About Me

Name: Catmman
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Wet T-shirt Photo-of-the-Day

Head over to Hot Air for the Link, but don't say I didn't warn you!

Scroll down and read the comments after; they are worth the price of admission!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Homes of the Future - Made of Straw?

The 'newest' solution to global warming.  I.  Kid.  You.  Not.

I guess folks in New Zealand never read Little Red Riding Hood.

From the New Zealand Herald:

In the future, we will live in homes made out of straw. If we're serious about minimising the carbon footprint of our homes, then straw bales, coated in plaster, are the way to go - and the Clark Government does seem serious.


To solve global warming, let's take a giant leap backward in time and technology!?  WTF!  Let's take this to it's logical conclusion:  Maybe if we build cars out of sticks...

Do I go with the obvious response to this?  OK...

"I'll huff, and I'll puff..."

You know the rest.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ron Paul's Political Inconsitencies

I have posted these questions and have yet to receive a response from Ron Pauls supporters on any of them.  Perhaps I'll e-mail the campaign itself and see if I can get some clarification.

Take a look at this previous post for the questions and some postulation on why I think they remain unanswered:  Hypocrisy is alive; kill it! "Dr. No" Exposed.

I have even encountered contradictions in his views of abortion.  We know what he says about abortion and his words are good.  But what about how he actually votes?  As opposed to all other republican candidates who have a score, Mr. Pauls NARAL scorecard gives him a score of 65% this year, 75% last year.

Part of this is probably due to the way he votes on everything.  He votes no on a lot of stuff in Washington.  But what is the result of all those no votes?  NARAL, hardly a centrist or center right organization, scores him the highest as friendly to choice than any other Republican candidate.  All the other Republicans score a 0% from NARAL across the board.  Does Ron Paul simply vote no on everything without thought to the consequence of those votes?  As a Republican, even one with a lot of libertarian views, NARAL would hardly score him this high just because they "like his politics" - after all, he is a Republican.

Those types of scores, though hardly high when compared to Democrat candidates, should raise questions about Mr. Pauls true stance on this issue.

One of the largest arguments from Paul supporters, especially the Paulbots, is that they constantly site Mr. Pauls speeches, commentaries and other instances of Ron Paul speaking his viewpoint.  This is fine as far as it goes, but I am one to evaluate a politician on his actual record, on his actual actions, not just on what he says.  When it comes to abortion, there are some questions that need answering.  

I've asked some serious questions on Mr. Pauls views.  His anti-war stance.  Income taxes.  Spending on earmarks.  Follow the link above and see the questions.  I have yet to get answers to them.  I even found some amazing inconsistencies on his illegal immigration stance which I'm still taking a look at and will probably post about in the future.

Ron Paul is liked by a lot of people.  Heck, even I don't disagree with everything he says.  But a lot of that same support comes from a base that refuses to objectively analyze their guys faults and address them in a satisfactory manner. 

Other than obfuscation and responses lacking intellectual honesty, constantly shouting  "Ron Paul is the savior of the world!" doesn't really address the inconsistencies between what he says and what he does.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"300" - The Border Edition

Monday funny.  "Tonight, we dine in San Diego!!!"

(H/T: Hot Air)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

When Spammers Can't Attack

5th place for Ron Paul.  Anything but a negative?

Mitt Romney wins Iowa Straw poll as we all know by now.  The analysis is already out there, but so is the spin.

One thing interesting are the Ron Paul results and the reactions from his fans.

Ron Paul places 5th.  Yes, there were calls of fraud and conspiracy due to a vote counting machine breaking down (go read their forums and sites).  Of course none of this was true  and there were almost immediate calls from other Pauls supporters to lay off the conspiracy talk.  That's a plus.  Unfortunately, Ron Paulers actually filed suit to stop the voting unless the ballots weren't counted by hand.  Regardless of the actual reasoning for this, all it does is add credence to the "wacko" image Paulbots have with the public.  

Other than media attention, what is the true benefit of this Poll?  Historically the Republican nominee has won the poll and gone on to the White House.  Fundraising may increase short term for those who placed well due to media attention.  But what about Ron Paul?  What has he gained, if anything?

It's true he didn't spend as much money as Romney.  He didn't spend as much time in Iowa as Romney and some of the other candidates.  But Paulbots have spun this to be a good thing.  Spending less money and time in an area when you really need to either win or place better than 5th is not a winning strategy.  Placing 5th for Paul doesn't really do anything for him.  He will garner more or less the same attention from the media and the public as he does now.  Paul maintains the status quo as far as his campaign goes at the crucial beginning of the Republican primary season.

Romney spent more money than Paul.  Paulbots think this is a bad thing for Romney.  Romney spent more money than Paul because he has more money than Paul.  Romney spent more time and effort than Paul because he cares more about the outcome than Paul.  These are not pluses for Paul.

Another Paulbot spin is that Paul only spent $200 dollars for every vote he received as opposed to Romney who spent $450 per vote (not $2200 as stated).  That's all well and good.  But let's not forget that Huckabee only spent $58 dollars per vote he received as opposed to Pauls $200 and he came in second.  Heck, Brownback spent less for a better finish.  So when trying to spin this in a "who spent what", correlation does not prove causality. 

Pauls biggest asset are his fans who were at the Poll in large numbers.  If nothing else, they have the ability to lobby for their guy.  This is a plus, but not a very big one.  With such a large lobbying group at this event, Paul still couldn't do better than 5th.  If nothing else, this proves that Paul supporters do indeed spam the polls they can.

All week long prior to the Poll, Paulbots pointed to this online poll, or that statistic that Paul would do better than he did.  Paulbots made a big deal about him garnering 84% of the vote in an online poll in the Ames Tribune.  84% in an online Poll versus 9% in an actual, real life, cast a ballot poll!  Be still the heavens!  

And what about the "Kernel Poll".  This is a poll just tailor made for spammers.  It was an informal poll taken at the Fair.  Jars were put up at a booth with Democratic and Republican candidates pictures next to them.  All People had to do was drop a corn kernel into the candidates jar they liked.  Results?  Ron Paul with 4%.  (Romney won that on too.)   Interestingly, the Kernel Poll numbers reflect Pauls actual nationwide numbers of between 1-4%.  So, Like I said, there is something to be said for supporter lobbying.  There just isn't enough of that support nationwide to ultimately affect the outcome.

If Paulbots and the Paul campaign take these results and change their current course, they may make more of an impact.  But Pauls campaign has stayed the course it's on for so long now, I don't think they will be able to turn this result into a positive.

Lastly, intellectual honesty is something which has been sorely lacking from the Paulbot camp and it doesn't look like that is going to change anytime soon.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Romney Wins Iowa Poll; Huckabee 2nd

Here's the standings:

From Marc Ambinder:

Gov Mitt Romney won the 2007 Ames straw poll, receiving 4516 votes, or 31%.


In a surprise, Gov. Mike Huckabee finished second with 2587 votes at 18.1%


11. John Cox with 41 votes.
10. John McCain with 101 votes.
9. Duncan Hunter with 174 votes.
8. Rudy Giuliani with 183 votes.
7. Fred Thomson with 231 votes.
6. Tommy Thompson, 1,009 votes, 7.3%
5. Ron Paul with 1305 votes, and 9.1% 
4. Tom Tancredo with 1961 votes, 13.7%.
3. Sen. Sam Brownback with 2192 votes and 15.3%


Iowa state auditor David Vaudt unofficially certified the results.


14,203 ballots were cast.

Paul got 9.!% of the vote.  That's the highest he's scored on anything all year.  Unless you count his NARAL scorecard.

However, there was a malfunction with one of the voting machines so expect to see the Paulbots balck helicopters crowd sceraming foul.  Hopefully, they'll accept 5th place for what it's worth.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Arab terrorist: Look Ma, no magic carpet!

Video.  Alladin this guy ain't. 

Posted with the appropriate Content Warning:



(H/T: Jawa)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Murtha's Office hangs up on Haditha Question

Since three of the marines charged in the "Haditha Slayings" have been cleared of all charges and had their name cleared, some have wondered, appropriately, if Rep. Murtha will apologoze for his remarks made against these same men. 

You'll get a chuckle.  From Hot Air:
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

'Chocolate' Nagin: Foot in mouth again!

117 murders so far this year isn't necessarily a good thing, but it keeps their name out there?

From the KTBS.com:

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin said he worries that killings send the message the city is dangerous, but the news also "keeps the New Orleans brand out there."

Nagin, whose city has recorded at least 117 murders this year, told WVUE-TV it's a "two-edged sword."


Wrong Way Ray strikes again!  (H/T: Hot Air)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hypocrisy is Alive; kill it. "Dr. No" Exposed

4 unanswered questions about Ron Pauls politics:

1.  Does Ron Paul believe there is too much spending in government?

If so, please explain the $400 million dollars in taxpayer "earmarked" money he received for his district.  Or are my fellow Texans who live in the 14th District that dependent on government money?  If so, is Ron Paul complicit in that dependance?  Or perhaps he is the consumate politician playing within the same "corrupt" system he professes to be above?

2.  Ron Paul has stated we should "Just bring them home", referring to our troops in Iraq and ending the war.  If he truly wishes the end of the war, what legislation has Ron Paul introduced in the House to do just that?

To be fair, Mr. Paul had proposed a "Sunset" bill on the original use of force authorization.  If approved, it would have had the troops home NLT six months after the signing of the bill by the President.  But for someone who "wants the troops home now", why would we wait six months?  Is the war wrong or not?  Or would it be "right" for six more months?

3.  Has Mr. Paul proposed any legislation to stop funding the war in Iraq or the greater war on terror?  If he has disagreed with the war from the start, why not continue to propose legislation in each congress to defund it?

4.  Does Mr. Paul pay income taxes?  If he doesn't owe taxes for whatever reason, does he at least file?

For a man who has said he knows of no law to make American citizens pay income taxes(skip ahead to 5:10 in the video for the relevant Q&A), and a man who proposes to end the IRS, as a stated and professed man of political principle, why would he obey a non-existant (or unlawful) law?  Or continue to prop up the IRS?

I've been asking these questions for about a month now.  Still no response.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Bear Awakening?

The Soviets, I mean the Russians, have reinstituted the policy of buzzing American Air Bases with long range strategic bombers.

The Soviets, darn it there I go again.  I'm sorry, I mean Russians, are claiming arctic territory  for the Glory of Mother Russia!


A 1999 encounter between an F15 Eagle and a Tu-95 Bear

                                         A 1999 encounter between an F15 Eagle and a Tu-95 Bear


From the
Telegraph.co.uk:

The US military was silent about the mid-air confrontation but the Russians were happy to boast about it.

"It was always the tradition of our long-range aviation to fly far into the ocean, to meet (US) aircraft carriers and greet (US) pilots visually," Maj Gen Pavel Androsov, the head of long-range aviation in the Russian air force, told a press conference in Moscow.

"Yesterday we revived this tradition." 

And of course it's all in the spirit of Glasnost I guess:

According to the general, two Tupolev-95 bombers flew from Blagoveshchensk, on Russia's border with China, to the US naval base at Guam in the West Pacific during a 13-hour round trip on Wednesday.

Capable of carrying nuclear bombs, the Tu-95 was the Soviet Union's aviation icon. A lumbering beast, it was instantly recognisable to every US fighter pilot who had to escort the aircraft on its regular sorties down the American east coast.

A new generation of pilots may now have to get used to doing the same.

According to Gen Androsov, American fighters took off from an aircraft carrier and tracked the bombers until they left Guam's airspace. "We exchanged smiles and returned home," he said.

A 13 hour round trip to "exchange smiles"?  My A--! 

Is the Russian/Soviet Bear reawakening from a long hibernation?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrat Homosexual 'Debate' - Just Plain Gay?

Image.  I had to do this.  Gaze at your own risk...(it's ok, nothing bad)


I'm sorry.  I've been dying to say and post this all bloody day!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

1934

What's the significance?  If you are a Goracle disciple, you will not be pleased.  Look at this info: 

From Hot Air:

According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is. Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of temperature are calculated separately.)

And the reporting of this info in the MSM begins in 5,4,3,2...crickets...crickets...

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Greenland ice growing, temps cooling

The Goracle's cries of "blasphemy" ring throughout the land!

From Newsbusters:

One of the keys to the manmade global warming myth being espoused by soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and the good folks at the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that glaciers in Greenland have been melting in the last fifty years at an alarming rate.

In fact, both
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) claimed to witness such evidence of global warming during recent trips there.

But those trips were probably wasted beyond the alarmist photo op they were:

The Greenland ice sheet would appear to have experienced no net loss of mass over the last decade for which data are available. Quite to the contrary, in fact, it was likely host to a net accumulation of ice, which Zwally et al. found to be producing a 0.03 ± 0.01 mm/year decline in sea-level.

[...]

Hanna and Cappelen (2003) determined the air temperature history of coastal southern Greenland from 1958-2001, based on data from eight Danish Meteorological Institute stations in coastal and near-coastal southern Greenland, as well as the concomitant sea surface temperature (SST) history of the Labrador Sea off southwest Greenland, based on three previously published and subsequently extended SST data sets (Parker et al., 1995; Rayner et al., 1996; Kalnay et al., 1996). Their analyses revealed that the coastal temperature data showed a cooling of 1.29°C over the period of study, while two of the three SST databases also depicted cooling: by 0.44°C in one case and by 0.80°C in the other. In addition, it was determined that the cooling was "significantly inversely correlated with an increased phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation over the past few decades."

Hmm.  Revised temperature data shows the alarmist arguments about hottest years is incorrect.  Real scientific evidence shows even more alarmist claims incorrect.

Let the AGW proponents spin begin!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive