Comments Posted By David R. Block
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 20 Comments


So they are staying true to form since the campaign started. At least they're consistent.

Consistently and transparently BIASED, that is. And they wonder why their evening news ratings have been going through the floor, oh, since Reynolds, Huntley/Brinkley, and Chronkite. Just when you can't believe that they've hit a new low, they hit another one.

Comment Posted By David R. Block On 16.06.2009 @ 13:47


Ed--Yes, a little dig. Being of German ancestry gets one a little sensitive to the issue, even if the relatives all came over between 1876-1900. Naturally referring to those more conservative than yourself. I really don't think that anyone goes around deliberately calling his/her self a Nazi.

Far too much credit for subtlety? Thought it was all about the nuance. Sorry.

#34-It's BLOCK, not BLACK, but that's just a minor annoyance. Put up with it all through elementary school. I guess that they could not read my mother's writing on the registration papers.

I really have a hard time with that, since there are some problems with the data in the original premise.

NASA's James Hansen's methodology and data have been frequently called into question, and he has been forced to make revisions with the result that the warmest year was back in the 1930s, not 1998 as previously advertised. I don't really want to copy and paste 245,000 links from Google into Rick's comments (you're welcome, Rick), but the point is, I think that multiple AGW voices have shrieked "WOLF" for so long (like since the data from 1998 was in), that I simply do not trust them any more.

That happens when AGW religion overrides science.

Comment Posted By David R. Block On 20.05.2009 @ 16:00

A few of the high points from where I sit. Which is somewhere in Texas.

Remove the gay marriage and abortion issues from the table, and you will have some defectors. The Constitution Party awaits, and they may finally get enough support to land on the ballot here. Will these defectors be more than what is lost by having those positions out there? I don't know.

Sorry, I apparently also support the smaller government that no one can define, except for repeated calls to dismantle the Department of Education and send the money to the state and local governments, where the people actually are that care about the education of their children. I'm also for the repeal of the Patriot Act, and, after the Homeland security SNAFUs on that "right-wing extremists" memo, I'm not real fond of them, either (hey, Homeland Security, the WTC attack wasn't done by a bunch of backwoods hicks with too many rifles and too much time on their hands).

Abortion and same sex marriage should be left to the states. There is hope for the latter, and no hope for the former, although the number of "dead enders" on abortion is great.

Some atheist Republicans have called for the expulsion of the religious from the Republican party. Do that, and the Constitution Party will gladly take them in.

And thinking about issues is not "verboten." (Nice German tie in, trying to associate conservates with Nazis, Rick? That's real low. Subtle. Nuance. Thanks for preemptively "Godwining" the post.) I've seen the Global Warming religionist sites and the skeptics sites and the skeptics have approached things with more reason than the "We're all gonna die!!!" alarmists.

So no more domestic energy production from this administration, higher fuel mileage standards and lighter less-safe cars. It seems that this administration is trying to destroy the country.

What would Obama do differently if he REALLY WAS trying to destroy the country?

And thinking about issues is not “verboten.” (Nice German tie in, trying to associate conservates with Nazis, Rick? That’s real low. Subtle. Nuance. Thanks for preemptively “Godwining” the post.)

That's pretty good. I never thought of it, of course. But then you can point that out and get your little dig in. The only problem is you think I'm calling myself a Nazi? Or those more conservative than me? You give me far too much credit for subtlty.


Comment Posted By David R. Block On 19.05.2009 @ 09:45


Moderate. What does that really mean? Arlen Specter? Probably not, he goes whereever the wind blows at the moment. I don't really think that he has any principles beyond keeping his butt in office.

Arnold? Again, I'm not sure what principles he can be said to have judging by what has unfolded in California. He seems to lack the clout to get most anything through the California legislature, whatever principles he may have.

So, in a way, I echo #21. "Moderate" is slippery. I would disagree that Obama always sounds reasonable. The bailout of the UAW, I mean Chrysler, isn't moderate. It goes against years of bankruptcy law in theory and in practice. Bondholders always came first, and stockholders always came last. Employees were somewhere in the middle. Except that the UAW is a lock-stock-and-barrel Democratic Party constituency and they are obviously getting special treatment. This should be unconstitutional and almost RICO actionable. Demonization of AIG and the bond holders of Chrysler means that I want no part of helping Chrysler.

The UAW now has a stake in saving Chrysler, and will probably have a stake in saving GM. In so doing, they will also have a stake in screwing over Ford. Which I expect them to do with the help of this corrupt administration.

Comment Posted By David R. Block On 6.05.2009 @ 15:28


You will miss it only if they give you a chance to miss it. The disciples of The One will be sure to blame all problems on the evil Bush. Surely you know that, Rick.

Comment Posted By David R. Block On 20.01.2009 @ 13:26


I will admit it, I came from PW.

The problem noted in 45 concerning 33 dreading the "prophecy" of 32 is kind of a major FAIL, in that 32 did not mention religion, the religious right, God, etc, and 33 did. So whatever purge is proposed, it is not automatic to assume that the religious folks would be doing the purging. In fact, many of them are concered about being purged, too. That stuff cuts both ways. They won't be going to the Democrats, but the Constitution Party would welcome them--at least looking at the platform of that Party. The idea that non-Christian Republicans would go to the Democratic Party is also a problem, because most of them are small government, fiscally responsible types, and whatever one can call the Democratic Party, small government and fiscally responsible they're not. They would be closer to the Libertarians.

Somewhere along the way, there's a great deal of anti-Christian sentiment. Sometimes more evidenced than anti-Islam sentiment, and I have to say that I don't understand that. It seems to be OK to hate Christians, but not Muslims. It seems to be OK to accomodate Muslim prayers in settings where Christian prayer is frowned upon. Don't get that either.

As contradictory as it may seem, I fall in both of the two categories juxtaposed in 33. That would be a somewhat religious libertarian (note the lower case). I really don't want some sort of purge, because I would have to saw myself in half and half of me would have to leave. Or I could stick around and continue to have one half or the other mad, sometimes BOTH.

I do think that the Republican Party Washington elite has gravitated back to the "country club" establishment role. Although it appears that many of its members do not fit in that demographic.

Comment Posted By David R. Block On 31.10.2008 @ 13:14


I'm with Dennis D. The first person who came to mind was Carter. Wasn't he just over there making nicey-nice with Hamas and Hezbollah??

Comment Posted By David R. Block On 17.05.2008 @ 22:52


TruthOut = LiesIn

That's the ticket!!!

Comment Posted By David R. Block On 20.06.2006 @ 14:44


Michelle Malkin has confirmed that her site was taken down by one of these attacks.

I'm no HTML genius, so here's the URL:

Comment Posted By David R. Block On 15.02.2006 @ 16:34


Considering the wonderfully unbiased treatment of this administration by the media (**COUGH**), I'm surprized. NOT. And I do believe that the Corpus Christi Caller-Times was notified in time to print a small article in their Sunday editions and on the web (nearest city of any size), but the prima-donnas in Washington weren't. Of course, THAT newspaper doesn't count, you know.

The Washington Press Corps: We're full of ourselves and it shows.

Comment Posted By David R. Block On 15.02.2006 @ 13:00

Powered by WordPress

« Previous Page


Pages (2) : 1 [2]

«« Back To Stats Page