Previous 11 - 20 Next
Let's not put too much hope in the Jihadis. What you're contemplating is a scenario in which the Muslims and Progressives unite to bury the Judeo-Christians, each one plotting how it will overcome its ally once the Christians are no longer in the picture. If it ever comes to that, the Muslims win; it would not be a close contest. And then we'd all be living under Sharia, and experiencing the poverty and deprivation that all nations living under Sharia eventually experience. No, we've got to draw the line against the Progressives before Christianity goes under. Of course, I think God's got bigger plans, and has the situation well in hand. But we've got to do our own thinking in the meantime, eh?
It's also because of increased building along the coast and in the path of hurricanes. More buildings to knock down = higher cost when the hurricane arrives.
I'm beginning to wonder why Godwin's Law does not apply to discussions of grammar. Aside from that, thanks.
Mother Gaia insists. And you know what that means if we disobey...
Notice how that study focuses on North America? What, exactly, do you suppose, is the reason that North America is experiencing the majority of the increase in "loss events?" It's actually because there's a lot more land development going on in North America, so there are more locations that can report larger monetary losses. It's not that there are more severe weather events. Here's research establishing that the claim in Munich Re's study that only climate change accounts for the rise in reported losses (1) represents a deviation from the majority of findings regarding the rise in loss reporting, and (2) can be explained entirely by resort to societal factors. http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29NH.1527-6996.0000141
What? You expect intellectual consistency of Progressives? When, and on what topic, have they ever exhibited consistency? Ever?
That sure doesn't look like ANYTHING. Seriously, that chart could not possibly have been posted for the benefit of anybody the least bit familiar with the scientific method. What's the source? What's the method? Where's the peer review? Has it been replicated? What other measures are there besides volume? You throw a chart in peoples' faces, say "Well here's the data" (demonstrating ignorance of English grammar as well as of sound argumentation) and you call that an argument? If I were like you, I would now post something like this: "Well, here's the data: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg" (Did you see the comma after "Well" and the colon after "data"?) This demonstrates that current values for sea ice area are within normal ranges. But I'm not like you, so here's a link to a whole page of charts and research pertaining to sea ice. It won't immediately tell you anything at all, but given time and persistence any intelligent observer should be able to figure out what's really happening at the north pole: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
"Will you ask the guy who brags about record production of American oil and gas why he tries to block or shut down all the domestic production he can? Will you ask why, if he supports energy development, he doesn’t just finally approve the Keystone Pipeline? Will you ask him to explain plainly what he could possibly have against it? " This we already know. He's 100% on board with the climate change alarmists and is using that excuse to hobble American economic power, pursuant to his anti-colonialist goal of reducing the US economy to second-tier world status. That's why he is consistently, persistently waging a war against all fossil fuel producers... even while making political hay with the production numbers that represent the portion of the industry that he has been unable to suppress. Plus, he thinks that most fossil fuel producers are his political adversaries, and we all know that Obama forms policy in such a way as to starve his adversaries while hurling billions of federal dollars at his supporters (which means, of course, that his policies have nothing whatsoever to do with what serves the interests of the American people). The fact that his position regarding climate change ignores good science even while he claims to be following the dictates of science is actually incidental. He's too dogmatic a thinker even to consider any other position, but that's actually secondary to anti-colonialism and crippling his political adversaries.
In response to:

Who is Richard Greenleaf?

inkling_revival Wrote: Mar 10, 2014 2:53 PM
Yes, most leftists I have known really are that deep in their own fantasy bubble, and will gladly give their permission to publish what the consider to be a fair, reasonable, articulate, and clearly correct letter. They know nothing of what sensible people will think, and in fact they don't care, since such fools always consider inferior anybody who exhibits what we would call "sound character."
In response to:

Acting Like a Founder

inkling_revival Wrote: Feb 26, 2014 11:55 AM
" This means refraining from the use of excessive government interference in choosing winners and losers. It also means an evenhanded enforcement of all of our laws rather than repeating the Obama administration's practice of selective law enforcement. Adult governance is founded upon objectivity, not ideology. " But will the Democrats learn from this objectivity and mimic it? Or will they concoct unending "scandals" on the basis of which to declare the Republican leader "worse than Hitler," like they did to Reagan, Nixon, and George W Bush? I agree that regardless of the viciousness of the opposition, we must behave like honorable men. But how many times must we perform this before the dishonorable men, and have them throw it back into our faces, before we recognize that they have become so dishonorable that a free, participatory republic is simply not possible so long as they are in it? Sooner or later we have to acknowledge that they have simply gone too far, and must be removed from the bod politic somehow or it will not survive, like removing a gangrenous limb. I think it's long past time for us to consider how best to do this. Progressivism is a terminal cancer in American politics.
In response to:

Acting Like a Founder

inkling_revival Wrote: Feb 26, 2014 11:49 AM
"It's like saying that punching someone 40 times is more harmful than shooting him four times." Somebody deserves a very impressive medal for this analogy, which is crisp, brief, and accurate. Nicely done.
Previous 11 - 20 Next