• Register
  • Login
  • Forgot Password?
  • My Profile
  • Choose An Icon
  • Upload An Icon
  • Messenger
  • Member Search
  • Who's Online
    Members: 1600

    ONLINE:
    Members: 0
    Anonymous: 2
    Today: 19
    Newest Member:
    Brand Animators
  • You are here: Blogs Directory / Personal / Mel's Odd Stuff Welcome Guest
    Mel's Odd Stuff
          Just a bunch of odds and ends. Life is strange sometimes, so this will probably be strange, too...

    Mon, Nov 30th - 12:31PM

    When spin is not enough...



    It seems like spinning the truth is not enough.
     
    Read this article to understand what I am talking about.
     
    The thing that upsets me the most about this is that he is shamelessly using our taxpayer money to spread his lies!!!
     
    Now I've seen articles lately in some of the more Liberal Rags bemoaning some of the wasteful ways this "Porkulus" (Stimulus in Obamaspeak) money is being used. Most of us think that at least good has come from this. (at least that is what some polls are suggesting) Thankfully, most of us also believe that no more money should be spent this way and that reducing taxes is likely to stimulate the economy more than rampant spending sprees with no particular solid aim in mind.
     
    The funny thing is this:
     
    Most Americans still consider President Bush to blame for our current economoic woes. They do not correctly put the blame on the Democratically Controlled Congress that refused to Rein In Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae despite the dire warnings from President Bush. That alone could have averted the "toxic" quality of the Real Estate investments from reaching the horrendous proportions that it did. I won't bother mentioning the specific names. If you really cared, finding who those people are and what stupid things they said before and after are easy enough to do. You just have to care for the Truth enough to open your eyes and look!
     
    ACORN (while maybe not as much to blame with their corrupt teaching of people of how to cheat the system and qualify for loans that even at sub-prime rates they should not have been able to get) was not as big a contributor, yet they still had more to do with problems than solutions. They forced banks to give out sub-prime loans, even if those Banks were smart enough to want to stay out of that game. YES! They made legal threats, with teeth, that could have pulled FDIC status from banks that did not want to play ball with them, because they (ACORN) were recognized as a "legitimate watchdog agency" which is like having the fox watch the hen house, as most of us now know. President Obama's thin resume includes experience in "community service" as his prime political qualification. Guess where most of that "community service" experience for the young lawyer was? You guessed it! ACORN. Hmmm. They were under investigation for voter registration and campaign contribution fraud just before Obama came into office. Mysteriously, those investigations were dropped for "more pressing issues" such as digging up as much dirt on political opponents as possible. Surely that is more important for us to be spending tax funded investigative resources on, isn't it? I mean, Obama can't function as President if he always has to defend himself. This is justified, isn't it? Just about as much as a Watergate coverup, it is!!! His Presidential Campaign Headquarters started off at ACORN. Think he might still be in bed with them? Think there might be some real corruption that someone is "Unduly Using the Presidential Power" to hide? Sounds like what got Tricky Dick impeached!!! Hmmmm....
     
    Most people in the Media right now are trying to disect Palin's book for inaccuracies. Funny. Obama has a similar book, with even more glaring fabrications. Are they going to "Fact Check" him? No. But the beauty is, for now, (until they regulate the internet and other alternative sources of information the way they want to) you can go search this out for yourself. You might be surpised at just how much this man is willing to "stretch" the Truth.
     
    I don't think it stretchs that far. In, fact, I think he broke it and just plain lies...
     
    In Truth,
     
    Mel

    Comment (4)

    Tue, Nov 24th - 11:53AM

    There might be an Accounting in this World -- which is better than in the next...



    http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20091124025623.aspx

    The POTUS has his feet to the fire.  Will he respond like David to the Challenge From God that came from Nathan The Prophet?  I understand a Loving Father and Not Sparing the Rod of Correction to a Child He Loves.  Barak Hussein Obama may just be getting a demonstration of this love.  We can hope and pray he will see it this way.  He claims he is a Christian.  This could become a point of epiphany for him.  I have HOPE and PRAY that he will.  It would shock many in America, and the World, and the most powerful man in the world would have to humble himself.  This is no small thing I ask of My God.  But My God is THAT big!

    AMEN,

    Mel



    Comment (2)

    Fri, Nov 20th - 3:45PM

    Does



    I don't have time to make a long post.

    However, with Government Managed Care just around the corner, it seems that one more thing needs to be considered:

    What care will be rationed if we have a one payer system (that the biased Public Option will lead to in less than 14 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office) becomes a reality.

    Simple.  It will be those that Government Panels have decided were unneeded.

    You should probabaly read this:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111904053.html

    Um.  This was an Official Government Panel.  They work for the Highest Government Authority on Health Care that will be getting all these neat new powers to decide who gets what in the medical world.  Guess what would have happened if we had already had OBAMACARE for 10 years or so?  Probably we would have routinely stopped insuring mamograms for women aged 40-49.  You want one?  Your body -- your choice.  But you'd STILL have to pay for it.

    Now this is something to get upset about, ladies!  This study may be right, but are you going to let them TELL you that such a precaution is not worth the money, but an abortion for anyone who wants one is?

    Maybe it's not a Death Panel.  I really don't think this one item rises to that level.  This article points out that this Government Study might actually be onto something here:

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/223696

    However, this is the point to remember:  If we give ourselves a system that becomes "Socialized Medicine", you will have NO choice but to expect that what such a panel as this says, goes.  Expect to loose a lot of health care that is seen as 'unneeded' and 'worthless' in the eyes of the 'experts' who <> may have had it wrong for all these years!  And some things, like cosmetic surgery for washed up movies stars?  Well, there is always the chance we will all foot that bill instead...

    In Truth,

    Mel

    A P.S. Link:

    http://voices.kansascity.com/node/6594

    Ouch!



    Comment (2)

    Thu, Nov 12th - 4:27PM

    The joke is on who???



    To one of my previous respondants: As for spinning sex and race, I assume you are saying that my numbers are skewed. Please check this link out. I might be a little high on the Women. My assertion of 60% support is pretty thumb in the air. If you run the numbers here, I might be high with that. So I'll grant that has validiity to see it that way, and may actually be more true than I realize.

    However, if you take the numbers for Jan 26(81% Strongly approve), Apr 1(84% Strongly approve), Apr 29(76% Strongly approve), May 5(95% approve) and Jul 20(97% approve) and average them together, you get 86.6% which is slightly higher than 17 to 3 approval that I stated for African Americans. That was also thumb in the air, but not so crazy and wild a guess, since I have seen very similar numbers all over the place. That was not a hard guess to make, and I didn't even say that it was very strong approval, but only stated that he had approval. If you started looking at the strength of the approval, I think you'd have a chance of finding that even more skewed.

    Now. I have had conversations along these lines on public transportation - mostly the train. Just so you know what population I am testing the pulse of. I posed the question "why?" and got pretty much the answer that seemed to be the "good" sounding answer: "Because he represents African Americans." When pressed if that is because they thought he was black himself, the answer was almost universally "Yes" and I must admit, it was somewhat a leading question from me. However, when I restated what they said along the lines of "So, because he is an African American, for African Americans, it is alright to support him primarily along Racial Lines?", I was surprised at how many hestitated to go there. You could see them mentally stepping back, because they realized just how "racist" that kind of position was. That was always a pleasant surprise! I am quite jaded in how people really don't seem to understand this.

    I still sadly must report that many/most of them glibbly would say "yes" to that. My follow up response was either to say that was racist, to which the most common defense was that it was "postive" racism, or I would just skip that part and state what I would get to eventually ==>> If that was ok, then it was ok for me to vote for McCain because he was a White American for White Americans, paraphrasing it in the exact terms they used for B Obama. At which point the message seemed to sink in that at least they should not continue this conversation because they were loosing -- badly. If it was racist for me, why was it not racist for an African American? There is no good, non racist sounding answer for that one. Answer it, and you have to admit racism or answer as a racist in denial.

    Oddly enough, I think that the people who bought that this kind of racism on the part of African Americans was acceptable were people who were not themselves African Americans. I am not sure why that is. I might be reaching, but I'd say that maybe African Americans are more keenly aware of Racism, but at the same time, willing to go there to "justifiably" even the odds, turn the tables, get a leg up, or whatever. They may have come from a disadvantaged background. Does that make getting ahead by any means possible justified? I don't know that this is the mindset.

    Maybe someday someone will grace me with a glimpse of understanding on why that is. It might just be a fluke, and that observation was in no way made under any scientific method where I could point to numbers to back up my general impressions. All I can say is that the impression was contrary to what my prejudice in the matter was at the time. Yes, I thought black people would trip down that path a lot quicker than white or other non african americans would. I was wrong.

    However, I am not sure if I related about the two students (I think they were students -- just before or after the election, I think) who were arguing about whether or not B Obama was black or not. Well, I thought the arguement was the height of stupidity. However, I may not have had all the facts:

    Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian, that from his mother. What those who want Mr. Obama to write history by becoming "America's first African-American president" ignore is that his father was ethnically Arabic, with only 1 relative ethnically African Negro - a maternal great-grandparent (Sen. Obama's great-great grandparent, thus the 6.25% ethnic contribution to the senator's ethnic composition.).

    That means that Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side. He is 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side.

    Put another way, his father could honestly claim African-American ethnic classification. He was the last generation able to do so.

    Sen. Obama could honestly say, "My father was African-American." Racist presumptions led an Ivy League admissions committee, and lazy "newspapers of record" factcheckers, to presume that if his father is African-American, then Sen. Obama must be African-American also.

    But it doesn't work that way. Racist presumptions coupled with sloppy vetting don't turn a lie into the truth.

    Sen. Obama is one generation too far removed from the ethnic African Negro input to make the same claim as his father, Harvard's Admission's stamp of approval notwithstanding.

    As you can see for yourself, Sen. Obama's African-American ethnic claim, when properly researched and documented, is a lie.

    The question no one wants to answer - particularly Mr. Obama and his supporters, is, "Why do you think he has an Arabic name? Why does his father have an Arabic name? Why does every ancestor on his father's side have an Arabic name?"

    The answer is obvious: They have Arabic names because his father's side of the family tree is Arabic.

    I got this out of this site here. I have not researched this out myself, (and am not sure if I can) so at this point consider it this way: If Barack Hussein Obama is really an Arab and not an African American, just how many of us has he bamboozled???  I for one was one who was bamboozled on this point...

    Yikes!

    In Truth,

    Mel



    Comment (1)

    Tue, Nov 3rd - 5:57PM

    Poll Spinning



    Here is one that came out lately from CNN:

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/03/obama.poll/

    This is a good discussion of what CNN fails to mention about these numbers that is really more newsworthy then their not so delicate Pro-Obama spinning:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/03/cnn-poll-54-disapprove-of-obama-economic-performance/

    If you were to believe CNN, everything is getting better for Obama and You Should Get On Board before the Train Leaves The Station.  The drastic swings in his popularity towards the loosing side is not newsworthy in their eyes.  I am sorry, but the train has already gone, and if you were on board, you are taking a looooong trip to nowhere, and Obama is nowhere on that fantasy train.  Some of the CNN staffers, who believe their own drivel, might be there with you, so you are at least likely to be able to take it out on them if you finally get mad enough to loose your temper over what they did to you...

    Another thing that was brought out in critiquing this poll is that party demographics were not addressed.  Neither were the distributions by sex or race.  (although this critique did not point that out)  If you know anything about polling, bringing more of a group that is likely to be more favorable to the possition you are trying to support will skew your results away from reality quite quickly.  Women favor everything about Obama at about a 3 to 2 ratio on the average.  Democrats, almost 4 to 1 for him, at least mildly -- if not enthusiastically.  African Americans are about 17 to 3 pro-Obama, no matter what.  There is very little differentiation in that particular group.  In others, specific items cause great changes in the level of the support, depending upon the issue being addressed.  But for African Americans, that is not very much the case.  The Economy, the War in Iraq, the Health Care Bill, His Nobel Peace Prize, all the other issues score in a very narow band, at least acccording to those Polls that are willing to divulge that information.

    I am very suspsicious of CNN's 'spectacular' news.  If they had bothered to mention the obviously newsworthy information, I might be more generous.  However, this strikes me as more PR work than real journalistic reporting.  And CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR (and the list goes on) want *more* Government money than they already get so that they can tell you whatever they want to without worring about loosing their viewership and their jobs. Oh yes.  They are businesses that have been 'on the take' (well, NPR and some others are truely not for profit) to a small extent for quite some time.  They feel left out with the latest handouts from Uncle Sam, though...

    I really expect that CNN deliberately withheld the demographic breakout, not because it would protect any privacy, but because the sample was so badly skewed that a high school teacher in statistics would likely use it as a very bad example of what a polling sample should look like in relation to the population that it is supposed to represent.  I expect at least 10% extra African American Democrat Women are in this poll.  So it likely tells us nothing about reality, but CNN does not care about that.  They are not about reality in news, but favorable liberal spin...

    In Truth,

    Mel



    Comment (2)

    Back to Blog Main Page


    About Me

    Name: Mel Miller
    ChristiansUnite ID: lylejr
    Member Since: 2005-09-28
    Location: Aurora, Colorado, United States
    Denomination: Christian
    About Me: I've been a christian for some time, but squandered my time and talents 'in a foreign land' I have been in the military (active and reserves) for 33 years. (now retired) I have two lovely daughters, and life seems to often be strange to me.

    Nov. 2009
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7
    8 9 10 11 12 13 14
    15 16 17 18 19 20 21
    22 23 24 25 26 27 28
    29 30          
    prev   next


    More From ChristiansUnite...    About Us | Privacy Policy | | ChristiansUnite.com Site Map | Statement of Beliefs



    Copyright © 1999-2019 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.
    Please send your questions, comments, or bug reports to the