timesjoke

It stands to reason if you tell people that they can make more money if they have more children, that "some" women will do exactly that. At the very least there should only be one payout amount, it is not fair to people who apply restraint to get paid less money then women who have no self control at all over their reproductive system. I hate welfare as it is anyway, but we should not be rewarding people who on purpose make their situation worse. I also believe anyone on public assistence should have to submit to drug testing so we can prove no tax funds are going to drug dealers. If you have plenty of money for drugs then you do not need welfare.

Well they are still looking for the gunman, they suspect it was a guy by the name of Maurice Clemmons and was recently shown clemency by then Govenor Mike Huckabee who offered as the main excuse for approving the parole as the man's age. Without "feel good" programs designed to let people get out of prison early, this horrible crime never happens (if this is indeed the guy who shot the cops). I agree with the saying, "do the crime, do the time". Letting criminals out of jail early simply means they can re-offend faster. But then again he is black and these were all white cops so they most likely deserved what happened to them because we know all cops are racists and deserve any level of abuse a black man wants to subject them to......right?

Climate change data dumped - Times Online SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA?s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals ? stored on paper and magnetic tape ? were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building. The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU?s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data. In a statement on its website, the CRU said: ?We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.? The CRU is the world?s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible. Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. ?The CRU is basically saying, ?Trust us?. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,? he said. Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life?s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years. He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is ?unequivocally? linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity. So "take our word for it" is all they have to say, lol. Read some of the comments after the story, I find them to be very good, here is one:

This is what we get in a society where even the President of the United Stated is disrespectful of what police officers do for our communities. Even Obama's first gut reaction to a story of an officer arresting his friend was that the officer was a racist and in the wrong. Obama even called police stupid. Don't think this kind of thing is going to stop, when even our top leadership says they don't trust the police, that seed will grow in the minds of people. This ripple will be felt for a long time to come.

Several times over and still looking to spend even more money we don't have.

I do not lose credibility to state facts, I qualify my answer based on the data that co2 does not effect temperature change to the increase at all and all of the data proves that fact without a single doubt. In fact, the greatest temperature declines in the Earth's history have been when co2 levels have been at the highest levels. How do you explain that fact? Even your own link agrees: Nobody, let me say this again, "NOBODY" with any respect as a hard scientist in the field of climate has come out and supported the claim that elevated co2 causes higher global temperatures or that man has had anything to do with any of it. Not 1 single person. "EVERYONE" who supports this concept are connected to massive monetary or political gain. Attempted? Thought to be? About? These are not the words of scientific fact. The writer of the article is hardly on level with a scientist like Dr. Oleg Sorochtin and the other scientists I am quoting who say we can double co2 right now and not feel any change but at the same time this writer is saying that there is a diminishing rate of return for co2 and that what the alarmists are putting out is bad science. Why are these climate change wackos telling these lies? And make no mistake, they are intentionally misleading the public. Because there is a massive amount of power and money to be had with these lies. They can't even admit the planet has been in a cooling mode for the last several years, not heating up as they have been predicting. Look at it like hot sauce, all by itself one drop of hot sauce is very hot, this is fact but as you add more drops on your tongue, you will be effected by it less until you reach a point where no matter how much hot sauce you add to your tongue, you will not get more heat. Co2 is the same way, all by itself and in the controlled setting of a lab Co2 seems to function as a greenhouse gas, but in the atmosphere where we have many competing chemicals and other conditions that regulate temperatures, Co2 can only do so much and no matter how much more you add, you cannot get any hotter. The "ONLY" two things that show direct connection to global temperature changes are solar activity and ocean temperatures. I have supplied two charts that clearly show this direct connection while Co2 has almost no correlation at all with temperature changes. It is called science, and science is supposed to be based on hard evidence. The only hard evidence is that Co2 has nothing to do with temperature "changes" on the Earth.

lol. Well I hope everyone had a good day with friends and relatives, thanksgiving is certainly a day for human connections, being close to those we feel the most love for. This was the first thanksgiving without my oldest, he is stationed in California and they had a nice dinner with some friends he works with but he also volunteered to serve meals at a shelter. Now to my favorite part, turkey sandwiches, lol........

A greenhouse gas "the way they are portraying it" is something that causes temperatures to rise as greater concentrations of it are in the atmosphere. This is not the case with Co2. By the way, just because there is a lot of co2 on Venus, that does not mean all by itself it is causing high temperatures, the high temperatures could be causing high amounts of Co2, just like we see here on Earth. Temperatures go up, co2 goes up, temperatures go down, co2 goes down. Co2 follows temperature in "EVERY" case, this is called hard science, not theory or speculation. The "only" scientists who are supporting man released co2 as causing global warming have political and financial gains to be had to lie. IWS even posted that link showing at least one place was conspiring to lie about global warming. I prefer to believe real scientists like this one: Than politicians or scientists out to make money off of scare tactics.

Sounds more like a problem with horrible teachers and a lack of standards in our locations of learning then anything else. How could a school pass someone who can't read? But let me put it this way, an education could not hurt someone's chances either. certainly that is better than cutting checks for people to sit at home smoking pot and eating cheesy poofs?

Assuming the father has a job.....or that the woman knows who the father is......even if she knows she could give false info knowing the support she will get from the Government will be better than what she will get from the piece of garbage she let get her pregnant. Sort of on topic for rewarding bad behavior, did you know "most" states allow women to trap men with fraud to get them to pay child support for a child that is not their child? Here is one popular scam: Woman knows of man who travels a lot and is out of town, she gives his name and a false address for him when she files for paternity/child support order with the courts. If the man does not find out about the order and files a appeal within 1 year of the original order, he can "NEVER" get that order changed even with DNA evidence proving he is not the father. This is possible in over 30 states including my own State of Florida. You know Hugo, I have real issues with these mothers who exploit their children on these reality shows like that kate plus 8 (not sure of the name, never watched it) where a woman basically ended her marriage on the reality show and had 8 children all mixed up with it. I can't imagine how many issues could spring up with kids in school and dealing with their train wreck lives exposed to everyone.....

There was a story I remember reading from Canda where a woman there had around 16 kids and they figued up the Canadian Government will pay her over a million dollars just for having babies. I wonder at why our society is paying people to behave poorly? We had a discussion of a story where a small group was paying girls (that had to be used for higher education) to not get pregnant, if you ask me......my tax dollar, I would rather pay the girl to get an education. In fact that is the only "welfare" I would agree with. Eliminate all programs that reward sitting at home making babies and instead give every child who can handle it a 4 year college education for free. Why? Because a better educated person is more likely to be more motivated, have a higher self-respect, and earn more money. That higher earner is paying a lifetime of taxes all based on the education he/she received and will pay back what was given them in time.

Pregnant mother-of-13 says 'I will keep having babies until I have twins' | Mail Online To put the story short, this is a woman living mostly on public assistence who is having her 14th child and says she will keep on having more children until she has twins. "She said: 'All I've ever wanted is twins or triplets. It's my biggest wish, and I'm going to keep trying until I do it. 'It would be fantastic. In fact, I won't stop trying until I've done it. I love having babies - it's the most wonderful thing in the world.' " My question is why is the Government still rewarding this woman's bad behavior? She knows she can't afford to support her own children but she still gets pregnant every year and admits she is going to keep going until she has twins so my question is two parts........ 1- Should the Government take action to protect tax funds from people like this? 2- Is there any possible child welfare concerns with spitting out babies like a pezz dispenser when you don't even have bedrooms for the children you have?

You can certainly say she was a big boost for Obama and helped him get elected.

Be careful making money on the "back end", lol. Very cool that you did well, getting your name and your pieces some exposure is pretty important, I knew your work would be received well. So you gonna become one of the "carnies"? Travel place to place doing the shows? It might give you some inspiration getting yourself immersed in that aspect of the world for a little while. Did any one or two pieces really stand out as being more popular?

Today....... But what about tomorrow? Once the monster has been created and the funding shortfalls start (always happens) they will have no choice but to look for ways to save money. Panels of 'doctors' will decide what ways we can trim costs by eliminating unneeded tests and such. I believe it was hugo who said rationing care must follow when Government takes over, and that is dead on.

So how did the show go? I am very curious as to how well Em did, I bet she sold a lot of work, lol.

I had to giggle at that story you posted hugo. The guy your quoting fist makes a big attempt to say there is no problem with the claim that co2 causes global warming and even talks down his nose a little "when congressman Joe Barton brought it up to try to discredit Al Gore’s congressional testimony" Try? As this writer later grudgingly admits, co2 does lag temperatures, sometimes for hundreds and over a thousand years so this is not a guess or an opinion, it is a fact. The writer spends most of his time making excuses, but excuses are not science, hard facts are science and the man caused global warming nuts have noscience. co2 percentages increase as temperatures rise because a warmer ocean releases more co2. Can co2 then add to the problem? No, because temperatures are not governed by co2 at all, if this was the case we would not see time and time again where extremely high co2 also shows declining temperatures........as we are experiencing now. Right now temperatures are cooling slightly, just like we see in the ice records over, and over, and over again. I already posted charts that show global temperatures are in lock step with solar activity and ocen temperatures, but there is almost no correlation with Co2. Co2 is a symptom, nothing more. edit to add, I remember reading a theory from someone that in their mind Co2 was the Earth's anti-warming agent. That time and again temperatures rise very high, co2 is increased and over some time, the temperatures go down and only after temperatures go down a lot, does co2 also go down. Like when a child plays out in the road and a parent has to come out and send the child back into the yard but is always still on the road until the child is all the way back in the yard before they come back themselves.

This goes back to how Palin talked about "death panels". Sure it was provacative wording but once the Government is in control of healthcare, they will have these kinds of panels making their reccomendations for care and as costs explode in year 7, cost control will be a huge issue as tax shortfalls come into play. Dows anyone think Canada "wanted" the long waiting lines? They were evil politicians intentionally hurting their people? No, the reality of the Government system is that it always costs more than they plan for and what looked good on paper never seems to happen once Government buracracies get their hands on the system. The money will run out, it always does so when it does run out there will be three choices: 1- End the program, this is doubtful to happen, once the Government has taken control of something they never want to let it go. 2- Raise taxes, this is possible and certainly will happen to a certain extent but remember that outside the medical system there will be many trillions of dollars short in other segments of Government as well. The money has already run out and they can't tax their way out of this problem so massive Government cuts are comming, hopefully sooner than later but there will be a point where they will have no other choice. 3- Reduce coverages to reduce cost. This to me will be their only real option. Certain kinds of treatments will be eliminated or rationed as they are in Canada to control the cost of the most expensive treatments.

A close friend of mine says he thinks Obama is odrering this civilian trial as a distraction. This trial will be dragging up an entire host of Bush people and will have testimony at great length about torture conducted and parading agent after agent who conducted the actions through the circus as a way of trying to embarass Bush and take some heat off him and his declining popularity due to his transformation into a purely partisan (and radical) President.

In a civilian court I agree, those statrements can be tossed out easily. But not in a military court. That is why c9onviction is guranteed in the military court due to being able to use his confessions. A civilian court is not guranteed because most of the evidence against him was gathered without him being given miranda warnings or a lawyer. It is called coerced testimony and not admissable. I would rather save the 300 million dollars it will cost to have the trial and instead do it the easy way. And if we spend 300 million just to seem him found innocent, then what?

While I was at it I looked up this Mark Diesendorf that Anna keeps talking about as a respected expert in climate change: He spent ten years as a math geek in the CSIRO working mostly on wind power and electricity projects. He has worked as a professor and been involved in "ecological economics" (looks to me that is where he got exposed to the money connected to an eco movement). After 2004 his primary work is as a Lecturer primarily in the fields of energy, transportation and economics. During his career Diesendorf has worked on many boards and government studies and has a long list of political connections. In his book "Climate Action:A Campaign Manual for Greenhouse Solutions" Diesendorf directly instructs people how to force the political agenda connected to man caused global warming. This man is not an expert on climate, he sells lots of books and seems to be a professional Lecturer making money speaking on environmental issues just like Al Gore. He does have a science background but it is not in this field while there are true scientists like Madhav Khandekar who have directly worked in the climate field for over 45 years who say man caused global warming has not been proven.

I decided to look into some of the people involved in the American Association for the Advancement of Science and my first look discovered AAAS President (at the time of the report you mention)John Holdren. This guy is now Obama's Science Czar. He wrote a book where he supported some radical stuff. In his book "Ecoscience": ? Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not; ? The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food; ? Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise; ? People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. ? A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international Not only is he clearly attached to politics, but he is also the kind of scientist who I would not trust to run a study on melting ice if the result of his mind are the kinds of things we see in "Ecoscience". The current President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is Dr. Peter C. Agre, also someone directly tied to Obama and politics and an official advisor to the President. When you look closely at the main contributers and members, you see a long list of political and business connections that stand to gain a lot of power, and money off of the man caused global warming lie. http://www.aaas.org/publications/annual_report/2008/aaas_ann_rpt_08l_contributors.pdf As I keep saying, follow the money and power behind those you see supporting this bad science and you will see corruption.

Anna, I know you don't like me and this will most likely add to it but please try to discuss things with an open mind and not just believe the hype created by those people spouting pure political agendas. First let me deal with your UN point: The UN IPCC Summary was created by 52 purely burcratic 'scientists' who worked directly for the UN and had zero climate experience. The peer review they claim to have conducted was actually ignored. One of these reviewers was Dr Madhav Khandekar who complained that his concerns were ignored from the first draft and never addressed. Even John Coleman (Weather Channel founder) has come out and said the political movement needs to change because all the science supporting human caused global warming is very bad. Read this: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report A few interesting points made: . Why are temperatures so erratic when co2 rise is steady? Common sense would dictate that they are not connected. Let's look at the South Pole temperatures: .

Exactly, in fact in a civilian court the confessions are not admissable so you have less evidence to use against him in a civilian court. The military court was a slam dunk, in a civilian court there is a real chance of them getting off.

And the costs look lower over the ten year mark because benefits being paid out will not start for the first 4 or 5 years. If they did a full ten years of active benefits you see it costs almost 2 trillion dollars in that ten years. Many doctors have said they will retire, some early if the Government gets into the insurance business and reduced medicare payments. Right now, without any changes did you guys know that if a medicare patient has more than one issue, doctors are not allowed to bill for more than one issue at the same time so these patients have to make a 'new' appointment for each individual issue they have so the doctor can get paid for his services connected to each seperate problem. The real issue in this is how to pay for it, and every new idea upsets someone. I don't think anything will get enough support to pass. Each time they add somethign to gain favor of a few people, they lose other people who do not want that added.