User Profile: HonorTheOath


Member Since: April 18, 2013


  • July 17, 2014 at 11:31am

    Plata o Pluma. North American version popularized in the movie “The Godfather” eg “an offer you can’t refuse; either your brains or signature will end up on this contract.” South American version: you can have lead (a bullet) or silver (my bribe). Panem et Circusem refers to “bread and circuses” (Nero ploy) while Plata o Pluma refers to extortion (think PC: do it our way; be one of the cool kids. Do it your way, we will protest/boycott). Just nit picking. In any case, both extortion and distraction are key tools of the fascists. Both being used at mil power as this group of bullies keeps pulling out the stops to crush liberty.

  • [1] July 7, 2014 at 1:54pm

    The correlation between solar output and global temperatures is much stronger than the correlation between CO2 and temperatures.

    Also, the change in solar output happens BEFORE the change in temperature. The change in temperature happens BEFORE the change in CO2 levels.

    To anyone with half a clue, that pretty much “settles” it.

    Too bad there is so much money in science controlled by political factions.I would trust a lung cancer study funded by PhilMo before I would trust a climate study funded by the US Government . . .

  • [1] July 7, 2014 at 1:46pm

    How are you measuring “the temperature of the planet.” I mean, really- that’s the big thing you are all excited about. So how do we measure it?

    Is “the planet” getting cooler? Warmer? Staying pretty much the same? Pretty basic questions, doncha think?

    Hmm. Wonder why the BBC is too afraid to ask a simple question like “what’s happening to the temperature of the earth?”

    Unless . . .

  • [1] July 7, 2014 at 1:44pm

    Hmmm the CO2 levels rise and fall AFTER the temperature rises and falls. That would suggest the relationship between CO2 and temperature is somewhat err “nuanced” than the acolytes of the AGCC sect claim.

    Hey, how exactly are we defining “the temperature of the planet” in the first place? Bet that’s an interesting aspect of this to look at, doncha think? Is there a single, accepted definition of “the temperature of the planet?” If not, why not?

    Apparently, “climate science” is too damn complicated for liberals . . .

  • July 7, 2014 at 1:40pm

    If rising (falling) CO2 levels “cause” the temperature to increase (decrease), then why does the change in temperature happen BEFORE the change in CO2? Temporal precedence is a pretty powerful rule of true science. Not so much hte modern politically corrupted science apparently.

  • [1] June 19, 2014 at 6:46pm

    Kenny, its even simpler than that. In our universe, time moves in one direction. Causes therefore happen before effects. Estimates of atmospheric ggs are correlated with estimates of temperatures; however, the temperature goes up (down) long before the ggs go up (down).

    Even to an unsophisticated rube that suggests warming causes greenhouse gases, not the other way around.*

    Solar output on the other hand . . .

    *And the “theories” to explain how warming/cooling results in outgassing/sequestration have actually been validated with empirical evidence. Unlike the theory claiming the opposite.

  • [2] June 14, 2014 at 3:45pm

    A “free range parent” raising “free range kids.” I don’t blame the three year old. Just like I don’t blame the dog who poops in my yard. I blame the adult responsible for the behavior of their charges in either case. Free Range Mom has many choices. Making the world come to a stop around you because you are unable to make appropriate choices is NOT a responsible choice. Blaming the airline for not conforming to your unicorns and rainbows view of reality is very alarming. Apparently this level of self-absorption is becoming quite common.

  • [1] June 14, 2014 at 3:20pm

    Well, since “A” and “A few dozen” are different numbers, I guess technically you are correct. Not sure why having a crapton of nukes available is “bad” though . . .

  • [6] June 10, 2014 at 9:19am

    LogCabin- thanks for noting (and externally validating) what I have seen with my own eyes in every election in Texas (a no-voter ID state) from 2004-2012. Vote fraud is RAMPANT in this country; very few complaints are EVER investigated or even recorded/logged. It’s a tautology- if you never investigate the claims, they never happened. Conservative (as in “only count the most obvious cases”) studies estimate fraud to run somewhere between 5%-7% in counties/states requiring SOME form of ID. Most likely much higher in precincts without any id requirement. Most common form of fraud: pointing at an empty name in the register and saying “that’s me” (in Texas you don’t even need to be able to speak- just point). Then you vote for that other person. Since so few vote, odds are nobody will ever challenge it. Even if someone does show up to vote and the cheater already voted for you . . . wait for it . . . Texas lets the aggrieved party cast a “provisional ballot” that is only counted if the victim can PROVE that someone else voted in their stead. This isn’t even counted as vote fraud- you got to cast a provisional ballot, right? The second type of fraud in Texas was college students voting both in their home towns and in their campus towns. This one became quite popular after the Campus Democrats sent out barrage emails telling students to do just that in Obamas first election. An informal pool of my students reflected most didn’t even think what they were doing

  • [1] May 29, 2014 at 4:21pm

    Snopes refuses to address the issue (took down their article several years ago) and Wikipedia dances around it. Funny how even the College Board will talk about how it’s done . . . but is too embarrassed/ashamed? to come right out and admit to doing it. The exact numbers added to each race change cohort by cohort of course. And the raw scores have been plummeting year after year. The average never changes . . . and the average score by skin color is forced to be the same by the norming.

  • [5] May 29, 2014 at 4:11pm

    Was the test normed? It probably was . . . so even if you take the person with the highest test scores, people of color are given a higher “standardized” score than the pigmentally challenged. Every national test at least is normed. The SAT for example, African americans get 125 points tacked on and hispanicans get about 75 points added. This happens to the score BEFORE anyone sees it; and is reflected in the officially test results. The GRE, GMAT, LCAT, LSAT, MCAT, etc. etc. all add “secret” points to the test scores.

    Betcha had no idea that when you look at a white kid’s scores and a darker hued kid’s scores you need to subtract points from the latter to get the true comparison.

    Most people outside the testing agencies (including, apparently, members of the supreme court) have no idea this is going on.

    Look it up. It’s not a “secret” at all.

  • [-20] May 24, 2014 at 9:38am

    *Anyone who claims “DWTS” is not a surrogate for “FWTS” is incredibly naive. The infidelity is the point of the whole show.

  • [-24] May 24, 2014 at 9:37am

    What troubles me a bit is her willingness to participate in the situation in the first place. With the rampant infidelity (the whole point of the show is to put couples-not-married-to-each-other) in sexually charged situations* to create prurient “buzz” over how intimate they become while “together for the show” she must have been incredibly naive. I get the whole “preach tot eh sinners” and “fight the demon where he lives” thing for sure but what about “the best way to avoid sin is to avoid temptation?”

    Apparently, she is trying to claim she never did anything inappropriate with her partner and was honoring and respecting her husband during her performances and training?

    Ri-i-i-i-ight . . .

    Responses (5) +
  • May 20, 2014 at 4:26pm

    He’s obviously suffered a major stroke. His comments indicate it has affected his ability to lead the company. The board of directors are legally liable for allowing an obviously incapacitated individual to drive the brand into the dirt.

  • [1] May 1, 2014 at 5:10pm

    Yup. No money to made in realizing the fact that petroleum products are “renewable resources.” Hubbert’s Peak principle applies to a single well/field. Hubbert’s Peak, however, is a local phenomenon. The earth’s supplies of oil are “virtually infinite.” Not entirely convenient to drill down 25 miles . . . but all the oil we would ever need is sitting right there.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] May 1, 2014 at 4:58pm

    The university research team final report estimated that the total BP release resulted in a 1%-2% increase (annualized) over the naturally occurring seepage. Fart in a hurricane. The researchers were unable to nail down the “washup” effects; while the BP oil had a chemical signature identifiable by spectrometric assay, there was so much “naturally occurring” washup it was impossible to estimate how much was solely due to the spill. Too small to measure reliably.

  • [2] May 1, 2014 at 4:52pm

    Great point about the “nest foulers.” Ask any Coloradan about the Kalifornicators (and New Hampsterians about the Massholes). They destroy their habitat with liberal/progressive/socialist ideas . . . then move on to despoil the next habitat. Biggest litterers in the world (both literally and conceptually) are the self (and inappropriately)-proclaimed “liberals.”

  • [1] May 1, 2014 at 4:35pm

    Oh those evil men. When they get sick they die! Worse yet, when their spouses divorce them during illness, they agree! How insensitive! What’s interesting is the actual study supports neither my “interpretation” nor the “interpretation” offered to the public. Too many damn PhDs with nothing legitimate to do . . . publish or perish! Junk study with no significant findings above statistical aberations. The proliferation of journals and faculty have created a serious “grade inflation” problem in science. Add federal funding (advocacy disguised as science- “follow the money”) and we are experiencing a “prefect storm” of junk science.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 29, 2014 at 3:48pm

    Whomever the Libertarians run. F the RINOs and their “run a commie lite” lies.

  • April 29, 2014 at 3:45pm

    Amen. Foll me once, shame on you . . . fool me twice, shame on me. I have fallen for this “lesser of two evils” crap too many damn times. NEVER AGAIN. Illinois can secede from the union for all I care (and frankly, they should . . . and take NY, MA, RI, CA, etc. with them).

    Anyone else remember how Mitt Romney stole New Hampshire from Rick Santorum in the primaries? F’ing liberal BS.

    I would rather have Vladimir Ilyich Lenin elected than run another Chamberlain. At least then we’re only getting shot at by the enemy and not “our own” people . . .