| Jump to bottom |
Killer Deserves to Fry
Nolan, we have some common ground here. Before the father is put to death, he should be compelled to undergo all scientific scrutiny that might help us understand what makes a monster like this. And if he can be of some medical benefit to others while living, use him for that too. Maybe he can redeem some small fraction of his life as an organ donor. Then once he's dead, use the rest of him for something good.
But, you put your finger on why the death penalty is so dangerous. What if you get the wrong guy? I'm not commenting on that risk in this case, but it is always a risk. And I have to say, eye-witnesses are not so entirely reliable. Even confessions are not reliable.
Very seldom do you have an absolute certainty of who did a crime, enough to kill a man. It is the ultimate mistake to make.
Shame on you, Finley - more baseless fearmongering
Nolan, a little shame would do you a lot of good. Have you ever heard of something called science? It's based on reality, unlike your bald-faced, intentional fear-mongering.
The new breast cancer screening recommendations are based on the scientific, statistical measurements of the actual benefit of earlier screening, based, I believe, on a study of well over 100,000 women.
And on what do you base your connection between the new recommendation and Obama? Nothing but your blind, ideological lust to take down the U.S. President at any cost because he's not your man.
Your thoughtless, unsubstantiated BS (always directed only against Democrats and Obama) is worse than worthless, it's harmful.
Why don't you do a little research on your own? Prove what you spout to inflame your fans. I thought you might have some pretense to journalistic integrity. You prove otherwise.
If you want to win your ideological war, shock us all to death by showing a little objectivity.
Nolans health care comments are looking more and more like the product of a paranoid fear monger.
Though there may be an actual question for debate buried somewhere in this issue, Nolan sheds no light on it, and in fact pushes it deeper.
Instead, he refutes Obama's "false comparison to mandatory auto insurance policies," saying that everyone who chooses not to buy auto insurance need only quit driving.
Really, Nolan? You seriously put that out as an argument? Is your residence somewhere inside the Detroit News building? Do you push a wheelbarrow home from the grocery store?
It would be so exciting if these inflammatory commentaries were actually backed up by cogent arguments. Then maybe we could resolve these issues.
But unfortunately it's so much easier to merely tear down others' ideas, offering none of your own, and enjoy the social rewards of polarizing and frightening people.
Isn't there another party in power in Lansing?
Nolan's glaringly obvious omission here is the equal failure of the state Senate-controlling Republicans, who like to tout their fiscal responsibility, but have done nothing to help this situation.
I won't argue the Democrats in Michigan have failed. But it's consistent with his bias that Nolan neglects to name the Republican role in the failure.
Where are the brilliant Republican ideas that we're not trying? Oh yeah -- there aren't any.
In Lansing, they've all failed to solve Michigan's budget problems. Blaming one party and not the other polarizes the sides, changes the subject, and puts us further from finding solutions.
Just another weak swipe, Nolan.
Biased conclusion
Finley writes, "the nation's largest companies are sitting on ... roughly 10 percent of their assets, the largest stash of idle money in 40 years... This is a symptom of the uncertain tax and regulatory environment created by the Obama administration and a Congress that is increasingly hostile to business."
Really, Nolan? You know that's the cause, for sure? Could the cash hoarding possibly having something to do with the economic crash that occurred under the Bush administration?
This strikes me as a highly-biased and narrow-sighted conclusion. A weak swipe.
| Jump to top |
