Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

WWI and the Second Fall of Man

tgwWhale Wrote: Jun 28, 2014 1:59 PM
What might have been most sad about WWI was not that it was so different from previous wars, but that it wasn't different from them. Like most previous wars, it was fought over loot and vanity -- small pieces of land, some foreign colonies, who can call himself the big-shot of Europe. (This is unlike WWII, which was an ideological war, fought over ideas.) The Great War was fought by men who had mostly the same ideas. Its motivation wasn't a whole lot different than the Hundred Years War, the War of the Roses, or the War of Austrian Succession, But there were two differences: first, nationalism had become practically a religion, and so entire nations were motivated to go to war. (As much as anything, we can thank the French Revolution for the rise of rabid naitonalism.) Second, economic progress meant that the nations of Europe had a lot more economic resources, so they didn't have to give up their military follies after a short time because they were broke. Earlier wars were sometimes decided by battles where sides had only a few thousand or even a few hundred men, because that was all that rulers could afford to put in the field. In WWI, they could put millions of men out there -- and they did. And they kept them there. Nationalism and increased economic wealth kept the killing going and going to horribly absurd lengths. While earlier wars petered out after a short time (some, like the Hundred Years' War, petered out and restarted over and over), WWI's destruction just kept going on. And in the end, it solved nothing, because it was fought over the same small things that wars had been mostly fought over since Og bopped Thag over the head with a club back in the Neanderthal days. At least WWII accomplished things -- the destruction of German Naziism and Japanese militarism. WWi was all for naught. Yes, the French got Alsace and Lorraine back (again) from Germany. I doubt they consider it worth it.
In response to:

No Denying Climate Change Deniers

tgwWhale Wrote: Jun 26, 2014 8:11 AM
What is most damning to the Global Warming BS-ers' position is that the numbers that show "no global warming for 17 years" come from people like the NOAA that have been fudging the temperatures upward. If their numbers show no rise, then the real numbers have likely been falling, I do know that I have lived in my current home (in NE WI) for 8 years, and in those 8 years, we have had 1 average winter, 1 mild winter, and 6 winters much worse than normal. Last winter was the worst I have seen in my 61 years in the upper Midwest. My general comment about "Global Warming" is: "Bring it on. PLEASE!"
In response to:

Wonder Woman, Stop a Bullet Cold!

tgwWhale Wrote: Jun 23, 2014 11:05 AM
Windy: It is not a nit-pick. To any serious Christian the question “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” cannot be a nit-pick. Your point about the Samaritans is well-known, but it does not affect my point at all, which is that it is common for liberal Christians to reduce Christianity to "Love your neighbor," and then to use big government to express that. When Kieffer incorrectly quotes the scripture, she is making the liberals' point. In the Bible and in all of traditional Christianity there is a heck of a lot more to faithfully following Jesus than keeping the one commandment, "Love your neighbor." But Kieffer's error has Jesus say just that.
In response to:

Wonder Woman, Stop a Bullet Cold!

tgwWhale Wrote: Jun 23, 2014 10:50 AM
weardley: "are you saying Eck is a Ted Kennedy impersonator or you are really good at bible thumping? " Neither. I am saying that the Good Samaritan story is not told to answer the question of "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" but rather, "Who is my neighbor?" And the answer from Jesus is "everyone." That is important because Jesus does NOT say that the way to eternal life is "Love your neighbor as yourself" and nothing else, which is what Kieffer's error made him say. And this is not a small issue because that is what liberal Christians say all the time, why liberal Christians could take a reprobate like Ted Kennedy and make a hero of him. I made no comment at all about Eck; my comment was about Kieffer's error.
In response to:

Wonder Woman, Stop a Bullet Cold!

tgwWhale Wrote: Jun 23, 2014 1:36 AM
Kieffer's use of Scripture in this article is incorrect. In Luke 10 Jesus does not tell the story of the Good Samaritan in response to the question, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" Rather, that question he answers with his own question, eliciting from the "lawyer" who questioned him a statement of the two great commandments, love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. Recognizing Dt 6:4-5 as the greatest commandment would be standard for any believing Jew of the time, and adding Lev 19:18 shows that the lawyer already knows the answer to his question, so he is being disingenuous. Therefore to keep from looking like a fool, the lawyer asked a second question, "And who is my neighbor?" He was trying to limit the demands of "love your neighbor" by narrowing the definition of neighbor -- a standard way to wiggle around a demanding commandment. It is to this second question that Jesus responds with the story of the Good Samaritan, making the point that everyone counts as a "neighbor" under the commandment, even some bum you find beat up on the roadside. This is not a scriptural nit-pick. Kieffer's misuse of the Good Samaritan parable leads one to liberalism, since she is claiming that Jesus' answer to eternal life is to take care of the poor (only). That is, you can bang your neighbor's wife (or husband, or both), and break every other commandment there is, but if you take care of the poor, you gain eternal life. In other words, the idea is to be Ted Kennedy, who was a total skunk in his personal life, but was lionized by the lefties as a hero because he "took care of the poor" (with your money and mine, no less). It is totally classic that libs collapse the entire Scripture and all of Christian doctrine into the Last Judgment scene of Mt 25 and/or the Good Samaritan story of Lk 10, as doing that allows them their libertine lifestyles while claiming moral heroism for giving away our money. Kieffer's error in this column points directly to that false position. If she doesn't know her Bible better better, she should stay away from using Scripture.
This war has lasted for 1400 years. It is the same war that Charles Martel fought at Tours and Don Juan of Austria fought at Lepanto. Islam has made war on the West since before 700 AD.
In response to:

Amazon Throwing the Book at Publishers

tgwWhale Wrote: Jun 12, 2014 1:30 AM
Amazon.com is a private business. If they want to sell books by the Hildebeast and not by Emmett Tyrrell, that's their choice. Someone else will sell Tyrrell's books. If Amazon decides they won't sell books for ideological reasons, they won't hold 40% of the market for long. If you don't believe me, just check on the way that CNN and BSNBC have continued to dominate cable TV news. The point is, of course, that they haven't, precisely because of their obvious bias (not to mention their endless lies). Similarly, if Amazon plays the same game, they will suffer the same fate.
In response to:

It’s Real: GlobalChange.Gov

tgwWhale Wrote: Jun 12, 2014 1:19 AM
Since, as Ransom says, the frequency and intensity of storms has not increased, how can the Algorians hold that " global warming is already causing great harm to the United States?" Just what is this "great harm" that the Global Warmers whine about? There isn't any, period. I am offended by the Big Lie whenever it appears, and the Global Warming/Climate Change Gang do nothing but spout Big Lies: First, that there is any Global Warming at all (there hasn't been any since 1998 -- those are the facts); second, that storms are getting more numerous and intense (they aren't). But Like Goebbels, they keep repeating their Big Lies, and a bunch of maroons keep believing them. I don't know which makes me more angry: the Algorians themselves with their Global Warming bull excrement, or all the fools who, in the face of all the facts, believe them.
Mr. Ransom, Sir: It really surprises me that you had some hopes for Obozo when he was elected. There is one test that has always worked for me before every election at the state or federal level (and I'm 61 now -- that's a lot of elections): if a candidate favors chopping up unborn babies (or, in the Zero's case, already-born babies) and shoving them down garbage disposals, there is something horribly, radically wrong at that person's spiritual core. They will be bad in endless other ways. You can't be so morally corrupt at the core and get the rest right. This does not mean that everyone who claims to be anti-abortion is good. It DOES mean that the pro-aborts are bad news. Every time. Understand that, and they don't fool you with "hope-and-change" horse manure.
Sounds to me like she just might be on God's side. When you're on God's side, whether you win a beauty pageant or not doesn't really matter. I'd say that, from what little we know, she has a really good chance -- for eternal glory.
In response to:

Piketty's Envy Problem

tgwWhale Wrote: Jun 03, 2014 12:06 AM
Piketty is astoundingly wrong, of course, for at least two reasons. (1) Piketty and his commie ilk fixate on inequality. But the real issue isn't inequality, it's standard of living. It might be true that Bill Gates has a zillion times more money than I have. So what? The reality is that the "poor" in the US today have far more actual wealth than I had when I was a kid, and far more actual wealth than the richest people in the world a hundred years ago. That is: better food, better health care (incomparably), better transportation, air conditioning, all of our electronic toys, pizza, Doritos. Capitalism perhaps has made inequality. So what, as long as it raises the standard of living for everyone? Socialism does not do this very well at all. (See: Cuba; North Korea; Detroit.) (2) More importantly, poverty in our culture is due not to the poor being exploited by the rich; it is caused by the moral failure of the poor, especially in regard to keeping one's pants zipped. Poverty is due almost completely to single-parent families. And single-parent families are encouraged by the redistributionist crappola that Piketty pushes; being a single mom is the best way to get that government check. So Piketty's "solution" is in fact the main cause of the problem.
Previous 11 - 20 Next