1 - 10 Next
Not to cavil (I completely agree that Ms. Jackson Lee sounds remarkably brainless), but it was some other dim bulb who made that claim about Guam. A man, as I recall, and I think he was from Georgia.
'doesn't make it one' --typing too fast again...
It's an analogy, daishi55--do you really not see that? It's like the one attributed to ...was it Lincoln?...to the effect that even if you call a tail a leg, a horse still doesn't have five legs, because calling a tail a leg make it one. A name doesn't change reality. Recognition of the fact that what you or I or anyone else calls the fetus or unborn child is fundamentally immaterial--i.e., it is what it is, regardless of what we term it--could in fact affect the debate. Few women could easily bring themselves to destroy an individual, living, growing human being if that were the reality they accepted.
Yes, indeed--many thoughtful conservatives reject simplistic slogans and formulations, and I'd like to think that thoughtful liberals do the same (though you wouldn't necessarily know it from the bumper stickers on the cars parked in the university lot near my office). That said, some things ARE simple, and cloaking them in convoluted language is just obscurantist. Serious discussants need to strive for something in between.
Not to be a nitpicker, but it should be 'propter hoc' rather than 'prompter hoc.'
Question for all you regulars here: is 'Loyal Democrat' a satirist? I would have assumed that, but many of you are reacting to the post as though you thought LD's comments were made in earnest. Maybe I'm missing something.
Message to Mr. Romney: read this column! Please! You can inject some of the relevant points, if you're on your toes, even if Lehrer doesn't give you the most propitious openings. Hit the transparency claims and failures, early and often. Even people who agree with the president's policies might be put off --as they should--by his style of implementing these policies.
In response to:

The Fallacy of Redistribution

E from Michigan Wrote: Sep 21, 2012 11:41 AM
, which you've termed 'redistribution,' and a transaction in which the government takes tax dollars from people who have earned the money and gives them (in the form of welfare) to people who haven't provided any good or service--either to the person whose tax dollars the government gave them or to the government itself (or possibly to anyone or anything at all)? I believe that this may be the part you missed. Not that all welfare goes to spongers, of course, but you take the point (I hope).
In response to:

The Fallacy of Redistribution

E from Michigan Wrote: Sep 21, 2012 11:37 AM
It seems that you're deliberately failing to take into account the economic activity behind that transaction. If I buy the lemonade for, say, a dollar, I have one dollar fewer than I had, but I have a product that I wished to acquire. The making and selling of that lemonade involved the purchase of supplies, which the seller presumably bought from suppliers using dollars that the seller had earned from prior sales, thereby enriching the lemon or sugar producer, or whatever. The seller then added value via his or her labor and produced a product. I purchased it with a dollar that I had earned by providing some good or service to someone else who wanted to acquire it. Do you see the difference between that transaction...continued...
In response to:

The Media's Rape of Reality

E from Michigan Wrote: Sep 16, 2012 2:30 PM
Another flag. Now go away.
1 - 10 Next