en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/283787 Comments by obsequious http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lscott/2009/06/20/children-put-the-internet-down-and-go-take-a-nap/#IDComment24940933 Post deleted. Oh, the irony. Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:41:23 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lscott/2009/06/20/children-put-the-internet-down-and-go-take-a-nap/#IDComment24940933 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/egolub/2009/06/13/congratulations-conan/#IDComment24346372 I _despise_ Leno's Tonight Show, but his standup is fantastic. Don't write him off until you've seen it. Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:44:33 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/egolub/2009/06/13/congratulations-conan/#IDComment24346372 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/mflynn/2009/06/10/the-republican-case-for-gay-marriage/#IDComment24046983 Your claim that interracial marriage (miscegenation) was never systematically banned in this country is irrelevant in the face that gay marriage has never been systematically banned in this country either. The difference between gay marriage and interracial marriage is, the federal government actually HAS stepped in and declared that states don't have to recognize other states gay marriages. So what about norms? In the 1950's, _almost_ 100% of whites were against white-nonwhite "miscegenation," but ultimately by the 1960's it was decided that the laws violated the 14th Amendment. More people were against interracial marriage by the time it was recognized as constitutionally protected than are against gay marriage/civil unions right now. Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:51:05 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/mflynn/2009/06/10/the-republican-case-for-gay-marriage/#IDComment24046983 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2009/06/11/daily-gut-lettermans-obsession-with-sarah-palin/#IDComment24044786 During their respective administrations, the Bush twins were legal adults and Chelsea Clinton/Obama's daughters not. Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:17:48 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2009/06/11/daily-gut-lettermans-obsession-with-sarah-palin/#IDComment24044786 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/amcelhinney/2009/05/20/bono-discovers-sustainable-development-isnt-sustainable/#IDComment22005509 environmental damage is an externality of fossil fuel usage. Carbon trading simply unhides the hidden costs. When fuel usage produces pollution, someone pays to clean it up whether or not there are carbon units. The carbon unit just makes it possible to bundle that cleanup cost with the fuel that causes the pollution instead of spreading it out and forcing government to do it. The essence of capitalism is efficient allocation of capital resources. Forcing everyone to pay for pollution cleanup in the form of taxes is an enormous market inefficiency. Carbon trading should reduce environmental regulation because it will be in every businesses best interest to reduce their production inefficiencies that result in costly pollution cleanup. Basically, everybody wins. Well, everybody except the shareholders and consumers of products that are currently externalizing the pollution cleanup of their products to all taxpayers. Thu, 21 May 2009 20:18:28 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/amcelhinney/2009/05/20/bono-discovers-sustainable-development-isnt-sustainable/#IDComment22005509 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bprelutsky/2009/05/21/wanted-a-vaccine-for-liberalism/#IDComment22004640 So let me get this straight, you are going to abandon your stated values (setting aside differences with the President in the interest of national unity) because Democrats called your bluff? Or is it really just because a Democrat is in the White House and before that was all just a bunch of talk? It looks to me like you dumped your alleged values like a sack of bricks. Put your money where your mouth is and live up to your word. Politics aren't a game, you either have values that you stick to, or you change the rules of the game so that you always have the easy win. Which is it? Thu, 21 May 2009 19:59:38 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bprelutsky/2009/05/21/wanted-a-vaccine-for-liberalism/#IDComment22004640 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/04/08/does-god-exist-hitchens-vs-craig/#IDComment18458564 What he appears to be saying is that the rapid spread of life disproves the second law of thermodynamics which would predict entropy, UNLESS you have something in the universe fighting entropy. Well, the second law only applies to closed systems, life is restricted to Earth, and the Earth is not a closed system. We are constantly bombarded by energy from the sun that sustains and perpetuates life on Earth. The truth is, the argument really doesn't work anyway because entropy is concerned with net loss, and the rapid spread of life is actually an entropy accelerator, sort of like how fire burns energy faster than the simple kinetic energy transfer of a rockslide. If you look at a log as a closed system, introducing fire brings the log to an inert "entropied" state far faster than regular old decomposition, which is proof of the second law rather than refutation. Fire brings temporary "vibrancy" to the log at the cost of shortening the life of the log to a "dead" state. The fire is not creating energy, it is unlocking the energy contained within the chemical bonds. Once they are spent, there's no more. That's entropy. Again, with a given that the argument is restricted to the log itself (and a limited amount of oxygen.) This is a good topic thread today, everyone is very polite! Thu, 9 Apr 2009 22:30:33 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/04/08/does-god-exist-hitchens-vs-craig/#IDComment18458564 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/04/08/does-god-exist-hitchens-vs-craig/#IDComment18457555 I am not confusing it, I am just restricting my argument solely to PeterPike's equivalence between a claim that God wrote the Bible and that Napoleon wrote a particular note. My argument was that _disproving_ a claim that someone had divine inspiration while writing something is impossible, making verification of the "authorship" of the Bible by God categorically different from a regular old handwritten note by a human being. Again, I want to be cautious and say that does not DISPROVE anything. One commonly accepted part of the Christian faith is that Truth can be revealed through revelation. A basic fact of Christianity is that no one is responsible for securing your own salvation from God except YOU. You may be called to evangelize, but the burden is on the person to accept it. Revelation is a unique personal proof that transcends fact, and if you know in your heart that the Bible is the Word of God, then no one can prove you wrong. But that "proof" is something that every person has to attain on their own. You can give testimony about revelation, but it's not the same thing to the person receiving it as having a revelation themselves. Thu, 9 Apr 2009 22:02:52 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/04/08/does-god-exist-hitchens-vs-craig/#IDComment18457555 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/04/08/does-god-exist-hitchens-vs-craig/#IDComment18442557 To state it extremely simply, the mythological origin of Aryanism was that there was an original, single race of humans in ancient times, highly evolved in the moral, physical and intellectual sense. There was a cataclysm in their homeland (Hyperborea) that caused the downfall and dispersal of this race, with a corresponding devolution of these attributes the further away from the geographical center of the origin of this homeland and the descendents corresponding to the "races" you see today. Modern-day Aryans were people supposed to be the closest in every sense to this original race, and at the far end there were races that had devolved to the point that they were ideologically opposed to those original values, and so they had become, perhaps literally, "anti-humans." Guess who got that designation. Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:45:01 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/04/08/does-god-exist-hitchens-vs-craig/#IDComment18442557 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/04/08/does-god-exist-hitchens-vs-craig/#IDComment18440643 There is nothing wrong with your logic. He's accepting the authorship of both by applying the same extremely low standard. If you want to verify the authorship of a handwritten note by Napoleon, at the very least you can begin by comparing the handwriting, age, paper and ink qualities against known examples of legislation he signed or authored by him during his tenure as military commander or leader of France. If you want to, you can trace the paper trail all the way back to a body in a tomb. That's what we call falsifiability. I can accept it as reasonable evidence if I at least in theory could somehow disprove the claim. There are ways that I could prove a handwritten letter was NOT by Napoleon. But there is no way to disprove that God personally guided hands and hearts of the scribes, translators and assemblers of the Holy Bible. The evidence for that is God speaking to your heart. Everything is levels of confidence, but people don't just throw up their hands and say that nothing can ultimately be proven so everything is of equal veracity. I can guarantee you that if I worked at PeterPike's bank and all his money disappeared one day, he would not accept my claim that "God took it." Before he believed that, he would want some pretty strong evidence. Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:07:21 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/04/08/does-god-exist-hitchens-vs-craig/#IDComment18440643 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ttapp/2009/04/08/new-star-trek-footage-thoughts/#IDComment18433260 Paramount never gave a crap about Star Trek, their goal was to put as little money as possible into it that would still generate a return. The movie laserdiscs didn't even have chapters. Seriously though, I think you are overestimating Trek here, for a while now it's been the only period for decades that hasn't had an ongoing Trek series on the air. It's pretty sad that I as someone who is only casually interested in Star Trek knew more about Star Trek than the writers of Voyager, and Enterprise was pretty lousy. I think you were right the first time, it's an attempt to resurrect an already dead series. They are trying something new because the old formula just didn't work anymore. Anyway, if it sucks they'll just try again in a few years anyway. I feel like there will probably always be Star Trek fans waiting if Hollywood can just produce something they want to see. Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:58:25 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ttapp/2009/04/08/new-star-trek-footage-thoughts/#IDComment18433260 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ttapp/2009/04/08/new-star-trek-footage-thoughts/#IDComment18432225 According to "The Making of Star Trek" (which is admittedly considered non-canonical,) the original Enterprise was built on the ground and assembled in space. So, this somewhat breaks that. In TNG, they were built on a skybase in geosynchronous orbit over Utopia Planitia on Mars. Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:51:05 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ttapp/2009/04/08/new-star-trek-footage-thoughts/#IDComment18432225 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97191SO2#IDComment17250976 Until you provide some kind of proof, it's been satisfactorily established that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu. Why don't you read up on McCain's "natural born" status? There is actual documentary proof he was born outside the United States. Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:34:01 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97191SO2#IDComment17250976 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bprelutsky/2009/03/17/madoff-and-obama-fellow-ponzi-schemers/#IDComment17216303 It's a certified duplicate, stupid. You certainly can get a job with one. Anyway, what does it matter at this point? McCain was born in the Canal Zone, which is unambiguously NOT US territory, and at the time of his birth the Canal Zone was, by US law, explicitly excluded from providing automatic citizenship to children of Americans born there. McCain wasn't even a US citizen for the first two years of his life. You don't even need a birth certificate to prove it, you just have to look up the law and take his word about where and when he was born. Obama's state-certified duplicate of his birth certificate clearly says he was born in Honolulu--unless someone has evidence that someone doctored his records, it's good enough for any employer as proof of citizenship. Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:11:02 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bprelutsky/2009/03/17/madoff-and-obama-fellow-ponzi-schemers/#IDComment17216303 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96SK4B80#IDComment16840606 Twice he was anonymously reported to the FTC. Nothing was done. The accomplice is the United States government. Fri, 13 Mar 2009 03:08:10 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96SK4B80#IDComment16840606 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96SP30G5#IDComment16840455 Hey, at least he hasn't gotten anyone killed in an unnecessary war. But I guess he has the rest of his administration, right? Fri, 13 Mar 2009 03:03:50 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96SP30G5#IDComment16840455 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96SPKFO2#IDComment16840250 Comedy. Cramer's not an authority on anything. People are loving this feud, but anybody who counted on Cramer is pretty much sorry right now. Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:57:36 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96SPKFO2#IDComment16840250 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96SPKFO2#IDComment16840130 "Your" writer's, should, be let, go. How many malapropisms, grammar errors and unnecessary commas can you fit in one paragraph? Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:54:31 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96SPKFO2#IDComment16840130 http://change.gov/page/content/discussservice#IDComment12730244 Obama in the past has supported some degree of decriminalization, you can find videos of that on Youtube I believe. I'm at work so I can't find them to show you. He's been a little evasive on the issue because it's a landmine he didn't want to step on before the election, but his stance seems to be no to legalization (possibly excepting for medicinal purposes) and significant reduction in penalties for MJ-related offenses. Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:06:46 +0000 http://change.gov/page/content/discussservice#IDComment12730244 http://change.gov/page/content/discussservice#IDComment12730185 He acts like it's a news commentary show and accepts the accolades, and when he gets attacked for being partisan or misleading, he claims it's just entertainment. Rush Limbaugh uses the same technique. Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:01:29 +0000 http://change.gov/page/content/discussservice#IDComment12730185