1 - 10 Next
:D Sheila Jackson Lee, one of the bright bulbs of officialdom.
You miss the point, Andy. When Pope Benedict quoted a 12th century Muslim he was castigated widely by the press, Muslim groups and the left. There's no fairness, no rationality, in the popular sphere.
Interesting comment, which only illustrates the problem. Leftists have assumed the authority to make the determination whether something is racist or not. Merely meeting the dictionary definition of racism is not sufficient for the likes of MSNBC, the New York Times, Holder and Obama, and a host of others including Steve of CA. And yet they'll scream bloody murder about an observation of fact by Rush Limbaugh or his like just because it seems to remotely echo some outdated stereotype leftover from the sixties. And like Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy can get away with saying "...he'd have been getting us coffee." But if Paul Ryan makes a sincere effort to suggest policy changes that would help poor, minority populations by getting them to see the value of marriage, education, work, saving money, etc., he's accused by the Democrat brain trust of being "animated by racism." Are you being deliberately obtuse, Steve? Or do you actually disagree with Hawkins?
In response to:

Chicken Little 'Science'

Kenneth L. Wrote: Apr 18, 2014 10:23 AM
By the way, just a reminder for you chicken little guys: Bjorn Lomborg is (or at least claims to be) a believer that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing warming of the climate. He just argues for rigorous evaluation of policy proposals and prioritization of action which will consume resources that could be used for more immediate needs.
In response to:

Chicken Little 'Science'

Kenneth L. Wrote: Apr 18, 2014 10:03 AM
"When did I say that?" asks Steve of CA. I said that! Have you read Bjorn Lomborg, Steve? Do you even pretend to be rational? What do you think the degree of certainty is? Even IPCC said 90% some years ago--I'm not sure what they say now, but in broad strokes their latest report is less certain and less dire. Have you read about it? The point is, you argue that 100% of the climate alarmist's policy proposals are the only way to go, and that anybody who says "hey, slow down a little. Let technology evolve, let developing economies catch up, etc." is a "denier." I say your statement earlier about skepticism is completely unbalanced. In addition to all the incremental questions about timing and absoluteness of acceptable policy proposals there is a whole other possibility of adaptation that the alarmists refuse completely to even consider. What do you think about that possibility?
In response to:

Chicken Little 'Science'

Kenneth L. Wrote: Apr 17, 2014 6:19 PM
Okay, ScienceAvenger, Michael Hillinger, Steve of CA, I'm calling you out. You guys are saying that regardless of the science you are comfortable inflicting poverty, hunger, and disease on developing populations based on a certitude of what? 90%? 80%? And this is your position regardless of how great or small the risk of inaction might be? In other words, you embrace the "all in" alarmist policy proposals regardless of any degree of uncertainty in the science. And you reject any thought that change might be inevitable, and that adaptation might be possible. Good for you! You're not very rational, in my humble opinion. But at least you're clear about your radical ideology.
In response to:

Chicken Little 'Science'

Kenneth L. Wrote: Apr 17, 2014 8:35 AM
"Skepticism is healthy, but it goes both ways." Steve, you're a puzzle. You and a handful of contrarians intrigue me because at the same time you exhibit some intelligence you seem to be missing the "logic" gene. Thomas cites the same thing Bjorn Lomborg and a host of others cite: evidence that the alarmists may not be 100% correct. Nobody disputes the basic facts: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, humans are emitting a lot of CO2, etc. But the leap from there to cap-and-trade, or immature "green" energy sources, or trading hunger and disease for a reduction in CO2 emissions... All these progressive proposals are nearly impossible to justify with the evidence at this point. So the alarmists insist on 100% of their agenda and the skeptics suggest that we should go slow, maybe wait until things become clearer, or until technology evolves further. And you suggest this doesn't go "both ways"? Explain yourself if you would. I'm serious. I can't follow your reasoning.
Thank you, Ms. Wright.
In response to:

Old Media Curses the Wind

Kenneth L. Wrote: Apr 13, 2014 9:49 AM
Even though the "Bush" tax cuts passed by Congress reduced rates at every level, and raised the total amount at the bottom totally exempt from taxation, the cuts became known as "tax cuts for the rich." When Katie Couric used this political appellation in her "reporting" I wrote to NBC to complain. I never even received the courtesy of a reply. When the New York Times became so infamous for its bias that they had to respond to public outrage by naming a "public editor," or ombudsman, I used that communication channel to complain about some of their most outrageous examples of left-wing bias. Again, I never had even the courtesy of a response. These groups are so deeply infected with the bias of their academic background, and so insulated from the "real" world of business, and even government, that they never overcome their sophomoric certainty in the philosophy of their sainted philosopher-king: John Lennon.
ericynot1 Wrote: "Joycey, you'll recall that the only president to reduce the size of the federal government in that last 60 years was Bill Clinton." This is a little off the point, but illustrative of a very key point about facts: read Dan Mitchell in the Wall Street Journal today about how Clinton increased the size of government by 3.5% per year. And Mitchell himself makes the point that Clinton presided over a budget deficit. But the budget deficit is obviously based on a technicality, also, since the national debt increased every year of the Clinton presidency. ericynot1, you should be more familiar with the whole story before you repeat some tired, old political talking point. We need to get beyond the beltway-speak and talk real dollars as opposed to base-line budget dollars. The government is eating our lunch. Great column, Ms. Parker. I love your analogy to commercial advertising. You are exactly right. What the government is doing is not reducing corruption by one iota. Corruption will happen through some means, and Soyndra and its ilk will prosper. What the government is actually doing is imposing a monopoly on political speech.
1 - 10 Next