1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The Price of Papal Popularity

Phil from NZ Wrote: Oct 21, 2014 5:36 PM
What is "the abomination of desolation standing where it should not"? "He that reads, let him understand" - perhaps when it is actually happening.....no-one in earlier times would have even imagined such a thing.......not in ANY cultures, let alone Christendom........
The Republican Party at least has a "wing" that is principled on this. The Dems do not. There are numerous Republican representatives and candidates who represent truth and right on this; I doubt there is a single Dem one.
The systematically brainwashed Hitler Youth, on a global scale. I pray for this insanity to be arrested before it is too late.
Isn't the double standard enormous? There are Christians who support traditional marriage, and "saving it for marriage" - and even if someone is consistent with their beliefs on this, and is celibate, or has married and been faithful, by the standards of western feminists, that person is a Victorian-era reactionary patriarch, oppressor of women, and even a "rapist". Meanwhile ACTUAL rapists, sex-slavers and paedophiles get a free pass provided they are not Christians. Even if they are these things on a systemic, "production-line" scale.....! I have noticed repeatedly that modern political correctness is riddled with contradictions and hypocrisies that can only be explained by one thing: antagonism to traditional Christianity. Multiculturalism is just another handy weapon against traditional Christianity, which makes it a "get out of jail free" card for patriarchy or anything else that political correctness condemns Christianity for, just as long as it is occurring under the umbrella of "multiculturalism". "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a policy under "political correctness", which is actually synonymous with "war on traditional christian values". Try and explain this away any other way. I'll be interested. Also explain why "indigenous peoples" get a free pass on "preservation of endangered species" because it might be part of their tradition to live on those species - when western traditions derived from a christian utilitarian view of nature, get no such respect. And explain why traditional morality is "demeaning to women", but the legalization of prostitution is always part of the "progressive" program. I could go on.
Isn't the double standard enormous? There are Christians who support traditional marriage, and "saving it for marriage" - and even if someone is consistent with their beliefs on this, and is celibate, or has married and been faithful, by the standards of western feminists, that person is a Victorian-era reactionary patriarch, oppressor of women, and even a "rapist". Meanwhile ACTUAL rapists, sex-slavers and paedophiles get a free pass provided they are not Christians. Even if they are these things on a systemic, "production-line" scale.....! I have noticed repeatedly that modern political correctness is riddled with contradictions and hypocrisies that can only be explained by one thing: antagonism to traditional Christianity. Multiculturalism is just another handy weapon against traditional Christianity, which makes it a "get out of jail free" card for patriarchy or anything else that political correctness condemns Christianity for, just as long as it is occurring under the umbrella of "multiculturalism". "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a policy under "political correctness", which is actually synonymous with "war on traditional christian values". Try and explain this away any other way. I'll be interested. Also explain why "indigenous peoples" get a free pass on "preservation of endangered species" because it might be part of their tradition to live on those species - when western traditions derived from a christian utilitarian view of nature, get no such respect. And explain why traditional morality is "demeaning to women", but the legalization of prostitution is always part of the "progressive" program. I could go on.
Indeed....! http://world.honda.com/news/2011/p111108ecoPOWER-1.0/index.html
Absolutely....! Our civilisation is obviously in its decadent, "whom the gods would destroy, first they make mad", stage.
One of the classic abuses of the "hate speech" principle by the libbewwal fascists: the censorship of opinions they dislike, that are actually not hate speech at all, but which they conveniently label that as grounds to ban it. In fact there is probably no "hate speech" ban anywhere in the western world that is not actually a libbewwal fascist ban on free speech that they find inconvenient.
In response to:

Planning, Obsolescence

Phil from NZ Wrote: Aug 29, 2014 2:57 PM
"..... such planning often ends up driving up prices in particular areas and forcing people to move further from where they work......." Go to the top of the class if you "get" that. One seldom encounters people who do get it. Yes, this is one of the reasons that the UK has the OECD's most compact cities, and the OECD's LONGEST average commute-to-work time. The other reason is that the more compact the city, the more concentrated the traffic congestion. The shift to public transport is never so significant that cars are taken off the road as density increases (the exception is when Hong Kong density levels are finally attained). Urban planning is a fraud and is a sibling to the CAGW fraud. They both run in the same direction, and every manipulation of data in both frauds runs in the same direction - to justify "solutions" that remove your freedom. The fact that unintended consequences might be the opposite of those alleged to be the reason for the regulatory impositions, will never be admitted.
Here's something else Krugman has got partly right recently: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/opinion/paul-krugman-wrong-way-nation.html "Supply of housing" really matters. He also got this right in 2005: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/08krugman.html?_r=0 There was no house price bubble in "flatlands", it was all in "the zoned zone". The fact that Krugman has largely stayed off this subject, is a give-away. There are too many libbewwal orthodoxies on save-the-planet urban planning, and too many libbewwal-supporting vested interests in big property investing (Rockefellers, Soros, etc) who are the primary beneficiaries of the inflation of urban land rent by planning.
1 - 10 Next