Comments Posted By cranston
Displaying 1 To 6 Of 6 Comments
WHAT DO WE OWE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES?
I am surprised that you think that the intentions and principles of the Founders have any relevance. Surely they could not have anticipated the problems of our time which can only be addressed with, among other things, a living and breathing public employment policy.
Comment Posted By cranston On 24.02.2010 @ 05:42
IT'S STILL A GOOD IDEA TO REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS
'What’s different today is that the oceans are acting like a carbon sink, absorbing up to 70% of man made emissions'
That IS different!
So just when did the laws of physics and chemistry change?
Comment Posted By cranston On 29.11.2009 @ 12:15
DumbOkie -
Comment Posted By cranston On 15.08.2009 @ 06:45
Welcome to the club. See Rick's response to my comment 32 on the slippery slope post.
Having presented an uninformed 'opinion' he will never be dissuaded from presenting it ever more forcefully, again and again.
His response to you seems typical. The strawberries - that's where he's got you. He has made his case with geometric logic; his reasoning is irrefutable. He has already steamed over his own tow line and now has left a big Yellow Stain in his reply to you. What next?
THE LOGICAL FALLACY OF SOME SLIPPERY SLOPE REFORM ARGUMENTS
Rick -
Please address an actual argument, e.g. this:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/08/no-american-can-ever-say-they-didnt.html
Despite your efforts it is just not possible to come to a reasonable opinion with only a superficial knowledge of the facts.
There is no mandate for seniors to receive this counseling. None. Zero. Zilch. You can't find it. You can't spin it. You can't twist it. It's just not there. Hence, you start with a bogus premise - seniors will be forced to attend end of life counseling sessions every five years - and take off on a flight of fancy that posits all sorts of dire things that government could do or might do, but for which you have absolutely no evidence that they will do.
Extrapolating outcomes from facts not in evidence (except in the fevered, overwrought imaginations of some) is not a valid slippery slope argument. It is a logical fallacy - light on the logic - and contributes nothing but fear mongering to the debate.
ed.
Comment Posted By cranston On 12.08.2009 @ 04:08
PALIN'S OUTRAGEOUS DEMAGOGUERY: WHY NOT? EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT.
Rick -
I just read your comment at legal insurrection and would again urge you (and everyone else) to read:
Comment Posted By cranston On 9.08.2009 @ 09:15
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/08/no-american-can-ever-say-they-didnt.html; this will tell you much about the bill, who wrote it, and what it means.
I would urge everyone to read this post on the aspects of the House bill (and its' proponents and their histories) discussed above:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/08/no-american-can-ever-say-they-didnt.html
I can not recommend this site strongly enough.
Comment Posted By cranston On 9.08.2009 @ 00:39
