Longest Thread Ever
- Thread starter babe
- Start date
Mark Levin
If I'm not in here posting much anymore, it is because I actually have a job, and a ranch, and a family. And most of my idle time is now sucked up by playing the latest podcast from Mark Levin.
And I've conceded that virtually the entire community in here is just bothered by my ramblings. . . .
If I'm not in here posting much anymore, it is because I actually have a job, and a ranch, and a family. And most of my idle time is now sucked up by playing the latest podcast from Mark Levin.
And I've conceded that virtually the entire community in here is just bothered by my ramblings. . . .
Don't be so hard on yourself!
Here is a random statement:
When I was young I thought there were two different words for family - famly were your parents and siblings and whoever lived in your home and family was the word for relatives like grandparents and cousins who didn't live with you.
Here is a random statement:
When I was young I thought there were two different words for family - famly were your parents and siblings and whoever lived in your home and family was the word for relatives like grandparents and cousins who didn't live with you.
I can see that. . . except we had two meanings for the term "cousins". . . one kind of "cousins" were the ones we played with, the other kind were the ones who showed up at family reunions. . . .
I appreciate you, Moe, as an example of what humanity is all about. You are always treating others with compassion and consideration. . . and you have some fun, too.
But the right take on my pathetic whine about not being, say, the most agreed-with poster in here, is not something that fits with those nice words of yours. I am actually not being hard on myself, more like poking a barbed fireiron at the smoldering remains of true thought I see in this forum. . . . a few embers occasionally take flight, but there no chance of starting a fire in here. . .
I like Mark Levin because he is breathing fire about a lot of stuff most people are dead to caring about. And he is right. Right as a legal analyst, and right as an American who knows what has been good about this country, and what is worth keeping in this country's value system.
But maybe not right about some international perspectives. I like Lyndon LaRouche, too. . . a dedicated "Roosevelt" old-school democrat in some of his professions, and maybe a socialist in others. . .. but the reason I like Lyndon LaRouche is the same reason I like Mark Levin. I see a passionate caring about people, their rights, their opportunities, and their future as the relevant decision-makers in their own governments.
Russia's Putin, for all his past as a thug/honcho/jackbooted statist, does at least realize that the Brit UN fascist regime needs to be displaced with something else. . . Even China is sorta willing to listen to the LaRouche dialectic about displacing genocidal megalomaniacal "greenies" of the Prince Philip brand. . . . opening up new resources and pushing on in the technology and energy fields to make the world a better place for the humans. . .. for more humans than less. . .
But rather than turn to UN fascist/global corporate regimes hell-bent on cartel/monopoly/restriction on resources, or say the commie brand of statism, I think the real way forward for mankind is to dust off American values and ideas about limited government and expanded opportunities for everyone. . . no special interests but true "equality under the law".
We need to remove statist management of "public" lands, which are currently being restricted except to the highest level of financial interests who can literally buy off the EPA and every other regulatory band of bureaucrat extortionist thugs, and let people own the land. Not just walk on prescribed nature trails, but own the land. People's needs to walk in nature would be one of the hot high-end uses of the land, still, under more efficient and more interested management that would actually try to meet people's needs for ATV space, or for bird-watching woods and marshes. . . Seriously, you really believe a government bureaucracy is the best management we can come up with?
Last edited:
Prince Philip
"I have never been noticeably reticent about talking on subjects about which I know nothing." Addressing a group of industrialists in 1961.--Prince Philiphttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/prince-philip-90-of-the-duke-of-edinburghs-most-excruciating-gaffes-and-jokes-10395716.html
Prince Philip is a principal mover and shaker behind the green revolution, which embraces all kinds of nonsense, including the carbon/carbon dioxide global warming faux science executed under the determinedly biased "research" auspices of the UN and other government-directed "political science" agendas. By which I mean phony science dedicated to obtaining stipulated research outcomes. While of course carbon dioxide is a molecule, like other more complex multi-atomic gases, with a higher heat capacity than nitrogen or oxygen, and while sea levels do respond to large-scale shifts in glaciers/polar ice masses, the earth has a long history of climate shifts on the order of ten times or more the last 150 year rise of 1.9 F which does reflect somewhat man's use of coal and oil as well as wood. However, the recent policies of the Interagency Committee of the Dept. of Interior to let forest fires burn to reduce the masses of forest materials that have accumulated under years of fire fighting, shows no actual significant regard for the carbon problem. . . lol.
The so-called "science" of AGW or ACC is political justification for global taxation and power grabs, and the science ignores the facts of nature which do not promote that agenda.
We are actually on the waning phase of a long term interglacial warm, in the twenty-year spike in temps normally seen just before the onset of an ice age. It has happened like this nine times in geological history, without exception. . . .
"I have never been noticeably reticent about talking on subjects about which I know nothing." Addressing a group of industrialists in 1961.--Prince Philiphttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/prince-philip-90-of-the-duke-of-edinburghs-most-excruciating-gaffes-and-jokes-10395716.html
Prince Philip is a principal mover and shaker behind the green revolution, which embraces all kinds of nonsense, including the carbon/carbon dioxide global warming faux science executed under the determinedly biased "research" auspices of the UN and other government-directed "political science" agendas. By which I mean phony science dedicated to obtaining stipulated research outcomes. While of course carbon dioxide is a molecule, like other more complex multi-atomic gases, with a higher heat capacity than nitrogen or oxygen, and while sea levels do respond to large-scale shifts in glaciers/polar ice masses, the earth has a long history of climate shifts on the order of ten times or more the last 150 year rise of 1.9 F which does reflect somewhat man's use of coal and oil as well as wood. However, the recent policies of the Interagency Committee of the Dept. of Interior to let forest fires burn to reduce the masses of forest materials that have accumulated under years of fire fighting, shows no actual significant regard for the carbon problem. . . lol.
The so-called "science" of AGW or ACC is political justification for global taxation and power grabs, and the science ignores the facts of nature which do not promote that agenda.
We are actually on the waning phase of a long term interglacial warm, in the twenty-year spike in temps normally seen just before the onset of an ice age. It has happened like this nine times in geological history, without exception. . . .
Last edited:
I'll admit to skipping some of your ramblings from time to time, but when I invest the time, they are occasionally interesting and rewarding.
well, thank you for saying so. I find your posting to be actually worthwhile as well.
LDS POLICY ANNOUNCEMENT
So Green has a thread, and Colton has taken up the cross for trying to make it understandable and acceptable, in regard to the LDS leadership announcing a policy regarding how children of LGBT parents will be singled out for specific treatment, just like the Church used to single out children of plyg parents.
I have mixed emotions/ideas/opinions/beliefs regarding the LDS Church. I have specific reasons to believe certain things, and specific reasons not to believe certain other things, which I think are a pretty clearly a unique set. How could I in good conscience belong to, or be positive about, an organization which has some specific differences with me?
Well, I usually do a little mental gymnastics, a sort of exercise of my soul, wherein I reason that I love to be free, and value my conscience and my liberty so much. . . . so much. . . . that I rather expect others to have their own ways and ideas and stuff. . . . and I think that's good. A healthy sort of society. It boils down to the choice of accepting that others will be what they want to be, just as I wish to be what I want to be.
My chief concerns about some trends in our society today is that I think "political correctness" and compliance with ideals of "social justice" or other such popular trends in society, are fundamentally bigoted, which is to say intolerant and overly confident to the extent that anyone who disagrees is to be devalued and marginalized.
I'm OK with the LDS Church having specific beliefs it cares to stand for. I'm OK with other folks who have specific beliefs they care to stand for. You get to decide where you will associate, what you will think. You get to vote with your feet for the things you care for.
live, and let live.
So Green has a thread, and Colton has taken up the cross for trying to make it understandable and acceptable, in regard to the LDS leadership announcing a policy regarding how children of LGBT parents will be singled out for specific treatment, just like the Church used to single out children of plyg parents.
I have mixed emotions/ideas/opinions/beliefs regarding the LDS Church. I have specific reasons to believe certain things, and specific reasons not to believe certain other things, which I think are a pretty clearly a unique set. How could I in good conscience belong to, or be positive about, an organization which has some specific differences with me?
Well, I usually do a little mental gymnastics, a sort of exercise of my soul, wherein I reason that I love to be free, and value my conscience and my liberty so much. . . . so much. . . . that I rather expect others to have their own ways and ideas and stuff. . . . and I think that's good. A healthy sort of society. It boils down to the choice of accepting that others will be what they want to be, just as I wish to be what I want to be.
My chief concerns about some trends in our society today is that I think "political correctness" and compliance with ideals of "social justice" or other such popular trends in society, are fundamentally bigoted, which is to say intolerant and overly confident to the extent that anyone who disagrees is to be devalued and marginalized.
I'm OK with the LDS Church having specific beliefs it cares to stand for. I'm OK with other folks who have specific beliefs they care to stand for. You get to decide where you will associate, what you will think. You get to vote with your feet for the things you care for.
live, and let live.
I'll have to look for that. I'm not usually a fan a punishing kids for their parents actions/preferences/sins (if you must describe it that way).
If every human felt that way about every detail in their religion, there would be 7 billion religions in the world.