In yet another attempt to make it look like there is widespread support for ObamaCare, the far-left liberal hacks at Reuters once again conducted a bogus poll, which was once again quickly promoted by the farther-left Huffington Post. This time, the "poll" claims that "The broad support for the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare,
emerged in interviews last week in Dallas with more than 20 cardiologists."
But here is a critical fact that the poll - and HuffPost, are conveniently leaving out.- there are approximately 60,000 cardiologists in America. A poll of only 20, taken at a convention that was attended mostly by liberal doctors, only tells us that ObamaCare is not widely supported at all. In fact, Hannity had more than 20 doctors on his show Wednesday, and almost none of them supported ObamaCare.
Moreover, the Reuters "poll" offered no substantiation. There is no way to check on their "results".
/
Friday, November 29, 2013
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Bill Nye Proves Scientists Can Be Ignorant
There is a battle going on in Texas schools over whether or not Creationism or Evolution should be taught in the schools. And the idiots at Huffington Post thought it would be a good idea to get a liberal "science guy" to offer his take on the issue. So, they asked Bill Nye, the supposed "science guy".
Here is what Nye said, which only serves to prove his ignorance (and that of many "scientists", liberals and atheists):
"Everyone should take a moment and think what it will mean to raise a generation of students who might believe that it is reasonable to think for a moment that the Earth might be 10,000 years old."
And here is why it proves his ignorance: Neither Christianity nor the Bible indicates the Earth is only 10,000 years old. On the contrary. However, since Nye is so ignorant in matters of religion, he, like others of his ilk have been conned into believing that Christians do believe the Earth to be 6,000-10,000 years old. Most do not.
The concept that Christians must believe the Earth is 6,000 years old is not based on anything from the Bible, but rather from a liberal atheist in the 1970's who, in an effort to prove religion is bunk, decided to "add up" the timelines given in the King James Bible, and by those measures he erroneously determined that, according to the Bible, the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
And so, many liberals and atheists alike use that bogus calculation to belittle religious people. But the joke is on them, because that "timeline" is as phony as the atheist who formulated it.
Certainly, if you add the times and ages from the King James Bible - or any English translation of the Bible - it would appear that Moses lived to be 950 years old and the Earth is only 6,000 years old. But that is only due to the errors in translating from ancient Hebrew to English.
In the ORIGINAL Scriptures, written in Hebrew, the world was created in seven "yom". The word yom is used in ancient Hebrew to depict any time period - it could mean a moment, a day, a year, an eon. And while King James decided arbitrarily it would mean "day", the KJV Bible leads ignorant people to believe the Earth was created in 7 days, not because the Bible says so, but because KING JAMES said so! The reality is that "yom" could have just as easily meant eons, ages or any other time frame. And THAT makes more sense.
In the same vein, Moses lived 950 "yom". Again, King James decided that meant 950 years. More likely, however, it meant 950 moon cycles (months) which was the typical time cycle in those days (and native Americans used it until 100 years ago) which would equate to 79 years. Now, doesn't that make more sense?
The point is, the Bible does not claim the Earth to be only a few thousand years old, and a person with a scientific mind would have researched that and discovered the truth. Only liberals, atheists and apparently Bill Nye who are determined to undermine religion make such an assumption so they can push their sin-riddled agenda. Which proves that the "illuminati" like Bill Nye are just ignorant morons who have been misled by those with a nefarious agenda.
Now, back to the battle in Texas - it is my humble opinion that the schools should teach both theories - evolution and creation. After all, it is the task of schools to teach children to think - not to do their thinking for them. And in all probability, both theories are valid - neither one excludes the other. Surely, God is at least as smart as Procter & Gamble who, after creating a product would ensure the product evolves over time with a "new, improved" version. If there is a God, he most certainly would have created life with the ability to evolve as the environment changes. As for evolution without creation, simply ask yourself one question...
"Since only living things can evolve, where did everything else that is non-living come from?" Or this question, "If life evolved, what did it evolve FROM? Where did that very first "living thing" come from?"
Just sayin'...
/
Here is what Nye said, which only serves to prove his ignorance (and that of many "scientists", liberals and atheists):
"Everyone should take a moment and think what it will mean to raise a generation of students who might believe that it is reasonable to think for a moment that the Earth might be 10,000 years old."
And here is why it proves his ignorance: Neither Christianity nor the Bible indicates the Earth is only 10,000 years old. On the contrary. However, since Nye is so ignorant in matters of religion, he, like others of his ilk have been conned into believing that Christians do believe the Earth to be 6,000-10,000 years old. Most do not.
The concept that Christians must believe the Earth is 6,000 years old is not based on anything from the Bible, but rather from a liberal atheist in the 1970's who, in an effort to prove religion is bunk, decided to "add up" the timelines given in the King James Bible, and by those measures he erroneously determined that, according to the Bible, the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
And so, many liberals and atheists alike use that bogus calculation to belittle religious people. But the joke is on them, because that "timeline" is as phony as the atheist who formulated it.
Certainly, if you add the times and ages from the King James Bible - or any English translation of the Bible - it would appear that Moses lived to be 950 years old and the Earth is only 6,000 years old. But that is only due to the errors in translating from ancient Hebrew to English.
In the ORIGINAL Scriptures, written in Hebrew, the world was created in seven "yom". The word yom is used in ancient Hebrew to depict any time period - it could mean a moment, a day, a year, an eon. And while King James decided arbitrarily it would mean "day", the KJV Bible leads ignorant people to believe the Earth was created in 7 days, not because the Bible says so, but because KING JAMES said so! The reality is that "yom" could have just as easily meant eons, ages or any other time frame. And THAT makes more sense.
In the same vein, Moses lived 950 "yom". Again, King James decided that meant 950 years. More likely, however, it meant 950 moon cycles (months) which was the typical time cycle in those days (and native Americans used it until 100 years ago) which would equate to 79 years. Now, doesn't that make more sense?
The point is, the Bible does not claim the Earth to be only a few thousand years old, and a person with a scientific mind would have researched that and discovered the truth. Only liberals, atheists and apparently Bill Nye who are determined to undermine religion make such an assumption so they can push their sin-riddled agenda. Which proves that the "illuminati" like Bill Nye are just ignorant morons who have been misled by those with a nefarious agenda.
Now, back to the battle in Texas - it is my humble opinion that the schools should teach both theories - evolution and creation. After all, it is the task of schools to teach children to think - not to do their thinking for them. And in all probability, both theories are valid - neither one excludes the other. Surely, God is at least as smart as Procter & Gamble who, after creating a product would ensure the product evolves over time with a "new, improved" version. If there is a God, he most certainly would have created life with the ability to evolve as the environment changes. As for evolution without creation, simply ask yourself one question...
"Since only living things can evolve, where did everything else that is non-living come from?" Or this question, "If life evolved, what did it evolve FROM? Where did that very first "living thing" come from?"
Just sayin'...
/
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Late-Term Abortion Ban to be Defeated In NM?
Albuquerque voters appear to be on the verge of defeating a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks unless the mother's life is at serious risk.
A couple of points I believe should be considered - whenever a referendum measure is on a ballot, it tends to turn out more voters who are opposed to it, so I suspect the bill would pass if more voters had taken the time to get off their arses and vote.
But more important is this, from the news at HuffPost:
"Today, Albuquerque voters have rejected a measure that would have compromised women's health and safety and stripped them of their ability to make complicated, personal, and often very difficult medical decisions," Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement.
"But in spite of this victory, this vote illustrates the very real threat that essential women's health care continues to face from those who seek to make it illegal, indifferent to the devastating consequences that women will suffer"
That statement by Northrup is absolutely false on so many points. First, the ban would not compromise a woman's health or safety - exceptions were made for those issues, so Northrup is being intentionally deceptive. But the part of her moronic statement that really gets in my craw is the part where she talks about "the consequences that women would suffer." To that I must ask, "What about the consequences to the aborted baby who forfeits its life on the whim of the mother?" Northrup has no concern for the true victim. After all, which life is being altered the most by an abortion? The life being ended, of course.
Ever notice that every person in favor of abortion is already alive, and has no need to fear it? I wonder how many of them would still be for abortion if it were made retroactive, and they could end up forfeiting THEIR lives at the whim of another.
Just sayin'...
/
A couple of points I believe should be considered - whenever a referendum measure is on a ballot, it tends to turn out more voters who are opposed to it, so I suspect the bill would pass if more voters had taken the time to get off their arses and vote.
But more important is this, from the news at HuffPost:
"Today, Albuquerque voters have rejected a measure that would have compromised women's health and safety and stripped them of their ability to make complicated, personal, and often very difficult medical decisions," Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement.
"But in spite of this victory, this vote illustrates the very real threat that essential women's health care continues to face from those who seek to make it illegal, indifferent to the devastating consequences that women will suffer"
That statement by Northrup is absolutely false on so many points. First, the ban would not compromise a woman's health or safety - exceptions were made for those issues, so Northrup is being intentionally deceptive. But the part of her moronic statement that really gets in my craw is the part where she talks about "the consequences that women would suffer." To that I must ask, "What about the consequences to the aborted baby who forfeits its life on the whim of the mother?" Northrup has no concern for the true victim. After all, which life is being altered the most by an abortion? The life being ended, of course.
Ever notice that every person in favor of abortion is already alive, and has no need to fear it? I wonder how many of them would still be for abortion if it were made retroactive, and they could end up forfeiting THEIR lives at the whim of another.
Just sayin'...
/
Friday, November 8, 2013
Why Can't Democrats Understand Simple Economics?
They're at it again! Democrats, supported by President Obama, are pushing for another increase in the minimum wage to $10.10/hr. They are determined to shove more people into poverty, because that is precisely what a minimum wage does, every time.
I simply cannot fathom that anyone would be unable to understand a simple fact of economics - if you raise the cost of PRODUCTION, you increase the COST of product to consumers. Unlike Uncle Sam, businesses cannot simply print money. If they have to pay more for salaries, they have to charge more for their products and/or lay off people. Neither is good for the economy. And I suspect the Democrats know that.
So, since it is unlikely anyone is really so stupid as to not comprehend that rising costs result in rising prices, perhaps we should assume there is a more nefarious motive behind the Democrats incessant push for ever-increasing minimum wage.
What, then, could be the motive? Dare I suggest socialism?
I have made this statement many times - liberals certainly want socialism in America - they have said so, and I take them at their word on that. And the only way to convince Americans that socialism is needed would be if you can make capitalism collapse. As Saul Alinski and Karl Marx said, step #1 is to bankrupt the treasury.
Look! A $17 TRILLION dollar debt! People losing full-time work and only getting part-time. ObamaCare devastating portions of the economy. Trillions in government waste and fraud. Mega-billions doled out to Obama supporters. A push to increase minimum wage to force prices higher. Over 3000 new (and costly) regulations since Obama has been in office. An unemployment rate that has exceeded the norm for over 5 years. The list is nearly endless...
The headline of this post probably should be "Democrats DO understand simple economics - and plan on using it against America."
/
I simply cannot fathom that anyone would be unable to understand a simple fact of economics - if you raise the cost of PRODUCTION, you increase the COST of product to consumers. Unlike Uncle Sam, businesses cannot simply print money. If they have to pay more for salaries, they have to charge more for their products and/or lay off people. Neither is good for the economy. And I suspect the Democrats know that.
So, since it is unlikely anyone is really so stupid as to not comprehend that rising costs result in rising prices, perhaps we should assume there is a more nefarious motive behind the Democrats incessant push for ever-increasing minimum wage.
What, then, could be the motive? Dare I suggest socialism?
I have made this statement many times - liberals certainly want socialism in America - they have said so, and I take them at their word on that. And the only way to convince Americans that socialism is needed would be if you can make capitalism collapse. As Saul Alinski and Karl Marx said, step #1 is to bankrupt the treasury.
Look! A $17 TRILLION dollar debt! People losing full-time work and only getting part-time. ObamaCare devastating portions of the economy. Trillions in government waste and fraud. Mega-billions doled out to Obama supporters. A push to increase minimum wage to force prices higher. Over 3000 new (and costly) regulations since Obama has been in office. An unemployment rate that has exceeded the norm for over 5 years. The list is nearly endless...
The headline of this post probably should be "Democrats DO understand simple economics - and plan on using it against America."
/
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Sally Kohn - Liberal Nut That Hasn't A Clue
On one of Sally Kohn's blog posts about ObamaCare and how the "right lies" about it, she writes, "Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a Ferrari plan in the individual health
insurance exchange. At least 6.4 million Americans will pay less than $100 per month for coverage in the Obamacare exchanges"
Actually, Sally, you are 100% provably WRONG! No surprise there.
First, the fact is that ObamaCare requires EVERY policy to be a "Ferrari", with every conceivable option - even those not needed. Every 70 year old man is REQUIRED to carry maternity coverage, and every woman is required to carry prostate coverage. When a policy has all the options, regardless of what a person wants or needs, that is a "Ferrari" policy. But then, you cannot expect a narrow-minded liberal to comprehend such simple logic. They cannot understand anything that is contrary to their agenda.
And as to her statement that "6.4 million Americans will pay less than $100 per month for coverage", while technically that may be true, the premise upon which it is based is false. First, 6.4 million Americans represents a mere 2% of the population. Second, the only reason they pay under $100/month is because taxpayers are paying for the rest of their medical needs (the people paying only $100/month are not taxpayers - they are among the 49% of all Americans who pay NO income taxes).
Sally Kohn is typical of many people on the left - unable to be honest, and unable to win an argument on merit.
Sally Kohn's posts would be laughable if not so pathetic.
Actually, Sally, you are 100% provably WRONG! No surprise there.
First, the fact is that ObamaCare requires EVERY policy to be a "Ferrari", with every conceivable option - even those not needed. Every 70 year old man is REQUIRED to carry maternity coverage, and every woman is required to carry prostate coverage. When a policy has all the options, regardless of what a person wants or needs, that is a "Ferrari" policy. But then, you cannot expect a narrow-minded liberal to comprehend such simple logic. They cannot understand anything that is contrary to their agenda.
And as to her statement that "6.4 million Americans will pay less than $100 per month for coverage", while technically that may be true, the premise upon which it is based is false. First, 6.4 million Americans represents a mere 2% of the population. Second, the only reason they pay under $100/month is because taxpayers are paying for the rest of their medical needs (the people paying only $100/month are not taxpayers - they are among the 49% of all Americans who pay NO income taxes).
Sally Kohn is typical of many people on the left - unable to be honest, and unable to win an argument on merit.
Sally Kohn's posts would be laughable if not so pathetic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)