(I'll spell check next time)

You make one scant point in your rambling comment concerning my comparing a “war of choice” with the deionization of DDT.

OK, I’ll go with that.

George Bush took the information from the US, French, German, Belgian, Italian, Russian, Israeli and other intelligence agencies (who were in complete agreement) that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was seeking to acquire nuclear material. In the aftermath of 9/11, he determined that the dynamic of preemptive war was necessary in order to negate the impending threat.

He asked congress for permission to go to war – they agreed. He asked the U.N. for a resolution to use force if Saddam didn’t declare all materials and allow intrusive inspections – they agreed. When the imposed deadline came and went without Saddam’s positive action, we did what we promised congress and the world we would do.

I’m perfectly OK with that.

On the other hand, one lunatic fringe liberal writes a fear mongering book to scare people away from a chemical that saved millions of lives throughout Central America, Africa and Asia, but that the author thought might cause cancer. Through a system of innuendo and misinformation, other liberals took up the cause and made it next to impossible for effective spraying to be carried out in those nations that most needed it.

No cancer link was ever found, no facts to support the fear, just liberal paranoia that since it was a chemical company, they must be out to kill people for profit.

The willful ignorance and self-aggrandizing arrogance of the mob who promoted the discontinuation of DDT is criminal in the purest sense of the word.

So, on the first point we have a President who acted with the full consent of the American people and the world.

On the second we have an ill-informed mob responsible for millions of unnecessary deaths.

An excellent suggestion. Personally attacking people shows that the attacker lacks the information and logic to form an argument that sustains their point of view.

As I have mentioned, I'm sure Shaun, Lovitar, JSpencer and many others care deeply for their fellow human beings. They have probably spent countless hours demonstrating through the beauty of Interpretive Dance how the birds and trees would rejoice if we all just looked after one another.

I can only point to the facts and hope that someday they each will look at the world and ask “What have I done?”

For your enjoyment and hopefully deep reflection:

Theodoric of York: Well, I'll do everything humanly possible. Unfortunately, we barbers aren't gods. You know, medicine is not an exact science, but we are learning all the time. Why, just fifty years ago, they thought a disease like your daughter's was caused by demonic possession or witchcraft. But nowadays we know that Isabelle is suffering from an imbalance of bodily humors, perhaps caused by a toad or a small dwarf living in her stomach.

Joan: You charlatan! You killed my daughter, just like you killed most of my other children! Why don't you admit it! You don't know what you're doing!

Theodoric of York: [ steps toward the camera ] Wait a minute. Perhaps she's right. Perhaps I've been wrong to blindly folow the medical traditions and superstitions of past centuries. Maybe we barbers should test these assumptions analytically, through experimentation and a “scientific method”. Maybe this scientific method could be extended to other fields of learning: the natural sciences, art, architecture, navigation. Perhaps I could lead the way to a new age, an age of rebirth, a Renaissance! [ thinks for a minute ] Naaaaaahhh!

As JSpencer points out your grasp of “intellectual honesty” is on par with your grasp of moral equivalency. And as Mom asked us to play nice I won't speak to your intellect, however in regards to your honesty I call bull@#$%.

I pointed out that you compared a war of choice with spraying toxic chemicals and you responded with the classic conservative word play.

Pay attention now I'll explain it in 3 easy steps.

Step 1: Create Strawman, then knock down strawman supposedly proving your opponents lack of credibility.

On people dying due to the war in Iraq, you might have point. The object of a war is to kill the enemy and destroy their capacity to be a threat. Of course, the 1 million dead figure that is so easily thrown around by liberals has about as much credibility as the sharks that still follow the slave ship routes

Step 2: Ask for data from a “credible” source, if not provided immediately from a conservative approved source, this then definitely proves your opponents lack of credibility.

If you have any articles (from a credible source) about the people dying from lower taxes, which increased the revenue received by the federal government, please pass those along.

Step 3: Insult you opponent either obnoxiously (Bill O’Reilly Sean Hannity) or surreptitiously (William Kristol) showing you are a winner and they are losers.

At least you have the intellectual honesty to admit that the continued killing of millions of Africans each year is a result of a “liberal mishap”.

We all know where you standards are and mine are well north of that, and I refuse to engage with you in your little game. I recommend that you play with yourself (the game that is), its the only pleasure you'll probably get tonight.;>)

On people dying due to the war in Iraq, you might have point. The object of a war is to kill the enemy and destroy their capacity to be a threat. Of course, the 1 million dead figure that is so easily thrown around by liberals has about as much credibility as the sharks that still follow the slave ship routes.

As far as I know, the only person to have died as an indirect result of the Enron collapse was Ken Lay. I’m sure you don’t loose a lot of sleep over him.

If you have any articles (from a credible source) about the people dying from lower taxes, which increased the revenue received by the federal government, please pass those along.

At least you have the intellectual honesty to admit that the continued killing of millions of Africans each year is a result of a “liberal mishap”.

jwest has now defined the conservative moral equivalently criteria:

Killing people by starting a war of choice or by looting their pensions and retirement plans or by locking them into the poor underclass through you tax and economic policies.

=

Possibility killing people through your attempt to protect them from toxic chemicals.

Come on we can all do it, I'm sure we can all think of one “conservative moral equivalent. Its easy, think of the most outrageous thing a conservative has done and them compare it to a liberal mishap.

I'll start us off.

Watergate

=

Getting a blowjob.

I hope you realize that their is a HUGE difference in people possibly dying as a result of someone trying to do good and people dying as a result of active malicious harm (IRAQ, ENRON, BUSH TAX CUTS).

The overarching point of Shaun’s article is that people are going to die due to conservative principles, programs and general swings in the economy.

My point is that regardless of what the republicans do, they could never hope to equal the death, misery and poverty brought on by liberals trying to help.

If you have a certain current policy in mind that you believe is hurting people and that liberals have a better idea on, please let me know and we can discuss the finer points.

passionate discussion is useful and often interesting. Carry on.

I'm not mom. Just,
dr.e, assistant editor,
a/k/a cook and bottle washer

That's called deflection and distraction, and it's a gimmick,.

Sticking to more recent events, and general trends, let's call a spade a spade.
Government bail-outs don't happen with manna from heaven. The tax payer pays.
Relative to income, the less you have, the more you pay, exempting those who have no rmeaningful income at all. To do this honestly, you have to also calculate in the flat tax paid on goods snd services, and the lack of tax loopholes for the have-nots.

Look what the Reps have done with recent bills, Obstruct , obstrct, obstruc. At least , they force compromises that are counter-productive, and when the result doesn't work well, they are ready with the 'Democratic Congress' bit..

Now that McCain is on board again with the tax-cuts, electing him would ensure more people dying.
I could endorse reducing corporate taxes IF loopholes were eliminated at the same time. Our current tax rate is a joke, because a wealthy corporation can avoid paying by moving its address offshore.

The next president will inherit one nightmare of a mess. Let's hope that he can turn a corner on some portion of it. Getting the whole thing straightened out is also a long term project, and .no one should expect miracles any time soon.

Despite, the Academy Award worthy partisan warriors responding to your post, what you said is something we all need to hear. That the news isn't good, may explain the apoplectic responses.

Unfortunately, many of these folks would rather hear a meaningless slogan and call that patriotism than look reality in the eye.

You are abolutely right. There is no quick fix. The best we can do is adapt and ride it out. Long term solutions will be dalayed becasue of the Bush administration's refusal to look real life in the face. Instead, scant resouces were wasted to prop up what was clearly failing.

This is no time for fairy tales. McCain has listed old ideas under a new ttile: The Lexington Project. Everything on that list is either re-cycled Bush or borrowed from Obama. Id rather stick with the originator of new ideas, who understands the importance of job creation as part of energy policy.

Surely you know that no depositor lost a dime in the Savings and Loan crisis. Of course, the four Democrat senators (plus John McCain) who were involved in the Keating Five scandal deserved to be rebuked for their actions.

As my original point on Shaun’s article states, if you would just slow down, get the facts and think things through, you would come to better conclusions.

JSpencer,

As with Loviatar, you are operating with a small slice of the full story. As I stated above, I’m sure you, Shaun and rest of the liberals didn’t set out to become mass murders of the African population, you just wanted to protect them from the profit-crazed chemical companies.

No one is doubting the love and affection you have for all those whose lives you ruin, it’s just that some of us think a little less caring would leave a whole lot more people alive.

The right needs to learn how to assume accountability for the actions of a government they once cheered and defended if they expect to be seen as credible. Needless to say, that goes for both sides of the aisle.

I've always wondered what a cause and effect study on the life expectancy of the people who lost their life savings as a result of the Savings and Loan crisis from the 80's would show. I image quite a few people ended dead and buried because of the greed and moral failures of our political leaders and corporate elite. Also, imagine what a causal study would show on life expectancy of Enron pensioners and investors.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/those_me…

Prince William County in Virginia announced that homocides were down from 2006 to 2007. The difference is that in 2007 the county decided to crack down on illegal aliens. However, I realized long ago that the progressive, “reality based community” never lets even a single fact stand in the way of it prejudices.

And thank you for demostating the hypothesis that a liberal can never have a discussion about anything without calling someone else a racist. I guess the idea and desire for equality and due process is just another sign of systematic racism in the U.S. today.