Monday, August 8, 2011

Friendly neighborhood not-a-terrorist

I am am American - I was born here. My birth certificate doesn't look fake - it looks old. I had to produce it and 6 other forms of paperwork just to change my ID from NY to IN. It took Obama how long to produce just his birth certificate?

I am NOT a terrorist, drug user or delusional - despite what the liberal media would have you believe. Liberals are pro-pot legalization but call tea partiers drug users. VP Biden calls them terrorists...terrorists KILL innocent people en masse. A terrorist is one who perpetrates violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Dear second in command jackass - I've never knowingly done anything that even remotely fits that description. Just because I disagree with your beliefs & opinions does not make me or any other person a terrorist. It does however make you look like the ignoramus we know you really are.

I'm not a tea partier, because I disagree with some of the beliefs of the organization. I'm a conservative libertarian who thinks there are far more pressing issues than prohibiting gays from getting "married" & having equal protection & rights. If you base tea party status on wanting "no taxation without representation" then yeah I guess I am one. By the people & for the people - not 'funded by the people who we then ignore".

Let's add this up:
Me: still proud to be an American, not a terrorist, not using any kind of illegal drugs, not delusional (no shrink has deemed me such), believes in no taxation without representation, believes government must be limited lest it become an oligarchy. You want me to be more open-minded but call me names when we disagree...

You: hate America & its people (except you of course) can't swear you've never done illegal drugs, no comment on the mental status thing I can't view your medical records, you believe its only fair to make everyone pay for everything even if we don't believe in it - unless its something you don't believe in then you're not paying for it either, you're part of the oligarchy that has become our government. You like to instill fear in your citizenry instead of facts. You shout hate speech at those who disagree with you but want the other side to be more open-minded. Would I call you a terrorist Mr. vice president? No I'd just call you an immature asshole.

and because it still exists. the constitution tells me i have every right to think of you that way - and to say it publicly.

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Hate-speech from the supposedly better than me

I think after the week of political BS that has come at me through Facebook its time for a severe list-cleansing. Bleach, SOS pads, maybe some napalm for good measure to make sure I get the filth off my list and make sure they STAY off it.

Don't get me wrong a lot of this started with my opinion posting about the 5 illegals who were arrested protesting at the Governor's office...but its continued with the evil hate-speech several of the set who would consider themselves 'so much more tolerant, open-minded, and simply better than you' group that is in short - a small group of liberals. Some seriously don't know when to shut the hell up and in just 5 days one has proven she's one of the biggest hypocrites I've ever had the displeasure of meeting.

I won't name names, but I'll paste quotes. A few of these came through my private messages...personally aimed threats, and libelous statements.

Here we go:
In private in the last week I've been accused of 'harboring criminals from prosecution', 'an over the top drug habit including heroin & cocaine', and 'participating in physical harm to others who aren't white'. Actual statements not posted because sadly they'd probably identify the people who wrote them. I don't want to start world war 8 on my facebook page again. But seriously - every single comment came from a supposedly more tolerant than me liberal.

Public posts by liberals that are entirely NOT tolerant "I hope they (all conservatives/libertarians) die in a fire tonight", during a recent string of arsons in the city of Indianapolis. I hear this statement a lot lately from a LOT of liberals. Yet after the news of Osama bin Laden's death at the hands of US Navy SEALs most of the liberals were suggesting that anyone celebrating his death should be ashamed of themselves. Funny, and I'm pretty sure ironic that if the legislators who passed certain anti-liberal bills  (defunding planned parenthood for example) that if those legislators did meet some unfortunate end - the horde of liberals screaming for their head would suddenly rejoice. Pot - kettle...dark.

A self-denied liberal - he swears he isn't one - recently threw out the first libelous punches in a long-winded 'debate' on my post regarding how ICE wouldn't detain and deport 5 illegals who felt they had a RIGHT to protest at the IN governor's office...the liberal started the name calling first. Not the conservative.Yet they both devolved after that. Seriously the liberals need to check themselves.

For the record - I don't condone illegal drugs in any form - want to legalize pot - fine - but its still illegal federally so you can't cross state lines w/your med pot card. Second - I live with two other people - both US citizens - born & raised here, I don't have anywhere to store my own stuff let alone an extra person. bother. I don't believe in personal physical violence from me towards another person unless during a sporting competition and then and only then I want to play with them another day...why kill them for real? Also on that note - why is it so hard for liberals to abide by their own rules? After the Giffords shooting in March the liberals & liberal media called for an end to the hatefilled rhetoric - yet its gotten worse - mostly from liberals. Again know the drill.

I'm off to sanitize my list.

Thursday, May 12, 2011

Pot vs kettle

I'm really skittish about using the full old saying for fear of some irrational person calling me racist because an old saying involves a color. You most likely know the one I refer to if you're smart.

Anyway Pot please meet kettle...great you've been introduced. Now aren't the majority of stories in the news lately seriously skewed? Funny that.

In all seriousness - as usual the Obama Administration wants things both ways. What I refer to is the White House/Obama family inviting rapper "Common" to a poetry gathering at the White House this week. The controversy involves Common's lyrical 'poke' as the White House would have you believe, at former President Bush. Yet as we found out after the death of Osama Bin Laden, its incredibly callous of people to wish any other human being dead for any reason...

Color me confused. So the White House has invited a rapper and a large group of youth to the poetry event. A rapper who has rapped about how people should go out & kill former President Bush because of the Iraq war. But OTHER people shouldn't be happy when someone who is a known enemy of the country is killed. I get it now, wait, no I don't. I don't get how again the White House can stand behind a story and a person like Common as a role model for youth, if they have a bug up their asses about a small news paper in a tiny town in California about a single line in a story a few weeks ago that presented Michele Obama in a possibly 'snooty' manner. The White House Communications Office censored a public newspaper because of its writer's comment about the First Lady; the same office who after all is part of the Obama Administration - threatened another newspaper and a writer of a more major newspaper - but one with less readership than the potential impact of a rapper, spouting his hate and violence to the nation's children as supported and honored by the President & administration.

Pot calling the kettle colorful now aren't we? Once again folks you cannot have it both ways. Either its not alright to censor anyone, and therefore its fine that this common character is free to spout his hate against the former President, and then it should also be alright to critique the First Lady, or give an opinion piece without fear of censorship by the government. Or the reverse - Common is guilty of 'violent rhetoric' against a former President which in theory could be taken as a threat, and is just a really bad example for today's youth, and should be pulled from the poetry lineup; and the newspaper was wrong to post anything about the First Lady that wasn't a glowing, happy, rainbows shooting out their asses review of her, and all opinions, and videos of anti-Obama protests should be shut down under the same philosophy.

But I digress - they can't do that, we do have guarantees, for LEGAL citizens of the US, under the Constitution of the United States of America, giving us a right to free speech - unless you're talking bad about the flotus and the white house finds out.

Which is it?

Monday, May 2, 2011

The internets are unforgiving...

It started innocently enough:
 *this is the transcript of an argument that took place on a PRIVATE facebook page, I've edited out all poster's names, to protect their identities. Mostly I saved this because friends of mine overseas knew I was arguing w/someone online - and wanted to know what I was arguing about. I take responsibility for posting this I TOOK THE TIME To copy/paste & edit out the names and links to private pages - do not SHARE this unless I give you permission. PLEASE.*
**All opinions expressed herein belong to the original posters to the thread on a friend's facebook page** (NO I will NOT give you the links to the people's facebook pages who wrote these things)

HMP: Quoting KG: "finds no joy or comfort in the knowledge that bin laden is dead. to make one man the target of an entire nation's fear and anger is foolishness, and to celebrate his demise as if it were an end to all evil is ignorant." Thank you for finding the words for what I couldn't.

SMJ: I think I remember something about praying for your enemies somewhere. So many seem to have forgotten this!

HR: *No* joy or comfort? Can't agree there. Of course it's not the end to all evil, but he was a leader of those who did cause harm and damage to us, and wanted to do more. So, I'm not all, "America, fuck yeah!" but I also cannot quite agree with your post either.

CS: Eff that, the man's a mass murderer. Revenge is eternally patient and infinitely savage.

AM: Andrew Jackson was a "mass murderer" and he's on the $20 bill in your pocket. STFU if you don't understand history.

SMJ:  things are so much worse than I thought...

CS: AM, thanks to you leftist usurpers and their failed economic policies, I don't have a 20$ bill in my pocket. STFU if you don't understand war.

AM: First of all, I'm not a "leftist". Secondly, I was unemployed until a few days ago. Thirdly, I can comprehend the historical significance of Andrew Jackson and his campaign against the Native Americans, and how it relates to this current ...pop culture reference, without personal attacks and references that make zero sense. Celebrating one mass murderer while condemning another is the definition of hippocracy....period.

CS: When, when ever, do you have evidence of me celebrating Andrew Jackson for anything?

HR: Bringing up the $20 bill as if that means individuals in this conversation who condemn Bin Laden are hypocrites doesn't really make much logical sense.

MM:  While the news doesn't make me *happy* exactly, I do think that there are people whom the world is better off without, and that he was pretty squarely one of them.

MM: For what it's worth, yes, Andrew Jackson was a turd too. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, though.

AM: I don't. But the American people, as a population, do when they spend their $20 and don't revolt against his image on it. If you spend those bills, then you're in that category. All I'm saying is that as a culture and people we condemn group and glorify another. Hipocracy reigns supreme in this country.

And HMP, you're wrong. Those of us that had family members that were killed and/or brainwashed by the politics of the Jackson administration can vouche for the fact that he was a monster...not someone to be celebrated. Yet the people allow his image to be celebrated on their money with total ignorance to his behavior and the consequences of his actions, at the same time they celebrate the death of an individual who did far less damage to the American way of life.

MM: I don't really see the use of compiling an exhaustive list of the worst people of all time and making sure that I dislike them all in order of their naughtiness. I'm also not in open revolt against "In God We Trust" on all of our money, and if even half the stories about that guy are true, he's a dirtier pigfucker than Andrew Jackson to the power of Bin Laden squared.

CS: So basically what you're saying, is you have no evidence at all. I get ya. I expect to hear every single moment you have to lay your hands on a 20$ bill, you stage a rally. Otherwise, you're the hypocrite. (With correct spelling even)

CS: MM, the use of it is implicating a moral relevancy that makes the prospective audience of people like our lefty friend here appear to be the one on the correct side of the argument. Much like declaring everyone who dislikes our current President's policies as a redneck, Budweiser swilling, KKK cardholding racist.  

AM: I don't use $20 bills. I ask for tens when I'm taking money out of my account. And as for evidence, read a book. Jackson took the most advanced Native American culture, the Cherokee, and raped/pillaged them until they were weak enough to allow themselves to be forced to move onto reservations. He's not a hero. He's a successfull terrorist.

HR: AM, I don't use cash.

AM: But you don't stand up to the celebration of an American atrocity either, do you?

CS: I asked for evidence of my celebration of Andrew Jackson. I have yet to see any. I can only assume at this point you have none, and your argument is a complete failure. 

HR: And I learned about Jackson and the Cherokee when I was still little enough to sit on my dad's knee, years before anything related to it was even semi-seriously addressed in school history classes.

MM: Now I'm kinda stuck on admiring the phrase "to allow themselves to be forced"...

(me): Out of everything you could possibly pull out of history as mass-murderers you pick one from nearly 150 years ago?

AM: Would you feel more comfortable with someone from the last 20 years? 50 years? 75 years? Osama Bin Laden is quite honestly nothing when compared to Mou ze tong, Adolf Hitler, or Idi Amen.

DR: Folks We can argue for days on this subject. The glory of it is that no one can change the History that has happened and so someone will always feel fully justified to say something that they feel strongly about as if it were of vast impor...tance to the now.

Andrew Jackson is not important to the events that were unfolded unto us in the past few hours. He most certainly is not. We can argue over the validity of the Monroe Doctrine and the Historical properness of what came from that all folks wish.

But it too has nothing to do with what happened on May 1, 2011 regarding Osama Bin Ladin. Nothing whatsoever. To say that Jackson and his campaign(s) against the indigenous people is similar to what Bin Laden did to the USA is to say that:

The Chevy S10 is the same thing as a Mining truck.

True, they are both trucks, but all similarities end there. They truly are not reasonably comparable.

And do not hold people today responsible for what was done more than 100 years before today. That too is a violation of Human Rights.

CS: Once again. DR, we don't always agree on stuff, but you good people. Thanks for giving me that.      

AM: Sure. Bin Laden effected a couple thousand people and their relatives. Jackson effected 10 times that. They're not comparable...sure. One only killed, raped, and maimed ten fold of what the other did...but he's not "worse" than the other, historically speaking.

CS: Oh, so, there's a line somewhere that I wasn't aware of. A certain number of people it's okay to kill before you're truly a villain. Thanks for clearing that up.

(me): Its just that off all the things you could've picked you picked one from a century ago - instead of picking one who is affecting events worldwide today. Any of the African leaders whose policies and politics lead to numerous murders daily o...f non-military civilians in their home countries - Sudan, Somalia, the Congo, Ivory Coast - I could go on, places that are known Al-Qaeda strongholds - those are currently important.

To suggest people 'like' Hitler or the others - you sir are clueless. I DARE you to say that to family who lost loved ones on 9/11, families of the military who died in combat defending your right to have access to facebook to argue online.

AM: The arguement that Jackson is, historically speaking, not as significant as Bin Laden is a joke. Bin Laden is only considered a threat due to his existance on a historical timeline. If you were a Native American that lived during Jackson's time, you'd beg the difference.

HR: No one here has said that Jackson isn't *historically* significant.

CS: AM, I charge you, just once, to demonstrate where I stated that Jackson wasn't significant. By all means, show us all where I stated such things, or, as you say, Shut, The, Fuck, Up.

AM: If you, Carrie, think that killing anyone in the middle east has helped you access Facebook or any other media are honestly the uneducated one. I'm sad that you believe that.

AM: CS; "Eff that, the man's a mass murderer. Revenge is eternally patient and infinitely savage."...historically speaking so was Andrew Jackson and quite a few "American Officers" in the Indian Campaigns. So yes, you said that one individ...ual's death was worthy without comprehension of the fact that we celebrate the life of another. I'm sorry for you that you can't understand this reality and that history hasn't taught you well enough to see the downfall of your own government and it's effect on modern people.

CS: Sorry, I didn't mention, let alone celebrate, Andrew Jackson in that post. Try again, try real hard, I'm sure someone with your elite intellect can pull it off.

DR: AM, simply put, your rant is ill timed and utterly inappropriate in light of the circumstances. While you may have some truth on your side, your connecting it to the current events of Bin Laden are both ill-advised and irrelevant.

EG Jac...kson has nothing to do with Bin Laden and vice versa and saying mass killing makes them the same or similar is junk.

Now can we all be respectful of the fact that all your cussing and rudeness is being posted on HMP's wall?


(me): So you're fighting this so hard because you're over 150 years old & are Native American who was alive during that time?

AM: So you don't believe that we should remove AJ from our money in light of the atrocities he's committed against human life? Then why don't you support putting Bin Laden on our bills? They're one in the same.

(me): No they're not. End.

AM: DR, HMP's and old school debater like me. I'm sure she's enjoying this. Sit back in your chair and enjoy the show.

(me): There's a HUGE difference - An American citizen vs a non citizen. Read DR's post.../end

MM: Andrew Jackson also wrecked the national economy with his fanatic opposition to the Bank of the United States, making his place on the $20 doubly ironic. On the other hand, he also championed a transformation in the meaning of democracy an...d made the American political system radically more egalitarian than it had been before. Every historical figure is a mixed bag. If we really want to judge by raw body counts, Winston Churchill was a far more vile mass murderer than both Jackson and Bin Laden, but we tend to evaluate him more by other things he accomplished.

DR: Oh, right... old school debate... let me see here... /reads old school debate manual once again.../ Ah right

So I blame God. The Christian God. For the Bible says that God created all of existence and everything happens according to God's... plan.

Therefor it can not be argued against that the Christian God is responsible for all deaths and suffering that have ever occurred. Since we are searching for who is worse and is ultimately to blame, I win.

AM: A non-citizen? WTF! You're implying that an indigenous people aren't inherently citizens of a governmental system that tries to dominate the continent? Holy shit, your history teacher should be in sales...he'd make FAR more money!

CS: AM, what are you trying to achieve by continuing to bring up Jackson? I really don't understand what's passing for logic in your surreal world. You're the one who brought him up, you're the one who keeps insisting I support him somehow. In "old school debate" I think they call that a strawman argument...

MM:  No fair! I already blamed the Christian God, and his stupid name is on *all* the money!

DR: CS actually it is Red Herring argument that he is pulling.
DR: MM, if it's Standard debate you and I can be a team and thus WE win!

JC: 2 Minute hate, it seems. Sad.

HR: I ♥ MM

AM: killed a couple thousand, one killed 10 time that. One is a celebrated death, one is a celebrated hero. Honestly, if you don't understand why this situation is wrong then I don't have the words to make you comprehend it.

DR: //You're implying that an indigenous people aren't inherently citizens of a governmental system that tries to dominate the continent?//

I'll flat out say they aren't. And they will agree with me. They are soveign nations who by TREATY follow the federal laws of this government. At the time they didn't even do that. So you completely lose that statement.

Point flows to my team.

AM: And killing "for God" is the biggest hipocracy of all.

CS: AM, I once again give you a second chance to defend the charge that I celebrate Andrew Jackson as a hero.

DR: I love how the numbers game is being used to completely make it utterly ridiculous to view human life as anything other than a statistic. Because after all, when you kill more than one person, it's just a numbers game.

AM: DR, the treaties of the government were A. not understood by the native americans. and B. historically broken by the caucasian/american population.

DR: Oh and since it has been declared an old school debate.

SOURCE CITATIONS REQUIRED or the point doesn't flow to your side. In fact you will be heckled and mocked if not flat out ignored.

(me): DR - the citizenship difference I made was involving only two...Jackson was a citizen & President of the US- bin Laden wasn't - relating to the other person's statement about why don't I lobby for putting bin Laden's face on a dollar bill.

CS: DR, ‎As I said before, there seems to be some line in the numbers that makes 3,000 deaths okay.                                 

MM: Um, there's this book that people attribute to this one instance of God, and in the first half he tells his peeps to do lots of killing in his name. Doesn't sound particularly hypocritical to me to do what his said. Pathologically insane and delusional, yes, but not hypocritical.

DR: // DR, the treaties of the government were A. not understood by the native americans. and B. historically broken by the caucasian/american population//

Assumes evidence not previously given. Further it does nothing to answer the previous comment.

2 fails! that deserves what? :-P and a :-P

AM: It's not that it's "okay". But one is condemned but the other is celebrated. And it is disgusting.

(me): I must be reading another post somewhere that shows Jackson being celebrated for his application to current events...lost...goes back to finishing food

DR: AM, when you get around to showing me when Bin Laden completely zeroed out the debt of the country he was the elected leader for, I'll actually try to buy the line that these two people are comparable. Until then. Not gonna happen.

MM: Where is this celebration, that I may be a wet blanket at it. I dutifully made farty noises during the Reagan celebrations a few years ago, but nobody seems to have noticed.

CS: Repeat of previous post. When did I celebrate Andrew Jackson? Oh, that's right, I didn't. You are full and made of fail, please relegate yourself to arguing with simpletons, you might be merely challenged rather than soundly trounced by your own fallacies.

AM: DR, read a book not written by a caucasian. The oral tradition of most Native American cultures/tribes will explain to you that they didn't understand ownership of land, let alone government stipends exchanged for posession of said land.

(me): What tribe are you an enrolled member of - what Native American Language do you read fluently - and I don't mean English?

AM: Do crimes against humanity have any relevance where my genetics come from?

CS: Gotta back up Carrie here, you just seem like you have a grudge to air.

AM: Also, there's only one Native American language you can "read" fluently because there was only one that had a written language.

DR: //DR, read a book not written by a caucasian. The oral tradition of most Native American cultures/tribes will explain to you that they didn't understand ownership of land, let alone government stipends exchanged for posession of said la...nd.//

ad hominem attack, presumes evidence not previously given, doesn't answer statement given, appeals to emotion, red herring.

That's what? FIVE rhetorical fallacies in two short sentences. Impressive to be sure. But all five are in the end FAIL.

:-( :-( :-( :-( :-( And a :-P~~~ for good measure.

AM:And you don't have a "grudge to air" about Bin Laden? One is a modern pop culture enemy and the other is a historical figure.

MM: I think people are hoping that it would at least shed light on why you have such a bug up your ass about Andrew Jackson as opposed to, say, Henry Kissinger, who's an actual still-living American mass murderer.               

DR: ‎//And you don't have a "grudge to air" about Bin Laden?//

Now we have the Straw Man argument! Also a red herring.

:-P :-P

CS: Actually, I don't have a grudge to air about Bin Laden. He's fucking dead, grudge over!

(me): you're the one bringing up Native Americans repeatedly - show me your tribal enrollment card - since you've chosen ONLY to focus on PAST crimes... go on we'll wait for you to scan it in. or as DR suggested earlier provide your documentat...ion showing your proof - you use the terms "Native American" and "Caucasian" automatically assuming everyone here is 100% 'caucasian'...assumption is making you looking like a fool.

AM: He's an example, not an absolution. Good lord the internet is an unforgiving place.
AM: Carrie, seriously..."past crimes"? 100 years ago or 10 years ago, what's the difference?

DR: ‎//I think people are hoping that it would at least shed light on why you have such a bug up your ass about Andrew Jackson as opposed to, say, Henry Kissinger, who's an actual still-living American mass murderer.//

It is a stupid easy drum to beat that no one can ever really fully answer and it gets attention. so why not?

CS: Yes, yes it is, which might be a lesson for you. Open your mouth, like anywhere else in the world, and expect to be heard, for better or ill.       

DR:  ‎// Carrie, seriously..."past crimes"? 100 years ago or 10 years ago, what's the difference?//

Shell gaming argument, moving the mark argument.

Anyone saying 10 years is the same as 100 years really needs to loan me money that I'll pay back in 10 years. I promise!

CS: ‎90 years, simple math.

AM: It's still inhumane behavior. Just because you were a historical witness doesn't make one more significant than the other. You're self-absorbed if you believe so.

CS: To be a little less brutal. We are currently, and still facing a very immediate threat from people exactly like Bin Laden. Or are you claiming that there are still Andrew Jacksons leading Trail of Tears type marches against the Cherokee? Why isn't that on the news?

(me): apparently to you it makes all the difference in the world - you seem to have been alive as a Native American who was affected - directly - by Jackson's policies - or you wouldn't be so damned defensive against them. They don't affect us, and in 150 years ppl will be having similar arguments about bin Laden vs someone else...that's the point. May 1st/2nd 2011 vs 1830 (i'm sorry I was wrong it was 181 years ago).

MM: I'm preparing my ranked historical villain list now so that I may seethe with proper priority, but I've hit a stumbling block with Genghis Khan. How many deaths can I deduct for the cool-ass beard?

AM: If you think you are personally facing a threat from people like Bin Laden you're a paranoid person. I don't walk around thinking anyone from the mid-east is going to "get me".

CS: AM, once again, and I'll use as few polysyllabic (damn, failed already) words as possible. I NEVER ONCE BROUGHT UP ANDREW JACKSON, YOU DID! Ten-thousand hells you're, just thick. I didn't make the comparison of Bin Laden to Jackson, or anyone else in history.

(me): MM I think the answer is 45...but I'm probably wrong.

CS: AM, so a person leading a paramillitary organization who is devoted to the destruction of the United States is not a threat to myself? Interesting take on the topic. Care to explain?

DR: //It's still inhumane behavior. Just because you were a historical witness doesn't make one more significant than the other. You're self-absorbed if you believe so.//

Mehn, I've studied human rights. I'm a human rights proponent. I've stud...ied political violence and terrorism with the 1st and 3rd most published civilian terrorist experts.

At this point you're just trying to hang onto the thread of inhumane. Sure, I'll agree to that. I think most folks here will as well.

Just like saying a Chevy S10 is the same as a one of the HUGE mining trucks.

No they're not. They're both trucks and the similarity ends there.

Just like the similarity you are making about Jackson and Bin Laden ends with inhumane.

AM: Yup. YOu'll still eat McDonalds (Or whatever chain restaurant you're familiar with), go to your job, pay your taxes, and live you life DESPITE what these idiots do. You aren't threatened. If you believe so then you're a sheep.

AM no one thought that 9/11 would but it did.

The ONLY person here who has made comparisons between the two is you. No one has said they supported Jackson's beliefs, laws or otherwise, you put those words in our mouths. That is what lead...s me to believe you have some deep seated uber-lust for ALL Native Americans even those who commit crimes today - rapists, murderers - mass or otherwise. You defend them so staunchly, and put words in our mouths and you have yet to provide the proof we've asked you for.
DR: // If you think you are personally facing a threat from people like Bin Laden you're a paranoid person. I don't walk around thinking anyone from the mid-east is going to "get me".//

Wasn't that what one of the Secretaries in the First Twin towers was telling her friend on the phone when the plane blew her to pieces?
DR: That or what the native americans were saying about Jackson... I get so confused between the two sometimes...
(me): This whole thing is starting to feel like the time I spent a week nailing jello to a tree.
AM: This fight is entirely devoted to positioning the American chess pieces on the world board against our enemy the Chinese. And WWIII will be fought when the last of the oil resources are available.
DR: ‎//This fight is entirely devoted to positioning the American chess pieces on the world board against our enemy the Chinese. And WWIII will be fought when the last of the oil resources are available.//

Zbregniv Brezezinski wrote a book called the Grand Chessboard. I can loan it to you if you can't afford a copy of it. When you get done reading it, you can feel free to delete the above comment.
CS: I won't address a post that moves the goalpost. Try again.
DR: //This fight is entirely devoted to positioning the American chess pieces on the world board against our enemy the Chinese. And WWIII will be fought when the last of the oil resources are available.//

Whoops, almost forgot. Presumes eviden...ce not already given. Appeals to emotions. Plays on prejudices.

That's 3.

8-P~ 8-P~ 8-P~
AM: "If I can afford it"? Haha, please. Take your personal attacks somewhere else.
‎//"If I can afford it"? Haha, please. Take your personal attacks somewhere else.//

This said after how many ad hominem attacks by AM? Oh and calling other hypocrites.

Well I can see we've reached the end of the line when the person hypocrite becomes one...

Cue the end music.
DR: //This whole thing is starting to feel like the time I spent a week nailing jello to a tree.//

If you bake it first, it helps...
AM: Pointing out another's hypocrisy and directly accusing someone of being so poor they can't afford a book are two dfferent things.
MM: The Chinese? You mean, that country with the economy highly interconnected with ours that struggles with domestic terrorism from Muslim separatists? Where did *they* come from?
DR: //Pointing out another's hypocrisy and directly accusing someone of being so poor they can't afford a book are two dfferent things.//

Hey, you're the one who said you just got a job a little while ago. The offer of lending a book isn't a personal attack. Unless you're paranoid or something. You aren't paranoid are you?
DR: //The Chinese? You mean, that country with the economy highly interconnected with ours that struggles with domestic terrorism from Muslim separatists? Where did *they* come from?//

If you ask them, the Heavenly Court.

Otherwise... Africa like the rest of the human race it seems
CS: AM, you misquoted DR that's very intellectually dishonest of you. He suggested that he could loan you the book "if you couldn't afford it." I see nothing insulting about that in the traditional western sense. Had you been Japanese, o...r Chinese, especially, I would very much understand your taking offense, and being somewhat educated on their respective cultures and etiquette would recommend DR rephrase his suggestion.

Since that's obviously not the case, I think your response is out of proportion.
AM: Dude, seriously, you're trying way too hard to be "right".
DR: //AM Dude, seriously, you're trying way too hard to be "right".//

Psychologists call this mirroring.
CS: Dude, seriously, I'm not trying.

DR - but I can't bake this...oh ok TECHNICALLY I could but, it would be against a lot of my beliefs to try to bake someone against their will.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

If You Don't Have Anything NiceTo Say....

Original post was pointing to this article: Tea Party To Blame for Shootings

And a bunch of my responses to this article and others in a lump:

So let me get this straight - this guy is now blaming all tea party people for all violent acts ever in the history of the world, and that all of those acts are committed by people with mental illness AND that their mental illness was caused by the Tea Party being in existence? Basically that's his intent by this statement: "It shows a point of view which relates the hyperbole of the tea party people to the actions of a disturbed mentality."

The general consensus I read is that most people on all sides of the issue think the over-the-top rhetoric needs to be toned down, ie don't go posting online, or in video statements that your congress-person is dead to you, that you wish x politician were dead, etc' - yet somehow there still remains a fringe section of people who for whatever reason feel the need to not only continue the same thing they're calling for an end of, yet they keep taking the wording to the next level - when most of us are probably thinking the worst they could say had already been said, and yet it hasn't. I've read postings from 'friends' on this site (who are no longer on my list of friends for obvious reasons) that and i quote "All tea partiers should either shut up or shoot themselves in the head, and do us all the favor of not having to waste the effort to take them out ourselves." Yep somehow its ok for one side to recommend suicide so they don't have to kill people - but its not ok for the other side to use common language that's been in use for decades if not centuries politically.

Again all I see is a severe case of a couple of tired old cliches but unfortunately for the democrats that's what fits the best in this situation. "Pot calling kettle black"...again the Dems scream and rant & rave about the Tea Party's behavior rhetoric wise and then do the exact same action themselves, and somehow that's ok. And the other is "Can't have it both ways." The dems don't want to admit they were just as bad with the anti-government rhetoric when Bush was in office, the hate mail, the despicable postings about people wanting him dead, etc, yet when conservatives started stating, politely in the media, that 'look at what the dems are doing' notice was taken, and the rhetoric continued. Yet now that its their side that was being talked about in a negative light (targeted, aimed at, what have you), its not ok for tea partiers, conservaties, libertarians etc to say jack squat about their precious government, etc. They want to be able to scream bloody murder - as some former 'friends' have done and not be held accountable for their own actions, but don't want to give the other side the same rights.

They want that free speech right that the Constitution gives everyone - but only so far as it pleases them. Which is rather hilarious given they usually don't support the document at all. Free speech - but only for us, not for everyone - and therefore they really are like some had posted yesterday that 'for the sake of all involved, the teaparty should shut up and take it, meaning shut up & take the libel, slander & negligent use of language being thrown around by the liberals. Because to me that's their usual answer to everything. Start a fight, but dont' finish it because singing songs, holding hands and smoking dope are the answers to all the world's problems. The libs want us to take the beating, lie down, hold hands with them and sing songs - rather than face up to the fact they're the ones perpetuating the anti-gov't sentiment with their attitudes, ignorance, hatred, and threats of violence.

I'm not a tea-partier by moniker because I don't agree with everything the tea party stands for, but I can say I won't lay down, hold hands & sing songs to make things better. I wasn't at fault, I didn't pull the trigger, I'm not the cause of Jared Loughner's mental illness, and neither is anyone else in this country (except maybe his parents for not getting him treated at a young age?) so none of us should lay down, suck it up and ignore the libel being thrown around, we're not responsible. Only 1 person is and that's the mentally ill man who pulled the trigger.

I've seen the following threat's come across my news feed - by liberals - over this entire stupid situation. Yes its stupid now. Loughner was targeting Giffords in 2007 - before the teaparty existed before Beck was a main figure he is today...this has been brewing, this was brewing when Bush was still in office when Dems were big on anti-govt rhetoric in their own way. How many times I read/saw videos etc of people suggesting that someone should 'off' President Bush and make the world happier.

I agree the rhetoric needs to be toned down - but NOT just by one side. If it is not alright for republicans (tea partiers) to use anti-gov't rhetoric, then its not ok for the democrats (liberals) to use it either. I see a lot of FREE SPEECH IS OK - but not for everyone. Sorry but the Constitution gives ALL citizens the right to free speech. Not just those who say its ok for themselves to have that right. EVERYONE. Which isn't to say that the rhetoric is allowed under free speech - which actually it is and always has been. Why is it suddenly problematic? I don't know. All I know is that you read it in most every blog, article, etc, everyone seems to state they want this strife over-with, yet no one is really willing to back down, neither side has the ability to be the better person in this case because so many words have been flung in anger withouth thought for the consequences - and yes I do mean on both sides of the issue.
The articles I posted yesterday where people want the tea-partiers to back down and SHUT UP already - are a point to this. I'm sick of it too. Yet when people post hateful mail to my inbox, or post statements in general posts on their statuses and to think I'm "friends" with these people who want me to kill myself because I'm a conservative leaning independent (which they read teapartier - which I'm not but that's another story)...and that somehow they think I should die because I'm ultimately as responsible for pulling the trigger as Loughner is - is absolutely deplorable and really makes me question my friendship with that person.

I think a lot of this not wanting to back down, suck it up and say you're sorry - comes from the lower level of contrition being taught to youth over the last few generations (however many you view is up to you here). I see a lot of people typing out responses right away and hitting send then regretting it later (twitter, facebook, blogs etc) its all opinion...One person's opinion doesn't equal the masses. One person's actions don't equal everyone's actions.

Old adages come into play here 
"Think before you speak." 
"Don't write a letter or make a phone call when you're angry with someone, you may regret what you say later." 
"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." 
"The toes you step on today, may belong to the ass you have to kiss tomorow." 
"If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all." 
So many of these and others fit this situation. (general statement - not attributed to anyone, basically this is the thought process i see happening) 'It was ok for some people to belittle the Bush administration, call Bush names, fling words of hatred at the Bush administration, but now that its my side & my philosophy that are under attack its wrong and I'm not going to tolerate it'
The thought process in turn leads to thousands of people with their own blog - giving their opinions on the situation - and none of them are thinking first. (again this is both sides of the issue).

HAD Jared Lee Loughner taken aim at a group of average people - the 9yr old girl and the 3 senior citizens who were also killed (exclude the high value figures of judge & congressperson) - this discussion wouldn't even be happening. It would've barely made a blurb on the blotter for the paper in the area. "Another sad multiple shooting in Tuscon, where a young girl and 3 seniors were shot dead outside a grocery store, the suspect is under arrest. Back to you Tom." And that's how the news cast would've gone. Instead within minutes of the shooting everyone with a blog (which is pretty much anyone these days because of our connectivity) had an opinion on what really caused the kid to shoot those people.

It used to be the media had one job. Report the news, that is the facts - and that was it. Now the media = everyone online, news outlets, bloggers, and anyone with internet access and opinion. Yet the news outlets don't just report news - facts - what they know - they speculate, they assume things that later we discover aren't true and here we all are screaming obscenities, finding out we really don't know some friends as well as we thought we did etc...Maybe the NEWS should cover the NEWS - facts only - and let the bloggers and the rest of us have our own little opinions to ourselves, how many of us in this day & age of connectivity, twitter, facebook, blogs etc. Really & truly follow the old saying "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." Not many of us - most of the population with an internet connection in some form don't follow it at all. We voice very opinion we have of everything around us whether we know we'll regret saying it later or not. Politeness has gone out the window, which is sad.

I'm as guilty as the next person - I admit it, and I'm going to try to get better at it. I know I write several versions of what I'm going to say in response to a blog or article post before actually responding - simply because I know my anger at the moment of reading something is going to be worse than if I actually think over my response. That's part of being an adult. Think things through before you act, know that you alone are responsible for your words and your actions (even if this entire situation really says otherwise because most of it is heat of the moment argumentative angst).

Just because you have something to say - doesn't mean you should say it, or post it online, sometimes yes being the bigger person, being the better adult means keeping your mouth shut no matter how much you want to say what's on your mind. And for pete's sake - if you're having thoughts that shouldn't be read by the entire planet, don't post them on a public forum.

That is all.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

In response to "What should Obama be impeached for?" on Facebook

Here is my full reply to a question in one of the groups I am a member of on facebook. Here is the link to the day's discussion question:
What Should Obama Be Impeached For? Discussion on FB

And here is my full response (includes notes for/based on other replies in the comments section)
This is going to get long so be warned ahead of time - I am a libertarian, not a liberal or a conservative, who refuses to reply because they know they have no legs to stand on and their arguments have no backing - mine do...and that's why this is long.

- Mark - You are likely blocked by complainer that's why you can't see his posts.

-In response to the complainer's posts about race - he has posted hate speech - go ahead and flag all of his posts. Be warned he may do the same to yours. Keep your posts clean, intelligent, non-insulting, etc and he hasn't a leg to stand on if he does report you and facebook won't take any action against you.

Regarding the original posting. I can think of several reasons...the latests being the Coast Guard's announcement of fines/felony charges for photographing w/in 65' of anything relating to the gulf oil spill.

You can't tell me that it was ONLY their (Coast Guard's) decision. As we were so recently reminded by the firing of Gen McChrystal the POTUS is the commander in chief for all military branches - that includes the Coast Guard and you know that Adm Thad Allen who is in charge of the Coast Guard's response to the gulf oil spill, is in close contact with both POTUS and Sec of Defense Robert Gates. So there's a very high (yet unproven thus far) likelihood that POTUS/SecDef approved this new decision- to make taking any photographs within 65' of any oil spill related items, birds, booms, equipment etc, a class D felony with a $40,000 fine, this includes if the booms are sitting in the water, and of oil soaked animals already rescued but not yet cleaned.

This includes any instance of photography w/in 65' of anything oil spill related, even if no safety issue is at hand if you're caught you'll be arrested. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said in a briefing that the reasoning for the charges are simply for safety. I'm sorry but, the $40,000 fine is a violation of the Constitution in two ways; #1- It impedes upon freedom of speech and freedom of the press - (technically that's 2 ways right there but I'm being nice) & #2 - Amendment #7 states - 'nor excessive fines imposed' - I'm sorry but isn't $40,000 a bit much for taking a photograph that is already a guaranteed freedom granted by Amendment #1?

CG Violates 1st Amendment prohibiting photography of oil spill - this is a link to a blog - with a video from Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN (not fox news this is a CNN video - so no accusing me of only posting 'conservative voices'.)
This is a violation of the 1st Amendment - Right to Free Speech. Its not the first right this administration has tried to squash. 

Trespassing on our freedoms would be biggest in my book. Using the Constituion of the United States as toilet paper basically because he doesn't like this country. He has refused to put his hand over his heart for the playing of the national anthem, he refused to wear the little flag pin for many months during the campaign until he HAD to do it to get the votes he needed from people who were concerned he wasn't wearing the flag pin. Suddenly he was wearing it and got votes from people who wouldn't have voted for him if he had still not been wearing the pin. He is not a patriot and he does not support this country. He's done everything in his power to stomp on our liberties and freedoms.

To those who may decide to disagree with my post - go ahead - just back it up - calling me a cracker only proves you're on the side of the people who scream that EVERYTHING is racist. How is it only racist in one direction. Voter intimidation - because white people were intimidated by blacks - its not racist - not against blacks (at least this is the liberal mindset its only racist if they want it to be). If whites had done the same then to the liberals it would be racist. But because people are proud to be "crackers" we're suddenly racist.
Your logic isn't.
Pure & simple.
You are the kings of double standards - pardon an old saying but what's good for the goose is good for the gander or did you forget you live in a country with a set of laws that say "all men are created equal" ALL- not just the ones you want to support. You can't support the Constitution only in the ways it supports your ideals if those ideals are not in line with the words written therein.

Its only racist if you make it out to be. I'm Native American I could complain that everything's racist against natives but I don't - I choose NOT to be offended. Are you Choosing to be Offended? read that if you're easily offended (ie everyone who screams 'everything's racist'...) pardon me while I don't hold a pity party for you.

Another reason: Failure to enforce Federal law but choosing to SUE a state because the federal government won't do the job its supposed to do - enforce immigration laws that are on the books. When Odumbo took office he pledged an oath that read: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." - "To PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND" the Constitution of the United States. He has done exactly the opposite. He should be removed from office for those reasons.

As provided by the US Constitution: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. - How many crimes has he committed, I'll admit Biden's about as bright as a burnt donut but right now he's less of a problem than Odumbo and Screecher Purelazy "All Civil Officers of the US" that means Pelosi & Odumbo could both be removed if it is proven they have committed a crime. "High crimes or misdemeanors" could be everything from bribery, treason as Denyse stated: "He has two counts against him for treason with the Logan Act and negotiated with foreign governments while Senator without the approval of the Government and for his own agenda.", he has also chosen to ask the head of NASA to be a diplomat w/o having diplomatic powers or immunity. He's backed down from doing anything in a lot of incidents - the gulf just being another one.

As for the immigration issue: Article IV - Section 4 of the Constitution reads: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion..."

Yet no one in the Federal Government has kept the states (border states especially) from being invaded by the thousands - Illegal immigrants are invaders - they do not belong here legally and as such it could be held over Obama's head if we had the right people in the right places - by failing to protect states from invastion by foreign entities he has failed to 'preserve, protect & defend' states are being invaded - which they're guaranteed not to be by the Constitution. Yet he's done nothing, except sue AZ.

As for gov't entitlements - the liberals try to use the logic 'but the Constitution guarantees us the right to be happy and in order to be happy we need to be paid by the government for not working, because work is hard and we dont' want to work. We want the gov't to give us free money and not have to pay taxes etc...' I've heard worse descriptions of those with different views who want more than that from the gov't - healthcare shouldn't be gov't controlled but this is MY opinion (and a lot of others as well) its just that an opinion. But they would be wrong. The Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness. The Declaration of Independence grants us the right to life, liberty (our liberties guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Federal, state & local laws) and the PURSUIT of happiness.

We have the right to TRY to be happy. That doesn't guarantee that we will be happy, simply that we have the right to pursue happiness, to work and make a wage, to turn that wage into food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and lastly fun, entertainment. No one can make anyone else happy. You can choose to be happy even if your conditions are miserable, or you can choose to be miserable even if you have everything you could ever be for want of - it really is up to the people whether or not they find the happiness they persue. Its not up to the government to give you all these extra benefits simply because you're not happy in your current situation.

Get up, get out, go make changes, make a difference, change your situation, TRY, pursue happiness but don't expect it to be handed to you.

Going back to the Arizona immigration law & Obama's lack of enforecement of immigration law, recommending that the law not be enforced by claiming it is racist. Its not racist if its the truth - if you break a law you're guilty of a crime - from animal abuse to shoplifting to murder, why are illegal immigrants who are guilty of breaking a law that says they need to come into the country legally and with valid documentation suddenly not guilty of breaking that law because somehow the enforcement of a law that applies evenly across the board - no matter the country you come from if you're here illegally you can be arrested & deported back to where you originated - how is that racist?

I don't get it. I really don't.

Anyway in the Declaration of Independence there are a series of statements that were applied to the King of Great Britain who the Founding Fathers were trying to get out from under. It is frightening to me that at least one of these statements applies to our current POTUS - at least one - if not multiple statements.

Obama wishes to be a tyrant, the supreme leader, some have called him "the One", or the 'messiah'. He's neither, he's also not a King, though he's acting more and more like a monarch, like the ones that the founders of this great nation fought so hard to get out from under.

The statement against King George that most accurately describes Obama right now is: He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has chosen to sue the state of Arizona for passing a law of immediate importance - blocking the flow of illegals into their state, giving jobs back to the residents who are here legally - under law and are citizens of the United States - to stop the state from paying out mountains of money for people who have no legal protection under the Constitution (as it was written). Because there is a federal set of regulations (laws) that prohibit people from entering the country illegally - and Obama has stated he doesn't want immigration laws enforced. He wants to give free money to illegals, but not support the residents of this country who are here legally - he wants to grant Constitutional protection to anyone already w/in our borders - whether they're citizens or not. He is no different than King George III.

Other statements in the Declaration of Independence which fit not just King George III but also Obama:

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws of Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance. (how many new Czars has this man created - new offices, new officers - not saying the whole thing applies but the first part certainly does)

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended legislation. (Healthcare - gov't doesn't have the power to do this)

For imposing taxes on us without our Consent. (We elected him, he's enacted a stimulus and seemingly unending spending none of which any of us approved - and we've told our elected officials we don't support digging us deeper in debt that we need to be because he simply likes to spend money and make us dependent on foreign countries to get us out of debt.

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: (again taking away laws/altering gov't by adding czars to do jobs that already existed there's a lot of ways this can apply)

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. (he's done nothing to fix the Gulf, he's refused help from foreign countries that have more vessels and other equipment that we could use to help. By doing nothing he's plundered the seas, ravaged the coastal areas of the gulf, and in doing so destroyed the lives of the people who live there. 3 months later almost and we're still no closer to a solution or even a semi-decent attempted solution - ie skimming most of the oil off the water if we had more help...People are out of work in record numbers, thereby having no income and many don't qualify for unemployment because there is no work and people have been out of their jobs long enough that they've run out of benefits for the short term. The economy's tanked and he's still spending - more lives destroyed, families ripped apart, etc.)

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People.

He made promises he knew he couldn't keep during the election campaigning, people have questioned him, petitioned the government about the rampant spending, the gulf dilemma (he goes golfing to solve that), the healthcare thing - he and most of Congress ignored the will of the people to get healthcare approved. People have spoken that they are against the governmental regulation of healthcare etc and yet he goes on to appoint yet more new offices new czars to further control our life and limit our liberties.

So pick which reason you think is easiest to prosecute and push your legislators to push the government to impeach the man and actually remove him from office. We all know the VP has no real power. Give Biden the job of being president, screecher becomes VP and we get someone new as speaker of the house.

To the those with differing opinions, if you think we're wrong, you think I am wrong in what I've written - please open a discussion with me, do not sling slurs, hate speech, racial epithets, slang language you think is funny, do not make this a joke, it isn't. I have done my best to be clear, concise in my explanations - of each point I made, and I've tried very hard to cleanse this post of any names that could be construed as offensive, hateful, racist etc so at this point the only ones who will find this offensive will be those who choose to do so.

The only names I have changed are those of POTUS and Speaker of the House. I'm sorry they may be president and speaker but I refuse to call them by names they are not worthy of. I am not military so he is not my Commander in Chief so I am free to speak of him as I wish -  I have not directly threatened him, his post, that of the Vice President or Speaker of the House - and per the Constitution of the United States of which I am a legal, natural born citizen I am entitled to say whatever I my opinions may be.

You if you are a citizen, natural born, legal citizen of this country then you too are entitled to speak your mind as well. The question is - can you do the same, give your opinion, without name calling, without threats, and without running and hiding behind the namecalling and threats - or are you that afraid that you really don't have any standing for your points? Provide proof, documentation, explain your points - actually participate in a discussion for once. Can you do it?

A note on being racist. That word works in many ways. It doesn't JUST apply to describe white people who dislike blacks. The word means:
  1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
  2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
That applies to blacks who target whites, whites who target blacks, any race that targets another race. It doesn't simply apply only when you want it to - as the NAACP & Michelle Obama seem to think it does.

As a final note you will notice that nowhere in this document did I mention the big issue of gun ownership - because it doesn't apply to this discussion - so unless you can do it in a really good way that's not insulting, not hateful, don't bring it up in your response.

All I ask is if you want a discussion - be civil about it. And please please check your spelling. Firefox lets you auto-check spelling now. This is America - my guess is that you have an education of some form - please learn to spell. Yes typos do happen but when simple words are repeatedly misspelled it goes a long way to prove you don't care about what you're saying or how you're being perceived.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Thoughts on the spill

Ideas/talking points.
1. If there have been 18 countries that have offered help to fix the leak in the Gulf, and the US Gov't/BP have only accepted two of these offers - why is it not being released what countries we've accepted help from (Canada & Mexico now we know who) but we don't know WHAT. What have these countries offered and what help are they giving. We know htat there are three countries that have submersible devices (robots?) that can do work at the depth & pressure that is involved in the Gulf oil leak. There was news that these three countries have offered their technology to the US/BP and to let their submersibles be used in this situation. Why have we not accepted their offers, and since we haven't accepted these offers, release some article that explains what the submersible tech could do and why would or wouldn't help in the situation in question.

2. I may not like Obama - but he made a LOT of good points during the presser.
-We cannot transition to clean technology overnight - we have been working on greening the environment and our tech for years - it isn't going to happen any faster just because this situation occurred, and in as much we're still going to need oil - and it makes more sense to use our own domestic production than import from other countries at a higher price.
-He was asked about 'can we belive anything BP says based on the fact their initial estimates of how much oil were leaking per day being as far off as they are?' His response was a round about of who is in charge and BP is responsible for fixing the leak, then paying for response/cleanup; and then he went back and said the US is in charge of management of the land that the oil lease is on etc. It was a round & round of blame but at the same time. BP made ESTIMATES. An estimate is often times a best guess. A guess. It was an estimate not an 'accurate count' of how much oil was being released in the first place. Yes BP is responsible but this is the FIRST time anyone has dealt with any time before now. No one's positive anything will work and quite frankly this country was founded on 'well what happens if I try this...' and holy crap it works in a lot of cases, in some cases like now it doesn't. Trial and error. Yes things will happen in nature - the pressure at the depth of 1 mile below sea level is far greater than most anything that we really have dealt with in fixing leaking anything at any pressure.
-Why wasn't the top kill done sooner - because if they hadn't worked up gradually to the pressure they're working at now there was the major potential for something else to rupture and cause BIGGER leaks and MORE problems. Its simple - in this case they were being smart and taking things slowly.

-I certainly think that future oil wells and current oil wells already in operation need to rethink their prevention protections. We know now that when a rig explodes like Deepwater Horizon did, that the blow-out protectors and other safety precautions do not work at the depths and pressures at which many if not all of these deep water oil rigs are based and working. Many options need to be researched and tested (if possible) in conditions matching or close to matching those of the situation at hand so that in the future if something like a rig such as Deepwater Horizon explodes or has a catastrophic failure of another type - that we're not trying to figure out what to do again. We know now what works and what doesn't. And researching better, stronger, more effective safety and leak prevention will put more people in the US back to work - even if its having more people making the oil spill booms that the news has said we're lacking enough of around the world.

I'm sure I have more thoughts but I have something else to do and can't sit here thinking of them all day. :) Another post later perhaps.