User Profile: HappyStretchedThin


Member Since: January 09, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [5] October 1, 2015 at 2:49pm

    My full take on this vid here:
    The highlights? Nye’s no scientist, merely a sophist. He draws political conclusions but presents them as scientific facts. The FIRST lesson in ANY beginning science class is centered on what IS and what IS NOT a scientific question. Bill ignores this.
    The NEXT lesson in ANY? beginning science class is centered on the scientific method, and especially on the difference between evidence and conclusions. Bill consistently presents his conclusions as if they were the evidence.
    Even as a mere matter of rhetoric, Bill only persuades by carefully moving the goalposts: abortion is NOT a scientific issue–it’s a MORAL one.

    Responses (2) +
  • [8] September 29, 2015 at 9:00pm

    I like Rand on a lot of things, but when he calls someone ELSE out for being a firebrand trying to go it alone, he must think we’re either stupid or have short memories. He’s pulled a NUMBER of lone wolf legislative stunts, including a high profile filibuster. He’s constantly calling the GOP out when it bucks the Constitution (which the GOP claim to follow and respect, thereby effectively calling them liars by another name). And if passing bills is a measure of success, do you know who has LESS sponsored bills passed than Ted Cruz? Yup, Rand Paul!
    Check here for Cruz:
    Check here for Paul:
    Notice which one DOESN’T have the “enacted” button available on ANY of his 136-odd sponsored bills
    Maybe he fancies that the role of a Senator is to be as effective in Congress as his father was? Ron loved to sponsor ridiculously lopsided bills that he KNEW he could persuade NO ONE to vote for, just so he could stand on the sidelines while the business of the government grew and grew out of all proportion just so he could yell out to the actual players: hey you, stop playing, you’re not playing by the rules, I’m the only one who actually respects the rules. He was a perfect case-study in legislative futility.

  • [39] September 19, 2015 at 9:35am

    They’re right about one thing: language has changed since the Declaration of Independence–they’ve apparently forgotten the meaning of the first amendment.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] September 18, 2015 at 2:34pm

    No worries, hippo. I speak typo AND autocorrect…;-)

  • [33] September 18, 2015 at 12:47pm

    And why are sports a place where religions, ethnicities and races can meet in peaceful competition? Two reasons: 1. individual merit counts, not superficial fluff, 2. the rules are the rules are the rules, no exceptions.
    Smith wants to make the distinction that BLM is about state violence on blacks, not violence between private individuals who may happen to be black. Fine. That’s actually a fair point.
    But HE’S the one who’s missing the broader context, NOT Sherman.
    Sherman RIGHTLY contextualizes violence and the response of the state TO violence as the PERP’s fault. Smith calls that “blaming the victim” because it doesn’t support the REAL underlying BLM belief that black lives ONLY matter if they can serve a POLITICAL ideology (Smith’s liberalism). Freeing individuals to merit their own economic rewards and take responsibility for their own actions runs counter to liberalism AND sports. Asking people to make sure the standard that black lives matter EVERYWHERE, and not just when it’s agents of the state holding the gun (and may ALL cops guilty of a bad shoot be condemned to the SAME law!), is also following a sporting philosophy, and undoes collectivist progressive identity politics.

    Responses (6) +
  • [4] September 16, 2015 at 3:16pm

    Nicely done, Yankee. But context is everything.
    Stone v Graham was a case about a STATE STATUTE requiring replicas of the 10 commandments to be placed in public schools. In this article no state is forcing a teacher or anyone else to put the cross up. The teacher is expressing her own PERSONAL convictions and is obliging no one to submit to them. Burden on you to show how her 1A protection on free exercise must be limited to OUTSIDE the classroom only.
    And just to pre-empt you in case you’re tempted to go down the road of a lack of intellectual rigor on the subject, Kim Davis was NOT MERELY exercising her religious freedoms by refusing marriage licenses, she was ALSO ABUSING the authority of the state which she was an agent of. These two cases couldn’t be more different.

  • [33] September 16, 2015 at 8:52am

    Still waiting to hear how a cross in a classroom and expressions of personal faith constitute congress making a law respecting the establishment of a religion. Instead this sounds like an atheist trying to bully the state into prohibiting the free exercise of this woman’s religion–which would be the TRUE violation of the first amendment. There’s a line she shouldn’t cross, of course, where teaching CAN become indoctrination, but from what evidence this article accurately reports, it’s pretty far from that in my opinion.

    Responses (3) +
  • September 12, 2015 at 10:03am

    You’re right about one thing: I’m overlooking something obvious–that’s you’re immune to facts, logic, and evidence. Case in point, your CLAIM that the poor are getting poorer in the US is counterfactual and I’ve ALREADY shown that with the heritage paper on the UTTER ineffectiveness of the “War on Poverty” (it’s really quite thorough, impeccably sourced, and resoundingly myth-busting, you should read it–oh yeah, no use, you refuse entry on facts and logic, my bad). Even you claim that I ignored the obvious is counterfactual (I cited the Heritage paper earlier, remember, it deals DIRECTLY with your MAIN beef)–worse, it’s projection: YOU are the one who hasn’t dealt with the obvious–the “poor” here are better off than almost anywhere on the planet, immigrant FLOCK here, voting with their feet, because they don’t believe YOU that America is a soup-line. By my count now, you’ve quintupled down on the idiotic idea that disparities in income disadvantage the lower earners IN ANY WAY, without a SHRED of evidence in your favor that I haven’t thoroughly refuted.
    Peace out, bro, you’re brick wall.

  • [2] September 11, 2015 at 11:01pm

    No one’s expecting anything but the deepest ignorance and deception from you, of course, but in case making it clear helps a neutral reader I’ll bite:
    This isn’t doublespeak, it’s basic Econ 101. The ideas aren’t mine, they’re Adam Smith’s, Jefferson’s, Madison’s, and Bastiat’s among others. And they’re not even that hard to understand: self interest means looking out for you and yours FIRST, and if your incentive to do something valuable for others comes from this motivation it doesn’t diminish the fact that you’re still serving others. Making sure you and your own are okay does NOT harm anyone else. Selfishness is stepping into the harming others category.
    Try this:
    Your assertion that conservatives espouse greed is STILL belied by the fact that we’re more generous than libs, a refutation you have refused to address. And on your side the opposite is also false: libs do NOT actually help the poor, as evidenced by the fact they want to forcibly TAKE from OTHERS to give to them, and by the fact that doing so is ineffective for BOTH parties (impoverishes the middle, only produces dependency in the poor). You have refused to address THAT argument as well.
    So when your babbling about Brownsback ALSO gets refuted by the WSJ, and you refuse to address it, I’ll just reiterate that I’ve already exposed your fraud, and you’re only quadrupling down at this point.
    Good luck with that.

  • [2] September 11, 2015 at 9:45pm

    I graduated from a bible college 93% of whose graduates succeed at graduate study elsewhere (i.e. in non-bible colleges). Either we’re all geniuses at fooling panels of other secular smart people into thinking we’re smart enough to deserve graduate degrees, or you’re just blowing smoke.
    And anyway, all the bible believers I know are at LEAST smart enough to know not to make such idiotic overgeneralized assumptions like “anyone who believes X is brain dead”. In fact, they’re ALSO, in general, smart enough not to insult people’s intelligence on public forums with no provocation. I guess that makes them ALL smarter than you on both counts.
    As for your next non-sequitur, I realize that you’d have to put in a rather HUGE effort of humility to even consider this radical idea–given you’ve invested even your public Blaze handle in rabid progressive secularism–but have you tried objectivity? Like once even? Haven’t there been a FEW religious ideas, specifically judeochristian ones kinda maybe sorta been responsible for, I dunno, maybe a FEW good things?
    Looked at withOUT your obvious bias, understanding the principles in context, what your claiming is misery cause BY religion, is, in fact, misery caused by ABUSE of religious belief–by misapplication, failure to apply, selective application, admixture of power and politics into–all that yes, but abuse of the IDEAS themselves.
    p.s. Carson’s creationism made a brain surgeon scientist out of him, you lose that IQ contest.

  • [6] September 11, 2015 at 2:16pm

    You really DO like doubling down on ineptitude, don’t you.
    First off, income inequality is NOT the subject and has no bearing ON the subject. A difference between top earners and bottom earners says NOTHING about how the bottom earners live. But comparing apples to apples isn’t your strong suit, so I’ll help: immigrants don’t flock TO the US because they believe they’ll be worse off here than where they started. The “poor” in the US have a MUCH higher standard of living, and own MUCH more than the poor in MANY other countries. You’re simply baseless.
    And then there’s the matter of your “evidence” again: you cite an OPINION as “truth”. How about we look at some ACTUALLY sourced analysis (say what you want about Heritage, the DATA they show is from neutral sources):
    When Moderate says “that’s simply not true” you can be pretty sure it is ACTUALLY true, and that when he cites “evidence” it’s either from discredited sources, or isn’t even evidence at all, but biased opinion. For example (as if anyone needed more), here’s some actual fact-based reporting on Kansas, without context-free editorial claims:

  • [6] September 11, 2015 at 12:54pm

    You shouldn’t waste your time pretending to have ANY ability to use credible evidence.
    Seriously, you’re quite terrible at it. Find something you’re good at, please. It will be better for your own happiness and everyone who deals with you.
    1. I didn’t give anecdotal evidence in my link. It gave SEVERAL kinds of evidence (statistical as well as qualitative). The anecdote given was NOT intended as EVIDENCE, but as an interpretive introduction to framing the essential differences between conservatives and liberals.
    2. Ayn Rand is a libertarian icon, NOT a conservative one. Conservatives appreciate how she persuasively shows how self-interest does NOT equal selfishness, and how GREATER benefits fall to MORE of the poor when individuals have the liberty to use their OWN means to enrich society by producing something others want because freedom to pursue self-interest exists. Libertarians and Conservatives can share free enterprise thinking, but there are points of divergence too.
    3. Your sad caricature of conservatives as motivated by greed and benefits for the rich few would be EASILY demonstrated as purely malicious caricature if you would honestly accept a SINGLE conservative’s answer on whether s/he would identify him/herself that way.
    4. In fact, this is all projection: YOU’RE the one trying to feel better about yourself without evidence. War on Poverty programs by your OWN measures have only resulted in MORE poor.

  • [7] September 11, 2015 at 12:33pm

    By your OWN rules of what constitutes theory, Climate Change scientists are all NON-SCIENTIFIC since every TRUE scientist is VERY careful to distinguish between EVIDENCE and CONCLUSIONS. Climate change scientists routinely mistake their conclusions for evidence, and then call their critics anti-science when they point out that the evidence isn’t conclusive and that it’s scientifically valid to question the conclusions they draw FROM the evidence.
    Here’s a highly publicized spokesman who demonstrates the anti-scientific thinking of the left that I’m talking about:
    As for the Pew survey, please do the liberal thing and check where the money’s coming from? If YOUR income depended on govt funding (via public universities and/or govt research grants) wouldn’t YOU vote the party that wants to expand govt to increase your field’s resource pool too?
    Conservatives are happy to fund scientific research, mind you, but are LESS likely to do it via govt (unless there’s a structural reason a govt grant is MORE likely to scientific neutrality between otherwise too self-interested parties–we’re not dupes to biased junk science, by and large).

  • [7] September 11, 2015 at 12:09pm

    Moderate, did you even READ the TRIPE you cited?
    Here’s how the article’s author defines “liberalism”: “the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others.”
    Based on THAT definition (which NONE of his statistics share), CONSERVATIVES are liberal! This is evidenced by the fact that Conservatives donate more to charities than liberals, thereby demonstrating willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources (THEIR OWN, mind you, NOT OTHER people’s money) for the welfare of others beyond their kinship group.
    And look, I can cite things too (except mine doesn’t purport to be unbiased science, and really comes from a RACIST fired from the VERY publication you’re citing –
    Try truth instead:

  • [7] September 11, 2015 at 11:51am

    Thank you, Blest, for demonstrating the conservative acumen for critical thinking. Not only can we get answers right on a “science” quiz, but we can also keep our categories straight (some of it was not strictly science), compare apples to apples, and notice when we’re given false choices.
    (quick note, MNCHV, you are quite correct to note that microwave is part of the radio wave spectrum, but it is ALSO perfectly correct to describe RADIO waves as belonging to the broader phenomenon we call “light waves”–there were two correct answers to that question, therefore it was poorly designed.)

  • [17] September 11, 2015 at 11:46am

    Genius hyper-educated conservative here (I got a bona fide PhD in a literary field AND scored 12/12 on this science quiz!) to answer your question.
    No conservative thinks getting educated is worthless.
    What conservatives question is whether colleges are ACTUALLY educating.
    The trend is that colleges are adding more and more programs and majors that seek to indoctrinate rather than educate. This is the focus of the conservative critique of college education.
    It doesn’t take a genius to understand this critique, btw, just an open mind and an honest inquiry.

  • [4] September 9, 2015 at 10:48pm

    So now that we’ve taken care of your false “zero proof” claim and your “interpretation is relative” claim, let’s move on to the serious issues-not because you’ll change your mind, but because someone else reading this might not be afflicted with your ideological blinders.
    Sticking with the target of the Christian deity (let’s not confuse the issue), there’s an easy way to make perfect sense of the “confusion” you claim is out there, and it’s connected to the purpose of worship.
    IF there’s a single God, and IF His character is omnipotent and omniscient, He has no need of us worshiping him-you’re right. But the Christian God is ALSO described as perfectly just, perfectly merciful, perfectly loving, and we’re His children, and therefore His heirs. This gives Him purpose, which is therefore to grant us a space of time under conditions of moral agency as a test to allow our wills to choose faith in Him, which allows us to act as He would act, which allows us to appropriate His character traits in some degree. We all fail utterly, and so a way was prepared to expiate our faults through an infinite atonement that we can access through that perfect mercy. The variety of trials, talents, opinions, social situations, even unjust or violent acts are part of the test of our moral character. Leaving us to choose is what makes faith necessary, and both rewards and punishments justified. An eternal judgment is what ensures mortal injustices don’t go unanswered.

  • [5] September 9, 2015 at 10:27pm

    Zargle floofgawibble, hurbledy blaffengorp.
    There. I’ve refuted you.
    What’s that you say? I’ve said something meaningless?
    According to YOUR hermeneutic theory, I’m perfectly within my rights to insist that what you call “nonsense” is actually perfectly logical and quite deftly does away with all your claptrap. You’re just “UNABLE” to refute me back.
    Just a little demonstration that words have MEANINGS, and that since we share a common CODE called English, we have the right to expect conformity to its semantic constraints. Furthermore, the English in our communication is part of a broader extralinguistic context which ALSO constrains our interpretation. You might be misinformed about the INTENDED meaning, but when you’re brought into the loop about the full context, we MUST agree on the core meaning or else you’re not part of the group we call “English speakers”.
    But then again, understanding even your OWN communication in context isn’t your strong suit. Otherwise you’d OWN the implication you CLEARLY intentionally left that people “unable” to refute Bird’s misinterpretations who go straight to ad hominem attack ONLY do so because they’re too stupid to reason with her, and too hate-filled to accept her false claims as truth.
    So it also doesn’t surprise me when you don’t bother looking up Mojo’s scripture set, each of which DIRECTLY refutes her CENTRAL claim that the Bible says “nothing” about the sinfulness of gay sex.
    You’re quite lost without me losing you, bro.

  • [7] September 9, 2015 at 12:03pm

    Classic Zappa hypocritical projections: claiming we’re the ones going all ad hominem, he goes calls us too stupid to refute her points (and too predictably hate-filled to even want to).
    Mojo refutes her AND you without attacking her or her character at all. But that just sets you off, doesn’t it–a biblical scholar standing his ground.
    The thing is, Bird isn’t even really a biblical scholar, she’s just an ideology-driven intentional word-twisting charlatan hawking a book.
    Interpretation is NOT an open and relative exercise. And although agreement on what SINGLE interpretation a given text EXCLUSIVELY means is not always possible, there IS such a thing as a WRONG interpretation. And I’m sorry, but hers is just wrong: the injunction not to lie with near kin was NOT about restricting coupling to child-bearing pairs and preserving lineage, it was about distinguishing proper worship from CHILD-SACRIFICING IDOLATRY (Look up Molech-it’s THE context for Lev 18/20); she’s right that the Sodom story was about forcible rape (which she’d know if she read the KJV, not the NIV), not about gay sex per se, but it’s clear ELSEWHERE that such ALSO is sinful (eg. Jude 1:7).
    Moral and hermeneutic relativism is all you’ve got. But if ANY of your questions about God allowing confusion to happen were honest, you’d have your own answer: He can’t impel belief without destroying agency-without our free choice, worship of Him is worthless to His goal of growing us into heirs of His moral caliber.

  • [3] August 26, 2015 at 12:34am

    Amen, P8triot. Dead on as usual. Georgia mom is impugning the informed adult choice of many women when she attacks Anna as a victim of her own beliefs and values (she IS a victim, but of a philandering husband who betrayed those beliefs and values, not of the beliefs and values themselves), and her parents as maliciously neglectful oppressers of their daughter’s lost potential.
    And yet, I bet you’d agree with me that even good, well-meaning Christians sometimes misapply a good principle. Yes, women who devote themselves to motherhood and rock the cradle are the true fire-breathers who rule the world, and will rule in the heavens as well. But a devoted mother and wife who has spent her youth getting as much education as she can, and serving others in a variety of professional and non-professional ways is better prepared for raising responsible, freedom-loving, right-choosing sons and daughters than one who assumes that “submission” to a future husband means she doesn’t have to worry about all that education and “public domain” stuff because he’ll take care of that.
    Not sure what Anna’s preparation was, but being equally yoked, in my opinion, implies BOTH partners being as self-sufficient as they can individually be. Two independents becoming one inter-dependent, neither one dependent and one independent nor two co-dependents. Empowering women empowers wives to empower husbands and children, when done in this context.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love