Displaying 41 - 50 of 204 Forum PostsPrev 3 4 5 6 7 Next
  • Apr 12, 2015 03:42 PM
    Last: 6yr
    Who other than Hillary has the experience, the contacts, and even the conniving and conspiring credentials -- and Bill? The world's leaders are not a bunch of nice guys, ethical, honest, humanitarian. At least we can recognize those attributes in both Hillary and, before, in Bill (the perspective being their political, not his personal, standards).
    Anything questionable regarding Hillary recently (such as the private emails) could be focussed on some aspect of just about anyone "up there" in politics, I imagine.
    So far, I think only she has the qualifications for the position of President. Not because she's a woman. Because she's been in the world arena of negotiations and collusions and compromises and all else that we, the people, don't (and probably don't want to) know about. It takes a highly educated and trained preparation to be a brain surgeon. In a very symbolic way, that's the role of a world leader, especially the President of the U. S. When to cut, when to splice, How to prevent hemorrhage (reprisals), how to prevent paralysis (such as the Middle East situation.
    In the Presidency an actor or peanut farmer or even senator is just a "front", a pubic relations position for the military industrial complex, the corporate conglomerates, the Pentagon, and mega-moneyed interests (such as Adelson, the Hunts, and even the Soros-sort.
    With Hillary, of the "Clinton Dynasty" (so to speak), there's the background and experience, yes, There's the dimension of deviousness necessary to deal with deviousness and deviants running other countries, ruining other countries by terrrorism.
    With Hillary/Bill "heritage" in office, of course the interests of the preponderant procedures of the country would continue (corporate, military-industrial, etc.) But there would be that dimension of "checks and balances" because of her (and his) network of influence and thus importance.
    Also, just having a woman President might be good for world relations.
    With no threat of a repeat of former illicit relations.
  • Apr 09, 2015 06:07 PM
    Last: 6yr
    Food for thought. And thoughts of food.

    One of the couple MEALS ON WHEELS recipients I deliver to just discontinued due to salt content. From what I see, what's served is not quite health food.
    But for awhile I ended up with enough extras that had I chosen to live off MEALS I'd only have had to buy wine, cookies, and cheese for the rest of my life.
    There was one recipient whose weekend order would be three hot and four frozen MEALS. A little leprechaunish looking guy (assuming the leprechaun had leprosy), he'd sometimes be traipsing with his walker the mile and a half from the defunct motel unit (turned into subsidized vagrant housing) to the liquor store. And quite often when I'd knock on his door with his weekend supply he'd not be there. So I'd end up with it. Plus the couple or more extras the woman in the truck from the source of the MEALS would give me.
    Bounty of the mealtiny -- (or something like that). Along with each meal there'd be a little plastic sack containing a fruit, slice of bread, and cup of pudding and mik. I don't drink milk (before, because I just don't care for the taste, and since reading recent books on animal farming and fattening and fiddling with biochemics . . . . . realizing that cows are injected with hormonals that increased their milk output some 60% but also the occurrence of mastitis and udder disorders . . . . milk drinking has inlicted cow-torture). But I just came to realize that recently. Until only a couple weeks ago there was no ethical or animal-hugging or udder sucking sympathetic simpering involved. I just didn't like milk.
    Where was I?
    Oh yes. So I'd keep the MEALS of the missing "man (and others off and on not at home. I’d eat the surplus salt and other dietary detrimentals that even MEALS ON WHEELS contain in their meals.
    But far worse the non-antiquarian dietary deluge that we eat. Look at the “contents” labels of just about anything. We eat monstrosity (as well as monstrously) in this country. And we're infecting the rest of the world with our appetites which are based on the nutritional needs of the bottom lines of the fast food industries and farming factory enterprises. Healthy nutrition for those who eat? Why would that be factored into economics?
    No sooner does food have to provide nutrition than a share of stock have to represent a company that will ever make any money It’s profit, not the benefit from the burger, bubby. Like, it’s the share price increment which (dot.com for example) can have nothing to do with enterprise income for you to make a killing (as long as you know when to take profit and bail, bubby).

    Those foreign hordes? Their depleted farmland soils are taken over by mono-crop soybeans or feed-grains for livestock to end up as burgers? The lands are pumped up with fertilizers and pesticides or Monsanto’s GMOs to feed the process of resistance mutation of the pests. That’s where the value is in farming. Food per se? How retro.
    Corn is for other than biofuel?
    Crops are for cornering the market with patented seeds and required Roundup spraying. Viva Monsanto.
    Soys and grains are to feed future burgers the world over. Also growth hormones and antibiotics and maybe that partly explains the obesity epidemic.
    It’s almost as if that French bitch’s spirit is running the whole agribusiness and factory farming regime and ruin.

    “Let them eat cuh-cuh!!!”

    And them are, of course. Fecal contamination of chicken, beef, and even plants now and then.
    Maybe the salt in everything is an antidote?
    Were it not for MEALS I’d essentially live on chicken or salmon, lima beans or spinach, rice or nothing other then the aforementioned. Now and then a salad solely (with vinegar and olive oil). Were it not for habit, I might go for days without bothering to eat. At my age, hunger is one of those things that you don’t experience so you don’t experience the missing of. As much.
    But I do still want my sweets. And I do now and then crave a huge, greasy, dangerously pre-medium-rare burger on the Forman grill. (Which George had nothing to do with the invention of, and even initially had no interest at all in the promotion of either!!!)
  • Apr 04, 2015 08:34 PM
    Last: 6yr
    The reader of the following should consider that I’m possibly being satirical – or playing devil’s advocate. Serious? Moi? But whatever one’s assumption of my standpoint, that this is just one man’s opinion should be the reader’s judgment. Even if I’ve written serious commentary regarding some organizations, I could be wrong, misled, misinformed, or missing the state of sanctity achieved by those who believe – whichever.

    Spent the afternoon watching a Scientology expose' on some TV channel at my son’s place. I've read a couple or more books on the "church". Amazing what psychopathology people will espouse as "religion" -- and frightening such mob mania that could so easily turn Nazi-ish. At least Scientology's fascistic procedures have been kept within the organization, primarily to keep people from leaving it.
    So many examples of such craze-cult congregations: small scale was the Jim Jones event ending in mass suicide. Mormonism is enshrined lunacy (the angel Maroni appeared in a field, further revelations were from the founder's putting his head in a hat. There's the Unification Church whose members were called "Moonies" after the founder, "Reverend" Moon.
    Amazing the mass membership. And maybe more so, the economic accumulation and power these organizations acquire. And in such short time-spans. L. Ron Hubbard founded Scientology (after the wane of Dianetics) only 60 or so years ago. And now it's an international econo-political powerhouse in ways. Mormons were despised and driven out of several of their "promised land" locales before settling in Utah mid-l800s or so. And by l900s they were building the Temple and already very influential and rich. Moon's scam has legitimized, so to speak, to the point of owning major newspapers and heaven knows what else.
    Even "mainstream" religions are significantly based on beliefs which, from perspective other than the believers' would be considered childish, nonsense, fiction, or psychosis.
    The actually observable and scientifically demonstrable ( and theoretically provable) phenomena of the earth, life, sky, space, . . . should be the "supernatural dimension of the Natural", the wonder and beauty and power and glory of it all what mankind seeks to be encompassed within. To become "one" with (through knowledge, yes, but just being amazed and enthralled.
    Angels and visitations and "future-wives" of Mormonism . . . and spirits from failed former worlds escaped from the volcanoes to then "infest" those not "cleared" by Scientology's stunts . . . and even bearded old white men in the sky along with the revelations of Revelations (that some assert are prophecy of airplanes or automobiles)!!! A species capable of technology and medicine and art and comprehension of the universe's actual processes even from the sub-atomic unto the very expansionist galactic scope . . . . gathers in mumbling and mania and mutual hatred so often. Gathers to worship some god of glorification of their autonomy apart from the whole of Being?
    What a sin religion, so much, is.
    What worse, so often, what somehow cons terminology and tax exempt status, enterprises that people pour their culpability into. Perhaps the epic of this category is Scientology.
  • Apr 03, 2015 07:52 PM
    Last: 6yr
    Definitely a "renewable" paradigm that should be developed. Battery bank storing from solar collection provides power when sun's not shining. For low power appliances and tech devices, considering what one gets out of a couple flashlight batteries (or even smaller), most of a residence's needs could be powered from a secondary "in-house-grid". With less light flooding of areas (more directed) where needed and LEDs, the light from such a solar/battery system should suffice. Already in rural countries, a single solar panel (often made from scrap mat'ls of mainstream panel construction) is sufficient to provide light and run the village tv.
    Covering appropriately positioned surfaces with panels (including building walls), probably all illumination and tech device needs could be powered by solar with very large battery storage per area of a city, or per building.
    Obviously higher power needs would require either "collaborating alternatives" (solar plus wind plus, perhaps input from aqueous sources which would include regional tidal and even gravity-flow aquaduct turbines). But unless there's a significant decrease in power usage, there will always be some demand for "conventional" grid electricity generated by coal, diesel, natural gas.
    Industrial machinery power demands, servers, HVAC systems, electric heat especially . . . . no chance sufficient solar for those needs. Just one of the examples I ran across in researching DI VS: to power one diesel locomotive would require 128 acres of solar panels (and that's computed before the resistance power loss over distance. Yes, for example between Boston and NY there's electricity running Acela via overhead caternary. But that's not pulling the mass weight of freight trains. And that's electricity generated conventionally (fossil fuel burning). Even passenger trains would be impossible to power via solar given all the variables of length of day, intensity of sunlight, distance between input facilities to RR grid, temperatures, grades, etc.
    But to have panels charging batteries powering low-demands and saving even 30% energy demands for even just residential . . . . it should be demanded, even required for new construction codes. The same type of revolution of systems would be the re-use of "gray-water" (rain and drain) for watering, washing car, flushing toilets.
    There's so much we could do and eventually, I think, will have to -- in order for a world of increasing numbers of people in increasing regions of mech-tech affluence and advance to be able to survive.
  • Mar 27, 2015 12:29 PM
    Last: 6yr
    Do any of these purported (and paranoid-delusional) "Christians" have any idea that their "religion" is not only an affront to what Christ is assumed to have been about (at least presented as having preached about)? What the hell has most modern "Christianity" to do with Christ-ianity?? Love thy neighbor. Give unto the poor. Heal the sick. Clothe the naked. FORGIVE AND JUDGE NOT AND DON'T CAST THE STONE . . .and all. Perhaps to the right-wing rightous wingnuts that lock down knock-down of others in their dungeons of denigration (and de-Negration) . . . .perhaps self-assumption is assumed ascention?

    But they should perhaps not bother introspecting where distortion would compound the internal dissonance of their religiosity and what the religion of their nominal usurpation ("Christianity") really is. Not only would Jesus look on their discrimination and judgment and aggrandizement and pomposity as perversity of the soul far worse than any variations of love expressed between bodies . . . . He would the more adjudge as sin their condemnation of others. But the "mascot of the club-Jesus franchises) is not Christ of Christianity. He's the projection of the club-member-regional person. Nice Nordic face and almost Breck hair and add the intriguing S/M dimension of crucifixion . . . . and there's your avatar. And with the cross of Jesus marching before your tirade or legislation or discrimination, you are rolling holy?? Would the moral majority be turned on by a swarthy, hook-nosed, bulbous-bellied "savior" never nailed? There wouldn't have been those movies to be made -- the "rapture" of the rupture of the flogged blood vessels to savor.

    Regarding what they believe and think and say (as opposed to, significantly, subconsciously picture) . . . . .
    What would Jesus say? THE Jesus of the Bible. But who the hell reads the Bible? Yes, they recite. Line-items cherry-picked from this or that book and verse. "Ex context" non-continua like nonsense phrases or even paragraphs in juxtaposition to what the Bible actually represents, states, stands for, and in the Old Testament reveals as horrific inhumanity committed in the "projected name of " God . . . .on the one hand, and on the other, in many places, sheer contradictory and ludicry. (Not that the O. T. doesn't present fascinating documentary of a period of history -- but so much is such that if it weren't considered a holy book, the evangelicals would have had it banned and burned at least recently in the Southern " 'belt" states.)

    And as for the New Testament (which also contains contradictory and questionable and overall, yes, blasphemous conclusion to the concept of a perfect, all-loving God and his incarnate Son whose sacrifice would salve the sins of the "Special Creation in God's own Image" (man) . . . it comes down to Jesus depicted and portrayed, on or off cross, as idolatry. God, envisioned, as heresy ( wait until I post specifics another time). Anything and anyone proclaiming to be Christian, not loving and accepting (doesn't mean approving or assimilating) others' differences and even deviances is not a Christian. Anyone assuming that a perfect God created such an imperfect universe that it has to be totally destroyed (this time, after previous -- flood -- completely . . . believes blasphemy. No matter what the Bible says. Because elsewhere it has said otherwise.

    Theyre poseurs, pretenders, heretics in holy's clothing. They're the mindset that have the 3000+ dead on 9/11 due to gay marriage -- or, according to B. Graham's daughter, because "God, being the gentleman that he is" having been excluded from public schools preventing prayer, decided to let man do his thing and not get involved . . . . . . and Falwell . . . . and real rape results in automatic/autonomic termination by a woman's body . . . and such psychopathology propounded as . . . . . Christianity? Righteousness -- determined by its emanation from the RIGHT WING??

  • Mar 29, 2015 10:02 AM
    Last: 6yr

    Glacial melting? Like "global warming" a conspiracy of gays and socialists to overthrow Capitalism and establish an Islamic Caliphate.
    It's not climate temperature change or sea level rising or atmospheric carbon increase or higher levels of acidic lakes or forests or other myths and manias of the lunatic, life-hugging, Left.
    What's happened is incrementally faulty instruments used in calibrations and measurements and analyses and other determinations of levels and percentiles and degrees etc. The tools of the fools have been tinkered.
    Let us respect the true American values and venues of self-determination and free markets and private sector privilege . . . . and let us restore our heritage as a Patriots, Not panderers to false prophecies.
    (Al Gore and Obama are just two skin-colors of the Anti-Christ).

    Re. seagulls . . . and W. Mass. companies (might have been Springfield) . . . . years ago I read of a company that made golf balls. For testing, as well as employee recreation, there were areas to drive and putt, and balls would not all be collected when the lunch break was over, or the tests completed. And seagulls didn't discern other than "roundish white things" -- and deluded that they were clams, the gulls would swoop down, pick up a ball, soar above, and drop it (to break open a clam) . . . . on windshields and convertible tops and even on people. It was an "onset" phenomenon, probably resulting from one diverting (or lost) gull who then returned and somehow conveyed to the rest of the flock, ". .. Western Mass ain't that far . . . . they're all over the ground. We don't even have to get wet!!! Drop from high enough and they break open. Taste kind of rubbery though . . . .

    "I may be a Luddite. Others have decried the idea of sound or pictures through the air, notables have negated any chance of anyone traveling over 30 mph (would cause insanity), and on and on.
    But to me, self-driving cars are an absurdity as well as a luxury. "Safety-assisted auto-tech" is commendable. But for the thing to totally drive itself? So the occupant (probably mostly just the one commuting) can spend more time working? Or watching TV?
    And imagine the hassle of a self-drive car at inspection sticker time -- if something isn't quite right now not just with lights or tires or tire pressure monitors or the 100 other computerized gimmicks. Imagine what it will cost if you're rejected because the automatic driving complex is faulty? Gettin' that fixed won't be cheap.
  • Nov 21, 2014 11:17 PM
    Last: 6yr
    P, S, A factor over-riding fractional considerations is America's history as a nation. This is actually inherent in a significant "American mind-set" and literally documented (at least as far as "militia"-arms are concerned) in the Constitution. This heritage is different from other countries. Also, our "occupation" and conquest so suddenly and violently is somewhat unique -- and so much the gun was our forebears' banner marching into genocidal war.
    Onward Christian soldiers . . . . . soldiers are armed.
    Guns R Us.
    Guns are our endemic, somewhat "epigenetic" inheritance.
    Thus what might be correlation of less-guns-to less-violence elsewhere might not be possible to even attempt here.
    I repeat from a long-ago post -- if there were to be a moratorium on gun purchase next month, next week I'd be at the local shop to purchase one and its ammo. Not an assault which, I'd consider a crime for me to even own unless it were for legitimate paramilitary or target activities. And I'd gladly submit almost any level of available (without hassle) background info to assure that I'm not off the deep end . . . . . . other than sometimes in literary length.

  • Nov 21, 2014 11:17 PM
    Last: 6yr
    God didn't create guns or it would have said so in the infallible irrationality (and contradictory) of Genesis.
    But we do know from that source that Satan created the computer and Steve Jobs was his contemporary agent.
    So I'm safe from sin. I have Microsoft on an two HP laptops and a Dell desk.

    But seriously, a serious study needs to be conducted, statistics recorded.
    What proportion of populations in other countries have guns.
    What is the socio-economic and age distribution of those populations.
    What are the religious and ethnic demographics elsewhere.
    Is the any correlation between gun possession, gun crimes, and the above (other than, of course, where no guns no gun crime !!!)
    Where Ior if) population and police are not weaponized, is crime otherwise out of control? Is police gun possession a deterrant? Or exacerbation?
    Is public possession a protection or an invitation to shoot-out mayhem, from individual rages to group rampages?

    I think the unquestionables of the situation have been succinctly stated by Demo contributions herewith, and before as well.
    There's no conceivable possibility the American populace can be disarmed. The most draconian measures would result in insurrection even by
    those who are not actual gun-advocates.
    Obviously, the crimes committed with guns are proportionate to the guns with which to commit. This holds true from the frontier days of the U. S.
    to the "frontiers" of elsewheres in the world today.
    Gun control here is a delusion, though gun ownership requisites and registration are no more intrusive, or less important, than passing various tests before being able to drive a car, truck, or do potentially dangerous tasks and professions.

    When I've finished my present publishing project perhaps I'll research the abovementioned areas. Any info I compile I'll try to consolidate and post.
  • Mar 21, 2015 09:26 PM
    Last: 6yr
    Thinking about tall buildings and strong winds and it's a wonder not one "skyscraper" has blown over:
    Engineering has achieved the state of "supernatural" supremacy???

    There have been reciprocating periods of heat and interims of "ice-age".
    There have been continental drifts of macrogeologic scale such as the breakup of the once-super-continent Pangaea, and thereafter the tectonic separation of continents (witness the "puzzle-piece" confluent contours of Europe/Africa and No. America, South America. and other places globally too).
    There have been "microgeologic" meanderings such what are termed "terrain suits", chunks of broken-off continental surface that have drifted from there to here (such as along the California coast where one side of a crest is of absolutely different origin from the other "side of the mountain" and the seaward side was traced geologically to South America. There are many other cases of such wanderings of fragments.
    There have been massive subsidences and elevation increments, the scope in time and dimension catastrophic (such as the eruption of Yellowstone eons ago).
    There have been drastic droughts (such as by desertification) and inundations (such as by breaching of geologic and ice "dams") and thus sudden extensive regional noyades ("Noah's flood" perhaps caused by the breaching of a Meditarranean "peninsula-dam" as ice age waters rose . . . .
    There have been mass infestations and mass extinctions of life forms due to extraterrestrial and terrestrial and even organic-endemic factors (meteor, over-reproduction, mass starvation or mutual predation).
    There have been all these circumstantial reversals of existential conditions and dynamics and situations.
    There have been drastic electrodynamic fluctuations resulting from solar flares.
    There have been several paleo-historic incidences of what are specifically termed geomagnetic Polar Reversals.
    Somehow everything's kept on going through all this mayhem and matter-form madness.
    But now . . . this modern age, these massive skyscrapers we build . . . the wind don't blow 'em over, But what's going to happen when THE EARTH EXPERIENCES A "GRAVITY REVERSAL" ????????
  • Mar 20, 2014 11:50 PM
    Last: 6yr
    To legally own real estate one has to be a legal adult, I think, nationally, l8. That's different from "age of consent".
    So providing these things to undeage kids is impossible unless the condoms were bought in their parents' names. And how many parents, especially in the religious-red states, are going to be willing to buy condoms for their children? And how many could afford to.
    And even for over-l8 kids, how many would be able to afford the condom fees? Taxes? Utilities? Having a condom isn't cheap. In New York City some are worth tens of millions of dollars.
    And even if it's to prevent out of wedlock, or unwanted, pregnancies among the very, very rich, what a futile, even stupid idea. Condoms have luxurious bedrooms and privacy and even terraces and balconies where the promiscuous would just do their thing, heedless of the conceptual consequences.
    So, simply, providing condoms to prevent pregnancies is ridiculous.
    For that protection, one needs to put those black, flexible, footwear things over his or her shoes.