polifrog - Latest Comments

Re: 1999 Toyota Sienna Wiper Repair…

Geo Auto Glass — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 01:01:58 -0000

i saw your post, through the subject is new too me,its easy to understand the facts behind this.

Re: 1999 Toyota Sienna Wiper Repair…

leveling feet — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 06:01:22 -0000

Awesome article....It's really a great article to learn to remove old wiper.

Re: Massive New CO2 Sinks Discovered Put Global Warming Models Out to Pasture…

Jcopens — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:20:09 -0000

I find it interesting that the same people who claim man is inducing climate change, are the same people who vow to fix it through carbon tax schemes.This is clearly the fox guarding the hen house, and experience has shown me that the fox can't be trusted.
Keep blogging on this!
I thought you might also be interested in the new video just released for the single, I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le7...

Re: 1999 Toyota Sienna Wiper Repair…

trolley jacks — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 07:08:45 -0000

Remove the single retaining bolt on the bottom of the left wiper arm connecting it to the wiper motor.

Re: The Utterly UnAmerican Mechanations of Beach Management of Charleston South Carolina…

Public Relations — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 20:18:24 -0000

OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM THE BEACH COMPANY

We
apologize for the misunderstanding pertaining to the display of flags at our
property in Charleston, SC. Presently we only have approval from the City of
Charleston for green and red banners at this location.

Since
recent events we have not received documentation from the City of Charleston of
any sort that would give us the proper authority to make changes to the
existing banners at this location; however with your encouragement, we are
expediting a formal application to the Charleston’s Board of Architectural
Review to allow other flags to be displayed.

Furthermore,
it has been brought to our attention that a South Carolina Law was passed in
2002, South Carolina Act No. 344, Section 27-1-60, to allow the American flag
to fly regardless of existing zoning laws. This being the case, an
American flag will be raised and flown on each flag pole next week.

Finally,
and most importantly, we have the utmost respect and honor for our country and
its veterans or those military personnel taken as prisoners of war (POW’s) or
listed as missing in action (MIA’s). We are proud Americans who salute
our Armed Forces heroes.

God
Bless America,

Your
Friends at The Beach Company

www.thebeachcompany.com

Re: Florida Shooter Was On His Back and Being Punched When He Shot Trayvon Martin..

Josh — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:40:45 -0000

Defending from one's loss of life should be supported, and legally is.

Re: Florida Shooter Was On His Back and Being Punched When He Shot Trayvon Martin..

Oscar DeLavoya — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:12:41 -0000

Whooping someone does not deserve to be executed by the loser.

Re: SOPA and PIPA Fail for Now…

Inyhbm — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:01:17 -0000

Watch the video.
http://www.jonlowder.com/20...

Re: Kelly Clarkson Expresses Support for Ron Paul — How Refreshing…

Guest — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 21:42:48 -0000

I bought 15 of her CDs and everything she has on iTunes; and I don't even listen to her music.

Clarkson aligned herself with the one candidate who has been able to raise $6 million in one day. In his last fundraiser, he raised $4 million+ in one weekend.

Ron Paul 2012

Re: Randy’s Right Pulled the Plug?

Polifrog — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 23:23:17 -0000

I don't have a problem with people talking to one another or to many... perhaps I am a simpleton that way.

Re: Randy’s Right Pulled the Plug?

Chris Nelson — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:10:03 -0000

good fucking riddance. the planet is overheated and overpopulated already. we don't need the air pollution that this wingnut was spewing all over central NC.

Re: Milton Friedman Died 5 Years Ago Today…

Inyhbm — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:58:30 -0000

Milton was almost always right about almost everything. And he was right about this.

Re: Net Neutrality: It Just Keeps Coming:

Politics Matters — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:26:35 -0000

On the subject of net neutrality, Bob Gibson, Executive Director of the University of Virginia’s Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership, recently said: “It’s a debate that is going on in the Congress, and it’s really: Is the Internet going to be something that everyone has free and open access to, or, is it going to be something that is sort of controlled? What we don’t need is a lot of government control in the businesses of the internet. I think what we need is more of what we have with National Public Radio, which is a really true and balanced set of reporting that unfortunately has become politicized. What we are seeing is a shift from “anything goes” on the Internet to a shift where major corporations are shaping the news outlets and buying up more and more of the news outlets and putting them under corporate control and one set of a small number of hands.... We need freeware, we need shareware, and we need open access. People need to be able to trust sources that they can find on the internet, rather than have them controlled in a small number of hands or by the government.” (Gibson appeared on the Charlottesville, VA, politics interview program Politics Matters with host and producer Jan Madeleine Paynter discussing journalism http://bit.ly/pm-gibson)

Re: The Evil of a Public Square Reserved for One…

Brian Westley — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:50:06 -0000

"We are discussing a wall once adorned with perhaps the Ten Commandments."

Yes, but the courts have ruled that illegal. Christians/Jews don't get to promote their religion by posting religious laws on courtroom walls that are for ALL people. Removing them is the proper solution.

"Just as the Constitution is festooned with both atheism and religious references so too should our modern expressions of national self be festooned across our public squares."

So does this mean if the 10 commandments go up on some courtroom wall, atheists get to put up a sign saying "gods are myths"?

Re: The Evil of a Public Square Reserved for One…

polifrog — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 03:24:31 -0000

"Uh, no. A blank wall is not advocating atheism."

But we are not discussing just any blank wall. We are discussing a wall once adorned with perhaps the Ten Commandments. When that wall has been rendered mute through the force of governance then that government is acting in an atheocratic manner thus the blank wall becomes atheism advocated.

"I didn't say it was moral; I was pointing out that it was an even playing field."

Sorry, I read "even playing field" as "morality". But what you call an equal playing field of equal opportunity restrictions is not an equal playing field. It is one in which the blank wall of an atheocratic government advocates atheism while the religious are silenced.

The problem as I see it is that there are two types of atheist.

The first and more pure is the atheist that sees religion as a nothing. They do not believe, therefore the Ten Commandments on a courtroom wall means nothing to them.

The second and less pure atheist is the one that defines atheism against religion. Theirs is a faith in no God as defined against those who believe in God. These are the atheists who despite their claims that they do not believe in God are actively anti-religion and view God (that which does not exist) as a threat to their beliefs. This is the atheism that has expelled all other religions from the public square. This is the atheism of intolerance. This is atheism -- the religion.

Of course, the second type of atheist claims that they fall in the first category so as to claim the mantle of objectivity. Of course, they are not objective, for if they were they would not be forcing religion from the public square. Unfortunately, the more prevalent type of atheism is the second, thus atheism has devolved into something ugly and intolerant.

"But what if an atheist and a Christian both want to partake in, say, putting stuff up at town hall, but only one is allowed to do so? Is it OK with you if the government decides to treat them differently?"

No. Just as the Constitution is festooned with both atheism and religious references so too should our modern expressions of national self be festooned across our public squares.

Re: The Evil of a Public Square Reserved for One…

Brian Westley — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 01:54:34 -0000

"According to most Atheists, atheism is the absence of religion, therefore the absence of their decoration is itself atheist decoration."

Uh, no. A blank wall is not advocating atheism.

"Really, it is a fool's errand to argue that barring expression equally among all participants is moral because it is based on equal opportunity restrictions."

I didn't say it was moral; I was pointing out that it was an even playing field.

"There should be no expectation that we all partake in life equally."

But what if an atheist and a Christian both want to partake in, say, putting stuff up at town hall, but only one is allowed to do so? Is it OK with you if the government decides to treat them differently?

Re: The Evil of a Public Square Reserved for One…

polifrog — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 21:18:50 -0000

None of the examples you give are examples of atheism.

According to most Atheists, atheism is the absence of religion, therefore the absence of their decoration is itself atheist decoration.

The examples of atheism you provide are in reality atheism as defined against religion.

Interestingly, I have made the case previously on this blog that atheism is a religion based on the argument that atheism and religion are at opposite ends of the same continuum of faith.Just as one relies on faith that there is a God, the other relies on faith that there is no God, the commonality being that with neither being more provable that the other they are each faith based.

If, you are prepared to declare atheism a religion which you seem to do when you suggest atheists are equally prohibited from public displays of belief as the religious, then you should realize that as a religion atheists would be treated no differently from other religious. Additionally you should be prepared for the fact that atheists generally do not partake in public displays of faith and just because they do not choose to do so does not imply others should be barred from their displays of faith.

Really, it is a fool's errand to argue that barring expression equally among all participants is moral because it is based on equal opportunity restrictions.

There should be no expectation that we all partake in life equally.

Re: The Evil of a Public Square Reserved for One…

Brian Westley — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:47:34 -0000

Well, now I disagree with your examples:

"Christianity chased from the lawns of town halls" --
Are atheists allowed to decorate town halls, and Christians not given the same opportunity?

No, neither atheists nor Christians get to do that. This isn't an example of atheists at an advantage at all. It's treating both equally.

"Court rooms cleared of 10 commandments" --
Again, are atheists putting things up on courtroom walls while Christians are prevented?

No, neither atheists nor Christians get to do that. This isn't an example of atheists at an advantage at all. It's treating both equally.

"Students fight to lead prayer at school" --
Do atheists get to lead students in chanting "gods are myths"? No.

No, neither atheists nor Christians get to do that. This isn't an example of atheists at an advantage at all. It's treating both equally.

Christians can pray at school if they want to, of course.

Sorry, none of your examples are valid.

Re: The Evil of a Public Square Reserved for One…

polifrog — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:57:56 -0000

Added. It was an egregious omission. Again, thanks.

Re: The Evil of a Public Square Reserved for One…

polifrog — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:50:31 -0000

It seems self evident every Christmas. It seems self evident in every courtroom. It seems self evident when students in school fight for the right to lead prayer.

But you are correct, I will add examples to my post.

Thanks.

Re: The Evil of a Public Square Reserved for One…

Brian Westley — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:37:26 -0000

plenty of ranting, but zero examples of all this "atheism" in the public square, or how it's supposedly keeping out everyone else.

Re: You’re Gonna’ Pay! Gets Permanent Real Estate…

jainalianveny — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:29:28 -0000

While selecting a aggregation for designing the website for yourreal estate services, you accept to go through a portfolio of antecedent web designing works of the company.

Reston homes for sale

Re: 1999 Toyota Sienna Wiper Repair…

Toyota transmission fluid — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:28:04 -0000

Oh!...that's great helpful, it's so right to me! Million thanks for the article.

Re: Paul Krugman — Liberal Arrogance Yeilds Liberal Poverty…

polifrog — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:16:38 -0000

From the crash of 29 to 1937 we had two, not one, but two presidents adopt Keynsian solutions.

What did those solutions produce? Boom or Bust?

Bust in the form of the recession of 1937, a recession that was second only to the great depression in severity until the current depression.

Subsequent to the recession of 1937 the Great Depression finally earned the monicker The Great Depression. It should have been called the Keynesian Depression.

Re: Paul Krugman — Liberal Arrogance Yeilds Liberal Poverty…

rogerrramjet — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:18:57 -0000

Speaking of total tripe, you are obviously exceptionally well uninformed and have no idea of what you are talking about. The FDR nonsense has been debunked and debunked hard. A couple of idiots wrote he worsened things even though they have been proven wrong and you moron bagger lap it up.

Truth and facts be damned.

I'd like to say you were obviously homeschooled but that would be an insult to idiots everywhere.

Here's a quarter go buy yourself a clue.