Comment history

Advocates from both sides of gun control debate discuss with community

so you're advocating for improvements in reinforcement of the existing laws then? Super! Let's start with *mandatory* background checks, *always*.

April 18, 2013 at 1:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Gun stampede

If I have a "No shoes, no shirt, no service" policy, does that mean I'm obligated to provide shoes and shirts for those that don't have any?

March 11, 2013 at 12:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

New study challenges KU economist's findings on racial disparity in NIH funding

Discrediting good science without any evidence is just as unscrupulous as presenting bad science as good.

Why do you bother claiming her report is bad science when it's pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

February 1, 2013 at 12:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Reform needed

> Equali distribution of a tiny pie isn't as good a as a smaller slice of a huge pie.

Are you deliberately demonstrating your inability to reason or do math? You do realize that this assertion is not correct without qualifying numbers, don't you moron?

You do realize that some form of reasonably equitable distribution of wealth within a society is a necessary... i repeat... **necessary**... condition for reasonably equitable access to the resources that wealth creates?

High tides raise all ships? Is that your argument? Well guess what? Water distributes itself evenly, you dolt. If wealth spread as evenly as water, I might agree with that simpleton's view.

But wealth doesn't spread like water. Our society has a series of reservoirs, locks, dams, and channels designed to pool wealth in certain places.

And guess what is required to build those handy bits of wealth directing infrastructure such that they benefit you?

If you guessed **wealth**, then you might not be as foolish as you insist on presenting yourself.

December 6, 2012 at 11:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Reform needed

> Your system has failed everywhere it's been tried.

yes... there are no examples anywhere of social programs successfully being run by the gov't. There is no evidence that people benefit from these programs, nor is there any indication that those beneficiaries actually prefer, and support these gov't programs that don't exist.

You are like the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil monkeys. Except you are just one monkey, with six arms. And instead of evil, it's the real world you're trying to ignore.

December 5, 2012 at 12:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Reform needed

Why can't the nation pay all that it has promised? What's stopping us?

December 5, 2012 at 12:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Reform needed

It's a fact that Social Security helps people. Period. Has for decades and will continue to.

Your stupid "liar liar pants on fire" argument from above was an effort to mitigate all benefit of the SS program, claiming that it's entire purpose was for raising taxes for other gov't ventures.

That assertion is flat out wrong, and simply calling the gov't a liar, as if it is one giant conspiratorial brain who over the last 80 years can be plotting to steal your money, has the intellectual depth of a 6 year old who is upset he has to go to bed at 8pm on a school night.

Checkmate. Right. You clearly don't know how to play the game like the adults play.

December 5, 2012 at noon ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Reform needed

In the absence of a blueprint.. we look at recent history and do our best with that.

I'm talking about modern social issues that have had a very real impact on people who are still alive, and your trying to draw relevance by contrasting what a band of 20 hunter gatherers would do? Weak.

> One thing is 100% certain, however--the more wealth a society has in total, the better able families would be to handle such things

The "in total" part of this statement makes it ridiculous. Total wealth in a society only helps **all** of the people in the society if it translates to a greater access to resources for *all*. Thus, some sort of equitable distribution is required.

December 5, 2012 at 11:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Reform needed

here is why this argument is stupid...

If someone were to come out and create a "Peace Keeping Station" that actually, genuinely worked toward promoting peace, you could simply pull this trusty argument out of [orifice] and say that because somebody lied in the past, nobody can be trusted in the present.

In other words, this argument, which you have made on numerous occasions, is the rhetorical equivalent of "liar, liar, pants on fire". That is why it is stupid.

December 5, 2012 at 11:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Reform needed

"Trillion" is a scary word for individuals, because for most of us, it is orders of magnitude larger than anything we are used to dealing with.

Thus, when confronted by the fact that the U.S. is running a $1 Trillion deficit, it naturally tends to freak one out.

But one would be good to remember that one is not the United States, and that one's household budget is not the national budget.

For instance, my current salary is far less than than the $15 Trillion GDP of the United States.

The number that is important is deficit to GDP ratio, which right now is at about 7%.

Note that this is down from the 8.7% we saw last year. We are moving in the right direction.

Is the debt and deficit something to be concerned about? Of course it is, as a general rule.

But try not to let the numbers scare you into thinking that we're a hair away from finding ourselves in a situation similar to Greece. We are not.

Here's a little history lesson challenge for y'all. Identify the time in the last 100 years when the deficit to GDP ratio was the highest.

December 5, 2012 at 11:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )