Would THIS man EVER attack someone...personally?
Posted on 05/21/2003 10:53:55 AM PDT by Sockdologer
It would seem to me the left sticks to facts and the issues, seldom attacking the right in a personal way.Oh well....I needed a new keyboard anyway....LOL.
-Eric
Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Clarence Thomas.
Would THIS man EVER attack someone...personally?
Nina Totenberg on Jesse Helms
I see they haven't run out of KOOL-AID over there in FANTASYLAND! LOL
How about the STUPID Prez and his CROOKED Veep!LOL
Cher on George W. Bush
(1) [M]edicaid is paying less and less for drugs for the sick and elderly... Probably true, as it is a basic fact of economic reality. Medicare and Medicaid have long been financially troubled and the situation is worsening. Not only does it suffer from the waste and fraud endemic to government programs, but it is running up against a rapidly aging US population. Americans live longer, and this greying population continues to consume expensive prescription drugs at an accelerating rate. More old people consuming more drugs means that there are fewer Medicare and Medicaid dollars to pay for those skyrocketing costs. This unalterable fact of economic life serves to remind all of us how incredibly recklesss the Democrats' ultra-generous presecription drug proposals are. Quite simply, in their desperation to get votes, the Democrats have proposed plans that threaten to (a) send Medicare and Medicaid costs through the roof (costs which are paid by any American dumb enough to work and pay their taxes) and/or (b) threaten to destroy innovation in the pharamceutical industry by capping drug prices.
(2)[T]he fact that a tax cut for the rich is proven not to be a comprehensive way to stimulate jobs and the economy... Here, the author is kind enough to remind Freepers of his profound ignorance of both the tax code and economics. First, is this a tax cut for the rich? Only the ignorant believe that. In fact, it is a tax cut for small businesses - the true drivers of the American economy. Most small businesses are one of three types: (1) sole proprietorships, (2) Sub-Chapter K entities (e.g. LPs and LLCs), or (3) Sub-Chapter S entities. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the US tax code knows that these entities pay taxes at personal, not corporate, rates. Therefore, a tax cut in personal rates transaltes into a tax cut for millions of small businesses. Secondly, the author states that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy. A history of just the past 20 years makes this assertion laughable, as the two great economic booms, during Reagan and Clinton, both came after tax cuts. Reagan drastically cut personal tax rates after entering office, and the economy blossomed. Likewise, after Congress cut the capital gains tax in 1995, the US economy sky-rockteted.
(3)[T]he environmental situation is exactly as the EPA website and the UN EarthWatch say, very dangerous and worsening... Naturally, both UN EarthWatch and the EPA gain power and influence by environmental scare tactics, but this does not seem to occur to the author. However, as Bjorn Lomberg, statistician and Green, points out in his meticulously documented book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist", these claims are patently false. By almost every conceivable measure, the environemnt is improving. I discovered the same thing while working as a volunteer legal researcher for the National Wildlife Federation.
(4)[T]he US deficit is at its highest absolute ever This is true only in absolute dollars. In terms of percentage of GDP, the relevant measure, the deficit is quite low. Besides, deficit spending was the traditional bread and butter of Democratic politics prior to Bubba. Think of FDR, the King of Deficit Spending.
(5) The author makes several claims as to the decline in social services. Of course, this is the result of the welfare reform signed into law by Bill Clinton. Welfare reform has been a huge success in getting people back into the workforce.
(6) Finally, there is the usual carping about global warming. Global warming allegations are based solely on the fact that the average temperatures of the 19th Century are lower than those of the 20th. However, climate data from glacier core samples indicate that the 20th century was still cooler than the earth's average temperature over time. Moreover, although greenhouse gases have risen in the last 200 years, they are well below many periods in earthis history. Given that merterologists cannot accurately predict temperatures for next week, the claim that they can do so for decades ahead is little short of comical.
Liberals are great, they just see themselves as so high and mighty and everyone else just horrible and heartless. Must be wonderful, having such an uncomplicated mind.
Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Sean Hannity, Condoleeza Rice (calling her a "house nig@er), Colin Powell (calling him a "house nig@er), Christine Todd Whitman, Rick Santorum, the House Managers during impeachment (especially Henry Hyde), Ann Coulter, Kelly Ann Fitzpatrick, Bill O'Reilly, Bob Livingston, Dinesh D'Souza, Gary Aldritch, Bill Gertz...
MORE?!?!
In fact, the left's favorite modus operandi, besides plain old ad hominem, is argument by intimidation, e.g. you must be a racist if you oppose affirmative action, or you must be dumb if you think Bush is a good president, or you must be a warmonger if you support strong national defense (much less the Bush Doctrine), or you must be a moral delinquent if you oppose progressive taxation or social welfare programs, or that you are anti-women if you oppose the feminazi political agenda, etc., at nauseum. All of these types of arguments attempt, through intimidation (no one likes to be called any of these things), to forstall criticism and refutation by implying that only really stupid or bad people would disagree with them on these issues. The antidote is simple: don't be intimidated, then refute the arguments. Be like the kid in the Emperor's New Clothes who points out that the Emperor is naked.
About the very last thing I see in most leftist arguments are any appeals to facts and logic. I dare say that the reason is because leftism is contrary to facts and logic.
In fact, the left's favorite modus operandi, besides plain old ad hominem, is argument by intimidation, e.g. you must be a racist if you oppose affirmative action, or you must be dumb if you think Bush is a good president, or you must be a warmonger if you support strong national defense (much less the Bush Doctrine), or you must be a moral delinquent if you oppose progressive taxation or social welfare programs, or that you are anti-women if you oppose the feminazi political agenda, etc., at nauseum. All of these types of arguments attempt, through intimidation (no one likes to be called any of these things), to forstall criticism and refutation by implying that only really stupid or bad people would disagree with them on these issues. The antidote is simple: don't be intimidated, then refute the arguments. Be like the kid in the Emperor's New Clothes who points out that the Emperor is naked.
About the very last thing I see in most leftist arguments are any appeals to facts and logic. I dare say that the reason is because leftism is contrary to facts and logic.
In fact, the left's favorite modus operandi, besides plain old ad hominem, is argument by intimidation, e.g. you must be a racist if you oppose affirmative action, or you must be dumb if you think Bush is a good president, or you must be a warmonger if you support strong national defense (much less the Bush Doctrine), or you must be a moral delinquent if you oppose progressive taxation or social welfare programs, or that you are anti-women if you oppose the feminazi political agenda, etc., at nauseum. All of these types of arguments attempt, through intimidation (no one likes to be called any of these things), to forstall criticism and refutation by implying that only really stupid or bad people would disagree with them on these issues. The antidote is simple: don't be intimidated, then refute the arguments. Be like the kid in the Emperor's New Clothes who points out that the Emperor is naked.
About the very last thing I see in most leftist arguments are any appeals to facts and logic. I dare say that the reason is because leftism is contrary to facts and logic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.