User Profile: mastice

mastice

Member Since: November 12, 2010

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [3] April 1, 2015 at 8:03am

    “What happens if birds aren’t able to fuel sufficiently to make this kind of flight because of habitat fragmentation and habitat loss in New England or the Canadian Maritimes?”

    Quick let’s uproot human society from those areas, destroy our cities, and make the habitat perfect for this little tiny songbird once again. Heaven forbid if we humans encroach on their habitat. /sarc Reminds me of the Delta Smelt situation. Look how well that turned out for the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley…

  • [11] March 31, 2015 at 6:41pm

    Can we put this impeachment talk to bed please?

    Do I believe President Obama is a valid candidate for impeachment? Yes. Is it ever going to happen? No, never was. Why? Because the Democrats in congress put the party above the constitution. (lest anyone thinks Repubs are any better they are not, they would do the same thing)

    Getting an impeachment of Obama in the House is easy at this point since the GOP control more than enough seats to get it done. But that’s as far as it goes just like with Clinton in the 90s. You need a 2/3rds vote in the Senate (67 seats) to convict an impeached president and the GOP only has a simple majority (54 seats).

    Some question why we can’t use a rule change, or nuclear option, like Reid did over presidential nominations. That’s comparing apples to oranges. Since the process for impeachment is spelled out in the constitution changing the rules would require a new constitutional amendment to get it done. (those take years to get through) On the flip side the constitution is vague on presidential nominations to the point where it merely says that the Senate shall make the rules. (in a nutshell)

    So while impeaching Obama would be symbolic it wouldn’t solve anything at this point. I think we need to focus our energy on blocking or undoing the damage this president has done. Instead of wasting time on a sure fire failed endeavor. Just my two cents on the issue.

    Responses (2) +
  • [10] March 31, 2015 at 5:24pm

    Imagine if this guy had been like so many today and simply wrote the young baby off for dead when it was born premature. He might not be here today. On a similar note imagine if one of the millions of babies aborted over the last 30+ years had been the one to cure cancer/aids/diabetes/etc or been the next Einstein… kind of makes you sad for the human race sometimes.

    Responses (1) +
  • [11] March 31, 2015 at 2:02pm

    I believe he did the right thing. Just want to get that out of the way so no one throws stones at me. ;)

    But it doesn’t matter if he shot someone or fired directly at someone. All it takes is one anti-firearm overzealous attorney taking him to court and he’s got a legal battle on his hands. It’s sad. I hope it doesn’t happen to him but I won’t be surprised if it does.

  • [6] March 29, 2015 at 5:07pm

    While using child soldiers is a horrible practice I’m going to look at this through a different lens of sorts. When a fighting force has to rely on those who are typically outside the prime range for soldiers (roughly 19-29 year old range) then it speaks volumes about their fighting force overall. In many ways it shows defeat when you have to rely either on children or mature (nothing against aged people) people to do the fighting for you.

    Take the Hitler youth for example. Prior to the invasion of Poland the average age for leaders within the youth movement was 24 years old. By 1945 that had dropped to 16 years old due to heavy losses of manpower. So it does speak volumes when a fighting force is reduced to using those soldiers outside that prime age range of combat. Just something to consider.

    Responses (1) +
  • March 29, 2015 at 1:29pm

    I have gay friends and 2 extended family members who are gay. Personally, I don’t agree with their lifestyle choice but at the same time I don’t care what they do. But this has got to be a two way street here and that is something I tell them all the time. Just as the followers of religion cannot push their beliefs off on them they cannot push their beliefs off on the followers of a religion. The constitution of the United States guarantees religious freedom here in the US. At this time it does not guarantee a person the right to be gay. Maybe it should, I’m not going to argue the “what if” with people, but right now it does not say that.

    When it comes to a business that turns away a gay person, people can always vote with their dollar bills. Even removing the gay aspect, given the difficulties us small business owners face each day here in the US I think it’s a bad business model to follow turning away any customer. And given the change in the social winds of the US concerning gay rights I think you just made it worse on your bottom line as a small business owner. But that is also just my opinion as a small business owner myself.

    I just think that neither side is guilt free in this debate. There are fringe elements on both sides that make both sides look bad on this.

    Responses (3) +
  • [2] March 29, 2015 at 1:12pm

    Not TheBlaze’s fault. The owner of the video has monetized their video which means YouTube plays an ad sometimes before the video. Just thought I would point that out.

  • March 28, 2015 at 7:23am

    hoodwinkr:
    I doubt you will see this comment but I wanted to add it for the record. You might want to go back and reassess what happened during the shutdown. The GOP had a few demands they wanted met before passing the resolution to keep the government open. (which is well within the House’s power) It’s nothing new for a political party to have demands. Democrats have had plenty of demands throughout the years.

    Instead of the Democrats compromising they just put their foot down and said “no”. The president himself said publicly that he refused to negotiate with the GOP. You have to remember that to compromise neither party gets everything they want but neither party also gets nothing. Compromise requires give and take on both sides. When one side refuses to even negotiate terms then they are the ones who are to blame when nothing gets resolved.

    So in the real world friend… in the adult world …this is what happened during the 2013 shutdown. The GOP wanted something, the Dems wanted something. The Dems refused to compromise and got nothing… well, that is until the GOP folded and gave into every one of the Dem demands but that is besides the point. ;)

  • [5] March 28, 2015 at 7:01am

    I don’t mean to sound harsh here because I do believe the school could have gone about this a much more diplomatic way given the circumstances and the young mans handicaps. But I have to agree with the overall idea behind why the school asked the kid not to wear the varsity letter. He is not on the varsity team nor did he earn it.

    Now before I get tarred and feathered by the group here please understand that I believe they should have made him an honorary member due to him being in other sports and extra curricular sports activities. It’s not going to hurt anything to do this. I just don’t agree with the adoptive mother going out and buying him a varsity letter without first considering how those who actually earned the letter are going to feel about it.

    Responses (1) +
  • [5] March 27, 2015 at 10:58pm

    What you are suggesting is just a hair short of secession. That was tried in 1860 when the first state, South Carolina, seceded from the union and sparked the civil war. Since Lincoln’s response was to mend the union through force the precedent of using force has been established and upheld. If secession is tried again then it will spark an armed conflict. There is no denying that at this point. Is that what you want? I will concede that the fear of a convention being subverted for nefarious means is a legitimate concern. But the chance of it happening is slim. The chance of armed conflict resulting from a failed, or misguided, convention is small. Whereas your path, according to history, is a sure path to armed conflict and rebellion. I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with your tactic. The founders laid out a path for the people to reign in the government if it ever came to it. The second provision of amending the constitution is that tool given to us by the founders. They would not have given it to us if they didn’t intend for us to use it at some point in our nations history.

  • [11] March 27, 2015 at 7:02pm

    While you are correct in some respects Lordchamp, at this point what other alternative do we have short of open rebellion? None. Washington DC is broken friend. They have completely lost control in terms of taxation and spending. It’s up to the states now to set things right. Our founding father’s knew a day like today would arrive and gave us, the people, the tools to make things right. Quite honestly I believe most of the founding fathers would be surprised that we lasted this long without calling a convention or killing ourselves outright. (we nearly did during the civil war) As for what happens if the convention is hijacked by special interests and powers on either side? We’ll cross that bridge when we get there. Until then… this is the only tool we have left.

  • [27] March 27, 2015 at 6:42pm

    While a balanced budget amendment is a great start, we need to throw term limits for congress in there too.

    Responses (3) +
  • March 26, 2015 at 4:19pm

    tcpubella: While I agree with the idea behind what you are saying I take issue with your misguided generalization. I understand that you said “most” people but I disagree that it’s more than half. I don’t even think it’s more than 25%. It’s a small group of ignorant people who make the rest of us look bad.

    I’m 36 years old and I know what each of those things are. (by the way it’s the Falklands War not the Falcons War, just thought I would clear that up for you) I know vets. My 92 year old grandfather, who is still alive, served in North Africa and then the European Theater of WW2. I just saw him the other day. When I was a kid I met two WW1 veterans that were honored in our small town (they were in their 90s at the time). One of my good friends’ father was in Vietnam and I spoke with him, and his father, a few weeks ago when my wife and I ran into them having dinner at a local restaurant.

    The point I’m making is that just because someone like me didn’t live during the time of those periods in history doesn’t mean we are ignorant to them. These parents, in this story, are part of the minority in this country that makes the rest of us look bad.

    So please don’t lump us all into the same boat as them.

  • [2] March 26, 2015 at 11:16am

    To TheBlaze Staff: thank you for putting a 3rd option on the poll. :)

  • [88] March 26, 2015 at 10:12am

    There should be a third option on the poll. Although the kids are old enough to know better I do think this is just kids being kids who have not been properly taught to respect something that should be respected. The third option should be something like “not the fault of the kids but the parents”. The parents should definitely know better. What a disgrace.

    Responses (10) +
  • March 25, 2015 at 6:11pm

    Just something to consider:

    “On Reddit, Peebler wrote they were watched for 20 minutes and it was his friend — the man on the ground in the photograph — who spotted the man standing high up in the bridge structure.”

  • March 25, 2015 at 4:40pm

    I’ve said this here before. As a small business owner who ships items worldwide I have had my fair share of headaches with shipping companies in this regard. Not all carriers are bad but there are bad apples in every company. This doesn’t surprise me one bit.

  • [1] March 25, 2015 at 4:32pm

    I think you are right. I either thought it was photoshop, a shadow, or (if it really was a person) then it was a transient or homeless person. You find them living under bridges all over the country. Up in the supports or just down on the ground below it.

  • [2] March 25, 2015 at 12:00pm

    foobared: Possible but still not as likely as a hacker taking down the grid, for many different reasons. To achieve a nation wide EMP burst would require a nuclear device exploded in the atmosphere because a NNEMP (non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse) has a very limited range. There are the logistics of securing a nuclear device (which has it’s own mountains to overcome), then secretly transporting it to the US, then unloading it from the shipping container, and finally reloading it onto a missile delivery system of some kind like a silkworm missile… all without being detected. That’s the stuff spy novels are made from. I mean no offense because I do agree that it is a distant possibility and we can’t rule it out. But I just don’t see it being a critical and primary threat to US homeland security anytime soon. Sorry. I just think there are much more credible and likely threat scenarios to address first. Yes, that includes the vulnerability of our electrical grid, but it doesn’t mean that hardening it against an EMP is the top priority. It should be on the list, but not the number one threat.

  • [6] March 25, 2015 at 11:26am

    I tend to agree with what you are saying but for an EMP to affect the entire country it would require detonation in the atmosphere above the US. Atmospheric detonation would require some sort of ballistic missile for the most part. At this time terrorist organizations, even those supplied by Iran, lack the ability to deliver such a weapon from their country to ours. A ground EMP burst would only affect, maybe, a large city and it’s surrounding areas. Still devastating but not on a wide enough scale to where it would shut the country down. Personally, with the computerization of our electrical grid, I am more concerned with what some kid in a basement can do somewhere. That is a much more likely scenario to bring down our power grid.

    Responses (7) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love