Comments Posted By Person of Choler
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 13 Comments
What good would a speech by Obama do for the Iranians? We won't be doing anything concrete to help them anyway. Raising false hopes for assistance would be the most he could accomplish.
Comment Posted By Person of Choler On 29.12.2009 @ 10:45
MY CONSERVATIVE APOSTASY AND WHY I DON'T GIVE A F**K WHAT YOU THINK
Of course Limbaugh is an idiot.
"I’ll tell you, the more you extend unemployment benefits, the less — this is just human nature. The less people are going to look for work."
And here's an article from the foreign press that proves it:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209072/Five-million-job-Labour--raising-fears-Shameless-generation-benefit-addicts.html
Britain has more long term unemployment benefits than we do and, according to the article only 1 of 6 adults lives in a household where nobody works.
So there.
Comment Posted By Person of Choler On 4.12.2009 @ 18:36
THE HOPELESS BANALITY OF THE BLOGOSPHERE
It is a definitional problem: people equate "terrorism" with "Islamist nutjob outrages". Just because the perpetrator is one of Allah's Little Helpers doesn't mean that his actions are intended to terrorize the population.
Comment Posted By Person of Choler On 6.11.2009 @ 17:23
WHY THE SHORTAGE OF SWINE FLU VACCINE?
I fault the Obama administration for whooping up a possible threat and making big promises that they couldn't keep to alleviate said threat. I keep hearing that Obama, himself a genius of astounding mental capacity, is surrounded by a group of stellar intellects as advisers. Why a couple of his brilliant scientists didn't check out the mechanics of producing vaccine before promising to deliver a bunch of it is beyond me.
Comment Posted By Person of Choler On 30.10.2009 @ 14:06
CAN THE GOP HELP GOVERN WHILE IN THE MINORITY?
"Since when did it become “unconservative” to support the idea that a political party - even in the minority - cannot fight to make legislation proposed by the majority better?"
If you had just spotted an iceberg you would think that advising Captain Edward Smith about how much wax to put on the shuffleboard court was a waste of time.
Comment Posted By Person of Choler On 10.10.2009 @ 08:58
INTELLECTUAL CONSERVATISM ISN'T DEAD: CHANNEL YOUR INNER ELDER
The first post in this series was called "INTELLECTUAL CONSERVATISM ISN’T DEAD: IT’S RESTING"
Herewith some insightful analysis of where it is napping and some of the consequences of the snooze:
http://newledger.com/2009/10/the-rights-real-problem-too-big-to-fail/
Comment Posted By Person of Choler On 8.10.2009 @ 11:06
"But she is not a racist - although she appears to dwell on the issue of race quite a bit."
What is a racist, if not someone who dwells quite a bit on race?
Comment Posted By Person of Choler On 10.06.2009 @ 13:37
IS THE GOP ANTI-SCIENCE? OR JUST ANTI-RATIONALIST?
Person of Choler,
"So are you telling me that the satellite images of the arctic ice are wrong?"No. I'm suggesting that you look at the posts at http://www.wattsupwiththat.com which discuss problems with busted satellite sensors, misinterpretation of data, and inconsistencies between different monitoring techniques and check your opinions against the observations of others.
Forget, please, the nonsense about my coming close to some conspiracy theory. Argument through guilt by association went the way of Joe McCarthy.
"et" means "and" in Latin, but the only Latin I learned was as an altar boy and may have the grammar all wrong.
Comment Posted By Person of Choler On 13.05.2009 @ 07:50
funny man, check out various posts discussing the vaunted "melting of Arctic ice" at http://www.wattsupwiththat.com. There have been problems with data acquisition and interpretation, all biased in the direction of AGW alarmism.
To the folks who keep telling me about "consensus" in "science": If consensus meant squat, doctors would not sanitize their hands between autopsies and baby deliveries because the scientific consensus was that Ignaz Semmelweis was a quack. We would still be analyzing combustion in terms of Phlogiston because top scientists said that Phlogiston was the explanation for stuff catching fire. The consensus of the best minds in geology was that Alfred Wegener was a nutjob; continents could not possibly drift. A committee of German scientists arrived at the consensus that Albert Einstein's relativity theories were some sort of Jewish anti-science claptrap and should be suppressed. We would still be trying to model the electromagnetic transport with the concept of Luminiferous Aether because it was common knowledge among scientists that such a medium was necessary to explain the wave phenomena involved.
Et cetera ad nauseum et infinitum.
Comment Posted By Person of Choler On 12.05.2009 @ 14:22
You lost me at "denier". Can it - will it - ever penetrate the echoing vastness of your skull that name calling is not logical argument?
There is plenty of rational discussion about weaknesses in the AGW hypothesis - from inadequate measurement and management of data to the use of hitherto unheard of statistical diddling to make the fudged data fit AGW preconceptions. See, for example, the dozens of posts at climateaudit.org, surfacestations.org, and wattsupwiththat.com, and then come back and explain to me how settled is the science of AGW.
Comment Posted By Person of Choler On 12.05.2009 @ 07:52
