I know there are too many voices and it’s easy to only hear the ones we want to hear but the explanation for the ‘rigged’ commentary is that the rules were changed in 3 states and a major way after Trump entered the race. He entered in June and the rules were changed in August/September in Florida, Wyoming and Colorado (they couldn’t have known that all the establishment candidates would be gone by now). Wyoming and Colorado was seemingly designed to help establishment candidates by reducing the effect of the voters desire and increasing the affect of the parties desire. In Florida, the rules were changed to allow a 50 percent winner to get all the delegates. Is it that far out to see this was designed to help Jeb Bush?
So, to me the ‘rigged’ part is true, the rules can be changed for specific candidates benefit after the race has begun.
April 19, 2016 at 5:10pm
So, the whole “I’m not going to ruin a mans life” thing was just for show! Who would have thought.
I doubt his life is 'ruined' because of a mere position change. Last I heard he was still on Trump's payroll, and very likely for the same amount of money.
So the whole, I am such a GOOD CHRISTIAN FAMILY MAN, WAS JUST FOR SHOW!
You Cruz Zombies have gone Rabid!
September 10, 2015 at 10:58am
I liked this comment, “None of the animals was forced to take part, she said.” At least they were concerned with the feelings of the animals. The lawyers might want them to add a statement on their brochures, “No animals were harmed in the making of these paintings”
I don’t mind calling these ‘paintings by animals’ but to call it an “Artshow” is a little much. Nothing about what an animal does to a canvass is art. Art is “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.”
This is the influence of the left ruining what it touches. If you want something ruined then just get the left to become interested in it. If you ask a leftist they’ll say these paintings are appealing and they are beautiful and significant. But my question would be, what aesthetic principles are at work?
These paintings are not beautiful, they are not expression or quality and there are no aesthetic principles involved in their making. It’s not art. However, it is interesting and I might buy one if I thought that the charity was legitimate. But it’s not going to be displayed with any of my real art.
 August 14, 2015 at 1:01pm
Grover, So… you admit that these are human lives. And they would grow up to be undesirable people. And applying your reasoning we should kill all bums, parasites and criminals and, well, anyone without a chance of getting ahead and is desperate.
It may feel good to be against the undesirable and you may wonder how come everyone doesn’t agree with you but arguments based on feelings are inherently unreliable and are blind to anything that contradicts the feeling. The only one fooled is you and others who consider only their feelings. You may think that your intentions are good but the world is littered with evil done with good intentions.
For completeness, 53 million more people would not be a bad thing. Even despite abortion we’ve added more than 53 million people in the last 25 years. Adding these people was a good thing. I await your argument that my children being born is a bad thing.
 August 14, 2015 at 12:33pm
Well, My bible says, “Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord! For what good is the day of the Lord to you?” I’d rather live through a revival of good than hope for the wrath to come. The whole point is that it’s not inevitable… today. Ultimately inevitable yes, but not today. Lets fight the evil today, which is our duty.
 January 28, 2015 at 6:40pm
In essence, this is the only question. The entire global warming hysteria is built on CO2 being the cause. When I debate this issue, I get it down to making the opposition find the report/study/off hand comment by Einstein that proves CO2 is the cause. They never come back on that point.
 January 28, 2015 at 6:14pm
There are two ironies in your post; One is that the article is pointing out how those who don’t really have an argument will instead label the opposition in some derogatory way. Ok, sure, you’re not as good at labeling as the left but saying that if you don’t believe the earth is 6000 years old then you’re just like a leftist, is labeling. Second, this article points out that the movement is actually religious fervor masquerading as science. I don’t have to explain the irony do I?
Here’s what gives me pause in agreeing with your premise. Stuff looks old. For instance, how long does it take to make petrified wood? For every cell in the wood structure to be replaced with mineral. How long does it take to compress sediment in to rock? How long did water have to drip in the Carlsbad Caverns to build the thousands of stalactites and stalagmites found there?
Here’s the pause; Either something happened to make the earth appear old or God created the earth, complete with age. That something that happened would have to explain the above. That leaves God created the earth complete with age. I hope you see the problem I have with that. I would be saying that God made things that reveal events that didn’t really happen. But I know God to be no liar.
I would say, there are better places for this debate than this article. For most people, the eye test of young earth make it not very compelling and those who come on strong about it aren’t making the argument look any better
 January 20, 2015 at 5:07pm
So, we should listen to the gal with the nose ring?
The problem with your logic is in the idea that we should ‘provide incentives’. The way to say what actually happens when you ‘provide incentives’ is to say ‘interfere with the normal process moving between different types of energy usage’. Think tanks and research are one thing but when you decide to pick a winner (ie I want this type of energy to win) then you are interfering. Even the market can’t predict the next hot device. It just happens and then you look back and say, ‘of course, we were ready for it at this time’.
On the issue of agreeing with the left, what a mistake. There is only one correct answer to the proposal of man made global warming/climate change, ‘show how Co2 is the cause’. This is the only question that promoters MUST answer. All the rest of the argument is just looking at the affect and implying a cause.
July 6, 2014 at 9:49pm
I was there in 72 in Naha on base housing. I was 11 though. We had two or three hits while I was there, eye of the storm passed right over Naha; cool.
March 19, 2014 at 11:15pm
This isn’t a good place to teach or argue scripture but it’s a great place to debate ideas. What idea are you trying to posit?
If you’re saying that one groups interpretation of one detail in the bible is proof that God doesn’t exist or that you don’t have to consider any ideas from the bible then I would counter by saying where else in your life do you require 100 percent accuracy from people who are interpreting what they read?
To answer your question I think the bigger question is how did plant life survive for thousands of years without insects? I don’t think there’s any way around the days of creation being actual days.
March 19, 2014 at 11:02pm
You’re saying that God made the Earth complete with history. That didn’t actually happen. If that’s the case then couldn’t he have made the Earth and us 10 minutes ago? Complete with memories… that didn’t actually happen? I think you have to be careful in your exuberance to trust your interpretation of scripture that you don’t make God out to be a liar.
March 19, 2014 at 10:36pm
In case you haven’t been watching, the left will spend their time trying to destroy whoever they see as a rival. If there isn’t a good reason they will make one up. Not sticking to your principles so you’re seen as a good guy or at least not a bad guy is the reason we’re in this mess. So, the idea that Ted Cruz wouldn’t be a good candidate because the left might try to destroy him by questioning his citizenship is weak reasoning.
March 19, 2014 at 10:29pm
We need a sarcasm font so that everyone get’s your humor ;-)
March 18, 2014 at 6:11pm
Hey, is Putin’s shadow Gollum?
March 18, 2014 at 6:07pm
lol, best comment, rec
February 27, 2014 at 5:44pm
Not sure I get where he’s going with this book. Is this supposed to be useful somehow? Hayek and Adam Smith were wrong?
Like #2′s conclusion, “Thus, power always seeks centralization.” What has that got to do with diversity? Or free markets? Is he saying that centralization interferes with diversity and free markets? That’s the best I could come up with, anyway.
December 24, 2013 at 11:23am
Interesting facts: According to the Baylor surveys of religion, 68 percent of atheists put up a Christmas tree. Only 20 percent of atheists never believed in Santa.
November 12, 2013 at 2:45pm
Yes we will, but we don’t know exactly how. That’s the insidious nature of manipulating the currency.
I look at it with this example: Let say the govt freezes the price of gasoline at $3. In 6 months, what is the price? Well, you could say 3 dollars but is it really?
What always happens is the govt tries to make the good (gas) affordable. So, the price is always below where it would normally be if allowed to fluctuate. So, demand goes up but manufacturers stop making as much. It’s a distortion and a mess. What exactly happens when it stops? We don’t really know, the distortions are hidden from us because of the frozen price (price is usually a kind of signal; low – buy more, high – buy less). Would the price of trucking really have crashed as it did? Or, if trucking is making lots of money would it have? Since distortions run all through the system you can’t really know what reality is anymore.
This is what is happening now with money itself. Buy lots of bonds to hold the interest rate down artificially. So, what is now distorted? Stocks? Bonds? Company profits? Mortgages? All of them? Who really knows. But one thing is for sure, the unwind is never pretty and the bigger the distortions the worse the unwinding…
October 21, 2013 at 11:54am
This is more than simple bullying, it’s a form of sociopathic behavior. There are people out there, bullies, in the adult world who go around thinking about all of the actions they see people doing that they don’t like. They think ‘that person shouldn’t be doing that’. You see it all the time on the road. That guy who roars past you when you were going one or two miles an hour under the speed limit. Then finally, one day, they decide they’re going to teach someone a lesson. And once it starts, and they go into bully mode, there’s no stopping it. They’re committed and they reach into their bully bag of tricks and pull out whatever they have to to win. It’s as if they’re saying, ‘SEE WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!’ And everything they’re willing to do, swing a bat, run over a bike, break check in to a crash, they see as your fault. They’re trying to change your behavior. This is different than ‘give me your lunch money’.
I don’t think it’s necessarily a good idea to try to stand up to a guy willing to break check you and swing a bat at you but I do think that it contributes to this behavior that no one in the past stood up to them when the bullying was minor. I know a couple of adult bullies among my family and acquaintances and that’s the one thing in common that is said about them; Nobody ever stood up to them.