Free Republic

There's a thing called apnea that makes many overweight people unable to sleep well.

Correlation is not proof of causation. Everyone who understands anything about science knows this. But for some reason, when it comes to health issues, all of that "science" crap gets thrown out the window.

Has anyone ever stopped even for a second to think rationally about this: of all the fetishes in the world, by what logic did liberals decide to pick this ONE fetish to call "free speech?"

What about a leather facemask and a whip? Necrophiliacs? Bestialists? Fecophiliacs? Should children be encouraged to "express" themselves like that? Of course not; that's just plain WEIRD!

But a guy wearing a dress; why not? After all, boys will be girls, right? What could possibly be more healthy and wholesome than that?

This is nothing but a wedge issue. Homosexual fetishists don't deserve any rights that any other fetishists don't have. But liberals wouldn't EXIST if they didn't have something disgusting to shove down society's throat.

Liberalism may have once been a political movement, but today it has become absolutely nothing but perversion solely for the sake of perversion.

I do know that the Chinese have almost no women under the age of 10 (one child, aborting females).

Oh yeah, you really have to watch out for that inscrutable Chinese hydrogen-powered perpetual motion car conspiracy!

Seriously though, you don't have to know squat about science. Once the psycho patrol start screeching off on tangents like this one, you KNOW you're talking about a crackpot theory.

Have you read the White Paper referenced above? I have, and it is the McCoy. They appear to have stumbled onto something important here.

Hehe. Yeah, they "discovered" a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. I hate to call your Irish buddy a liar, but take my word for it: there's nothing new here.

Personally, I think everyone should have to pass p-chem to get a bachelors degree.

That's not necessary at all. "Debunking" something as silly as this should not require specific knowledge of the field involved (although of course that's always nice.) And it shouldn't require a college degree. People should be taught the basics of scientific methodology before graduating high school.

It's entirely possible that someone might invent a combination universal solvent and perpetual motion device someday. But if that happens it won't be "proved" by a demonstration on TV; it will be submitted as a testable theory and the phenomenon will be duplicated by people all over the world.

I omitted the "peer review" because my point was that I want to be one of the peers to review it.

Anyone who wants to can review a paper or try to replicate results. They only call it a "peer review" to limit the cacophony of 10,000 voices all chiming in at the same time.

That's something a lot of people don't understand. Science is fundamentally different from any other endeavor. If someone like God, the homos who appoint themselves the "Academy," the plastic-haired freak on the Nightly News, or any other Ultimate Authority says that a work of art is good, then it is good -- end of story. And the millions of idiots who pay hard-earned money to see something else are all "wrong."

That's how liberal arts work. But science is utterly different. If some bozo off the street nobody's ever heard of shows that Einstein's pet theory is a load of crap, then EVERYONE with an understanding of the subject matter will be able to see that he is right and Einstein is wrong. And it could not possibly matter less how gloriously "authoritative" the proponents happen to deem themselves.

It's a scam until they publish a paper with the reaction mechanism and the amount of energy it takes to create HH0...and keep it stable."

Technically, it would have to be a "peer-reviewed" paper, but yes.

That's the difference between science and magic. Real science isn't something that a bunch of nincompoops sit around and ARGUE about; it's something that you TEST and either prove or disprove.

If this were real, there would have been a peer-reviewed paper, and people all over the country would be saying: "Yep, we were able to do the same thing, and it we got exactly the same result as the wizard engineer who invented the thing."

Some people are smarter than others; there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But it's frankly appalling to me how many people alive today don't have a CLUE how technology works. 500 years ago, there would be an excuse for this kind of confusion, but not in this day and age.

"The leftists in American wouldn't know who to pick [between McCain and Hillary.]"

Oh, don't worry about that. Of course the press will back McCain to the hilt in the Primaries, but you can bet your ass they'll inform the moonbats - in absolutely no uncertain terms - that McCain has just become the new AntiChrist the day after he wins the Republican nomination.

Of course the press would love another "nail-biter" election.

Personally, I'd prefer a landslide. Has anybody done a poll of Hillary vs. another Ronald Reagan conservative?

Party politics are nothing more than a means to an end. If McCain - or any other Rockefeller Republican - wins the nomination in 2008, we'll have to admit that the Republican Party has officially rejected conservatism and start seriously looking into some other alternatives.

I didn't realize that was a front-page article! So, what, there's absolutely nothing going on in Chicago right now, so they have to run stories from New York state?

It's been years (decades, really) since I've actually looked at a liberal paper as anything other than satire. Why would anyone read anything that lame if they're not stranded on an island or something?

News flash: It's the 21st Century; there are options now. It's hard to believe that only a few tens of thousands of people leave behind liberal media in an average day. What's up with the rest of those losers? When somebody switches, it's not like he's changing a belief or anything; it's more like he's waking up.

What the hell does a Chicago reporter know about "Finger Lakes" politics anyway? Of course a NY Senator who collects nationwide campaign contributions is going to win re-election. That's not really an amazing acheivement. But it's no reason to believe she'll beat a Republican who's doing the same thing.

I hope this represents a trend, though. If more liberal reporters hop on the Hillary bandwagon, there's that much more chance she'll run in '08. The moonbats feel gypped that they had an "electable" candidate shoved down their throats in the last election. If the press join them in pushing Hillary, the Democrat Party bosses might not be able to keep her out of the race.

How many people actually read all those political commentators put together every week?

The New York Times circulation is, what, around half a million? And who knows how many of those people just buy it to show how "informed" they are?

Meanwhile, 20 million people a week seek out not just a time and station, but an entire medium they'd otherwise never use (a.m. radio) to hear Rush Limbaugh.

And the same press idiots who claim all of Limbaugh's listeners are "mind-numbed robots" also claim he doesn't have "influence" when they want to use the term as a compliment instead of as an insult.

"The United States spends as much on its military as the rest of humanity combined..."

Um, yeah, we also spend more on potato chips - and pretty much everything else - than all the rest of the world combined.

And about 75% of the UN's charity budget comes from US contributions (nearly all the rest comes from Japan.) Oh, but if we cut back on defense spending then all the horrific problems of all the Socialist refuse dumps we're propping up would miraculously be cured, and they'd suddenly stop trying to commit genocide.

Hell of a plan, there, ace.

I will never forget the night I found out about My Lai. It didn't turn me against the war. That's for damn sure. I was really too young to know "much" about anything. But it all came flooding back with Kerry's nomination and my Swift Vet education

I read up about the whole Winter Soldier smear job that Kerry did back then. It's like re-opening an old wound. It was just bizarre to me that such insane and idiotic lies could be practically unopposed in America.

The only good part of it was that it made me appreciate more that the liberals don't COMPLETELY control the media these days.

"Well he has invented Viet Nam's Mai Lai for Iraq....the more things change, the more they stay the same, sadly."

No, the more things change, the more LIBERALS stay the same. The rest of the world isn't stuck in a 1970's time warp.

Today, the liberal media can still smear anybody they want, but if the Marines get cleared, then we're going to get to see their faces on TV calling Murtha a liar. If that happens before November, voters are going to get to compare him to REAL Marines and at least a few of them will see they've been sold a bill of goods.

I assume that guy's a few months from vegetation anyway. In the long run, the more important thing is that the liberal media outlets who portray this guy as God's Messenger get called to account too. For example, did you happen to notice that this article just calls him "lawmaker" for the first four paragraphs? Like they're talking about Salomon or something.

"MATTHEWS: Was this My Lai?"

Thank God you can't see what his hands are doing under the desk while he says stuff like this.

"... one would think that Murtha, a former Marine himself, would give the benefit of the doubt to our Marines before making wild accusations."

Why would one think that? This is the liberal's textbook definition of "supporting the troops."

Can you imagine the national outrage that would result if the races were reversed and some white racists called for the persecution of accused blacks, "just because?" From GWB on down the outcry would be deafening.

It's not so much that liberals have racist tendencies; it's that they are incapable of seeing the world any other way.

The entire concept of the "individual" is completely lost on collectivists. To them, people exist ONLY as members of one group or another.

"Some myth. The great tragedy of NO was that so many refused to evacuate their homes for fear it would be looted to the walls."

The breakdown of civil order can cause a hundred times more damage than a natural disaster. That sure as Hell ain't no fairy tale.

Hehe. Lousianna Democrat officials said that looting was unavoidable, and so ordered police to allow looting. Then looting ran rampant.

Now a Republican official says, in absolutely no uncertain terms, that looting will be punished, and lo and behold: there is no looting.

And the only conclusion that liberals can draw from these two facts: Republicans are LIARS!!

The Heritage analysis added up all the provisions of the 616-page Senate bill and extended them over 20 years, producing a mid-range estimate of more than 100 million new legal immigrants -- a third of the current U.S. population -- if the guest worker programs grow at 10 percent a year and workers bring their families as currently allowed.

*If* the program grows by ten percent a year for 20 years, then there'll be 100 million new immigrants?

I was wondering where this psycho number came from. Brilliant assumption there.

And if the average temperature in the US keeps rising at the same rate it is right now for the next twenty years, then by 2026, it will be over 800 degrees.

OMG!!! WE'RE ALL DOOMED!!!