Monday, April 21, 2014

Monday Potpouri

ScamFix has some made up stats to help him see the world in black-and-white.
90% of criminals are Democrats. Our crime rate and ail rate would be good if not for Democrats, Ask any prison guard they will verify this.
Oh.....cuban leaf could be in for a surprise.
One of my daughters was “flirting” with it when in high school. I mean to the point where we were concerned about certain friends that would sleep over and she actually lived with her basketball coach and lesbian lover for a few months after running away (long story. She came back and apologized).

But at no time did I ever even entertain the idea of “living with it” and treating it as normal.

She ended up being straight and even had a college room mate (lesbian) that had a crush on her but my daughter would not have any part of it. I bring it up to point out that a LOT of her friends were lesbians in college and set up the next sentence:

She and I were talking about the “it gets better” movement. She said, “No, it doesn’t.”

If she was to have told me she was marrying a woman, I would have said that she is my daughter and I love her, but I will not support any sin in her life in any way shape or form. This would include homosexual relationship or even the relationship she has now (lives with boyfriend).
noted art and psychology expert: luvbach1
Liberal critics of Bush’s art secretly hate themselves for realizing it’s good.
dfwgator - Nirvana was just the hippies of the 1990s:
Nirvana.

You know why lefties love them....because Heavy Metal tended to reject the hippy, leftist notions of “peace and love”. So it had to be done away with.....Enter Grunge and the Leftists controlled rock music again.
A Formerly Proud Canadian is trying to be racist and Canadian, but clearly just wants to belong:
Crime rates are higher in ‘projects’ in most countries. With a lot of Jamaicans now living in Toronto, mostly in the ‘projects’, I guess that some of these ‘projects’ are very dangerous for those of us who are ‘melanin challenged’. There is also a much higher incidence of crime among the First Nations people in Canada.
SunkenCiv wants to Assassinate the Manly Putin!
we should help the Ukrainians train for low-level resistance, and to plant a nice juicy bomb on Putin’s limo. Neither will happen, because Zero is on his side. Thanks Berlin_Freeper.
Mariner is unsatisfied with Obama putting troops in Poland - thanks Obama!
Knowing Obama, as we all do, this will be a piddly deployment of a couple of light regiments, no armor, no Calvary. And no ALLIES.

We'd be better off and dignified by sending none.

The man is making us a laughing stock.
Former Proud Canadian is pissed we have troops in Poland - thanks Obama!
The time to place NATO troops in Poland was shortly after Poland joined NATO. About 1999 when the US still had tanks and anti tank aircraft in Europe.

Now, the Russians will see this as a provocation.
TexasFreeper2009 seems to have hated America since...1990?
The day WE became the evil empire, was the day it was truly over for us.

And WE became the evil empire when we started aggressively promoting abortion and sodomy abroad.
RitchieAprile on the state of Freep:
Why am I not surprised at some of the comments here... There was time when Freepers used to make intelligent and articulate points and statements..
Not anymore. These days its all just spite and hate. When you loose empathy towards your fellow being, you stop being human.


the intelligent and articulate ones were, um, zotted.
jacknhoo found out the idiot who planned to set a confetti bomb at the Boston Marathon was gay, which clearly caused everything:
One of the biggest errors sever - removing his type of disorder from from the DSM in 1973.
yield 2 the right may need to take a break:
WHAT IS IT WITH THE MONTH OF APRIL AND NATURAL DISASTERS, SICK/EVIL HUMANS AND TERRORISM; THE WORLD OVER!!!????
goodwithagun knows Hollywood is a nonstop rapefest:
I’ve heard the casting couch has neither age limit nor gender preference. If you think about it, this is probably why most actors and actresses are so screwed up.
uncommonsense tells a completely true story:
Called to get Obamacare today. Based on my current income of zero, I can sign up for Obamacare for the low price of $9,100/year. Since I can’t afford that right now, I’ll get taxed by the IRS for not having healthcare. I haven’t had healthcare for the last 5 years - so much for covering the uninsured...
Progov on how to deal with black people on wellfare:
Best he neuter most of them.

If he would take away some of the “Free Sh&t” and make them WORK for a living instead of mooching off the rest of us, perhaps they may NOT have so many kids.

The first option is the best.
broken_arrow1:
I don’t think the Neanderthal’s DNA died out - ever take a look at FLOTUS Moochelle?
Huskerfan44 has all the answers:
Okay, so why did he release the forgery?

To divert attention from the fake Bin Laden hit or vice versa.

24 comments:

  1. There was some real laugh out loud funny stuff there, Ozy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What is Broken Arrow smoking? Neanderthals were definitely white and their residual DNA is most likely the source of blondes, red heads and eye colours other than brown (those traits only showing up in population groups with geographical Neanderthal interbreeding plausibility). If you are looking for genetically 'pure' Homo Sapiens then Kenya is where you start looking. Other 'races' are either descendant (Asians, Amerindians etc) or mongrels (White Europeans). (White European myself btw).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You tried that genome testing thing? I know not everyone has a spare $100 to throw away on casual curiosity, but if you have it gets fascinating rapidly.

      I disagree on the eye color aspect though. Blue or grey eyes are a perfectly normal mutation to react to low light conditions.

      Delete
    2. No, I haven't had my genome mapped. Doing so with the precision to verify Neanderthal or Denisovan admixture is still a bit beyond the $100 range.

      As for eye colour, your logic would imply that the Inuit should have evolved blue eyes too. Blue, grey, green eyes do not correlate with latitude of origin but do correlate with modern human/Neanderthal co-existence (and consequently interbreeding) areas.

      Coloured eyes also confer no advantage in terms of low light visual acuity or any other tangible parameter that has been identified. When these sorts of "illogical" mutations persist it is often due to psychological sexual selection factors. Neanderthals had over a quarter of a million years to accumulate random, neutral mutations so if the modern humans out of Kenya 30-40k years ago preferentially went after the "white girls" (Neanderthals) then that would inject that 250ky+ worth of random variation into the European genome.

      Delete
    3. I can see the "appeal of the exotic" coming in to play, sure, though the adaptive aspect, though not known at the time, may also have had an effect. Pale skin + low light = more vitamin D.

      The Inuit are a less solid base to discuss - snow blindness is a thing and it hurts like hell. Brown eyes are quite simply better with bright light than blue.
      If you want to do a highly unscientific look at it - go out with a bunch of friends on a bright, sunny day and sit outside to eat (Hey, fun to do anyway). See who wears sunglasses and keeps them on. I'll bet you that nearly all of them have blue or grey eyes.

      Delete
    4. True regarding the vitamin D (and also that increased melanin reduces UV carcinogenicity) but skin colour and eye colour do not correlate. Take Chinese and Japanese for example. There is only one identified unique parameter the describe the home range of modern humans with non-brown eyes and that is "Neanderthal territory overlap". Every other theory currently fails the "So why don't show the same characteristic then?" test.

      As for your last point, evolution doesn't care about your comfort. If there is a positive selection pressure for eye colour towards the blue end of the spectrum then it is plausible that it is down to reflectivity. The colour of an object corresponds to the wavelengths it reflects rather than absorbs so blue eyes are reflecting away more of the destructive (UV) wavelengths than brown eyes are. Maybe that reduces susceptibility to cataracts or something.

      However you slice it up it doesn't change the facts that:

      Brown eyes and dark skin clearly "work" in evolutionary terms in equitorial Africa.

      Modern humans originate in equitorial Africa.

      Modern humans migrating to higher latitudes uniformly tend towards lighter skin pigmentation.

      Modern humans migrating to higher latitudes do not uniformly tend towards lighter eye pigmentation.

      If we accept that coloured eyes are beneficial (or neutral) relative to light levels then there is no obvious way to explain the failure of comparable population groups to evolve the same traits convergently given comparable time periods. However it is explicable if White Europeans "borrowed" a genetic technology that had been developed by some other group (Neanderthals) over a far longer time period.

      Delete
    5. Hat tip - nicely argued.

      There is an alternative explanation. Roughly at the same time the Neanderthals died out, 600,000 years ago, homo sapiens was reduced to a few thousand individuals. 10k seems to be the accepted number. If you posit that they were not all in one place, you would get the various racial and coloration differences pretty much locked in - small gene pools with minimal chance of out breeding. A seemingly insignificant mutation - blue eyes - could be rapidly locked into a group in those circumstances, maybe in as little as 4 generations.

      Or, of course, it is possible it has always been with us (blue is recessive). If you read or hear legends of all sorts of peoples, the eye color is invariably mentioned if it is even slightly unusual for the local culture. The Chinese and Mongols revered green eyes, for example. Blue eyed Tuareg exist, and are preferential mates.

      Still - Occam would probably say you are correct. A small, isolated population, interbreeding with the last of Neanderthals would explain much of the differences. It would also explain some of the people in my local pub!

      Delete
    6. "Roughly at the same time the Neanderthals died out, 600,000 years ago"

      Nope. 600ky ago is about the earliest point that Neanderthals might have existed (they aren't certain until more like 300ky ago). You are maybe thinking of Homo Erectus?

      Neanderthals definitely existed in Europe (Croatia and Spain, specifically) in the 35ky to 30ky timeframe. That is where the 250ky+ window for Neanderthal adaptation to the Ice Age comes from. It also means that there was a 10ky to 20ky territorial overlap with modern Homo Sapiens in Europe.

      The genetic bottleneck you refer to has solid suggestive support but the timing doesn't help your argument (Best guess is about 70ky ago - see Toba Catastrophe Theory). Any plausible model for the bottleneck places it before the final "out of Africa" migration and might even be part of the cause of it. Consequently any densification of recessive traits caused by forcibly diminished genetic diversity in the African founder population would have global effect, which in certain genetic areas is indeed the case (Homo Sapiens has remarkably little genetic diversity in general - like Cheetahs - originating in the same general area).

      Your theory explains the overwhelming dominance of "brown" eye colouration world wide but dashes on the rocks of the blue eyed blondes in Europe. A bottleneck forces out diversity by making endogamy an imperative and we know from observation that the dominant eye colour globally is "brown".

      However you can make the bottleneck evidence fit the facts. Mass reduction in Homo populations worldwide about 100ky to 70ky ago causes diversity loss leading modern humans (still in Africa) to coalesce on brown eyes and Neanderthals (already in Europe for 150ky) to coalesce on 'colours'. Might be genetically beneficial in that environment, might just be random and neutral so no selective pressure to get rid of it.

      Some time 10ky to 20ky later modern humans migrate out of Africa world wide with their dark eyes. Since that trait is no disadvantage it remains the default standard everywhere except Europe (see global OCA2 gene sequencing data) where the African immigrants run in to the only white/blonde/blue eyes population currently in existence, anywhere. Humans are predisposed to collect the exotic and the rare as you acknowledged so it is no great leap of imagination to envisage the male African migrants would preferentially pursue the Neanderthal Ladies thereby accelerating diminuation of melanistic skin, boosting nose size and importing eye colours into the European (exclusively) modern human genome. The same principle explains what happened to all the Wolves in the UK. They never went extinct per se, they just hybridised and selectively bred until we started calling them all "dogs".

      Delete
    7. Your theory is solid. And I added a zero to homo sapiens time line - I plead youth and inexperience and long and faithful service! :P
      I know no one really knows when the distinct species came about (people tend to be too smart to get fossilized), but 35k years really doesn't seem long enough for the diversity we see. Adding in the transition period and 60k would be closer to the mark. We bred dogs deliberately. People are quite a bit more indiscriminate!

      I can accept your hybridization theory for Europeans. It would not only explain the light eyes but the tendency to be physically larger and trying to cram an extra 4 teeth in a jaw already too small. Melatonin changes could be either hybrid or an environmental modification, similar to people in very cold climates tending to have a low surface area to volume ratio to retain heat.

      Delete
    8. Genetically, I have only 25 teeth. That's not even an even number. I'm 100% European, as far as I know. Mutations don't always take one million years to manifest.

      Delete
    9. Is it heritable? Dominant or recessive? It would certainly be considered a slight advantage, considering that much dental surgery involves removing superfluous teeth.

      Delete
  3. Jim Robbington IIIApril 21, 2014 at 1:55 PM

    And WE became the evil empire when we started aggressively promoting abortion and sodomy abroad.

    Were they promoted via TV/radio or by carpet leafleting? Either way I'd like to see that ad campaign!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think we became the evil empire when we murdered thousand and thousands and thousands of people who happened to live in Iraq because of those "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that never existed. It was bullshit. People all over America and all over the world said, Bullshit. But we murdered all those folks anyway. Yay America. Yay Bush. Yay whatever.

      Delete
    2. Wouldn't sodomy avoid abortion, in general? Just sayin'.

      Delete
    3. Jim Robbington IIIApril 21, 2014 at 9:32 PM

      That reminds me of a George Carlin bit about conservatives/republicans and them being pro-life, but anti-homosexual. Why don't conservatives like homosexuals? Who has less abortions than gays?

      Delete
  4. The RitchieAprile thread, about the recent Iranian earthquake, was really encouraging. In addition to the stereotypical hatefulness there were several posts expressing humane sentiments. There are decent freepers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There you are, you are a decent freeper. Then you read this,

      "What's a matter honey.....don't you like black people...? (at this point you are suppose to lie down and spread your legs). "
      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3136659/posts?page=51#51

      Why do you stay?

      Delete
    2. There are decent freepers. "

      Decent freepers are fewer and fewer as the years go by. Jimcompoop's filthy harpies drive them off.

      Delete
    3. per the Salon article from 1999

      “I was once told that 50 grains injected behind the ear cures both AIDS and homosexuality,” posted another Freeper with the screen name of D. Rider. “That’s ’50 grains’ of lead.”
      http://www.salon.com/1999/07/13/free/

      Now that is decency! Kill the faggots!

      FR has always been like this. Face it.

      Delete
    4. Anon at 2:52: Why do we stay? The same reason you look at a car wreck as traffic crawls by.

      Delete
  5. In a thread about boys and reading some Freepers actually mention a lot of the books I read as a child. But others engage in their usual misogyny and then Clemenza says:

    No young man ever benefitted from reading Jane Austen and “To Kill a Mockingbird” should be banned.

    Banned. I'm speechless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To: Telepathic Intruder


      This is pretty true. My 6 year old son can’t wait to play war and shoot toy guns when he gets home from school. It’s called being boys. ;-)


      15 posted on 04/21/2014 8:30:36 AM PDT by miliantnutcase

      No..it's called having a parent who is a militant nutcase.

      Delete
    2. I'm surprised they only suggested banning books and not burning them.

      Delete
  6. You know why lefties love them....because Heavy Metal tended to reject the hippy, leftist notions of “peace and love”. So it had to be done away with.....Enter Grunge and the Leftists controlled rock music again

    Hmmm. Heavy metal also promoted casual sex, devil worship, transvestism and atheism, last time I checked. I thought lefties loved all that stuff, according to FReepers, and I also thought that lefties controlled the entertainment industry?

    Using Occam's razor, we arrive at the much simpler theory that dfwgator is a fucking moron.

    ReplyDelete