Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

We Live in a World of Lies

hvogel Wrote: Dec 03, 2013 7:15 AM
No, we do not need hate crime laws. It doesn't matter WHY Matthew Shepard was murdered, it matters that he WAS murdered. Conviction should always be based on nothing more than the facts of the case. The time to consider the killer's frame of mind and other non-factual evidence is during sentencing. While "hate crime" is the terminology used by those who support hate crime laws, "thought crime" is a more accurate description. If I am robbed and beaten and a gay man is robbed and beaten, the fact is that we were both robbed and beaten. The only possible difference in prosecution of those responsible is what was running through the mind of the criminal at the time of the crime. The criminal who robbed and assaulted me will only be charged with those crimes. The criminal who did the same to the gay man will also face the possible addition of "thought crime" to his list of crimes. And, seriously, do you want the government to have the power to charge you with bad think thought crimes? I don't.
The primary temperature driver on Venus is atmospheric pressure, which is vastly higher than it is on Earth. It's the same principle behind the pressure cooker someone would use to cook dinner -- higher pressure means higher temperatures.
In response to:

Health Care for the Pushy

hvogel Wrote: Nov 07, 2013 7:06 AM
Tsk. Pay better attention to your grammar! It's "we'uns" not "us'ns." What are they teaching in the schools today?
In response to:

Congressionally Duped Americans

hvogel Wrote: Nov 06, 2013 8:58 AM
Of course you couldn't be bothered to actually follow the links Dr. Williams provided in the column. How fortunate for you that I was willing to do this for you. For example, here are the first few sentences from the link near the end of page 1 of the column: "The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years." Notice the sentence which begins "But like all federal entitlement programs..." Did you notice the word "entitlement" in there? Want to take a wild guess what site that quote came from? Tell you what, I'll make it even easier and give you the entire link: http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html Of course, we all know that ssa.gov is just a Fox News website. Wait, it isn't? It's the actual website owned and administered by the Social Security Administration? And the SSA called Social Security an entitlement program? Dang, so much for your claim that "It's not an entitlement..." And that earlier link showing how the SSA initially declared the checks would come to you "as a right" is, amazingly enough, also from that horrible, right-wing site ssa.gov. Full link: http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssb36.html So while you are right that Dr. Williams "didn't quote whole paragraphs" he did provide links directly to the pages from which he was quoting. That's not a lie. That's providing you with all the information you need to verify his quote. As for your claim that he "never sourced his [quotes] accurately" (I assume that's what you mean), it's obvious that Dr. Williams not only sourced accurately, he sourced from the official website of the Social Security Administration. You know, the people in charge of the whole ENTITLEMENT program. While there are plenty of people lying here -- and I'll admit I don't know if you're lying or are just incredibly, willfully ignorant -- Dr. Williams is not one of them.
In response to:

The White House Fable Factory

hvogel Wrote: Nov 06, 2013 8:30 AM
Conservatives are evil and mean, so everything they do is wrong. Liberals are good and kind, so everything they do is right. Duh! (For the sarcasm challenged, this is most definitely sarcasm.)
In response to:

An Old 'New' Program

hvogel Wrote: Nov 05, 2013 7:54 AM
I would suggest one small change to this column. At the beginning Dr. Sowell refers to "old wine in new bottles." Unfortunately, old wine is usually considered to be better than new wine so this metaphor doesn't really work for the point Dr. Sowell is trying to make. I doubt the column will be rewritten, but if it is I'd suggest changing "old wine in new bottles" to "old milk in new bottles." After all, milk goes sour pretty quickly, sort of like even Obamacare supporters are souring on the program now that they're being forced to see reality instead of the dream world they usually live in.
In response to:

Is There a Way Out?

hvogel Wrote: Oct 30, 2013 8:12 AM
Folks, this post is satire. It's really good satire, but it's satire none-the-less.
In response to:

A Return to Keynes?

hvogel Wrote: Oct 15, 2013 7:20 AM
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with economic policies or unemployment. This is why arguing with liberals is such a pain. They ignore the facts presented and try to draw their opponents into a chase down some completely unassociated rabbit hole.
In response to:

Zombie Liberals Strike Back!

hvogel Wrote: Oct 14, 2013 8:20 AM
Eclectic definition 1 - selecting or choosing from various sources. That means conservatives gather information from many sources and draw their conclusions from them. That's a level of curiosity your average dailyKos or NY Times reader doesn't have. Eclectic definition 3 - not following any one system, as of philosophy, medicine, etc., but selecting and using what are considered the best elements of all systems. True conservatives don't tie themselves to ideology. They have no problem expressing dissatisfaction with Republicans when Republican ideology trumps common sense. Again, that's a level of conscience and thoughtfulness I rarely see among liberals (particularly ones who post on conservative sites). As for adopting "liberal" ideas, classical liberal ideas are the BASIS for what is now called conservatism. Classical liberal ideas revolve around individual rights and individual freedom. Classical liberal ideas are complete anathema to today's "liberals" and "progressives." It has fallen to conservatives to attempt to conserve the ideas which form the foundation for classical liberal though and which formed the foundation for the United States. Today's conservative would have been quite the liberal back in 1776. What a pity today's liberals have forgotten their heritage.
In response to:

Eeewww: AmyCare for U.S. Senate?

hvogel Wrote: Oct 14, 2013 7:27 AM
And flagged again.
In response to:

Eeewww: AmyCare for U.S. Senate?

hvogel Wrote: Oct 14, 2013 7:26 AM
This is SPAM, not a comment. Flagged.
Previous 21 - 30 Next