For The Record - Tonight 8pm est

User Profile: teddlybar


Member Since: September 21, 2010


  • [4] August 1, 2014 at 5:11pm

    You’re trying to perpetuate a myth.

    In 1948, in the portion allocated to Israel under the UN mandate, 8.6% of the land was owned by Jews, only 3.3% was owned by Arabs, 16.9% had been abandoned by Arab owners who didn’t want to be in an area where there were Jews and 70% was owned by the Mandatory Power [Britain in this case]. The bulk of that land had been directly transferred to the Mandatory Power’s control from the Ottoman Turks at the end of the First World War.

    Much of the land owned by the Jews had actually been purchased from large (usually absentee) Arab landowners over the years who often sold the land to Jews at premium prices. Numerous studies have verified that only about 27% of the land owned by Jews in Mandate Palestine had been purchased from the Fellahin.

    If you’ve any complaint about “Palestinians” being dispossessed in the period prior to Israel’s formation in 1948, it should actually be levelled at the Ottoman Turks whose feudalistic practices through taxation, absentee ownership of tenant farms, merchants and money lenders ended up displacing the Fellahin, or their fellow Arabs who were the actual owners of the land being sold, not the Jews.

  • [1] July 11, 2014 at 6:40am

    o.O Hmmmm . . . In order to pull this off, the Senate needs a minimum of 67 to vote for the resolution. That means they’ll need at least 7 Republicans to join the Democrats & Independents. Then they’ll need 290 votes in the House of Representatives. That means they’ll need 89 Republicans to go for this idea. Finally, they’ll have to get 38 states to go along with this . . . . Yeah, Good Luck with that.

  • July 9, 2014 at 7:37am

    “Observers seemed to agree that the policy was tacitly targeting black people.”

    Really!?! Has anyone looked at what inner city [and some rural area] white [gangsta wannabe] kids are wearing nowadays?

  • [1] June 18, 2014 at 6:35pm

    “Washington Redskins nickname is “disparaging of Native Americans”

    Really? If “Redskin” is a disparaging term that needs to be dropped from the language, how about the Ohio Indian term “níkkashi n ga xí n ha-zhide” or the Quawpaw term “zho-zhitte” or the Pawnee term “cahrikspa-hat” or the Natchez term “tvmh-hakup” or the Chickasaw term Hattak Api’ Homma’”? All of these are the Native American terms, in that particular language for “Indian” and all of them literally translate as some variation of Redskin, Redman or Redflesh. Are we then going to tell Native Americans that they need to change their native languages for the term they use for themselves because the term is racist?! It seems to me that we’ve got better things to worry about than the name of a football team that uses a term that even Native Americans have built into their own languages. [See:

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] May 9, 2014 at 4:18am

    Bill Nye, the Science Guy, has a Bachelors Degree in mechanical engineering and played a scientist on TV. He believes that man caused global warming [AGW] is real.

    Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. [Meteorology], Dr. John Christy, Ph. D. [Atmospheric Sciences], Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., Ph. D. [Meteorology], Dr. David Legates, Ph. D. [Climatology], Antonino Zichichi Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, and Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, just 6 of many, are all published, peer reviewed experts on climate, and are all skeptical of AGW.

    . . . . . Gee, who to believe, the Ph. D’s or the guy who played a scientist on TV . . . . obviously the guy who plays a scientist on TV, because he’s the more credible “expert”. . . . . [Sheesh! No wonder we’re in trouble. We keep believing in the least qualified authorities]

  • February 5, 2014 at 3:37am


    I’m not sure if you’re having trouble understanding me or if you’re deliberately misinterpreting what I’m saying.

    Of course having a masters degree doesn’t necessarily make Mr. Nye smarter. Lying however, about whether he has a masters degree, does reflect both on his character and by extension on whether his factual statements made in support of his position can be taken at face value as accurate or need to be called into question.

    Particularly since “I” didn’t have a chance to see him make that claim, I simply wanted clarification as to whether he’d actually made it, particularly during this debate since it would have bearing on the credibility of his arguments.

    This has nothing to do with whether or not you and I can think for ourselves, but simply on whether I need to categorize this gentleman’s character as questionable.

  • February 5, 2014 at 2:20am


    Only that if he did in fact claim that he has a masters degree that there’s no indication he’s actually earned it in any bio I’ve seen written for him. It therefore raises the question as to whether this was merely Strawberry411a mis-hearing what he said OR, if he actually made this claim, whether all of the bios on him I’ve read are wrong, whether he inadvertently mis-spoke or whether he was deliberately shading the truth to lay claim to more academic authority than he’s rightfully due. If the latter, it would then call into question the veracity of other factual claims he’s making.

  • February 5, 2014 at 2:13am

    No, not a massive conspiracy, just a mistaken belief their interpretation is correct. Basically, you’re arguing that because there’s apparent consensus from a large number of scientists that they “must” be correct. Before you put too much credence in the consensus argument, you might want to take a look at the circumstances surrounding the 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

    Dr. Dan Shechtman’s 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of quasicrystals can furnish a notable lesson in allowing scientific orthodoxy to take the place of sound science. His discovery literally overturned science’s understanding of crystalline material structures with the Nobel committee noting that his work “eventually forced scientists to reconsider their conception of the very nature of matter.”

    So much for “consensus” taking the place of sound science. [See: and ]

  • February 5, 2014 at 1:59am

    “he said he has a master s degree…in science”

    Just to clarify, the bio on Bill Nye’s website indicates that he “is a graduate of Cornell with a Bachelors of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering.” It continues indicating that he holds three Honorary Doctorate degrees. Nowhere does it indicate that he’s actually earned a master’s degree or higher at any educational institution.

    I haven’t yet had a chance to listen to the entire debate. Did he actually say he has a masters degree in science? If so, it sounds like he was stretching the truth a bit.

  • November 12, 2013 at 2:33am

    . . . . and if the 99% are either charlatans or don’t know what they’re talking about and the 1% actually CAN and does make the correct diagnosis you’re going to go with the majority? That’s the most ridiculous argument I’ve heard yet. Sound science should be based on . . . well, . . . sound science, not some misplaced desire to have “majority rule.”

  • October 26, 2013 at 2:05am

    Daily Mail puts his net worth at about £11million with a possibility of getting another £20million from Katy Perry from their divorce. The average UK citizen has a net worth of about £202,000.

    If he really believes what he says, he should be arranging to give away 81-99.5% of his net worth to people “poorer” than himself.

    I anxiously await his announcement that he’s doing so . . . . . . yeah, that’s what I thought.

  • July 10, 2013 at 4:50am

    ??? If you’re wearing your enemy’s uniform, doesn’t that make you a spy? If you’re caught spying in time of war, doesn’t the Espionage act call for an automatic death penalty?

    Seems to me his own words convict him.

  • May 19, 2013 at 6:58pm

    @KeatonC333 “You guys want science?!!! 97% of scientists believe in GLOBAL WARMING and believe it is MAN MADE!”

    I’ll see your article, written in a business journal by an ordinary freelance writer with degrees in literature, film and journalism [See: who apparently doesn’t understand science enough to actually double check the source and foundation of her facts, and raise you an article in a prestigious business publication by an endowed professor from the University of Houston with extensive background in research, planning and design of habitats, structures and other support systems for applications in space and extreme environments [], debunking the myth that 97% of scientists believe in man-made global warming [See:

    Next time, try to at least cite something that’s credible instead of something that can be debunked in about 2 seconds.

  • October 17, 2012 at 12:20am

    @VoteBush “Lets be honest. We have no idea who is telling the truth and which one is lying.”

    Wonderful thing the internet. Apparently, the Washington Times DOES know who’s lying. According to the article they posted online this evening, permits were up 58% under Clinton, up 116% under Bush and DOWN 36% under Obama, citing the Bureau of Land Management as the source of their information. (See:

  • September 11, 2012 at 5:58pm

    “Could you really vote for a man who thinks the Garden of Eden was in Missouri?”

    By the same token, should we really take direction on matters of faith from someone who thinks ALL matters of faith are merely myths and fantasies? If we do, then we truly ARE being foolish.

  • August 29, 2012 at 4:49am

    BTW, the population increased by about 8.5 million or roughly 8%. In other words, the increase in Federal employees didn’t keep up with the expansion of the general population either.

  • August 28, 2012 at 2:58pm

    “Reagan grew the federal payroll by more than a quarter million public workers . . .”

    Did you bother to check the facts behind your comment, or are you just mindlessly regurgitating liberal talking points without taking the time to have the thought pause between your ears for some level of cogent thought?.
    True, there was an increase in Federal employment under Reagan that represented an expansion of the Federal workforce by about 7.5%. What you’re ignoring, genius, is that the total NATIONAL workforce expanded by FIFTEEN percent! The expansion of the Federal workforce didn’t even keep up with the expansion in employment in the private sector.

    C’mon, stop letting other people do your thinking for you and use that thing between your ears for what it’s meant for. You can do better!

  • August 28, 2012 at 2:40pm

    As to the Reagan raised taxes argument, REALLY? The top marginal tax rate when Reagan came into office was 70% and you practically needed a PhD in order to prepare your own tax returns. When Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 28% and preparing your own taxes was actually something a normal person could do. Point being that overall, at the end of his tenure in office, Reagan was a net reducer of taxes rather than a net raiser. Incidentally, tax revenues increased by nearly $400 Billion under Reagan or about 80% despite the fact that rates were lower.

  • August 28, 2012 at 2:32pm

    That’s great! I love it!

  • August 20, 2012 at 1:16pm

    “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” – Dr. Martin Luther King delivered 28 August 1963, at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C.

    Apparently the Atlanta Symphony still judges by the color of your skin, and not the content of your character.