Professor Dendy's favorite quote:

"If it dies, it's biology; if it blows up, it's chemistry;

if it doesn't work, it's physics!" - John Wilkes

As quoted from grafitti on a bathroom wall.

Search Engine

Custom Search

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

The number one Liberal lie!

Isn’t it funny how the Liberals say they want everyone to have equal access, equal pay, equal education, equal everything? I wonder how many of the Liberal senators, representatives, governors, etc. would be willing to give up all they have… cars, condos, jets, other percs, so that we, the people, could spread it around among ourselves “equally?”

Well here is an analogy that might give you a clue as to how many would “give it all up” so that we that equality could reign. Ask any physician if they would hand their child over for a resident (one who may have assisted in one or two operations, to do a heart transplant. I don’t have to guess the answer… I am confident that they would say “NO WAY! Give me an experienced surgeon.”

They say government health care is what we need! Ask your liberal senator or representative if they are willing to give up their best surgeons to stand in line and wait to be treated by a resident physician at a teaching hospital. And while you’re at it, ask them if they’re willing to move into “project” housing, stand in line for food stamps or food handouts. My guess is… wait a minute, my guarantee is they will say “NO WAY!”

Equality for everyone is just another Liberal lie you’ve been told!


  1. "Isn't it funny how the Liberals say they want everyone to have equal access, equal pay, equal education, equal everything?"

    No, this is a mischaracterisation. They say they want everyone to have equal *opportunity* for these things.

  2. Isn't equal "access" the same as equal "opportunity"... or are you saying that everyone should have the same "opportunities" but not necessarily the same "access?"

  3. I'm saying that they should have the same opportunities, including opportunities for access to things like public services.

    But I'm not going to quibble about semantics and shame on you for trying to dodge the question by doing so. The issue is that you have deliberately mischaracterised a position by creating a strawman. People with liberal views do not want everyone to have equal pay, education, everything and you know this perfectly well.

  4. I would love to hear your rebuttal on this one latsot...

  5. I don't rebut, just comment. I might do so. But I'm getting the impression that you don't answer questions or reply to the pertinent points, so I'm not sure why I should bother. I'll take a look at some point.

  6. ....To begin with, you ought to define macro-evolution a little more
    carefully. There's a reasonable worry that goalposts will shift.
    You see, this is what the scientific method is all about. We try
    to work out what would disprove our hypotheses. What would disprove
    the idea that macro-evolution exists? Well, you'd have to define
    macro-evolution, wouldn't you? Creationists aren't fond of doing

    As it happens, the micro/macro business is a red herring.
    We have fossil and molecular evidence that shows evolution
    happening. We have many transitional forms. The (false) charge that
    no macro-evolution (however you'd like to define it today) has
    occurred is not only false, it is irrelevant. We have the fossils.

    > You can throw the “fact” that the earth is billions of years
    > old away based on the same argument that you use to refute
    > God and the Bible – the tests used to date the earth are
    > designed and made by man!

    Yes they are. So are many tests, which you probably accept as
    accuate. For example, we know at which temperature water boils
    at a particular pressure because of experiment and theory. It's
    right! We know about evolution for the same reason.

    > Scientists aren’t infallible, and apparently, many scientists
    > aren’t very ethical either!

    Agreed, although you probably ought to back up 'many' with
    some evidence, rather than simply stating it.

    It doesn't matter in the long run whether individual scientists
    are either right or ethical because the process of science
    wheedles out the bias and the error. As it happens, I find
    that scientists tend to care about the truth. Whatever else
    their ethics are concerned with, working toward the truth is
    what motivates most scientists. Anecdotal, sure.

    > In an article “Scientists behaving badly,” Nature (2005),
    > authors Martinson, Anderson, and de Vries suggest that
    > “U.S scientists engage in a range of behaviours extending
    > far beyond fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism that
    > can damage the integrity of science.”

    I've no doubt that this kind of thing goes on. It doesn't
    really matter in the long run, although it is regrettable.
    As we move away from paywalls and more and more papers
    become available for free, we scientists have fewer places
    to hide. That's a good thing.

    > Also, in a Science (2005) article, "Forbidden Knowledge,"
    > Kempner, Perlis, and Merz stated that "Although science is
    > shaped by formal regulations and policies, most constraints
    > described by respondents are informal or self-imposed,
    > reflecting social, political, and cultural pressures on
    > what is studied, how studies are performed, how data are
    > interpreted, and how results are disseminated."

    This is astoundingly out of context, as I expect you know.

    > As I stated earlier, I’ve never stated Creation is fact,
    > but it is my belief. Evolutionists on the other hand
    > state that Evolution is a fact… however, that “fact” has ome
    > yet to be proven!

    Seriously? This is the best you've got? Nya Nya Nya
    evolution ain't done proved therefore god? Evolution is
    a fact: it is confirmed by observation and experiment. Stuff
    has changed. If you disagree, you have to explain why all
    biology, geology and physics is wrong, don't you?

    > You say that Yahweh doesn’t exist… I say prove that
    > he doesn’t!

    I don't say he doesn't exist, I say there's no
    evidence that he does. Give us a good reason to
    believe in Yahweh. Give us a way to test whether
    Yahweh exists or not?

    > Note: Both journals Nature and Science are peer-
    > reviewed!

    Wow are they really? What other journals are peer-
    reviewed? Which have you published in? Is it a secret?