Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
Open thread 9/15
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Sept. 15, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
267 Comments
I hope our Kansas teams have better results today, than OK State had last nite!! Those little schools can turn out some really good football teams!!
First Appalachian State, NOW, Troy!! LOL what a year!!
‘Bush aide says warming man-made’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6994760.stm
“The US chief scientist has told the BBC that climate change is now a fact.
Professor John Marburger, who advises President Bush, said it was more than 90% certain that greenhouse gas emissions from mankind are to blame….In the starkest warning from the White House so far about the dangers ahead, Professor Marburger told the BBC that climate change was unequivocal, with mankind more than 90% likely to blame….Professor Marburger said humanity would be in trouble if we did not stop increasing carbon emissions.
“The CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and there’s no end point, it just gets hotter and hotter, and so at some point it becomes unliveable,” he said.”
Breaking: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”
Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml
More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance. “This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850,” said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. “Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”
They call this a consensus?
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af
“Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”
S o said Al Gore … in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn’t think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.
Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming – Now Skeptics
Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles
Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta
Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young award winning scientists,
Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government,
Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada,
Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife
Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z.,
Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences,
Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm
Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw,
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa,
Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa,
“Climate Computer Models are not Credible, reports” Top IPCC UN Scientist
“The credibility of these computer model predictions took a significant hit in June 2007 when Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. (LINK) In addition, Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former CEO and director of research for the Netherlands Royal National Meteorological Institute, recently compared scientists who promote computer models predicting future climate doom to unlicensed “software engineers” who were “unqualified to sell their products to society.”
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/02/28/unlicensed-engineers-part-1-by-hendrik-tennekes
Kansas,
Lets save cosmos the time…
They are all liars and hacks!
Water Vapor the most significant Greenhouse Gas
Belgian weather institute’s (RMI) August 2007 study dismisses decisive role of CO2 in warming: Excerpt: “Brussels: CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. “But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it”, climate scientist Luc Debontridder said. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore’s movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.” said Debontridder. “Every change in weather conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the ‘North-Atlantic Oscillation’. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2,” he added.”http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=38%20
haha, ya Nathan, all these peer reviewed Scientists we are quoted.
It’s the Sun Stupid!
“New peer-reviewed study finds that the solar system regulates the earth’s climate – The paper, authored by Richard Mackey, is published in the Journal of Coastal Research – Excerpt: “According to the findings reviewed in this paper, the variable output of the sun, the sun’s gravitational relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earth’s variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth’s climate. The processes by which the sun affects the earth show periodicities on many time scales; each process is stochastic and immensely complex.”http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002234.htmlhttp://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
It’s still the sun!
Several recent scientific studies have debunked a media hyped UK study alleging there has not been a solar-climate link in the past 20 years. Excerpt: “The earth temperature does respond to the solar cycle as confirmed by numerous studies. The 11 year solar cycle is clearly shown in sediment cores obtained from Effington Inlet, Vancouver Island, B.C. by Dr. Tim Patterson, and in records of the Nile River , to name just two studies.”http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_reprint_series/a_critique_on_the_lockwood_frochlich_paper_in_the_royal_society_proceedings.htmlhttp://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/blog/2007/7/17/no-sun-link-study-debunked-again.htmlhttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/the_unruly_sunne_cannot_be_ruled_out_as_a_cause_of_recent_climate_variation.html
Peer Reviewed Science Debunks fears of Greenland and Arctic Ice Melting!
A July 2007 analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly debunks fears of Greenland and the Arctic melting and predictions of a frightening sea level rise. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175B568A-802A-23AD-4C69-9BDD978FB3CD
Antarctic not Cooperating with Global Warming Alarmists claims that Antarctica Ice is melting.
“A February 2007 study reveals Antarctica is not following predicted global warming models. Excerpt: “A new report on climate over the world’s southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.” The research was led by David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extentUpdate – September 11, 2007: Antarctic ice GROWS to record levels. Excerpt: While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extenthttp://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-high.html“
Greenland was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s.
A 2006 study by a team of scientists led by Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences found the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005, suggesting carbon dioxide ‘could not be the cause’ of warming.
The Greenland warming of the 1995-2005 period is similar to the warming of 1920-1930, although the rate of temperature increase was by about 50% higher during the 1920-1930 warming period.
Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise.
To summarize, we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. The rate of warming from 1995 to 2005 was in fact lower than the warming that occurred from 1920 to 1930.http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html
Top Climate Researcher switches sides from Global Warming Alarmist to Skeptic
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is “unknown” and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming”of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD
“Global?” Warming Misnamed – Southern Hemisphere
Not Warming
In addition, new NASA satellite tropospheric temperature data reveals that the Southern
Hemisphere has not warmed in the past 25 years contrary to “global warming theory” and modeling.
This new Southern Hemisphere data raises the specter that the use of the word “global” in “global warming” may not be accurate. A more apt moniker for the past 25 years may be “Northern Hemisphere” warming.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/09/southern-hemisphere-ignores-global.html
National Academy of Science (NAS )classifies Al Gore’s (Temperature Chart by Mann,) “junk.”
In addition, the NAS report further chastises Mann, declaring “Even less confidence can be
placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al.
Mann stated and Gore repeated:”(1999) that ‘the 1990’s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium …’”
“The NAS report shows that the planet warmed for about 200 years prior to the industrial age, when
we were coming out of the depths of the Little Ice Age where harsh winters froze the Thames and
caused untold deaths.”
http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&
id=257697
Gee, I guess we get global cooling when the sun goes down… Now that takes a rocket scientist to figure that one out…
Except it makes no sense to blame the SUN on global warming… Unless, HUMANS have somehow damaged the atmospheric protection that keeps out some of the sun’s heat… Hmmmmm
MoveOn’s New Ad Hits Bush for ‘Betrayal of Trust’
MoveOn.org has no regrets about a controversial ad accusing Gen. David H. Petraeus of betraying Americans with misleading claims about the Iraq war. Now the online anti-war advocacy group is going up with another ad on cable television, this one accusing President Bush of a “betrayal of trust.”http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/?hpid=sec-politics
Oh, I can hear the republican outrage now. MoveOn.org is criticizing the pResident! And so soon after that nasty ad they put up about Gen. Betrayus. I watched Glen Beck piss his pants over the Betrayus thing.
Keep up the good work, MoveOn.org. With a little work and a few more of their ads, MoveOn.org will cause half the republicans to have strokes before the election.
Fed’s Ex-Chief Attacks Bush on Fiscal Role
Alan Greenspan, who was chairman of the Federal Reserve for nearly two decades, in a long-awaited memoir, is harshly critical of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress, as abandoning their party’s principles on spending and deficits.
Mr. Greenspan describes the Bush administration as so captive to its own political operation that it paid little attention to fiscal discipline, and he described Mr. Bush’s first two Treasury secretaries, Paul H. O’Neill and John W. Snow, as essentially powerless.
“They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose” in the 2006 election, when they lost control of the House and Senate.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15greenspan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Republicans lost sight of their conservative principals. What ever happened to smaller government and fiscal discipline? After so many years of accusing Democrats of being “tax and spend Liberals”, we now have “borrow and spend conservatives”. We’ll never be able to pay down the debt these idiots have run up.
Republicans and Bush have spent 7 years running this country into the ground.
Mythical global warming makes mythical Northwest Passage a reality
THE Arctic’s Northwest Passage has opened up fully because of melting sea ice, clearing a long-sought but historically impassable route between Europe and Asia.Sea ice has shrunk in the Arctic to its lowest level since satellite measurements began 30 years ago, the European Space Agency said, showing images of the now “fully navigable” route between the Atlantic and the Pacific.http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22423319-5003402,00.html
Jesus Nathan, get off it. You have to know that even IF the whole global warming thing was a myth, the emissions causes health problems, and truly cannot be good for this earth. Even I who debunk many of the anti-smoking claims made still believe that smoking is bad for you- it’s just a matter of HOW bad it is for you.
So instead of defending the status quo, why not get on board with doing something good for the environment….or should I say, GOD’s EARTH. We know Mercury is toxic to people and that we’ve polluted the waters so intensely with mercury that our fish are nearly poisionous to us. Why keep taking the chance of doing further damage…does it have to be when we can’t even harvest our crops anymore?
Oh, that’s right, you believe God’s going to lift you up in the air anyway, so rape the earth to your content for the money-that’s the “Christian” way.
“What kind of message can be divined from a bunch of jars filled with chopped prunes, a photo of President Bush, some Homeland Security pamphlets and a Santa Claus toy with a “New York” tag around its neck?”
Oh, that’s TOO easy…..
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/northfulton/stories/2007/09/14/postoffice_0915.html
Hold your response till later, I’ve gotta go to work. I don’t want to wade through 200 posts to find it.
DANGER!!! PRUNES OF MASS DESTRUCTION FOUND AT POST OFFICE. WALMART CONTRIBUTES 1000 FREE ROLLS OF TP. POSTAL WORKER GOES POSTAL AND S**TS HIMSELF TO DEATH. SUPERFUND NEEDED FOR CLEANUP.
HOLLIDAYSBURG, Pa. (AP) – A military-style machine gun accidentally discharged at a gun club exhibition, killing an off-duty police officer who was working with the weapon, state police said Thursday.
A Gatling gun mounted on the back of a Hummer discharged Wednesday night during a demonstration, shooting Michael Kurty, 36, of Hollidaysburg, once in the head.http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=104&sid=1247353
Darwin Award!!!!!
The Indian government has withdrawn a controversial report submitted in court earlier this week which questioned the existence of the Hindu god Ram.The report was presented to the Supreme Court on Wednesday in connection with a case against a proposed shipping canal project between India and Sri Lanka.
Hindu hardliners say the project will destroy what they say is a bridge built by Ram and his army of monkeys.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6994415.stm
Jeez, they got republican fundies in India, too?
XXX has already posted this, but it’s waaaaay too good to let pass without comment.——————————-From the Greenspan article:”Greenspan, who had an eight-year alliance with Clinton and Democratic Treasury secretaries in the 1990s, praises Clinton’s mind and his tough anti-deficit policies, calling the former president’s 1993 economic plan “an act of political courage.”
But he expresses deep disappointment with Bush. “My biggest frustration remained the president’s unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending,” Greenspan writes. “Not exercising the veto power became a hallmark of the Bush presidency. . . . To my mind, Bush’s collaborate-don’t-confront approach was a major mistake.”
Greenspan accuses the Republicans who presided over the party’s majority in the House until last year of being too eager to tolerate excessive federal spending in exchange for political opportunity. The Republicans, he says, deserved to lose control of the Senate and House in last year’s elections. “The Republicans in Congress lost their way,” Greenspan writes. “They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither.”——————————-
LOL
Yeah, that’s our Augustus Stupidus all right.
I guess the only thing left for the Bush cultists now is to git ‘er done and start slammin’ Greenspan as a Marxist commie anti-American seditionist who’s rootin’ against the troops and wants America to fail in Iraq.
Jaysus, it must s u c k to stick by the side of Augustus Stupidus no matter what. Keepin’ that boy’s southern-most sphincter licked pink 24/7 has GOT to take a toll. Now THAT’s a dirty job!
LOL
Woops, I pulled that from WaPo instead.
Source:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402451.html?hpid=topnews
Good stuff, ibid:————————–”Greenspan, 81, indirectly criticizes his friend and colleague from the Ford administration, Vice President Cheney. Former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul H. O’Neill has quoted Cheney as once saying, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
Greenspan says, ” ‘Deficits don’t matter,’ to my chagrin became part of the Republicans’ rhetoric.”
He argues that “deficits must matter” and that uncontrolled government spending and borrowing can produce high inflation “and economic devastation.”————————–
OUCH!!!
LOL
Ibid:———————————-By the end of last year, Greenspan writes with some bitterness, Washington was “harboring a dysfunctional government. . . . Governance has become dangerously dysfunctional.”
However, he calls Clinton a “risk taker” who had shown a “preference for dealing in facts,”…———————————-LOL, sorry, I LOVE that part. After 7 years of Augustus Stupidus, you read a former Fed Chief write “a preference for dealing in facts” and it’s like, how refreshing! Facts! LOL———————————-…and presents Clinton and himself almost as soul mates. “Here was a fellow information hound. . . . We both read books and were curious and thoughtful about the world. . . . I never ceased to be surprised by his fascination with economic detail: the effect of Canadian lumber on housing prices and inflation. . . . He had an eye for the big picture too.”
During Clinton’s first weeks as president, Greenspan went to the Oval Office and explained the danger of not confronting the federal deficit. Unless the deficits were cut, there could be “a financial crisis,” Greenspan told the president. “The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back. I was impressed that he did not seem to be trying to fudge reality to the extent politicians ordinarily do. He was forcing himself to live in the real world.”——————————–
Ah, the real world. I guess we can all go back there, but our return ain’t likely before Jan-2009.
LOL
As long as the haves and have mores get theirs bushco have accomplished their goals! It never mattered what happened to our country or those with less money than the haves.
Pedant, deficit spending is a chicken that surely will come home to roost. For all those years, republicans tut-tuted Democrats as the party of tax and spend. At least Democrats made some attempt to balance the budget, witness the Clinton surplus when he left office. Now our borrow and spend republicans tout budget deficits that fall under 300 billion (not counting the 3 billion a week we spend in Iraq). And let’s not even talk about the trade deficit.
The American economy just passed the crossroad and is headed down the wrong path. There’s a recession (at least) coming and the repubs won’t be able to blame it on Clinton, although I have no doubt they’ll try.
So we have the Bush War and the Bush Recession, just in time for the 2008 election.
I’d call that the perfect storm.
“But he expresses deep disappointment with Bush. “My biggest frustration remained the president’s unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending,” Greenspan writes. “Not one reason exercising the veto power became a hallmark of the Bush presidency. . . . To my mind, Bush’s collaborate-don’t-confront approach was a major mistake.”——-I agree completely with Greenspan about that. Bush abandoned conservative principles and that is one reason why his approval rating is so low.
But what liberals don’t understand is that conservative and moderate voters know what the Democrats are about. They think that if people don’t like or agree with this president that they all of the sudden turn liberal. Like it’s their turn. No, we still have our principles.———–”Democratic Presidential Candidates Have No Advantage Over GOP Hopefuls on Iraq, the Economy, or Restoring the Nation’s Optimism”
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/democratic_presidential_candidates_have_no_advantage_over_gop_hopefuls_on_iraq_the_economy_or_restoring_the_nation_s_optimism
…For all those years, republicans tut-tuted Democrats as the party of tax and spend.
Posted by: XXX | September 15, 2007 at 09:25 AM
Yeah, who can forget. As opposed to the Bushistas, under whom the GOP became the party of borrow and spend.
What can you do. With these bozos if you can’t laugh then it’s time to drag out the razor and the pills. You know that Bush deserves every pompous vowell and sibilant consonant (plus the “T” in Augustus which rhymes with “duh”) in the name Augustus Stupidus when you see the GOP, once a party the platform for which was pyloned by fiscal restraint, tout borrowing as a way to finance guvmint. Surely the Republics of yore have spun little caves in certain graves by now.
Oh well, you get in bed with Grover Norquist and Karl Rove, and yer sure to pick up fleas.
No, we still have our principles.Posted by: outlander | September 15, 2007 at 09:35 AM
LOL
Principles? Did I miss a meeting? And what might those principles be? Small government – in 16 yrs they have increased the size and scope of government? Lower taxes — and who and how is the huge deficit they created going to be rectified? They lost all principles when they signed on to the neo con adenda in the 90’s.
Glenn Beck has a whole laundry basket full of pissed pants over many things… The boy needs something for bladder control!!
The new Democratic Party salute is demonstrated by raising both hands in the air with a white flag in each, sporting a cheese-eating surrender monkey symbol.
Hillary, “Her Royal Thighness” Clinton, questions the hero General Petraeus by directly implicating the testimony he just gave is all lies. I bet that move won’t get the Hildabeast any military votes.
Barak “Osama” Obama, hasn’t really figured out what to say since his “bomb innocent villages” remark and is smoking in the boys room. Osama Obama is getting over his confusion why the NAACP is not supporting his “Birmingham” I was there speech.
Osama Obama is looking for Osama Bin Laden’s speech writer as they share ideology and goals to turn American in to the Land of the Home of the Sheeple and the Muslim.
Jesus. Can you please read better authors so you can steal better prose?
LOL
Kansas, that was nearly word for word straight out of Limbaugh… And you say you dont listen??? Hmmmmm nearly perfect plagiarism from a radio show you dont listen to, eh???
Hagle on Real World in essence called the Bush administration unethical and a group of liars — Hows that for a symbol of the GOP — Seems to fit
Hmmmmm nearly perfect plagiarism from a radio show you dont listen to, eh???”Posted by: Chas.
Hmmmmm, been listening to Limbaugh a lot Chas.
Perhaps Limbaugh steals from me Chas, I don’t listen to radio except during storms and don’t particularly care for daytime talk show hosts.
Of course, what can you expect from a blog-donkey like Chas who claims that a husband cannot get their wife’s social security if the wife dies first under any circumstance.
Of course Chas wouldn’t know originality if it smacked him in the face as he has the Liberal Leftist puppet master’s hand stuck up his back mimicking the Democratic sound byte of the day. Chas also praises Marx while decapitating the purpose of his own calling by reluctantly admitting his faith. No wonder then that the offering plate for him has developed cob webs.
Pedant creates fake Latin phrases while secretly fapping his talking points from under the table hand sessions which constantly keep him breathless and that gaping mouth-breather look.
Pedant creates fake Latin phrases while secretly fapping his talking points from under the table hand sessions which constantly keep him breathless and that gaping mouth-breather look.Posted by: Kansas | September 15, 2007 at 10:23 AM
Translation: I can’t understand what Pedant writes, but it damn sure pisses me off anyway.
LOL
Tell you what, Kansas, it’s time to bury the hatchet.
Let’s you and me both take a little trip to Crawford or DC, whichever is unlucky enough to receive the mortal remains of Augustus Stupdus, in some hopefully not terribly distant future, and let’s take turns pissin’ on a certain grave. We can take turns writin’ our names, if’n you like. Or, hell, I’m even open to a little duet pissin’ if you prefer. Your call, bro.
Are we bondin’ yet?
LOL
Naw Pedant, I’ll leave organ trumpeting and foot tapping adventures gone wild to you. If you really want to urinate in public, may I suggest Old Town when the Public facilities are locked up.
Ok, Kansas, yer call. I tried to make peace, but I guess you prefer all the ugliness instead.
Oh well. I tried.
LOL
“The new Democratic Party salute is demonstrated by raising both hands in the air with a white flag in each, sporting a cheese-eating surrender monkey symbol.”Posted by: Kansas | September 15, 2007 at 10:04 AM
LOL! Kansas finally crawls out from under the bed to a new day, but starts it with an old tired euphemism. I know….it takes a while to get those wet panties changed. And you had a rough night blogging and not having a real life or a girlfriend, huh?
Kansas, I’m still without the use of my arm from the bike wreck; wanna meet me someplace and call me a “surrender monkey” to my face?
Nah, I didn’t think so. Too bad you and I can’t get along, us both being veterans and having been in wars and all.
Oh yeah, I forgot. I fought in a war and you were just “in” one (that didn’t last long).
Surrender monkey indeed.
Promoting violence XXX? :)
If I wasn’t banged up myself XXX, I’d take you on. I’m pretty large myself and was a 380 pound bench presser back in the day. :)
He also had a black grandmother and was a visiting professor at San Francisco State University and never posted before February of this year.
Not hardly Capn.
Where does he get these stories?
“Hillary, “Her Royal Thighness” Clinton, questions the hero General Petraeus by directly implicating the testimony he just gave is all lies.”
How does one “directly implicate”?
The HERO gen. Petraeus? This is the guy who has leadership of the most powerful military force on the planet and still can’t win?
General Betrayus is a pud! Just like his commander-in-chief.
“Promoting violence XXX?”
Does the term “armed redneck Liberal” have any meaning for you?
Nah, I’d NEVER promote violence. How could I get violent with someone who has wet panties?
Nathan,
Do you ACTUALLY believe medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, with no background in climate science, or science history, has refuted Dr.Naomi Oreskes? ROFL!
http://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/pages/profile.html
“Ph.D. Graduate Special Program in Geological Research and History of Science, Stanford University, 1990 ”
Peiser tried to refute Oreskes’ work, but later admitted that he was WRONG — and Schulte PLAGIARIZED Peiser.
‘Schulte replies to Oreskes’http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/schulte_replies_to_oreskes.php“Now Monckton makes it clear that he is reporting Peiser’s work but Schulte carefully removed the references to Peiser after he cut and pasted from Monckton. Schulte plagiarised his text from Monckton and his references from Peiser. And he’s not some first year student who doesn’t know how to cite properly — he’s a published researcher who should know better.”
‘Oreskes Shreds Contradictory Climate Survey’http://www.desmogblog.com/oreskes-shreds-contradictory-climate-survey
Above has link to http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/08/oreskes_responds_to_schulte.php
‘The Oreskes Attack: Background on the Participants’http://www.desmogblog.com/the-endocrinologist-the-viscount-of-brenchley-and-the-dc-think-tank
‘Shulte vs Oreskes: How NOT to debate science’http://www.desmogblog.com/shulte-vs-oreskes-how-not-to-debate-science
‘Who ‘Framed’ Naomi Oreskes?’http://www.desmogblog.com/who-framed-naomi-oreskes
‘Klaus Martin-Shulte remains silent on his climate change “research” ‘http://www.desmogblog.com/klaus-martin-shulte-remains-silent-on-his-climate-change-research
Clinton Shu Scandal
Here’s an excellent summary of the Clinton scandal. I normally don’t read this web site, and have never posted a link to this site before, but the summary with links to news sources for the article was excellent.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_091207/content/01125107.guest.html
My forecast:
I would not want to be in Shu’s shoes, nor would I want to be his Life Insurance Agent.
Shu will not survive 2007.
‘Unstoppable Hot Air’http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/unstoppable-hot-air/
“A story from Earthtimes http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml is spreading like wildfire through the denialist blogosphere:…Although the post is dressed up as a news story, it’s actually a bit of PR from the Hudson Institute, an ultraconservative “think tank”; the “story” takes the opportunity to push Avery and Singer’s book.
The book is full of baloney, including the ridiculous claim that it’s not yet warm enough to grow wine grapes in England, despite a flourishing wine industry in Britain during the 11th century. That little piece of garbage is debunked in this post.http://tamino.wordpress.com/2006/11/11/days-of-wine-and-roses/
RE: the “Shu” “scandal.”
Is this related to Allen Edmonds somehow?!?
I guess either the GOP ain’t got their spellcheckers workin’ this weekend, or yer out ahead of the anti-Clinton Swift Boat patrol, can’t tell yet.
Max, I’m trying to read your link; Rush gives me a headache (and he’s not sharing his Oxycontin).
Interesting stuff there, dude.
“The new standard being set here is having foreign countries in Asia finance Democrat presidential campaigns.”
As opposed to having “foreign countries in Asia” finance our government (read China).
Max, ya got nothing here. Conservatives are going to scream and holler, but you got nothing. If there was anything going on, Hillary would be under indictment.
Let’s see some charges.
Ok, it’s spelled Hsu, but pronounced Shu (shoe).
Spellin has never been my strong point.
So XXX is threatening me with a gun now?
Wow, used to think you were a nice guy.
From the NY Post:
ONCE A CLINTON . . .September 15, 2007 — For Hillary Clinton, it must seem like déjà vu all over again (as Yogi Berra might put it).
But for voters, Camp Clinton’s panicky move to refund $850,000 (temporarily, anyway) in donations linked to former fugitive con artist Norman Hsu hearkens back to hubby Bill’s sordid fund-raising during his 1996 re-election campaign.
And the funny money isn’t the only ghost from the Clintons’ past.
Newsweek reports that the senator is relying for foreign-policy advice on a triumverate of her husband’s top advisers – including Sandy “Sticky Fingers” Berger.
You remember Berger – who pleaded guilty to stealing secrets from the National Archives by smuggling them out in his pants and socks. (That’s Hillary’s problem in a nutshell – socks and Hsus.)
Specifically, the documents Berger heisted and shredded were drafts of a memo by anti-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke (who’s also now mentoring Hillary) that reportedly identified national-security weaknesses so “glaring” that only sheer luck prevented a 9/11-style attack during Clinton’s presidency.
Bill Clinton laughed the whole thing off as “typical absent-minded Sandy.” Now this convict is poised to get a high-level job in a Clinton II administration.
As for Norman Hsu, an aide to GOP White House hopeful Fred Thompson asks: “Didn’t Hillary learn anything from Charlie Trie?” (He’s the guy who delivered hundreds of thousands in illegal “straw man” donations to the ‘96 re-election campaign in two manila envelopes.)
You might have thought that Hillary’s intimate knowledge of that scandal-plagued cash drive would have prompted her to avoid “bundlers” like Hsu.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152007/postopinion/editorials/once_a_clinton______.htm
…it’s spelled Hsu, but pronounced Shu (shoe).Posted by: Max | September 15, 2007 at 01:27 PM
Close enough for government work, I guess.
You guys ain’t ever gonna get yer scandal goin’ until yall get the spelling worked out.
Didn’t those Swift Boat guys teach yall anything?!?
“I have been blessed by what this country has given me and have tried to give back in many ways,” Hsu said in an email to a Wall Street Journal reporter earlier this week. “One way has been through political contributions to candidates and causes I believe in. I have never asked for anything in return.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/08/29/leading-clinton-donor-stays-below-the-radar/?mod=sphere_ts
1. Yeah right, giving $850,000 to Hillary and not asking for anything in return!
2. Why are “bundlers” allowed to gather money for anyone’s campaign? Can they not give their money directly to the campaign? (Because it’s really not their own money?)
Campaign finance reform should have made the process of “bundling” or “bungling” illegal.
Say XXX, the investigations on Clinton/Hsu are just starting.
People are considered innocent until proven guilty, unless you are in politics. Then, the severity of the accusation is what convicts you.
From the AP:
Interesting, one of the investigators of Hsu was himself given $2,000 by Hsu. Conflict of interest? Think the investigator will find anything?
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iqBhmJjjyb8×9_pGPNx072hMBDQg
Though Clinton was by far the biggest beneficiary of his fundraising, Hsu touched many with his largesse. Even Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, who is leading one investigation of Hsu, received $2,000 from Hsu during his last re-election campaign. His spokeswoman says the district attorney has put the money into an escrow account pending the outcome of the investigation.
Hsu sat on the board of trustees of The New School, whose president is former Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb. He was co-chairman of a gala New York benefit last October in honor of the late Robert F. Kennedy. Bill Clinton, there to receive an award, thanked the evening’s benefactors, “especially our friend Norman Hsu.”
Now, the Manhattan prosecutor is investigating whether Hsu used a financing scheme to steal $40 million from Source Financing, an investment fund founded by one of the organizers of the 1969 Woodstock rock festival.
Law enforcement authorities say the FBI also is investigating whether Hsu used straw donors to contribute to political candidates, reimbursing them for their donations in violation of federal law.
Posted by: Max | September 15, 2007 at 01:38 PM
1. Yeah right, giving $850,000 to Hillary and not asking for anything in return!
***Did Hsu give $850K to Clinton, or was the 850 a Clinton estimate of the total contributed to Democratic campaigns by Hsu over the years? I believe the truth lies much closer to the latter, right? I don’t believe it’s accurate to state that Hsu gave that amount to Hillary Clinton alone.
2. Why are “bundlers” allowed to gather money for anyone’s campaign? Can they not give their money directly to the campaign? (Because it’s really not their own money?)
***I believe they were called Rangers, Super Rangers, and Power Rangers in the Bush/Cheney 04 campaign. That may not be exactly correct, but it’s close.
Campaign finance reform should have made the process of “bundling” or “bungling” illegal.
***Agreed.
Yall need to hire the Swift Boaters, though. Those guys were masters at takin’ the same kinda hot air you got here and turnin’ it into a directed flame.
‘What Global Warming Looks LikeNew Report Visualizes Impact of Sea Level Rise on U.S. Coastal Cities’http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/TenWays/story?id=3602227&page=1
“So XXX is threatening me with a gun now?
Wow, used to think you were a nice guy.”
Oh come on, Kansas, you KNOW I’m a nice guy. Show me where I said anything about a gun. I’d never threaten to shoot you (although what’s a little chunk of lead between friends, lol!) It’s all in the delivery. If I handed you a bullet, you’d think it was funny. Delivered down the barrel of a .50 cal mag, you’d probably whine.
Just kidding. please don’t get wet again.
Actually, I’m more into blades for this kind of work. a lot quieter. Did I tell you about the tactical switchblade I picked up in Arkansas when I got married? I was stunned to find out they can sell them legally there.
***Did Hsu give $850K to Clinton, or was the 850 a Clinton estimate of the total contributed to Democratic campaigns by Hsu over the years? I believe the truth lies much closer to the latter, right? I don’t believe it’s accurate to state that Hsu gave that amount to Hillary Clinton alone.
Posted by: Pedant | September 15, 2007 at 01:51 PM
Uh, Pendant, there are multiple news stories about the $850,000 from Hsu to Clinton. (And an additional $23,000, but there’s no big difference between $850,000 and $873,000 is there?)
And why would Hillary agree to send $850,000 (plus $23,000 a couple of weeks ago) back if that wasn’t the amount given to her by Hsu?
Uh, Pendant, there are multiple news stories about the $850,000 from Hsu to Clinton. (And an additional $23,000, but there’s no big difference between $850,000 and $873,000 is there?)
And why would Hillary agree to send $850,000 (plus $23,000 a couple of weeks ago) back if that wasn’t the amount given to her by Hsu?Posted by: Max | September 15, 2007 at 02:15 PM
According to NPR, the $850K was an estimate of the cumulative amount donated by Hsu to Democrats since 1992. The estimate was prepared by Hillary Clinton’s election campaign. It was sent back in an attempt to make a clean break with Hsu.
Don’t know about your $23, it could well be an additional amount “found” by Clinton.
$23K, sorry.
This is why you need the Swift Boaters, btw.
Those guys would NEVER let the facts get in the way of a good scandal. Taken straight from Scandal Mfg 101, I believe.
You can try to discredit the facts all you want Pendant, or ignore the facts, but anyone with a brain who can read, can easily find the news stories themselves.
Oh, where’s your link on the NPR ’story’?
And Pendant we all know how impartial NPR is. I think the dems might just have stepped in one on this. Sandy Berglur no less. What a crew!
So many references to the swift boaters. Do you have a problem with freedom of speech?
Conservatives,you got nothing. Where’s the charges? If Hillary did something illegal, lets get some charges. Maybe a Congressional investigation. Why aren’t there any charges?
Pendant, just in case your search engine is out of gas, thought I would help you out.
WASHINGTON – Hillary Clinton’s campaign couldn’t explain yesterday why it blew off warnings about felon-turned-fund-raiser Norman Hsu – and the Daily News learned FBI agents are collecting e-mail evidence in the widening scandal.
Clinton was forced Monday to give back a whopping $850,000 raised by convicted scam artist Hsu after learning his investment ventures were being probed by the FBI as a potential Ponzi scheme.
She earlier gave to charity $23,000 Hsu donated himself after reports revealed he fled sentencing for a $1 million scam in California in 1992.
Once again that NPR has goofed. They just keep getting it wrong. That is why you should listen to someone more accurate Pendant.
XXX as I said a few days ago the congress with the lowest rating ever, can’t get over the fact that they couldn’t nail the AG, missed out on Cheney, and the prez. They did catch, for a while, Scooter but he was on crutches for at the time.
Does that answer your questions about why there is no investigation?
Hillary has scared the bejeezus out of the republicans. Her funding and political machine are unstoppable. With as many sources of funding as she has, it’s not surprising that one person is fishy. Somebody needs to prove that Clinton had any idea what this guy was about. So far, all we’re seeing is a bunch of fishing expeditions.
Show us some facts that prove Hillary is dirty.
Oh, where’s your link on the NPR ’story’?Posted by: Max | September 15, 2007 at 02:29 PM
Can’t find one. I am pretty sure I heard this on the Diane Rehm show yesterday or Thursday, but damned if I can find anything via Google.
That said, I did find this quote by Peter Oversby (NPR):”Until two weeks ago, Hsu was one of Hillary Clinton’s most prodigious fundraisers, bringing in some $850,000 for the New York senator’s presidential campaign.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14428731
That seems pretty clear that the contributions that were returned were sent to the Clinton 2008 campaign, so I’ll retract my statement (for now).
The contributions were returned, though, in any case.
Does that answer your questions about why there is no investigation?
Posted by: ksgrm | September 15, 2007 at 02:39 PM
Ksgrm, how does that answer anything? If we have a criminal issue here, bring on the prosecution. The Democrats got Cunningham, Ney, and Abramoff when the repugs were in control, just to name a few.
Where’s the beef? Bring it on!
You got nothing.
So many references to the swift boaters. Do you have a problem with freedom of speech?Posted by: ksgrm | September 15, 2007 at 02:31 PM
Good afternoon, granny!
LOL
No problem with freedom of speech, but I do have a problem with liars.
Do you?
I sure do that is why I will challenge you everytime you call the swift boaters liars. They were proved to be accurate. Maybe not by your sources but as you know NPR makes lots of mistakes.
Get a grip Pendant your edges are starting to ravel. I know this when you start calling others names.
Hillary is proving to be just like her husband when it comes to contributions. Wonder how far in advance the Lincoln Bedroom is booked?
“….can’t get over the fact that they couldn’t nail the AG, missed out on Cheney, and the prez.”
Uh, looks to me like the AG got run out of office. In fact, republicans leaving this administration are like rats leaving a sinking ship.
Cheney is a castrated hampster hiding under the bed in a bunker somewhere, and Bush has to ride on the coattails of general Betrayus to have any credibility.
I’d say the Democrats have done a fine job.
Oh the Swift Boaters were liars all right.
Did you mean to write unravel? Or just what the hell is going on with my “edges?”
LOL
“Hillary is proving to be just like her husband when it comes to contributions.”
Soon she’ll prove to be just like her husband; a great president.
XXX you are good. Do you write the liberal talking points everyday? I think I just read these on another blog. Do they email these out to each other or do you have a secret code to get into a ’secure’ site?
Pendant not sure what is happening I’m not close enough to see. I could just tell you were in meltdown. I am listening to Butler and Independence (close game) and watching golf (Tiger leads by 3) so nothing is getting my full attention.
It’s a secret code called brains.
Hey, ksgrm, did you see the news I linked to above?
The bits where Alan Greenspan said Augustus Stupidus is a dipshit?
LOL
I am pretty sure, ksgrm, that in your uber-fairness you found this particularly enlightening:———————————”Greenspan, who had an eight-year alliance with Clinton and Democratic Treasury secretaries in the 1990s, praises Clinton’s mind and his tough anti-deficit policies, calling the former president’s 1993 economic plan “an act of political courage.”
But he expresses deep disappointment with Bush. “My biggest frustration remained the president’s unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending,” Greenspan writes. “Not exercising the veto power became a hallmark of the Bush presidency. . . . To my mind, Bush’s collaborate-don’t-confront approach was a major mistake.”———————————–
LOL
Did you get that? Greenspan thinks Clinton is a genius!
Would this be the same Greenspan that by his inaction in October of 2000 set up the recession Clinton left for Bush. His good friend Al needed some help but ole Greenspan miscalculated. Research that one. I was in an economics class at that time that followed the activity or lack of it on Greenspans part. He goofed and now I’m supposed to think he knows what he is talking about. Hummmm
Oh, and according to Greenspan Clinton displayed “political courage” while Augustus Stupidus was afraid to confront Congress!
We in the reality-based community call that “cowardice,” btw.
LOL
I have never doubted that Clinton was smart. I have questioned his character and yes I do think character matters.
Cosmos,
“Nathan,
Do you ACTUALLY believe medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, with no background in climate science, or science history, has refuted Dr.Naomi Oreskes? ROFL!”
I beleive the HUNDREDS of credible peer reviewed scientists who do not believe the so called ‘concensus’
Would this be the same Greenspan that by his inaction in October of 2000 set up the recession Clinton left for Bush. His good friend Al needed some help but ole Greenspan miscalculated. Research that one. I was in an economics class at that time that followed the activity or lack of it on Greenspans part. He goofed and now I’m supposed to think he knows what he is talking about. HummmmPosted by: ksgrm | September 15, 2007 at 03:00 PM
LOL. Can I predict ‘em or what?
I think you left out the part where Greenspan’s a Marxist commie anti-American seditionist who’s rootin’ against the troops and wants America to fail in Iraq.
Oh, and the recession was on Augustus Stupidus’s watch. Not Clinton’s.
LOL
Why all of a sudden did Greenspan step up to brag all over Clinton? Is something happening behind the scenes we aren’t aware of? Do the Clintons needs some credibility all of a sudden? Is something making they look vulnerable?
Your new hero Alan Greenspan? Go figure…
Say Pendant, that’s paraphrasing what Greenspan said about Bush.
But Greenspan is correct to say that Bush and the Republicans had no fiscal discipline.
Will the Democrats cut Federal Spending? Will Hillary promise to balance the budget while expanding social programs by Trillions of Dollars? How high can Hillary raise taxes?
Pendant you really need to add gas to your search engine it isn’t working for you. Sorry about that. The recession started in March of 2000 no matter what your liberal news media tells you. Check it out yourself.
Why all of a sudden did Greenspan step up to brag all over Clinton? Is something happening behind the scenes we aren’t aware of? Do the Clintons needs some credibility all of a sudden? Is something making they look vulnerable?
Your new hero Alan Greenspan? Go figure…Posted by: ksgrm | September 15, 2007 at 03:04 PM
LOL
None of the above. What’s happening is that history’s being written, and nobody, including Alan Greenspan, want’s any Bush shit on his set of paragraphs.
LOL
I personally have posted this information from the National Bureau of Economic Research several times.
“To define a recession, economists rely on the measurements of the National Bureau of Economic Research, the official arbiter of recessions and expansions. NBER has been run since 1977 by Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, an architect of the Bush tax cut and an intellectual mentor to many prominent Republican policy-makers, including Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. According to NBER’s definition, the recession did not begin until after President Clinton left office. According to NBER, the economy peaked and started shrinking in March 2001; two months after the Bush presidency began. “The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began in March.” So according to NBER, the most recent recession did not start during the Clinton administration. (Nor did the expansion begin under Clinton; rather, it launched during President Bush the Father’s term.)”
Pendant
Well then in October of 2000 when all of the indicators were right he should have reduced rates. He just didn’t want to admit that the economy was in decline and make the Clinton/Gore team look bad. It is a deep subject but it’s there if you look deep enough.
Will the Democrats cut Federal Spending?***Extremely doubtful.
Will Hillary promise to balance the budget while expanding social programs by Trillions of Dollars?
***Unknown, but I wouldn’t doubt it.
How high can Hillary raise taxes?***There’s room for targeted tax hikes, I believe. Somebody’s got to pay for Iraq, after all.
Yeah Linda, I’m pretty sure ksgrm doesn’t want to play in the reality-based community all the time. Especially when it comes to the Clintons.
Sure you can find economists who’ll try to backdate the March 2001 recession, but they’re all partisan and none are Democrats.
You can also find military experts who swear there were WMD’s in Iraq in March 2003. Doesn’t mean they’re right.
Pendant it is hard to break the economy down to a sound bite. But for you I’ll try.
The following was taken out of a report published by the University of San Diego on the California economy.
“The outlook for the local economy mirrors that for the national economy. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased at a 2.4% annual rate during the third quarter of 2000, down significantly from the 5.6% growth rate of the second quarter. And the near term outlook is not optimistic, as the national Index of Leading Economic Indicators has been flat or negative since March of this year. This softening in the national economy has led to speculation that the Federal Reserve will ease interest rates in 2001, if not sooner. The feeling here is that interest rates will end 2001 0.50% below where they start the year.”
http://home.sandiego.edu/~agin/usdlei/lei00oct.htm
I know it will be hard so you don’t have to admit that you are wrong, I’ll just know it. Did you catch the phrase ’since March of this year’ when describing the national economy.
XXX you are good. Do you write the liberal talking points everyday? I think I just read these on another blog. Do they email these out to each other or do you have a secret code to get into a ’secure’ site?
Posted by: ksgrm | September 15, 2007 at 02:55 PM
Ksgrm, I know it’s hard, but try to stay focused here. So since you can’t discount my posts, I must be the one who does the talking points? Attack the poster?
Come on, you can do better than that.
Next!
Linda and Pendant as you can see from the San Diego piece the national indicators were not what your report stated. False info was used to foster that belief and many libs would never look at the evidence that repudiated.
Call me delusional if you wish but the facts don’t lie. You just can’t go back and correct national indicators.
XXX,
You have good points, actually, they are the exact same things we have been saying about Bush, the former AG, and countless others in the administration the left keeps calling liars and criminals.
I’m going with the official report instead of a report from a state university. And, I never expected you to believe anything other than what you choose.
…the national Index of Leading Economic Indicators has been flat or negative since March of this year. Posted by: ksgrm | September 15, 2007 at 03:16 PM
Get a dictionary. A decline in the LEI doesn’t define a recession. A shrinking GDP does.
LOL
Sheesh, what kinda class was that you were in? Was it a bible class?
XXX what can I think when I see the same talking points everywhere I look?
Somewhere in a dark room somewhere there has to be someone writing them. I just thought it might be you. Sorry I was wrong.
If I were you I would rather be the leader than the follower.
Call me delusional if you wish but the facts don’t lie. You just can’t go back and correct national indicators.Posted by: ksgrm | September 15, 2007 at 03:19 PM
LOL
Look up the definition of “recession.”
‘…flat or negative since March of this year (2000). Three quarters of no or negative growth define a recession.
I wondered when it would go to religious name calling. Didn’t take long now did it?
XXX,
You have good points, actually, they are the exact same things we have been saying about Bush, the former AG, and countless others in the administration the left keeps calling liars and criminals.
Posted by: Nathan | September 15, 2007 at 03:20 PM
Thanks Nathan!I know it’s irritating, but it works both ways, huh?
What’s sauce for the goose….
A recession is defined as a shrinking of GDP, not by leading economic indicators.
Unless you have a partisan bone to pick, that is.
LOL
So what was this bit about Greenspan not reducing “rates” in October 2000, ksgrm?
How did that work again?
“Somewhere in a dark room somewhere there has to be someone writing them. I just thought it might be you.”
Now that’s about as paranoid a thing as I’ve heard in a while. But paranoia is a hallmark of conservativism.
“If I were you I would rather be the leader than the follower.”
Actually, I prefer to be an individual.You should try it sometime.
Another recession is possible during bush’s term.
http://tinyurl.com/366es5
XXX,
You were doing so good, actually trying to be logical and reasonable…
Then you had to go and say something so wrong as this:
“Now that’s about as paranoid a thing as I’ve heard in a while. But paranoia is a hallmark of conservativism.”
Pendant when you ask questions like you are asking this is a signal that you have lost the argument and don’t know what else to say.
The GDP is certainly a factor but other indicators are mitigating factors the fed is always looking at to know when to adjust rates. Whether we are experiencing inflation or deflation is just one of these.
And actually XXX I believe in and have taught my kids and grandkids to ‘either lead, follow or get out of the way’. I always tell them that it is better to lead though.
You gotta love it when Alan Greenspan, arguably the greatest Fed chief ever and a self-described “libertarian Republican,” appointed by Reagan, is sold down the river as a Clinton whore by ksgrm.
LOL
All right, who’s next?
Sure, ksgrm.
What was that bit about Greenspan’s failure to reduce “rates” again?
LOL
Great link, Linda. I’ve said myself that there’s a recession coming.
A recession between now and the elections should just about put the final nail in the republican coffin. They’ve run this country into the ground.
And XXX I couldn’t be much more of an individual. Follow me and see.
“Both charts warned of an economic downturn before the 1990 and 2001 recessions, and they are doing so again.ight be refreshing..”
Linda can’t have it both ways. If the downturn before Bush started in 2000 – that is before 2001 – it would be Clinton’s recession. I took this right from your tinyurl.
Hell, by ksgrm’s rules we’re IN a recession now.
LOL
Sometimes I think as serious as the situation in Iraq is that bushco may be glad the clamor covers for the many other ways they have run our country into the ground. If enough Americans were paying attention to the long list there would certainly be an uprising of the American citizenry. May come yet.
Then you had to go and say something so wrong as this:
“Now that’s about as paranoid a thing as I’ve heard in a while. But paranoia is a hallmark of conservativism.”
Posted by: Nathan | September 15, 2007 at 03:33 PM
Nathan, how am I wrong? Conservatives are the ones who live in constant fear thinking the world is out to get them.
Pendant I can see you are getting hot under the collar. Guess I will give my full attention to the golf match and football game. Take deep breaths now, breath in, breath out… keep doing that until the blood pressure comes down.
And actually XXX I believe in and have taught my kids and grandkids to ‘either lead, follow or get out of the way’. I always tell them that it is better to lead though.
Posted by: ksgrm | September 15, 2007 at 03:34 PM
Different version from my Dad ksgrm:
Lead, Follow, or get the Hell out of the way!
Let me guess, ksgrm: you took the biz calculus, right?
LOL
I’m not trying to have anything any way. I’m reading the official report. Again, I’m not attempting to convince you of anything. I expect everyone to be able to read and reason on their own.
XXX do you ever get dizzy from all that spinning?
About Leading, and the Future, what is the agenda of Hillary Clinton?
Assuming she survives the campaign finance scandal, what are Hillary’s top 10 specific agenda items for America?
Any Hillary supporters out there?
Or does she have nuthin! Nuthin except Bill’s last name?
Cool as a cucumber, ksgrm.
LOL
What was that bit about Greenspan not reducing “rates” in 2000?
“And XXX I couldn’t be much more of an individual. Follow me and see.”
Copycat.
Uh, I think I’ll pass on following you. I see where conservatives have led us in the past few years.
Next!
Linda is 2000 not before 2001 as your article shows? Wasn’t Clinton prez in 2000?
I am not taking up for Bush in any way. He has spent his way into the record book and it wasn’t a good record. I just don’t like the libs to try to change history to prove a point.
Didn’t Greenspan get a shiny medal from Howdy Doody, like Tenant did?
XXX,
It is a blatant stereotype. One which is not my job to prove wrong, only point out how absurd of a statement it is.
For someone saying it is the Conservatives who live in fear…
We are not the ones who think the President Bush is reviewing my weekly book readings from the library and listening to my phones calls with Grandma on the weekend.
It seems that the left are the ones who have been overcome with paranoia and fear for the last 7 years, not conservatives.
Yes ksgrm, I believe 2000 was before 2001. I also am able to read and understand that the last recession began in March of 2001.
“XXX do you ever get dizzy from all that spinning?”Posted by: ksgrm | September 15, 2007 at 03:42 PM
Do you ever get tired of attacking the poster rather than the post?
When you can’t carry the discussion….
“I beleive the HUNDREDS of credible peer reviewed scientists who do not believe the so called ‘concensus’”
Posted by: Nathan
Do you mean Avery and Singer’s piece??? Then you’re believing scientists on OTHER issues.
Dansgaard-Oeschger events do not = global warming. They were a redistribution of heat.http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/unstoppable-hot-air/
And scientists agree that there WERE correlations between solar activity and Earths temperatures in the PAST. That correlation ENDED about 30 years ago, when solar dropped, but temperatures rose sharply.
See graph, and links to 11 scientific studies athttp://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=18
Another graph here,’Do 500 scientists refute anthropogenic global warming?’http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=10
Nathan, instead of attacking me for pointing out the falsehoods in the Avery/Singer piece, try instead to prove that I’m wrong about their falsehoods.
“So according to NBER, the most recent recession did not start during the Clinton administration.”
Can you explain what Bush did in 2 months to cause the recession?
Cosmos,
I see you are still posting to the same old link…
Don’t you have any new tricks or is that all you can do when I post links to credible peer reviewed scientists who do not agree with the concensus?
It seems that the left are the ones who have been overcome with paranoia and fear for the last 7 years, not conservatives.
Posted by: Nathan | September 15, 2007 at 03:44 PM
At least it didn’t lead us to an unwinnable war.
“When you can’t carry the discussion….”
And stereotyping conservatives does what for the discussion?
Linda, March 31st is the end of the first quarter. Tell me how this could have been Bush’s fault. Just curious. It is hard to argue with number and facts.
Yeah Linda, I’m pretty sure ksgrm doesn’t want to play in the reality-based community all the time.
Posted by: Pedant | September 15, 2007 at 03:15 PM
Retracted. ksgrm’s problem here was misdiagnosed.
“At least it didn’t lead us to an unwinnable war.”
When the left keeps redefining what victory is everytime it is reached, of course it is unwinnable.
“REAL GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCTReal gross domestic product (GDP) grew 4.1 percent from 1999 to 2000, marking the ninthconsecutive year of positive output growth. However, after reaching 5.7 percent (annualrate) in the second quarter, real GDP growth declined to 1.3 and 1.9 percent in the thirdand fourth quarters, respectively. Growth remained low in the first half of 2001, aspreliminary numbers indicate that real GDP grew 1.3 percent and 0.2 percent at an annualrate in the first and second quarters respectively.”
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN004979.pdf
I have numerous times posted these same facts.
Fact: the economy in the second half of 2000 DECLINED. That was 2/3 of the number needed to mark a recession. Forget your biased liberal articles and look at the facts.
Yes, if Greenspan had lowered the rate in October 2000 as conditions warranteed that he should – the recession would not have happened.
“When you can’t carry the discussion….”
And stereotyping conservatives does what for the discussion?
Posted by: Nathan | September 15, 2007 at 03:50 PMNathan, simply pointing out that conservatives are paranoid isn’t stereotyping, That’s my opinion since most conservatives think the rest of the world is out to get them.
“The new Democratic Party salute is demonstrated by raising both hands in the air with a white flag in each, sporting a cheese-eating surrender monkey symbol.”
Now that’s stereotyping.
I predict Hillary will:
1. Surrender in Iraq. Genocide will occur, but who cares?
2. Force Hillary Health care on all Americans resulting in Trillion Dollar annual deficits and doctor shortages.
3. Do nothing to make America energy independet. We will have $5/gal gasoline, and energy shortages, with roving blackouts.
4. Spend even more money on an education system that doesn’t work today.
5. Advance stem cell research and create a market for aborted fetuses and selling of human organs and other parts.
6. Totally screw up the budget, raise taxes, bankrupt Social Security and Medicare for good.
7. CARE about us! And have the biggest political scandals in history!
8. Weaken our military, as the volunteer army will not renew their enlistments to work for a coward-in-chief.
9. Turn over much control of American national defense and foreign policy to the UN. (Bill will be ambassador to the UN) Sign a revised Kyoto treaty to solve global warming and bankrupt American jobs.
10. Work to achieve an even bigger and more controlling Government then we have today.
Just my opinion.
Reality is where I am Pendant. You and Linda should join me. We might have disagreements but we won’t argue over facts.
I’ve never assigned any “fault.” I simply posted to correct the date of the last recession. Then posted the fear of the next. I think you need to ask someone else your questions about fault.
“When the left keeps redefining what victory is everytime it is reached, of course it is unwinnable.”
When the right keeps redefining why we went to war and what the goals are, it’s unwinnable for sure.
Linda from the beginning you have argued that that was Bush’s recession. The facts show that is clearly not the case. I am not assigning fault either. Just clearing up the facts.
I suggest if your memory is bad enough to make that statement you reread this thread. I’ve never said any such thing!
BTW, I think Bill would make an excellent ambassador to the UN.
I’m sorry but you said that the recession began under Bush and this was a patently false statement. Sorry if I didn’t understand what you meant to say.
“It’s a secret code called brains.
Posted by: lindainks55 | September 15, 2007 at 02:57 PM”
Maybe we both need that secret code.
Well Mary we know he would be able to handle the Darfur and Chinese delegations ok.
“I see you are still posting to the same old link…
Don’t you have any new tricks or is that all you can do when I post links to credible peer reviewed scientists who do not agree with the concensus?”
Posted by: Nathan | September 15, 2007 at 03:49 PM
Where are your links to “credible peer reviewed scientists who do not agree with the concensus” ?
I posted,”See graph, and links to 11 scientific studies athttp://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=18 ”
http://www.aimes.ucar.edu/MEETINGS/2005_AIMES_SSC/SSC%20PUBLICATIONS/Millenial_CCSM_Schimel%20copy.pdfAmmann 2007: “Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century.”
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdfLockwood 2007 concludes “the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf
http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Sun%20&%20Global%20Warming_GRL_2006.pdfhttp://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14604941http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf
http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VHB-3X9YR6N-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F1999&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9f89b27c032ed62c31c9593387adb5e7
http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/3/309
http://ieg.or.kr:8080/abstractII/G0102523037.PDF
I think Ann Coulter summed it up rather well this week.
Allow me to paraphrase:
Liberals thought we would loose Thousands during the invasion and it wouldn’t be easy.
We took the capitol in 17 days with minimal loss of life.
Then the Liberals said the war was a failure because we hadn’t captured Saddam.
Then we captrued Saddam.
Liberals then said the war was a failure because we hadn’t captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Then we killed him.
Liberals said there would be no elections, there was not enough security.
There were elections and they were a huge success in turnout.
“The Democrats’ current talking point is that “there can be no military solution in Iraq without a political solution.” But back when we were imposing a political solution, Democrats’ talking point was that there could be no political solution without a military solution.”
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
cosmos ignores the peer-reviewed scientists I posted.
Evidently whether they are peered review or not, cosmos has the GORACLE so far up his cavity he can’t even think any more.
Kansas,
Avoid direct interaction with the cosmos.
Remember it will get us no where.
I sometimes forget and fall for it. We should just post our links and articles and let it be at that.
If cosmos is going to pretend like there is no one who disagrees with the so called ‘concesus’ we are not going to be able to reason with him no matter how many links we post.
ksgrm, you can’t see quote marks and distinguish what were my words and those from sources? I will NOT allow you to misrepresent what I said! It’s right here in black and white and MOST people can read and reason on their own.
I agree Mary that Bill would make a good ambassador. I’m hoping Hillary isn’t the candidate but think if she is and is elected the best part of her presidency would be Bill.
true Nathan, about the GORACLE freak.
Max, buddy,ease up. You’ll have a stroke!
1. Surrender in Iraq. Genocide will occur, but who cares?
Is that worse than loosing in Iraq, having a broken down army, and genocide still occurs?
2. Force Hillary Health care on all Americans resulting in Trillion Dollar annual deficits and doctor shortages.
Yeah, I see your point. Healthcare should be only for rich folks. Too many working poor anyway.
3. Do nothing to make America energy independet. We will have $5/gal gasoline, and energy shortages, with roving blackouts.
Kind of like things are now.
4. Spend even more money on an education system that doesn’t work today.
Fundamentalist Madrassas would be so much better.
5. Advance stem cell research and create a market for aborted fetuses and selling of human organs and other parts.
We don need no stinkin cures.
6. Totally screw up the budget, raise taxes, bankrupt Social Security and Medicare for good
Well, we sure haven’t raised taxes. Borrow and spend, I always say!
7. CARE about us! And have the biggest political scandals in history!
Like Abramoff, Ney, and Cunningham, et al?
8. Weaken our military, as the volunteer army will not renew their enlistments to work for a coward-in-chief.
Uh, that’s happening now. And are you sure you want to talk about “coward-in-chief”?
9. Turn over much control of American national defense and foreign policy to the UN. (Bill will be ambassador to the UN) Sign a revised Kyoto treaty to solve global warming and bankrupt American jobs.
Let’s don’t do that. Let’s just let it continue to be mis-managed. I’m so proud that with the most powerful military force on the planet, we can’t win a war against a bunch of “deadenders”
10. Work to achieve an even bigger and more controlling Government then we have today.
Max, is that even possible?
Linda since people post quotes to support their positions I made an assumption that this is what you were doing.
What were you doing?
It’s been fun. Gotta go.Football game is over and golf is winding down. Time to get something constructive done.
Let’s don’t do that. Let’s just let it continue to be mis-managed. I’m so proud that with the most powerful military force on the planet, we can’t win a war against a bunch of “deadenders”Posted by: XXX | September 15, 2007 at 04:14 PM
The track record of the military from “your war” XXX wasn’t exactly sterling.
How many died back then and still didn’t win?
I think your analysis is mud splatter on the tires in regards to the effectiveness of today’s military in Iraq.
ksgrm, I am not capable of an explanation that you can understand. I think continuing to try is an exercise in futility which I try to avoid.
Kansas,
Due you mean like your paper by Petr Chylek at,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-915.html#comment-82847965
A later paper by him,’Ratio of the Greenland to global temperature change: Comparison of observations and climate modeling results’http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023552.shtml
“… Using this region as an indicator of Greenland’s temperature change that is related to global warming, we find that the ratio of the Greenland to global temperature change due to global warming is 2.2 in broad AGREEMENT with GCM predictions.”
“The track record of the military from “your war” XXX wasn’t exactly sterling.
How many died back then and still didn’t win?”
Way to support the troops, Kansas! How many returning Vietnam vets did you spit at?
If you’re holding your breath waiting for me to disagree with that, you’re gonna turn blue.
ksgrm, your links show that RATES of growth declined. They clearly show that the economy continued to grow.
GDP first shrank in March 2001. Augustus Stupidus had been president for at least 5 weeks at that time. Moreover, he’d spent from December through March arguing that, sans tax cuts, the economy would enter a recession. Well, he got what he wanted, a recession timed for recovery before the 2004 election come hell or high water, and he also gets to own that recession. Period.
Believe me, if the economy had been in a recession at election time, 2000, it would have been a major topic.
And with that, I’m outta here. Enjoy your Saturday evening, everybody. There’s a beer with my name on it somewhere, a pretty gal too, and somewhere there’s dancin’ music playin’.
Peace.
So much for learning from past mistakes, huh?
NATHAN,
YOU claimed that YOU posted links to “credible peer reviewed scientists who do not agree with the concensus”.
All that I see upthread is links to Sen Inhofe, Avery/Singer, and canada.com.
So again, do you have any links?
Or just false personal attacks at me, since you cannot defend your opinion?
alright nathan, i’m home.
LOL…
I’m headed out to feed the dogs, horses, and sheep. Then I’m off to play some poker with the friends.
While I’m away, this should cover everything:
I’m right, your wrong, I’m right, your wrong….
Way to support the troops, Kansas! How many returning Vietnam vets did you spit at?
Posted by: XXX
For me, I never spit at any of the troops unless you count when I spit upwind.
I also have never accused a General of betrayal.
But then I guess some of us have a different idea on how to support the troops.
“Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research
Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski…”
Posted by: Nathan | September 15, 2007 at 01:44 AM
NATHAN, please see this graph, and explain why Jaworowski believes that Earth’s CO2 levels had HUGE changes.
Did we burn all of the plants in the entire world, in 1865?
‘Hissink, CO2 and conspiracy theories’http://timlambert.org/2005/01/hissink3/“The measurements for 1865, for example, vary from 290 to 550 parts per million.It just isn’t possible for the CO2 concentration to change by that much in one year — the difference corresponds to about 500 billion tons of carbon which is about the same amount of carbon in all plants in the entire world.”
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php
Fred Thompson speaks out on immigration issuesJim Stratton | Sentinel Staff Writer
7:19 PM EDT, September 14, 2007
Article toolsE-mail Share
Digg Del.icio.us Facebook Furl Google Newsvine Reddit Spurl Yahoo Print Single page view Reprints Reader feedback Text size: On his campaign swing through Florida, Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson has hammered away illegal immigration, saying that America must secure its borders to ensure national security.
Friday, he went a step further.
Thompson, a former senator from Tennessee, said it might be time to reconsider the country’s long-standing practice — one prescribed by the Constitution — of granting citizenship to any child born on U.S. soil.
“That law was created in another time and place for valid reasons,” Thompson said during a campaign stop here. “It probably needs to be revisited.”
The granting of citizenship to anyone born in the United States is included in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
It says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that in an 1898 court decision involving a Chinese man born in the U.S. to parents who were not citizens.
Since then, anyone born in the U.S. has been automatically granted citizenship apart from rare exceptions involving the children of foreign diplomats.
Friday, Thompson — for the second day in a row — said he was willing to reconsider that.
“The question is whether or not it would require a constitutional amendment or change in law,” he said. He also said he wasn’t sure such a provision would ever pass.
“That one, I’m not sure about.”
Thompson said that the issue of automatic citizenship for children of illegal immigrants is not his primary concern.
“It’s not their fault,” he said. “They don’t determine where they’re born.”
A bigger problem, he said, was so-called “chain migration” — the practice of giving preferential treatment to the immediate family members of children who are born here.
Thompson said under current law, those children can “grow up and be used as anchors to bring in other people.” He said he was “dead set” against that.
Thompson’s willingness to entertain the idea of withholding citizenship for children born here illustrates how important the immigration issue has become to Republican presidential candidates.
All have taken a hard line against illegal immigration but as of Friday no other contender has gone as far as Thompson
More articles
Copyright © 2007, Orlando Sentinelhttp://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-thompson091407,0,443952.story?coll=orl_tab01_layout
“Specifically, the documents Berger heisted and shredded were drafts of a memo by anti-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke (who’s also now mentoring Hillary) that reportedly identified national-security weaknesses so “glaring” that only sheer luck prevented a 9/11-style attack during Clinton’s presidency.”
I know this was posted a lot earlier, but it is pefectly typical of the Right Wing Talking Point Lies… BERGER did not have “drafts” of anything… He had COPIES of documents… So, why would he want to shred copies??? Because, as he said at the time, he made copies to use for some research, and when he was done, “thre them away” (read shredded) like most anybody would do??? Fairly normal for doing research….
Real conspiratorial there… AND, he served his time AND his probation period… not like some guy named “Scooter” LOL
Better find a new whipping boy…
By the way, most of these Right Wing talking points seem to come from Limbaugh’s web site, Drudge report, and Hannity!! Some of them nearly word for word… Berger case cited above in particular!!
HARTFORD, Conn. — The student-run newspaper at Central Connecticut State University is under fire for publishing a cartoon this week that critics call racist and sexist.
The three-frame comic, titled “Polydongs,” features two characters who mention locking a “14-year-old Latino girl” in a closet and urinating on her. It was published in Wednesday’s edition of The Recorder, a weekly newspaper distributed free on campus.
Rowan, 21, was also editor in February when the newspaper was criticized for publishing a satirical opinion piece titled, “Rape Only Hurts If You Fight It,” that called sexual assault a “magical experience” that benefits “ugly women.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296876,00.html
My question is…why the hell wasn’t this guy fired after the first cartoon.
I had an old man tell me that once…that you can’t get raped if you just lay there and take it like a good woman should. Appalling!
So that’s the immediate response by Thompson, instead of enforcing the already existing laws and building the fence and going after those who hire illegals and deporting them….he goes right for the constitution.
Thankfully, he’s not in first place….the first place republican with half the democratic votes..is Guiliani. Republicans should at least vote for McCain, he’s a good person, even if he’s become a flip flopper lately, at least if he’s elected, he’s a president I could get behind on a lot of issues.
When will these Republican Autocrats stop bashing on the Constitution??? This is getting OLD… all the time, another Republican wants to tear down the Constitution, just to make some kind of a comfort zone…
Illegal immigration has always been a problem… Reagan had a chance to fix it, as have others… it has never been fixed…
Now that it is a major problem, the first thing many of these bozos want to do is tear down the Constitution… the very document that has made it possible for us to BE where we are in this world…
Unless we start standing firm on the Constitution, it will crumble under the feet of Right Wing attackers… And then we WILL have a major problem!! And illegal immigration will be only one small part of the problem!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070915/ap_on_sc/northwest_passage
I suppose the anti-global warming people will think this is fabulous news.
The offspring of non citizens have NO RIGHTS to citizenship or anything else, this is NOT a constitutional issue. Foreigners are not under the “jurisdiction” of our recognized authority, and that is the key.
Besides, the libs killed the constitution when they brought in the forced integration/civil wrongs nonsense.
“…is tear down the Constitution… the very document that has made it possible for us to BE where we are in this world…”Posted by: Chas.
What? Are you saying we should not be amending the Constitution?
The first ten were even done by the same people that wrote the Constitution.
There is even one (18th) that was later repealed (21st).
Then there are a few other dealing with Slavery, voting, women’s rights were these tearing down the Constitution.
As a matter of fact the subject Thompson was talking about was an Admentment.
How is Amending the Constitution tearing it down?
“While waving his own leg in the air in illustration, Paul Brachfeld, inspector general of the National Archives and Records Administration, asked the group rhetorically if “something white” could be easily mistaken if it was wrapped around their legs, beneath their pant legs.”
“Sandy” Berger could have stolen original, uncatalogued, highly classified terrorism documents 14 months earlier by wrapping them around his socks and beneath his pants, as National Archives staff member John Laster reported witnessing.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001344.html
BERGER did not have “drafts” of anything… He had COPIES of documents… So, why would he want to shred copies??? Because, as he said at the time, he made copies to use for some research, and when he was done, “thre them away” (read shredded) like most anybody would do??? Fairly normal for doing research….
Posted by: Chas. | September 15, 2007 at 05:41 PM
Chas do you notice there is a lot of difference between your unsourced quote and the quote from the ‘inspector general of the National Archives and Records Administration’? Surely not even you are niaeve enough to think that a man would jeopradize his reputation and good name for some copies of worthless documents. And even if you thought that, are you so uninformed that you think this man would have the right to go into the National Archives and shredd documents as he saw fit.
Get a grip on reality. You are slipping into outer space and I really don’t want to hear for the rest of the night why I am wrong and you are right.
Just the facts, Ma’am… Just the facts…
I didnt make a Quote, Grm… Better get your glasses checked
Oh yes, legislating equality under the constitution was such an unconstitutional thing to do!
For shame. Rolls eyes.
Grm — From your WAPO link… You should read the entire Article…
“In an April 1, 2005, press conference and private statements to the commission, the Justice Department stated instead that Berger had access only to copied documents, not originals. They also said the sole documents Berger admitted taking — five copies of a 2001 terrorism study –were later provided to the commission.”
See.. like I said… COPIES!!!
Gotcha!!
BTW, that would be the Justice Department under AG AG BUSH’s Justice Department…
BERGER did not have “drafts” of anything… He had COPIES of documents…
Chas straight out of your post. Yours or someone elses? I don’t know.
Whichever makes you look very uninformed. What FACTS are you referring to?
HUD — SCOTUS has ruled several times that ALL of those BORN HERE are considered US Citizens from their time of BIRTH…
Do you want to take on SCOTUS on your previous post???
Well you believe what you want to believe. I choose to believe the witness who saw him stuffing documents in his underwear and socks.
Don’t know what game is being played here but you don’t shredd documents from the National Archives.
Those quotes on “drafts” are for emphasis… C’mon, Grm, get REAL for a change???
Well, apparently the Justice Department didnt believe your so-called Witness… Amazing, huh??
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was sentenced Thursday to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them.
Chas do you see the word copies here anywhere. CNN no less.
…illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them.
“SCOTUS has ruled several times that ALL of those BORN HERE are considered US Citizens from their time of BIRTH…”Posted by: Chas.
Sorry Chas. but I can read the 14th Amendment; so I know anyone born in the US is a citizen. I do not neet the SCOTUS to explain that. I think you need to re-read my post.
When you read about the whole thing you realize he wanted to get rid of some information awfully badly. So badly that he risked everything to do it. Rumor had it that Clinton had made some notes in the margins that he and Berger didn’t want out. This was only rumor as I have stipulated.
SORRY HUD… didnt see that separation in posts… been a long day here… I was responding to Kansas Druid…. Must be related to Kansas Gnostic from the other day LOL
HUD, my reaction to your post is that some things dont need to be played with… The 18th Ammendment that was repealed replaced something for people that it had removed earlier… All of the other references you noted were Amendments that ADDED to individual freedoms…
Fred Thompson is somewhat supporting a move that would take a right of citizenship AWAY from somebody, who had no choice in where they happened to be born!!
That was all I was reacting to…
KsGrm, what is it exactly, that you HATE so much about Clinton that you still want to bash him for everything you can think of, even these many years since the man has been President??? Are you really so sexually repressed, that his fling with the intern really has you bent so far out of shape??
Did you ever wonder what it was that possessed Monica to hang on to a semen stained dress for THAT long??? Like, maybe it was all planned??? That at the right point in time, she could bring out that stained blue dress from under her BED of all places, and present it for “evidence”???
And I always wondered if she wasnt a bit sloppy, if she got it on her DRESS??? Hmmmm??
What part of “not subject to the jurisdiction” do you folks not understand?
Typical Chas that if there are two roads to take you will take the low one. Law breakers are law breakers no matter if they have a D or an R after their name.
You might ask yourself why you choose to put Monica down and say such hateful things about a person that was used by the most powerful man in the nation. Any woman should find his actions despicable.
If Thompson was refering to amending the Constitution to remove the rights of a person being born in the US, we have a problem.
Note that he said “The question is whether or not it would require a constitutional amendment or change in law.”
Since a “change in law” cannot override the Constitution, he must have been talking about something else.
He also stated automatic citizenship for children of illegal immigrants is not his primary concern.
What he was talking about was “chain migration” – the practice of giving preferential treatment to the immediate family members of children who are born in the US.
“Chain Migration” is not covered by the Constitution.
Druid… ANYbody born in the US is a citizen of this country from their time of Birth… Period…
It would take either a Constitutional Amendment, or some major piece of legislation to change that!!
Thompson’s idea… and others of the same ilk, are illegal, as it stands now… Even Thompson doesnt think it has much chance!!
Why would you want to penalize the children born hill, out of no choice of their own???
Chas. Bill lost his law license not because of Monica but because he lied.
Why are you overlooking he broke the law. Whatever he and Monic did was not illegal.
I am not putting Monica down at all… I am saying that she was part of a larger plan to “trap” Clinton into something…
What she and Clinton did in the Oval Office, was NOT a crime!!
She was NOT a victim of a Crime… Is there something about that you dont understand???
Clinton’s Crime was to lie about having sex with “that woman” –
NO, he shouldnt have lied about it… but it hardly had anything to do with the National Security of the nation… Geez, Sen. Larry Craig seems to be lying about his aberrant sexual excursion as well… Do you want to hang him out to dry??? Or the other guy from Louisiana??? Vitter??? Screwing around with admitted, known, whores??? You want to hang him out to dry??? Or is it just because it was Clinton??? Hmmm???
Chas. you really need to read what Thompson said to see what he was talking about.
Hud it was a conspiracy. All of the women were out to get him. Jennifer, Kathleen , Monica, and on and on and on… It was a vast right wing conspiracy. Hillary told us that and she is wanting to be our next prez so surely she wouldn’t lie.
HUD — What Bill and Monica did was absolutely NOT a criminal act… They were two consenting adults… He LIED about it… And thats why he lost his law license, as you rightly noted…
But there was no CRIME against Monica… She was just as much a part of the sexual thing as he was… I mean, the stain was on HER dress, carefully kept, un-cleaned, under HER bed… Sort of strange, dont you think???
I sure do… LOL
I say agian, the offspring of non-citizens are NOT automatic citizens and the constitution has been misinterpreted.
These third worlder use their little anchor wetlets as a bargaining chip to guilt morons into allowing them to stay and then sponsor even more useless third world familiy members and we need to break the cycle. The whelps do not deserve to be granted citizenship because of the illegal actions of their parents, period! In fact we should retroactively revoke citizenship from all anchor offspring.
I did read it Hud… He says he would like to see it changed, but doesnt think a change of law can trump the Constitution… He said he doesnt think it will fly… Doesnt mean he wouldnt support it if it was possible…
Chas do you know nothing about sexual harrassment? It doesn’t have to be considered that by the woman at the time. He was the prz of the US, she was a lowly intern, they were in the oval office for heavens sake. If the CEO of a corporation did this would you want his head.
Character does matter. No one was out to get him and if he was stupid enough to be manipulated by an intern then he had no business being prez.
“Hillary told us that and she is wanting to be our next prez so surely she wouldn’t lie.”Posted by: ksgrm
I keep telling myself that everyday. Still do not believe it.
I like what Russell Feingold said about the current Democratic canidates “Just about every one of them in the past mouthed that timelines are a bad idea — all of that was just false, and now they are voting for them.”
Now, you see, Druid, THAT would take a Constitutional change… If you know so darned much about the Law, why dont you challenge the SCOTUS rulings on this matter….
Now, that said — When you say those children born here can later use their status to sponsor others to come here later, THAT is an area that can be work on seriously…. But, please remember that they are not eligible to sponsor ANYbody until they are a minimum of 18 years old!!
So, an anchor baby born in 2007, a CITIZEN by birth… Cannot sponsor ANYbody until the year 2025 at the earliest…
By then, who is to say they will WANT to sponsor anybody?? Hmm???
Chas I wonder if she had a tin foil hat in that box also. Maybe you could borrow it.
She was a very immature girl no matter what her age. Taken advantage of by our President in the Oval Office of the White House while his wife and daughter were upstairs. She kept it as a souvenier as any young girl does when she has a memorable encounter which she thought this was. Listen to her interviews and you will know this.
Hud I keep thinking that the nation will wake up and see her for what she is. A liar. Dishonest. No ethics. Socialistic in nature. If not I fear we will have at least one term of her. How much damage can she do in 4 years? We may have to see.
“He says he would like to see it changed”Posted by: Chas.
Including the part where he said about the children born in the US,”It’s not their fault, they don’t determine where they’re born.”
He is not talking about removing their Citizenship from the Constitution; he is talking about removing “Chain Migration” which is our current practice. He is willing to stop the “chain migration” either with an Admendment or a law.
Yea, right, Grm, and the Good Ship Lollipop is about ready to sail, too… got your tickets??
ROFL
I have never said I LIKED what happened between Clinton and Lewinski… All I am saying is that it looks pretty much like a set up… And I dont think anybody who has worked her way to the top, to be a White House intern… is all that naive, or all that immature… And I dont think she was keeping some bloomin souvenir… I think she knew exactly what she was keeping, and exactly why… And I think some day, that will all be proven… It just isnt time yet to drop that other shoe yet..
BTW, I lived down in that part of the country(Ozarkland) for a while… It is a fairly conservative part of the world…
But, the strangest thing I learned down there… What Bill did with Monica, really ISNT considered by MANY of those folks to be having “sex” with somebody…
In fact, they consider that in an entirely different light, than most of the rest of the country…
For some reason, they see only Intercourse as having sex with somebody… I dont understand that, but thats what people told me back when this was REAL news…
If that’s what he is saying, Hud, I dont know that I would disagree with it… But if he just wants to change the ‘chain migration’ thing, that wouldnt take a Constitutional Amendment, I dont think…
What Druid is talking about is a slightly different matter…
I can sense Druid’s frustration… many of us have that frustration, for varying reasons… I am just concerned that what we do about the problem is done in the LEGAL and Constitutional manner that is the history and legacy of our great nation…
“A liar. Dishonest. No ethics. Socialistic in nature.”Posted by: ksgrm
I try not to call her names. I have come to an understanding with myself, both Bill and Hill rule by polls. Instead of a newspaper in the morning it is the latest poll. I just do not know how they handle it if two polls come out at the same time and disagree on a subject.
“But if he just wants to change the ‘chain migration’ thing, that wouldnt take a Constitutional Amendment, I dont think…”Posted by: Chas.
Which is what he said, “That one, I’m not sure about.”
I find it interesting that guys like Limbaugh are always poo hooing polls… UNTIL there is a poll that supports one of their positions… According to the new Bush Biography, apparently the PREZ does it too…
Well, folks, I have a VERY early start in the morning… If I get back here, it wont be till much later!! Gotta fix dinner, and pack a couple of bags… Later all… have a nice evening!!
Chas I am sorry that while ago I said you couldn’t be stupid enough to believe Berger’s explanation. Obviously I was wrong. We have middle school children haveing oral sex in the schools because we had an ignorant prez who didn’t inhale and thought oral SEX wasn’t SEX. I lived down that way to and you are full of it. Sorry I wasted the time trying to have a sensible conversation with you.
Of course Monica had worked her way all the way to the top of the ‘interns’. Since this is the last rung in the White House that wasn’t a long trip.
Just keep defending your boy Bill and pretty soon when Hill hits the big top we can have four more years of debauchary. What’s sad is that you counsel people according to you.
Hud you are right. I don’t always respect the person but I do respect the office.
“We have middle school children haveing oral sex in the schools”Posted by: ksgrm
But if we stop them a school they will just do it on the school bus.Oh, wait a minute, they do it there too.
What are we teaching our kids?
Grm it must be a real trip that you live in such an insulated world… and i really dont care if you believe me on the oral sex matter… i have heard that from people who are otherwise quite intelligent folks.. and as i said before, i dont understand it, but i know those folks are out there… they walk among us.. they drive… and… they vote!!
Having lived down there for many years, I dont know who you talked to, but most of the educated folks know oral sex is sex, shoot most of the poor folk know it too.
As to ksgrm living in an insulated world, Chas. you live in just as insulated world where you and your kind are almost, if not always, right. Your blindness is just as bad as the other side.
???? — YES its sex… but it isnt considered “sexual relations” as Clinton phrased it.. I think thats where we might be having a mis-understanding… SURE its sex… But I can tell you for darned certain, that I have been told by bankers, teachers, even doctors, that Clinton was responding according to the environment he was raised in, when he said “I didnt have sexual relations” with that woman…
And I am telling you for certain, that I heard people in that Bootheel country of SE Missouri, tell me more than once that they understood exactly what Clinton meant by that statement…
They said – well, he really didnt have sexual relations… he just got a BJ!!
I think we might call that a ‘cultural difference”
Of course, many people in Europe just couldnt see what the big deal was all about anyway… And thats because there is a different view of sex in Europe than here…
BTW Grm… it has NOTHING to do with how I do or dont counsel people… I KNOW the difference here… But, I also understand the cultural differences just in our own country, not to mention in other places in the world…
“Kansas,
Lets save cosmos the time…
They are all liars and hacks!”
Posted by: Nathan | September 15, 2007 at 01:51 AM
“haha, ya Nathan, all these peer reviewed Scientists we are quoted.”
Posted by: Kansas | September 15, 2007 at 01:52 AM
It seems that the only “peer-reviewed” climate science not supporting anthropogenic global warming they’ve posted is by Petr Chylek.
And that one is refuted by Chylek’s later paper,http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023552.shtml “Using this region as an indicator of Greenland’s temperature change that is related to global warming, we find that the ratio of the Greenland to global temperature change due to global warming is 2.2 in broad AGREEMENT with GCM predictions.”
The troll Kansas and Nathan have *_ NO _* credible, peer-reviewed climate science on their side.
So they instead post Sen. Inhofe, blogs, op-eds, confuse “regional” with “global”, etc. And they make false personal attacks at me.
cosmos continues to link to op ed pieces and ignores the peer-reviewed science call it non-credible.
The only person on this blog that is non-credible is cosmos for citing only op-ed pieces.
And cosmos is still making up statements that no one wrote, no one has said and no one has ever put in print.
In shorter words, cosmos spins everything and makes it into one big lie.
For all you Global Warming Deniers, check this one out>>>
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/TenWays/story?id=3602227&page=1
For all you Global Warming Deniers, check this one out>>>
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/TenWays/story?id=3602227&page=1
Darned POST tab… gets stuck!!
Chas, no one here is a Global Warming Denier. That is a name put forth by the radical Gorites to make it sound like Holocaust Deniers. It is a repulsive term.
I believe the climate is warming, but due to natural causes. Climate change caused by natural forces are huge in comparison to man made contributions.
I also understand quite a bit of the actual science that goes behind the scenes. My opinion on natural climate changed is an informed one, not like cosmos who gets his information from op-ed pieces.
I actually read the science papers and journals and know when cosmos is B.S. ing his way through.
“cosmos continues to link to op ed pieces and ignores the peer-reviewed science call it non-credible.”
Posted by the troll Kansas.
Thank you troll, for yet another false personal attack, which again helps prove that there is *_ NO _* credible, peer-reviewed climate science on your side.
“I believe the climate is warming, but due to natural causes….I actually read the science papers and journals and know when cosmos is B.S. ing his way through.”
Posted by: the TROLL Kansas
So Kansas… just post the links to your credible, peer-reviewed “science papers and journals” that PROVE your belief that “climate is warming, but due to natural causes”.
The troll Kansas CANNOT, because there aren’t any…
So instead, the troll Kansas makes false personal attacks at me.
Why is anyone bothering to argue over Bill Clinton 8 years after the fact? He had sex, he didn’t…who cares? Lot more things to worry about these days.
I agree KenS… I just hate it when the opposition keeps dragging bill’s sex life into hillary’s campaign!!
ksgrm, IF character matters to you quit telling LIES about what people post! You are the meanest least responsible grandmother I’ve ever had the misfortune to meet. You twist and lie about other people and then laugh it off like it’s nothing. It is a lie to say someone (ANYONE) posted something you made up! IF character meant anything to you maybe you would be a person of character. You, ksgrm, are a liar!
“My opinion on natural climate changed is an informed one, not like cosmos who gets his information from op-ed pieces.
I actually read the science papers and journals and know when cosmos is B.S. ing his way through.”
Posted by: the troll Kansas | September 15, 2007 at 10:14 PM
“It seems that the only “peer-reviewed” climate science not supporting anthropogenic global warming they’ve [Kansas and Nathan] posted is by Petr Chylek.
And that one is refuted by Chylek’s later paper,http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023552.shtml “Using this region as an indicator of Greenland’s temperature change that is related to global warming, we find that the ratio of the Greenland to global temperature change due to global warming is 2.2 in broad AGREEMENT with GCM predictions.” ”
Posted by: cosmos | September 15, 2007 at 09:54 PM
See also,Posted by: cosmos | September 15, 2007 at 04:25 PM
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-915.html#comment-82898535
The climate is warming, and will continue to do so. Makes no difference whether caused by man or nature or both. If it is man-made, so what? Do you really think the majority of Americans are willing to make the neccessary sacrafices?…NO, of course they are’t. Neither is China, whose economic output and associated energy consumption will soon pass our own. Best to stop arguing about whether it is real or not and who is at fault. Better to start planning on how we can adapt to rising temperatures. Just like the rest of the animal kingdom….either adapt or die!
KenS,
Do you believe that the best strategy is to just continue “business as usual”, and keep burning HUGE amounts of oil and coal?
And do you believe that humans lack the INTELLIGENCE to move beyond the fossil-fuel age?
Did you get your beliefs from fossil-fuel funded think-tanks(sic)? Or from right-wing funded media, and/or think-tanks(sic)?
Here ya go Cosmos >>>>
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/arctic-ice-melt-opens-northwest-passage/n20070915145809990011
http://www.projo.com/news/content/CHAFEE_GOP_09-16-07_DP751KF.31dd3fe.html
Lincoln Chafee, another major force in the Republican party, had renounced his membership.
The Bush dead-enders remain blind to how Worst President Ever is destroying their party . . .
RUH ROH!
Look who’s saying the Iraq invasion and occupation is all about oil:
ALAN GREENSPAN.
And of course you have to go overseas to find it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.
In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.
However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.
Hey, Nathan, Kansas, and outlander, SPIN THAT!
CapN — The Greenspan story is also on AOL… Thought you might want to know… http://www.aol.com
Chas,
That’s a very good arctic-ice-melt link.
These are also good.
Recent info, graphs and animation,http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html
http://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/reprints/Overpeck_etal_EOS2005.pdf
The change appears to be driven largely by feedback-enhanced global climate warming, and there seem to be few, if any, processes or feedbacks within the Arctic system that are capable of altering the trajectory toward this “super interglacial” state.
‘Arctic Ice Retreating More Quickly Than Computer Models Project’April 30, 2007http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml
“Thirty years ahead of schedule”
Here ya go >>>
http://money.aol.com/news/articles/ar/_a/greenspan-bashes-bush-over-spending/20070915222409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Well, I dont care about the rest of these bozos, I am worried about the Polar Bears AND the Seals… They are going to have it really hard out there now…
“Bush took office in 2001, the last time the government produced a budget surplus. Every year after that, the government has been in the red. In 2004, the deficit swelled to a record $413 billion.”
But . . . but . . . but . . . I thought that lower taxes means more revenue for the government.
Thanks for the link, Chas.
YW CapN!!
CapN — Can you explain to SOME on the Blog why the recession didnt start under Clinton, in 2000, but rather in Spring, 2001, after Bush was in Office??
SOME are being petty obstinate about that fact… LOL
Good question, Chas.
I’m waiting until 1 am when the new blogs are posted.
I’m leading off with that.
OK CapN — I am outta here for tonite… EARLY start tomorrow… 6 a.m. –
Good Night; Good Luck; And God Bless, whatever you conceive God to be!!
Have a good Sunday.
“Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”
Posted by: Nathan
Go shoot yourself.NRA Fag like Larry Craig
“Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”
Posted by: Nathan | September 15, 2007 at 01:30 AM
“… is that all you can do when I post links to credible peer reviewed scientists who do not agree with the concensus?”
Posted by: Nathan | September 15, 2007 at 03:49 PM
So NATHAN, exactly how many of the scientists in Avery’s piece *_ do _* call themselves “global warming skeptics”, and “do not agree with the concensus”?
Nathan,
Does even one of the scientists in Avery’s piece “not agree with the concensus”?