1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The Cancer of Multiculturalism

Brian953 Wrote: 16 hours ago (9:57 AM)
The merit of the radical is informed by what they are radical about. Jesus was radical, but I would not advise equating His work with Satan! (See Matthew 12:31 — 32 for how that worked out for others.) Gandhi was radical about ending British colonialism. He was not perfect, but I don't think it is supportable that he was doing Satan's work.
In response to:

The Cancer of Multiculturalism

Brian953 Wrote: 16 hours ago (9:53 AM)
Really?!? The point CLEARLY is agreement with WW that it is untrue that all cultures (in the broad sense) are equal. Some are inherently vulgar and evil, while others are not inherently so.
In response to:

The Cancer of Multiculturalism

Brian953 Wrote: 16 hours ago (9:52 AM)
Exactly so. They will use the opportunity of the question to respond with, "All I know is that ..." — and a speech/fillibuster on a different topic will follow.
In response to:

The Cancer of Multiculturalism

Brian953 Wrote: 16 hours ago (9:50 AM)
Leftism/progressivism is an evil, and must be defeated, driven into complete surrender.
In response to:

The Cancer of Multiculturalism

Brian953 Wrote: 16 hours ago (9:48 AM)
I see no reason to insist he is not both ... His actions are actually causing grave danger to the security of the entire world — all of it. Piracy on the open sea is up, because of him. Terrorism is up, because of him. The world is much closer to the brink of world war, because of him. A nuclear exchange is much more likely — in more than one arena — because of him
I think there is great cause for apprehension about the issues you mention, and more. I am APPALLED at the lack of courage by Republicans!
In response to:

Kochs and Unions

Brian953 Wrote: 17 hours ago (9:35 AM)
Right on Brother, right on!
In response to:

Kochs and Unions

Brian953 Wrote: 17 hours ago (9:34 AM)
No, we're not. If a US citizen worked their whole life, paying into the system, meeting all the obligations, then their entitlement is not affected by where they live. The system could be altered, to include testing the recipients' means to adjust their entitlement, to raise the maximum pay-in per year, to alter the ages where payment begins, and so on. If it made sense, at that time a stipulation on where one lives could be added — But, myself, I find this particular question insignificant, especially compared with the effectiveness and appropriateness of means testing. If you are receiving $100K/year from annuities, you should not be receiving SS payments, in my opinion. You don't need a safety net, because you already have the safety it is designed to provide.
That was Maxine Waters.
The scientific method is only useful for investigations that lend themselves to the scientific method. Falsification is not possible in sciences like geology, or archaeology. The scientific method should only be trusted in cases where the topic lends itself to it. Incidentally, that would pretty much exclude meteorology and 'climate science" from the scientific method — no way to set up control groups, no way to conduct experiments, and no way to subject the climate to falsification.
1 - 10 Next