User Profile: signal_lost

signal_lost

Member Since: September 28, 2011

Comments

  • [2] June 23, 2016 at 2:23am

    The left says conservatives are dangerous because they can, the right says leftists are dangerous because they are.

  • [5] June 23, 2016 at 2:15am

    I call the Libertarian party the self marginalizing party. See article for exhibit A. duh.

  • [2] May 10, 2016 at 12:17pm

    The principle involved here is that when when a society rejects morality it goes crazy. I know, you were expecting me to say ‘becomes immoral’ but that doesn’t really express it. There isn’t really a moral issue with the fact that those who have rejected Gods morality can’t even figure out where to go to the bathroom.

  • [2] May 10, 2016 at 12:06pm

    Not sure I’m getting what’s going on here. Trump says this guy is a nasty guy, guy shows he’s nasty by quoting scripture that imply’s Trump is Jezebel, then all these comments say, “see, trump is against Christians”. What am I missing…

    Responses (1) +
  • April 19, 2016 at 5:25pm

    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.

    Responses (2) +
  • 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.

  • [1] 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.

  • [3] 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.

  • [1] 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.

  • [1] 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

  • [3] January 20, 2015 at 5:07pm

    So, we should listen to the gal with the nose ring?

    Responses (1) +
  • September 30, 2014 at 11:15pm

    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

Restoring Love