Comments Posted By david
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 72 Comments

THE ANTI-REASON CONSERVATIVES

Have you really listened to Newt? Have you watched what he supports since leaving Congress? Newt is a liberal. He is for National Health in the form that of good old England. On most other issues, he is closer to the Dems than to the average conservative (I don't use Republican in that sense any more).

Michael, did you live during the Reagan years? Reagan was kept from implementing his agenda by a hostle congress. He submitted a work of art in the form of his tax cuts, but congress would not cut the spending, thus the deficit. He allowed this due to the economy. Since then we have had the Bush's and they are far from being conservative or very bright.

Comment Posted By David On 2.11.2009 @ 15:54

'SILENCE EQUALS ASSENT:' WHY POINTING OUT CONSERVATIVE LUNACY MUST BE DONE

2 things;

1) To 'John Burke' who is offended by the charge of racism, you're so right. I mean, just because some people who happen to be racist viciously attack the first black president doesn't mean their criticism is due to their racism. Got it. After all, racism disappeared on 1/20/09! Any assertion to the contrary is, well...racism!

2) And to all of those who are quaking in their boots because "Obama did away with Bush's missile shield," how can you manage to ignore the facts?

What facts? These;

Bush's missile shield was not even deployed

It was based on still experimental technology

It was not even scheduled to be deployed

It didn't even have a PROJECTED date for testing, let alone deployment

The Joint Chiefs had doubts that it would ever work

It was actually replaced in favor of a sea-based Aegis missile shield

The new shield, based on proven technology, will provide more coverage

The change was made on recommendation of the Joint Chiefs and Sec of Def

Per the military it will be more flexible thanks to being sea-based

It it favored by Israel because it provides better protection for them

Or maybe we just going to be a bunch of Glenn Becks and treat facts as optional!

Glenn Beck just claimed the Vancover Olympics lost a billion dollars when they were held. Even the White House has now pointed out that the Vancover Olypmics, THE 2010 VANCOVER OLYMPICS, haven't even happened yet.

Sheesh.

Comment Posted By David On 30.09.2009 @ 18:20

SHOULD NEWSPAPERS GO NON-PROFIT?

I find that most newspapers are the same. They simply move the AP reports to there own page and that is it. There are numerous issues in my town that could be addressed by the paper but they don't do it as they might offend a local official. As to political affiliation, they are all liberal and have never met a tax that the paper does not support.

Comment Posted By David On 21.09.2009 @ 14:29

WOULD SOMEONE ON THE LEFT PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME?

Admittedly, Van Jones was not qualified for this position. So be it. As has been noted, it's not the be-all, end-all of anything. Literally, anything.

But there's this thing called "actual journalism" and sometimes they write about stuff. Stuff like Van Jones. And it's not just a bunch of bilious idiots yelling, or rehashings of opinions about opinions about watered-down facts. It's more nuanced, and more reasonable.

No doubt, I will offer this article, and everyone will seize upon certain quotes and passages as evidence of why Van Jones was not qualified for the job. I repeat: he was not. But let's at least try to understand a little instead of knee-jerking ourselves completely out of the grey realm of subtlety and contradiction - such stuff as reality is made on.

If that's possible.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/12/090112fa_fact_kolbert?currentPage=1

Comment Posted By David On 8.09.2009 @ 10:05

MORE ON THE HONDURAN 'MILITARY IMPEACHMENT'

I am a left leaner and I applaud the government of Honduras!!!

Comment Posted By david On 3.07.2009 @ 14:06

THE CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR GAY MARRIAGE

The entire and only reason that gay's want to be allowed to marry is to make this form of association into a normal form of life. Marriage is normally defined as a lifelong commitment between a man and woman that is open to the procreation of human life. While it is true that some married couples don't want or have children it is not impossible for them to do so. There has never been children produced by two men, they are just not made that way, if two women who are gay want to have children one or both can but not as a result of their any sex act they have performed with each other. A man or his sperm has to be introduced. My point is that marriage was established by our Creator and is the first element of society. Granting a marriage to gays is just another step in societies slide to the bottom of the cess pool. The judges and law makers who approve this action have already reached that cess pool.

Comment Posted By david On 18.04.2009 @ 21:50

LOOKING BACK AT CPAC

Michael -

Sorry about the "snark" - one of my character defects is that I respond like that to (perceived) pretentiousness.

Thanks for the explication. In reality I'm more "OS-360" than Windows (that is, been watching this show for a very long time, and have heard the "ideology-free, pragmatism" bit many times before) and am so excited to be one of the "you guys" at last.

Comment Posted By David On 3.03.2009 @ 05:25

Michael -

Wonderful comment, looking forward to the rest of it where you tell us what we need to know about the new POTUS that you understand and we just don't get.

Comment Posted By David On 2.03.2009 @ 16:55

REFLECTIONS ON GOD, MAN, AND CPAC

Rick -

Keep asking these questions...we aren't faced with a binary choice. The alternative to Rush, Ann and Sean isn't necessarily caving in. There are no winners in a shouting match. Nothing in the conservative values that I hold require sarcasm, bad manners and an unwillingness to listen. There's a place for Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity, but there's also room for alternative voices and for dialog. I don't believe that Burke (or Kirk) would be remembered had their policy been to demonize and shout down everyone with whom they disagreed.

Comment Posted By David On 26.02.2009 @ 09:12

HAIL AND FAREWELL

"have less and less enthusiasm in “celebrating” birthdays"

Birthdays are good for you, the more of them you have, the longer you live. Celebrate them.

Comment Posted By David On 31.12.2008 @ 21:26


 


Next page »


Pages (8) : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


«« Back To Stats Page