"It's Just One Lone Jihadi. Perfectly Politically Correct Political Music. NOT! "
2 minutes 49 secs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXKHR1sC1qw
from Elsa's Emporium.
It is just one
You must not generalize it, you must not advertise it;
For the one who is islamphobic, a right wing lynch generator; it is all your fault.
Great for a laugh
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Monday, November 16, 2015
Just flowers at a funeral, Paris
These tears, tweets and tributes will not stop the terrorists
Many of the gestures are well meaning. Grieving is necessary. Solidarity is important.
But can I respectfully point out the following:
Lighting up buildings in red, white and blue will not stop the terrorists.
Singing La Marseillaise will not stop the terrorists.
Tweeting #IStandWithParis will not stop the terrorists.
Tweeting the Eiffel Tower peace sign will not stop the terrorists.
Saying you condemn the killings will not stop the terrorists.
Showing you stand in solidarity with Paris will not stop the terrorists.
Saying you are ”shoulder to shoulder” with Paris will not stop the terrorists.
Saying we will not be cowed by terrorism will not stop the terrorists.
Saying the terrorism is an attack on all humanity will not stop the terrorists.
Tears, candles, hymns, vigils, prayers, speeches, condolence books, hashtags, poems, meetings - none of that will stop the terrorists.
A challenge to our leaders: tell us precisely what you plan to do that really will stop the terrorists.
Spare us tears and tributes. Spare us platitudes and sentiment. Give us plans. Action.
Tell us about reforming Islam, controlling immigration, shutting down hate-preachers and destroying the Islamic State and al Qaeda.
The rest is just flowers at a funeral. It will not stop the next one
Friday, November 13, 2015
Red States Blue States?
Well I never it comes from democrat states and goes to Republican states.
I’ve been seeing that argument for years , not just the many times you’ve introduced it into a debate. Have you ever looked into the detail? Ever actually thought about it? Of course you haven’t and I’ve simply treated it as yet another boring talking point, but I guess I have to now …..
Aside from anything else, to accept the argument you’d have to accept that the residents are willingly voting to destroy their own benefits, which would be wonderful but unlikely.
In any case it’s crap because it relies on Presidential elections only to define “Red” from “Blue” states, and is stuck with the 2004 results. But looking at the list of “Red” states it makes no sense to just have that definition. A state might vote GOP for president while being solidly Democrat at the Federal Senate and House levels.
You do realise that the basic definition itself has only been around since about 2000 and has largely only been applied to Presidential elections? To use this as a base going forward for sophisticated tax and spending analysis is to strangle the argument at birth.
For example, looking at the list of “Welfare” states I see New Mexico, West Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado. New Mexico, Virginia, and New Hampshire, which have all been evenly split on presidential candidates for the last thirty years. How can they be “Red” or “Blue”. On the bottom end of the welfare scale – the “good guys” in your endlessly Manichean world – I see Nevada and Colorado, who both voted for both Bush 43 wins. New Hampshire voted for Kerry, Obama, and Obama – but they’ve only elected one Democrat Senator since 1960! How the fuck can you call North Dakota, Louisiana, and West Virginia “Red” states when they’ve voted overwhelmingly Democratic for the past thirty years? South Dakota and New Mexico fail the same test. West Virginia finally got a Republican senator in 2014 – the first since 1959!
Similarly with Governors and state Houes and Senates, the GOP growth in that area being very recent. Are you suggesting that the voters turfed out Democrats who were on the verge of making huge spending cuts and cut down on their Federal largesse?
And this is before we even start down the track of a detailed examination of the tax and spending underlying those figures which – given this asshole’s partisan take on things – is probably no more trustworthy than his “Red” vs “Blue” definition.
Mandatory spending (Medicare and Social Security – which can’t be touched legally) vs discretionary spending (which is mainly the military) is just for starters. You are aware of the millions of retirees who’ve fled to the Sunbelt states from the colder Northern ones no?
And again, if you actually think about this from a higher perspective – if the analysis was true, would the Democrats not have done everything they could to correct this imbalance when they held the purse strings from 2007-2011 and when, according to this article, it would cost them nothing electorally as they punished their enemies and rewarded their friends. The fact that they did nothing is yet another indicator that it’s a bullshit talking point of Democratic activists.
No right not to be offended.
Professor Mike Adams took liberalism and progressivism to task in his viral class introduction that will leave you cheering.
In a time where college students are offended by pretty much everything, one professor at UNC-Wilmington decided to cut through the rhetoric and let his students know that they aren’t the special snowflakes liberals and their parents would have them believe.
His epic class introduction has gone viral, and for good reason: this is the most common sense lecture to come out of any college in a long time.He begins by letting his students know that they don’t have the right to be offended and the rest you simply have to read for yourself.
Welcome back to class, students! I am Mike Adams your criminology professor here at UNC-Wilmington. Before we get started with the course I need to address an issue that is causing problems here at UNCW and in higher education all across the country. I am talking about the growing minority of students who believe they have a right to be free from being offended. If we don’t reverse this dangerous trend in our society there will soon be a majority of young people who will need to walk around in plastic bubble suits to protect them in the event that they come into contact with a dissenting viewpoint. That mentality is unworthy of an American. It’s hardly worthy of a Frenchman.Let’s get something straight right now. You have no right to be unoffended. You have a right to be offended with regularity. It is the price you pay for living in a free society. If you don’t understand that you are confused and dangerously so. In part, I blame your high school teachers for failing to teach you basic civics before you got your diploma. Most of you went to the public high schools, which are a disaster. Don’t tell me that offended you. I went to a public high school.Of course, your high school might not be the problem. It is entirely possible that the main reason why so many of you are confused about free speech is that piece of paper hanging on the wall right over there. Please turn your attention to that ridiculous document that is framed and hanging by the door. In fact, take a few minutes to read it before you leave class today. It is our campus speech code. It specifically says that there is a requirement that everyone must only engage in discourse that is “respectful.” That assertion is as ludicrous as it is illegal. I plan to have that thing ripped down from every classroom on campus before I retire.One of my grandfathers served in World War I. My step-grandfather served in World War II. My sixth great grandfather enlisted in the American Revolution when he was only thirteen. These great men did not fight so we could simply relinquish our rights to the enemy within our borders. That enemy is the Marxists who run our public universities. If you are a Marxist and I just offended you, well, that’s tough. I guess they don’t make communists like they used to.Unbelievably, a student once complained to the Department chairwoman that my mention of God and a Creator was a violation of Separation of Church and State. Let me be as clear as I possibly can: If any of you actually think that my decision to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence in the course syllabus is unconstitutional then you suffer from severe intellectual hernia.Indeed, it takes hard work to become stupid enough to think the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional. If you agree with the student who made that complaint then you are probably just an anti-religious zealot. Therefore, I am going to ask you to do exactly three things and do them in the exact order that I specify.First, get out of my class. You can fill out the drop slip over at James Hall. Just tell them you don’t believe in true diversity and you want to be surrounded by people who agree with your twisted interpretation of the Constitution simply because they are the kind of people who will protect you from having your beliefs challenged or your feelings hurt.Second, withdraw from the university. If you find that you are actually relieved because you will no longer be in a class where your beliefs might be challenged then you aren’t ready for college. Go get a job building houses so you can work with some illegal aliens who will help you gain a better appreciation of what this country has to offer.Finally, if this doesn’t work then I would simply ask you to get the hell out of the country. The ever-growing thinned-skinned minority you have joined is simply ruining life in this once-great nation. Please move to some place like Cuba where you can enjoy the company of communists and get excellent health care. Just hop on a leaky boat and start paddling your way towards utopia. You will not be missed.
Professor Mike Adams previously made news when he won a legal battle after being subjected to retaliatory action by the college after he expressed Christian, religious and politically conservative views.
The jury found that these were the motivating factors behind the college’s decision not to promote Adams, and awarded him damages.
Do you agree with what Adams had to say? Let us know in the comments!
-------------------------------------
From a comments on another blog below the jump break
-------------------------------------
From a comments on another blog below the jump break
Saturday, November 7, 2015
carbon dioxide molecules the trace gas
PJM (112 comments) says:
November 6th, 2015 at 8:22 pm
November 6th, 2015 at 8:22 pm
At a magnification of X 20,000,000, carbon dioxide molecules would have a diameter of 40 mm (the same as a ping-pong ball) and at a concentration of 380 ppm (the approximate concentration currently), they would be equispaced at 7.8 metres at sea level, and 9.8 metres at an altitude of 5,500 metres. This explains why carbon dioxide is called a trace gas.
In the light of this fundamental, physical knowledge, anybody who believes that CO2 could have any measurable, significant effect on absorbing infrared radiation (the thermal end of the spectrum) from the earth (the so-called greenhouse effect) ether has rocks in their head of believes in fairies in the bottom of the garden!
Needless to say, there is no physical evidence that carbon dioxide has any measurable, significant effect on absorbing infrared radiation from the earth (the so-called greenhouse effect).
All of the so-called findings of the alarmist so-called climate ‘scientists’ are based on computer models, which have been proven time after time after time to be seriously flawed. This explains why their doomsday predictions have never eventuated. They never will, for the reasons explained above!
This paper by one of the USA’s award-winning atmospheric physicists explains in detail the physics involved:
Perhaps somebody should draw the attention of both Tonkin & Taylor and the Mayor of Christchurch to this blogpost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
