BellGab.com Archive

Nice twitter joke account above.  Now posted this Hitler wants Art Bell to return vid: Hitler wants Art Bell to return to c2c

Quote from: BigDave on February 15, 2013, 11:30:55 AM

So is George Noory a Democrat or Republican? George Noory could run on a ticket with Richard C Hoagland. Their big cause could be bringing all the evidence of Alien life out in the open. :

Noory is a pretty straight line Republican and Hoaglund lies enough to be a member of the US Senate!

Quote from: The General on February 15, 2013, 11:11:00 AM
And the follow up...
http://www.politifact.com/letter-from-bishop-ron-mcrae/

Which they posted for comedic effect (it is pretty hilarious after all, the eight grade dense writing style adds even more fun!).  They did not change their rating which states that your supposition is FALSE!

Quote from: BigDave on February 15, 2013, 09:17:16 AM

Christie is a Democrat mascarading as a Republican. I'd never vote for Him after He kissed Barry's ass

Elections generally prove our vote is worth exactly that, one vote.  Polling, good polling, is a much better indicator than what any single voter thinks.

You post also shows the Republican problem, namely the people who can win the primary cannot win the general election.  Republicans have lost several Senate seats and maybe the Presidency to this phenomena.

Quote from: NaeBabii on December 06, 2012, 01:52:52 PM
LoL, I'm definitely not a dick, nor am I rude.

Well, that is no fun.

Here is a recent poll, shows Hilllary most favorable by a wide margin.  Followed by Rice, then Christie/Ryan.

http://news.oneindia.in/2013/02/15/clinton-rice-top-poll-of-likely-us-presidential-contenders-1150835.html

If Rice runs she needs to clean up the speculation.  Reports were she owned a home with a woman.

Christie would have real trouble beating Ryan in Iowa, but could likely crush him in New Hampshire.

Quote from: Pragmier on February 15, 2013, 08:03:45 AM

Here's the link to that poll: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail/?ReleaseID=1849

Notice anything missing? Christie was not included.

Great catch!  I missed that.  I do think Christie is the most popular Repub among all voters. 

i would also note that nowhere did anyone say one type of thought was better, just that they were different.  Interesting who read what into these studies, isn't it?

Quote from: Pragmier on February 15, 2013, 07:55:00 AM
It doesn't sound to PPP pollsters:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/01/clinton-could-be-unstoppable-if-she-runs-in-2016.html

Chris Christie would be Clinton’s most threatening opponent in a general election. He trails her by only two points (42/44) in a head-to-head contest, and his overall favorability (+28) is higher than Clinton’s (+15). But she would trounce Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan by double-digit margins. Christie is more competitive against Clinton primarily because he is ahead of her by 18 points (47/29) among independents.

Of course Christie trails Rubio among Reps by mid-single digits, and they can throw away another election. The Dems fear Christie more than anyone.

Much as I would like two parties who were actually competitive, the Tea Party will take few more lumps before they die.  Steve King leads among Repubs to replace Se. Tom Harkin, but King loses the general against any Democrat...while the middle of the road Repub, Tom Latham, would likely win.

as absolutely stunning that it is, to both dems and repubs, Hillary Clinton is currently the most popular politician.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/08/us-usa-politics-clinton-idUSBRE9170NZ20130208

Quote from: onan on February 15, 2013, 06:44:31 AM
What I find interesting is who has taken significant objection in this thread, yet had little to say in other threads that posed similar "us against them" studies, just from the other side of the aisle. If one is to use critical thinking and also be fair one would hope to see the same level of criticism, I didn't find that.

But doesn't that also fit with the brain structure study discussed in this thread?

Wow UFO Fill, so many legal misrepresentations in one post.  Not sure I can take them all on, but the Wiki on this is pretty good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

just a couple:  Congress cannot interpret the Constitution, I am sure you know that.

Dicta specifically means the Court is commenting but not ruling or creating precedent, thus what I stated is correct.

i could not help but notice Jeb Bush took on Rubio recently, claiming he had not yet accomplished anything legislatively.  Could that presage a Bush run?

Paper boy

Also, I am an attorney.  I do not believe any court has defined natural born and it is unlikely to be more stringent than native born.

Paper boy

Give me links to real websites like politifact that support your suppositions, not right or left wing nutball sites.

Quote from: The General on February 15, 2013, 01:47:27 AM
Obama's grandma would disagree with you there.  I think she might know more about it than you.

W
rong kimosabi. Facts  about grandma interview

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/07/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-president-obamas-grandmother-cau/

Actually Rubio and Obama were born in America and thus are likely natural born citizens, ironically McCain is the one who was not natural born, McCain was born in the canal zone.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110407121337.htm

"Individuals who call themselves liberal tend to have larger anterior cingulate cortexes, while those who call themselves conservative have larger amygdalas. Based on what is known about the functions of those two brain regions, the structural differences are consistent with reports showing a greater ability of liberals to cope with conflicting information and a greater ability of conservatives to recognize a threat, the researchers say.

"Previously, some psychological traits were known to be predictive of an individual's political orientation," said Ryota Kanai of the University College London. "Our study now links such personality traits with specific brain structure."

Kanai said his study was prompted by reports from others showing greater anterior cingulate cortex response to conflicting information among liberals. "That was the first neuroscientific evidence for biological differences between liberals and conservatives," he explained.

There had also been many prior psychological reports showing that conservatives are more sensitive to threat or anxiety in the face of uncertainty, while liberals tend to be more open to new experiences. Kanai's team suspected that such fundamental differences in personality might show up in the brain.

And, indeed, that's exactly what they found. Kanai says they can't yet say for sure which came first. It's possible that brain structure isn't set in early life, but rather can be shaped over time by our experiences. And, of course, some people have been known to change their views over the course of a lifetime
"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120827122410.htm

" "Making the public aware of how their mind works and affects their political behavior is critically important," Hatemi says."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130213173131.htm

"Democrats showed significantly greater activity in the left insula, a region associated with social and self-awareness. Meanwhile Republicans showed significantly greater activity in the right amygdala, a region involved in the body's fight-or-flight system. These results suggest that liberals and conservatives engage different cognitive processes when they think about risk.

In fact, brain activity in these two regions alone can be used to predict whether a person is a Democrat or Republican with 82.9% accuracy. By comparison, the longstanding traditional model in political science, which uses the party affiliation of a person's mother and father to predict the child's affiliation, is only accurate about 69.5% of the time. And another model based on the differences in brain structure distinguishes liberals from conservatives with only 71.6% accuracy.

"

Quote from: NowhereInTime on February 12, 2013, 03:38:43 PM
I just don't get the disdain for Ian.  The man shows up interested and prepared every time he hosts.  He's fluent and inquisitive.  Maybe he lays on the deaconage a bit much as a point of reference but he's hardly proselytizing.  I have been listening to him since the Coast to Coast PM days and have found him engaging and enjoyable.  Okay the World War Z/Zombie show was a weak attempt at Orson Welles' era radio but it was an attempt to do something different than fall back on the same tired "guest with book/product demurs responses" formula.
I wish he'd come back to do weekends and wish him recovery from tinnitus.

I second that.  If Ian had taken the show we would not be stuck with George...

George, poor George
Looks to mom for help, more help
like a 7 year old


Alas poor George
I knew him once, poor misguided
now lost forever, gone

I barely listen, I am on the Fine Art stream.  That said, listen for the callers who are too in line with the next question, too prepared, who the guest can respond to without thinking.  That is most callers now, and those are the plants.

Quote from: Rachael Nexusei on February 11, 2013, 07:57:12 PM
Okay, this may sound stupid, but if the Catholic church knows of the prophecy, why perpetuate it by continuing to elect(?) popes that fit the bill?
Do they have some motive for this?

They ARENT, GO LOOK AT HOW WEAK SOME OF THE "CORRECT" CALLS ARE IN THIS PROPHECY.  Wiki entry above.

Art will return, if they are both smart Premiere will grossly overpay him for a Saturday show and that will be it.

From the article:

"Gibney takes great pains to point out that every sex abuse case, including Murphy's, went directly to the office of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1981 until 2005 and now Pope Benedict XVI. Yet year after year, known pedophiles such as Murphy were allowed to remain free and to remain priests, often in parishes where they had access to children. It was only after Kouhut and other victims filed a civil suit against the Vatican, that the church was forced to release documents making it clear that in many cases officials knew about the abuse and refused to act."

It shows letters personally signed by him, defending child molesters and stopping child molesting priests from being defrocked.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-mea-maxima-culpa-20130204,0,6297138.story

How much did they have to pay the audience to show up and act interested?

Same show done on Coast many times.  Why would someone pay for this?

So the last Pope is described as : " 112 Peter the Roman, who will nourish the sheep in many tribulations; when they are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The end." or ""In the extreme persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit [i.e., as bishop].
Peter the Roman, who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations:
and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed,
and the terrible judge will judge his people.
The End."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes

Of course, I think they have the Prophet's name wrong, they it is Malachy - I think they meant MALARCHY.