Disqus - Latest Comments for philwynk

Re: Visualized: Battery Vs. Hydrogen Fuel Cell

Phil Weingart — Tue, 19 Jul 2022 15:19:53 -0000

Saying that FCEV has an efficiency problem compared to BEV looks like badly flawed reasoning to me. The explanation at the link in the article says that it's because of the inefficiency of obtaining hydrogen from water by electrolysis. This is just silly; there's enough waste hydrogen produced as a byproduct of refining oil to power a fleet of 50 million fuel cell vehicles, without requiring electrolysis of any sort. Meanwhile, I'm guessing that the alleged efficiency of BEV vehicles does not take into account the inefficiency of transmission loss bringing power from the power plant to the charging station, not to mention the waste involved in generating electricity (often using fossil fuels) in the first place.

Fuel cell vehicles are superior by design.

Re: Democrats Threaten to Burn Down the Republic to Stack the Supreme Court

Phil Weingart — Wed, 23 Sep 2020 10:17:55 -0000

You underestimate Pres. Trump, as does every politician. Trump is a master of controlling the public narrative. He does it using that rhetoric you find so appalling; he makes all the cameras and mics point right at him, and he provokes his adversaries to play into his hands.

I did not vote for him in 2016, nor did I want him to win the Republican nomination, but I watched in awe as he literally sucked all the air out of the primary contests. With his rude-sounding tweets and comments he literally made himself the only candidate in a field of 12 legitimate candidates. The only question left by primary day was whether one would vote for Donald Trump or not. This was deliberate strategy, not an old man's inflexibility.

I don't approve of what social media is doing to American politics, but I recognize that those who have mastered it will win elections going forward. Don't sell Pres. Trump short. He knows precisely what he's doing, whether you approve or not.

Re: Democrats Threaten to Burn Down the Republic to Stack the Supreme Court

Phil Weingart — Wed, 23 Sep 2020 10:12:35 -0000

Recognizing what it is that the Democrats react to is not the same as caring about it. We're aware that underneath all their insane bluster about the "death of democracy" and "literally Hitler" (remember when they said the same about Pres Bush?) what's really eating the Democrats is that they're embarrassed about what the French might think of us whenever Pres. Trump speaks.

Let Mr. Shapiro call Pres. Trump a boor all he wants. It's actually true; but it's not important. The American character has always prized common effectiveness over pompous erudition. Or to say that like a boorish, vulgar commoner, we don't care how fancy you are, we only care if you get things done.

Re: Democrats Threaten to Burn Down the Republic to Stack the Supreme Court

Phil Weingart — Wed, 23 Sep 2020 10:07:38 -0000

Clear? No. But entirely possible. I wish I could argue against what you're saying here, but I'm afraid you might be correct.

You should join with the millions of American Christians who are praying for God to intervene as we speak. Nobody wins a civil war.

Re: Democrats Threaten to Burn Down the Republic to Stack the Supreme Court

Phil Weingart — Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:57:08 -0000

Nah. They pretend to support mob rule only so long as they need the mob to destabilize the legitimate government. Once that government is overthrown they replace it with a one-party oligarchy. The leaders of the mob are actually the first to be taken out and shot in the head.

You need to learn from the Marxist revolutions of the 20th century. The Democrats are being controlled by Marxist activists. Only, you'll seldom find any Democrat who admits to being a Marxist, mostly because they're not literate enough or self-aware enough to realize it.

Re: Democrats Threaten to Burn Down the Republic to Stack the Supreme Court

Phil Weingart — Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:51:48 -0000

Obviously being nice like McCain and Romney only gets your butt kicked

Tamed Republicans, they regard as "house slaves," never as equals. Trying to satisfy Democrats is a losing proposition, since nobody could possibly be their equal (sic).

Re: Democrats Threaten to Burn Down the Republic to Stack the Supreme Court

Phil Weingart — Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:16:27 -0000

No, he calls Pres. Trump "vulgar" because that's what he is--and that's about the worst that the left can actually demonstrate about him. The left has gone bat-crazy over Pres. Trump mostly because they're embarrassed about what the French (among others) might think about us. One defuses such objections by pointing out that they're true but not a reason to remove a President, let alone tear a republic to bits.

You would be wise not to shoot at your allies. In this case, Mr. Shapiro is one of those.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Could Have Named Her Successor — All She Needed to Do Was What Anthony Kennedy Had the Foresight to Do

Phil Weingart — Sun, 20 Sep 2020 12:03:40 -0000

When a man blames others for his failures, it's a good idea to credit others with his successes as well. (Attributed to Howard Newton, but I have no idea who that is.)

Not that Barack Obama has all that many successes to attribute, but stil...

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Could Have Named Her Successor — All She Needed to Do Was What Anthony Kennedy Had the Foresight to Do

Phil Weingart — Sun, 20 Sep 2020 11:58:39 -0000

Still haven't seen any defensible list of which rules he's breaking. Feel free to fill me in.

Re: WALSH: We Have Become A Police State, And None Of Us Should Be Okay With That

Phil Weingart — Tue, 07 Apr 2020 10:22:44 -0000

Matt says: "It is only when the government has a specially compelling reason to violate the amendments that the amendments have any function. "

That's not remotely true. Or rather, it is the case that the government always claims a specially compelling reason to violate the 1st and 4th Amendments. Our legal system is full of such claims, as anybody familiar with the legal system knows.

Re: The Morning Briefing: Michael Bloomberg Is Satan—Discuss

Phil Weingart — Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:44:14 -0000

Bloomberg, the devil? Nah. Satan would not say anything as stupid as what comes out of Bloomberg's mouth.

Re: James Carville panics over Sanders: 'I am scared to death...Do we want to be an ideological cult?'

Phil Weingart — Wed, 05 Feb 2020 11:58:34 -0000

"Do we want to be an ideological cult?"

When were you not one?

Re: Your Guide to Yesterday’s Impeachment Hearing For When You Hate Them All

Phil Weingart — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 11:07:04 -0000

There's nothing about the President's behavior that's worth hating, except perhaps a little vulgarity. Certainly nothing in the House's impeachment charges. They're a sham.

But I'm curious: what's the point of the "Christian" jibe? Do you really think Christians care about your opinion of their devotion, if you're not one yourself? What do you know of Christian conduct? Or, is this just shaming from a control freak?

Re: Your Guide to Yesterday’s Impeachment Hearing For When You Hate Them All

Phil Weingart — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 11:03:14 -0000

Wow, the messaging has changed, and now all the Democrats are shouting "Trump is going to look bad!! YAY!!!"

What comes out of Democrats' mouths never has any necessary connection to reality. They say whatever serves their partisan purposes, regardless of what is factual. So, what's the point of talking with them?

Re: Your Guide to Yesterday’s Impeachment Hearing For When You Hate Them All

Phil Weingart — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 10:58:21 -0000

Oh, gee whiz. Older people have more money than younger people. Never saw that happen before. (yawn)

Re: Your Guide to Yesterday’s Impeachment Hearing For When You Hate Them All

Phil Weingart — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 10:56:58 -0000

There was no abuse of power. It's not even an open question. What, an attack on the Democrat candidate a full year before he became the Democrat candidate? THAT's an abuse of power?

And I still can't fathom how the President can abuse his power in a foreign government where he holds no power.

Re: Your Guide to Yesterday’s Impeachment Hearing For When You Hate Them All

Phil Weingart — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 10:52:47 -0000

" Trump's actions were specifically targeting that November result"

No, they were not. That was never really even a plausible charge. An assault on the Democrat candidate, a full year before he was the Democrat candidate? Really? What did he do against the other 15 Democrat candidates?

And do you really think it's impeachable for the President to act politically while in office? If you weren't calling for Pres. Obama's removal, then we know you do not think that, because he acted politically 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 8 years, and still hasn't ceased.

You know as well as we do that this was an impeachment looking for a reason and began long before any investigation. What they found to turn into an impeachment hearing was "Kabuki theater meets Gilbert and Sullivan comic opera." If we know anything now that we did not know when Trump took office, it's that he is not a criminal of any sort--not if this is the best that 3 years of mean-spirited heresy-hunting could produce.

Just give it up, will you?

Re: Your Guide to Yesterday’s Impeachment Hearing For When You Hate Them All

Phil Weingart — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 10:40:34 -0000

Convenient and expected. Only the educated people who agree with you are REALLY well-educated.

Ho hum...

Re: More Attention Should be Paid to Elizabeth Warren’s Callous Church Shooting Answer

Phil Weingart — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 17:26:26 -0000

"Personally, I don’t understand gun rights advocates who are unwilling to engage the conversation about limiting the prevalence of guns in our culture."

Then let me make it clear for you. The "prevalence of guns" in the United States has nothing whatsoever to do with the problems of gun violence. The majority of gun violence is committed with weapons obtained illegally by gangs and criminals. The hundreds of millions of weapons owned legally by responsible citizens are virtually never used to commit crimes of any sort. We should all wish that hammers, ladders, and bathtubs would have the safety record of legally-owned firearms. And don't get me started on automobile ownership...

I'll engage the conversation that far, but no further. What's the point of discussing guns when the United States does not have a gun problem, it has a gang warfare problem? Let's talk about the things that will reduce the appeal of gangs to young men, like stable families, sexual continence, community churches, and school reform. That's what people would be talking about if they really wanted to reduce gun violence in the US.

Re: What We’ve Lost in Translation

Phil Weingart — Fri, 13 Dec 2019 15:03:57 -0000

Editors, PLEASE:

The article criticizes the New American Bible, a major Catholic translation sanctioned by the US College of Catholic Bishops.

The image with the article pictures the New American STANDARD Bible, a major Protestant translation produced by the Lockman Foundation, which is actually an excellent translation if a little dated.

Those are not the same thing. Editors, please make the correction.

Re: New Narrative: The FBI Made Mistakes, But Trump Is Corrupt

Phil Weingart — Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:52:02 -0000

Wow. The bigotry runs strong in this one.

There are objective studies of news bias. Fox is generally less biased to the right than major networks like ABC and NBC are biased to the left.

Moreover, one does not simply dismiss news sources because one does not like them; that commits the "genetic fallacy." If you want to dismiss a report, it's on you to demonstrate that the facts in that report are inaccurate.

You see, Scarlett Tarte, not everybody automatically rejects reports from their opponents out of hand, the way you do. Some of us actually care about truth. You would do well to learn from us.

Re: New Narrative: The FBI Made Mistakes, But Trump Is Corrupt

Phil Weingart — Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:43:45 -0000

Wow. Tag-team bigots, tossing accusations around without the slightest reason. No point in discussion, then. Have a great life, if that's possible when you're the sorts of malignancies that you appear to be.

Re: New Narrative: The FBI Made Mistakes, But Trump Is Corrupt

Phil Weingart — Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:36:16 -0000

He is limited by law in what he can say, but he does specify "predication and how the FBI case was opened."

Re: New Narrative: The FBI Made Mistakes, But Trump Is Corrupt

Phil Weingart — Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:35:05 -0000

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "what I want." It has to do with whether the conclusions appear to be sound, factual, and unbiased. I will accept their conclusion if it seems to be those things, I will not if it does not.

Re: New Narrative: The FBI Made Mistakes, But Trump Is Corrupt

Phil Weingart — Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:32:32 -0000

Why not cite Fox News or Breitbart? They're legal purveyors of news, and so far as any of us can tell, at least as accurate on the whole as CNN or MSNBC. We'll cite whomever we think is reporting the facts accurately, and it's on you to demonstrate that the particular report is inaccurate, using factual information rather than your irrational prejudices.