Page 2 of 75
Posted on June 20 at 9:20 a.m.
Diana, the wide coverage and expressions of outrage didn't come from the fact that the shooter was a White person, but that the shooter was a White racist who murdered 9 Blacks in a church. Of course, it requires a special agenda to report on a racist gunning down Blacks in a church as though it involved racism and guns.
And nativegeo of course chimes in with his latest meme, implying that Obama is a divider, presumably because Obama holds views that Republicans disagree with. As for whether news of the House action on TPP fast-track was "censored," apparently nativeg is referring to the fact that it, like the Pope's statement on climate change, was overshadowed by what everyone but people like Thorn seem to think was a more immediately significant story. To say that a week in which a racist murdered 9 Black churchgoers was a good one for Obama is a particularly revealing example how far anti-Obama derangement can go.
On Gun Control and Racism
Posted on June 16 at 10:17 a.m.
"public trough feeders"? "blogging on the public's dime"? Typical of nativegeo's bizarre and lame attempts to come up with clever and wounding retorts when his partisan blindness is challenged.
On A Sound Infrastructure Indicates a Sound Country
Posted on June 16 at 9:06 a.m.
Unfortunately for the target of native's sarcasm, I didn't blame almost all of our national debt on the Bush family and I don't get my info on facts, which he puts in quotes apparently because he refuses to acknowledge any reality that conflicts with his ideology, from aTV pundit I never watch but he's apparently obsessed with.
Posted on June 16 at 8:31 a.m.
nomo accused me of being intellectually dishonest, apparently because, as evidence of there really being a partisan divide, I contrasted Obama/Hillary and Cruz/Brownback. nomo claimed that Obama and Hillary have "virtually NOTHING" in common.
I asked him to substantiate both of his points -- his charge about me and his claim about Obama and Hillary -- and the best he could come up with is some irrelevant snark about them. So much for his intellectual honesty.
As for the next issue to pop up. The large increase in debt during Obama's first term was due in large part to the decline in tax revenues and increase in government spending in response to a very deep recession, increases in programs over which he had no control, and spending laws put into effect by the previous administration. The other aspects of discretionary spending by his Administration aren't that much of an outlier.
Whether what is comical is the nature of the national debt or nomo's characterization of it depends on how much credibility one is inclined to give him. Based on his performance so far, I'd say zero.
Posted on June 15 at 1:54 p.m.
To people of a certain ideological bent, Obamacare had to fail, so of course it has, even though it hasn't; similarly, Brownback's right-wing economic plan had to succeed, so of course it has, even though it hasn't. Anyone who dares point out this systematic denial of reality gets a stream of lame and childish comments that their proponent appears to believe is a devastating refutation.
Posted on June 14 at 7:48 p.m.
Time to move back to California
On Vote with Your Vote
Posted on June 13 at 11:35 a.m.
nomoOnce you've finished the above task, you can go back and show how my original statement, contrasting the views on government of Obama and Hillary to those of Ted Cruz and Sam Brownback, is intellectually dishonest.
Posted on June 13 at 10:48 a.m.
You previously suggested that the differences between Obama and Hillary with regard to race, age, degree of experience, gender, and even degree of success of their marriage were the bulk of the reasons that made it false to consider them as sharing the same overall political philosophy.
Now you would rather ignore the fact that you exhibited that particular display of irrelevance, and instead you're relying on the "moderate" vs. "Progressive" distinction that you imply so distinguishes them as to make it dishonest to suggest that they have similar philosophies of government.
Somehow, you forgot to include the facts to show how the views of Obama and Hillary differ so drastically over so broad a range of issues, in particular in contrast to the views of the Republican Party, that you aren’t just being intellectually dishonest or simple-minded when you say smugly that their views have "virtually NOTHING" in common.
Posted on June 13 at 9:11 a.m.
nomoActually, what's telling is your contorted attempt to claim that Obama and Hilary both being Democrats is a "false equivalence" in the context of a discussion about Democratic and Republican philosophies of government because, after all, Obama and Hillary are distinct human beings, so how could they be equivalent?
In addition,I would have thought that simply pointing out that Republicans and Democrats have different views of government and that partisanship is a significant feature of American life would be fairly noncontroversial, but you find it a reflection of "obvious and jaded left wing politics," so apparently you disagree.
Thanks for the revealing applications of your reasoning skills.
Posted on June 12 at 6:39 p.m.
nomoI've been editing peer-reviewed scientific literature in physics and molecular biology for more than 40 years. I think I can recognize when someone is so far beyond his intellectual depth that he doesn't even know he's been drowned and washed up on shore. A scientifically verifiable datum is a fact. Whether it's a "useful" fact depends on context.
nativeOn your own characterization, Democrats do things to help the "abject poor" while Republicans only talk about doing things for them. So I guess there is a philosophical difference between them, something that should also be rather obvious from their budget disagreements and the willingness of one party to shut down the government over the other party's commitment to reforming health insurance.
A program to see if it's helpful to give iPads to young kids hardly constitutes "false hope" or "malfeasance." It might even work.
Yes, it would be nice if being an American were a nonpartisan process. But as long as people disagree on the role of government in people's lives and so much money skews the outcome, one needs to acknowledge the extent to which it isn't.