Helena Country Rapper Bests World’s Scientists

A Helena, Montana man has gained more insight than the entire world scientific community and wants to share that knowledge with others.  Bruce Kershaw (pictured)Bruce Kershaw, who is also a mechanic and country rapper, says his scientific expertise comes “from reading National Geographic.”  His vast knowledge led him to become a climate change denier.

Kershaw says “there are millions of people out there who are not a Scientist who think they are.”  He explains that this has allowed the media to lie to them about climate change.

Kershaw, on the other hand, says he has “worked in science professionally my entire life.” When asked specifically to explain his scientific background, he says:

I was licensed by the state of California on (auto) emissions controls and I had to learn atmospheric science. I have been reading National Geographic since my grandfather got me started. A lot of my earth science information is from National Geographic.

You can read an interview with Kershaw here.  The lyrics to his country rap song about the scam that is climate change can be read here.  (The “country rap” genre, explains Kershaw, really is known as “crap”).

Posted: April 13, 2012 at 8:12 pm

This post was written by Cowgirl

159 thoughts on “Helena Country Rapper Bests World’s Scientists

  1. Publius II

    Perhaps our ‘crapper’ can join ‘Joe the Plumber’ for an economic summit and elaborate on his plans?

      1. larry kurtz

        …like you have 25K to pay someone. It’s common knowledge that half of the releases of mercury and other heavy metals into the biosphere have been caused by human activity. Why would the rampant manufacture of carbon compounds be any exception?

            1. Moorcat

              It doesn’t surprise me that people are “waking up”. What surprises me is that they were dumb enough not to realise it in the first place.

        1. Bruce A. Kershaw

          I need an experiment or test that dis-proves Carbon based oxygen is no loger a proven natural refrigerant, at any Temp. or pressure, and has been since 1835.
          There is 177 years of proven chemistry,along with proven laws of heat transfer science, more than a dozen natural causes of cilmate change, and millions of years of climate history ~ exclude ~ in the U.N. IPCC climate study, and why the study is Flawed.

            1. Bruce A. Kershaw

              I challenge anyone to an open public debate in climate science in a public meeting place here in Helena Montana, no one has excepted that challenge since 2007,
              no one will debate the science, no one.

                1. Bruce A. Kershaw

                  Larry, are you here in Helena? review my refferance page, CO2 cauing warming is a hypothesis not a proven tested fact, there is no test or experiment proving CO2 causes warming while dis-proving proven chemistry since 1835.
                  CO2 does not generate energy it absorbs energy making the surounding air cooler not warmer, so the hypothesis is half right and half wrong, and more than 30,000 scientists agree.
                  Larry you will be the first, and I am looking forword to seeing your proof Humans cause climate change, my work is not compleat but is being followed by many groups who do publish peer-reviewed science and medicine, I strted my investigation into the proof (tested science) (not belief) in 2007 and my investigation continues today about five hours everyday since 2007, I have done thousands of tests with CO2 since 1976.contact me at Auto Tech 406-449-7987 and we will set up something for the public to see here in Helena.

                1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

                  DAMN! You beat me to it! I was gonna suggest that debating Bruce about climate change was kinda like debating religion the disheveled lookin’ dude standin’ on the street corner, sign in hand, yelling ’bout the end of the world is night and how JAYsus saves!

                  Since Bruce is into science, I’m SURE that he understands that he can PUBLISH his work in a journal somewhere, and after they stop laughing at his credentials, he can debate the VAST majority of the world’s best scientists! HEY, it’s worth a shot!

          1. Rob Kailey

            Bruce, one doesn’t need to disprove something that doesn’t exist by definition. There is no such thing as “Carbon based oxygen”.

            1. Doug

              I challenge anyone in Helena to disprove that the world is flat. Why will no one debate me? Cowards!

            2. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

              No such thing as carbon based Oxygen Bruce? Exactly what I was going to say! I think our man bruce is a bit of an snake oil saleman?????

              1. Bruce A. Kershaw

                Norma Duffy, this is a carbon base planet, causing carbon based life, caused by carbon and oxyegn, and hydrogen, hydrogen and carbon is hydrocarbon, hydrogen and oxygen is water, carbon and oxyen bonded together by heat is oxygen with a carbon base, you are carbon based life, your body is water ~ Hydrogen bonded to (monoxide) oxygen and 20% carbon and you breath dioxide. CO2 is one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms, dioxide: di means 2 and oxide means oxygen, CO2 is oxygen with a carbon base, just like this plant and your body is a carbon base.
                In some parts of the world we call it carbon based oxygen, if thats ok with you.

                1. Moorcat

                  Fact is, Bruce, most of what you breath is actually Nitrogen.

                  You can use you silly BS explanation all you want. What we “breath” is Oxygen. Our bodies are designed to extract that Oxygen. We expell CO2 as a waste gas. This is basic biology. Did you graduate high school?

                  1. Bruce A. Kershaw

                    there are three kinds of oxygen

                    O1 monoxide is one oxygen atom when part of a molecule
                    O2 dioxid two oxygen atoms together, we breath O2 dioxide.
                    O3 Trioxide three oxygen atoms together called Ozone
                    mon means 1
                    di means 2
                    tri means 3
                    yes we breath air made of 78.09 % nitrogen made from decomposing soil, but we do not absorb the nitrogen, we absorb O2 (dioxid) oxygen, then we exhale CO2

                    1. Moorcat

                      I am done arguing with this idiot, Rob. He is obviously warped and unable to even recognise basic chemistry, let alone biochemistry. I am putting him firmly in the nutcase catagory and going to ignore him from now on.

                    2. Moorcat

                      I made the mistake of reconsidering and giving him the benefit of the doubt. That led me to his website to check out this “research” he keeps talking about. I lost brain cells… Why oh why did I look back? I should have remembered the story of Lot.

                    3. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

                      Those are chemical Bonds and not native elements Bruce! your wrong! there is one 1 Oxygen. Jeesh, do you not understand the periodic table!

                2. Rob Kailey

                  Considering that molecular bonding of valence forces is a far cry from “heat”, this whole damned thing seems pretty ‘BASE’less to me. So, no, it is not okay with me to call CO2 “carbon based oxygen”.

                  1. Bruce A. Kershaw

                    ok we will call it what it is, one Carbon atom bonded to dioxide, one carbon atom bonded to two oxygen atoms or carbon and oxygen, or c and O2 or carbon dioxide, call it what ever you want.

                    I will stop calling it carbon based oxygen for you.

                3. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

                  Listen Bruce your talking to a science graduate. Your a friggin snakeoil nutcase, who mixes truth and Bullshit together, and calls it science! Oxygen is a pure chemical substance. Carbon is a pure chemical substance. a small minority of elements are found as recognizable, relative pure minerals. Among the more common of such “native elements” are copper, silver, gold, carbon, sulfur, and mercury.

                  Atmospheric Gases such as what we breath in native uncombined form is primarily a mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon.

                  What you Fail to mention because you are,WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out there is Chemical bonds or chemical compounds. found in the air today in particulate form, they are not bonded with air only carried by it!

                  Chemical bonding of many types of elements results in crystalline solids and metallic alloys for which exact chemical formulas do not exist in nature and therefore are man-made. Thus pollution!

                  Keep trying to learn Bruce! You are totally missing the point of what catalytic converters do on cars, they scrub particulates from the exhaust!

                  1. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

                    I am no longer going to argue with you, because that is the established scientific view.

                    You are not even close to understanding science, and after viewing your arguments on this thread, the one thing you have failed to do is prove…That your Theory’s have been repeated by anyone of merit in the scientific community, and found repeatable!

      2. Tom Fid

        Let me guess … you get to define “proof.” I’ll give $25k to anyone who can prove to my satisfaction that the sun will come up tomorrow.

        1. Bruce A. Kershaw

          Tom Fid, a scientific consensus would be every scientist performing the same test or expriment the same way having the same results, consesus is based on a test that suports a hypothesis, a hypothesis is a belief not fact, CO2 is a proven refrigerant since 1835, there is no test to prove the belief Humans cause climate change, or dis-prove 177 years of test proven chemisty. Words are not proof, and there is no science in your words.

          1. Moorcat

            Bruce. Do yourself a favor and actually look up the word Consensus. Had you done that, you would not appear to be such a complete and utter idiot.

            What you are talking about is what is called “repeatable results” and often refered to as a “conclusion”. Eventually conclusions often result in “rules” and can sometimes even lead to “laws”.

            After you actually look up the word “consensus” maybe we can have an adult discussion on what Scientific Consensus is.

            For the record, I have spent most of my adult life working in scientific fields and you are crapping all over that.

                    1. Bruce A. Kershaw

                      Do you know what an EGR vaule is ?
                      If you had read my work, I would not have answer this question.
                      If you want to talk science, read my science statement so you have some understanding of the science, and I will not have re-write everything from the last five years of investagtion just for you.

                    2. Rob Kailey

                      No. I don’t know what an “EGR vaule” is. If you mean an EGR valve, then you’d best explain what a CO2 scrubber has to do with experimenting on CO2.

                  1. Doug

                    This is why high school science should be mandatory, not an elective. Maybe it is, I’m from Idaho so I don’t know what is required here.

                1. Rob Kailey

                  ~sigh~

                  Bruce, you used the term, and I quote: Scientific consensus. In your usage, you were completely wrong about it’s meaning. You got called on that, and then changed to a definition of general consensus to mask the error you committed. If this is your idea of ‘debate’ then you’ve pretty much lost going in.

                    1. Rob Kailey

                      Uhhh, no I didn’t. Read it again. I “told” you to do nothing. You brought up the idea of “scientific consensus”. Deal with that, or don’t. Anything is rhetorical trickery, and a really poor attempt at that.

                    2. Moorcat

                      Actually, I was the one that told him to look up “consensus”. I was going to progress to scientific consensus from there but you (Rob) kind of took my thunder by posting the actual definition. He is attempting to misdirect, though, just as you have already pointed out.

                    3. Rob Kailey

                      Bruce, I’m well aware of what you were “trying to point out”. I’m simply stating, as hypothesis if you will, that scientific consensus holds to the idea that carbon molecules are bonding to structures much more conducive to the release of energy. That would be warming, and we’re really helping it along.

    1. Bruce A. Kershaw

      The point I am tring to make is -
      Dioxide is not poision or polution, it is O2 = two oxygen atoms.
      O2 – oxygen 2 oxygen atoms when ~ not ~ part of another molecule
      O2 – dioxide 2 oxygen atoms when part of a molecule

      di = 2
      oxide = oxygen

      we breath and absorb 2 oxygen atoms then exhale 2 oxygen atoms based to a carbon atom.

      Sorry for all the confusion.

          1. Moorcat

            You still have no actual education that relates to any of the sciences that you need to logically discuss global warming. Until you do, attempting to explain global warming and the factors that are contributing to it, would be like me trying to explain nuclear fission to a South American pygmy…. you don’t have the background to understand it.

  2. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

    A little rap song that Mr. Guffaw might want to use in his next album! Free of charge!

    Climate Change C-rap

    He’s a C rapper, or a country rapper

    Got his degree whiles’t on the crapper

    Readin’ readers digest made him a scrapper

    Ya gotta take him serious he ain’t a laffer!

    He filled up his brain with LOTS of stuff

    He knows the world’s scientists ain’t so tuff!

    All their expertise looks just like fluff

    With his bowel movement larnin’ it just ain’t enuff!

    So all you deniers you best beware

    The C crapper rapper knows what’s in the air!

    He gets HIS facts where others don’t dare

    With his library crapper none can compare!

    He knows this climate change is all just a scam

    Need more proof? Well join him in the can!

    His Readers Digest says it’s all an evil plan

    And he know what he be sayin’, he BE the CRAPPER man!

    BE the crapper man!

    BE the crapper man!

    1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

      Bruce ain’t a total hoser. I read his site. Much of it sounds like lefty writing. He don’t like Reagan and he don’t like Teatards. Here’s his take on PP.

      A-2 ~ Planed Parenthood
      Planed Parenthood,

      their Focus is on the prevention of sexually transmitted death,

      and the ~ prevention ~ of pregnancy, to reduce abortions.

      The spiritual right want another billion people on this planet,

      (to ~ not ~ feed and care for)

      along with the other six billion people, they do not want to help feed and care for now.

      They are for birth, not ~ life ~

      they are against those already living in very desperate need.

      There are those who will give tax breaks to the rich during very hard times,

      and then turn their backs on hungry homeless children in America.

      I am for the betterment of humanity, some are for the betterment of entity.

      We have a very serious over population explosion,

      with a nuclear power and waste problem, and in todays world, possible nuclear explosion.

      ~ Preventing unwanted pregnancy is the right thing to do ~

        1. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

          Ditto, Ditto, Ditto

          I hit the lottery, and I am takin Larry to Hollywood. the U.S. need a man like him right now!

    2. Bruce A. Kershaw

      Well I am not raper but do the craper mostly with laugh-trd, and I play a mean 12 string, and the dogs runaway, but thats ok, I am still breathing dioxide, the rest is Icing on the cake.

      1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

        Bruce, for the record, some of your other posts were right on, dude! And twelve string is good!

  3. Farmboy

    Only if this guy would have come out of the woodwork a month or two ago, he would be a Republican candidate for governor.

  4. Farmboy

    Ok Ive got a question, I got a cousin who works at a 7-11 in California, now if working on California auto emmissions makes you an expert on climate change, then my cousin ought to be an expert on obesity right?

    1. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

      Or Marketing, since they have to re-shelve so often….. Maybe even a restaurant guru, since they have to keep hotdogs spinning??????

  5. Gabby Johnson

    If he’s in auto emissions, he should know that the amount of carbon put into the atmosphere by each average American driver every six months is equal to the weight of that person’s vehicle.
    Personally, I’ve put about 90 Lincoln Towncars up there in my lifetime.

  6. Doug

    A lot of these deniers are just morons who don’t understand the difference between weather and climate.

    1. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

      Or Listen to the corporate spinmaster at Fox way to often. The commercials by some of these Oil Companies as well are just flat wrong as well. They tell lies any person can pick apart just by doing a little research online. It is now wonder they are trying to change the internet! They don’t want people educated Like in Thomas Jeffersons day!

      Our forefathers wanted an engaged and intelligent populous! Thomas Jefferson had said many times that Health and education was what America should strive for!

      Health must not be sacrificed to learning. A strong body makes the mind strong. To PETER CARR. i, 397- (P., 1785.)

      3689. – . Knowledge indeed is a desirable possession, * * * but health is more so. To T. M. RANDOLPH, JR. FORD ED., iv, 293. (P., 1786.)

      3690. – . Health is worth more than learning. To JOHN GARLAND JEFFERSON. FORD ED., v, 181. (N.Y., 1790-)

      3691. HEALTH, Morality and. Health is the first requisite after morality. To PETER CARR. ii, 241. FORD ED., iv, 433. (P., 1787.)

      Notes from THE JEFFERSONIAN CYCLOPEDIA

      Yeah I own that entire collection, because without Jefferson their would be no Montana!

      I really think this man would have had us America on a single payer plan Long time ago!

    2. Max Bucks

      “A lot of these deniers are just morons….”

      And some of them have graduate degrees in the history of science. They remember the theory of Phlogiston, all the scientific papers about canals on Mars, and the discovery of cold fusion.

      But, hey, Doug, if you are an atheist and have a lot of trouble buying into Christian eschatology, Global Warming and the coming Judgment of Evil Mankind is good enough, right?

      1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

        No they don’t, Putz. They’re just MORONS, dude. Like YOU! BWHHAHAHAHAAA!

  7. Michael Searalika

    This might seem a little off post, but since we are discussing voting for people this election cycle I came across some writings from one of my favorite ethics teachers Peter Singer.

    Even though I was not at the dinner last night, being on the other side of the country, My Stepmom had sent me her speech, and after I talked to her today she explained that she did in corporate it into her time at the Podium.

    jefferson said: I believe we may lessen the danger of buying and selling
    votes, by making the number of voters too great for any means of purchase!

    Peter Singer wrote about how certain other countries vote to keep Democracies robust… I think this can help pay for the debt and goverment service on a local level in a big way, Its just an Idea but one worth posting here:

    Why Vote?
    Peter Singer
    Project Syndicate, December, 2007
    As an Australian citizen, I voted in the recent federal election there. So did about 95% of registered Australian voters. That figure contrasts markedly with elections in the United States, where the turnout in the 2004 presidential election barely exceeded 60%. In Congressional elections that fall in the middle of a president’s term, usually fewer than 40% of eligible Americans bother to vote.
    There is a reason why so many Australians vote. In the 1920’s, when voter turnout fell below 60%, parliament made voting compulsory. Since then, despite governments of varying political complexions, there has been no serious attempt to repeal the law, which polls show is supported by about 70% of the population.

    Australians who don’t vote receive a letter asking why. Those without an acceptable excuse, like illness or travel abroad, must pay a small fine, but the number fined is less than 1% of eligible voters.

    In practice, what is compulsory is not casting a valid vote, but going to the polling place, having one’s name checked off, and putting a ballot paper in the box. The secrecy of the ballot makes it impossible to prevent people writing nonsense on their ballot papers or leaving them blank. While the percentage of invalid votes is a little higher where voting is compulsory, it comes nowhere near offsetting the difference in voter turnout.

    Compulsory voting is not unique to Australia. Belgium and Argentina introduced it earlier, and it is practiced in many other countries, especially in Latin America, although both sanctions and enforcement vary.

    Because I was in the US at the time of the Australian election, I was under no compulsion to vote. I had many reasons to hope for the defeat of John Howard’s conservative government, but that doesn’t explain why I went to some trouble to vote, since the likelihood that my vote would make any difference was miniscule (and, predictably, it did not).

    When voting is voluntary, and the chance that the result will be determined by any single person’s vote is extremely low, even the smallest cost – for example, the time it takes to stroll down to the polling place, wait in line, and cast a ballot – is sufficient to make voting seem irrational. Yet if many people follow this line of reasoning, and do not vote, a minority of the population can determine a country’s future, leaving a discontented majority.

    Poland’s recent electoral history provides an example. In the 2005 national elections, barely 40% of those eligible voted, the lowest total since the advent of free elections after the communist period. As a result, Jaroslaw Kaczynski was able to become prime minister with the support of a coalition of parties that gained a majority of seats in parliament, despite receiving only six million votes, out of a total of 30 million eligible voters.

    When Kaczynski was forced to go to the polls again only two years later, it became evident that many of those who had not voted in 2005 were unhappy with the outcome. Turnout rose to nearly 54%, with the increase especially marked among younger and better-educated voters. Kaczynski’s government suffered a heavy defeat.

    If we don’t want a small minority to determine our government, we will favor a high turnout. Yet since our own vote makes such a tiny contribution to the outcome, each of us still faces the temptation to get a free ride, not bothering to vote while hoping that enough other people will vote to keep democracy robust and to elect a government that is responsive to the views of a majority of citizens.

    But there are many possible reasons for voting. Some people vote because they enjoy it, and would have nothing better to do with the time saved if they did not. Others are motivated by a sense of civic duty that does not assess the rationality of voting in terms of the possible impact of one’s own ballot.

    Still others might vote not because they imagine that they will determine the outcome of the election, but because, like football fans, they want to cheer their team on. They may vote because if they don’t, they will be in no position to complain if they don’t like the government that is elected. Or they may calculate that while the chances of their determining the outcome are only one in several million, the result is of such importance that even that tiny chance is enough to outweigh the minor inconveniences of voting.

    If these considerations fail to get people to the polls, however, compulsory voting is one way of overcoming the free-rider problem. The small cost imposed on not voting makes it rational for everyone to vote and at the same time establishes a social norm of voting. Australians want to be coerced into voting. They are happy to vote, knowing that everyone else is voting, too. Countries worried about low voter turnout would do well to consider their compulsory model.

    1. Moorcat

      Mike,

      I will NEVER support compulsory voting. NEVER. If we, as a society have fallen to the point that our RESPONCIBILITY to vote is seen as wasted effort, we have failed in the great experiment. Voting is as much a responcibility as it is right and I think a great many people have forgotten that. When we stop exercising that responcibiliy, we don’t deserve the freedom that can only be maintained by a free, voting society.

      1. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

        I think he was just throwing it out there as a thought, nothing more. I think he wanted to show folks what peter wrote, and engage them in conversation. How is voting is handled in other democracies? Do they have a party that wants to kill democracy, like it seems the right wing is pointing us too, did they escape the hold of a minority drastically changing the outlook of a countrys voting rights, and id they did how so?

        We had discussed it at length. it a very interesting topic, worthy of such discussion here, and I recommended he throw singers thoughts on voting out here since it had to do with the issues of voting rights we are having today. He wanted to see the thoughts of others on this subject, I am interested too.

        I really know how he feels about this country, and how it bothers him that the republicans have gone out of their way, to destroy the voting rights of Americans. Both of us are troubled by this…. and he was trying to find a way, to engage the Public, to assure voting for all in this country, when he came across some of Singers writings.

        The Younger people, in this country want certain rights protected at great cost…. I cant blame them for it. 30 year olds like him believe, they well have no Social security or, medicare when they reach their retirement years. They believe their children might not have the right to vote at all, let alone possibly still be paying for politicians who write and pass laws, that do not protect the people over corporations.

        Jefferson believed voting to be a resolute right for everyone, in those days many people read books like we read newspapers now, daily and at a clip of 5 to ten a week.they were more educated. Michael is kinda an Old soul, he wants certain Rights protected at all costs too. this might not be the right answer for the USA now, and I am in agreement with you.

        When the forefathers of this country went to great length to write our democracy down, they studied every country in Europe and beyond to see how they would craft it, America didn’t invent democracy as you know, we just wanted our own version…. therefore there is no reason not to keep a watch on other democracies now….. to see how democratic notions worked and evolved for them. We should always be watching for what works and doesn’t in another democracy. Our forefathers copied alot of what they saw, that worked for other countries in the original drafts of the constituion…………. I believe we need to continue that watch today!

        1. Max Bucks

          1. The United States of America is not a “democracy.” It is federal constitutional republic. If it were a “democracy,” the worst kind of government according to the ancient Greeks, then nutcases like Larry would be running the country instead of just running his mouth.

          2. The word “democracy” is never mentioned in the US Constitution.

          3. The primary historical guides used by the Founding Fathers, besides Blackstone’s Commentaries, where texts written by Thucydides, Tacitus, Plutarch, and other ancient writers. Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” (1776) was also on their reading list. They did not shop around Europe for government models to speak of.

          4. Medicare, Social Security, etc., are not rights per se. At best, they are unilateral contracts that can be reneged on at any time by the government.

            1. larry kurtz

              Justice Breyer believes the Constitution is a living document designed by the Founders to evolve.

              1. Michael Searalika

                Exactly! So did Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, etc!

                Max or whoever you are…. and I am guessing your really Tolarski like Larry Kurtz has guessed as well. The US constitution does need to speak between about democratic issues as these are premises of thought not Law! the constitution is the highest law in the United States. All other laws in the US come initially from the Constitution.

                Any real American would know that!

                There are 27 amendments of the constitution and not all of them involve rights, but many do. The first ten amendments are special. They are called the Bill of Rights.

                Lastly our fore fathers not only read books,they went there to speak to the leaders of those countries.

                You Better do a more research and cracking open those history books….

                1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

                  I think that Max Butts has been outed! He’s a pretender. Prolly took Gen. Robert E. Skees “history’ course!

          1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

            NAME DROPPER ALERT! Oh come ON, dipshit! I’m gonna have to call bullshit on this! Now, you’re just fartin’ here, Putz. SO, let’s see how smart you REALLY are, reetard!

            “Thucydides, Tacitus, Plutarch, and other ancient writers. Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”

            EXPLAIN the influence each of these dudes had on the founders, little guy! What? Don’t run and hide! Start with Thucydides! You see, buttercup, we call bullshit on bullshit round here! You’re a lightweight and it shows!

            1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

              WHAT???? You’ve never actually READ any of these dudes??? You’re just farting here??? Oh, Putz, you disappoint, buttercup!

              1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

                You’re a phony, Max Putz. And is shows. What was your highest grade level achieved, Putz? And your degrees were in WHAT again? I missed that one! Pretend much?!

                1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

                  Methinks that Putz, like Elvis, has LEFT the building! bhwhahahhahahahahaa!

                  Just answer the questions, Putz!

              2. Michael Searalika

                Larry Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” was being written in england , during and after the writing of the Constitution itself! The first volume was written when we were at war with England itself 1776

                Good call on this Larry, the guys a liar! Or the forefathers had a jet to pick them right off the presses and fly them back!

                1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

                  Of course he’s a liar. It’s easy to spot on these guys. No bonafides. And thus, the alias!

                2. Max Bucks

                  The first volume of Gibbon’s work was published, not written, in 1776. All the remaining volumes were published between then and 1789.

                  That period covers the drafting and ratification of the US Constitution. In any event, fully half the book—the remaining volumes— concerns itself with events after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, i.e., the development of Chuch doctrine and the resolution of Church disputes, the rise of Islam, the Crusades, and the fall of Constantinople, subjects that would probably not hold that much interest for the Founding Fathers and would not have had too much bearing on the ideas contained in the US Constitution.

                  If you have any question about the book, or about Gibbon’s life, I would be happy to answer them, assuming you can articulate your thoughts in a coherent manner.

                  Note: You are playing with the big boys now, so I suggest that you resist your proclivity for playground taunting, or else you will get your little nose tweaked.

                  1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

                    Oooooo! TWEAKED I tell ya! TWEAKED!

                    bwhahahahahahahahahaa!

                    Oh come ON, Putz! What are your bonafides, buttercup? Degrees? Military service? Where when?

                    Sorry, Putz, but you ain’t the tweaker, twinkie. You’re the TWEAKEE!

                    1. Mark Tokarski

                      I’ve not read Gibbons. Nor will I. I have no intellectual pretenses, unlike the Kaily boys.

                      Kenny, why can’t you just quit me?

                    2. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

                      ‘Cause it’s FUN to pick on the class moron! Cruel but fun!

                    3. Max Bucks

                      “I’ve not read Gibbons [sic]. Nor will I. I have no intellectual pretenses….”

                      I think that is your main problem, Trotsky. You have a very limited view of Western Civilization and the role America has played in it.

                      I understand your formal education was limited to accountancy, but that is not a defect per se. A man needs to earn a living. Where you have erred, in my estimation, is that your efforts to obtain a more liberal education, as in a liberal arts education, have been grossly misdirected.

                      Reading Noam Chomsky or Rolling Stone Magazine is no place to get an education, and quoting from such sources does not improve your reputation in the least.

                      You are a smart fellow, no doubt about it. And I think it is a crying shame that your desire to improve your mind and gain a better understand of the world we live in has been so sidetracked.

                      In former years, I would have recommend to a fellow in your circumstances that he look at a university course curriculum in the liberals arts, say, for a history major, and then try to reproduce that curriculum in a home study course. But the universities, especially the public universities, have been so thoroughly subverted by Marxist ideologues, you would probably be worse off than when you began.

                      The only surefire remedy for this unfortunate corruption of higher education is a set of The Great Books of the Western World. I would suggest buying the original 54-volume set, which ends at Freud. The second edition has been politically corrected to some extent by the addition of a volume of female authors, so I would avoid that set.

                      Oh, and by the way, you will find Mr. Gibbon’s very fine work in Volumes 40 and 41, right after Adam Smith’s little book, also published in 1776.

                  2. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

                    Look Connard, Buttarski, Max or what ever your calling your self these days, you know how ridiculous you sound about this book?

                    The first year alone in 1775 American pirates overtook and captured over 600 ships of the British, and set fire to the biggest British armada in New York harbor saving General Washington and his men!

                    Anytime the American Pirates captured a boat they throw everything overboard that wasn’t tied down to make her lighter for battle!

                    The First book of gibbons wasn’t even typeset yet, by hand cranking presses in England at that time. The India trading company was almost the only shipper from England or don’t you remember the stamp act????? Americans were not allowed shipping companies in lieu of the Boston tea party prior! Maybe you dont remember all the captured cargo in Charleston either??? By 1776, the english got their butt kicked in that fight also.

                    If some English general wanted that book about the dawn of civilization at that time, by 1776 and I kind of doubt it! It would have taken 6 weeks alone sailing on a ship to get to the American shores( Longer if the ship sailed around Florida). The Americans had pretty much decimated the first fleet off the coastline when the war started because they weren’t in good shape and had been ill kept by the British armies. Read your history Branleur!

                    Afterwards The British navy was mostly employed in punitive expeditions against coastal towns, blockades to keep the pirates from resupplying the line with stolen food and weapons. The year we started attacking the British navy and their commerce ships was 1775, a full year before we declared our freedom with the Declaration of Independence, Or did you think we wrote the king a nice letter and then went to war? Debile! Casse toi!

                    1. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

                      Like their was an Opera book club for generals or something???? Mark, your an Idiot!

                    2. Mark Tokarski

                      You remind me of my college history professor, Mr. Rio Grande. He was broad and shallow.

                    3. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

                      You remind me of the lesser well-known river, the Ano Grande! A big a**hole!

                      bhwhahahahahaa!

                    4. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

                      Mark, you do not have enough brain cells to sit & listen to anyone long enough to learn …… let alone a college professor. So it that makes a lot of sense to me already.

                    5. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

                      MAN UP, BUTTERCUP! Nazis should be made of sterner stuff, Maxine! You are a very, very disappointing little foe, unworthy of serious debate, cupcake! I thinks it’s because of your “ilk”! Got a name, Maxine???

                      bwahahahahaa!

          2. larry kurtz

            “The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own.

            In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington.” Source. ht @jhwygirl

  8. Michael Searalika

    Yeah! I Wasn’t trying to be Mr. Socialist, I was just putting an Idea out there. I wanted to see the come back on it.

    In a perfect dictatorship, the wealthy are powerful enough to exclude the poor from any decision-making process. Since the poor do not participate in the decision-making process, only a minimum level of redistribution will take place. This is similar to previous
    findings in the interest group theories.

    In a perfect democracy, everyone votes over the optimal level of taxation. Therefore, the higher the level of inequality, the higher the preference of the median-voter for taxation and redistribution from the rich will always be at the optimal level.

    Both, perfect Democracies and Dictatorships have adequate police forces to suppress civil unrest.

    The only difference is…. I see the right wing trying to suppress the voting rights of the poor, elderly and students. Ergo, I gotta say the right wing is heading the country towards some form of Dictatorship or fascism! If voting is to continue an absolute right to ensure the freedom you speak of Moorcat……. maybe we need some better voter laws…… then what we have now! The ones Australia has are not perfect…. but I think we need to start discussing this need for voting rights soon, on a federal and state level.

    All you have to do is look at Michigan, to see how easy it is to slip the freedom of democracy, for the Bonds of Facist Government!
    it is happening now!

    1. Moorcat

      The problem here, Michael is that we do NOT have a democracy in America. We have a representative Democracy. That requires a certain level of responcibility from it’s citizens to vote for the person that will best represent them in the circles of government.

      That representative democracy has been corrupted by the idea that special interests and businesses can be represented by non-people in the form of corporations. It is that idea alone that is the biggest threat to our representative democracy. I don’t know who said it last night, but it isn’t a corporation or a lobbiest that is standing up in Washington making a vote. It is a duly elected official – one that we should be choosing on their merits.

      When we fail to recognise the responcibility we have to our freedom to stand up and be counted (to vote) we are failing the very system that ensures our government remains “for the people, of the people, by the people”. Even the abortion that is the “Citizen United” decision could not stand if we – as the people – made it clear that it is an attack on our freedom. It sickens me that a decision like that is even possible in this country.

      1. Max Bucks

        Your main problem understanding American politics is that America was designed, founded, and built by rich men. George Washington was the richest man in the Thirteen Colonies. Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and most of the other men who signed the Declaration of Independence and met to draft the US Constitution were very well off.

        [Most commies know this. Read Charles A. Beard’s “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States” (1913).]

        Why would you think America, even at this late date, should be run by anyone other than rich people? That is awfully naive.

        1. Max Bucks

          I would add, however, that Thomas Paine was usually broke. Most of the money he made from selling 100,000 copies of “Common Sense” in one month in 1776 was donated to the Revolutionary War effort.

          1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

            Um, Maxine, it appears that the ONLY two books you’ve ever read are the 5000 Leap, and the Book of Moron, dude! You reek of this sh*t! Am I right or what? Come ON, Maxine, admit it! You are not educated, and it is painfully obvious to all!

            Maxine’s bible of history!

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

            I’ve got your number, cupcake.

              1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

                The really SCARY part of all this is that Mittens just LUVED this moron mormon skousen! And he was greatly influenced by the dude! SO, before you vote for Mittens, you’d BETTER understand just what he Morons are all about! And poor Mittens, he’s really not changing positions on issues. He’s simply “lying for the lord”, an very well-established practice in which Morons lie to gentiles! It’s part of their “theocartic ethics”! That ain’t no sin for them, ’cause they’re doin’ it for the greater good!

        2. Moorcat

          Max, I recognise you for the nutcase you are. If you want to take on the other commenters here at Cowgirl’s site, knock yourself out. I see you for the idiot you are and have no intension of engaging you. You obviously know nothing about the Constitution, American Government or American History. You are another Palin – rewriting history to support you twisted and perverted idea of what it “should” be.

            1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

              I tried to warn the moron. This AIN’T four and twenty! We don’t abide bullshit here. WE CALL IT! You wanna play here, you BEST have your bullshit in order! Poor widdle Max Putz doesn’t!

              The dude is pure nazi talking points! Nuthin’ there!

          1. Max Bucks

            Moorcat: For someone coming from a family that has spent more money on counseling and medication for mental disorders than on food, shelter, and clothing, you have a lot of nerve calling me a nutcase.

            Have you been raped by any girls lately? Run that story by us again just for chuckles.

            Anyway, I rather doubted you would address yourself to the evidence regarding the foundation and development of America, mainly because you know nothing about it. All you have are your infantile fantasies and delusions.

            1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

              Oh Putz, you really ARE a sad little dude! Straight to the personal attack! What you got on ME, buttercup?

              bwhahahahhahahahaaa!

              OOPS! I guess that we can’t make fun of YOUR background ’cause you’re an alias!

              1. Max Bucks

                Oh, cry me a river, Larry. Did I put a boo-boo on one of your dysfunctional playmates?

                I have nothing on you, Larry. You do a fine job of exposing your true self every time you post one of your adolescent comments. I could never add to the Larry caricature you have created.

                1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

                  Well, actually, Putz, you just have nothing PERIOD!

                  Degrees again, cupcake? Military service? ANY experience in anything?

                  Sorry, Putz, but every time YOU write, it just says phony! And coward, hiding behind your little aliass!

              2. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

                BTW, Putz, I don’t consider you to be a nutcase, but rather just an uneducated PHONY! Now, Putzy, since you’re gettin’ all personal and all, just WHERE did you go to college again? And just WHAT were you’re degrees in, cupcake? Actually, I’m thinkin’ that you’re probably a woman, for you WRITE like a woman! You’re a woman masquerading as a man, aren’t you? You have no degrees, nor do you have any military service! Otherwise, you would NOT have made that bullshit comment about some dudes hanging off a bridge! ONLY a moron with NO understanding of the military would confuse a merc with a soldier!

              1. Rob Kailey

                No, “Max” is not Tokarski. Mark, due his various delusions, still believes that he’s not just an internet troll. “Max” proudly flaunts the fact that he’s trolling.

                If “Max” can actually be tied to a belief system, than “Max” is an objectivist/social darwinist. He’s a particularly annoying one, too. He’s been banned or mass deleted at pretty much every website in Montana, and other likely other locals as well. Dave Budge banned him at ECW for his blatantly racist (and sexist) comments, and I have every confidence the same will happen to him here.

                Until then, please keep in mind that this guy is nothing but a troll.

                1. Moorcat

                  thanks for the info. He sounds a lot like Mark with his insulting behavior etc. I will simply stick him in the same catagory as mark and blatently ignore him till he gets banned.

                2. Ed Kemmick

                  I must be losing my mind; I feel like defending Max Bucks. I believe I have the distinction of banning him from my blog long before many of the active blogs in Montana came into existence. That anyone could mistake him for Tokarski is evidence of pretty low reading comprehension skills. All they share is an obsession with commenting on blogs; I honestly believe neither of them has any other hobbies.

                  But here’s my defense of old Max: Call him what you will, he is not a poser and he is not necessarily a name-dropper. He is exceptionally well read and retains much of what he has read. Any attempt to dismiss him on the grounds that he is ignorant is doomed to failure. But it is probably a better approach than trying to argue with him, because he is very smart, as I said. God knows I tried, but every time you think you’ve scored a point with him, he twists the discussion or opens a new line of attack.

                  He is a troll, sure as hell, but a deviously irritating one. He really has less interest in winning an argument than anyone I have ever encountered. He simply wants to waste your time, cause you to doubt your premises and eventually to question your sanity. You’ve heard of the Socratic method? Imagine if Socrates was a pathological asshole. Meet Max Bucks — one of dozens of names he’s used over the years. I wish he would just settle with Pathological Asshole.

                  Wait, I was defending him. Seriously, the man is smart and well-read, but all his learning goes to support a deeply ignorant, pathetically primitive world-view. He would have felt at home in Alabama or Georgia in about 1840, except that his vicious attitudes toward women would have earned him a horse-whipping down there.

                  Anyway, folks, good luck with him.

            2. Moorcat

              I had already figured this guy for a troll, I just figured he was the troll we already knew. The fact that he would joke about rape kind of puts him in that catagory. It is easy to see that he was banned for sexism and racism. What a despicable human being.

              Yes, I had a girlfriend drug me and attempt to have sex with me. I am not ashamed of that or I wouldn’t have posted about it. The fact that you would make fun of that situation proves what a disgusting slimeball you really are.

              1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

                HEY, those are his GOOD qualities! He’s also a coward and a liar. That’s what I can’t stand. He CLAIMS such erudition, yet he can cite NO unversity that he’s attended nor degrees he possesses! He insults with an aliass! That makes him a coward!

                And he refuses to debate! THAT makes him a chickenshit!

                  1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

                    Irony is lost on a nazi with feet of clay! I like my nazis with a little snot in their nose!

                    You see, Maxine refuses to put her REAL beliefs out there for a critique! And everyone ELSE on this site does so willingly! Wanna know what I believe? I’ll tell ya! We’re DEMS, baby! Progs! Lefties! UNIONISTS! Anti-fascists!

                    But not maxine. It has no belief system other than talking points. I think he’s in some sort of bizarre cult!

                  2. Michael Searalika

                    Buttarski knows he is a coward! The guys been trying the poor pity shit here regarding you brothers…. he is trying to make you feel sorry for him, I still think it is Mark.

                    Doesn’t matter, Like lynn said…I try to ignore them now… and the jerk is a woman hater just like Mark is also!

                  3. Mark Tokarski

                    Rod, you and I both know things about you. The way that you parade before the others here knowing that I know what you are, who you are, what you did, shows a man of low character. I don’t just not respect you – I don’t even begin to think that you are someone I would evaluate in terms of judging the amount of respect you might generate.

                    You and I both know. Rod. Both of us. OK?

  9. Michael Searalika

    But isn’t a representative democracy the same thing as what a perfect democracy stands for. Both need everyone to vote? You see, what I believe is we are allowing some people in government and in corporate circles to disenfranchise voters, so they don’t vote. Aren’t these the 1% again? Are they not the very people who do not wish a democracy to flourish???

    Voting is exactly what they are stripping from poor cities and school districts in Michigan.

    1. Moorcat

      A Representative Democracy is very different than a pure democracy in many ways. For one, it is far more stable and the only effective way to handle a democratic system in communities larger than tribe size. It also limits the extremes that government goes to by minimizing the effect a small vocal minority has on government (in theory anyway).

      No government is perfect, but the “great experiment” has been working for centuries and could conceivably continue to work as long as we – as voters – ensure that we adhere to the ideas it was built on.

      1. Michael Searalika

        Yea but there is no Representation in Michigan anymore! The Democrats in the House and senate of that state had to seek a court order just so they themselves could vote. And I cant see a difference in pure democracies to Representative democracies, since the both need voter turnout!

        Maybe I should be framing this conversation differently. I see a pure democracy as a presidential Democracy, much if not the same as our own! France has something very similar.

        Not as a Parliamentary Democracy like the UK

        I do not think we are that far off, insofar I am pushing like you to ascertain the will of the people and to bring public affairs into line with it. Theoretically this can be achieved by direct participation of all citizens like Switzerland’s democracy, but I think we are generally talking the same thing as the good ole USA regarding voter rights!

  10. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

    Poor, poor Mrs. Mittens. She KNOWS what it’s like to struggle! No one knows the struggles she’s seen! HEY, just ignore that TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION that hubby Mittens is worth! That had NOTHING to do with her struggling! And really, is EIGHT manservants maids too much when one is a Mittens?

    And now, Mittens is gonna kick some welfare ASS! He AIN’T a’gonna stoop to Willy Horton type shit just yet! He’ll leave that to the PACS! So, Mittens did the next best thing. HE KICKED BLACK WELFARE MOM ASS! What a man! What a man! What a MORman!

    You want welfare? Get a freakin’ JOB you lazy, gubmint sucking, black woman! This is Murca! Just screw over companies and employees like I did, and you’ll never need welfare again!

    What a man! What a man! What a MORman!

    It’s GOOD to be a rich white dude who inherited a lot of money!

    http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/romney-welfare-mothers-you-need-go-work

      1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

        DAMN! Mrs. Mittens never knew any “dignity”! That sucks! Wait a minute! I thought that Moron women weren’t SUPPOSED to work! So, what is it, Mittens? Is the little woman supposed to have dignity or drassage horses??? bwhahahahahaha! Hey, ridin’ horses all day whiles’t the eight nannies raise the younguns is KINDA like work, right Mittens?? bwhahhahahahahahaaa!

        Maybe Mittens otter get HORSES for all them black women on welfare!! And some NANNIES for their kids while they’re out ridin’! And a hubby who clears ’bout two hundred and fifty million a year! Yet pays NUTHIN’ in taxes while offshoring his earnings!! Yeah, that’s it! Mitten the Mormon’s prescription for the health of our nation! bwahahahahahahahaa!

        And can you BELIEVE that they dusted off welfare moms one more time?! I can’t! We’ve got folks who been unemployed for freakin’ YEARS, and the best that the nazis can come up with is welfare moms???? Thas sum f’ed up shit!

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhQOOBsV714&feature=related

  11. Moorcat

    Ok, I just wasted a few minutes of my life (not to mention the death of more than a few brain cells) attempting to read Kershaw’s website. No question, the guy is certifiable. The misconceptions and outright nuttery was so painful, I couldn’t finish his rant (Bud, you really need to learn to make a website that isn’t so painful to read that your audience clicks the back button in the first 30 seconds).

    It sort of sounds like this guy has some education, but it is education gone REALLY REALLY wrong. He takes some science, twists it to his own “unique” conclusion and then vomits it back as if it is some sort of “Holy Grail”. This guy makes Mark and Max look like genious.

    What the hell is it about this blog that attracts the real wackos?

    1. Moorcat

      By the way, if you are wondering what his “qualifications” are, stop wondering. He sites them at the end of his “reference” page –

      I was Licensed by the state of California in 1976, to certify emission controls,while I was schooling at Ford Motor Co.I then schooled at Chrysler Corp. and later at General Motors.With continuing science education from,

      48 years of National Geographic Magazine
      Thank you Grandfather (Leo C. Yeoman) for sharing with me and giving me, your life time of National Geographic Magazine.
      The National Geographic Channel
      The Science Channel
      The History Channel
      The Encyclopedia Americana
      All Dictionary’s
      The Allen Group
      The Allen Institute
      Allen Test Technical Training Manuals
      SPX Corp.
      Ford Motor Co. Training and Service Manuals
      Chrysler Corp. Training and Service Manuals
      Gereral Motors Training and Service Manuals
      Mitchell Engine Performance and Training Manuals
      Chilton Automotive Service Manuals
      Motor Automotive Service Manuals

      I mean, anyone that using Chilton Manuals as proof that global warming can’t be human caused must be right… right?

      Dude, here are my qualifications –

      Naval Nuclear Power School/prototype school
      Two years studying Oceanography at Scripts
      Four years of chemistry and electronic engineering at multiple schools including University of Washington, University of Oregon and three community colleges
      More than two decaded working in primarily science fields including microelectronic design and chemistry.

      You are a nutcase. Plain and simple. No one wants to debate you because they can’t stop laughing long enough. If you had any real qualifications to debate the science behind climatology, chemistry, or global warming you might actually get someone to listen to your drivel long enough to debate you. Do yourself a favor..l. get a degree in oceanography or climatology and then come back… we can debate then.

      1. Hi-Liner

        I am reading this in line at the store and could not help bursting out in laughter. Got some funny looks but reading this was worth it. So funny! Here are my qualifications, ability to read and understand the varying validity of different sources of information. Anyone who lists the dictionary as a scientific credential will not be taken seriously.

  12. Doug

    Yeah, I think arguing with people about their own misunderstandings is a hobby of all three of these people and they latched on to this site because they think there are enough commenters here that some one will take the bait and agree to publicly debate them. Not. Gonna. Happen.

Comments are closed.