Meb452m's Blog

D.C.'s gun-ban, banned. The recent Supreme Court ruling threw out the gun control law fosteres by those in Washington D.C.  It is a victory and once again the ordinary law-abiding man or woman can legally protect themselves as guarenteed by the Second Amendment in the Constitution, right ? That's right, but did the justices did a little two-step shuffel as well ? In that ruling, they struck down D.C.'s ban and then stated that the Second Amendment Right to bear arms is not ABSOLUTE. I fully understand what that word means , it means your rights, as a law-abiding citizen, by this ruling are conditional.  It is my belief  this wording opens the door and allows further litigation and dissent. , Suppossedly we have a system of checks and balances, has anything been " checked " ? Has  " balance " been restored ?  Does this ruling state " conditions " ?  Does this ruling state who has the specific authority to set  " conditions " and under what circumstances ?

I understand the need for " martial law " , that authority, and those conditions. I understand the "need " to deny convicted felons the right to bear arms. I understand the " need " to deny those that are mentally ill the right of possession.

But what about those that abide by the law ? Will this word " absolute " , it 's use in this case, and some unfinished bussiness open the door and leave MORE VICTIMS ?

Your thoughts, your comments, do you care ?

A lesson for some ? A practice by others ? Maybe, maybe not, I guess it depends on you. I've read , by now,  thousands of posts and commented on hundreds. I lean towards those that are of my personal intrest and of my friends, many are of great educational value. However there is one type of post I stay away from, that of the personal attack. I don't take sides, even if it's a friend. I myself have made few if any personal attacks on another blogger for any reason. I have ONLY deleted comments at the request of those that commented and have requested that I do so. I have NEVER deleted any of my posts. Don't believe me, check the archives.

Personal attacks are UNBECOMMING, reguardless of the person or reason. They cast the commentor in a bad light as well. I do my damnest to refrain !  I do not want to be involved in anyone else's personal issues as well !

I will however make remarks about the lawyers and the politicioans, as I believe them FAIR  GAME.  MANY , I believe to be : POS's, Liars, Thieves, Idiots, Imbecils , Fools and Sexual Deviates. In these SPECIAL cases, I will offer what I believe to be proof, their own words and their own actions. I do this because this group of individuals is suppossed to represent us, and they will, while on earth, be either our salvation or damnation.

Remember you never really have to make a negative comment on another blogger, for if it is true, they and their words will leave little to no doubt !

Enviromentalists and their liberal lackeys, are they always right ? I thought this example might just make a fine case in point. Ever hear of the Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant ? The enviromentalists fought it for almost a decade before construction was started. Late last year, the Orlando Sentinel ran an article that Florida Power was considering shutting the plant down. This wasn't due to accidents, but the fact that it was an old plant, less efficient, and with greater maintainence costs. Did the enviromentalists cheer ? No, as a matter of fact they threatened to sue, sue to KEEP a nuclear plant open. This despite the fact that previously they had sued to halt construction. Strange twist of fate ? WAS it because nuclear plants emmitt little to no greenhouse gasses ? Was it because people benefit from cheaper electricity ? Well not exactly. The enviromentalists are not worried about spent fuel, a China- Syndrome, or a Chernobyl.

The enviromentalists are worried about the manatee. Seems the manatees have become accustomed to wintering near the warm  water discharge tubes. The enviromentalists are worried that denied that the manatees will suffer.

Remember the Alaskan Pipeline and the enviromental conscerns, permafrost and the caribou were the top two. The damage to the permafrost has been monitored and is negligable. The caribou can still migrate. The caribou seem to prefer wintering near the pipeline as a matter of fact. The oil has to be heated to flow through the pipeline and that warms the close surrounding air , to their benefit and their numbers seem to have increased.  Amagine that. I kinda wonder if BP said we need to shut the line down, if the enviromentalists would sue ?

Any thoughts ?

No endeavor is without risk !  Just getting out of bed in the morning, one can trip,stumble,fall, throw a back out or break a neck. Any of that is possible, so do you spend the rest of your life in bed ? How about taking a shower or bath, you can : fall, break a hip, scald yourself, or drown to name a few. Any of that is possible, you hear of it all of the time. Because of the risks do you forgo a bath ? What about driving , what are the risks ? Do you just quit ? What about work, any accidents there ? Too risky, do you just quit ?  Ever hear of any cooking accidents ? Too dangerous, why eat ? Now that you've somehow made it to the end of the day, do you dare sleep ? It has it's risks as well. People have died in their sleep, both at peace and  violently at the hands of another, then there's fire. These are just a paltry few risks that you run every day, but you still do.

Energy independence is a noble endeavor and a laborous quest. It is not without risk. Do you think it can be done ?  Or is it too tough and full of risk ? Do you just quit ?

Every means presently available to achieve that goal has some varing degree of risk, both enviromental and financial.

I think it can be done !

Any thoughts ?

ABC's Roundtable, oil and energy. It was intresting, of the four comentators, two were liberal Democrats, one a Republican, and one speaking in behalf of the oil industry. First the Democrats blame the current situation on a lack of an energy policy for the last eight years , that answer probably sounds good and will satisfy a Bush- basher, but what about those of you that actually have a brain and can use it ? The first Arab Oil Embargo was in the 70's and pointed out a fundimental weakness in our economy and defense that far back, was that Bush's fault as well ?  The Republican party is trying to streamline the permitting process for nuclear, and fighting Democratic obstructions as well. The Democratic responce is that wall street will not invest in " new " nuclear and capitalism is to blame. This is a classic case of a Democrat lying his blame elsewhere. Nuclear would be invested in if it were allowed, currently lawsuits and regulations can tie construction up 20 years. Can anyone afford to invest in something where " NO RETURN " can be expected for at least 20 yrs. ? Democratic objections to new drilling are that 80% of Federal lands have been made available and have not been fully utilized. The oil representative states that : on that Federal land 280 test wells have been drilled at a cost of $1 million dollars apiece, 21 were found to have hit oil. It requires further testing and a considerable amount of money to see if there is still enough oil there to economically recover. Democratic responce  to those " FACTS "- nun, I guess that without considerable time and counsel from others a good " LIE " or " FALSE FACT "cannot be produced. Once again the Democrats cry about Exxon/Mobil's $ 40 billion dollar profit, once again the fact that that return was from a total sales of $ 404 billion dollars was omitted. The Democrat ( communist ) then claimed that Exxon was not doing enough to invest in alternate energy, stating the Exxon/Mobil spent $ 32 billion of that profit to buy back stock.  That in my belief is a sound strategy, it allows : a better defence against hostile takeovers, frees money up to invest rather than pay dividends, and makes steering a corporation easier.  What the Democrats also didn't mention was the cost that their Congressional Inquistions and the Oil companies legal fees add to your energy prices. AMAGINE THAT !

Any thoughts ?

What is your tolerence level ? I think this is a rather good question in reguards to politics. When you hear politicians speak of why we as Americans cannot do something , what do you think ? Are they giving factual reasons or are they  poorly considered and ignorant excuses ?   Are they honest, intellegent, original and inovative thinkers ? Or are they, those that represent us, idiots, imbecils and fools ? Me, myself, and  I , kinda lean towards the latter. But then that's my belief.  If this is so then , what kind of tolerence do you have for them and their ideas ? Do you think we should tolerate this type  of  defeatist attitude ?  What is your tolerence level ?

Would America be a better place if we adopted a policy of suffering no idiots, imbeciles or  fools in elected office ?

Any thoughts ?

Why we can't drill, explained by the liberals !  Some of the statements and excuses seem devoid of all intellegent thought or reasoning.  From the Democrats : Even if we permitted drilling right  now ofshore, the oil companies couldn't as there is a shortage of drilling equipment . All of the oil rigs are currently leased and there is a shortage of drill bits.  This statement might satisfy a poorly trained  or educated chimp. Is it not possible to build a  " new " oil rig or manufacture a  " new " drilling bit ? Wouldn't that mean more skilled jobs, taxpayers, and taxpaying bussinesses  as well ?

It has been mentioned that the potential for spills can damage tourism. We have bad hurricanes. Have you ever seen those little globs of oil wash up on a beach ?  These statements are truthfull, but I believe they bear examination.  What are the worst spills attributed to: tankers, barges or pipelines ? I believe that tankers and barges routinely hit bridges and run aground, fact. But if you drill closer inshore, couldn't you transport crude through a pipeline,  like something similar to the one transporting  avation gasoline and kerosine from TAMPA BAY to ORLANDO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ? No earthquakes here or offshore, right ?  How many spills or leaks from that pipeline have you heard of ? Oil globs on the beach. I won't deny that thats not possible. But how much is carried by ocean currents from other  locations  ?  How much is from tanker ballast water transfers ? As far as tourism, if you can't afford to do anything at your planned destination because of the effect fuel costs have had on everything, would you still go ?

The OIL INDUSTRY says that they can pump crude within 18 months of finding it. WHERE DO CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS COME UP WITH  A FIGURE FOR 10 YEARS ?

Windfall profit taxes for the truly deserving !  You hear some mention that the oil companies and their corporate heads are greedy and should be taxed more. I'm not a big fan of this as it is wealth redistributation, previously solely a communist trait. But there might just be some greedy low-lifes that do deserve to have their PERSONAL wealth distributed to the Federal General Financial account. 

This post is for entertainment purposes, and as I type it I find it entertaining. How about a WINDFALL PROFIT TAX for  ALL  POLITICIANS ?  The percentage is based on voting record as compared to campaign promises, and wheter or not their vote reflects their constituants concerns.  A politician whose voting record is 90 % of his promises or reflects 90% of his or her constituants wishes would only recieve a 10 % tax penality. A politician whose voting record is 10% of his or her promises or only reflects 10% of their constituants concerns would only recieve a 90% tax penality !  Please bear in mind that this tax is on top of the Federal Income tax . Sounds fair to me. Think that might just get their attention ? Personally I'd prefer to shoot them, but current law doesn't allow that, and I'm fairly certain the jailhouse accomidations wouldn't be to my liking.  

This might also suit to address issues with lawyers and judges as well.


Any thoughts  ?

Water, one story ! I heard this one last week and I thought it worth sharing. " The water issues in Central Florida are because of St. Augistine lawns !"  I'm not going to name the source of that statement, but I do believe it bears some scrutiny .  St. Augistine does use more water than some other turfgrass choices, no doubt. However there are different varities of St. Augistine and their light and water requirements differ. The lawn didn't naturally occur or sod itself, somebody made a conscious decision, wheter educated or not is another story. The lawn wouldn't be there without residential developement, I believe I can safely state that for fact. 

So is the real issue the turfgrass or the amount of unrestricted developement allowed creating the water issues ?  I lean towards the developement, but then I've lived here 48 yrs. in October. Do you know anyone or heard of anyone who has had a drinking water well run dry or had levels drop so low as to allow a submerged pump and casing to suck air ?  When that happens all you have to do is count the mineral deposit rings on the pipe casing. You can accurately determine the amount the water level has dropped over a given period of time. In the Conway area that was from  1974 on about a foot a year up until 2000. I know that for a fact because I know when the well went in and when the burned up submerged pump was pulled out. When the new pum went down it had an additional 40' added to the well point. I wonder where the water stands now ?

Maybe that's a question for the politicians ?

The  big stink in Utah, is it laughable ? Last week the Orlando Sentinel ran a brief article about Utah residents protesting the plains of a private company that handles and stores low-level radioactive waste at it's storage facility. There are plans to store 20,000 lbs. of  Italian low-level radioactive waste at this site.

What about radioactive waste generated in the good old US of A ?  This country can't build a new nuclear reactor because of conscerns about  handing, using, and storing radioactive fuel. Yet a bussiness can be licensed by the goverment, and handle the  low-level radioactive waste of others ? The goverment manages a large storage facility  for the hotter spent fuel as well. Will this end up being used to store waste of others , because the goverment will not license the construction of new American reactors?

What a fricking joke !  I don't believe atomic energy to be an ultimate answer for energy independence. I do believe it to be an temporary alternate though.


Your thoughts ?

Should we list some titles and then just vote ? A fairly common complaint I've witnessed on this site is bloggers whose sole comments are : personal attacks, slights,  mindless dribble, or are deleted by themselves or a wingman to try and cover their tracks. Figured I'd post a list of possible titles and see if anyone cared to nominate a common title for these pests.

1) The Blog Pidgeon  - they drop in uninvited, perch and make offensive deposits !
2)  The Rotten Fruit Looner  - they bear a distastefull, tasteless, totally worthless crop !
3) The Blue Blog Bottle-Fly  -  they eat dung, track crap and disease whenever and wherever they land on a blog !
4) The Green Blog Bottle-Fly  - same as above , but now you have a color choice !
5)  The Blog Piss Ant  - small, insignificant and readily squashed pests !
6)  The Wet Blog Dog  -  the title covers their smell,so moving on they :  eat crap, love to roll around in crap, mark every blog when they squat or lift a leg, and endlessly bark at the moon !
7)  The Blog Cat  -  not always affectionate, and the fights will irritate keep you awake half the night !
8)  The Blog  Mud Fish -  cold-blooded, wet ,slimy, and considered  by sportsmen something to dispatch when landed !
9)  The SB Blogger - the spelling bee blogger whose only comment is : " You spelled that wrong !"   Did it ever occur to you  that it was just to get a reaction, IMBECILE ?
10) The Blog Farter -  usually a blowhard, whose only true talent or ability is to create a hot foul wind !

     Hope ya have some fun with this one !

Just an observation ?  Republican's have an abreviation for a party member who once elected tosses the party platform , goals, and values aside. The RINO is who I am talking about, a politician who most likely would have defeated at the polls had his true intentions and true party affillation been known. Seems that some Republicans can see and note the flaws of a canidate that they helped elect. That in itself would suggest that many Republican's are not blind.

What abreviation do Democrat's use to describe a Republican, who under the guise of a Democrat, has won a seat , office or bench ? What abreviation do Democrats use to describe a Democrat who tosses their platform, goals, and values aside ? Or do Democrats all believe that their representatives are perfect in each and every way ?

Just some questions. Hey I wanna know !  Any comments anybody ?

Mel Martinez's replacement have you given it any thought ? Rick Keller has a very good record for voting on  the issues as promissed when he campaigned. Do you think he would be a good replacement for Mel ? I don't think Keller is the type that would vote to give your SS dollars to illegals, Mel did. The fact that Nelson did wasn't really any suprise but the Democrats should deal with that problem ! When my  and my employer's money is taken and placed in an account for my suppossed benefit, I believe anyone that would take it and give it to someone else a thief. The fact that they so willingly do so for illegals just compounds the issue. While Rick Keller may know Spanish, I don't believe he finds it neccessary to use when addressing an American President in America. Mel did make that a point  of his when answering  some of the presses questions ( Orlando Sentinel )on the third set of immigration bills. I kinda thought if he wants to address a President in Spanish he could always talk to Raoul, Fidel's replacement.  I hear Mexico's president is fluent in that language as well.

Any comments or thoughts on this post ?

Tom Feeney's plug for NASA and additional funds as the shuttle program winds down was this : It is important that we keep up funding to maintain the high ground as the Chinese Generals are taught that without it they cannot pursue their country's global goals. Sound like a sound story ? This one's comming straight from a Republican's mouth.  Is it the whole truth, partial truth, or some misrepresentation of a fact or facts to sell an additional earmark. As it stands now there is a 3-5 tear gap between shuttle programs, the old and the new. Do you believe that NASA itself is vital to National Security ? While I understand the need for the military to maintain the high ground, and it is a sound and time proven fact, Tom Feeney didn't exactly explain NASA's part. It wasn't a NASA missile that shot down the spy satelite that otherwise would have impacted earth. The Air Force handled that one. For all the vaunted technology, it wasn't a NASA shuttle that made repairing a spy satellite practicle.  It isn't NASA's spy satellites that monitor the Chinese, they are the Air Forces. The US Air Force opperates a space program of their own, and if you were going to spend more money under the guise of National Security, wouldn't that money be better spent with the Air Force ?  The threat of some of the Air Forces and Navy's missiles sounds like a logical counter. What big stick does NASA carry ?

For the record, I'm a Republican. I'm just not terribly big on any politicians line of BS !  I guess Feeney didn't think Nelson- Dem.   could sell it on his own . 

Any thoughts on this ?

I worked today and got my project finished, stayed a bit later to help a project manager with another. While waiting for some filler to harden on a mould, my buddy started a conversation on politics and his 18 yr. old son's pick. The kid was all excited about comming of voting age and had told his dad he was voting for Obama. My buddy stated that he would have preferred his son confided in him that he was gay. I laughed and said : " While bad, it would certainly be easier news to hear and take ! "

My last trip to the polls, for a Presidential election, I'd taken my daughter. The guy checking my license and address stated he was glad to see so young a child being shown this. I chuckled and told him I was also teaching her the right way to vote, REPUBLICAN !  He and several co-workers laughed out loud, but said the lawyers monitoring the election probably wouldn't find that funny.

Well, if you've ever read any of my posts, you know how I feel about lawyers and their sensibilities. Yeah, I salute them ALL with : ONE RAISED ARM AND ONE EXTENDED FINGER,  you know the one,  THEE RIGHT ONE !   LOL!!!!!!!