national survey results from 1974 to 2012 that included a question on environmental spending. The benefit for the public is that it provides a way to see 4 Common Warning Signs that the paper you are reading is more about advancing a political agenda than a public service one.

    Since the paper is using Congressional spending as a metric for a divide among the public, if you know any history at all, you will see the First Warning Sign readily enough:

    Warning Sign #1 - Amateur Psychology As A Magic Bullet

    The survey results found that the divide among citizens who consider themselves conservatives and liberals started growing particularly wide in 1992 - this was the year President Clinton was elected over George H. W. Bush with 43 percent of the vote, when right-wing candidate Ross Perot had a better showing than any third-party nominee in history - but highlighting 1992 shows that they are willing to draw conclusions that are not based on evidence, they are actually in defiance of it.

    McCright and colleagues ignore the acrimony of that contest and claim the widening gap between conservatives and liberals about environmental spending was because of...the fall of the Soviet Union. Republicans, in the eyes of sociologists, just need to be afraid of something and so a “Red Scare” got replaced with a “Green Scare”.

    What else did they leave out that invalidates their assertion? Congress was controlled by Democrats. Governor Clinton was incredibly polarizing in the 1992 election, to such an extent he put conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh on the national cultural map, but claiming that desire for more environmental spending is an accurate barometer of partisanship falls flat because it doesn’t happen anywhere else. When it comes to lowering costs for chronically ill people, bipartian bills sail through the House. If people are really more polarized about spending, that would not happen.

    Warning Sign #2 - They Can’t See The Environmentalism For The Cheese

    The sociologists contend if anyone doesn’t want the curve on environmental spending to continually go up, polarization is happening.

    A simple thought experiment can help show that is flawed: If, in 1990, 75 percent of Democrats and Republicans believed the United States spent too little on cheese but by 2012 the spending on cheese was 3X what it was in 1990 yet the left had gone farther left and the right went farther right so while 68 percent of Democrats still believed we spent too little on cheese while only 40 percent of the Republicans now believed that, sociologists say Republicans are too polarized.

    I know you are smart but in case you missed it, you can literally swap out cheese for environmental spending.

    Warning Sign #3 - If The Federal Government Is Broken, It Must Be Republicans

    The third warning sign the sociologists are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill - if the American public doesn’t want to pay higher prices for electricity, well golly, it must be mean Republicans at work again: “This political polarization is unlikely to reverse course without noticeable convergence in support of environmental protection among policymakers, with prominent conservatives becoming less anti-environmental in their public statements and voting records,” lead author McCright says in their release.

    He frames our heroes and villains quite nicely, it is just not evidence-based. If we really care about poor people and the environment, for example, we have to mention that it is Democrats demonizing the science that most helps the poor in America and worldwide - agriculture. Opponents of food science are doing far more harm to people than resisting CO2 caps and they are “liberals”, in the giant stereotypical blanket used by the authors.

    Warning Sign #4 - What’s A Null Hypothesis?

    The humanities often pick a position and then find evidence to match it. It’s not a flawed strategy in literature, if you want to claim da Vinci was gay, just note that he got accused of being gay one time, and cite other books claiming he might be gay. Science instead has a null hypothesis, you would have to show he was gay. You can infer some thngs, we do that about dark matter, but you can’t take survey data and and create a matching curve and claim it is a real finding.

    In this case, the curve is the environmental-protection voting patterns of Congress. Science 2.0 readers are smart enough to know throwing money at issues doesn’t help the environment, nor does having Democrats in control. In the years 2007-2009, Democrats had control of both houses but their only big environmental initiative was replacing spoons in the Congressional cafeteria with corn-based things that melted in soup - and when Republicans regained control of the House the outgoing Democrat in charge of the cafeteria asked the incoming Republican to undo that program, because it was a giant waste of money that helped no one.

    If sociologists were correct, there would have been a huge upswell in desire for environmental spending and spending to match. Yet that did not happen, even when there was a bulletproof majority in Congress and a President in the same party.


    In conclusion, I can actually give you a 5th Warning Sign a paper on science beliefs is not impartial. It is not evidence-based and instead creates a belief and finds evidence to match it, so sociologists will feel right at home with my assertion - if Mother Jones endorses your paper, it is biased.

    Citation: Aaron M. McCright, Chenyang Xiao, Riley E. Dunlap, ‘Political polarization on support for government spending on environmental protection in the USA, 1974–2012’, Social Science Research Volume 48, November 2014, Pages 251–260 DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.06.008

  • The President's speech tonight

    09/10/2014 9:00:15 AM PDT · 46 of 74
    Matchett-PI to ReleaseTheHounds

    “I wonder what Freepers expect with tonight’s speech”

    Here’s what I expect:

    This will be one of his shortest speechs.

    His plan:

    The main thrust of his speech will involve asking for what he knows Congress will think is an exhorbitant amount of money.

    He will be vague and refuse to delineate specifically (even in private) what he will use the money to do.

    He knows Congress won’t give him the amount of money he wants because he knows they will suspect that his vagueness indicates he will use most of it as a Democrat slush fund (as usual).

    This will give him the excuse he’s looking for to do nothing meaningful since he can then blame Congress for not giving him “enough” money.

    Hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it. He has a long track record.

  • Rush Limbaugh Show,WELCOME BACK!,M-F,12NOONPM-3PM,EDT,WOR AM,September 8,2014

    09/08/2014 10:08:42 AM PDT · 73 of 191


  • Left Behindí Coming to a Theater ó and Maybe a Seminary ó Near You

    09/08/2014 8:41:06 AM PDT · 28 of 42
    Matchett-PI to marshmallow

    You wrote: “The “Rapture” = classic, latter-day American hucksterism. Suckers.”

    You got that right! =>

  • Rush Limbaugh Show,M-F,12NOONPM-3PM,EDT,WOR AM,August 25-29,September 1,2014

    08/29/2014 9:14:02 AM PDT · 430 of 512
    Matchett-PI to All


    MUST READ of the day:

    Obama’s ‘Iraqization’ of America
    August 28, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield

    When it comes to Iraq, Obama lectures the Sunnis and the Shiites on getting along and forming a government that won’t exist for the sole benefit of a single group at the expense of the other.

    But in America he runs exactly that type of government.

    Iraqis are not stupid. They look at the news and they see Ferguson and Al Sharpton screaming at angry mobs and know that Obama is not practicing what he preaches to them. Obama may have forced out Maliki, but his own tribal politics are hard to distinguish from those of Maliki.

    Obama rules not by inspiring people, but, like Maliki and ISIS, he divides and conquers, setting people against each other. Obama’s America is as spitefully tribal as Maliki’s Iraq. Its bosses, like Eric Holder, hold a divisive worldview that excludes much of the country.

    Al Sharpton, Obama’s close political ally, and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his mentor, are familiar types in Iraq. You can find a thousand Jeremiah Wrights on any given Friday screaming about killing the Shiites or the Sunnis. You can find a million Al Sharptons community organizing local hatreds until they explode.

    The Sharptons and Wrights of Iraq have guns because the machinery of law and order there has collapsed even more comprehensively than it has in Detroit. In a country divided by ethnic and sectarian politics, a multicultural military and police are incapable of enforcing the law and uninterested in standing up to violence from their own people.

    Those are the ugly tribal politics that Obama has brought to America. Instead of repairing the economy, he focused on wealth redistribution. Instead of bringing Americans together as one nation, he calculatedly tore them apart around manufactured crises of race, gender, class and religion. He pitted blacks against whites, liberal Protestants against Catholics, the poor against the middle class and the cities against the suburbs.

    Instead of reaching out to white Americans after they thoroughly rejected him in the 2012 election, he instead decided that divisive and racist politics were the key to staying in power.

    In 2012, Obama decisively lost white voters 59% to 39%. He lost white voters of every sex and age. He lost white voters in almost every state. In the three states where he won them, it was only by the narrowest of margins.

    And he only tied Romney among white voters in New York with a 49% to 49% split.

    Obama lost white men. He lost white women. He lost young white voters. He lost middle aged and old white voters. He lost white Protestants and he lost white Catholics.

    That did not happen because the white voters of 2008 who came out for him in New York 52% to 46% or the young white voters who came out for him 54% to 44% (only to turn him down 44% to 51% in 2012) developed a sudden belated case of racism.

    It was Obama’s governing style that developed a sudden belated case of racism.

    Obama promised us a united America and gave us a divided America. He has shown that he is a slicker and more polished version of Al Sharpton.

    After coming to prominence with a vision of “There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America” he shrugged off helping Americans as a whole and instead championed narrow tribal interests.

    Maliki wasn’t the Prime Minister of Iraq. He was the Prime Minister of a Shiite Iraq. Obama isn’t the President of the United States. He’s trying to be the President of Black America, Gay America, Latino America, Asian America, Transgender America and a thousand other micro Americas.

    At no point in time has he been the President of the United States of America.

    His antics in Ferguson, as in Florida, show a governing style that is purely tribal. It’s Iraqi, not American. He doesn’t bring people together, he tears them apart. He plays on racial crises to make minorities feel vulnerable and insecure while his emissaries denounce the majority.

    To the left, this politics of acrimony is passed off as being more legitimate than the Sunni and Shiite tail-chewing in Iraq because one race is guiltier than the other. It’s not. It’s equally vile and equally cynical. And while there is no ISIS rampaging around America (though Muslim violence continues to flare up regularly with brutal killings) the miasma of hatred has consequences.

    The victims of the Knockout games and the stores looted and burned in Ferguson are a consequence of Obama’s tribal style of leadership.

    On the other side of the rusty coin are the people stocking up on weapons and preparing for a national collapse.

    All that doesn’t add up to Iraq, but it’s not as far away from it as we would like to think.

    America has been weakened by being divided. Divided nations are too busy fighting among themselves to put up a strong defense. Obama’s governing style isn’t just inept, it makes America seem weak.

    Obama’s America is as intimidating to ISIS as Maliki’s Iraq was. A country at war with itself frightens no one. There’s nothing to spare for Putin or Al Qaeda except more token gestures.

    And we’re almost out of those.

    Democrats accused Bush of wrecking Iraq. Now they have turned America into another Iraq; a tribal society that is growing poorer every day while the tribes bicker over preferential treatment from the government. Americans are losing hope in the future as the left promises them that these conflicts will continue indefinitely because its social justice tribal grievances matter more than national unity.

    Iraq fell before ISIS because despite its heavy armor, its air power and military, it lacked national unity. As we move through a century of Islamic wars, we must take a lesson from the Iraqis.

    If we cannot unite as Americans, then we will be scattered as separate tribes, arguing to the last about precedence and privileges, like the Iraqi parliament, while the enemy destroys everything.

    The “Iraqization” of America would transform us into a warren of quarreling slums protected by rival gangs who feel that they have as little in common as the Sunnis and Shiites of Iraq.

    America’s strength was rooted in a republicanism that transcended tribal politics.

    Freedom was America’s promise. Our equality was not based on tribal privileges, as the left insists it was and as it demands that it should be, but on the open equality of freedom.

    Obama is turning it into a subsidized commodity dispensed by a central authority on a tribal basis.

    That is not America. That is Egypt. That is Saudi Arabia. That is Iraq.

    While Obama urges Iraqi politicians to work together, he is leading America down the same ugly path.

    It’s too late for the Iraqis to change, but it’s not too late for us to learn from their example.

    Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.

  • Rush Limbaugh Show,M-F,12NOONPM-3PM,EDT,August 4-8,2014,WOR AM

    08/04/2014 9:29:18 AM PDT · 32 of 531


  • Rush Limbaugh Show,M-F,12NOONPM-3PM,EDT,WOR AM, July 28-August 1, 2014

    07/30/2014 6:43:30 AM PDT · 234 of 401


  • Rush Limbaugh Show,M-F,12NOONPM-3PM,EDT,WOR AM, July 28-August 1, 2014

    07/30/2014 6:42:59 AM PDT · 233 of 401


  • Rush Limbaugh Show,M-F,12NOONPM-3PM,EDT,WOR AM,July 21-25,2014

    07/28/2014 5:20:27 AM PDT · 333 of 333


  • Rush Limbaugh Show,M-F,12NOONPM-3PM,EDT,WOR AM,July 21-25,2014

    07/24/2014 10:02:49 AM PDT · 261 of 333