Comments Posted By ThomasD
Displaying 1 To 7 Of 7 Comments


When you trash people who agree with you that the bill is bad you only look like an idiot.

Where did you ever get the impression I agree with you?

Why exaggerate? Why put out false information? Is what you accused Palin of doing. Yet the concerns are real. You are the one who has mis-characterized and exaggerated for the express purpose of trashing Palin. No surprise there.

But nice ad hominem finish. Bravo.

Comment Posted By ThomasD On 8.08.2009 @ 19:18

Are you talking about the now dead proposal for a Medicare commission to decide treatment options for diseases (not people)?

Who is the demagogue now?

Why would medicare be concerning itself with treating diseases unless they affect actual people? But then that would be equivalent to deciding treatment options for people now wouldn't it? And that approach could lead to government denial of care.

Which everyone knows could never happen, statist being known for always doing everything that is well and good for everyone who needs anything.

And just how do you know the issue is officially dead? It has been proposed once and can easily return again, just like every other aspect of the road to single payer. Do you have some special knowledge of exactly what will come to a vote and exactly what will be contained within the mountains of bureaucrat created regulations following enactment of any legislation?

Didn't think so.

So, are you really prepared to argue that fears over nationalized healthcare are unfounded and should not be used for the express political purpose of preventing those fears from ever coming to pass?

When you trash people who agree with you that the bill is bad you only look like an idiot.


Comment Posted By ThomasD On 8.08.2009 @ 18:35


People: a party or a movement built around Limbaugh or Beck is not viable.

Cute strawman you got there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it.

You, by chance wouldn't happen to have any links or cites to ANYONE who has called for Limbaugh or Beck to be anointed the center of the movement would you?

Comment Posted By ThomasD On 8.04.2009 @ 12:37

Who DO you think speaks credibly for Republicans or conservatives? Why?

Most importantly what is that they say that makes them credible representatives of republicans or conservatives?

Comment Posted By ThomasD On 8.04.2009 @ 11:49

...all are serious and undermine our liberties and the free market but are so far from “totalitarianism” as to not be believable.

Frighteningly wrong, or at least ill informed. Totalitarianism has been morphed by the left to mean dictatorship. it specifies nothing of the sort. Totalitarianism, as originally defined, refers to a system whereby the state regulates and controls every significant aspect of life.

The totalitarian state may take any number of forms but at its heart it must not have a government of well defined limits.

Every time the government becomes the solution to any given problem we take one step further down the road of totalitarianism. Every tme we sidestep the limitation of the Constitution we take another step further down the road of totalitarianism.

Barack Obama has yet to encounter a problem, or describe a situation that does not call for additional government intervention. Nor has he taken any steps to reduce government infuence on any part of our society.

Others may call it the road to serfdom, either way it is the same destination.

Comment Posted By ThomasD On 8.04.2009 @ 11:42


Just because someone wizzed in your cornflakes you feel it necessary to follow suit on those who are actually attempting to do something constructive?

Oh, that's right, you blog.

Comment Posted By ThomasD On 1.03.2009 @ 05:53


Although I would have preferred a sentence of death your commentary is well reasoned and there is nothing I would disagree with. To that extent I have no reason to criticize the verdict.

I do criticize the venue. Applying the criminal law process to the act of AQ, or other non-state entities is inappropriate and gives the NYT justification for precisely what they argue as regards the Gitmo detainees. These are not ordinary criminals, and as such are deserving of no such protections as afforded by the criminal justice system.

Comment Posted By ThomasD On 4.05.2006 @ 16:29



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page