Wow! A Tea Party Candidate!

Someone I can really believe in "Jon Ashjian" but wait, maybe I should look up something about him first… well here goes http://www.floppingaces.net/2010/02/13/tea-party-candidate-may-ensure-a-harry-reid-win/#comment-268661 or here http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/02/is-nevada-third-party-move-about-politics-or-real-estate.html . Wow! These people think there might be something funny going on here. Well I'm still looking… http://www.dailyiowan.com/2009/11/03/Metro/14076.html , but wait is he from Iowa or Nevada… Oh hell I don't know and can't seem to find out. What it does look like to me is that he is a 'Slick Willie'. He has at least ten LLC's which says to me he is out to make a buck and couldn't be a viable candidate if he wanted to.

Bada-Bling, LLC
W.I.T. Bro, LLC AKA AA Paving.
24/Construction, LLC
W.S.C.I. LLC
Two Amigos, LLC
Cajun Express, LLC
Squidman, LLC
The 1720, LLC
TNT Energy Products, LLC
RNC Properties, LLC

What exactly is he campaigning for?

I am so tired ot seeing the president's face on every channel I have on my television I could just spit.  What the hell is he doing campaigning instead of governing? 

315 years…only a minute of time

IPCC apologized about the quote that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. They are claiming a typo in transcription from the original paper that said they may disappear by the year 2350 (a 315 year error). Now that begins to make me wonder if the windows on everything haven't been shortened up? I mean really, a 315 year difference, doesn't anyone with a scientific background proofread these reports? http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/01/21/21climatewire-climate-science-panel-apologizes-for-himalay-25267.html I'm really beginning to question the 'IPCC's Stellar reputation' on climate science. The UN and governments looking at a cash cow in taxes as well as private individuals looking to make billions on trading gasses and paper (it don't even have to be paper now, it can be electronic impulses now) have created an artificial 'reputation' and its beginning to come unraveled.

I'd say we shouldn't look to any one entity (IPCC, NOAH, NASA etc.) to be the defining body on issues such as global warming. I know none of us want to be experts on all of these things like global warming, gun control, cap-n-tax, and healthcare, but can we trust the appointed experts? Who appointed them? What is the agenda behind the panel? Why do we need the panel? What laws will be enacted because of them?

When I look at the impacts of these kinds of panels I have to wonder. I hate government bureaucracy as much as the next guy (if not more), but having said that we need to slow down on making laws based solely on the recommendations of a panel of government appointed 'experts', especially when those laws are liable to tax us into a third world country.

prp

Climate change again

A few emails here, the head of the IPCC with conflict of interests charges there, IPCC glacier predictions questioned...it's not just one little thing, the whole process if flawed. When the governments of the world infuse so much money into it there is little possibility that corruption won't soon follow. The problem we all face NOW is who do we trust? IPCC isn't worthy, the U.N. has proven on a number of occasions to be corrupt, the U.S. government isn't any better, and the major schools studying it are getting huge grants from the government...who does it leave for us that are un-educated in the field to trust?

prp

Investment 101

I call it 101 because I don't know shit about it. I am willing to try and figure some of it out though. I got a call last night that said we have this new product that we are trying to introduce into the United States and would like for you to take a look at it. He went on to say that he would call me back after I viewed a 7.5 minute video and see if I liked what I saw. Well he sent me the video, which I watched http://amiraclemolecule.com/ron-media?PHPSESSID=1c9d39d0ec0979c373687130d2f40d94 and I think I'd sort of like to try this product…don't know but I like the idea of slowing down the aging process. Anyway he also asked that if I liked the video and idea, did I have 3 to 6 hours of time a week to invest in building an at home income. I said I could find that kind of time and to that said he asked if I had $300 bucks I could invest in it. I haven't talked to him after watching the video yet (was in a meeting when he called back this morning) but is that the investment? I get the right to contact other people and see if they are interested in an investment/make money from home project…they send me $300 of which I keep a percentage and send the rest on…another pyramid scheme??? Anyway it may all be legit but then I'd have a product I'd have to sell (maybe one I believed in but…)and I'm not a salesman.

On the other hand I could be an investor like the investors at the Investors Conference at the UN. They are urging governments to quick action on climate change legislation/rules, http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/19572 so they can invest in clean energy. Investor- verb- to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.
Ok so now I know what an investor is and since I don't have any money I really can't be one but the investors at the investors conference at the UN do have money to invest so they can be…they just don't want to be, they want to be banks. They are urging governments to enact carbon trading schemes so they can invest…ok wait, isn't that like saying I want to gamble my money that green energy will boom and I'll make a much larger fortune, but if I'm going to do it I want government legislation that will guarantee a substantial return on my investment. Ok I guess that's an investment of sorts but we might as well change the definition of investor to read, Investor- verb- to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering guaranteed profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.
Good, now the investors club including Gore and Soros, don't have to risk their next house payment, they will be guaranteed to have it.

prp

The evil rich guy

I keep seeing stuff on the tv about taxing only people that make over 250k a year and yet can identify an additional number of taxes on everyone that all stem from this health care debacle. No they are not direct taxes on the individual but are taxes none the less. But this really isn't the point of my post. The point of my post is that all (if not all then most) of the people calling for the re-distribution of your and my money ARE the evil rich guys. I look at Michael Moore telling us that we should share the wealth…how many homes does he own? Look at the President's home in Chicago http://chicago.about.com/od/neighborhoodshistory/ss/ObamaChicagoPic_3.htm . I don't live in a house like that. People can say all day 'but he is the leader of the free world, how would you want him to live?' and I would want him to live like that if he were promoting freedom and liberty but he is promoting socialism and if he's promoting it then he needs to live it. Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, Sean Penn, and most of the money making people with a camera and a soap box making millions are telling us to give up our standard of living so everyone can be equal, it don't work that way.

Take a peek at our world, there are over 6 billion people on this planet and over 75% of them live in poverty. While we can work to help people build themselves up, it only takes a look at the inner city of Detroit MI and other cities around our country that shows a handout doesn't help anyone better themselves. We have whole generations of welfare recipients that learn the more babies the more the government will give them. I'm not saying we shouldn't help people, I'm saying the government shouldn't take what we work for and force us to help people. As evidenced by the Haiti earthquake, the American people are willing to give and give until it hurts for a cause that is genuine, so why is there a need to spend our tax money for charitable giving.

Don't tell me I have to wear gray cotton pants and a gray cotton shirt when you wear a silk shirt and pants just so you can look like the masses and live like a king. We have a world of people trying to promote socialism that don't want to live their ideals. Let's see, isn't there an old saying here that fits…something about geese and ganders.

prp

CO2

For how many years have we been taught that CO2 was a natural part of our ecosystem? I know when I was growing up my mother told me that CO2 was the stuff we exhaled when we breathed and that if all we had were CO2, we couldn't survive. Well needless to say I was a thinking little tyke (I'm going to have to look up where tyke came from) and I was immediately wondering what was going to happen when we exhaled so much that CO2 was all that was left. Well my wonderful mother soothed my fears by taking me into the woods and showing me trees, bushes, grass and flowers and said that if we didn't breathe it out then these things couldn't live. She said that the bad stuff we breathed out was the good stuff that all the plants used to breathe in and in turn the bad stuff they breathed out was the good stuff we breathed in, so no matter how much articles like http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090209205202.htm try to tell me how and why plants grow better with higher concentrations of CO2 I'm still gonna stick with what momma told me, she wouldn't lie.

tyke 

c.1400, "cur, mongrel," from O.N. tik "bitch," related to M.L.G. tike. Also applied to a low-bred or lazy man. The meaning "child" is from 1902, though it was used in playful reproof from 1894.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source