User Profile: right_is_right

Member Since: March 16, 2012


  • January 15, 2014 at 2:32pm

    I have to admit, I find it incendiary, annoying, and intellectually dishonest for this continued discussion to refer to evolution. Scientists, prior to this time, would potentially cite a sponge’s lack of sensory capacity as proof of an under-evolved form. After all, it is a filter-feeder. To a scientist then, observing sensory apparata would be antithetical to that evolutionary premise, or at least could be used as counter-evidence.

    Instead the conversation is immediately “From an evolutionary perspective…” and thus form the hyperbolic departure from scientific thought into no theory at all. I am increasingly observing evolutionists retreating from any cohesive theory into an unprovable amalgamation of physical observations and evidence, then claiming Christians who digress from any observation as “non-scientific”. But how? I propose a theory and test its accuracy. If the test is failed, the theory is incomplete. If the test passes, I can’t dispose of the theory yet. But if evolution could be considered thesis-supported by a sponge’s sensory organs (or lack thereof) simultaneously, how can this theory hold any water at all?

    It’s like a democrat rationalization, or man-made climate change support. Literally any observation can be used as evidence when the rational mind is disposed of and you refuse to be wrong so you rewrite a theory to match what exists and hypothesize what can’t be observed.

  • January 9, 2014 at 3:34pm

    Troo: I am greatly disappointed by your comments.

    The logical fallacy you are pre-supposing is self-contradicting. Actually, failure of a scientific method to account for all evidentiary occurrences is actually evidence of the inadequecy – at best – of that theory.

    Modern evolutionary theory completely ignores the role of interior earth temperature, and heat transfer through conduction, convection, or radiation. Recall the earth has a molten shelf around a solid core. My studies in heat transfer is backed up by common knowledge that heat always flows from hot to cold – that is, from the core to the crust and is then ejected into space. The sun offers a paltry offering in comparison with radiative heat losses from the earth, greenhouse gases or no. That is why, if you dig 50-60 ft into the ground, the temperature is basically constant all the time; and why when you go deep underground, mines get REALLY HOT. But if the universe is 12 bil years old, why is the earth still hot? Eddy currents are responsible for the earth’s magnetic field; these eddy currents also heat up the mantle. But eddy currents are also highly dissipative, as are polarity reversals.

    The complexity of the earth, and the subsequent failure of all old-earth theories to account for known, observable, scientific observations (which are not interpretations of hazy data but rather physical observations!), are evidence of a Creator to this scientist.

  • November 13, 2013 at 3:16pm

    Wait a second – this was private property. The rules are clearly stated. The argument about free speech applies to the government. (I’m not an atheist nut – I’m an evangelical Christian, BTW.)

    Why don’t we, as Christians and conservatives, use this as an opportunity to express what true free market principles say: if you don’t like the rules of a private business, use your first amendment rights to tell others. If enough people agree and business starts hurting, they may genuflect and change policies. If you don’t like their policies but the policies are not illegal (i.e., private businesses are not regulated by the same bill of rights which governs our GOVERNMENT), then make some hay about it. But if businesses are forcibly required to permit Christians to evangelize in any way they see fit, the same will be true of homosexual advocacy groups, other forms of deviancy, and what not. Paul did not disobey the orders of private businesses etc when he preached, he went to town squares, temples, and public places – not “owned” by anyone in particular, except the government – to preach. That is the correct motto. Be bold, but not pestilent. Don’t give people a reason to dislike you for any reason other than that you believe the truth.

    There’s my two cents.

  • November 13, 2013 at 3:09pm

    I’m having a really hard time accepting this.

    Football is a dangerous sport. No one is coerced into playing, watching, or supporting football. No one is abducted from their home and forced to play. Football – this so-dangerous sport, gave chances for guys like Robert Griffen III, Mike Oer (?) from the Blind Side, etc chances at living better lives. It also has consequences. But isn’t it the conservative philosophy that if it isn’t morally wrong, you should let people have freedom?

    What’s morally wrong about football? Is there something morally wrong about boxing, a sport in which your goal is to punch your opponent in the head until he blacks out? What about stunt men? Or X-games? Is any sport that could be dangerous morally wrong? Should any sport be made illegal?

    I doubt strongly you will find any players out there with a false sense of safety. You can get injured on any given play. Sometimes you do it anyways for the love of the game and competition. Unfortunately, it is a rather Marxist thing to do to lump all football players into one category (” In American football, the players think you can hit someone as hard as you can and nobody will get hurt”) when it simply isn’t true.

    Pitchers have lasting shoulder and sometimes hand problems. Players get hit by baseballs and die every year. But I don’t hear anyone attempting to ban baseball. Why don’t we work to find economic solutions to keeping players fit, healthy, and safe instead?

  • November 6, 2013 at 3:01pm

    Sadly, that’s unlikely.

  • November 6, 2013 at 2:29pm

    Yeah! Wait, didn’t you just offer unsolicited spiritual counsel to this thread?

    And no one asked. Shame. Just got proved hypocritical in three seconds.

    And what the heck does it mean to “worry about this sort of thing”? You mean you object to free speech? Because a kid can go to church voluntarily (my friends with athiest parents did!) and should the parent “worry about that sort of thing” with them? Seems oddly tyrannical to me…

  • November 4, 2013 at 12:26pm

    Did I read this correctly?

    “The mayor claimed in an October 10th letter that Kurz was terminated for not turning in the library keys upon request and failing to meet with her to address claims of a hostile work environment.”

    Which, reinterpreted, means:

    “It’s not hostile! She wouldn’t come to my threatening meeting, and relinquish her post voluntarily, so I fired her. But believe me, it’s not a hostile workplace. Just don’t oppose me at all and you won’t get fired.”

  • October 30, 2013 at 11:18am

    Not so sure about this one.

    Many steels exhibit hydrogen embrittlement – hydrogen radicals enter the crystallines structure of the steel and contribute to crack propagation at subscritical stress levels. Meaning: if they weld bike frames, expect to see a biker somewhere fall flat on his duff as the bike simply comes “unglued”. Worse things could happen in more critical installations.

    Since the flame occurs directly at the object being welded, there will be a lot of hydrogen radicals right at the flame site. I’m worried about this one…

  • October 30, 2013 at 11:04am

    I don’t really agree – but maybe. It all depends on how the players play. If they are respectful and disciplined, I disagree entirely. The “monkey” bit is a sleight of hand; it is perfectly acceptable to have “trickery” in football, no matter what the score was. Besides, a 240-lb kicker threw the ball. It’s probably the highlight of his life.

    But if the team is disrespectful, plays dirty and underhanded, talks trash and is out of control: unacceptable. That’s not being a good coach even if you win games. That’s being a democrat.

    Responses (1) +
  • October 30, 2013 at 10:58am

    It’s the sign of a well-coached team.

    Responses (1) +
  • October 30, 2013 at 10:56am

    @Winedude: Really?

    If it is just a collection of stories, then you have nothing to fear. You also have nothing to live for – but that’s an “inconsequential” side effect. Hey if that’s life, it’s life, right?

    Except that institutions of “higher learning” are practicing active deception. Universities operate in the realm of the possible, predictable, and “ideal” – not in reality. Climategate is literally the collaboration of university professors who, despite the scientific know-how to realize CO2 pollution is both illogical and inconsequential in comparison with other climatological factors, still idealize about how carbon “could” affect our atmosphere. AKA, bull(loney). It’s not real. But reality is a mere roadbump on the path to ideological purity.

    My church sure ain’t a business; if it was, it sucks at doing business because money that comes in goes to pay for groceries and gas for the low-income, job training, encouragement to families grieving losses of loved ones – things that a business could sell but that the recipients can’t pay for. If it’s a business model it sucks. Because it’s not – it’s about helping people, paying for wells to be dug in Africa and clean water in Haiti and San Salvador.

    Say what you want, but it doesn’t mean you’re correct. Plenty of smarter people than you believe in Christ not because “it’s a good story” but because they think “the facts are unmistakably accurate” and God is quite real.

  • October 23, 2013 at 2:32pm

    Unfortunately, you’re probably correct.

    I take objection to some lines in this article. ““Financially, I support myself. I work 60 hours a week,” she told WUSA-TV. “I pay for my school tuition right now, for online, and I don’t see anything for the future.”” Hopelessness isn’t great; but it sure makes you love the opportunities of the USA, until the dems destroy them. We should send our (D)s to Siberia. Make them work 60 hour weeks to survive. Then, they’ll be thankful for the US of A, and the freedoms we love here, instead of this self-flaggelating hatred! (It’s worth a thought…)

    ““She never did drugs. She never smoked. Nothing. She may drink a little, but all teenagers do that,” Bennett old WUSA-TV.” Baloney. I never drank. It wasn’t easy, but it’s one of the things I NEVER regretted; not once.

  • October 23, 2013 at 2:23pm

    Look, I don’t know if he is a closet muslim or not. It honestly doesn’t matter to me – what matters is what he does with his beliefs, if they are Christian, Islamic, agnostic, pantheistic, or whatever.

    This is what I know: “By their fruits you shall know them”.
    – The article quoted one devotion to treat your enemies with respect and kindness. Anyone remember even one kind thing Obama has said about the Tea Party?
    – One devotion to “not think too highly of yourself” but rather in “sober judgment in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you.” Yet in a classic Freudian slip, he said, “I may make mistakes – I mean, I make mistakes all the time”. Every time he is asked about his mistakes, they are trivial. Granted, he doesn’t want to give us firepower; but listen to the million times he says “No one is more _______ than me”. How arrogant!

    3) “The entry for Jan. 5 titled, “He Sees in Secret,” tells readers that God knows everything, not only what people speak or act out openly.” Like Valerie Jarett, Plume, Lerner, Holder, Lisa Jackson, the sub-head of ICE who resigned after offering oral to several male employees, Hillary drunk dancing on a table, SS commissioning prostitutes… all things disgracefully done in secret that were revealed. And ‘Bama did everything possible to prevent it.

    I don’t know his faith but I do recognize the fruit; he ain’t living by the advice he’s been getting. Hopefully, he will. Today would not be a moment

  • October 23, 2013 at 2:06pm

    I am deeply concerned that we, as a whole, have not committed ourselves to this fight.

    I never thought I would live to see the day where Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” would appear imminent. I’m very glad that, as a Christian, I know we win in the end – I read the final chapter of this book. Sometimes I wish I could read the chapters in between – and other times, I don’t.

    Check out the “Gay Bill of Special Rights” and the damage it can cause. A great group dedicated to stopping it is the “Public Advocate of the US”, chaired by Eugene Delgaudio. It is a pro-family group dedicated to defeating homosexual agenda. It can get a little whiny for my taste, but it is a worthwhile cause to investigate.

    It is shocking that the US government would capitulate to such an open, dishonest argument founded solely on emotional premises; that somehow, not recognizing one union as a “marriage” is somehow discriminatory. Yes, like not hiring an idiot, a con man, or a child molester is also discrimination, but there is legitimate and non-legitimate discrimination. Here is what I think we should fight for: FREE MARKET VALUES for all. Free markets say this: hey, I don’t like what you’re selling (values, products, you name it), so I won’t give you my money. Others may think like me – that’s a boycott.

    So when the libs protest Chic-Fil-A, they are actually espousing free-market capitalism. No discrimination laws; no special privileges for

  • October 18, 2013 at 12:07pm

    Sorry, jchristop. I disagree.

    Here’s the deal: if the deficits were completely explained by discretionary spending, like pork, this would make me angry. But then, we’d only be looking in the hundreds of billions per deficit – more like Bush numbers.

    McConnell sells out hard-line conservatives instead of doing what needs to be done – being the smooth speaker of conservatism. He needs to worry less about being re-elected, and more about ending this liberal reign of terror. We need to fight battles we have no chance of winning, because we don’t have to win every battle to win the war – we just have to keep fighting.

    In the 1950s, homosexuality was a nonsense taboo. In the seventies, even, it was marginalized. Even the 1990s would be considered taboo for homosexuals to invade schools and demand legal recognition. But they fought battles that they lost, and kept fighting, and now I could face legal retribution for opposing them! So take a page from their playbook – fight battles you CAN’T win in order to make sure the fight is always in front of the public! Then we can start winning the message battle.

    After all, our side is way, way more intellectually defensible.

  • October 15, 2013 at 12:59pm

    Take a closer look at the art. It’s liberal trash.

    I respect this man’s skills in creating, but find it detestable what he has chosen to do with his creativity. On one hand, capitalism! In the other hand, a weapon attacking the very hand that feeds him – that turns out to be his own!

    Shame. He really is a talented artist.

  • October 15, 2013 at 12:56pm

    I’m not into anti-republican art either.

    Just not my thing.

  • October 15, 2013 at 12:55pm

    Hey, anyone notice the elephant strapped to a bomb? Or the kid in a hoodie and cap praying?

    I think this was as much a social statement as anything else. And a wrong one as well.


  • October 15, 2013 at 12:53pm

    Respect is earned.

    He has my respect.

  • October 15, 2013 at 12:52pm

    Ah, dang it.

    If Obama had a son with muscular dystrophy… he would probably blame it on the republicans.

    Go, man, go! That’s the American spirit this country was founded on!