Simply invert logic, and purge your brain of any rational thought. Then you are a full blown progressive.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- Bob G on Mission Accomplished
- James Snook on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- czechlist on Mission Accomplished
- arn on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Disillusioned on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Gamecock on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- czechlist on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
I think bonnie’s response comes under the heading of QED
Progressives response when their delusions are reflected back to them.
http://youtu.be/6VZcmMYZCvY
Further example of how progressives will “Cool the Planet!”
Safety Warning: do not drink coffee at the same time as watching this!
http://youtu.be/8R8F2wgckLI
“Cools off by at least more than half.” What the hell does that mean?
I should have listened to your warning about coffee. I thought I could handle this. Being that I’ve already heard this argument many times over, I held a pretty valiant poise through most of it . . . until I lost it while I gagged, “Who in hell is SUPREME MASTER CHAI?!” I had to change my shirt after that. I thought that was a character on Dragon Ball Z, honestly. Though, I will admit it has been a while since I was into that. Still, I should have listened to that warning.
I do have a few questions for this Mister CHAI guy. What exactly do these vegans expect will be done with the livestock once they have destroyed the industry? The animals won’t just vanish. Isn’t it against their ideology to kill them? Won’t these animals continue breeding whether we eat them or not? If we stopped eating them, won’t that just mean more of them to “murder the glaciers” that seem to return each year – despite the best scatological efforts of highly-specialized cows and pigs to destroy them? I also want to know how to throw a blast of spirit-energy at my enemies, if that’s not too much to ask. I think that would really come in handy.
“What are we waiting for?” he asks.
How about some proof that any of the alarmist messages you portray are true. Until then stop stealing my, and others, wealth with your hair-brain schemes.
Ms Bonnie can sleep well tonight because PEOPLE WITH GUNS ARE ON WATCH.
She’s a jerk, getting a free ride.
It’s not black and white. Bonnie is not a total jerk. I was taught how to handle a gun–responsibly–when I was 7 years old. I’ve seen plenty of gun owners who think guns are “fun”, and I don’t want to be around when they are shooting, or waving their gun around. Street gangs aren’t responsible, neither are the mentally ill, nor the habitually criminal. Bonnie can’t sleep well if any of those gets in her house. We were also taught how to handle a pet responsibly–I don’t consider either gun or pet ownership to be an inalienable right, irrespective of your sense of moral responsibility, towards other people and towards anything that might be used as a target (or a fighting dog’s prey) but does not belong to you. Gun (and pet) registration is a way to let people know their ownership is a privilege, meant for those responsible enough to use their weapons, and pets, responsibly. But that kind of personal responsibility–basically, respect for others–cannot be legislated, it has to be taught when young–or learned later, the hard way.
False dichotomy. Pet ownership and gun ownership are not related.
Additionally, owning a gun is not just a right, it is a DUTY. Those who don’t own guns are shirkers.
See Federalist 28 and 29.
“Federalist paper #28:
In this paper, Hamilton is describing a hypothetical worst-case scenario. Although it may seem unthinkable in 21st century America, the Americans of the 18th century were deeply concerned about an excessively powerful national government using the military to oppress the people. Hamilton is arguing that not only is a national military at times necessary to ensure public safety, but, even were this military to become an instrument of tyranny, the state governments would act as natural centers of resistance.
Hamilton frequently takes the approach of acknowledging a widespread fear among the population—e.g., the fear of violent usurpation of political liberties—and then using a hypothetical situation to illustrate how the proposed constitution offers the best protection against that fear. However, Hamilton also buttresses his hypothetical with current events in order to make his arguments more plausible to his audience. In this paper, he refers to New York state’s claim to certain sections of Vermont to illustrate that, although militias can deal with small local issues, they will not be sufficient to deal with major conflicts.
Federalist paper #29:
This paper brings to a close several papers discussing the role of military forces under the proposed constitution. Hamilton’s tone in this paper is highly combative and exhibits a high degree of frustration with what he believes to be the unreasonable criticisms of the constitution’s opponents. He essentially accuses the critics of disingenuous fear-mongering devoid of all common sense. He sees the fear of a federally controlled militia as particularly absurd since the militia would be composed of “our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow citizens…”. In refuting these counterarguments, Hamilton methodically talks through how the constitutional provisions for the militia would likely play out in the years to follow. He appeals to readers’ common sense in arguing that the citizen-soldiers who constitute militias would never willingly become an instrument of tyranny.
This relates to a very important and influential belief of 18th century Americans: militiamen are more trustworthy than active-duty soldiers. It was widely believed in the early years of the republic that full-time soldiers in standing armies were generally of low moral character. They devote their life to fighting and will do anything for money. By contrast, militiamen were believed to be a direct extension of the citizenry into the realm of military activity. Militias were seen as a direct reflection of the people themselves fighting for their own rights and freedom. Serving in the militia was perhaps the highest form of civic virtue. Hamilton draws on this faith in the civic virtue of militias to convince his readers that just because the federal government has some authority over them does not mean that militiamen will suddenly lose their moral character and become the means by which an ambitious politician establishes his autocratic rule.”
I don’t think Hamilton thought that an individual would ‘shirk his duties’ by not having a loaded firearm under their mattress. He, as well as most constitutionalists were talking about state militias versus a national standing army. How you clowns make that out to be a duty for individuals to possess firearms is simply laughable.
Protection from statist power, the general idea of not being a victim, community local authority, these all still apply today. Go to any community in the country, and I assure you they stick together, watch each others property, and ownership of guns is still all connected. The only difference is there is not an state organized militia.
You should not call people clowns, it makes you look, well, clownish.
The militia is us. The citizenry. We are all members of the militia.
If there were a constitutional amendment that flatly stated that the right of the people to keep pets shall not be infringed, I might have some idea what you’re trying to say here.
Actually, I enjoy shooting guns, and it is fun. The whole family does. We don’t lock our defense guns in a safe, have safety locks on them or any other device that renders them useless in situations where seconds make the difference from protecting our lives and property if it is ever necessary.
When the SHTF you’d better be prepared.
What’s the difference between a progressive and a Marxist?
That is easy. Marxists made their mistake 100 years ago, but progressives are too stupid to learn from other people’s mistakes.
Yep: http://i482.photobucket.com/albums/rr183/dyno-byte/IsraeliTeachersArmed.jpg
Progressives no longer attempt economic ideas.
Gun control works:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/guncontrol.jpg