User Profile: Canada_Goose


Member Since: August 31, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • August 1, 2014 at 10:54am

    Okay then Zips**t if there is no consensus and nothing is proven you shouldn’t have too much trouble finding a single scientific institution/body/organization/academy, anything, which disagrees with the current paradigm.

    And as far as what I, or anyone else calls it, personally I don’t care what you call it, I am not in the PR business, call it climapalooza or weatherastrophy for all I care, I am just trying to use the most common terms.

  • August 1, 2014 at 1:02am


    Not sure what you’re actually talking about, but I definitely sense a lot of passion bordering on anger or even hate – kind of like watching Mr. Beck back in the FNC days.

    Oh and talk about “circling the wagons”, you are defending the propaganda arm of the GOP. The same people that gave you Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney.

    Btw, you can easily alter the so called “truth” FNC does it all the time, what you can’t alter is the facts. That’s why one should never trust anyone who claims to tell you “the truth” (i.e The Blaze credo “The truth lives here”).

    And if you can come up with a single scientific institution domestic or foreign which does not endorse the consensus view on climate change you let me know.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-12] July 31, 2014 at 4:39pm

    Mr. Weir was being far too kind.

    Responses (5) +
  • July 31, 2014 at 11:50am

    Just so there is no confusion, the five quotes are all Mr. Friedman’s.

  • July 31, 2014 at 11:35am

    [Drug use] does harm a great many other people, but primarily because it’s prohibited. There are an enormous number of innocent victims now. You’ve got the people whose purses are stolen, who are bashed over the head by people trying to get enough money for their next fix. You’ve got the people killed in the random drug wars. You’ve got the corruption of the legal establishment. You’ve got the innocent victims who are taxpayers who have to pay for more and more prisons, and more and more prisoners, and more and more police. You’ve got the rest of us who don’t get decent law enforcement because all the law enforcement officials are busy trying to do the impossible. And, last, but not least, you’ve got the people of Colombia and Peru and so on. What business do we have destroying and leading to the killing of thousands of people in Colombia because we cannot enforce our own laws? If we could enforce our laws against drugs, there would be no market for these drugs.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] July 31, 2014 at 11:35am

    Every year the Blaze leaves out Mr. Friedman’s quotes on legalizing drugs.

    I’m in favor of legalizing drugs. According to my values, if people want to kill themselves, they have every right to do so. Most of the harm that comes from drugs is because they are illegal.

    It’s a moral problem that the government is making into criminals people, who may be doing something you and I don’t approve of, but who are doing something that hurts nobody else. Most of the arrests for drugs are for possession by casual users. Now here’s somebody who wants to smoke a marijuana cigarette. If he’s caught, he goes to jail. Now is that moral? Is that proper? I think it’s absolutely disgraceful that our government, supposed to be our government, should be in the position of converting people who are not harming others into criminals, of destroying their lives, putting them in jail. That’s the issue to me. The economic issue comes in only for explaining why it has those effects. But the economic reasons are not the reasons.

    Legalizing drugs would simultaneously reduce the amount of crime and also the quality of law enforcement. Can you conceive of any other measure that would accomplish so much to promote law and order?

    One role of prohibition is in making the drug market more lucrative.

    Responses (3) +
  • [2] July 31, 2014 at 12:41am


    The important thing is that were in agreement with respect to Mr. Ham

    Bet seriously, please allow me a follow-up on QM…

    I should not have used the word “random”, I did use the word “probabilistic” (I should have used “non- deterministic”).

    It is a fundamental principle of physics that you cannot know both the position and velocity of a photon (or electron/ quark) at the same time (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). This drove Einstein crazy, he always thought the universe to be deterministic like Newtonian physics would suggest (i.e. God does not roll dice)

    His counterargument was that QM is incomplete primarily due to the “measurement problem”. Everything falls into place and cool contraptions like transistors, lasers, and diodes work only when you measure or manipulate the system ( velocity, position or spin). So the question is, is this just because we lack the means to measure an electron without disturbing it, or is this a fundamental characteristic on nature (so called EPR paradox).

    The current consensus favors the latter.

    “…if you look at all of our physical theories, with the possible exception of natural selection, [quantum mechanics] has the most number of pieces of confirming evidence… in the course of one second [the Large Hadron Collider] collects trillions of bits of evidence that quantum mechanics is the case.”

    Seth Lloyd, a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT

  • [7] July 30, 2014 at 4:25pm

    “Laws of logic shouldn’t exist in a completely random materialistic universe that the atheists believe in — and yet they do!”

    I guess Mr. Ham’s hasn’t yet heard of Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Field Theory.

    In fact the tiny building blocks of matter and energy (and information) are in in essence random and can theoretically exist in several places at any given time. Quantum mechanics suggests that everything in nature is probabilistic. For example, if you’re given a glass jar with a bean in it, there’s a chance — albeit a very minute one — that that bean could fall right through the bottom.

    Despite the probabilistic nature of quarks and electrons they do adhere to the strict laws of nature and physics (i.e. thermodynamics, E=mc2, etc…).

    So perhaps Mr. Ham should educate himself on the inner working of transistor radios, lasers, ultraprecise thermometers, integrated circuits or diodes just to mention some real world applications of the so called “random materialistic universe”.

    Responses (3) +
  • July 30, 2014 at 3:34pm

    As far as moralities go — our sense of right-and-wrong, of how to behave and treat one another, of how to live well and be happy , this is something we all need to cultivate from within as individuals. If you can grow that through your family, or your religion, or your community, or your atheism, or your yoga practice, or simply through your own internal meditation, I think you’re doing it right.

  • July 30, 2014 at 3:15pm

    “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” -Galileo Galilei

    Responses (1) +
  • July 30, 2014 at 1:47pm

    As an aside, why does every story involving Mr. Dawkins, however removed from evolutionary biology or atheism automatically get filed in the “Faith” section?

    Responses (1) +
  • July 30, 2014 at 1:45pm

    It appears that Ms. Lerner was simply referring to a-holes as a-holes, the fact that they just happen to be conservatives is completely beside the point.

  • [3] July 29, 2014 at 12:02am


    I guess you haven’t been reading the comments; most on the hard right (and 57% of Republicans) view the so called “executive overreach” as high crimes and treason.

    As far as ”a reasonable and proportional response” , you do realize Mr. Boehner whole case is that (allegedly) Americans were harmed by the POTUS delaying enforcement of ACA’s “individual mandate” by one year. In legal circles there is a big question as to whether this case will even be allowed to proceed to trial.

    How is that “reasonable” or “proportionate”.

    Where you or anyone in your family personally harmed by that executive action?

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] July 28, 2014 at 11:43pm


  • [5] July 28, 2014 at 10:48pm

    More often than not Mr. Limbaugh is a completely clueless GOP water carrier.

    What does Mr. Limbaugh think the lawsuit against the POTUS is all about?

    That particular charade is congressional action in lieu of actual impeachment. I assure you the flying monkey right base wants impeachment and the lawsuit is an attempt to placate the wacko right and not to appear like them to the more sane American electorate.

    Responses (5) +
  • July 26, 2014 at 4:40pm

    I am surprised Mr. Hannity actually attempted to debate a Palestinian. He usually brings on Ted Nugent, Larry the Cable Guy or Lynyrd Skynyrd for a foreign policy discussion.

    Btw, Hamas is a terrorist organization. Pretty much every credible western government has them designated as a terrorist organization. So I am not really sure what the big deal is. Building schools and providing social programs doesn’t amount to much if you target civilians with your rockets.

  • [2] July 25, 2014 at 10:47pm

    “Creationist Scientist” is an oxymoron.

    A “scientist” who completely discounts evolution, geology and paleontology without proposing any scientifically testable alternative hypothesis or paradigm to explain the diversity and/or history of life is not really a “scientist”.

    One obvious question which arises is: If dinosaurs are only 4,000 years old why don’t we ever find human fossils in the same geological strata as dinosaur fossils.

    Responses (4) +
  • July 22, 2014 at 5:08pm

    Okay so why is FNC also the least trusted? 14 points less trusted than MSNBC on the same poll (33% to 19%)?

  • July 22, 2014 at 4:14pm

    I assume you’re referring to ratings or viewership. This discussion is about public trust/distrust.

  • July 22, 2014 at 3:28pm

    Actually that is the conclusion the pollster came to. Since those are their words not mine.

123 To page: Go