Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

What's Wrong with Public Nudity?

Rightwheel Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 6:03 PM
So the disease is spread by spreading feces, not nudity per se, which is what i said. A clean nude person is not spreading feces simply by sitting. The argument from authority is NOT necessarily false. Or, if it is, then is everything you think about global warming, for example, false, because you only know what some authorities have said? Or are you personally a scholar on the matter? See what I mean?
In response to:

What's Wrong with Public Nudity?

Rightwheel Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 5:59 PM
Don't you know that if all you have to add to a conversation is grammatical criticism, it is considered netiquette to shut up?
In response to:

What's Wrong with Public Nudity?

Rightwheel Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 5:51 PM
The argument from authority is not fallacious, just derivative and therefor weak. Disease is not spread by nudity per se, public or otherwise.
Now there is a typically liberal response. Name-calling. Don't address the argument. Don't even address the subject of the article you are putatively commenting on. Just smear anyone who disagrees with your assertions (or finds them utterly risible).
You got that right. And we need to ask ourselves "why?" What are they covering up? Merely that Al Qaeda carries on without OBL? Does that scan for you? A four star general is suddenly relieved in the middle of an incident like this, apparently for disobeying a direct order (court martial stuff), which makes little sense, to abandon Americans to foreign enemies when he could have helped, which makes even less. Then we are told that said general will be retiring a year and a half sooner than a standard deployment in the particular billet would call for, and that this has been in the works for a while. I CALL BS.
Better go read your own citation a bit more closely. "KING: FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say do it on a case-by-case basis and some people who say, you know, maybe we're learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role. How do you deal with something like that?" "ROMNEY: Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that's even better." He said it was immoral to keep racking up debt. He did not say we should eliminate FEMA.
It may remind you of such, but it is of course nothing of the kind. My proof? Democrats have been unable to find and present one single person who has been disenfranchised by being unable to get an ID.
In response to:

Obama in Cahoots With Known Terrorists

Rightwheel Wrote: Oct 29, 2012 2:35 PM
Right here: http://townhall.com/columnists/frankgaffney/2012/10/25/the_real_reason_behind_benghazigate
Right. Because what happened obviously screams competence. The more facts emerge, the more incompetent the O team looks. In fact, it's beginning to look so bad that I, for one, am wondering whether it was not incompetence at all, but merely an entirely anti-American agenda being skillfully executed.
Sending military support might have exposed his gun-running operation to his Islamist buddies in Syria, which would have risked his re-election: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/22/the-real-reason-behind-benghazigate/
If abortion were a crime it would be defined as a crime in and of itself. It would not need to be defined as a form of another existing crime. "First degree murder" is a crime, and a charge, not a punishment. Presumably a legislature which defined abortion as a crime would also designate the punishment for that crime.
Previous 21 - 30 Next