Comments Posted By Chuck Tucson
Displaying 201 To 210 Of 536 Comments


I love you Bald Ninja. You win.

Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 14.05.2009 @ 22:33

Uh, because the entire thing is complete BS.

Please explain. Blanket logical fallacy doesn't count.

I love how Chuck I’m a Real Conservative See My ID Card from Tucson is just A-OK with a massive expansion of govt. power.

Yeah, well, eight years of massive expansion of government power and debt under the Republicans tends to numb you to that sort of thing.

Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 14.05.2009 @ 16:31

I see you have so much evidence to prove that social cons are science haters that you decided to attack my intelligence rather than provide the evidence.

What kind of evidence would you like? Can I just say Intelligent Design, and be done with it, or are you looking for specifics? Specifics like Bill Nye getting attacked in Texas for telling people that God didn't create a second light in the sky, it's just the moon, and the moon reflects sunlight. Seriously, what kind of evidence would convince you that Social Conservatives hate science? None, I'm guessing.

Some socials cons are young-earthers who don’t want the satan science taught to their children - ok, I agree they are out there and some of them are vocal. So what? Are most social cons this way? Who knows.

Some are more extreme than others, but Yes, most social conservatives are this way. It's pretty much the definition of Social Conservative. When a religious ideology is allowed to trump science, everyone loses. It's just that some people simply don't understand (or care) that they've lost.

But when liberals warp science (e.g., global warming) to push their agenda (strange how all the ’solutions’ to global warming fit well into the liberal ideology of how we can also solve every social ill) they don’t get labelled as anti-science. At least the satan-science-conservative is in clear opposition to certain disciplines of science - the liberals try to subvert and pervert it to meet their ends. You tell me which is more damaging to science in the long run?

So, you're giving me a choice between people who use scientific data to push their agenda, and people who oppose certain disciplines of science? I don't much like my choices, so I'll pick neither. Clearly though, opposition to science - you pick the discipline - is pathetic and counter productive.

But on that note, what is the liberal agenda? As far as I can tell, it is to make sure that the activities of human beings don't impact the earths climate in a way that would be detrimental towards humans both now and in the future. Obviously you perceive this to be a bad thing, but I'm at a loss to understand how.

Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 14.05.2009 @ 09:28

Bald Ninja

This is anecdotal evidence as well but it’s why I wonder why people equate social con with knuckle-dragging neanderthal.

Once you have a solid understanding of the scientific method - and an appreciation for it's application and results - it's not difficult to equate the two.

Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 13.05.2009 @ 09:04

As I tried to explain - but apparently went over your head -

Yeah, the piece was so deep that I had trouble understanding it. Or maybe I couldn't get past feeling that on the whole you were making excuses for conservatives in general, trying as hard as you could to make it seem like it's only the tiniest minority in your party who's anti science. The party base isn't exactly a minority.

Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 11.05.2009 @ 12:19

Rick said,

Conservatives are not anti-science - not by a long shot.

Depends on whether or not you include social conservatives.

As I tried to explain - but apparently went over your head - SOME conservatives are anti-science. Taken on a whole, the vast majority are not. And if you "include social conservatives" you have SOME conservatives who are anti science.



Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 11.05.2009 @ 11:25


Good stuff Rick. Lots to think about. Thanks.

Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 7.05.2009 @ 10:51


Rick said:

And btw - thousands of economists - about 2000 to be exact - disagree that Obama’s pumping trillions of dollars into the economy is the prescription for recovery.

So these economists don't subscribe to Keynesian Economic Theory. What then, do they say is the proper approach to dealing with the current nightmare?

Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 6.05.2009 @ 13:32


Gayle Miller said:

Most of the “helping” programs are set forth to perpetuate their poverty.

You know what Gayle, just because some people have found ways of gaming the system does not even come close to the conspiracy theory you're spewing.

So, what proof do you have of this? Is this some Democratic conspiracy to keep poor voters voting for them?

Public safety nets are a GOOD thing. They promote a larger, healthier middle class, despite some of the loopholes that exist.

Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 6.05.2009 @ 09:50


Travis Monitor said:

See a trend?

No Travis, I don't. All I see is you spreading FUD. For anyone who didn't feel like substantiating all of your sky is falling claims, here's an example of what Travis has done...

The EPA is about to impose dumb and draconian regulations on chemicals used in the $200 billion semiconductor industry that will drive it all overseas - bye bye US fabs, all gone to Taiwan.

Your alarmist tone makes it sound like death of the fabs is imminent. This is nonsense. What really happened is that the EPA issued a finding stating that chemicals used by the fabs could pose a health risk to the public.

What you failed to mention was that the EPA finding DID NOT INCLUDE ANY PROPOSED REGULATIONS. In fact, not only did you fail to mention it, you said the exact opposite. You also failed to mention that most manufacturers of fab tools use abatement systems. Pathetic. If you're going to spread bullshit, at least make it harder than one google search to prove you completely wrong.

Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 6.05.2009 @ 09:17

Powered by WordPress

« Previous Page

Next page »

Pages (54) : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

«« Back To Stats Page