Tuesday, November 30, 2010

You know, the only reason I would think that Stormbringer is lying in his most recent post...

     ...Is because I don't think he's that old. I am familiar with vinyl records and can tell the difference between a 45 and a 33 by sight. (I've never seen a 78 or a 12.) I expect the reason he doesn't give an example of issues with 8-tracks is because he doesn't know what those issues are. They could only be played sequentially, although you could change track. If you missed the song you wanted to hear, you had to wait for it to come back around. There was no rewind. And fast-forward was only a feature of the recorders.
     Ooh, I also like how he gets the drawback of CDs wrong. The CD audio format has not changed. It always had higher fidelity than the vinyl records or cassette tapes. But the typical consumer couldn't record his own CDs. (CD-Rs were a ways off yet.) Let's face it. The typical commercial CD has one or two songs that you want to listen to and a lot of songs that you don't. When you bought a single, you only got one song that you didn't necessarily want. That was the flip side. (Okay, trivia question, what was the flip side to "In the Year 2525"? Come on, Stormbringer, if you are as you say you are, you should know this. Now, admittedly, there are many songs that I could not name the flip side to. But that one stands out. And it was released with only the one flip side. I would not, for example, expect anyone to remember that "At the Movies" was the flipside to "Popcorn.")
     I am somewhat resistant to new technology. For example, I still prefer a good command line interface to a graphical user interface. (Don't worry, Stormbringer. I don't expect you to know what a command line interface is.) I think this is probably due to the fact that I like to have control. New technologies are normally set up so that you can only do exactly what the big-business makers want you to do.

UPDATE: Hmm... According to Wiki that other speed was 16 rather than 12. I remember the player setting reading 12. Oh, well, I never used that setting (or even that player very often) I could be remembering the number wrong.

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Here's some food for thought.

     I want you to imagine, for a bit, that you are an early christian writer and you are one of the elite that knows that christianity is all a big scam. So, you know that when people ask to see the miracles that confirm that you are speaking on behalf of a true deity, none will be forthcoming. Even worse, the true creator of the universe might send a prophet like Elijah is supposed to have been to expose that your fake deity is powerless and may back that prophet up with miracles. What do you do?
     Well, the first part is fairly simple. You just tell people that no signs will be coming to the wicked who seek them. Sure, this is contrary to existing belief, in which the deity frequently uses miracles to draw people to him. But you can say that it is a "new covenant." The second part is a little more difficult. You don't want people leaving your little deception to follow the real deal. What to do? And then it hits you. You tell your marks that there is an imposter who performs lying signs and wonder in an effort to deceive even the saved. If they believe that, they will become so trapped in a prison of their own minds that they will never see their way out.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Here's a good quote

     The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities. Originally said by Lord Acton. (He was christian, by the way) Sources for the quote are here and here.

     Now, some people are advocating treating muslims as second class citizens. Some suggest that muslims and only muslims should be subject to very invasive "security checks" at airports. Some are opposed to allowing them to build any structure which might get used in part as a mosque too close to ground zero (i.e. anywhere in the country.) I've heard the excuses. They are, no doubt, very persuasive to those who want to treat muslims like second class citizens.
     But, if we allow oppression, anyone could be next. And that is what that is about. Muslims make for a good target for oppression in this country because there are few of them here and because it is easy to find nutcase leaders abroad. But, right now, I think it is time to speak up.

A comic I think my readers will like.

     I am only going to provide a link, mostly because the alt-text is funny. Now, as someone who apparently overobsesses about the sort of thing knows, I use IE when I browse the internet on a Windows machine. (On Linux, I use Mozilla -- No, I did not say Firefox; I have no interest in needless upgrades.) At some point, I may even examine the source code for Mozilla.

Ah, Stormbringer...

     He has altered his profile to make excuses for himself. It's not really surprising. But it is funny. The fact is that when reason and thought enter the fray, he hides under the bed (figuratively speaking, of course.) He already turns around and calls anything that he doesn't want to answer because it's too inconvenient for him "whining."
     On Ray Comfort's blog, the other day, I don't remember in which thread it was anymore, he was accusing someone of pretending to have god-like knowledge about people's motives and also made various slanders libels about people, including myself. I pointed out that the person in question didn't need god-like knowledge about motive as he had, in fact, provided a comprehensive list of possibilities. I also asked him by what oracle he claimed to have knowledge of people's personal lived. He really needs to throw that oracle away as it is catastrophically wrong.

UPDATE: So far, the only reason that anyone would think that s_lightning is a sock puppet of yours is because you brought it up, Stormbringer. A guilty conscience, perhaps?

Thursday, November 25, 2010

"Please substantiate this assertion"

Garbonzo Beans:

     "If Dimensio is being dishonest in his tact, take it up with him, it is not between you and [me.]"
     I have. I find that it is about as useful as trying to get Sye to be honest. However, your comment that you love the way he gets under people's skin constitutes an endorsement. I can certainly take that endorsement up with you.
     "The content of his requests both cohere, and remain untreated."
     I remember reading posts by christians that attempted to be substiantiations, not that I necessarily agreed with them. And rather than a description of what was wrong with the substantiation, the response that came back was... you guessed it, "please substantiate this assertion."
     "Any frustration that might stem from such circumstance, is a product of an insistently dishonest approach to a reasonable request, and not from the repetition of said request."
     Have you attempted the exercise I suggested yet? You don't even need to wait for Ray's comment moderation. Just imagine that you got "please substantiate this assertion" as the response to your statement (which as a one-shot could be passed off as reasonable) and then got the same line back for every attempt to support it. Let me know how many rounds it takes before you start thinking it's not reasonable. You can stop at one million. If you make one million attempts to support the statement and support the supports of the statement and so on and still accept someone giving nothing more than "please substantiate this assertion" to your one millionth attempt as reasonable rather than a frustration tactic, I will accept that you consider it reasonable ad infinitum. Oh, and if you do that, I'd be interested in seeing those one million attempts. You can post them to my blog.

     I consider the endless repetition of "please substantiate this assertion" to be a dishonest tactic. Now, the first several times I saw Dimensio use it, I thought it was a sincere request for supporting information. But it started getting monotonous. And later I noticed that he would just use the same response when people would try to give what they considered to be supporting information. I determined that he was just being a broken record and called him on it. Not too surprisingly, he just pulled "please substantiate this assertion" repeatedly with me. Now, Garbonzo Beans is endorsing the tactic as reasonable. I would like him to see it the way I see it. When I examine tactics, I try not to rely on whether I actually support the position they are being used to favor. I first look at whether they can be used in favor of the opposing position. If the same tactic can be used to support opposing positions, then either both positions are reasonable (in which case the issue cannot be resolved on then existing evidence) or, more likely, the tactic is unreasonable.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Note to Stormbringer

     If your desire is to draw attention to the fact that there is persecution in the world, I would suggest that you not focus on christians exclusively as the targets. Oh, there's persecution here in the US. But it's persecution by christians, not persecution of christians. For example, some people think that it is acceptable for a "good christian" to take a homosexual, bind his hands and feet, tie him to the back of a pickup truck, and drive around town. If you want to speak out against persecution in general, you will find that I agree that it should be stopped. On the other hand, if you want to play the "christians are victims" card, you will find me quite unimpressed.

What it means to win a debate

     A person wins a debate before an audience if he persuades audience members who did not agree with him beforehand that his position is correct to a degree that his opponent fails to meet. A person wins a debate absent an audience if he persuades his opponent that his position is correct. Please note that it is possible for a skilled debater to win a debate even when the position he holds is completely incorrect.
     Gary, on Dan's blog, claims that he always wins debates againsts but they don't admit it. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say he hasn't been persuading audiences. This leaves him claiming that he wins by convincing his opponent without actually convincing his opponent. Yeah, it doesn't make any sense to me either.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Dan has actually written a post I agree with.

     The post is here. This is something that would be far too easy for government to abuse. Now, officially, the proposed law would be to combat piracy. In actual practice, authorities are likely to blacklist sites because they produce unpopular writings like, for example, my blog.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Hate mail and insults

     There is one fellow talking about the "hate mail" he says he receives. (I have seen no evidence of this. But he does seem to think that anyone who doesn't fall at his feet in worship is guilty of "hate." So, it's difficult to tell if he believes what he says.) He has copied a link to a "pick your insult" page. Quite frankly, I don't need it. I don't rely on insults. I am, for example, not the one who said, "forged in the feeble minds corrupted by methamphetamine and the fungus on the walls of Mommie's basement." I criticize actual actions. I don't invent things that I could not possibly know if they were true. (I do sometimes reflect accusations back onto my deceptive accusers. It is often true that such accusations are not wholly invented, but are instead true of the original accuser. And if they are not true of the accuser, then the original accuser should stop making them.)
     Of course, I enjoy rational discussion. But the fact is that some people are only good for other sorts of entertainment. And I can get a decent amount of enjoyment watching and commenting on the hypocrisy and stupidity of other posters. So, that guy can keep his insult list. I am quite sure that he will make extensive use of it. But the only use I would have is to see if his taunts matched up.

The biblical claim of Judas the betrayer

     The claim in the bible of Judas as a betrayer just does not fit the way that christians would have people believe. Now, personally, I think that the story is fictional outright. However, for the sake of discussion, let us assume that the events happened more or less as described.
     Christians like to say that it is proper to condemn Judas because "he betrayed Jesus simply because he wanted the money." Did he? Then why would he cast the money down in the temple and leave without it? These are not the actions of a man motivated by greed. It just doesn't work. We need a more plausible explanation for the betrayal.
     One meaningful possibility is that Judas voluntarily played a role to allow Jesus to obtain a greater victory. In such a case, Judas did not keep the money because his part in the play was finished. That would leave some of the surrounding claims to be embellishments. But this would make Judas really a hero for the christian religion. He sacrificed himself and his image to serve a greater cause. Needless to say, christians don't like to think about things that way.
     Another possibility is that his free will was suspended and the biblical god forced him to play the "villain." In this case, the discarding of the money would simply be what happened when he was once again in control of his own actions. For that, Judas did not betray at all. His body was used as a puppet in order to play the role of "betrayer." But it is inappropriate to condemn someone for actions that were completely beyond his control.
     No matter how you look at it, there is no cause to condemn Judas. That he is condemned by people whose belief that they have acquired salvation is entirely dependent on him is truly sickening.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

More Presuppositional Baloney

     There is a fellow on Dan's blog who is claiming that loaded questions are reasonable (at least, as long as they are used to advance christianity.)
     "Indeed, of course its loaded. So?
     "Let the atheist answer it without [expletive] himself."
     Of course, the "standard" (int the sense that apparently just about everybody is familiar with it) loaded question is "Do you still beat your wife?" asked of a defendant who has, in fact, never beaten his wife; but is spuriously charged. Answering it straight is effectively to confess to a crime one did not commit.
     This is how I see evangelism in general. These people are fully aware that they have no evidence to support their religion. But they want to win converts (for whatever reason.) So they resort to playing word games. They construst verbal traps of varying degrees of subtlety. Or, more accurately (since I see the same traps over and over) someone, somewhere has contructed the traps and the rank-and-file evangelicals just repeat them to unsuspecting victims.

Friday, November 19, 2010

Some christians say that christians are singled out for persecution because of Jesus.

     I don't see it. Of course, this post reveals my thoughts on what I think passes for persecuting christians here in the US.
     Now, I'm sure that evangelicals would point out that christians really are being persecutied in China and Iran. And that's true. But they aren't singled out. Any non-muslim group is persecuted in Iran. And China persecutes any group thought to be a threat to the ruling party. The people slaughtered at Tiananmen Sqare weren't christians.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Just a little mild humor from him this time

     Yes, I am refering again to Stormbringer. Like the line in the cartoons "I like him, he silly." It's been a while; so I don't remember which cartoon. I think it was from Warner Brothers, though.
     "Have you ever hated anyone? I'll admit to it, but it's rare."
     Rare? Well, I'm not a mind-reader; but his actions are certainly consistent with wholesale hate. We are talking about inventing derogatory names, falsely attributing actions and telling people only to listen to his representation of targets. I do not ordinarily associate such activities with love. And he'll do that with anyone who disagrees with him. (Well, on the various blogs at any rate. I haven't seen him in his personal life. And, out of concern for my safety, I don't care to.)
     "It's a fascinating psychological study to watch the other person doing their hate thing."
     How would he know? I don't think he has that capacity to look objectively at his own actions.
     "Eventually, you feel like you know their thoughts and motives; wow, you understand the very soul of the object of your hate."
     Gee, I thought he said this was rare on his part. I've seen him claim to know the thoughts and motives of quite a few people. Strange that, according to him, they're all "filled with hate."

Stay funny, Stormbringer.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Dos "Satan" have free will?

     I've probably posted about this before. But christians have never really answered this. Accordintg to christian beliefs, does "Satan" have free will? This is especially significant in light of the predictions of Revelation. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that "Satan" exists, he is certainly aware of the predictions. Given his supposed hatred of the nameless god, he could simply refuse to play the role set for him. Alternately, christians might believe that "Satan" is no more than a puppet who cannot help but play the role. But, in that case, it is really the biblical god who "leads people astray."
     Now, it has been nearly two thousand years. Some people will, no doubt, say that means there was no supernatural force behind the bible. I cannot rule that out. However, it would appear that, if a supernatural entity inpired the bible, the fellow tagged as "Satan" has, indeed, refused to play his role. And, quite frankly, I don't blame him.

Monday, November 15, 2010

About dubious "awards"

     There are people who go around bestowing dubious "awards" to people they don't like. For example: Ray Comfort is called the "bananaman." Presumably the purpose of such awards is to poison the well so that others don't listen to what the target has to say. Leaving aside, for the moment, my general principle that those who would silence opposition have no confidence in their beliefs, such activity is really an admission of a kind of inferiority. There would be no purpose to making the claim of Ray if he were not influencing people. The mere fact that they take the trouble means that he is on the public radar and having an effect. Now, I think that Ray's effect is harmful. And I will say, to whoever will hear, why I believe he is harmful. But I will not invent some "award" for him, even to sound atrocious, for a simple reason. I don't think he's better than me. He is more effective at getting his message across. That probably has to do with having more money than I do. But I don't need to insult and misrepresent him in order to feel superior.
     And that is the nature of the abusive "awards." They are bestowed because the bestower feels inadequate. He is putting on a false face in the hope of getting people not to listen to someone he sees as his better. Drawing attention to such an award is seldom much better -- although I have indicated to our resident clown that he seemed to be working toward earning one about which he had previously complained. Does he have a great effect? Maybe. But he's funny. And every time I post about him, I acknowledge that he has an effect -- mostly to make me laugh. But I also know this, those who would take him seriously will do so despite my laughter and my posts. I'm not sure he has anyone who isn't himself.
     I'm not too worried about those who would try to make me feel bad about myself. (Unfortunately, there is still an initial irrational reaction. I am human, after all.) There aren't that many of them and, when I think about it, I realize that they are unwittingly paying me a true homage. They are indicating that I am intellectually and spritually higher than they can ever hope to achieve. And should there ever become many of them? That would indicate that I had achieved a reach beyond my expectations.

Does anyone think that the OpenID account "nickyandolini" is NOT a Stormbringer sock-puppet?

     I'm not talking about the ultimate website that the fellow who wants to be called "Pubes" pretends is the author of the account. He can Use OpenID to link the account with any web page he wants. He could even pretend our president, Obama, was agreeing with everything he said. That wouldn't really fool anyone. But I don't think he's fooling anyone other than himself now. (And, given his penchant for projection, I am inclined to think that he is on drugs. I can't prove it. I could be wrong. But he does tend to accuse me of his own behavior.) Oh, and Stormbringer, any other names you want to be called, just have "Nicky" attribute them to me.

     On to his most recent blogpost. Everybody able to find it without a fresh link? Good. I figure people should be able to find it; I've given him plenty of links.
     "A pathological liar hammered you again, and he should be honest."
     Fortunately, there are ways that help identify such pathological liars. Someone who says that you don't need to check for yourself (you know, like Stormbringer says he'll tell you all you need to know about what I say) has a good chance of lying on a regular basis.
     "If you dispense information, give accurate quotes and complete information instead of writing something inaccurate because you hate someone or are simply careless. When people find out the truth, you become unreliable. Nobody likes liars except other liars, and what good are they?"
     This explains why Stormbringer has never supplied a link to, and actively discourages people from checking, my blog. He apparently wants to delay the when-people-find-out-the-truth part. On the other hand, while I critize him frequently, I have provided many links to what he has said. When people check, they will find that I have represented him accurately.
     "I will tell you with out reservation and with full confidence who can be trusted to be faithful and reliable: God (Deut. 7.9). That's right, I said it! God, as revealed through Jesus Christ (John 1.8) and described in the [b]ible (Acts 1.3 NASB). I have examined the evidences for the validity of the [b]ible, and I would testify to its reliability, even to the cost of my life. But you do not know me, there is no reason to simply take my word for it."
     I have seen enough of this guy that, were he to declare grass to be green, I would heve to double-check. I mean, sometimes he's honest. But his track record is not good. At any rate, I have yet to see any evidence that the biblical god is reliable -- or even exists. If he's out there, he's hiding.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

PZ Myers and Ray Comfort

     PZ Myers (or maybe someone impersonating hem; I can't be sure) spends a great deal of time criticizing, ridiculing, and mocking Ray Comfort. He does not allow Ray to speak on his own behalf because, supposedly, he doesn't want to give Ray a platform. This, of course, is inappropriate. I am opposed, on principle, to the concept of "filtering the opposition." And I have to wonder. Does he really think that Ray would be convincing? I've seen Ray's blog. He doesn't convince anyone. (Note: you have not been convinced if you came in agreeing with what he is trying to conclude.) Seriously, all you do if you present him in a way that you desire without letting your audience hear what your opponent has to say in the way he wants to present it is validate the claim that you are suppressing him. It's a tactic I expect of evangelical christians. Their position has nothing going for it. But I expect better from those who pursue truth.

Friday, November 12, 2010

For a while, I was afraid he was going to get boring.

     The official main topic of this post is not necessarily inane. After all, it is certainly possible that scientists are attempting to portray a pseudo-science as a true science and leave quotes that inadvertently serve as evidence of that. I've run afoul of the "united front" people by pointing that one out myself. How does Stormbringer seem to make sense when talking about it? Well, I guess even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. But this post is not about what he says that makes sense. It is about what he says that I find funny.
     "Today, I want to prompt you to use some rational thought, and I'm going to use hyperbole do to it." [Emphasis mine]
     Hey, I don't want him to start advocating rational thought. That would sharply decrease my entertainment value. (Examines post.) Oh, okay, no problem, false alarm.
     "Are people stupid enough to think that all of these quotes are taken out of context or made up? There are many quotes, you see." [Emphasis in original]
     Considering that the quotes are often unattributed and unsourced, it would certainly be possible for all of them to be taken out of context or invented. I only know that is not the case because I have been able to find some originals. Honest people are not worried about people finding the original sources and drawing their own conclusion. But we're talking about evangelicals here, not honest people.
     "Second, they attack Creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design. I will focus on Creation Science this trip around. I'm going to ask you this: Do you really think that people who serve a holy and just [g]od, who has told us that lying is a violation of the [n]inth [c]ommandment, are going to lie to get you to believe in [g]od?" [Emphasis in original]
     Given the actions and commands attributed to this god, "holy" and "just" are not words that I would use in its description. The words "depraved" and "corrupt" are far more fitting. However, more importantly, I think the claim that "lying is a violation of god's law" is itself a deception to prevent oustiders from looking too closely -- sort of like "islam is a religion of peace." There may be adherents who believe it. But my experience is that evangelicals are willing to say or do anything to ensnare people into the trap that is christianity. For a rather blatent example, note how Ray Comfort uses the "good person test" ostensibly to "find out if the person is really a good person." He lies when he goes into the spiel because, as he tells his followers, he has already decided that no one is good. (No link is provided because I expect my readers, few as they are, to be quite familiar with the tactic.)
     "I had one guy here recently start out with the sneering and sarcasm, and I gave him sarcasm back. Then he was civil, and got civil — and detailed — responses."
     Nope, I don't believe it. I have never seen Stormbringer be civil with anyone who wasn't in complete agreement with him. Or perhaps he thinks dissent constitutes "sneering and sarcasm."
     "Now, getting back to how all [c]hristians are liars."
     Not all christians are liars. Of course, it does seem that all christians that try to win converts lie. But I attribute that to the fact that the truth is against christianity and so there is no way to win converts without lying. And it doesn't mean that they lie when they are not actively seeking converts. (I could talk about the posts in which I think Stormbringer is being honest. But that would be boring. And there are posts that I don't address because I don't find them funny.)

     Incidentally, I am familiar with projection. I see a vivid example every time Stormbringer talks about how his critics are "filled with hate." His varied other accusations may be similarly attributed. To Stormbringer I say "Keep trying to spread the 'word.' Your antics are quite amusing. I just don't want to meet you in person (unless you're in a padded cell and I am safely outside.)"

UPDATE: A reply to Stormbringer, who has expressed a desire to be called "Pubes"

     "if you can refrain from sneering and petty attacks, not only will you not receive in kind, your comments have a much better chance of being posted in the first place. Only two people have been banned from posting here: One for being not only perpetually snide, but also for being dull."
     No, Stormbringer, you blocked my posts even though I was civil. I can't speak to whether you find me dull. However, I will point out that your perpetual use of the claim "full of hate" is itself snide.
     Oh, and, for your information, I don't say that everything you say is a lie. I just tend to address the things you say which are.

     "But let's both ignore this guy forever, OK? I'll need your help on it; I suggest that you stop visiting, getting riled and telling me so I get irritated as well, capice?"
    Oh, but then you'll need to create a new OpenID account to report all the lies you want to say about me. After all, based on your stated standards you shouldn't be letting "his" posts through anyway.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Dan does not seem to know what it means to "man up."

     I refer to his post here. A man who keeps true to his word, honors his promises, and strives to do the right thing does not need to worship some god that he thinks has an ever watchful eye. He does not need to snivel at the foot of some cosmic throne. Simply put anyone who feels the need to cower before some cosmic overlord is no man. Such a person would "will stab his friend in the back. Will certainly overpower the weak. That will go against what is the right thing," certain that his god is commanding and endorsing it all. No, a true man does the right thing because he sees it as the right thing. And if his father, his boss, his government, or his god issued a command that he knew was wrong, he would stand up and say "NO! I am no coward who will do evil for the sake of those who might harm me if I don't placate them. I will endure hardship if needed to do what is right. I refuse to cower before your might." Oh, the snivelers will say many things for their vanity. Look at Dan's post. It is an excellent example.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

The Stormbringer filter

     Stormbringer is claiming to have been slandered on some blog. Of course, there is no way to verify the claim independently. He doesn't provide a link, or even say what the alleged slander was. Personally, I don't trust the Stormbringer filter. Stormbringer lies. But then, anytime someone deliberately withholds a verification, it looks suspicious. Now, there can be legitimate reasons. Sometimes someone's information comes only through personal experience and no independent verification can be provided. It is certainly difficult to provide independent verification of one's personal beliefs. Sometimes, a particular fact is remembered but the source is forgotten -- that would make it difficult to provide a source. And sometimes people just forget. But, if you read his blog, you will find that it is a pattern of behavior. If people were allowed to check for themselves, they might come to conclusions that didn't match the illusion that he wants to present to puff up his already bloated ego.
     Stormbringer keeps a tight control on his blog. He clearly wants to make certain that his readers do not see anything that is not supported by the Stormbringer filter. When he lies about people, the last thing he needs is for his readers to do their own investigations. There is a reason why he won't let anyone know what blog to which he allegedly refers. He can say anything he likes when no one check his claims. He can invent attackers out of thin air.
     A similar reasoning drives the fact that I provide links. I don't require that anyone take my word for it. I know that I'm telling the truth, so I don't need to hide the evidence around the subjects of my posts. After all, what kind of person would I be if, when someone asked to confirmation of one of my claims, I told him to "do your own searching"?

Sunday, November 07, 2010

A common question from christians

     "Why don't you argue against UFO believers?"
     The answer is quite simple. People are not trying to get belief in UFOs enshrined into national law. People are trying to legislate christianity. I also don't see con men trying to use UFO belief to market their scams. Yes, I do see spoof merchandise. But the primary market for that is the set of people who laugh at UFO believers. I consider christianity dangerous because too many people want to use it to interfere with how I live my life.

Saturday, November 06, 2010

Here is an article I found interesting

     The link is here.
     The public has gotten more conservative over the years. But they are not, as a whole, more conservative than the people the extrmists like to call "Republican In Name Only." The public does not want a return to 16-hour work days with pay being 5 dollars a week in script that is only good at "the company store." If you have to advocate that sort of thing to be a "true Republican," then I don't want any "true Republicans" in office.

Friday, November 05, 2010

I have put up a poll...

     I have put up a poll asking readers what they think the likely result of the recent election will be. The poll will be running until about the end of this year. Since I'm asking for a prediction, it would be fruitless to extend the poll until after the new faces take office in January.

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

My comments.

     "[L]eftists have different standards [than] [c]onservatives."
     I haven't seen any difference. Democrats and Republicans alike used mud-slinging and attack ads. I did not see a single ad by any candidates that discussed what policies they wanted to implement or what changes in law they thought would move the country forward. This is typical, actually. Politicians only like to talk about how bad they think the other guy is.
     "To me, the label of 'Republican' means that they are more likely to reflect the values of the majority of the people (and mine, too)."
     A majority of the people? According to the most recent Gallup Poll I could find on the subject, no ideology holds a majority. Self-identified conservatives constitute the largest block at 40% -- which is still a good deal shy of a majority. Incidentally, 22% of Democrats, and all those people Stormbringer likes to call "RINOs," self-identify as conservative. But very few people like the concept of their representives taking marching orders from headquarters and ignoring their constituants.
     Now, I watched the returns. And I know that some of the Republican winners think the voters wanted to give them a blank check to do whatever they want -- or to take marching orders from headquarters. Others realized, quite soberly, that the public wasn't so much voting for them as they were against the people they are currently blaming for the bad economy. We'll have to see which concept holds more in the minds of the representatives. If the Republicans decide they can go into a corner and decide what legislation will advance with no outside input, well, they've done that before. The people have no great love for either major party. The only thing that keeps these guys in office is the general fear that voting for an outsider will effectively be a discarded vote due to the plurality system.


     Stormbringer, who is too scared ever to allow a link to my actual words, lest his readers do some actual thinking, has provided a link that he thinks supports his assertion that a majority of Americans consider themselves conservative. And it would be plausible that it supported his contention -- if you only read the headline. On the other hand, if you read the text of the article, it gives the same 40% figure in the link I was able to find. "Gallup revealed that conservatives are the largest ideological group in America: 40% of us call ourselves conservative, 35% of us call ourselves moderates, and 21% of us call ourselves liberal."
     "Oh, and by the way, selective citing, especially when lifting a part of a sentence, is lying."
     That is only the case if the meaning is changed to give the impression that the original speaker said something he didn't intend. Is he stating that he does not believe and was not trying to claim that "leftists" have different standards than conservatives? I quoted the particular point that I wanted to address. I do not feel the need to quote his entire incoherent blog entry to address certain points found therein. But for those who may somehow think I misrepresented him, here is a link to his nonsense.
     "You know, if I retired right now, some people would have nothing to talk about, since they are mostly incapable of talking about anything other than lil' ol' me."
     This calls for an experiment. Let this guy retire and see if it results in people having nothing to talk about. Here's a hint. People can spend a great deal of time talking about a particular television program. But when it gets cancelled, they find something else. Now, I admit that I talk about this guy a lot. I do so because I find him very entertaining. But, you know something, I was running my blog before he came along. I will still be running my blog if he holds his breath until he turns blue or takes his ball and goes home. But for now, I like to talk about The Stupidity of Stormbringer.

Tuesday, November 02, 2010

Since it's been brough up.

     I do think that it is wrong to delay getting absentee ballots to military personnell. And, yes, it may have been a deliberate attempt to change the outcome of the election. Any such deliberate fraud should result in jail time (not just fines) for the people responsible. The primary reason why fines are inadequate is that people may be quite willing to pay the fines to get their preferred representatives in office. I do not want anyone to think that such a tactic is "worth it."

Stormbringer vx. Stormbringer

     "Stifle freedom of speech
     "Shut down discussion
     "Distract your opponent
     "Bolster your own already bloated ego
     "Control the people through fear of being labeled something unpleasant"
     "SHUT UP about Bush!" Well, there's some stifling of free speech. I haven't mentioned Bush by name since (I believe) the time he left office. Of course his policy supporters are still there. Bush is only a face to attach to the policies. And people see it as more personal. I see no reason to believe that the reported actions of Bush in office were fabricated. And these actions seem to have the full support of the "Tea Party" members.
     "partisan pinheads," "country club Republicans," "RINOs," "Obummer," "El Presidente" -- Yeah, I'd say that Stormbringer relies heavily on using labels in an effort to control people.
     Shutting down discussion is achieved in the way Stormbringer deletes comments that he doesn't like. As for distracting his opponent and bolstering his already bloated ego, I invite people to inspect his blog. The evidence of that is more the continued trends of his posts rather than any one quote.

     "Since people are dishonest, lazy and downright stupid, I'll prove it (even though I'll be accused of making up these posts and back-dating them). Yes, my Republican complaints are in there:"
     I really don't know if he edited his posts or not. The term "Republican in name only" has been around that long; and it is used for those Republicans that actually think for themselves rather than following the party's dictates like mindless drones. On the other hand, he generally doesn't seem to think about those Republican who occasionally stray from the dictates of the party's leaders. So, he might have edited them after the fact. Whether he did or not, it looks like an afterthought. (Incidentally, Stormbringer, you forgot to add your "Republican complaint" to "second" and "third." You might want to go back and fix that. And concerns about complacency in Republican voters, "fourth," are quite consistent with only caring about that "R" getting in.) But, no, he didn't back-date the posts. The posts were anti-Democrat rants. He may, or may not, have added the parts about "RINOs" in the past few days for the purpose of "proving" that it wasn't "just" Democrats he was going after. The reader will have to make that determination for himself.

Monday, November 01, 2010


It's about time for all registered voters to cast their ballots. But, as Dan would say, the "Tea Partiers" should wait until Wednesday.

Stormbringer vs. Reality

     Our clown (gee, I hope I'm not offending Bozo the clown) has put up another post. Do I have to point out that he is screening his comments to avoid too much thinking among his readers?
     "When did the government at any level gain the right to tell people how to practice their religious beliefs? A single woman placed an advert in her church bulletin asking for a Christian roommate, and was slapped down by the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan. That means that this woman must not discriminate." [Emphasis in orginal]
     In essence, this woman advertised a living space for rent and said "non-christians need not apply." Those weren't her exact words; but that is the effect. Now, since I did point out that, given that she was lookiing for someone to live with her and share expenses, the situation may be out of scope of the intent of the fair housing laws. Even so, it is not religious discrimination to tell her she cannot discriminate on the basis of religion. Stormbringer is busy pretending that that part of my comment didn't exist.
     "How about when the leftists at Augusta State University told a Christian counseling student to 'change your beliefs or get out'?"
     He included a link to a press release from the group funding the attorney's for the student. I asked if he had a better source. Advocates in a litigation are not known for impartiality or fair descriptions of the facts. He edited his post to say: "To the lazy dolt that wants more proof that this happened, do your own searches." I'll take that as a "no." (I also pointed out that universities are generally privately owned and not government institutions.)
     "I have no patience for mindless sheep."
     It is my experience that he wishes to deal exclusively with mindless sheep. Looking for the "R" next to a candidate's name is just as mindless as looking for the "D."
     "Almost as bad is PBS, the governmental propaganda network (your tax dollars in action)."
     Right, any evidence that the government has been telling PBS what to say? The government does provide funding, as do individual contributors; but it doesn't seem to impose a requirement that PBS simply act as a government mouthpiece. On the other hand, Stormbringer might be upset that there is a station that doesn't have to bow to billion-dollar corporations.
     "Hey, you cry (lie) about 'voter intimidation' when a Burger King franchise owner suggests that there's a better chance for job security if people vote Republican instead of for tax and spend liberals."
     First off, it was a McDonald's. That's only important in that it shows that he didn't bother to read it. Now, I don't know about my readers, but I think "if you want to keep your job, you will vote the way I tell you" qualifies as voter intimidation. By the way, since I live in Arizona, my primary news soure is The Arizona Republican. Yes, I know they changed their name a while back. But I rather think their original name fits.