-
-
blogroll
- A Soldier's Perspective
- Ace Of Spades
- American Soldier
- Ann Coulter
- Attack Machine
- Bill Ardolino
- Bill Roggio
- Black Five
- Blonde Sagacity
- Breitbart
- Chicagoray
- Confederate Yankee
- Day by Day Cartoon
- Euphoric Reality
- Flopping Aces
- Free Republic
- Frontier Web Design
- Hot Air
- Hugh Hewitt
- Ian Schwartz
- Instapundit
- Jules Crittenden
- Little Green Footballs
- Matt Sanchez
- Michael Fumento
- Michael Yon
- Michelle Malkin
- Military.com
- Missiles And Stilletos
- Move America Forward
- Mudville Gazette
- Pass The Ammo
- Protest Warrior
- Roger L. Simon
- Sportsman's Outfit
- Stop The ACLU
- TCOverride
- The Belmont Club
- The Big God Blog
- The Crimson Blog
- The Daily Gut
- The Drudge Report
- The PoliTicking Timebomb
- The Pundit Review
- Veteran's Affairs Documentary
-
17 Responses
Respond now.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Limbaugh is an idiot but Scarborough is brilliant.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:17 pm“Our country, in less than 230 years, with 300 million people became the most powerful, the most prosperous and the most alfluent in the history of human civilization”
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:48 pmgood stuff
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:59 pmKipp is an idiot or cannot hear. Scarborough is wan, weak and RINO.
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:27 pmPeople who follow Limbaugh are just like him, sycophantic dorks, incapable of free thought. If it doesn’t fit in some sort of world view the idea is wrong; America’s multitude of the unthinking. Conservatives are always right, liberals always wrong. He then will build up an argument around that premise. Scarborough on the other hand is an example of America’s greatness. He is a conservative who is able to process information and make judgments on its merits, not based on how it fits into ideology. Scarborough once said he likes to listen to the side of the issue he is not on because it challenges his beliefs. Truly words we can all live by.
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:59 pmKipp, you obviously haven’t ever listened to Rush and have spent way too much time tuned into BSDNC!
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:24 pmScarborough is a useful idiot of the Left, a Conservative Republican who sold out because he is a loser.
I’ve listened to Rush daily for 14 years–the man is rarely wrong and pretty much nails the truth and the lying Liberal Left all the time.
Kippster
“just like him, sycophantic dorks”, “America’s multitude of the unthinking”
That is a fairly broad statement if it’s not be taken out of context….
Rush expresses grandiloquence and the animus arise spewing forth the verses of indignation…Kippyloo, I’m afraid your analysis is flawed by your own interpretation of WHO the “America’s multitude of the unthinking” really are…so by virtue of its senders intent, these statements which are not either profound or witty, are transgressive and demeaning.
So…. Based upon that conclusion, I suggest you should just adhere to the type “I know you are but what am I” and by that, will know exactly what your trying to communicate. capiche?
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:05 pmKipp you ignorant slut…
The numbers do not lie…. This country has acheived more in its existance than any other nation on this planet…
Who invented the airplane, who created mass production, who cured polio…the list goes on and on and on
You are a stupid asshole!!!
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:27 pmGet the fuck out of my country!!!
The left is emotional, the right is logical, need I say more…
October 24th, 2007 at 3:51 amKipp: no one “follows” Limbaugh, they just like his wit. You obviously don’t listen to him, or you would appreciate it too. I know liberals are extremely threatened by him, because he has such a large audience. But, I don’t always agree with him, he’s wrong sometimes. He made me angry yesterday when he theorized that the wildfires in Calif. were blown up by the local media to look worse than they are, when in fact, the local media has covered them so much so as to afford updated information for those of us who are affected. He also started to agree with a caller who more or less implied that the people whose houses were burnt were at fault for living there in the first place. So, he can be wrong, but he’s usually right. I hope today he doesn’t tick me off…
October 24th, 2007 at 6:54 amHello Kipp, once again we are given the wonderful treat of a glimpse into your vast stupidity which knows no bounds. Barely able to string knee-jerk reactions into a marginally coherent thought but nothing near cogent.
I am one the people who listen to Rush on a regular basis and I can tell you as a genuine conservative he is usually right and I find myself agreeing with him on most things. I come from the school of thought of people like Buckley and Friedman; you may want to read up on these two.
Needless to say, I however, am not a “sycophantic dorks, incapable of free thought.” I am a college professor and I also work in the medical profession. So I have a front row seat to see what vast opportunities there are in America and just how truly great our country is.
I also happen to be a member of Mensa, you are undoubtedly ignorant of what that organization is. Suffice it to say I am not as you put it, part of “America’s multitude of the unthinking.”
Perhaps next time you can dispense with the ridiculous broad brushstroke liberal talking point statements and say something substantive. I know you are likely incapable of that because by definition a liberal has to check their brain at the proverbial door before entertaining liberal theories
October 24th, 2007 at 7:07 amOh, and I completely agree with Prof. Bill. And Rush is doing better on the wildfires today.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:15 am“Limbaugh is usually right.” Well, members of Mensa, what constitutes “right”, theories that jive with your ideological acceptance? Limbaugh is a sycophant, pure and simple. From his views on global warming (last I checked he wasn’t calculating data), to his initial support of the invasion of Iraq (one of America’s poorest foreign policy decisions not on the basis of whether the war is winnable but from a purely cost benefit perspective). The reality is Limbaugh has been on the air so long if you are even remotely interested in politics you listen to him from time to time out of sheer boredom of what your choices are on local radio. To say that Limbaugh is usually right has no merit unless you believe that sycophantic drivel is “right”. Professor Bill, being a conservative professor must be really lonely unless you teach at Liberty University.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:43 pmOk kipper, what are your global warming “calculations?” and your “cost/benefit” analysis of the war in Iraq?..Please, enlighten us. sychophant: A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people.–Who is trying to win favor?…Rush? - don’t think so, the favor of whom? Last time I checked, none of us here were very influential..Algore?..hmmm, The mainstream media mannequins? Katie, Charlie, Brian?… “Right” - coinciding w/hard facts, not ideology.
October 25th, 2007 at 7:43 amCost benefit? The war has cost us nearly a trillion dollars once the latest bill passes. We are spending more in current dollars than we spent at the height of the Vietnam War in 1968. The result we will get from Iraq is not worth the price tag and I would dare say not worth the price in American lives. There is your friggin cost/benefit analysis. This cost should have been leveled against OBL where it belongs. Don’t get me wrong I am for winning the war now that we are up to our arses in it but we should never have attacked in the first place. As far as all those people you mentioned, they may give you some sort of right wing twitch at the mention of their name but they mean little to me. Global warming is a fact and in order to affect it in some way we first need to recognize it as a problem. Can’t cure cancer unless you know you have it, right? I’ll go with the multitude of scientists (excluding Gore) and you can wallow in the ignorance that is Rush Limbaugh.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:21 amAh Kipper, The latest left leaning intellectual, tum podem extulit horridulum!
I wallow in ignorance? The pot calling the kettle black.
Commune hoc ignorantiae vitium est: quae nescias, nequicquam esse profiteri…but I digress
Numerical estimates vary depending on your source, but since the surge began in April, the trends showing numbers of Iraqi civilians killed each month are all pointing the same direction: down.
At the Najaf cemetery, there were 2,500 fewer bodies buried each month than there were in the spring.
According to the French wire service AFP, which is not known for its support for U.S. interests, in Iraq as a whole, 840 Iraqi civilians were killed last month by militias, bombs, or armies-or 28 people per day. That’s a 50-percent drop, down from 1,771 in August.
Numbers from the British anti-war group Iraq Body Count (IBC) showed the same trend. IBC said the September civilian death toll was 1,280, but they agreed that the September number was half the August number, which they pegged at 2,575. This is great news-not that you saw it mentioned on the news with the kind of prominence that would have greeted an increase of violence.
Despite all this “I suppose it’s still too bad America invaded in the first place, touching off all the sectarian violence.”
After reviewing the number of civilians found in Saddam’s mass graves, which were still being discovered in 2005, I’m not so sure. If we’re talking about only civilians and political prisoners, the toll for Saddam’s 23 years in power was at least 300,000 people murdered; that’s 13,043 per year; 1,086 per month; or 36 per day.
At that rate, if AFP’s estimate is the correct one, for an Iraqi civilian, it’s safer to be in the middle of a hot war under American rule today, than “at peace” under Saddam. And of course, Saddam’s 300,000 political murders are a number apart from the 500,000 or so Iraqi soldiers he sent to their deaths in his bizarre invasions of Iran and Kuwait. And the hundreds or thousands of murders around the world that he caused as a financier of terrorism.
I’ve heard from so many sober voices that launching the Iraq war was a terrible thing to do: from the loony-Left of MoveOn.org, the plain-vanilla Left of television and news magazines, the quaint Left represented by certain Vatican spokesmen, and the triumphant gloom of the far Right. No doubt it feels righteous to protest a war, since wars involve so much unjust killing.
But what about Saddam’s war, which was waged every day and in all directions? Were the lives he mercilessly took without significance? Are the lives Saddam would have taken, if not for America’s intervention, without value?
Moralists and politicians should remember that there are many kinds of violence. One of them is failing to defend the innocent.
And Global warming? …
Those who think global warming is a natural process point to the fact that in the last 10,000 years, the warmest periods have happened well before humans started to produce large amounts of carbon dioxide.
A detailed look at recent climate change reveals that the temperature rose prior to 1940 but unexpectedly dropped in the post-war economic boom, when carbon dioxide emissions rose dramatically.
There is some evidence to suggest that the rise in carbon dioxide lags behind the temperature rise by up to 800 years and therefore can’t be the cause of it.
In the greenhouse model of global warming, heat from the sun’s rays is trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If it weren’t for these gases, Earth would be too cold for life.
Greenhouse gases trap heat from the sun within the earth’s atmosphere. This is the greenhouse effect. Traditional models predict that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases lead to runaway heating.
If greenhouse warming were happening, then scientists predict that the troposphere (the layer of the earth’s atmosphere roughly 10-15km above us) should heat up faster than the surface of the planet, but data collected from satellites and weather balloons doesn’t seem to support this.
Those who think global warming is a natural process say that the troposphere is not heating up because man-made greenhouse gases are not causing the planet to heat up.
For some people, the final nail in the coffin of human-produced greenhouse gas theories is the fact that carbon dioxide is produced in far larger quantities by many natural means: human emissions are miniscule in comparison. Volcanic emissions and carbon dioxide from animals, bacteria, decaying vegetation and the ocean outweigh our own production several times over.
Others would argue that carbon dioxide isn’t the only greenhouse gas and that human emissions could tip up a finely balanced system.
New evidence shows that as the radiation coming from the sun varies (and sun-spot activity is one way of monitoring this) the earth seems to heat up or cool down. Solar activity very precisely matches the plot of temperature change over the last 100 years. It correlates well with the anomalous post-war temperature dip, when global carbon dioxide levels were rising.
In fact, what is known of solar activity over the last several hundred years correlates very well with temperature. This is what some scientists are beginning to believe causes climate change. Others feel that solar activity only explains the fine details of temperature change.
So how does the sun affect the earth’s temperature? The process scientists suggest is that as earth moves through space, the atmosphere is constantly bombarded by ever-present cosmic rays. As these particles hit water vapour evaporating from the oceans, clouds form in the atmosphere. Clouds shield Earth from some of the sun’s radiation and have a cooling effect.
When solar activity is high, there is an increase in solar wind and this has the effect of reducing the amount of cosmic radiation which reaches Earth.
When less cosmic radiation reaches Earth, fewer clouds form and the full effects of the sun’s radiation heats the planet.
But is the effect of solar activity really enough to explain away global warming caused by the greenhouse effect? This is still a moot point.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:45 pmKipp?…..Kipp?…Anyone see Kipp?
October 30th, 2007 at 10:43 am