Comments Posted By mannning
Displaying 41 To 50 Of 475 Comments


It is really to bad that some people here cannot read. Where was it that I said anything about my not believing in evolution? What I did do was to accuse atheists of making that belief a litmus test, for one thing, and for another, I said in effect that significant contrary evidence should get a hearing, if one is a true scientist, and I suggested several lines of investigation that are not refuted at all by even the greatest in the field to this day. Was it Pinker that tried to invent "Punctuated Evolution" to get around the Pre-Cambrian refutation?

It has been proven that many biology texts used in our lower schools are portraying a false picture of evolution, so if someone bases their belief in evolution on that made-up stuff, they are simply fooled, if not also foolish. You cannot at the same time be open-minded as a scientist, and declare that evolution is "settled science", because it isn't.

My favorite quote on this matter is from A.N.
Whitehead, who was something of a brain to be admired. He said: "When a majority of scientists agree on some theory, it is guaranteed that they are wrong." Think of closed-minded people that believe working theories are the final word. It isn't so, no matter how tall the mountains of so-called evidence are. They, after all, ARE Theories.

Comment Posted By mannning On 8.01.2010 @ 21:50

Nobody who denies evolution should ever get to be President of the United States. Ever. Period. It’s unfortunate and telling that she might even have half a chance. Facepalm.

So now we have yet another litmus test, born of the necessity for atheists to have confirmation of their beliefs in a mechanical Universe.

Fortunately, by far the majority of voters do believe in God, and relegate science to its proper role of discovery and explanation in the material world. They are willing to consider that nay-sayers of Darwinian Evolution have some very powerful arguments on their side, such as the total imcompleteness of the fossel history, the necessity for the believers to resort to "it will be discovered, sooner or later!", and the difficulties surrounding the Pre-Cambrian Explosion of life forms, etc. etc.

Why should true scientists ever close their minds to possibilities and attempt to shut off debate? Only for non-scientific reasons! Just as AGW is not "settled science" neither is the total story surrounding Darwinian or NeoDarwinian evolution.

Comment Posted By mannning On 8.01.2010 @ 15:38


But if there was ever an example of why conservatism has become irrelevant it was Limbaugh’s monumentally stupid remarks about the American health care system:

From the personal experiences of my family, the medical systems that we have availed ourselves of are excellent. I am no multi-millionaire, and I do not subscribe to any gold-plated medical insurance, merely those that bring down my out-of-pocket costs. Medicare has been a live-saver, but I fear that it will suffer a big hit from Obamacare.

However, I am continually amazed at the ability of Medicare and the various insurance companies to negotiate far less fees for my medical services from both hospitals and doctors.

For instance, my wife's last stay in a hospital was charged at $20,000 for two days, but after submission to the insurance company, the hospital accepted a rate of $675 per day! Something is amiss here!

This pattern continues for every bill that I receive from doctors and hospitals. If these exorbitant rate structures are applied to those without insurance, most people could not afford care.

The bottom line seems to me to be that while the medical services themselves are very good, the costs and rate structures are totally out of whack. The fact that a very large percentage of ER services are given free of charge at public hospitals (by law!)is forcing hospitals to distort their rates to make up the differences. Defensive medicine practices also drive up costs: my primary physician is very quick to order up CT scans, blood work, and whatever else he can think of when presented with an illness.

While that satisfies me, some real number of those tests are actually not necessary: the doctor has already made an accurate diagnosis. He simply wants the backup that tests will show in case of a dispute. That is a good reason for us to be looking into tort law very carefully to reduce costs.

Comment Posted By mannning On 7.01.2010 @ 08:13


You think there are no atheists that are bad parents? You think there are no bad parents that are not atheists? Etc. Etc. Etc. Silly!

Comment Posted By mannning On 5.01.2010 @ 16:49

All you have to do is sit on your ass and wait, MR, just as our Leader is doing. It is impossible to be civil to someone that rants and raves without reason on their side.

Comment Posted By mannning On 5.01.2010 @ 15:39

Well, Drongo, I believe that the American people will demand that we respond to Iran's counterattacks on our people and facilities worldwide, including here in the US itself.

I also believe that if the Israelis do not get a satisfactory conclusion to the demand that Iran divest itself of its nuclear weapons programs, they will attack---most thoroughly, and soon now. We cannot stop them.

Ergo, we will be at war with Iran when the Israelis start it by hitting Iran, and Iran responds by hitting Israel and us.

Comment Posted By mannning On 5.01.2010 @ 15:36

Oh dear, there you go again!

Conventional warheaded missiles are to be used against surface targets such as AA missile sites, radar sites, airfields, offensive missile sites, C4I stuff, entrances to underground sites, and such, where their payloads are quite adequate indeed to destroy what they hit, including revetted aircraft and runways.

The missile attack will preceed any penetration of Iranian airspace, and should help considerably to clear the way for surface strike aircraft in the first waves that will finish the job of clearing out air defenses and any airborne threats. Once air defences are reduced, and other missiles sites as well, then the nuclear site strikes will begin, and the tankers will be quite safe orbiting over Iraq. the US will not shoot them down, even if ordered to by the madman in the WH. There would be massive "equipment malfunctions!"

If you believe that the Saudis will come into this, you are really ignorant; they will stay home because they are smart enough to understand that in the war following, they could lose far too much. With US carriers nearby, and USAF assets in Iraq and elsewhere, plus the ever-present threat of our various missiles on ships and subs, they would be totally intimidated. As an earlier poster stated, they pose little threat anyway to the superbly trained pilots of the Israelis and the US, and they know it.

What so many do not want to recognize is that we will be forced into this war on the Israeli side, and any ME nation that decides to support Iran will be our enemy also, which means they could lose just as Iraq lost.

This simple and fateful trigger decision to attack is in the hands of the Israelis, not us. Every nation in the ME is aware of the danger this poses to them. That is also true for many in our Congress of late, and the President.

Comment Posted By mannning On 5.01.2010 @ 13:03

The one correct thing you said, MR, is that it would be a campaign, not a single pass over the targets. Any fool would take out the Iranian air defenses and Communications, Command and Control facilities first and foremost. Only then could the nuclear target set be hit over and over with impunity. Since the Iranian defenses and targets are set in or near populous cities, there would be considerable civilian casualties well before the strikes on nuclear targets. Iran would declare war on Israel and the US, whether or not the Israeli raid is successful in knocking out the nuke sites.

So, we are hung on what the Israelis will do, and they will not be deterred by us once they have decided to strike. They will probably give us some warning before launching the attacks, and even an invitation to join them to make it really effective. We should take the offer, since not taking it will not prevent Iran from declaring war and attacking us where possible, and it could prevent loss of our lives by destroying their attacker capabilities first.

Comment Posted By mannning On 4.01.2010 @ 22:30


Uninformed as usual and willing to write about it!

Has anyone told you that the Israelis now have significant in-air refueling capability? KC-10's for example? Has anyone told you of the very substantial long-range guided missile capability they have, with either nuclear or conventional warheads? Do you believe that the US (Obama) would shoot down Israeli a/c if they overflew Iraq? Few do! If they did, that would be the end of Obama and Co. rather quickly, and good riddance.

Once this first strike by Israel begins, Iran will retaliate on both Israel and the US wherever possible. Obama and Co. will be forced to respond in kind by his own people--us. He would have to show up in Congress and declare that war is upon us, and the Congress would agree.

Comment Posted By mannning On 4.01.2010 @ 22:00

America in the 21st century is a great, big, raucous, tumbling, jumbling place that has moved far beyond what these self-described conservatives believe her to be - or think she should be.

In what way has America moved “far beyond?”? Without specifics going into substance further than raucous, tumbling, jumbling” this is a throwaway statement.

Has Natural Law been rescinded?

Is the Constitution out of date? How so?

Are civil laws passe?

Why do you think that our 300 million citizens cannot be governed by the same laws we have had for a long time?

Are the basic principles of Conservatism, such as you have espoused, out of date? How so?

Are the moral principles of Christianity out of date?

If not, why shouldn’t the ones flaunting them be made to understand that their behavior is unacceptable in oue society and thagt they will reap the consequences for it. Do we bend our lives and our laws to suit the atheists, hedonists and nihilists, the bad parents, and the out-of-control children now grown up--physically at least?

What does that statement of yours really mean?

Comment Posted By mannning On 4.01.2010 @ 21:44

Powered by WordPress

« Previous Page

Next page »

Pages (48) : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

«« Back To Stats Page