Comments Posted By Fresh Air
Displaying 31 To 40 Of 44 Comments
TEN MOST HARMFUL BOOKS OF THE 19TH AND 20TH CENTURIES
Hey, judgemc. I think the proprietor of the site asked you to leave. He really doesn't owe you an explanation. It's his bandwidth, not yours.
Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 5.06.2005 @ 00:40
Rick--
Excellent list. Here are two more candidates:
1. Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, which was the mainspring of the Seventies' anti-science movement, and which indirectly led to the banning of DDT in developing nations and thus killing millions.
2. The Koran. I need not elaborate. Though I realize it was first published 1,200 years ago, it just seems so damn dangerous in the hands of people with warped minds.
Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 4.06.2005 @ 16:37
Whooa, Watseka!
See this before you inhale the monkey gas.
Bear in mind that many of us Republicans are sportsmen and frankly, there is no better friend of the environment than someone who hunts and fishes. It really sucks when the acid rain kills all the native browns in the Battenkill, if you know what I mean.
Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 2.06.2005 @ 19:02
Franklin--
Sorry about your untimely exit. Maybe you can share your eminence with us another time, eh? I've learned so much today!
I imagine by your next appearance you'll have Michael Moore's conspiracy theories down better than you do now.
I'm off to junior college now so I learn not how to make fallacies like: ad hominems, tu quoques, appeals to authority, appeals to emotion, non-sequiturs, invalid syllogisms, bandwagons and question-beggings.
I guess I'm just another poor dumb, linear-thinking rightwing nutjob who can't put subject and predicate together. Silly me.
Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 2.06.2005 @ 18:59
Franklin--
I'm reading slowly, but it isn't helping. You implied goods coming in from China amounted to "happy cash." Geez, I thought that trade worked two ways: you know, we sell the Chinese things and they sell us stuff too. Isn't the cash "happy" both ways? Moreover, in what way are fungible trade dollars tied to anything having to do with U.S. fiscal policy? I'm trying to understand, honest, but this doesn't make any sense at all.
Now then, I'm sure you would like to assign certain borrowings to programs you don't like, and certain shortfalls to programs you do like for political purposes. But money doesn't work that way; it's fungible. I am not particularly happy with Congress myself, especially with the expanded Medicare benefit. But implying we need to raise taxes to pay for a certain program is silly insofar as the money doesn't attach itself to anything. Your comments imply there are "good" taxes for popular programs and "bad" taxes for...(I'm going to fill this in for you now) illegal wars. In reality, there is only income and outgo.
Your "#1 debtor" argument is silly, given that we are by far the world's largest economy we are far better able to handle future debt payments.
If Iraq was all about oil, then answer the following questions: (1) Where the hell is it? Shouldn't it just be flooding into this country on CIA-flagged supertankers to the Chimpy McBu$hitler offloading stations in Florida? (2) If we just wanted cheap oil why wouldn't we push for ending the sanctions on Saddam? It would have been a fair easier and cheaper way to accomplish the same thing, and we could have extracted a ton of leverage in the process. (For that matter, we could have invaded Venezuela, which has a weaker military and better food.) (3) If all this oil is so valuable, can you tell me how it's being diverted to our shores without anyone noticing? (4) Why did we spend in excess of $100 billion repairing the country? Seems a funny way to plunder a country, doesn't it? (5) Why are gas prices so high with this newfound pipeline of Iraqi oil pouring into America's SUVs?
You may have a point about the national debt, though you make it ineptly, and I disagree with your conclusion.
But as for this "blood for oil" nonsense, you have no argument at all, because there are no facts AND no logic to support it.
Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 2.06.2005 @ 17:19
Rick--
The key to all of this is defending the DOMA, not enacting the FMA. The way to do this is to amend the act so it is not subject to judicial review. It can be done legally under the constitution. It is the path of least resistance and would allow the states to set up partner arrangements as they saw fit, but would prevent usurpations like we saw in San Francisco las year.
Franklin--
"Vanity oil war"? "Happy cash"? What the hell are these things supposed to mean? Is this what you call an argument: a series of spurious insults peppered with non-sequiturs?
If this is what passes for intelligence on the left, you folks are in worse shape than I thought.
BTW, I think your bong is calling...
Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 2.06.2005 @ 16:54
P.P.S. Just saw your comment, too. IIRC Franklin Pierce was also a rotten president.
Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 2.06.2005 @ 16:26
Franklin Pierce--
You are, frankly, a fool. The left is intellectually and morally bankrupt, and you are a prime exponent of the reason why.
You assert that only "gays' (which you inexplicably capitalize), "welfare recipients" and "immigrants" are all that the right is interested in, ignoring national defense, lower taxes, free trade, Social Security reform, ending judicial activism, ending race-based discrimination and dozens of other concepts.
You assert world-wide oppobrium as if were a given that (a) the United States is now hated worldwide (false); and (b) the United States would be loved if only a Democrat occupied the White House (not only false but silly). Here I also demonstrate your lazy inability to make a logical argument, by actually drawing your inferences out and reframing them. No charge, by the way.
Nor does the national debt, as you assert, grow exponentially, which 30 seconds with a calculator would tell you is absurd. Moreover, as a percentage of GDP it is at a quite reasonable level. I won't bother to make your argument here as to why I should care about the growth in the national debt, since Rubinomics already disproved itself from 2000 to 2003, when the debt grew yet interest rates simultaneously fell.
Bush's poll numbers are actually increasing, though it matters not a whit to your argument, if I can call it that. Nor are any Republicans "starting to step away" (whatever that means). I don't even know who Ford and Sponge Bob are, but suffice to say you have put up 75 words of drivel, with no facts, no argument and no logic. In short, you have wasted pixels that you did not pay for.
Why don't run along to a place where someone cares, like the Demoocratic Underground?
P.S. Sorry, Rick. Somebody has to take out the trash.
Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 2.06.2005 @ 16:24
Rick--
Wildmon is free to do as he wishes. Boycotts are a perfectly legal means for interest groups to apply pressure to businesses that do things they don't like. Just because he's associated with the "Religious Right" (whatever that is) doesn't mean he speaks for any Republicans. I think Cole should chill out, as he's starting to sound a little bit like Andrew Sullivan.
California just defeated a bill to redefine marriage. California!--not Utah. Folks don't necessarily dig it. While I don't see any obvious harm from what Ford is doing, I likewise don't see the harm from what Wildmon is doing. It's merely a scuffle in the cockfighting pit that is the marketplace of ideas.
The problem as I see it, is that Wildmon and others (you mentioned Dobson) are only members of the so-called Religious Right when what they are doing is offensive to liberals. When they are working food pantries or giving aid to sick children or whatever, they become anonymous religious figures. These people are not demons, even if they have some strong views that most Republicans disagree with. To Sullivanize them is just as offensive as what the Democrats are doing to Republican judidicial nominees.
Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 2.06.2005 @ 12:50
Tom--
What the eff are you talking about?
a. What makes you think Nixon had no humility? He resigned didn't he? (More than one can say for another president of recent vintage I can name.)
(b) What does humility have to do with being a "real" American?
(c) What does being a "real American" have to do with 50,000 Americans dying?
I think there may a point in there somewhere, but I didn't see what it was.
Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 2.06.2005 @ 00:55
