It does mean something, though - that the person who uses it to disparage those they don't like is a gibbering idiot frothing at the mouth. I find it a very useful term.

Burning wood is pretty good, isn't it? It's as close to load-following carbon neutral as one can have with such a low cost of implementation.

You should see how expensive it is to run diesel generators to produce the electricity, especially when you have to literally ship the diesel in first. Having a line back to the mainland also means the windfarm can sell excess production, and the islanders are free to buy energy from the mainland as well. Or you can just go with your gut and ignore what's actually happening. I'm sure that'll work out really well for you. Really well.

So much opinion, so few links! Amazing stuff. Nicely done.

That might be true, but to ignore how many have died or been displaced as a direct result of the invasion is slightly dishonest, surely...

It's nothing at all like that, which I'm sure you know deep down.

Are you sure you're not a blithering idiot? You just confused Islam with ISIS, or wrote such a confused post that you sure made it seem that way.

You seem to be confusing the Bible with a work of non-fiction. How quaint. Just because something claims to be divine in nature doesn't magically make it so. The rest of your post makes about as much sense as arguing about Spock.

It's "Cue", not "queue", unless you expect him to stand in a line waiting for something.

Jesus might have claimed that, but that means nothing. There is no solid evidence Jesus existed, and if there was, there is no solid evidence Jesus was not just a lunatic, or in any way different to the dozens of other self-professed prophets running around the middle east at that time. Please, get a grip. Your attempts to explain Jesus as a real person is like someone using a comic book to show how Spiderman must exist.

They can subjectively point to their history, as there is no supporting evidence that these conversations ever took place. No evidence at all. Conviction is not evidence.

No, it's perfectly pertinent. There is no objective difference between someone talking to God and someone talking to voices in their head they think are God. None.

Clerics who also ate food, so I guess we can skip the clerics part and just say the medical advances were due to food/trousers/surviving a Wednesday/etc.. Unless you can demonstrate how their religious teachings are directly responsible for the discoveries, you don't really have a point.

The scary thing is you actually believe that nonsense. Wow.

Or you could look at the multitude of places where there is strong competition in such markets, and see what they've been doing. How it's done in the vast majority of the US is pathetic.