- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I bet you could find a hell of a lot more similar statements if you compared rhetoric opposing the minimum wage to that opposing abolition. And, to be fair, abolition of slavery DID wreak havoc on the economy of the South, above and beyond that of the civil war. It was well worth it, but it did.
This is the kind of nonscientific, nonproductive rhetoric that global warming alarmists use all the time. Promote "Goodthink" by comparing your opponents to slave owners, and challenge their arguments with non-sequitors-
"the same senator Inhofe who insisted upon ‘sound science,’ consensus among scientists and complete scientific certainty before devoting funds to climate mitigation, found sufficient justification in inconclusive information from the US intelligence service, contradicting the conclusions of the chief UN weapons inspector, to start a war on Iraq."
Global warming advocates say their climate predictions are based on the soundest of science, yet Inhofe is held in fault for supporting the conclusions of every major foreign intelligence service before the Iraq war, a very nonscientific endeavor.
This rhetoric is poisoned.
