Previous 21 - 30 Next
You may be right. But what TH.com should realize is that he's an intellectual midget. This column is absurd, hurts the cause, and lowers him to the level of Sandra Fluke.
Grrrr. Emotions run high. Sorry for the typo. I meant "This column...", not "This comment..."
Good comments! I almost have nothing to add, but can't resist adding my vote. This comment is extremely destructive of the cause of common sense, and reflects what Derek Hunter today calls "intellectual dishonesty." The issue is NOT about contraception, you pretend libertarian! It's about a government mandate. Can you understand that? Do you think Quakers should be mandated to fight in a shooting war, and kill people? You are truly an idiot, Chapman. I've lost the ability to even be polite to you.
The government has become a monolith. Politicians and employees get too cozy and protect each other. Pension plans are one of the symptoms, and are taking down California after taking down Detroit. Generation after generation of politicians have failed to do the simple thing: fund them according to precise pension actuary's projections. Then, with no individual at whom to point a finger of blame, the pension funds fail, to no one's surprise. The IRS targeting is very concerning. It's too easy to call it a Democrat scandal, possibly initiated by Obama himself. We wonder why the IRS officials visited the White House so many times. But I'm afraid that what it really betrays is a prejudice among government employees in favor of more, not less, government. It gives us a glimpse of the unholy alliance of politicians and bureaucrats protecting their jobs. It's a natural impulse, understandable. But it has reached a scale that actually threatens our economic well-being, and it needs to be stopped. Those mocking the TEA Party should realize that we are indeed "taxed enough already." We must put some protections in place immediately or we will simply collapse into hyper-inflation, shortages of essentials, and violence. It's not a question of if this will happen, just when. If some of our media brain trust don't wake up to this reality soon, we really are doomed within a generation or two. How much larger can we allow our national debt to grow?
In response to:

Intellectual Dishonesty

Kenneth L. Wrote: Mar 27, 2014 6:58 AM
"Intellectual dishonesty"? What's that? I never learned nothing about that in skool!
JayBug, this is an unproductive avenue. Steve of CA is wrong to imply that because Cheney said it it should be okay for Miller, and I agree with you that it's no different when Cheney says it, regardless of the circumstances. This is equivalent to telling Mom that it's okay to hit your sister because your little brother did it and wasn't punished.
He's a Rhode Island pol. To say he's a Democrat would be redundant.
In response to:

Bizarre Arguments and Behavior

Kenneth L. Wrote: Mar 26, 2014 4:10 PM
"we" equals "EPA" Sorry for use of the first person plural voice. I was feeling preachy, I guess. Or punch drunk. It's just so frustrating to have to start over on each issue to explain rules of evidence, logic, scientific method, etc., and to attempt, almost always to no avail, to get people to grasp even a glimmer of why they are on a slippery slope accepting the political "pure BS" that is offered as "settled science."
In response to:

Bizarre Arguments and Behavior

Kenneth L. Wrote: Mar 26, 2014 9:52 AM
"...to reach its secondhand smoke conclusions, the Environmental Protection Agency employed statistical techniques that were grossly dishonest. ...I ask[ed] a Food and Drug Administration official whether his agency would accept pharmaceutical companies using similar statistical techniques in their drug approval procedures. He just looked at me." And now we accept a computer model telling us within a degree or two how much the global average temperature will change in a century, even as the model is being continuously tweaked and lack of predicted rises explained. Ah, we humans are a strange animal. We're given wonderful reasoning and communication skills and simply refuse to use them.
In response to:

Republicans and Blacks

Kenneth L. Wrote: Mar 26, 2014 9:40 AM
As should everyone else, of course.
In response to:

Republicans and Blacks

Kenneth L. Wrote: Mar 26, 2014 9:39 AM
There is a context for Dr. Sowell's comments. Anybody who suggests, as a couple of commenters have earlier, that Sowell is either condescending to blacks or adopting a Balkanized view of the electorate is not reading him correctly. Blacks have suffered grievous harm at the hands of Democrats and their perverse policies which discourage marriage, work, saving money, disciplining children, etc., and they desperately need quality education. Dr. Sowell wrote a great series of columns entitled "Can Republicans Talk?" Anyone who questions his meaning today should go back and read those columns. He is simply pleading for an articulate Republican to make an obvious case that blacks should vote for Republicans.
Previous 21 - 30 Next