moonbattery logo

Feb 17 2012

Open Thread

apologetic-derelict

On a tip from The Only Other Conservative in Seattle.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on StumbleUponEmail this to someoneShare on Facebook


  • IslandLifer

    And yet another step around Congress. Obama and his new “Climate” Coalition led by the UN
    http://geneva.usmission.gov/2012/02/17/launch-of-climate-and-clean-air-coalition-new-global-effort-to-fight-climate-change/

  • angryK9

    I like his honesty. I’d give him 5 bucks.

  • AC
  • AC
  • IslandLifer
  • IslandLifer
  • IslandLifer
  • Bob Roberts

    I tell you what – I see ANYONE holding up such a sign, and I’m buying them a meal for their honesty!

  • Bob Roberts

    IslandLifer says: February 17, 2012 at 8:35 pm
    —————-
    As I tell the climate kooks – the one thing that is certain about climate change is that it is inevitable, unstoppable. Climate has always changed and will always change as long as the Earth has a fluid envelope.

    So, I tell them, GOOD LUCK TRYING TO STOP CLIMATE CHANGE, but leave me out of it!

  • Bob Roberts

    Obama still promising he’s going to cut the deficit in half, a goal everyone else admits is unreachable, even as he pushes for spending to take it higher. NOTE: By using accounting tricks that would get any corporate CFO a prison term, the budget outline released by the obamunists does claim to slightly reduce the deficit from $1.3 trillion today to $901 billion by FY 2013.

  • Bob Roberts

    The amazing and wacky world of the obamunists. When Lt. j.g. Timothy W. Dorsey intentionally fired his fighter jet’s missile at an Air Force reconnaissance plane, nearly killing its two aviators and destroying the aircraft during a training exercise, it was hard to imagine then how his Navy career would wind up 25 years later.

    The official investigation into the 1987 shoot-down said the F-14 pilot’s decision “raises substantial doubt as to his capacity for good, sound judgment.” The Navy banned him from flying its aircraft.

    Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta this month announced to the Senate several nominations for promotion to admiral.

    On the list is Navy Reserve Capt. Timothy W. Dorsey, the same man who, while assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga, committed what the report said was an “illogical act.”

    ————
    I guess that Obama knows the only way the villiage idiot can possibly hope to shine is to empty all the other villiages of their idiots and gather them around him.

  • Bob Roberts
  • Bob Roberts

    What do you know – despite all the fuss about disgruntled white American males, and veterans to boot, it’s still foreign, nonwhite males (And is he moselm too – read on!) who are plotting and attempting suicide attacks. A short time earlier, he had been praying at a mosque in the Washington area.
    ——————-
    What do you know – he’s a moslem, too. So is it time to consider profiling yet, or is saving lives less important that upsetting the politically correct?

  • Bob Roberts

    DNC: DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CRONYISM DEM CONVENTION CO-CHAIR’S COMPANY RECEIVED $230.4M IN STIMULUS MONEY, HIRED PODESTA GROUP TO LOBBY

    Jim Rogers, the co-chairman and lead fundraiser for the Democratic National Convention host-committee, is well versed in the art of political cronyism.

    Rogers, the CEO of Duke Energy Corp., one of the largest utility corporations in the country, has given generously to Democratic politicians over the years. Along with his wife, Mary Anne, he has contributed more than $210,000 to Democratic candidates and committees since 2008, more than double what the couple has given to Republicans. Of that figure, more than $150,000 went to the Democratic National Committee (DNC); $19,200 went to President Obama.

    Rogers is co-chairing the host committee with Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx (D), who was elected to a second term in November 2011. Rogers and his wife both contributed $8,000 to Foxx’s campaign, the maximum allowed under state law.

    Rogers has also done his part to make sure that the convention has access to plenty of cash. The Charlotte Observer reported that Rogers was “quietly raising” as much as $15 million for the DNC.

    Additionally, in an effort to entice the DNC to Charlotte, Rogers and Duke Energy offered to open a $10 million line of credit—guaranteed by Duke shareholders—to help finance the convention.

  • Bob Roberts

    <a href="TEXT“>Using the logic of the left, I’ll remind President Felipe Calderon that it’s not our fault his country has such a high demand for weapons. Maybe he should stop whining about the supply and start working on cutting down the demand?

  • Bob Roberts
  • Bob Roberts

    He was against it, tried to close it, now he’s bragging about it!

    Obama praised the manufacturing conducted by Boeing in South Carolina, even though his National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) tried to close the South Carolina plant at the behest of the Washington union workers.

  • Bob Roberts
  • Bob Roberts

    Atheists To Hold Massive Rally On National Mall Next Month – hopefully while there they will learn the difference between OF and FROM.

    The Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion – it does not guarantee or even discuss freedom FROM religion.

  • Bob Roberts
  • ummahgummah

    .

    Where rich Jewish kids learn to hate themselves and America:

    http://www.thegreatschlep.com/great_schlep

    GREAT SCHLEP
    Now you can become a Schlepper, and if you so choose, meet other young, proactive, pro-Obama Jews like yourself. Find out how actively to take part in the Great Schlep and help make history in the upcoming election.

    TRAVEL
    Planning on making a Great Schlep? Need a plane ticket? Go to Obamatravel.org to get others to support your trip.

    .

  • http://www.grannyjanandjihadkitty.com/ Granny Jan

    Just when you think BHO couldn’t look any goofier:

    http://news.daylife.com/photo/01Zg90E6fR7kd?__site=daylife&q=barack+obama

  • towerclimber37

    @Bob Roberts: Atheism IS a religion!

    re·li·gion
       [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
    2.
    a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
    3.
    the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
    4.
    the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
    5.
    the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

    I know that definitions 1 and 2 fit atheists.
    These folks are so busy saying that they don’t believe in religion when, in fact, they’re practicing one themselves!
    I find that comical. I recently had a discussion with one of my cousins who is an atheist.
    the debate ended badly for her..she just couldn’t refute my arguments. Still, to condescend to these people does no good and only engenders bitterness. better to simply smile at them and say a silent prayer for their souls.

  • http://www.grannyjanandjihadkitty.com/ Granny Jan

    First Lady Michelle Obama arrived in Aspen on Friday afternoon and is here with her daughters for a ski vacation.
    http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/151910

  • Fiberal

    Antarctic Lake Vostok has been isolated under ice for 20 million years. Water samples will reveal if there is life and what kind. (Logistic considerations to prevent contamination currently precede immediate analysis.)

    The odds are that analyses of newly-discovered life forms will provide new and compelling clues to the RNA (ribonucleotide acid) theory of life’s origins.

    This is a safe bet since the odds also are that any newly-discovered life forms will be based on DNA (deoxyribonucleotide acid).

    It is also a safe bet that the Creationists will, as per the usual modus operandi, deny the existence of any new data.

  • Fiberal

    Any takers?

  • Jodie

    Fiberal,

    If they find a part man-part monkey, or part man-part fish, or part man-part anything, I’ll be the first to admit I might be wrong for believing in God’s version of creation. Don’t hold your breath though…

  • Dadof3

    Photoshop but still funny.

    Look around the hand that’s on our right. You can see the original color of the cardboard – same as one on ground, amoung other telltales.

    And I would think he’s just workin’ me anyway if I actually saw this. If he really had a change of heart he’d be doing something to improve his lot in life instead of this – self responsibility is the antithesis of obamaism.

  • http://genelalor.com Berlet98

    The Case FOR Iranian Nukes

    Let’s do some hypothetical supposing.

    Let’s suppose that for very valid reasons you don’t like your neighbor and that neighbor has never cared much for you, either. Let’s suppose your neighbor has a history of acting aggressively toward people he didn’t like. Let’s suppose the neighbor is armed to the teeth and most of the neighborhood is perfectly content with that. Let’s suppose the neighbor has an extremely powerful friend who is ready, willing, and able to intercede on his behalf in any altercation.

    Let’s suppose you are Iran and the neighbor is Israel.

    Now that the UK’s Guardian is reporting that the hapless Obama administration concedes that crippling sanctions it had naively hoped would bring Tehran to its knees will fail, it’s time for America to backtrack. Obama has supported sanctions so that he could run for re-election as a peacemonger despite Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, et al. but those measures have only served to enable Iran to stall and lie its way to nuclear power status.

    Granted, with the notable exception of North Korea, Iran is easily the most psychotic nation on the planet with a mentally-imbalanced leadership cabal that rivals the insanity of Caligula. Granted, too, Iran is a principal money-man financing terrorism throughout the globe and regards truth with the same disdain it holds for women.

    Nevertheless, put yourself in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s and Ayatollah Khameini’s sandals: Israel has long been equipped with nuclear weapons and Iran isn’t.

    Almost worse, the international community has long been aware of the Israeli nuclear capability with which the Jewish state could obliterate at will any designated enemy within range of its missiles and that community hasn’t done a bloody thing about the situation but bitches over your ambitions.

    It’s enough to make a country paranoid. . .
    (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=13588.)

  • Ghost of FA Hayek
  • Sam Adams

    Fiberal says:
    February 18, 2012 at 7:33 am

    Any takers?

    I responded several open threads ago. I don’t recall any rebuttal.

  • Sam Adams

    Fiberal, short version…
    A day to the Lord is a thousand years to man is, IMHO, symbolic, not literal. The periods of creation lasted far longer than man lives. Therefore finding life in a 20 million year old lake doesn’t prove or disprove anything as far as I am concerned with regards to the biblical creation story.

    Second thing is that 5 billion years is way too short of a time for random chance to create the complexity we see in modern life. I’ve read the accounts of how the eye supposedly evolved and I call it bunk. Light sensitive cells, those cells just happen to be hooked up to a nervous system, those cells being located at the bottom of a depression, the top of the depression forming a pinhole lens, then those nerves are able to translate that light and dark information into something useful, then the depression fills with fluid, is covered over with a lens and a cornea, an iris is adapted to control the amount of light emitted……and all that forms by “random chance…by rolls of the dice???”

    I’ve had a detached retina. I know how worthless an eye is if the retina isn’t at the focal point of the lens and how easy it is to lose that focus. A billion years is far too short of a time for all those happy choices to be made by random chance.

    I’ve got a simple answer. The eye, as well as other living systems, were engineered.

    One other issue. Darwin’s theory predicts things advancing and becoming more complex, and in the process better. When you consider liberal moonbats, do you see any evidence of man advancing and becoming better?

  • IslandLifer

    I agree with Sam Adams. God created MAN from His own image. If you want to believe you are a gradual advancement of a monkey be my guest. If that’s the case, some of your cousins never quite made it ;)

  • Sam Adams

    Of course, believing in Darwin undermines the premise that “all men are created equal.” It is but a small step to conclude that some are more advanced than others…..next stop..Margaret Sanger.

    I’m sorry but God created man, and he loves and cares for us. He, of course, doesn’t wish for one group to enslave another, which is exactly what Obama and the progressives are doing.

  • Jodie

    Great posts Sam Adams!

  • Fiberal

    Sam,

    I have to admit that I did not exactly understand your earlier post well enough to respond. Someone pointed out that I have flashes of “does not compute”. ..Couldn’t agree more.

    “…finding life in a 20 million year old lake doesn’t prove or disprove anything as far as I am concerned with regards to the biblical creation story.”

    Yep. I’m with you here. Science says absolutely nothing about God. Its only religious people who say something about science.

    “…5 billion years is way too short of a time for random chance to create the complexity we see in modern life.”

    I’m not sure how you know that. But I take it that when you refer to “random chance” you are saying that the molecules needed to make up different structures all come together over a unit time to spontaneously form that structure. (correct me if I’ve flashed out here).

    No one in biology that I know of believes that could be possible. There is no theoretical basis for that to take place. In contrast, there is over-whelming evidence that nature progressively modifies structures through naturally-occurring mutations in DNA. Some changes occur quickly; some take more time.

    The retina for example, is actually a modified cilium. One example of cilia are the modifications of epithelial cells. These cells are found in aerobic animals that help to move foreign matter out of the lungs.

    As an engineer, you may appreciate that this is simple redundancy of equipment use, made to perform unique operations.

    I personally don’t like to look at whole organisms or larger anatomical structures as evidence for evolution bc they don’t lend themselves to quantitative analysis.

    If you look at changes in DNA however, you see a clear predictable pattern of structure-function.

    For example, the human genome contains Neanderthal DNA derived from a hominid split about 1 million years ago. Human and non-human primate DNA share many sequences of viral DNA derived from common ancestors that were infected by these viruses millions of years ago. And so on. This is much more informative and compelling than the evidence Darwin had for evolution.

    And actually, this makes Mendel (genetic inheritance) and James Watson and Francis Crick (DNA structure) much more formidable and appropriate opponents for Creationists. This point however, amongst many others, seems to be lost on the critics of evolution.

  • BuddyM

    As much as I hate it, I’m going to have to burst you folk’s bubble. The words on his sign are a Photoshop job. All the repeated letters are identical.

  • Pingback: Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin » Blog Archive » ‘Sorry! I did it to myself!!! I voted for Obama!’ (Photo)()

  • Goldenfoxx

    I wouldn’t give that guy a plug nickel – stupidity doesn’t buy you a hamburger. Too late for apologies buddy, you not only screwed yourself, but you screwed millions of others. Sorry doesn’t work for me.

  • Bloodless Coup
  • Sam Adams

    Fiberal:
    ““…5 billion years is way too short of a time for random chance to create the complexity we see in modern life.”

    I’m not sure how you know that. But I take it that when you refer to “random chance” you are saying that the molecules needed to make up different structures all come together over a unit time to spontaneously form that structure. (correct me if I’ve flashed out here).”

    There are two major steps that, IMHO, haven’t been surmounted. First, formation of the first lifeform. Let’s look at it from the point of view of a single DNA strand being formed that produces a helpful protein. Let’s say that the chemistry is right for the formation of DNA. So a bunch of groups randomly start joining together. If that process is by random chance, every time a new base pair joins the chain, it is either a right or a wrong pair (right being a step in the right direction towards creating something useful, wrong in the step of creating something destructive towards the formation of life (or simply not helpful). With each base pair that is added, one wrong choice results in the wrong chain being formed and all prior right pairs that are added are ultimately wasted. Since the first life form hasn’t formed yet, there is no way for “nature” to know which good parts of the chain should be kept and preserved.

    From that perspective, when two base pairs join, only one of the two is “right.” When the next base pair joins the chain, again half of those results are good, therefore, only one quarter of all three base pairs have the right chemical structure. Add another pair, we are down to 12.5%. So by the time you get to a thousand base pairs, the number of “correct” DNA strands is fleetingly small.

    And that is to form a single DNA. Then we get into the design of higher organisms. By random chance, you can’t develop a complex system such as an eye; take away any of the component of an eye and it becomes essentially useless, therefore, those animals with such an adaption don’t gain any points in the struggle to survive.

    “In contrast, there is over-whelming evidence that nature progressively modifies structures through naturally-occurring mutations in DNA. Some changes occur quickly; some take more time.”
    Who is this “Nature” and how did she get to be so smart? Yes, indeed, people/animals adapt to their environment, especially when they enjoy some trait that gives them a leg up over the competition.
    Tall basketball players are evolutionally advantaged over the normal population, and they likewise have the opportunity to pass on their genes more than members of the population in general, but we still see very few really tall people being produced (and those that are tend to have bad knees (sorry, just abusing you here).

    “For example, the human genome contains Neanderthal DNA derived from a hominid split about 1 million years ago. Human and non-human primate DNA share many sequences of viral DNA derived from common ancestors that were infected by these viruses millions of years ago.”

    I suspect that you can also find plenty of gene sequences that aren’t common ancestors to man. What can I say…apparently God believes in recycling.

    What are the differences between man and other animals (besides pockets and thumbs)? Man can contemplate who he is, where he comes from and what awaits him in the future. I believe that man consists of a human body as well as a spirit from an Eternal Creator, and when we die, that spirit will return to Him who gave us life.

  • Fiberal

    Sam,

    Let me take this one point:

    If that process is by random chance, every time a new base pair joins the chain, it is either a right or a wrong pair (right being a step in the right direction towards creating something useful, wrong in the step of creating something destructive towards the formation of life (or simply not helpful). With each base pair that is added, one wrong choice results in the wrong chain being formed and all prior right pairs that are added are ultimately wasted. (viz, towards the synthesis of a new protein).
    .

    Let me rephrase the relatively interesting problem you pose:

    —So if added randomly, all base pairs must be ordered randomly in a polymer such that the error rate in a strand of bps becomes larger each time a new bp is added to the chain. That is, the error rate becomes cumulative for the formation of any set of bps. Therefore the error becomes large enough that the probability of a functional strand of bps takes on values close to zero. In contrast, even with an infinite set of continuously polymerizing bps, those values can never come to unity since there is not enough time to obtain a set of a “correct” order of bps in a strand.

    Since you are an engineer, I have to assume you will understand the following:

    I tried to rephrase this argument bc your assumptions are so far outside any practical areas in which biologists work, that it is difficult to know exactly how to respond. I suppose mathematical biologists deal with this kind of issue, but there is a word for these guys – unemployed.

    .

    Anyway, leaving aside the fact that single-strand RNA is capable of enzymatic functions – called ribozymes – (and is thought to have preceded the synthesis of DNA by about 5 billion years) let’s look at original DNA as a single strand of nucleotides ( covalently bonded) starting without base pairing.

    (Refer to Chargaff’s rules for canonical base pairing for simplicity.)

    Now think of a DNA microarray. This is where several thousand dots are placed on a glass slide in a large matrix in saline medium. Each dot contains a strand of randomly-ordered bps with a variable number of nucleotides. Each strand attaches to the bottom of the slide in their respective dot. Let’s also grant that the order of those nucleotides within any given strand are completely random.

    Now into the microarray, we drop in several million strands of nucleotide bases also dissolved in saline- each of which also contain randomly ordered base pairs. –randomness is an important point in our chemistry and to address your point.

    We then let the strands hybridize– which they do immediately due to hydrogen bonding. In the hybridization, the base pairs match up (A to T and C to G), such that for every strand of nucleotides, a variable length of paired nucleotides is formed. All lengths of polymers (from 1 to N bps) are formed; there is no a priori constraint on the length of the hybridized strands that we can foresee.

    Such hybridization reactivity continues over several million years with each hybrid forming their own hybrids with variable-length strands and with new strands hybridizing all the time to make more new strands.

    The scenario forms the basis for the formation of DNA as we know it today since it is reasonable that the probability of a subset of functional strands would be high.

    This is confirmed by the observation that the functional unit of DNA can be as small as three nucleotide bases. It is also confirmed by the observation that in all cells, in all species, DNA carries information that codes code for a large variety of genes of all different sizes.

    The chemistry and corresponding functionality of DNA now makes sense in light of the random nature of adding nucleotide bases to a polymerized strand. In fact, under such a scenario, it would be impossible for functional strands of DNA to not go to unity. That is, in the nearly infinite set of hybrids formed over billions of years, it is impossible to not conceive of all possible combinations and lengths of resulting bps.

    Note that my DNA microarray scenario does not even consider the inevitability of DNA mutations and alterations within a set of hybrids. That would have to be factored in at some level since 37% of the human genome is comprised of transposons – segments of DNA that spontaneously move from one chromosome to another.

    Also, account for the fact that a scenario close to the DNA microarray example almost certainly has to be the case once the polymerization of nucleotide bases begins. That is, there is almost no way to account for anything less than multiple simultaneous chemical hybridization reactions over billions of years.

    Then of course once you have even a small amount of “correct” DNA (your term), you are all set to go exponential with replication.
    .

    (Sam – you will likely just skim through the above text without much processing the first time. But if you carefully consider your argument in light of the above scenario, I think you’ll see that the “sudden random chance of life” hypothesis, so tenaciously clung to by Creationists, is a complete crock.)

  • son of a preacher man

    How do you test and predict randomness?

  • Fiberal

    How do you test and predict randomness?

    son of a —

    Randomness is accounted for in the DNA microarray, as explained. Did you understand how the bps get polymerized?

    BTW if you decide you are going to tiptoe into a scientific exchange, you will find it difficult going to just use a single pithy phrase.

  • son of a preacher man

    Of which you are king. Do you understand that your understanding holds no bearing on how it actually works?

  • Sam Adams

    “Science says absolutely nothing about God. Its only religious people who say something about science.”

    I wish that were true. Unfortunately many “scientists” make their “belief” in the absence of a God widely known and justified through their scientific theories. That is the doctrine taugh in most universities and public schools.

    “Anyway, leaving aside the fact that single-strand RNA is capable of enzymatic functions – called ribozymes – (and is thought to have preceded the synthesis of DNA by about 5 billion years) let’s look at original DNA as a single strand of nucleotides ( covalently bonded) starting without base pairing.”

    I don’t know if your reference to 5 billion years is intentional, but that implies that our world hasn’t been around long enough to originate both RNA and DNA…since our world has only been around about 5 billion years.

    “The scenario forms the basis for the formation of DNA as we know it today since it is reasonable that the probability of a subset of functional strands would be high.”

    If I understand what your are saying millions of polymer chains are being formed each second (assuming chemical conditions are favorable), and that over long periods of time, even if purly by chance, you will form the correct structure for at least one functional group. That may be right. If billions of monkeys are simultaneously typing on typewriters, then given enough time one must come up with “War and Peace.”

    There are a couple of problems. In a complex living entity (like a cell) you need not just one function group, but an array of functioning groups, all of which must be brought together at the right time and each must function appropriately for the cell to live. Take away any one protene or enzyme and suddenly what might have been a “viable” cell is no longer viable. Each “correct” functional group has to compete with, per your example, trillions of “incorrect” or non-functioning groups in the effort to form a living organism.

    These strands of organic matter also have a finite lifetime before either the puddle they are in dries up, is hit by too much UV light, or is frozen or cooked.

    To put it simply, a monkey at a typewriter is just as likely to come up with French Cooking by Julia Childs as War and Peace.

    “Then of course once you have even a small amount of “correct” DNA (your term), you are all set to go exponential with replication.”

    Of course all those “incorrect” DNA fragments are all attempting to replicate at the same time. Why would the “correct” fragment win out against trillions of competitors (an “incorrect” fragment can replicate just as easily as a correct fragment.)

  • Momster

    All this blather about the image being photoshopped…So what!!

    It’s hilarious. It’s a JOKE folks–and a very pointed one, too.

    I also would not give him a nickel even if it were a real image. It would be his own fault–let him fix it. I can work (and have worked) multiple jobs–just so I would have encough money. Can’t earn enough from a burger-flipping job to live on—-GET TWO jobs. There, I FIXED it for you.

  • Momster

    enough–sorry

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial