Comments Posted By Travis Monitor
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 175 Comments
"It’s mostly because the average follower of the party isn’t much smarter than your average Bassett Hound, and a little less gentle."
If Liberals have one ability, it's the ability to actually be the intellectual inferior of conservative while believing the opposite.
They are also very good at projecting flaws they possess onto the GOP and conservatives.
But most importantly, this arrogant attitude towards fellow citizens is one shared by the Democrat party leaders in DC. It's a fatal flaw that is about to destroy the Democrat party in a way that it hasnt seen in a long time. The Titanic is going down.
#5 is the only sensible comment in this whole thread. The straw poll means squat.
Comment Posted By Travis Monitor On 21.02.2010 @ 20:38
IS OBAMA BEING PRUDENT OR IS HE INCOMPETENT?
"Travis: The purpose of terrorism is to cause terror."
I do not fear terrorists, but civilization must defeat the thugs and murderers who engage in it.
"So tell me, which political party is feverishly magnifying the terror for its own political ends?"
The party of Jimmy Carter and the party which wants to release Gitmo terrorists to places like Yemen (some to kill again), that's who. They 'feverishly' work on trying to 'understand' these thugs, worry about 'over-reacting', insist there is no Jihad, claim the USA is to blame, cluelessly and incompetently giving thuggish terrorism a greater platform and more power.
"There is a symbiosis between Al Qaeda and people like you. They want fear, and you want fear."
You are an idiot and a liar. I want AQ destroyed, ground into dust and left as a footnote in history so we can move on to other better concerns. I want my kids growing up in a safer world. If Dems can figure out how to win the GWOT better than Obama's incompetent freshman year in office, they'll have my kudos on it.
Your character assassinations are wildly off-target and are about as assinine as claiming that Churchill 'needed' Hitler because Churchill recognized the threat Hitler posed. Lay off that dumb/defamatory ad hominem and move on.
Comment Posted By Travis Monitor On 1.01.2010 @ 17:21
MR: "The difference in approach between conservatives and liberals lies in the fact that you guys need the terrorists. "
Liar.
The difference in approach between conservatives and liberals lies in the fact that conservatives see terrorists as the enemy, and the liberals see conservatives as the enemy.
It is telling that this administration stoops to catfights with critics and gives harsher words towards a former Vice President of the US than towards leaders of rogue nations.
Comment Posted By Travis Monitor On 1.01.2010 @ 10:39
WARMIST ADVOCATES REFUSE TO DIFFERNIATE BETWEEN 'DENIERS' AND 'SKEPTICS'
I just tonight called McIntyre's Climate Audit the "Blog of the Decade"
on the basis of his dogged ability to correct multiple errors and audit the work of the climate science community:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-audit-blog-of-decade.html
ClimateGate has vindicated McIntyre, as all the behaviors he claimed were happening, data hiding, data massaging, were indeed going on behind the scenes.And #2, internal CRU emails tell a more honest assessment of how much McIntyre exposed them and forced them to correct their work:
Comment Posted By Travis Monitor On 7.12.2009 @ 00:01
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1029&filename=1254345329.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1032
HADLEY EMAILS DON'T 'PROVE' GLOBAL WARMING A CROCK
There appear to be many leading advocates for the AGW theory involved in this email controversy. But positing a “global conspiracy” is a stretch. The reason is that the AGW scientific community is just too diverse, too spread out over too many scientific disciplines for such a conspiracy to take root.
Not quite. The "lead authors" on the IPCC are a pretty small group of folks and they are all tied in with this 'cabal' of climate scientists. They deliberately shunned and ignored the science they didn't like (Lindzen of MIT, for example). One of the mistakes is to assume that because you have hundreds of folks involved in IPCC that its a perfect democracy. NOPE. Some of the emails are showing how the lead IPCC author put his own work to showcase and ignored some other work, and a reviewer was noting it, but got ignored. Skeptics have long complained of how they get shut out of the IPCC process ... IT'S A CLEAR CASE OF GROUPTHINK. Lack of transparency plus hidden agendas equals opportunity for a small group to queer the outcome in the way they want.
Comment Posted By Travis Monitor On 21.11.2009 @ 23:29
What a troll. What a dishonest mountebank. I challenged you to produce evidence that I equated global warming deniers with holocaust deniers and you drop the “holocaust” part and try and make a case for me using simply “denier” instead?
Yes, that guy is a troll, but it is also the case that the term 'denier' has been used by global warming alarmists as a slur against skeptics - one of those 'assume the conclusion' things. And of course the climate is changing, and has - naturally - for earth's entire history. the Global Warming Skeptic Bob Carter of Australia is familiar with paleo-climate and uses some facts from that to debunk some of the AGW theory fears.
Comment Posted By Travis Monitor On 21.11.2009 @ 23:25
Advice: Omit needless words.
You could have in a single paragraph dispensed with the strawman that this 'disproves global warming'. Then you could save the other paragraphs for what it does prove:It proves that acts of disinformation, data fudging, manipulation of peer review process, political skullduggery, and a rabid fear of critics of their 'science' was and is at work among the Hockey Stick / IPCC team scientists. Many of these acts goes beyond mere bad science to unethical and perhaps even illegal attempts to evade FOI requirements. This greatly undermines the credibility of those who claim 'the science is settled' and 'you can trust the IPCC'. No it isn't and no we can't. The Trust is shattered.
Comment Posted By Travis Monitor On 21.11.2009 @ 23:19
#25: "Personally I would rather spend my tax dollars on the 100 billion a year to help the uninsured"
You are more than welcome to spend your personal funds as you personally wish.
Public spending accounts for between 45% and 56.1% of U.S. health care spending... so the Government already spends something over a trillion a year. So you are wanting to reduce it by 90%? or raise the ante?
Why not just means-test Medicare and you can add coverage for those 'in need' without raising Govt overall spending at all?
Comment Posted By Travis Monitor On 14.11.2009 @ 15:05
"You don’t understand this issue, Rick. Which is why you talk in vague abstractions and offer ideological pabulum."
ROFL ... That's the critique that should be lobbed at OBAMA.
The President has yet to honestly and directly address the concrete and real issues relating to government-run healthcare. All he offers is pablum, platitudes and patronizing feelgoodism.
Comment Posted By Travis Monitor On 14.11.2009 @ 14:47
Doesn’t the government control nearly half of the medical
Mt Reynolds, #24:Your sophistry is noted and does not surprise.
Government malfeasance can and will in a number of ways lead to the situations you describe. Socialism has historically caused poverty and misery. Whether its a US version of NHS denying life-saving care to kids (as has happened in UK) via 'care by postal code' or whether Obama's economic malfeasance/mistakes will lead to hard luck cases for people, the fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge the downside and limits to Government action suggests you are incapable of an honest discussion on this matter.
It is sophistry, and you know it, to assume that opposition to ObamaCare and other dreadful socialist schemes is solely motivated by insufficient concern for those in need.
I show my own concern by supporting private charity, and I suspect I may give more than you to charity. My concern is not lessened simply because I dont agree with wrecking the economy and the federal budget with over-reaching socialist schemes. These schemes hurt more than they help. It's interesting, yet not surprising, that liberals want to play the moral superiority game with other people's money, but not put their own money where their mouth is (surveys have shown that conservatives give more to charity than liberals).
Mr Reynolds, do you find it acceptable that conservatives give more to charity than liberals, and that liberals are less charitable than other Americans?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
"People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition. "
Comment Posted By Travis Monitor On 14.11.2009 @ 14:44
