An unintentionally hilarious column. Some people just don't get a joke. Interestingly, it contradicts the claims of other liberals:
For instance, when the group of people protesting had stood up and turned their backs to him after he began speaking and began filing out of the auditorium, Mr. Ashcroft kept speaking as if nothing was happening. Even when one of the people wearing the orange jumpsuits stood at attention and gave the fascist salute Mr. Ashcroft kept his cool and compared the person in orange and the rest of the protesters to people with mental handicaps and as children who didn't have proper bladder control.An editorial on the Patriot Act.
A liberal column on global warming. What was most despicable about the column was the smearing of global warming skeptics as akin to Holocaust deniers. The claim is absurd on its face, as the Holocaust is historical fact, while the supposed disastrous effects of global warming would occur in the future. Beyond this, this claim trivializes the Holocaust. It is another example of how liberals try to silence debate. It should be denounced by all people of good will.
Two bus routes will be cut. Where is all the money from the bus tax increase that was passed last November? The mention of apartment complexes paying for bus service is intriguing. Given the poor quality of bus service, why not just privatize the entire system? Let the free market decide where bus service is really necessary.
Making mathematics history. Sounds like a good way to spend a Saturday.
5 comments:
The relationship between global warming deniers and holocaust deniers is this:
Both are groups that are confronted with overwhelming scientific fact and refuse to believe the group. Both refer to "experts" and "studies" performed by people who are totally unqualified to prove their point.
I recall a video one holocaust denier released in which he claimed to have checked the gas chambers at Auschwitz for residual chemicals, and concluded that no gassing ever took place. The man was not a chemist at all, and when real chemist performed similar tests they found huge amounts of residue. This is very similar to the "Studies" which refer to ridiculous ideas such as "global warming on mars" which have no scientific basis and are performed by people with bogus credentials, the only people who listen to them are people who are looking for a new excuse to deny what the experts tell us is true.
Both groups are people who are angry, very angry at the people who speak the truth. Perhaps it is because of the guilt they can't bring themselves to face, but Global Warming deniers seem to genuinely HATE people who speak the truth about this issue (if I can take the dozens of posts on this blog as an example) in this way they are also similar to holocaust deniers.
There are differences between the 2 groups as well. But they have a lot in common.
Both are in denial. Like it or not, the 2 groups have about the same amount of credibility.
Since the article called on "people of good will" to denounce something, I renew my call for you to denounce Ann Coulter for calling John Edwards "a faggot."
I think such a move would be very good for your credibilty. If you denounced Ann Coulter's despicable act it would show you are willing to practice what you preach, and people might be willing to actually take your demands of denouncing people seriously.
I am glad you agree that the cutting of the buses is a bad thing, it looks like you might have found some common ground there.
The first anonymous poster is ranting and it is unnecessary. He (or she) evidently did not view the video that Allan had posted earlier called "The Great Global Warming Swindle." In it, two IPCC authors, one of them being a lead author, denounced the idea that humans are causing global warming and that the planet's warming is accelerating. Several other climatologists, biogeologists, and physicists are interviewed at will. My question is now: if a lead author from the now lionized, sanctified, beyond-reproach IPCC calls some of the findings into question, how is he "totally unqualified" to prove his point? And why is it that Al Gore, a lawyer and lawmaker by trade, is more qualified than those on the IPCC who disagree? Or for that matter, anyone else in the BBC movie?
I just find it interesting when leftists compare us to Holocaust deniers, they attack us and try to change our view on global warming. But when there's a real Holocaust denier in the news (Iran's President), half the left doesn't even educate themselves on what his stated intentions are. Perhaps instead of being so focused on something that probably won't really effect anyone for generations to come, we should focus on someone who wants nukes to blow one of our allies off the face of the earth.
Post a Comment