tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9095270985170721876.post4741096386684463734..comments2024-03-24T23:22:43.753+00:00Comments on Tony's Musings: Social Security LimitsTonyTheProfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10486414706261508994noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9095270985170721876.post-29674924642292647452009-10-06T03:24:45.277+00:002009-10-06T03:24:45.277+00:00An interesting point. Demanding that the better-of...An interesting point. Demanding that the better-off pay an unfairly large share is no better than letting them continue to get away with an unfairly small one. And it would probably make it politically easier to sell, if there were a trade-off like paying tax on net income.David Rotherhamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9095270985170721876.post-52678541869844450142009-10-06T00:04:32.786+00:002009-10-06T00:04:32.786+00:00Tony, can I abuse your comments section? No doubt ...Tony, can I abuse your comments section? No doubt you have read the Clameur de Haro blog with its ludicrous attacks on environmentalists and, in particular, the dangers of climate change.<br /><br />He/she/it just posted<br /><a href="http://www.clameurdeharo.com/2009/10/climate-change-nonsense-no-117-no-more.html" rel="nofollow">climate change nonsense</a> on their execrable blog and I have commented. As CdeH has refused to publish my last three or four comments, despite claiming a liberal censorship policy, could you allow me to grab some space here to show the great blogging audience what I wrote in response to this post? TIA<br /><br />Nick Palmer<br /><a href="http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer</a><br /><br />Here's my comment, which starts with a quote from CdeH's post:<br /><br /><i><b>"the Inconvenient Truth that an increasing number of reputable and respected climate scientists vigorously disassociate themselves from the shrill orthodoxies of the Green Religion, one can see just how the warmist-alarmist predictions - that unless we implement authoritarian economy-wrecking and liberty-destroying policies immediately, we may have a small rise in temperatures in 2050 rather than 2060 - might indeed spell the end of the Olympics."</b></i><br /><br />"Increasing numbers"? Ha ha HA HA HA Hardy har Har ha!!!!!!! If you're going to tell a lie, I suppose it helps to make it a big one (wasn't it Goebbels who said something like that?).<br /><br />If you actually believe this poisonous denier fool-the-simple-minded garbage then your lack of good judgement casts an appalling shadow on your political philosophy, which, ipso facto (if it so obviously attracts self blinkering solipsistic types like yourself) is clearly a highly ridiculous, not to say dangerous one.<br /><br />One of the most irritating aspects about deniers is the way they get all uppity when they are described as such - it sure demonstrates how out of touch with reality they are. Excuse me, I have to lie down because I can't laugh helplessly like I used to when I was younger...<br /><br />You'll not publish this comment either, like my last three or four, so I'm going to publish it elsewhere too just so your censorship fails.Nick Palmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05360924308743466075noreply@blogger.com