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
- 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
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
Open thread 10/19
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Oct. 19, 2007 at 1:06 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
263 Comments
‘Experts Help Gore Address Climate Change’http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071018/D8SBUGH00.html
“Basically one third of all the (computer) runs that were done were done at the Oak Ridge lab,” said David Erickson, a climate modeling expert who helped brief the former vice president during a multimedia show-and-tell at the lab two years ago….”From where we sit, it was very satisfying to know that we communicated a good chunk of the actual work that was done,” Erickson said. “Obviously, Al Gore is an effective communicator.”
Much more at link, about how global warming is a very serious problem that could lead to wars, etc.
Remember when O’Reilly had to call his doctor after his 72 hour hard-on of fake outrage he experienced when the NYTimes reported on secret prisons and torture?
Strangely, this didn’t phase him–
CBS) Valerie Plame Wilson chides President Bush for not firing anyone for the leaking of her covert CIA identity, which caused a national scandal and an investigation resulting in a perjury and obstruction of justice conviction against Vice President Richard Cheney’s chief of staff.
She also tells Katie Couric that she has learned of the damage that the leaking of her identity caused agents of the clandestine service and it is serious. Wilson speaks to Couric in her first interview for a 60 Minutes report to be broadcast Sunday, Oct. 21, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
This irks Plame Wilson. “I don’t know about (President Bush knowing about the leak beforehand). But I, like most other Americans, saw President Bush say on TV that he would fire anyone from his administration found to be involved in leaking my name,” she says. “It turns out the president is not a man of his word.”
Plame Wilson’s 20 years at the CIA put her in touch with many individuals with whom she linked up secretly while pursuing intelligence on her mission to keep rogue nations from obtaining nuclear weapons. Did she ever hear if any of these individuals suffered because of the leak of her identity? “Yes I have. That’s all I can say,” she tells Couric, who then asks if it was bad news. “I have heard — I have had some news,” she replies.
Asked to assess the damage to these individuals, Plame replies, “It would be serious.”
Plame says the morning her identity was made public in the column of conservative newspaper columnist Robert Novak, the world’s intelligence services went to work.
“I can tell you all the intelligence services in the world that morning were running my name through their databases to see, did anyone by this name come in the country? When? Do we know anything about it? Where did she stay? Who did she see?” she tells Couric. “(The leak is) very serious. It puts in danger, if not shuts down, the operations that I had worked on.”
Only the CIA knows the full extent of the damage. “There was a damage report done by the CIA. I never saw it. I certainly didn’t reach out to my old assets and ask them how they’re doing, although I would have liked to,” says Plame Wilson.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/17/60minutes/main3378089.shtml?source=mostpop_story
Oh no!
Now Global Warming is causing wars.
What “the sky is falling” drum will they beat next?
The letter just topped 2 million dollars!
$2,000,200.00
http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=rush-letter-for-charity
“Now Global Warming is causing wars.
What “the sky is falling” drum will they beat next?”
Posted by: Nathan | October 19, 2007 at 01:22 AM
Poor Nathan cannot read. He does not understand the difference between “could” and “is”.
Would someone please help Nathan?
Yeah, like that’s a real bid:
2 million dollars.
I think I’ll go bid 3 million.
That’s the thing about a real sucker . . . he never learns.
Kansas again posts falsehoods about climate science.
Posted by: cosmos | October 19, 2007 at 01:36 AM
Let me get some of those “Falsehoods” directly from the International Panel on Climate Change – you know the experts who cosmos relies on to say that Global Warming is an absolute certainty and that science is finished and cannot be questioned.
From the IPCC on Climate Models which cosmos heavily relies to make his false statements that Global Warming is an absolute certainty and the science cannot be challenged.=======
“Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Althoughthese are generally greater at smaller scales, important large scale problems also remain. For example, deficiencies remainin the simulation of tropical precipitation, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and the Madden-Julian Oscillation (anobserved variation in tropical winds and rainfall with a timescale of 30 to 90 days). The ultimate source of most sucherrors is that many important small-scale processes cannot berepresented explicitly in models, and so must be included inapproximate form as they interact with larger-scale features.”
Did you get that? Approximate form is like saying, “we’re guessing.”
cont’d
CapnAmerica,
You have to prequalify to bid that high.
Terrestial aspect of Climate Models:
Terrestrial aspect. While little work has been performed to assess the capability of the land surface models used in coupled climate
models, the upgrading of the land surface models is gradually takingplace.”
So little work and gradually taking place is an absolute certainty for the falsehoods told by cosmos.
Soil: I remind everyone that is is from the IPCC, cosmos’s so-called authority on climate change.
It is not clear how to compare climate-model simulated soil
moisture with point-based or remotely sensed soil moisture. This makes assessing how well climate models simulate soil
moisture, or the change in soil moisture, difficult.
So cosmos, when have gone from absolute certainty to “it is not clear.”
Aerosol Modelling and AtmosphericChemistry Interactive atmospheric chemistry components are notgenerally included in the models used in this report.
Oops! They don’t even include the chemistry analysis of the Atmosphere in the IPCC report! Why? Because it gives them results they don’t want to hear and it ruins their “absolute certainty” computer models.
More from cosmos’s IPPC unquestionable source.
Simulation of Mean Temperature and Salinity Structure
Unfortunately, the total surface heat and water fluxes are not well
observed.
WTF! They are not well observed? How is this “Un-absolute certainty” not included in computer models when it can’t even be observed properly!
Cosmos–
Don’t let JM-Kansas make this all about him, as usual.
Thank you.
Readers everywhere
More from the IPCC, cosmos’ authoritative source on Climate Change:
Oceans:
Comparisons of the type performed here need to be made with an
appreciation of the uncertainties in the historical estimates
of radiative forcing and various sampling issues in the observations.
What the hey! More uncertainties! Where the heck are all the absolute certainties that cosmos is talking about occurring?
You remember that old Star Trek episode in which a black-white guy was locked in battle for all eternity with the white-black guy?
JM-Kansas wants to be one of those guys.
Go ahead and post whatever you want about global warming.
Just don’t bother to answer any of his patently illogical psuedo-arguments designed to goad you into the word war that he can’t seem to live without . . .
CBS) Valerie Plame Wilson chides President Bush for not firing anyone for the leaking of her covert CIA identity, which caused a national scandal and an investigation resulting in a perjury and obstruction of justice conviction against Vice President Richard Cheney’s chief of staff.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | October 19, 2007 at 01:20 AM
Who should have been fired? I can never get a lib to answer that question. Richard Armitage (not in the Bush White House) was the leak and he admitted it BEFORE the grand jury circus that resulted in a conviction for a faulty memory.
Plame is old news – totally discredited as is her hubby Joe ‘my wife didn’t send me to Niger’ Wilson. Couric trying to resurrect a doomed newshow. What a yawner!
Global Warming Believers————————
- Somehow they believe that if we don’t act NOW it is going to be too late.
- Yet simply changing your light bulb and enacting some carbon trade and cap system is going to save the world.
capn has no clue about climate change science, so he injects ad hominem.
More for the Authoratative IPCC panel on climate change and their absolute certainties.
Sea Ice:
The magnitude and spatial distribution of the highlatitudeclimate changes can be strongly affected by sea icecharacteristics, but evaluation of sea ice in models is hamperedby insufficient observations of some key variables (e.g., icethickness) (see Section 4.4). Even when sea ice errors can bequantified, it is difficult to isolate their causes, which mightarise from deficiencies in the representation of sea ice itself,but could also be due to flawed simulation of the atmosphericand oceanic fields at high latitudes that drive
ice movement”
Holy mackerel! Flawed simulations?
Difficult to isolate?
What this is talking about folks are the melting sea ice that cosmos falsely claims that can be absolutely contributed to Global Warming. But it doesn’t appear to be that way because they have flawed simulations and can’t isolate factors to even know the causes!
Oh brother.
I think Ann Coulter said it best.
Global Warming:
“The temperature of the planet has increased about one degree Fahrenheit in the last century. So imagine a summer afternoon when it’s 63 degree and the next thing you know it’s…64 degrees. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! Run for your lives, everybody! Women and children first! Help! Where’s FEMA, dammit?”
Walk.On.By.
Summary of Oceanic Component Simulation
The temperature and salinity errors in the thermocline, while still large, have been reduced in many models. The temperature and salinity errors in the thermocline, while still large, have been reduced in many models.
Did you catch that? The errors of temperature and salinity in the thermocline are still large.
Now folks, this is all part of cosmos’s absolute certainty of climate change as predicted by computer models.
This is directly out of the IPCC’s documents on Global Climate Computer Models. Their words, not mine.
Kansas,
Prepare for a barage of links to the left funded website RealClimate or another one of Cosmos favorite chicken little websites.
Ksgrm–
Judith Miller, formerly (very formerly) of the NYTimes, was not contacted by Armitage. She was contacted by Lewis Libby.
That’s why she went to jail until he agreed that she could reveal that fact.
He leaked it. He should have gone to prison.
But your beloved president chose to commute his sentence even after he was found guilty.
Plame was working on finding WMD’s. So it’s not like it was important or anything . . .
Land Surfaces
Evaluation of the land surface component in coupled modelsis severely limited by the lack of suitable observations. Theterrestrial surface plays key climatic roles in influencing thepartitioning of available energy between sensible and latent heatfluxes, determining whether water drains or remains availablefor evaporation, determining the surface albedo and whethersnow melts or remains frozen, and influencing surface fluxes ofcarbon and momentum. Few of these can be evaluated at largespatial or long temporal scales. This section therefore evaluatesthose quantities for which some observational data exist.
So cosmos falsely claims that Global Warming science is settled and the debate is over. Not according to the IPCC.
They state:
“Land data is severely limited by the lack of suitable observations.”
Translation: They haven’t even looked at what they need to look at to get the data!
Sheesh.
Sorry to disappoint, Nathan.
Been there, done that.
This isn’t going to be the JM-Kansas thread all the time any more.
Northern and Southern Annular Modes from the IPCC, cosmos’s unquestioned source of Climate Science.
El Nino Souther Oscillation
Recent model improvements, some IPCC class models are beingused for ENSO prediction (Wittenberg et al., 2006). Despite this progress, serious systematic errors in both the simulated meanclimate and the natural variability persist.
Folks, cosmos has been lying to you. This is directly out of the IPCC published papers and they state, “serious systematic errors in both the simulated meanclimate and the natural variability persist.”
Did you get that? Serious errors!
So you are going to spam instead CapnAmerica?
Brilliant.
Why didn’t I think of that?
Or how about posting
WalkOn
By
after everything, like it is actually doing anything?
LOL
By the way Cap that is garbage. If Fitz could have gotten Libby for the leak he wouldn’t have had to tie the bad memory rap on him. Facts don’t lie. Armitage was the leak. Novak and Armitage had both confirmed that with Fitz before Libby ever took the stand. Don’t make yourself look stupid.
Cloud Feedback, often ignored by cosmos. Let’s understand why by looking at what IPCC states.
Cloud feedback
The role of polar cloud feedbacks in climate sensitivityhas been emphasized by Holland and Bitz (2003) and Vavrus(2004). However, these feedbacks remain poorly understood.
Oh! So the role of clouds over polar regions are poorly understood! Yet, cosmos falsely claims that the science is settled and Global Warming is an absolute certainty!
Ksgrm–
Riddle me this.
Why did Libby lie if he didn’t do anything wrong?
“From the IPCC on Climate Models which cosmos heavily relies to make his false statements that Global Warming is an absolute certainty and the science cannot be challenged.”
Posted by: Kansas | October 19, 2007 at 02:02 AM
Kansas again posts falsehoods.
I have posted that climate models are conservative (underestimate warming) because they do not include the unknown positive natural feedbacks.
I have posted that the Arctic sea ice models FAILED, and the ice extent declined much sooner than expected.
I have posted that IPCC reports are a few years out-of-date, and do not include the more rapid melting of Greenland ice, etc.
I have posted that the problem is the UNCERTAINTY — scientists cannot accurately predict how soon, nor how bad the climate change will be.
IMPORTANT NOTES:
* The climate models ALL predict warming — and MORE warming, IF humans do not reduce GHG emissions.
* The climate models have accurately recreated the past 100 years, including Mt Pinatubo, etc.
* The models show that the recent warming is mostly caused by anthropeogenic factors.
But Kansas, as usual, prefers to lie about what the climate models say, and what I have posted.
Kansas,
All you have to do is use two sheets of toilet paper when you wipe and change your light bulbs.
No more Global Warming.
Viola!
I am not surprised to read the “Rush Letter” is getting such a high bidding, after all when the Play-station 3 came out we had people setting in a back hallway for almost thirty three hours. The bidding on Ebay was going for over twelve thousand dollars for a three hundred and fifty some dollar game system. Its a market economy, the demand drives the price. Shoot if there is ever a demand for dog manure I may even get me a few new outside dogs again! We have a inside dog, but he does not generate enough crap to be worth me storing it as the market price is not worth the effort. LOL now if I could find a small dog that produces the level of “crap” Limbaugh does. I could be on easy street!
Whether the bid is real or not at least it is a good cause, Who know that Rush would care more about children then Bush?
Nathan, shouldn’t you be smashing the fossil record or something . . .
So you see folks, cosmos conveniently leaves out all these reports from the IPCC that emphatically state, they hardly scratched the surface on understanding what Climate Change is.
Yet, cosmos comes here day after day claiming that the science is settled and that anyone that states otherwise is a liar.
cosmos has just called the thousands of peer-reviewed scientists studying climate change liars. These scientists as reported by the IPCC state in every computer model and observation they have, that there is much not understood by scientists.
Yet cosmos comes here and calls everyone here liars when the IPCC states that there are serious errors and lack of understanding about climate science.
cosmos is a false prophet spreading the politically spun version of what the ongoing studies of climate science actually are.
cosmos does not know what he is talking about as the posts I previously made are from the peer reviewed scientists cosmos constantly references.
The problem is folks, is that cosmos never reads what the scientists write. He posts here the op-ed pieces and the blog reprints of politically skewed garbage.
I just gave you what the Climate Scientists wrote.
And not one of them, that’ zero state that climate science is a settled science that cannot be questioned.
Not one of them state that Global Warming is an absolute certainty in which no further studies can be done.
Not one.
cosmos is lying to us all.
Now sit back and watch the spin cosmos puts on.
cosmos never reads the scientific reports and doesn’t know the truth.
I have read them and know the truth, and now you do as well.
“Nathan” wrote:
“I think Ann Coulter said it best.”
If that’s really what you think, “Nathan,” you’re not thinking.
But Kansas, as usual, prefers to lie about what the climate models say, and what I have posted.
Posted by: cosmos | October 19, 2007 at 02:32 AM
Folks,
These are words directly from the scientists that do Climate Study. These are the words of the scientists that cosmos constantly references, but has never read.
I just posted what the scientists are saying.
Who are you going to believe? These thousands of peer-reviewed scientists words or the lying cosmos?
“I think Ann Coulter said it best.
…So imagine a summer afternoon when it’s 63 degree and the next thing you know it’s…64 degrees….”
Posted by: Nathan | October 19, 2007 at 02:19 AM
WHOA!! It looks like Nathan believes that Ann Coulter is a credible, peer-reviewed climate scientist!?
And Nathan seems to be so CLUELESS about climate change, he does NOT even know that the temperature rise is occuring mostly at the Northern latitudes?
The temperature at the equator will only rise a small amount, and in the Arctic, Greenland, etc it will rise much more.
Thank you Nathan, I’ll add your post to my time capsule. Maybe your family and friends will read it, in the future? :)
And Nathan seems to be so CLUELESS about climate change, he does NOT even know that the temperature rise is occuring mostly at the Northern latitudes? Posted by: cosmos | October 19, 2007 at 02:54 AM
cosmos does not understand that Northern Latitudes in the Western Hemisphere does not equal Global Climate change.
cosmos has falsely spread rumors that the “heating up” changes are Global, when in fact they are not.
“Modern satellite records show a very minor increase in temperature and are immensely more accurate than surface data temperature records which the IPCC relies upon for their Global Warming scare….The man made Global Warming Scare is the biggest fraud in history.”
Posted by: Kansas | October 19, 2007 at 01:26 AM
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/10/bremby-rejects-.html#comment-86913548
“Modern satellite records show a very minor increase in temperature and are immensely more accurate…”
Okay… then let’s rely on the satellite data.
“Figure 2 Comparison of surface temperature to satellite-estimated lower-troposphere temperature: “http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/global2.jpg
Sources for the above graph,http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_time_series/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/before-and-after/#more-335
That’s right cosmos and your inappropriately scaled temperature charts show increases of all less than 1 degree.
Hardly worth getting excited about when compared to the Global mean temperature.
Posted by: you can actually tell the truth, can’t you. | October 19, 2007 at 03:13 AM
You can go directly to the IPCC reports and the referenced peer-reviewed documents like I did putz,
Or you can simply just make stuff up like you just did.
Or are you not educated enough to read the reports for yourself and know what they say?
I’m betting on the latter.
Posted by: i’m sure kansass can explain this away in no time. | October 19, 2007 at 03:16 AM
What would like explained troll?
The fact you cannot post under your regular nic or the fact that large construction projects can have many problems?
Folks,
These are words directly from the scientists that do Climate Study. These are the words of the scientists that cosmos constantly references, but has never read.
I just posted what the scientists are saying.
Who are you going to believe? These thousands of peer-reviewed scientists words or the lying cosmos?
Posted by: Kansas | October 19, 2007 at 02:45 AM
========================
With the exception of the words “cosmos” and “posted” this is almost word for word one of the Rants that EL RUSHBO gives on global warming proponents on any given day on his broadcast…
But, of course, Kansas says he never listens to EL RUSHBO…
Most interesting….
With the exception of the words “cosmos” and “posted” this is almost word for word one of the Rants that EL RUSHBO gives on global warming proponents on any given day on his broadcast…
Posted by: Chaz | October 19, 2007 at 03:24 AM
Are you a truth denier Chaz? These words were taken directly out of the IPCC reports and the papers of the peer-reviewed reports of scientists.
I’m sure you enjoy reading the condensed and politically spun version that cosmos provides.
Why is it you Libs wince so much when you read the words of the scientists?
Does it sting you that much to read the true words and not the politically hacked words as posted here by cosmos?
What does your post >>>
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/10/open-thread–16.html#comment-86919026
have to do with anything I just posted previously??? You are merely ranting innately — Why do your words that I quoted match almost exactly to words used by Limbaugh on his show? The words he uses almost daily? Words that you claim you never would hear because you dont listen to RUSH?
“cosmos does not understand that Northern Latitudes in the Western Hemisphere does not equal Global Climate change.”
Posted by: Kansas | October 19, 2007 at 02:57 AM
“Northern Latitudes in the Western Hemisphere”???
The “Northern latitudes” = the entire northern half.
And the “Northern latitudes” are warming faster, because they have more land, and land warms faster than the oceans.
Thank you Kansas, I’ll add your post to my time capsule.
Perhaps your “Kansas values” family, and friends, will read it, sometime in the future? :)
“”Northern latitudes” are warming faster, because they have more land, and land warms faster than the oceans.”==================== – Cosmos -
C’mon Kansas Let’s see you try to argue against that one?
And the “Northern latitudes” are warming faster, because they have more land, and land warms faster than the oceans.Posted by: cosmos | October 19, 2007 at 03:35 AM
And the “Northern latitudes” are warming faster by how much? Less than 1 degree C over the past 30 years? Phew! Where is my fan!
Words that you claim you never would hear because you dont listen to RUSH?
Posted by: Chaz | October 19, 2007 at 03:34 AM
That’s because I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh.
As I clearly stated before, these are from the IPCC reports and the papers of peer reviewed scientists.
If you weren’t so lazy, you could go to the same reports and find the identical words that I quoted.
But hey, you know a Lib finding out the truth using their own research is just too much to hope for.
They would rather cast aspersions because it is so much easier for simple minds to do so.
“Northern latitudes” are warming faster, because they have more land, and land warms faster than the oceans.”==================== – Cosmos -
C’mon Kansas Let’s see you try to argue against that one?
Posted by: Chaz | October 19, 2007 at 03:38 AM
As I stated previously, Northern Latitudes is not the entire world. Thusly, it is not Global Warming.
Thusly, the effects are regional, mainly influenced by cyclic effects of natural climate change.
China spews out a huge amount of carbon, where is their Global Warming stats? Is China cooking to death from the heat? I imagine they might have a hard time breathing from the pollution, but where is the statistics on the relationship of dumping carbon into the atmosphere and climate change in China?
Got no data eh? One of the biggest spewer of carbon on the planet and they are not experiencing climate change? Say what?
Good grief — He DID argue against it. Unbelievable!
Northern Latitudes is only a half of the world, sorry. Geez.
And, as was pointed out, the Northern Latitudes will naturally warm faster, since the northern latitudes have more land mass, etc.
So, what does that have to do with China? Huh? Huh? Huh?
Best guess: China doesnt really care how much it pollutes the environment, or the entire atmosphere. And of course, China is in the Northern Latitudes, where warming will occur faster than if China was at the southern end of South America. Duh.
Ooops. My quarters have run out, and I dont have any more. Gotta go. Been interesting!
The letter just topped 2 million dollars!
$2,000,200.00
http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=rush-letter-for-charity
Posted by: Nathan | October 19, 2007 at 01:24 AM
Oh, this is going to be so much fun when this auction falls through.
“A personal letter of thanks from the Man Who Runs America, Rush Limbaugh”
What more could a neo-con wish for? Put in your hard, untaxed dollars for a chance to win the above. You will be adored, worshiped, admired and envied by neo-cons coast to coast.
Help rush prove once and for all that he can cherry-pick his own words with the best of the washington neo-con establishment.
CapnAmerica,
You have to prequalify to bid that high.
Posted by: Nathan | October 19, 2007 at 02:02 AM
Nathan, are you sure? When they auctioned the General Lee car from “Dukes of Hazard”, the bidding went to 2 million and the bid was phony.The bidding will be over in a few hours. You might want to be careful about getting so breathless about it. If the bid goes bad, the Libs will beat you to death over it.
Maybe some people put in phony bids to go with Rush’s phony soldiers?
Interesting,
Some of the comments about the ‘letter’ let us see into the character of the posters. Here we have an auction that if genuine will currently provide over four million dollars to a charitable organization that provides scholarships to children of fallen Marines and other heroes fighting for our country.
There are Libs on this BLOG hope it is a phony bid.
Why? Because they hate Rush? Or maybe, because it demonstrates many the hypocrisies of the left. For what ever reason when they hope it fails, it opens a small window into their character.
I predict that the auction is real. For it to get to two million dollars means at least two pre-qualified people have two million dollars they are willing to contribute to this charity. I would also predict that Rush also probably knows both of them. He’s not stupid.
Also, we might not ever know how much additional money has been contributed to this charity because of the publicity and the link provided on Rush’s web site.
I hope that after the charity the winner uses his prize to emphasize how incredibly wrong the Senators were to write and send this letter to Limbaugh’s boss. I can’t understand why any one wouldn’t be outraged by this abuse of power.
Hank
Personally, I think it was a waste of time to write to Limbaugh’s overlords on the issue.
But on the other hand, many of those supporting Rush didnt seem to mind when the entire Congress went running back to Washington to vote on the Terry Schaivo case a few years ago.
Then, it was OK for many of the Limbaugh supporters of today, for the Congress to poke their noses into what should have been clearly a private family matter.
“…if genuine…”
That is the main question. If Genuine, indeed.
And speaking of Nobel prize winners:
In an article published in the Sunday Times in England, the 79-year-old geneticist said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.”http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20071019/lead/lead6.html
Quick! Call Al! Where’s Jessie?
Thats right! Where are Al and Jesse? They need to go look into that problem!
“He’s not stupid.”
Sorry Hank, I must vehemently disagree with you.
Better throw this one back, starting to sound like another Roberts type defensive player.Senators clash with Bush nominee Mukasey By Thomas Ferraro
Thu Oct 18, 2:48 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee clashed on Thursday with attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey over what constitutes torture and whether the White House could be found in contempt of Congress.
ADVERTISEMENTMembers of the panel weighing whether the nominee can restore public confidence in the Justice Department, grilled Mukasey about President George W. Bush’s national security policies, including domestic spying and interrogation methods.
Under questioning, Mukasey said torture violates the U.S. Constitution. But he declined to specifically say whether waterboarding — simulated drowning — is torture.
“If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional,” said Mukasey, 66, a retired judge and former federal prosecutor.
“I’m very am disappointed in that answer. I consider it purely semantic,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, told Mukasey.
Critics have accused the United States of torturing suspects in the war on terrorism in effort to pry information. Despite Bush’s assurances he prohibits torture, it’s unclear how detainees are treated since he has refused to disclose interrogation techniques.
Exchanges during the second day of Mukasey’s confirmation hearing contrasted sharply with the first session when he won bipartisan praise and lawmakers predicted easy confirmation.
Mukasey had promised to stand-up to the White House in the pursuit of justice and review Bush’s national security policies to make sure they are sound.
He is still likely to be confirmed, and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, ranking Republican on the committee, said it appears “virtually certain.”
Yet Specter and others challenged him on several fronts.
Bush nominated Mukasey in an effort to restore the integrity of the Justice Department after the stormy tenure of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Gonzales resigned under pressure from Democrats and fellow Republicans who accused him of having politicized the department, particularly in the firing last year of nine federal prosecutors.
The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee in July voted to cite a current and a former Bush aide for contempt for refusing to testify in its investigation into the dismissals.
The two declined to appear at a congressional hearing after Bush claimed executive privilege, the right to withhold documents or testimony. And two Justice Department opinions supported the president’s position.
Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, challenged the opinions, and told Mukasey the law requires such citations be presented to a grand jury.
“What do you do in a case like that?,” Leahy asked.
Mukasey cited the opinions, saying, “When the president, in the assertion of the privilege, is relying on a Justice Department opinion … it simply can’t be appropriate for the same department that offered the opinion then to turn around and prosecute somebody who followed it.”
Leahy told Mukasey he was dissatisfied with the response and wanted a more expansive one.
“I would like your answer back, in writing … before the nomination is brought before the committee” for a vote on whether to send it to the Senate for confirmation, said Leahy.
At the request of Leahy, Mukasey provided assurances he would not interfere with a Justice Department probe into whether Gonzales lied to Congress about the fired prosecutors and his handling of Bush’s spying program.
Specter asked Mukasey about the warrantless surveillance program Bush secretly began after the September 11 attacks.
Specter said the program violates the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval of spying. Bush maintains he had the war-time power to do it.
Asked if he believed Bush violated the law, Mukasey replied: “As I understand it, the president believed at the time and still believes that FISA was not the only applicable statute” and that was acting under a use of military force resolution by Congress.
Specter replied: “Judge Mukasey, I don’t think anybody ever really seriously contended that our resolution … authorizing the use of force encompassed a violation of FISA.”
Very real possibility:
Buddies or interests related to Rush or Clear channel are bidding up the auction to repair Rush’s damaged, hypocritical image and feed his voracious ego.
Anyone stop to think how much in donations this might COST the charity in question?
I wouldn’t give 10 cents to ANY charity affiliated with Rush, anyone like him or any conservative for that matter.
I note that almost half of the posts here are from one person.
Hits must be down over on cranky ol’ feeb.
Isn’t it amazing that Plame was just an unimportant bureacrat in the intelligence community, but the damage assessment done by the cia on her outing is classified and will never be made public!
Congress needs to bring the ‘nuclear solution’ back, at least float the idea, I don’t think they would have the public opposition that the REpublicans had!Democrats put off vote on eavesdrop bill By Randall Mikkelsen
Wed Oct 17, 7:09 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Republican U.S. lawmakers forced Democrats to put off a vote on legislation that would tighten rules over government eavesdropping on suspected terrorists, congressional aides said on Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENTIn a victory for President George W. Bush, Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives delayed a vote on the bill after Republicans threatened a procedural move that could have attracted enough conservative Democrats to defeat it.
“We aren’t going to take the bait,” a Democratic leadership aide said.
It was not clear what the Democrats’ next step would be.
On a day of sharp debate over the bill, Republicans accused Democrats of giving U.S. constitutional rights to suspected terrorists and Bush said the legislation would be a setback in the fight against terrorism.
“Congress needs to move forward, not backward, so we can ensure intelligence professionals have the tools they need to protect us,” Bush told a news conference. The White House has threatened a veto of the legislation.
Democrats, angered by Bush’s secret warrantless wiretapping program begun after the September 11 attacks, said the measure would give intelligence agencies the needed tools to track suspected terrorists while protecting the rights of innocent Americans.
“It helps us defend our country against terrorism and other threats. Secondly it protects the privacy of the American people … and third, this legislation restores a system of checks and balances in how we protect and defend our country,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat.
The bill would allow eavesdropping without a warrant on non-Americans outside the United States, even if the conversation is routed through the United States.
But it would require a secret court’s approval for listening in on a foreign suspect or group when the communication could include an American.
It would also require an individual warrant when the actual target was a “U.S. person,” and would mandate court review of how the government selects eavesdropping targets.
Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said Democrats were “setting us up for another terrorist attack” that would result in a clampdown on the civil liberties they sought to protect. A fellow Republican, Rep. Darrell Issa of California, called the measure a “Bush-hating bill” because of its oversight measures.
The Republican proposal that derailed consideration of the bill would have returned it to committee for an amendment specifying that nothing in the legislation was intended to prohibit surveillance against “Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda or any other foreign terrorist organization.”
Thus, Democrats wanting to pass the bill would have had to cast a vote seeming to side with bin Laden. The Democratic aide called the move “a cheap shot, totally political.”
The bill is intended to replace a temporary measure Congress passed in August after the administration argued it was urgently needed to plug legal gaps that were hampering terrorism probes.
Many Democrats say the temporary law, which expires in February, gave the government too much power to eavesdrop on innocent Americans
I think bush will set an inflation adjusted record for oil before his term ends! And, all this without even an oil embargo. Bush ratings soon to be in the teens.All AW can say, is thank a Rich person.Oil breaks through $90 2 hours, 40 minutes ago
LONDON (Reuters) – Oil surged beyond $90 to a new peak on Friday as tight fuel stocks ahead of winter and a softening dollar spurred investor buying.
ADVERTISEMENTU.S. crude gained 33 cents to $89.80 a barrel by 6:43 a.m. EDT, having hit an all-time high of $90.07 minutes earlier. London Brent crude edged down 6 cents to $84.54.
Oil’s rally — which has seen six straight days of record highs for U.S. crude — has been fuelled by unprecedented weakness in the dollar, a factor that has supported all dollar-denominated commodities.
The greenback fell to a new record low against the euro on Friday, knocked by sentiment that weak U.S. economic and financial market indicators may force another interest rate cut.
“The dollar weakened further, spurring some investment into oil as a hedge against dollar weakness,” said David Moore, commodity strategist from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.
“And there are still concerns that oil market conditions will remain tight over the northern winter.”
Oil has averaged just over $67 a barrel this year, but is climbing towards the inflation-adjusted high of $101.70 hit in April 1980, a year after the Iranian revolution.
The price run-up has concerned OPEC, which may call for an early formal meeting to discuss a further output increase. An OPEC supply rise of 500,000 barrels per day (bpd), agreed last month, will take effect on November 1.
Although stocks of fuel in top consumer the United States rose last week, crude inventories stand about 4 percent below a year ago, while gasoline and distillate stocks are about 7 percent below last year.
Rising political tension between Turkey and Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq has also supported gains, as traders worry about a disruption in flows of Iraq’s northern oil exports.
(Additional reporting by Felicia Loo in Singapore)
Are we headed for ‘Black Friday’ the dollar is devalued, oil over valued.
Whoa check it out.
In just about 10 minutes, there is supposed to be a big explosion at Washington and Waterman.
They are doing some sort of emergency responder test.
REPEAT, it is a test.
It might have been a good idea to have publicized this a bit more…
Front page of the paper…on all tv news channels and radio stations for two days. What should they do to publicize it…sky writing?
Why? Because they hate Rush? Or maybe, because it demonstrates many the hypocrisies of the left. For what ever reason when they hope it fails, it opens a small window into their character.Posted by: Hank Price | October 19, 2007 at 07:18 AM
Mr Price, let’s not get carried away here. Any thinking reasoning person knows this has very little to do with charity and everything to do with politics. The money goes to a charity where Rush sits on the board? Isn’t that convenient.
As for hypocricy, there’s enough of that to go around for both parties. I’m a little surprised that you’d level that accusation, being a Republican.
Very interesting: an interview with Carol Lam, the fired US Attorney from San Diego.
http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/stanford_lawyer/issues/77/LegalMatters.html
Just a couple of teaser paragraphs:
“A LOT WAS MADE ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THE FIRINGS. ANY COMMENT?
I’m going to answer a little obliquely. This question was raised during the congressional hearings: Isn’t it true that you serve at the pleasure of the president and that you can be asked to leave at any time? As I answered at the hearings, that statement is legally true, but the tradition of the Department of Justice historically has actually been the reverse. Everybody knows that when the administration ends, you’re probably not going to remain U.S. attorney. But until then, the assumption is that you will be allowed to remain in the position until the end of the term unless you make an egregious error. Ignoring that tradition has created a great problem for the Department of Justice, and failing to comprehend why that tradition was so important demonstrates the complete failure of DOJ management that led to this unfortunate state of affairs. The uncertainty it has caused among U.S. attorneys is just devastating for the DOJ. And it’s still shocking to me that department leadership took such an ill-advised course, without thinking through the consequences.
ALLEGATIONS MADE BY MANAGEMENT AT THE DOJ AS JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR FIRING REFER TO A LAX RECORD WITH REGARD TO PROSECUTION OF IMMIGRATION-RELATED CRIME. HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT?
The way the border situation was handled by Attorney General Ashcroft and then Attorney General Gonzales in their respective administrations is very interesting. Under Attorney General Ashcroft there was respect for the border generally and an understanding that being a U.S. attorney in a border district and having to deal with the multitude of cases that are generated by the border is an extremely difficult job. And the way any U.S. attorney chooses to manage the border situation is highly dependent on the particularities of that district, the geographic layout of the district, and the resources available in the office. There are five Southwest border districts that have large borders with Mexico, but each has its own set of issues. In San Diego we have lots of tunnels. You’re not going to see a lot of tunnels in Texas because of the Rio Grande, and that difference alone is a substantial one. And from Washington there’s often a temptation to say, “Oh, it’s a border district. It’s just a numbers game. We can ratchet it up or ratchet it down.” That was the message from Justice under Attorney General Gonzales. About a million people are arrested along the border every year, and no U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecutes more than a few thousand—felonies or misdemeanors. So, how are you going to attack that problem?
I concentrated on efficiency and getting longer sentences on bigger fish, given the fact that our resources were finite. And I was completely forthcoming about my intentions when I entered the office. I told the people who interviewed me for the position that I would rather indict ten defendants in a conspiracy than ten individual defendants, because my view is we were likely to make more impact on crime if we take down an organization—say, an alien smuggling organization. If you indict ten people in an alien smuggling ring, you’re more likely to get people who are willing to cooperate and testify and you have to go through only one set of motions and one trial rather than ten. And so, this is a more efficient way of prosecuting.”
“DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL PAUL MCNULTY WROTE IN AN E-MAIL, “I’M STILL A LITTLE SKITTISH ABOUT BOGDEN” IN REFERENCE TO DANIEL BOGDEN, U.S. ATTORNEY IN NEVADA, ONE OF THE SEVEN DISMISSED ON DECEMBER 7. MCNULTY CONTINUED, “HE HAS BEEN WITH DOJ SINCE 1990 AND AT AGE 50 HAS NEVER HAD A JOB OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT. . . . SORRY TO BE RAISING THIS AGAIN/NOW; IT WAS JUST ON MY MIND LAST NIGHT AND THIS MORNING.”
That e-mail highlights just how arbitrary and loosely based these decisions were, and therein lies the problem. Historically, there’s been a very, very high bar set for any decision by the Department of Justice to ask a United States attorney to leave. If a U.S. attorney was asked to leave, that request was preceded by a well-documented and thorough investigation of some allegation of misconduct or poor judgment. And to read an e-mail like that, suggesting that people were waking up in the middle of the night worried that maybe it wasn’t the right decision because somebody’s really not such a bad guy—this is not the way that important decisions should be made. What has been absolutely devastating for the department has been to see the after-the-fact justifications—the sit-down sessions that our former colleagues back at the department participated in to try to justify these decisions, where everything was thrown in, including the kitchen sink—reasons that, frankly, I think are embarrassing. Reasons such as somebody spent too much time working on Indian affairs, or that Carol Lam personally tried a case and that’s a terrible thing, or that a U.S. attorney had the nerve to want to have one more conversation with the attorney general about whether to seek the death penalty.
To criticize United States attorneys for trying to do their jobs conscientiously has created a chilling effect. It demonstrates to me that, at least for a time, the Department of Justice had completely lost its way.”
“YOU DON’T REGARD WHAT’S HAPPENED AS LONG-TERM POLITICIZATION OF JUSTICE?
No, because it can’t be. If anything is clear from this experience, it’s that people will pay attention until the ship rights itself. That is why I am optimistic. This is not the first time that this type of issue has raised its head at the Department of Justice. We had the Saturday Night Massacre. And maybe once a generation we’re going to have to have a reminder. The decision to simply ask a number of U.S. attorneys to leave at the same time for not very compelling reasons was not in itself necessarily an illegal act, but it so transgressed the unwritten understanding and traditions of the department that, ironically, I think it has now reinforced them.
WHAT ABOUT THE EFFECT THESE EVENTS HAVE HAD ON THE DOJ?
What these events did show me is that you can’t have a Department of Justice that’s a straight shot to the White House, and that was really the problem here. The rationale for the firings became so ridiculous and no one seemed to wonder about how the remaining U.S. attorneys would react. It was devastating to the U.S. attorney community because it used to be that you could simply say, “That’s the decision I’m making because I’m the U.S. attorney, and it’s within my discretion to make it and that’s the answer.” Now that authority is being second-guessed. But I’m optimistic; it’s a good thing that everything has come to light.”
I had decided to leave the last conversation my youngest son and I had out of this place. But having just watch a video done at the Young Republican college students conference titled “ChickHawks” I sudden found I need to talk.
All those young men and women who are so for the Iraq war, who parrot all the cliques spouted by the Neo-cons war-mongers “If we do not fight them there we will be fighting them here” crap and the like. Than when asked why they were not joining the military all gave reasons through they sweat. Medical, finishing college, “the Army is just not for me”, “well I think I can serve the country better by being a strong voice for the war”.
I could not finish the video, thinking about my son and what he said as to why he was joining.
I finally told him trying not to give him a doubt that would cause him to hesitate when he needed to reaction or act. That the war in Iraq was the worst mistake this nation has ever made, he said he knew and that our government is corrupted and wrong for being there. “Then why are you wanting to fight for it?”, I asked.His answer though I have never had a moment of disappointment from this child, caused me to feel some tears at how proud I am of him.
“Dad I am not wanting to fight for this government, there are guys there just like me who are fighting and dying. I want to fight for them!”.
So simple, so honest and selfless, I was speechless! That is the boy I send off to this war, that is the man my son has grown to be. Yes it is a “Greek tragedy”, yes Iraq is the greatest mistake this country has ever committed and it fallout will be felt long after many of us are dead and gone. But if the Neocons that think of my son as just one the “Unwashed masses” that they hope to inspired to Nationalism by causing that mistake. I will trade their sick sense of ideology for my son’s any day. His ideology is the one worth fighting and dying for. That ideology it the one that will save this country from its moral decay, his are the principles that will guild this country to a better future. Not the Neocons, the rightwing talking heads that set in their armchairs and think we are simple minded. They are not conservatives or Republicans, they are not liberals or Democrats. To be honest they are not Americans, they have long forgotten what it means to be an American.
Two types of young people, one stands around in pressed shirts and ties and preach about “American values”. And one who is going not to fight for some misbegotten ideals and to farther a war to end this nation but to fight for the guys just like him. I know which I bank on to be the best hope for this country, the only tie he has is a clip-on he worn when he was about ten and in a school program. He is not special, he is not higher educated just got his GED last year. He is my son and he my dear friends who wish to argue about how best to hold on to American values and morals by fighting them over there so we do not have to fight them over here. He is an American….
writerdog,
That’s a good boy you’ve got there. God bless him. And you and your wife as well.
May we be ever mindful and in future more careful of our responsibilities to such men.
All my hopes writerdog.
CF2K,The fact remanis that the U.S. attorneys served at the pleasure of the president. He can terminate them for any reason or no reason. That the situation was handled poorly is unquestionable. But I see no breach of law. It’s more like politics, as usual.
Well J R,
” I wouldn’t give 10 cents to ANY charity affiliated with Rush, anyone like him or any conservative for that matter.”
I would imagine that conservative oriented charities all over the nation are now having emergency meetings to try and come up with aome damage control now that they won’t get your contributions.
Now, if the conservatives could only just figure out how we could prevent our hard earned dollars from going to sanctimonius liberals. . .
Just wondering, when was the last time you contributed anything, time, money, moral support to any thing or any body?
Hank
Hey Blue Maxx,
Of course it’s about politics! That’s why the liberals can’t stand it! Rush is turning a dirty abuse of political power into a charitable event.
I’m gleeful about the auction for the same reason that the libs have their panties in a wad over it, the politics.
The difference is that I can see past the politics and appreciate the good that will come from the scholarships. I even took the oportunity to donate a little myself.
And Rush is on the board of directors for several charities. He got there by being a large contributor of his time and of his money. I give to charities and causes that enrich my soul. I’m not going to donate to causes that I don’t believe in. So what?
Hank
Your wrong writerdog!
“He is not special,. . .”
He’s very special and you should be very proud.
He will be in our thoughts and prayers.
Hank
“Now, if the conservatives could only just figure out how we could prevent our hard earned dollars from going to sanctimonius liberals. .”
Charities that I’ve worked with don’t worry about the political views of the people they serve. Maybe I work with the wrong charities?
Blue Max,
How about the firing of US Attorneys for refusing to initiate politically motivated prosecutions, such as David Iglesias, who was leaned on by Sen. Pete Domici?
Or, conversely and much more alarmingly, the retention of US Attorneys who WOULD carry out political prosecutions orchestrated by the White House? Such as the prosecution of Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, who, it now appears, was brought down in a prosecution in which Karl Rove played a significant role?
“Now Karl Rove, the President’s top political strategist, has been implicated in the controversy. A longtime Republican lawyer in Alabama swears she heard a top G.O.P. operative in the state say that Rove “had spoken with the Department of Justice” about “pursuing” Siegelman, with help from two of Alabama’s U.S. attorneys.”
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1627427,00.html
“Served at the pleasure of the President” is a red herring, when the real issue is White House political tampering in DOJ activities.
But even if this were NOT the case, what matters more, Blue Maxx–the President’s “pleasure,” or the trust of American citizens in the impartiality of the administration of justice?
Less than two hours left! I bet it goes up another million!
W-Dog -
A fine young man indeed. I wish him well. And you. As said before; those also serve who love those who are gone.
Any thinking reasoning person knows this has very little to do with charity and everything to do with politics. The money goes to a charity where Rush sits on the board? Isn’t that convenient.
Posted by: Blue Maxx
Charities that I’ve worked with don’t worry about the political views of the people they serve.
Posted by: Blue Maxx
So, you will not give to one charity because of politics but you only work for charities that don’t worry about political views?
Give me a while to think about this position.
Max,Since I have never met your wife, and therefore cannot say whether or not she possesses a dick, please extend my apologies for imputing one to her.You, however, are precisely the sort of person who, if his wife HAD a dick, would suck it.Got any substantiation for your claim that ‘Democrats promised to stop the war,’ since this is the prelude to the fighting words–which is what this is all about, really–that Democrats LIED when they said they would stop the war (whatever that means)?I don’t deny that Democrats have FAILED to stop the war. Of course they have so far. But it is another matter entirely to impute motives, Max.
If you make the most serious charges, you better be prepared to back them up. Be a man, Max. Or are you going to let a liberal like me smack you around like a little jailhouse bitch? Show us the evidence or shut your blowhard mouth.As for the question of ‘civility,’ well, respect is given if it’s earned. I, for one, feel NO need to be respectful of Wingnuts and their eliminationist rhetoric regarding liberal ‘traitors.’If you use fighting words, Repukes, be ready for a fight.Posted by: CF2K | October 19, 2007 at 09:14 AM
——————————————————————-CF doesn’t deny that Democrats FAILED to stop the Iraq war. With his selective memory he somehow has forgotten that the Democrats in their 2006 campaign promised to bring our troops home from Iraq. Not sure how the Dems could have FAILED if they didn’t PROMISE to do anything.Have a nice day CF.
So, you will not give to one charity because of politics but you only work for charities that don’t worry about political views?Posted by: Hud | October 19, 2007 at 10:29 AM
Did I say that? Show me where.There was a point there.You obviously missed it.
Democrats break their promise to voters to end Iraq warBy Askia MuhammadWhite House CorrespondentUpdated Apr 17, 2007, 04:12 pm
WASHINGTON (FinalCall.com) – In Washington politics, things are not always what they appear to be. The current debate over continued funding of the war in Iraq is an example.The conventional wisdom insists that the debate over ending the war is all about the looming veto showdown between President George W. Bush and Congress over continued funding for the $2 billion-per-week Iraq war and whether or not funds, which must be approved by Congress, should include mandates for any withdrawal of U.S. forces.http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_3387.shtml
Blue Max,
How about the firing of US Attorneys for refusing to initiate politically motivated prosecutions, such as David Iglesias, who was leaned on by Sen. Pete Domici?Posted by: CF2K | October 19, 2007 at 10:20 AM
CF2K,I didn’t say I agree with it, just that they serve “at will”. They can be fired for any reason, even a crappy one.
Max–
Thanks for re-posting that.
I missed it the first time around somehow, and you have to admit, it is really funny in a RudePundit kind of way . . .
CF2K–
This reminds me of what Chomsky said about Watergate.
The CONs didn’t make a mistake when they broke into an office to get information. That’s routine.
They made a mistake when they did it to someone with POLITICAL POWER, who could fight back.
Federal judges have power. CIA agents, scapegoated for Bush’s driving us to war, have power. The military, scapegoated for not acheiving “mission accomplished,” have power.
The man makes Nixon look like a genius.
Poll: Residents Disgusted with Congress
Last Edited: Tuesday, 16 Oct 2007, 11:17 PM EDT
Created: Tuesday, 16 Oct 2007, 8:42 PM EDT
.The American people may be angry with President Bush these days, but when it comes to Congress, they’re downright disgusted! The failure of federal lawmakers to get the U.S. out of Iraq has Congressional approval ratings in the toilet.
http://www.myfoxphilly.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=4657754&version=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1
Kucinich Praises Los Angeles City Council Vote to Bring the Troops Home
“The Democrats have learned nothing since 2006,” Kucinich said. “They promised if they were put back in control of the House and the Senate the war in Iraq would end.
Now some of the Democratic presidential candidatesare saying there won’t be an end to the war until at least 2013.
The Los Angeles City Council, and the American people, know that is unacceptable.”
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-16-2007/0004683616&EDATE=
“Deficiencies plague ne U.S. Embassy…$592 million government construction project”
How my unused FEMA trailers can we ship to Baghdad for under $6million?
Max,
Your link, like you, is worthless. It contains nothing to substantiate the claim that Democrats “promised” to defund the Iraq War.
Try again, Max.
Blue Max,
So, does fact that US Attorneys can be “fired at will” mean that it’s OK for the President to fire them for refusing to engage in illegal activity, such as trumped-up, politically motivated prosecutions?
In effect, you’re arguing that it’s legal for the President to do illegal things.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Gets an “F” GradeWilliam Hughes
“If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” – Harry S. Truman
I’ve been waiting and waiting for her to do the right thing and end the Iraq War. I’m talking about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). She has made one lame excuse after another why she “can’t do,” what she and the other Democrats promised the American people prior to the Nov. 7, 2006 election, they “would do,” if they gained control of the U.S. Congress–end the war. “We don’t have the votes,” is one of Pelosi’s dubious replies. The truth is, the Democrats DO HAVE THE VOTES! In fact, if they do nothing, don’t vote for another supplemental funding bill, the Bush-Cheney Gang will have to begin to end the occupation of Iraq. There is, also, as Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) said, more than enough money in the current budget to bring the troops home, safely. (1) Consequently, I feel I must give Speaker Pelosi a “F” grade for failing her duty on Iraq and on other national issues as well.
Since the Democrats took control of the Congress in January, 2007, 825 U.S. troops have died in Iraq. God only knows how many innocent Iraqis have also perished during that same period. The estimate now is that 1.2 million have been killed since the U.S. led invasion of that country in March, 2003. (2) Rep. Kucinich said we were “lied” into the war by the cunning Bush-Cheney Gang. (1) He’s right and those lies add up to impeachable offenses under Art. 2, Sec. 4, of the U.S. Constitution. (3)
Now, to compound the damnable lies of the Bush-Cheney Gang, we have Democrats, like Speaker Pelosi, who have chosen to betray the trust of the people by going back on their word. The voters gave the Democrats a mandate in the Nov. 7, 2006 election, to end the war. Instead of bringing the conflict to a quick conclusion, Speaker Pelosi, and her hawkish cronies, have allowed it to go on and on, with no end in sight. And, to make matter even worse, her mousey leadership as House Speaker, has been taken as a “green light” by the amoral Bush-Cheney Gang, to plan a preemptive attack on Iran. (4) Rep. Kucinich has it right: Speaker Pelosi has failed to “stand up” to the Bush-Cheney Gang. (1)
The blood of those 825 recent dead U.S. troops are on Pelosi’s hands, as they are on the hands of another “Fake Democrat,” U.S. Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD). The latter has repeatedly voted to fund the war. And when she was challenged on it by her constituents, she mindless aired this refrain: “I support the troops!” (5) Well, the Iraq Veterans Against the War, think Pelosi, Mikulski and the other Fake Democrats, are simply full of it. They say: If you really want to “support the troops,” than bring them home, now! (6) The truth is that the Fake Democrats, along with their GOP counterparts, don’t give a good hoot about the U.S. troops! What they care about is their political careers, getting reelected, and serving the “War Party” and not the “Public Good.”Finally, Speaker Pelosi just doesn’t get it. She is now part of the problem and is complicit in the evildoings of the Bush-Cheney Gang. The outraged voters of San Francisco have her, a la Tom Foley, in their electoral sights. Speaker Pelosi has to go for the sake of preserving the Republic. America can, and must, do better.
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/10/16/house_speaker_nancy_pelosi_gets_an_f_gra
Max–
This is some kind of a op-ed.
It is the writer’s opinion that Dem candidates gave a pledge to end the war.
As a self-avowed leftist opposed to the war, I only WISH that were true.
The Dems never made such a promise, even though they damn well should have.
Boyda, who beat Ryun for instance, explicitly said she would not try to stop the war.
She believes the American people spoke when they re-elected Worst. President. Ever. in 04.
I don’t agree, but in a sense she’s right. Our democratic process is only as good as the people who participate in it.
“Democracy is not something you live in, it’s something you DO.” Granny D
Max,
When Cap’N said. For the DC Democrats to be ‘liars,’ they had to have promised to stop the war.
Prove they did.
Cindy Sheehan Quits Democrat Party Over Iraq War Funding Bill
By Noel Sheppard | May 27, 2007 – 01:55 ET
After the 2006 elections in November, I frequently wrote about the Democrats’ bait and switch campaign scheme whereby Party members had made promises to the electorate they never intended to keep, one of them clearly being an expeditious withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
On such occasions, I asserted that once folks realized they had been lied to, something with a foul aroma would hit the fan.Well, on Friday evening, it was liberal actor Ben Affleck castigating his Party for caving in on the recent Iraq war funding bill.
On Saturday morning, one of the leaders of the antiwar movement, Cindy Sheehan, was so disgusted by the Democrats agreeing to this bill that she officially announced she’s leaving the Party.
http://www.newsbusters.org/node/13028
October 10, 2007 at 10:20:21Why won’t Democrats end the Iraq war?by Ron Corvus Page 1 of 2 page(s)
You know, it’s the damndest thing. I’ve been a Democrat all my life, but recently I have thought about leaving the Democratic Party to vote as an independent. Why? Because I am so disgusted with the Democratic Party failing to fulfill their promise to end this war.
I voted for Democrats to end this war. Democrats ran on their promise to end this war; yet Democrats have decided to continue this war. Why is that?
Unfortunately, these pro-war Democratic politicians have managed to convince Democrats they cannot stop this war – that stopping this war requires President Bush’s signature or it require 60 votes to end this war. Joe Biden claims it will take 67 votes to end this war. Sen. Biden says folks ought to pressure more Republicans to help the Democrats end this war; otherwise, the troops aren’t coming home. This is Joe Biden’s message to the American people, as Biden stated during the debates.
The problem with all these politicians’ excuses is, they aren’t excuses – they’re Big, Fat, Stinking Lies! I’m talking 100% pure dee bullmanure. We’re talking Megalies Deluxe. I don’t know about you, but I’m very offended when so-called trustworthy politicians lie straight to your face – with a smile and a creepy laugh.
But who cares about me being offended – I care about our sons and daughters and aunts and uncles fighting and dying over in Iraq. I know in my heart they should and could be home right now, if it weren’t for these lying, lying politicians, lying to keep our troops in Iraq.
Why are these Democratic politicians lying to keep our troops in Iraq? Why?
I’m sure more than one of you will say, “They aren’t lying! Nancy Pelosi said Democrats cannot bring the troops home without President Bush’s signature or 60 votes.” Shameless lies. Shame on Speaker Nancy Pelosi for blatantly, brazenly lying to the American people. How is she lying?
Here’s how:
It takes only 41 Senators to kill any bill in the Senate.
In other words, 41 Senate Democrats could have ALREADY ENDED THIS WAR by their 41 selves, by simply filibustering Bush’s warfunding bills. Such an option is an old, tried and true tactic used by both parties in the Senate.
Republicans and Democrats do it all the time. Republicans recently easily blocked Democrats’ “non-binding resolution” via 41-man filibuster in the Senate.
Each party has more than the 41 Senators needed to block each other’s bills. Currently, the Senate has two partys – each has 49 Senators with two “independents” leftover.
THEREFORE, I reiterate: 41 Democratic Senators could have already ended this war by preventing Bush’s war appropriations bills from even coming to the Senate floor for a vote.
THE PROBLEM IS, the Democratic Party refuses to cut funding to this war. Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi flat out stated that, “Democrats will not cut funding to this war.”
Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Biden and others, love to tell the Big Fat Lie to the American people that Democrats do not have the votes needed to stop this war – that it is the Republicans’ fault – we need more Republican votes, otherwise, we’re dead in the water, stuck in Iraq.
When I call Hillary and the others “LIARS,” I do NOT mean it figuratively; I mean it LITERALLY.
These guys are liars, plain and simple. The magic number is NOT 60, or 67, as Joe Biden claims; the Magic Number is 41 folks, and don’t ever forget it. It’s not about getting 60 votes to pass a bill Senate Democrats and Republicans can agree upon, it’s about using 41 existing Senate Democrat votes to kill Bush’s multi-billion dollar warfunding bill.
I wish some good soul would “be allowed” to ask Hillary (and the others) on national television, “Why do you keep telling everyone that we don’t have enough votes to end the war in Iraq, since everyone knows 41 Senate Democrats could have already ended this war via filibuster of the war appropriations bills???????” Why?
The silence would be deafening……..
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_ron_corv_071010_why_won_t_democrats_.htm
Max,
Still nothing.
If you don’t show that candidates for the November 2006 elections PROMISED to defund the war effort, you’ve got nothing.
“Your Democrats LIED to you when they said they would defund the Iraq war and stop the war.”
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/10/roberts-do-not-.html#comments
Prove they said it, Max–or be a liar.
Skinny Dipping*
An elderly man in Louisiana had owned a large farm for several years. He hada large pond in the back. It was properly shaped for swimming, so hefixed it up nice… Picnic tables, horseshoe pits, and some apple and peach trees.
One evening the old farmer decided to go down to the pond, as hehadn’t been there for a while, and look it over. He grabbed a five-gallon bucketto bring back some fruit. As he neared the pond, he heard voices shoutingand laughing with glee. As he came closer, he saw it was a bunch of youngwomen skinny-dipping in his pond.
He made the women aware of his presence and they all went to thedeep end. One of the women shouted to him, “We’re not coming out until youleave!” The old man frowned, “I didn’t come down here to watch you ladies swimnaked or make you get out of the pond naked.”
Holding the bucket up he said, “I’m here to feed the alligator!”
Think fast posters!
TOP THREE DEMOCRATS BUSTED OVER IRAQ WARThursday, September 27, 2007By John Gibson
The far left is reeling today, and it’s their own anti-Bush candidates who have let the left down.
First, all efforts to end the war with legislation in Congress have now officially failed. Democrats run the Senate, except when it comes to the war it seems.
Second, last night’s Democrat debate. On that issue, let’s give a major league hat tip to Tim Russert, moderator of “Meet the Press.” He went after the Democrats just as if the bunch of them standing up there were Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Scooter Libby. And Russert’s persistent and pointed questioning produced the most interesting results of the night.
Not one of the anti-Bush, anti-war Democrat primary leaders would promise to bring the troops home from Iraq before the end of his or her first term. Not Hillary Clinton, not John Edwards, not Barack Obama.From the Daily Kos today, the far-left Web site run out of Berkeley, California, is this posting from Markos Moulitsas himself: “Hillary may be the most disciplined politician I’ve ever seen. If Obama is to make up ground, he’ll have to do it the old-fashioned politics way — by attacking.”
OK. Should Obama attack Hillary for not promising to get us out of Iraq when he won’t make the same promise himself?
And this is from one of the Daily Kos posters later. Probably tells the real tale of the left right now: “Visit Draft Gore Central at AmericaforGore.org to find a Draft Gore group near you.”Have they given up on the big Dems, especially Hillary and Obama and Edwards? Starting to sound like it if the Draft Gore movement is picking up steam on the left.
Democrats have gone to great lengths to encourage the far-left voter to believe they will end the war and end it on the first day they have the power to do so. Now the secret is out. No they won’t.
The big three, at least, recognize that they don’t know everything there is to know about the war, and they may have to continue something they have been telling people they would end. Oops.
And to moderator Tim Russert: Thanks. That was really great.That’s My Word.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298378,00.html
Blue Max,
So, does fact that US Attorneys can be “fired at will” mean that it’s OK for the President to fire them for refusing to engage in illegal activity, such as trumped-up, politically motivated prosecutions?Posted by: CF2K | October 19, 2007 at 11:07 AM
CF2K, whether the president fired them for “refusing to engage in illegal activity” or not is still a matter of opinion. It’s also an issue for a through investigation.
I think it’ll be very difficult to prove anything.
Just my opinion, though I do see your point.
Hey Folks,
We are doing it again this year. Last Christmas, with your help, we shipped tons of Christmas stockings to Marines in Iraq and we want to do it again. We are working with the Marine Corp League and Mom4Rmarines.org to send over a thousand stockings to the Marines on duty this Christmas in Iraq. If you can help, again this year, log on to http://www.Boortz.com and click the “Merry Christmas Marines” button to make a tax-deductible donation.
The men and women serving on the front lines in the war against terrorism have never needed more to know they have support back home.
Thanks for your help in sending this message to our troops.
Neal Boortz Patty Lewis
Speaking of worthwhile charities this is a worthwhile charity that libs and cons can agree on. Patty Lewis is merely a marine mom who wants the Marines in Iraq to know that we appreciate what they are doing and want them to know that at Christmas time we are using this small gesture to let them know that we remember them.
Max,
Still nothing. I’ll give you a hint: look up candidate speeches from the run-up to the election of 2006, and cherry-pick statements that commit them to defunding. Then, look at their votes during the current session of Congress.
The posts you’re smearing all over this thread, by contrast, aren’t proving a thing to make your case.
Yeah, Max–
Besides the fact you still don’t have a major Dem saying “we will end the war,” you also got Faux news praising Tim “Meet the Presstitute” Russert.
His “gotcha” questions — “would you endorse torture, Ms. Clinton, if Chelsea were slowly chopped into small pieces and fed to ravenous dogs?” “No.” “Okay, how about rats, how about that, huh?” was an embarassment to thinking viewers.
Hi Hank
I’m not great with cut and paste yet First ?
BTW, I’m doing a remodel this weekend for a disabled man who really needs his home cleaned and painted…any of you interested in helping?
Posted by: Mary Caruso | October 18, 2007 at 09:40 PM
The far left is reeling today, and it’s their own anti-Bush candidates who have let the left down.Posted by: Max | October 19, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Max, you’re such a Drama Queen.
Blue Maxx,
Fair enough. But I think the sworn-under-oath statements in the Alabama case are plenty sufficient for further investigation. And if they bear out, then “President’s perogative” will in no way be sufficient to silence further questions.
Iraq
To Honor the Sacrifice of Our Troops, we will:Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.
Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and other nations to play a constructive role.
Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence, poor planning and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.
http://www.democrats.gov/rs.html
Max–
You do know the difference between a fact and opinion, don’t you?
So far, I’ll I’ve seen is the latter . . .
Oh Hank?
I might be Mary. If I knew more.
I am always looking for a chance to teach my son to help others out.
Posted by: J R | October 18, 2007 at 09:46 PM
And I went out of my way to recognize your personal gift of your time to Woofstocck.
I’ve got a raft of charitable activities. I don’t wear them on my sleeve.
Thanks
Here’s what a Democratic Congressman thinks of all the anti-war nuts.
“In an exchange that was videotaped by another activist and quickly posted on the Internet, Mr. Obey declared that, “We don’t have the votes to defund the war, and we shouldn’t!” He described proponents of a financing cutoff as “these idiot liberals.” Mr. Obey apologized in a statement on Friday.” NYT March 2007
Obey was right for once. :)
Oh, and who were these “idiot Liberals” that were voting against the resolution for funding? They were mostly Hollyfornia Democrats, including Pelosi, the Speaker of the House.
You know, that list of “idiot liberals” Obey was referring to. :)
Max,
Still dodging the issue. Do you want to concede yet, or should I give you some more time?
Can this be? A DEMOCRAT accused of questionable ethics and spending? Say it isn’t so…since it seems on this blog Democrats are holier than everything and never do wrong…
California Assembly Speaker Democrat Fabian Núñez came under fire Friday after a report showed that the lawmaker – who has long fashioned himself as a champion of the poor – has used thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to make lavish purchases
Representative Carolyn Kilpatrick, Democrat of Michigan, countered: “Retired generals have spoken. We need a new direction. The troops should be redeployed. They should be brought home at the most practicable time with a plan that we don’t now have under this administration.”
Senator John Kerry, the Democratic Party presidential candidate in 2004 who is weighing another run for 2008, was expected to introduce an amendment that calls for the administration to redeploy combat forces by the end of the year.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/15/news/cong.php
“Stay and we’ll pay,” countered Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who criticized “the failed policy of this administration” and lamented the lives lost, billions of dollars spent and the bruised U.S. image since the war started. “It’s time to redeploy,” he said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/15/ap/politics/mainD8I8TC8O0.shtml
That’s how you can spot a true CON like Max, CF2K.
They seem to be genetically incapable of saying, “I was wrong.”
Look at W. fer gosh sakes . . .
I think it has something to do with the CON habit of mind of starting with the conclusions and working backwards to find the “facts” that fit these pre-conceptions.
If facts mattered, one wouldn’t reason in that way.
One can never be wrong because the conclusions one uses as the premise are never in doubt.
A growing number of war opponents complain that Democrats, who now control both the House of Representatives and the Senate, have gone back on their promise to voters last year to end the war outright.
The comments of a member of Code Pink, who identified herself only as “Liz from Arizona,” are typical. “I want to say that I’m very disappointed. We voted for a mandate of peace, and peace platform candidates on Nov. 7, which changed Congress. And we are expecting Congress to do their jobs, and support our troops. Bring them home out of this illegal, failed, endless occupation,” she told The Final Call after a protest at a banquet for Congressional radio and television correspondents held Mar. 28.
“We’re tired of it. Our families are tired. We want our families united. We want to move on. We want our moral standing in the world back,” she continued.
“Liz” is not alone.
“In the labor movement, we love what they’re [Code Pink] doing, and when they come to Ohio, we’re going to turn that state ‘blue,’” a sheet-metal worker who identified himself only as “Ted” told The Final Call.
The next day, the Senate voted its version of a $122 billion off-budget, emergency supplemental appropriation, which included a troop pullout timetable. But that was not before dozens of protestors set up a mock grave site in the Hart Senate Office Building, with pictures of U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians “killed in this illegal and immoral war,” organizer Kevin Zeese, a member of Peace Action from Montgomery County, Maryland told The Final Call Mar. 29 just after the Senate vote.
“The point of the demonstration was to say to the Democratic Party that they were not elected and put into majority power status to extend the war, they were put in there to end the war,” said Mr. Zeese. “This current bill they’re so proud of passing today, and claim is a change in course with its deadlines or goals, extends the war for another year, and even after their deadline, there are such gigantic loopholes that any commander-in-chief could keep as many troops as he or she wanted to, after that goal or deadline is passed.
“I really think that what we’re seeing in Washington, D.C. around this war, is political game-playing. The Democrats, I think, are trying to position themselves for 2008. They don’t want to have the responsibility for this war, so they’re trying to put something in this bill that sounds a little different, unless you look at the details.”
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_3387.shtml
But I think the sworn-under-oath statements in the Alabama case are plenty sufficient for further investigation.Posted by: CF2K | October 19, 2007 at 11:51 AM
CF2K, I FULLY agree. This country fails as long as we have criminals in politics. I don’t care about political affiliation. The crooks need to be found and kicked out (and imprisoned where possible).
Opinion, Max.
Not fact.
Kinda sad.
You can quit now . . .
Max
People like you don’t really care about the troops at all.
You only want to trip the trap of bush double sided Iraq misadventure.
bush WANTS us in Iraq forever. But if he can’t have that, he and you will be glad to blame the whole sorry mess on the Dems.
I don’t know that I’ll get to see it played out. But I’m gonna lay down a marker right here.
If the Dems DO manage to get us out of Iraq, I bet Max will piss and moan about it from the moment forward.
The thing that Libs like about being Lib is that you just make crap up or make a slanderous statement and then make those on the right prove it is not true.
Must be very convenient to make stuff up and not have to work for it, then whine about victimhood if you get cornered.
Yep, the muppet poster CF2K is whining about, “but pelosi never said she wouldn’t defund the war.”
But she voted to defund the war several times and it’s all the Congressional record.
In this case, actions speak much louder than words.
I see Max still has nothing. Guess it’s time to declare victory! Wheeee!
Here CF2K, take these two blog points. One for being asinine and the other for being more asinine.
Go buy yourself a reputation.
Max
It’s old news, some of the Dems even have admitted to not doing enough / nothing ….. Rep Schakowsky of Illinois has said as much yesterday in a Hard Ball interview —- of course she couldn’t / wouldn’t say how to fix the lethargy ———
Why I am going to get into this, I don;t know, but my two cents worth.It is only my opinion.
THe Democrats running knew full well that immediate disengagement from Iraq would not and likely cannot happen. They ran on the implicit promise of withdrawing from the shithole named Iraq. They lied. If not explicity, then implicitly. THis is to be expected. Not because they were Democrats, but because they are politicians. They hire staff to do nothing but manipulate the government,and public opinion. Some intently believe, some believe the ends are worth the means, and some just want the power and the prestige. Most could give a rats damn about you or I.They used the war in Iraq to get elected, politicians on both sides. Why be frickin surprised? They’ve done it since I coulc vote. 1972.
“….Democrats, who now control both the House of Representatives and the Senate…”
They do not control the Senate, on war matters count on Lieberman to side with the conservatives —- to overturn vetos they need 60 — not even close, that’s not control that’s a draw like in the Ryder Cup if it’s a draw the trophy goes to the last winner.
So force the damned issue. Bring up the legislation anyway. Make them vetoe. Make them fillibuster. A real fillibuster, one that requires constant talking, not some pantywaist bullshit. Make them earned their damned money!
“Max
People like you don’t really care about the troops at all.”
JR
Why is that cheap shot necessary? you rail at the cons when they call you a traitor for disagreeing with them —- and you stoop to the same garbage — can’t figure out which of you is the idiot !!!!!!
Welcome back to 6th grade…..
LJ
I agree —– The Dems don’t seem to have the legs to do that and the GOP won’t —– during the VN war there was quit a bit of investigating and filibustering going on —- much driven I think by the war protestors —– the same age group now doesn’t have the draft hanging over their head or there would be more protests. I wonder what was it like around here in the late 60’s with war protesters? — I missed a lot of the Age of Aquarius movement
ken, what do you mean by “around here”? I’m only qualified to speak to my observations about what was going on in Lawrence in those days on the KU campus. I know that there was a perception that there were fewer protests, etc., at KSU and WSU, for example, but I cannot comment upon that from personal experience.
LJ,
Why let the GOP fillibuster? That only gives them hope, and gives cheer and good spirit to those Republicans still not dispirited enough to retire or resign.
I think p-mom’s position has merit. Let voters make this decision in 2008: vote for a Republic who voted “N” for S-CHIP, or a Democrat who voted, or would vote, “Y?”
It’s the corollary to the extremely successful political strategy the Dems are sure to employ in the POTUS race. Namely, run against Augustus Stupidus and only against him. The actual Republic candidate should go unnamed as he is superfluous to the exercise. If the Dems can successfully frame the Republic candidate as just more augustly supreme stupidity, then that’s the ticket.
There is no need to give any Republic candidate any more attention than is absolutely required for law and minimum decorum.
After all, that’s the way the GOP would have played it in 2003, right?
What a brilliant idea Pedant! Run against Bush! Hell, it doesn’t even matter who the democrat is, just run against Bush!
Hank
I guess if you have no clue or idea running against Bush is all ya got.
LJ,
Why let the GOP fillibuster? That only gives them hope, and gives cheer and good spirit to those Republicans still not dispirited enough to retire or resign.
I think p-mom’s position has merit. Let voters make this decision in 2008: vote for a Republic who voted “N” for S-CHIP, or a Democrat who voted, or would vote, “Y?”
It’s the corollary to the extremely successful political strategy the Dems are sure to employ in the POTUS race. Namely, run against Augustus Stupidus and only against him. The actual Republic candidate should go unnamed as he is superfluous to the exercise. If the Dems can successfully frame the Republic candidate as just more augustly supreme stupidity, then that’s the ticket.
There is no need to give any Republic candidate any more attention than is absolutely required for law and minimum decorum.
After all, that’s the way the GOP would have played it in 2003, right?
Posted by: Pedant | October 19, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Precisely why the government no longer works. Yeah for the party, yeah for politics, too fng bad we aren;t getting anything done. Republicans and Democrats alike. THey are all a bunch of assholes, in my opinion.
Damn right, and we’re using your guy’s total failure to do anything right to win back the White House in ‘08.
When the Dems sweep to power once again like they did in ‘06, you will have only one person to blame:
Worst.President.Ever.
I guess you can also blame yourself for supporting him too, if you want.
And if they run things the way the dumbass Republicans have, they will be out in the next election cycld. If if was bad and dumb for the Republicans, it is just as bad a method of operating if it’s done by the Democrats. Neither give a damn about you, they give a damn about thier own power.
Max and unnamed,
Heading to the meet now. Last I heard you were responsible for providing beverages.
And I’m gonna be thirsty!
I would love to run the next election on the ‘no’ votes for the SCHIP increase. Once the real facts are made known to the general public it would be a GOP runaway.
Hey Max,
I think American Way has already left. I have a few miles longer to get bedded down. Tell him if he is using 4 shot magnum’s he is a whimp, and I will not be blocker!
Save some birds for me.
My horse is running a little slow Black Hawk, will be trotting to the meet, but won’t get there till noon tomorrow.
Will bring peace pipe, squaw, and little Shawnee too.
Will bring hooch if you water horse when I get there.
“And the “Northern latitudes” are warming faster by how much? “Less than 1 degree C over the past 30 years? Phew! Where is my fan!”
Posted by: Kansas | October 19, 2007 at 03:40 AM
Wrong again. It’s global warming, but there is more warming at the Northern latitudes.http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
“As I stated previously, Northern Latitudes is not the entire world. Thusly, it is not Global Warming.”
Posted by: Kansas | October 19, 2007 at 03:47 AM
It is global warming, but there’s more warming at Northern latitudes.
“Thusly, the effects are regional, mainly influenced by cyclic effects of natural climate change.”The effects are global. Human-caused factors are causing global warming, with fluctuations caused by ENSO, volcanoes, etc.
1 (800) 828 – 0498
1 (800) 614 – 2803
1 (866) 340 – 9281
1 (866) 338 – 1015
1 (877) 851 – 6437
Let congress know how you feel about giving the telecom companies immunity.
A day after successfully sustaining President Bush’s veto of a bill to provide health insurance to 10 million children, Congressional Republicans remained in an uproar over comments made by Representative Pete Stark, Democrat of California, who accused the Republicans, in a speech on the House floor, of sending American soldiers “to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.
On Thursday, Republicans immediately demanded an apology from Mr. Stark.”http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/starks-remarks-set-off-gop-lawmakers/
A democrat with the nads to stand up to Republicans? What will they think of next?
cosmos,
Global warming caused by man isn’t even logical. Hell, GW may have peaked, we might actually be cooling now. Hell, if man can effect the overall temp. of the planet and we keep trying to stop the planet from heating up we might even cause another ice age!
Hank
The effects are global. Human-caused factors are causing global warming, with fluctuations caused by ENSO, volcanoes, etc.
Posted by: cosmos | October 19, 2007 at 01:47 PM
ENSO and volcanoes are not human caused or originated.
But please do keep trying to attribute climate change to man, perhaps one day Theodore Kaczynski will write you a letter thanking you for your hard work on the conspiracy of man.
“Global warming caused by man isn’t even logical.”
Posted by: Hank Price
A NATURAL DROP in CO2 seems to have triggered an ice age.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/wethring.htm
“The rise of the Appalachian Mountains may have caused a major ice age approximately 450 million years ago, an Ohio State University study has found.
The weathering of the mountains pulled carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, causing the opposite of a greenhouse effect — an “icehouse” effect….It also reinforces the notion that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a major driver of Earth’s climate.”
Hank, explain why a human-caused RISE in CO2 (and other GHG’s) would not cause global warming.
Does the human-added CO2 just wave the outgoing infrared radiation on by, like a traffic cop at an intersection?
IL Rep. Rahm Emanuel appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher last month (Sept 28?) and gave his reasons why he continues to vote for the funding for the Iraq “war”. The transcript is not available, but I did find a link if you want to see and hear what he had to say.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070930_bill_maher_vs_rep_rahm_emanuel/
If that link doesn’t work, try this one:http://tinyurl.com/3bhjvx
I suppose it’s just me, but I was inspired to repost this here:
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/10/gore-and-the-li.html#comment-86977890
How much of our arguments are “meta-communiciation”–not really about the issue, but who is supporting it?
For the record, Roger Ailes is a propagagandist (he makes me gag!), though I think Leni Refenstahl is a more appropriate metaphor.
Regular folks make the difference. Like Eagle editors. Check the archives in 2005 if you will.
See how much Phillip’s views have changed.
It’s worth the trouble. I hope a lot of you agree with me.
It does look like a ‘Black Friday’ for the markets. Great Bush economy, great as long as the keep the money pipe line full.
Hank, explain why a human-caused RISE in CO2 (and other GHG’s) would not cause global warming.
Does the human-added CO2 just wave the outgoing infrared radiation on by, like a traffic cop at an intersection?
Posted by: cosmos | October 19, 2007 at 02:47 PM
Hank doesn’t have to prove a negative.
cosmos, why don’t you prove that factors such natural Climate variations are not the major factor in climate change.
I already posted last night directly from the IPCC scientists that they do not have all the answers on climate change and have poor understanding how climate events actually work.
These are your IPCC climate scientists, you know, the peer reviewed scientists stating emphatically that there is much to be learned about climate before conclusions can be drawn.
It is only the co2 conspirators like yourself cosmos that use political op ed pieces to bolster your agenda and ignore the warnings of your own scientists.
How much of our arguments are “meta-communiciation”–not really about the issue, but who is supporting it?
For the record, Roger Ailes is a propagagandist (he makes me gag!), though I think Leni Refenstahl is a more appropriate metaphor.
Regular folks make the difference. Like Eagle editors. Check the archives in 2005 if you will.
See how much Phillip’s views have changed.
It’s worth the trouble. I hope a lot of you agree with me.
Posted by: Rage | October 19, 2007 at 02:56 PM
No doubt Rage, but that’s why they call Websites like this Blogs. :)
It’s full of opinion and where people don’t stand on factual statements, they use opinion based ideologies to push forward their agendas.
If we took the logical approach to discussing issues, there would be unhappy campers on both sides of the aisle. :)
It appears as if the lefts last hopes here, that the bid was phoney, is being proven wrong!
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm
Seems as if the bid for just over 2 million dollars was not phoney.
Sorry libs.
“Hank, explain why a human-caused RISE in CO2 (and other GHG’s) would not cause global warming.”
Easy, cosmos, it’s only logical that human-caused CO2 is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
First of all, scientists are conflicted over the effects of CO2 on the planet’s average temperature over the ages. There is no proven science that definitively indicates which efects what. Does the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere rise because of temperature changes or vise versa?
Second, CO2 is a small part of the so-called greenhouse gases. a very small part. Green house gases make up 5% of the atmosphere. CO2 is less than 4% of the greenhouse gases. Of the total amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere each year, less than 4% is caused by humans. Do the math. That means that aproximately .25% of all green house gases are do to the contribution of CO2 due to humans.
Third, 95% of the green house gases is water vapor. Scientists have never been able to understand water vapor (cloud cover) enough to effectively consider it in computer models. Now water vapor is a wonderous thing. It is the primary mover of heat from one part of the planet to another. Water vapor is the engine that causes all of the winds. It is the cause of all precipitation. It is the cause of cloud cover. Cloud cover is the second largest contributer to the temperature of the earth, after the sun. Scientist have no idea if the CO2 concentration effects water vapor or vice a versa. They cannot put it in their computer models.
If we could decrease man’s contribution to CO2 by 50% we would decrease the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by less that 2%.
I can’t prove anything. Niether can you. However, I do have logic on my side.
Decrease GW by decreasing man’s contribution to CO2? Why don’t you and all the other GW nuts try and raise the level of the ocean by spitting in it? At least you can actually accurately calculate how long that would take you. (If you disallow evaporation of the ocean which contributes to the water vapor concentration in the atmosphere!)
Hank
“cosmos, why don’t you prove that factors such natural Climate variations are not the major factor in climate change.”
Posted by: Kansas | October 19, 2007 at 03:03 PM
It’s already been proven by peer-reviewed climate scientists. A major part of the observed warming cannot be explained by natural climate factors.
It’s already been proven by peer-reviewed climate scientists. A major part of the observed warming cannot be explained by natural climate factors.
Posted by: cosmos | October 19, 2007 at 03:31 PM
Oh you mean that sweltering 1 degree C temperature rise we’ve had the past 30 years.
I can hardly stop the sweat dripping down my brow. :)
Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html
A view on the health of our economy:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_on_bi_ge/stretching_paychecks;_ylt=Am1HEbOfXQpk3NyFQXSp.V2b.HQA
Re: Rush’s Letter >>>
P. T. Barnum was right all along!!
From the IPCC scientists that cosmos highly regards, but never reads their actual words.
“The primary driver of latitudinal and seasonal variations in temperature is the seasonally varying pattern of incident sunlight, and the fundamentaldriver of the circulation of the atmosphere and ocean isthe local imbalance between the shortwave (SW) andlongwave (LW) radiation at the top of the atmosphere.The impact on temperature of the distribution of insolation can be strongly modified by the distribution of clouds and surface characteristics.”
Odd, there is not one mention of CO2 as being the primary driver of temperature change at latitudes.
Perhaps cosmos should read the peer reviewed scientists words instead of the Global Warming Alarmists Blogs and Op ed pieces he references.
Dear cosmo,
The earth’s temperature has varied up and down since creation. Knowing what has happened the last 30 years, the last 100 years or the last 1000 years can in no way prove that we won’t cool down over the next 100 years. Using the history of the earth’s temperature proves only one thing about the future, it’s going to change.
I think we’re cooling down. I was cold this morning. That’s all I care about.
Hank
A buck will now get you almost 96 canadian cents!
“First of all, scientists are conflicted over the effects of CO2 on the planet’s average temperature over the ages.”
Posted by: Hank Price | October 19, 2007 at 03:26 PM
Not the credible peer-reviewed scientists.
“Second, CO2 is a small part of the so-called greenhouse gases. a very small part. Green house gases make up 5% of the atmosphere.”
A tiny amount of Ebola virus is insignificant compared to the size of a human… but it can be fatal.
The forcing of CO2 is what is important, not the percentage. CO2 causes between 9% and 26% of the greenhouse effect.
“Third, 95% of the green house gases is water vapor.”
Water vapor causes between 36% and 66%, add clouds and it’s between 66% and 85%.
Water vapor is also a positive feedback. More CO2 and other GHG’s causes warming, which increases water vapor, which causes more warming.
‘Increase In Atmospheric Moisture Tied To Human Activities’http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070918090803.htm
“I can’t prove anything. Niether can you. However, I do have logic on my side.”
Hank, you do not have “logic” on your side. You have misinformation, and junk science.
cosmos, thank you for presenting the mainstream scientific viewpoint on global warming. You present it accurately, from what I have been able to tell. Anyone can cut and paste and link to one line comments from those whose vain insistence that reality match their political viewpoints.
Well cosmos,
“The forcing of CO2 is what is important, not the percentage. CO2 causes between 9% and 26% of the greenhouse effect.”
9 to 26%! That seems to be a pretty wide margin of error!
Let’s run with it! What percent of the total earth temperature is due to the greenhouse effect? Less than 20%! So. . .if CO2 causes 26% of that effect (26% being the largest of the best guess) that means that 5.2% of the earth’s temperature is due to CO2. That means that man’s contribution to global warming is less than .08%. If we decrease our contribution by half we will have absolutly no effect other than reducing our economy to that of Darfur’s.
Thanks for supporting my logical position!
Hank
“‘It’s already been proven by peer-reviewed climate scientists. A major part of the observed warming cannot be explained by natural climate factors.’
Posted by: cosmos | October 19, 2007 at 03:31 PM
Oh you mean that sweltering 1 degree C temperature rise we’ve had the past 30 years.
I can hardly stop the sweat dripping down my brow. :)”
Argument via irrelevent exaggeration. Classic troll behavior.
Re Kansas:
DNFTT
The FDA and Gardasil’s manufacturer, Merck & Co., insist that none of the eight young women, ages 11 to 22 who died after getting the HPV vaccine, and none of the 3461 adverse reactions reported after getting the HPV vaccine, could possibly be related to Garasil, a series of expensive injections now mandatory in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia for 11-year-old girls, and heavily promoted elsewhere, driving Merck’s profits to $1 billion.The CDC claims that some of the young schoolgirls died from the flu or from birth control pills instead, and that some people are going to be paralyzed by Guillain-Barre Syndrome anyway.One emergency room doctor who reported the death of an 11-year-old girl was strangely “confused” when contacted later by the FDA, and could not confirm the death or the location.HPV is only spread by promiscuous sex.- – -
Children as young as 10 in Westchester, NY were among those given graphic, explicit, pro-sodomy sex education material meant for adults only, at the recent “Wellness Fair” at the Irvington Middle and High School campuses.The Westchester County Department of Health (ph: 914-813-5000) put its stamp of approval right on the back of those pamphlets, where it is clearly noted the material is intended for adults only. County Health Commissioner Dr. Joshua Lipsman said distributing them to pre-teen schoolchildren was a “mistake”.School principal Joe Witazek, obviously in on something, refused to act during the Wellness Fair, when a student brought him the brochures and told him it was inappropriate for them.
I’d not sweat it (pardon the pun) too much cosmos..
LOOK at what at and who the deniars have left. I mean no offense to them, but there ARE still a few people who think the Earht is flat.
And look at the other thread we have today. An unneeded power plant was NOT built precisely
because of carbon emmissions. Public opinion drove that precedent setting decision.
I have real hope. I have a renewed sense of belief in America. I think we are finally ready to evolve past fossil fuels.
And I begin to think it’ll happen in my lifetime. And it is about time.
And of course, Benjamin Santer is an unbiased credible scientist. He recieved most of his grant money because he supports the liberal party line. Most of what was in your link was nothing more than working back from the politically correct assumptions about glogal warming.
http://nj.npri.org/nj97/11/whining.htm
Hank
Blue Max, I noticed that yesterday, though he was rough and he could have stated it less controversially.In a real sense he made the point, one made before about the atmosphere of the entire Iraq war.It does have the atmosphere of the Rome Coliseum, while in the arena there is in one end the lions are ripping a part the Christians and in the other end the Gladiators are hacking at each other with swords and spears.There is blood and gore everywhere right in front of the crowd but their only comments are about the Senators, the wealthy and those of influence getting to set in the boxes and they are forced to set in the cheap seats!
There is talk about the drive-by media, but as for the war there seems to be nothing more then a drive-by public. perhaps the point is correct, if there was a draft then suddenly it would not be a matter of simply complaining about something as unimportant as the seats! The congressman was issuing an indictment of the Republicans and the President. BUT then the President is not alone in the Coliseum and he is not the only one that can witness the blood and gore. It is a valid point that those opposed to the Iraq war need not have a majority to stop it. The sixty percent rule works both ways and the opposite is true it takes a majority to force the President to end the war but it also takes a majority to fund it. So it would appear that the Republicans are not the only ones playing politics with our country and our troops. Does a plague on both their house come to mind?
J R,
Yeah, there’s some progress, and people are slowly waking up to the anthropogenic global warming problem.
And the deniers are funny. Hank Price seems to believe that a decade old newspaper column is more credible than peer-reviewed scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and other places.
It isn’t easy to embrace change cosmos.
FOr some folk? I think they are so wrapped into the fight that it is all they have left to keep it going. It’s a defensive reaction. As long as “we” haven’t won, “they” haven’t lost.
There is value though, in that sort of determination.
We’ve shown what it is we NEED to do. Now, we have to help them to want to do it.
JR,
And none of your comments actually adds to the discussion by refuting what my father said or actually supporting your argument.
You are nothing more than cosmos cheerleader here.
Except you don’t look good in a mini skirt.
JR…………’better watch out or the marine-boy will come after you!
Remember, he packs heat!
Coceal/carry makes our world SO much safer. LOL
Nathan
This is not a contest between you and me. Or between cosmos and your Dad.
There’s that defensiveness again.
I got one for you. Today for the very fitst time, oil hit 90 dollars a barrel. (No link, I just heard it on the radio.)
Oil is not sustainable as a readily dependable resource in MY lifetime Nathan, let alone yours or my son’s.
It is only going to cost us more and more as time goes on.
JR,
How do you figure that oil will not be sustainable in your lifetime?
We are discovering new sources of oil all the time.
Nathan
One more for dsicusson and then I have to go.
I didn’t SAY “sustainable”.
It’s true that we are reaching a point where if things do not change deman will outstrip supply.
I said “readily available”.
Now Nathan you know oil has not been readily available as a resource to America since the 70’s.
By readily available, I mean independent of other nations or radical moves in foreign policy.
Like I say, it will only get worse. I’d rather address the problem NOW than wait until we have no choice.
Sorry, it was “readily dependable”
JR,
So, you don’t care about Global Warming being true or not, you just use it as an excuse to further your belief in using something other than oil?
Bidding Over $2M for Dems Anti-Rush LetterEmail
Share October 19, 2007 12:34 PM
ABC News’ Z. Byron Wolf Reports: Who says the political fingerpointing in Washington is all for naught?
Back in September, when Democrats and Republicans were sniping at each other over the Iraq war, Republicans passed a nonbinding resolution in the Senate condemning Moveon.org for calling David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, “General Betrayus” in a newspaper ad.
For their part, Democrats sent a letter calling for Rush Limbaugh to be reprimanded for calling soldiers who opposed the war “phony soldiers.”
The furor seemed to have died down as the Senate moved away from voting on a string of Iraq resolutions to voting on domestic spending bills.
But today comes word that a Wasghinton, D.C. area philanthropist, Betty Casey (or bettyc588, as she is known on Ebay) is going to pay over $2 million for a letter Senate Democrats wrote to Mark Mays, President of Clear Channel, asking him to condemn Rush Limbaugh for the “phony soldiers” comment.
All proceeds from the auction of the letter will go to the Marine Corps – Law Enforcement Foundation, which distributes aid to the families to the children of fallen Marines on behalf of law enforcement officers.
Rush Limbaugh himself put the letter up for auction on EBAY. Limbaugh sits on the board of the foundation and he has reportedly said on his show that he will match the winning bid — a total of $4.2 million for the foundation.
Rush identified Casey on his show today as a listener since the show’s inception. Casey is listed as trustee of the foundation named for her late husband, the real estate developer Eugene B. Casey, who died in 1986 and had worked as director of the Farm Credit Agency under President Franklin Roosevelt.Betty Casey seems to have disparate political interests. According to campaign finance reports, In past years she has given money mostly to Republican Senate candidates, from Mel Martinez, who succeeded in Florida, to Pete Coors, who was unsuccessful in Colorado.
She gave money to Rudy Giuliani’s exploratory committee in 1999 and then Rick Lazio, the Republican who ultimately challenged Senator Hillary Clinton in that the 2000 race for senate in New York.
But this year, Casey gave the maximum individual contribution to Clinton’s chief opponent for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Both Clinton and Obama signed the letter Casey spent $2.1 million on. In fact, their signatures are right next to each other and the “n” at the end of Clinton runs into the “B” at the beginning of Barack.]
Casey was described in 2004 by the Washington Post as eccentric and press-shy. She had at one point tried to create a lavish $50 million mayoral residence for the mayor of Washington, D.C., but those plans fell through amid squabbling with city officials. Casey donated the land for the mansion to the Salvation Army, stunning city leaders.
Back on October 1st, Harry Reid brought the letter to the Senate floor and asked Republicans to join him condemning Limbaugh for saying that soldiers who oppose the Iraq war are “phony soldiers.”
No Republicans signed the letter and Limbaugh has made light of it. Also on Ebay, you can buy a t-shirt that reads “Phony 41″ on the back. 41 Democratic Senators signed the letter to Limbaugh.
This was a line of political rhetoric that fed off Republicans and their condemnation of Moveon.org for the “General Betrayus” ad. There were nonbinding resolutions and letters written and that was supposed to be it.
At the time, Reid called on Republicans — who had condemned Moveon.org for the General Betrayus ad — to sign the letter condemning Limbaugh. But only 41 Democrats, including Reid, signed the letter.
Today, Reid was more conciliatory to Limbaugh and whoever is paying for the letter. Though he said on the Senate floor that as he had watched the bidding throughout the week, he never thought it would get to $2 million.
“Now, everyone knows that Rush Limbaugh and I don’t agree on everything in life and maybe that is kind of an understatement,” Reid said.
“But without qualification Mark May, the owner of the network that has Rush Limbaugh, and Rush Limbaugh should know that this letter that they’re auctioning is going to be something that raises money for a worthwhile cause. I don’t know what we could do more important than helping to ensure that children of our fallen soldiers and police officers who have fallen in the line of duty have the opportunity for their children to have a good education,” he said.
The bidding ends at 1:00p.m. No mater what, Democrats are going to make a ton of money for a charity off their political vitriol.
What is wrong with this news article from one of our major outlets? Any wonder why the networks are tanking. Imagine giving the Dems any credit at all for the 4.2M which will be going to such a worthy cause.
JR,
And you did use the word “sustainable”
“Oil is not sustainable as a readily dependable resource in MY lifetime Nathan, let alone yours or my son’s.”
Posted by: J R | October 19, 2007 at 05:08 PM
I did say I had to go…
No not at all Nathan. I am very concerned with global warming.It scares me like terrorists scare you.The two are linked after all.
I’m trying to get folks on board what we need to do for a reason they can get behind. Everybody gets to be a winner.
Now don’t talk about me while I am away. I’ll be back later to see where this went.
JR,
Terrorism and Global warming are only linked in your mind JR.
So if you want to share what makes you think that, feel free.
I am not “scared” of terrorists. They are a problem like cock roaches which need to be destroyed. I am not scared of cock roaches either. More like disgusted with them.
cosmos, thank you for presenting the mainstream scientific viewpoint on global warming. You present it accurately, from what I have been able to tell. Anyone can cut and paste and link to one line comments from those whose vain insistence that reality match their political viewpoints.
Posted by: ksagnostic | October 19, 2007 at 04:05 PM
You should thank me ksagnostic.
You know why?
That post I made athttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/10/open-thread–16.html#comment-86988852
is directly from the International Panel on Climate Change, the very scientists holds in high regard.
Go read it if you want to see the real science and not the op ed pieces that cosmos writes.
cosmos ignores the scientists of whom he tries to reference.
Lets see how reasonable this sounds:
-Global Warming is supposedly such a big problem that is so bad that if we don’t act now it might be too late! *Gasp*
-Yet all we need to do is change our light bulbs, use two sheets of toilet paper, and enact some carbon trade and cap system (on only the so called non developing countries not incuding China and others…) to stop Global warming!
It just doesn’t add up folks.
Why would you believe such total non-sense?
“is directly from the International Panel on Climate Change, the very scientists holds in high regard.”
Posted by: Kansas | October 19, 2007 at 05:35 PM
The “latitudinal” (not “global) quote is from Chapter 8Climate Models and Their Evaluation8.3.1.1.2 The balance of radiation at the top of the atmosphere
IPCC covers anthropogenic, and natural forcings in Chapter 2.http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Why is the F.B.I. raiding David Copperfield’s warehouse?
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kmuw/.artsmain/article/7/0/1168861/Headlines/FBI.raids.magician.David.Copperfield.in.Vegas/
“Why would you believe such total non-sense?”
Posted by: Nathan | October 19, 2007 at 05:51 PM
It’s “total non-sense” because Nathan leaves out important actions, like denying the Holcomb coal plant permits, higher mpg standards, and this,
‘Mayor Wynn announces action on Zero Energy Homes’http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/news/2007/zech_release.htm
But cosmos, you said there is warming in the Northern Latitudes (not global.)
Were you spreading false doctrine once again?
Oh and cosmos, how else do you think warming is achieved other than the absorption of LW radiation, which is controlled by the very mechanisms as described in Chapter 8.
Note the statement where it says “primary driver.” It does not mention co2
co2 doesn’t heat up anything. It absorbs energy. The cosmic rays as LW into the atmosphere and strikes the earth bounces back off as LW depending on the specific albedo where the insolation can only be achieved regionally because that is how LW interacts with environment.
Why is the F.B.I. raiding David Copperfield’s warehouse?
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kmuw/.artsmain/article/7/0/1168861/Headlines/FBI.raids.magician.David.Copperfield.in.Vegas/
Posted by: Steven Davis | October 19, 2007 at 05:58 PM
Some Seattle woman accused Copperfield of raping him.
ermake that raping her…
Wow!
Who knew that starting to enact zero energy homes in austin or as the plan goes, to be using 65% less energy by 2015 we can stop so called catastrophic global warming!
I thought we had to act now! Not by 2015…
The cosmic rays as LW into the atmosphere (that should be SW not LW)
More on BENT SPEAR
B-52 Nukes Headed for Iran: Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/382208.html
I don’t know about the validity of the above article, but it’s an interesting read, nonetheless.
Interesting story Rox, don’t know about it’s certainty though.
The Air Force has a B-52 base at Diego Garcia located in the India (Asia) Ocean. There would be no reason to fly nukes from the U.S. when Diego Garcia is much closer.
Rox,
The National Enquirer is an “interesting read” too.
Do you actually believe that garbage you posted?
Why bother posting it?
Rox,
Don’t get me wrong, I am just trying to understand why you would post something like that if you didn’t believe it or want to further the insinuation of it.
The mistake of Nukes from Minot to Barksdale is such a huge mistake that it is difficult to believe someone let a lone several in the chain of custody didn’t notice.
With all the checks / safeguards / identifying markings on nukes kind of hard to mistake them for blanks / dummies / empties etc …..
….. so a story Rox points out is possible. I’m sure the NSA and AF wouldn’t issue a press release ……. in the absence of hard specific evidence it is speculation —– Rox isn’t revealing any secrets — no harm no foul —- like he said an interesting read ……..
……. it’s certainly more interesting than than the constant barrage of garbage about Global Warming that often consumes these pages ……
Kansas: A.Coulter is correct, going from 63 to 64 degrees is not a problem, it’s going from 32 to 35 degrees in the Artic that is the discussion, because if the ice or tundra ceases to exist then there is a lot of other problems coming up. Ice reflects heat, without it temeprature rises are going to be a lot, lot higher everywhere cascading us into situations we know litte of. The tundra produces flora unique to the needs of migrating fowl. Again, in tropical or temeperate zones not a problem with a rise of a few degreees, but in the northern climes, it is and will bode poorly for the world.
“…identifying markings on nukes kind of hard to mistake them for blanks / dummies / empties etc …..”Posted by: ken
What kind of markings?
Big nuke conspiracy theory. Usually the Libs are accusing the Cons of such crap.
With over 20,000 nukes in the US arsenal, we have many to choose from that are much closer to Iran then North Dakota.
Heck, why do you think the US Embassy in Iraq is so huge?
Many Navy ships in the Persian Gulf have nukes.
Diego Garcia like Kansas referenced.
Oh, and how many nukes do we have in Afghanistan?
ALCM’s from any Air Force base in Iraq or Kuwait would do, or cruise missiles from any surface ship would do the job.
Don’t forget the SLBM’s that can come from any major body of water on Earth.
We could nuke Iran from the East, West or South or from all three directions without having any ICBM come from the continental US.
And if we are going to nuke Iran, it would be from up close.
Why?
Surprise attack with little or no warning.
ICBM’s from the continental US Might be confused by Russian’s or Chinese as an attack on them, and we would not risk their misinterpretation so as to give them an excuse for launching against the US.
While in the air, from the region, 1 minute from launch, we would inform the Russians and the Chinese, not to get their permission, but to ensure they do not think they are being targeted, so they do not immediately launch against the US.And, we would warn them not to launch against us, unless they wanted a full strike launched against them.
it’s going from 32 to 35 degrees in the Artic that is the discussion,
Posted by: sursum | October 19, 2007 at 06:59 PM
Perhaps sursum, but that temperature range for the tundra is located at the latitudes where tundra is found, not the arctic cap, which is much colder.
That range of temperature you gave is also for the summer time, one season and for a specific region. By the way, you don know that the applicable range of tundra is up to about 54F, so the range you gave is not really an important factor considering the tundra biome needs an upper range to regenerate.
I can well imagine the amount of methane released by decaying matter is much more significant than co2 in the immediate range.
Besides, it was Nathan that brought up Ann Coulter, not me. :)
Interesting story / urban legend? regarding Wichita / Newton history.
Had a chat with a friend today, although not a native she’s been here 50 of her 54 years — so damn near. Asked her what the differnce was between the east and west sides of Wichita? Thinking about aesthetics, number and types of restaurants, etc … . (I know a lot more about the east side, have a basic familiarity about the west side (finally figured out the whole Zoo Blvd / 13th Street configuration) but know more east siders than west siders.
Well, she said she was told that during the cattle rushes of long ago, cattlemen liked stopping in Wichita because of the easy availability of Hookers. After a while city leaders decided thay didn’t like the reputation of that — so they outlawed it in ICT. Sooooo all the hookers and cattlemen took their business to Newton —- well when the businesses in ICT started feeling the pinch, the city had a change of heart and allowed hookers on the west side of the river —- ever since east siders have been seen as uppity / snobby and the west enders a lot more laid back …. or is that laid down …?
… Urban legend / myth ?
“Big nuke conspiracy theory. Usually the Libs are accusing the Cons of such crap.”
Max, would you quit using common sense. It is no fun when you do that.
I am still waiting to find out how they put these big markings on nukes so they can be easily identified.
I’d guess yellow letterring on the side of the missile with it’s nuclear ID number, usually red flags with pins to arm them. Paperwork that acompanies them, guards around them when in storage etc ……
… never said big markings ….
My grandfather always told me that the West Side of the river was always the “rough” part of Wichita.
Whether or not the “professional gals” moved to Newton and back, I have never heard of before. I guess it’s possible. :D
There are no such markings. Which is one of the reasons the loose nukes set on the runway for many hours.
…… the chain of custody documentation alone should have precluded an admin error.
Never was around any “nukes” when i was in the Air Force. I’ve heard crew members of “BUFF’s” complain about the checklists they have to go through with ordinance though.
It’s hard to believe that the overflight actually took place without several people screwing up, becomes the checklists used in pre-flight are very thorough.
Some one or some ones is going to get spanked hard over that screw up.
They have to be marked 1n some mannner —- I’ll che4ck into AF requirements — may be classified..
….. my point exactly, too many people had to screw up (some in pairs – because of the two man / no lone policies) —-
Ken, please don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to justify what happened. I am just saying that a lot of what believe is not true.
And yes, the documentation, somewhere, should have precluded an error. A few people where not doing their jobs.
The explanation from the Air Force Times:
“The weapons involved were the Advanced Cruise Missile, a “stealth” weapon developed in the 1980s with the ability to evade detection by Soviet radars. The Air Force said in March that it had decided to retire the Advanced Cruise Missile fleet soon, and officials said after the breach that the missiles were being flown to Barksdale for decommissioning but were supposed to be disarmed.”
Here is a link to an AF report that details the incident and discusses markings …
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articlePrint.aspx?ID=1174
… sorry it’s not an AF report but kind of a summary of several reportrs
Speaking of bombs, check out the video that Wichita Eagle did on the mass casualty and disaster exercise they did.
Be sure and turn down your speakers and two explosions go off at the beginning of the video. :)
http://media.kansas.com/static/video/101907disaster/
An AGM-129 with a nuclear warhead also looks different (having special red markings) than one with an inert warhead.
am still waiting to find out how they put these big markings on nukes so they can be easily identified.
Posted by: Hud | October 19, 2007 at 07:15 PM
Hud, in Red Paint on each Nuke is scribbled: Big F**king Nuke Bomb.
….. thanks Max —- obviously your sources are more detailed than mine ………. but I do think they spell it that way with the stars and all
Actually, there’s at least one other route to deliver a nuke to Iran.
Those camel jockies bringing IED’s to Iraq from Iran do not make one-way trips.
On the way back, several Special Forces troops dressed as towel heads, could bring a few suitcase nukes.
Driving their suitcases to the targets, they park their cars at the target in Iran, hitch a ride 5 miles away, wait for the signal and BOOM!
This would show the Iranians what a real car bomb looks like.
Nathan,
I know you can read. Why ask me questions that I already answered in my post?
Did I say I believed it? I don’t believe much these days and take everything I read and hear with a grain of salt. Sometimes a block of salt.
Your reaction is a bit strong, Nathan, for something that’s, as you said, garbage.
Nathan,
I’ll be honest now. I thought it would generate some, um, discussion among those here. Obviously it has. :)
ken,
The history I’ve heard is there were two towns separated by the river – Wichita on the east side and Delano on the west side. Wichita had the churches and proper business while Delano was home to the brothels, saloons, etc. When this was told to me it was said the men made their money in Wichita and spent it in Delano. Oh, and the Wichita ladies weren’t too happy about the Delano ladies bathing in the river. It’s not terribly wide ya know and fairly easy to see from one side to the other.
So I think your story was what I have always heard except Newton wasn’t involved in any telling I heard.
Linda,
The river was much wider in places back then. Wide enough to support an island that included an amusement park.
But I’m sure those men had no problem with their eyesight, no matter what the distance. ;)
There’s only a small mention in the book “Wichita Century 1870-1970″ of the myth, but it does support it, although no mention of Newton or Delano. On an artist’s rendition of the city on both sides of the river, the area to the west titled West Wichita.
“The town builders were in agreement that a semblance of law and order must prevail within the city limits but raised no objection to activities on the west side of the river at Douglas Avenue. There a cluster of dance halls and saloons was erected, the most notorious being those owned by “Rowdy Joe” and “Red” Beard.”
It’s definitely fun to look at the pictures and read names that are now familiar as streets and buildings and areas.
I found this online at the Serenity B&B website, located on west Maple.
“What is now the Delano District, was once the City of Delano, a thriving community from the 1850s to the 1890s on the outskirts of Wichita, named after Columbus Delano who was Secretary of the Interior under President Ulysses S. Grant.”
There’s an Historic Delano District website, but the history page is blank.
I was a west side kid, so this is interesting.
The City Museum and others in town have some artifacts from that time.
An interesting Web site on Wichita is the photograph collection if you want to see what Wichita looked like back then.
http://www.wichitaphotos.org/frontpage.asp
The increment in steps of warming and where the warming ocurs are what I was trying to post in very, very a simplistic way. My point is that the ice and snows of the tundra and ice caps do reflect heat and without them or a decline in their annual timing cycle say from 10 mos. to only 6 mos.,the earth will heat up more rapidly in turn causing the reflecting capacity to diminish ever more etc., etc., etc.
JR,
Terrorism and Global warming are only linked in your mind JR.
Well Nathan that isn’t where I was headed.
I was linking addressing global warming proactively in conjunction with Ameica’s addiction to petroleum.
Terrorism is just a sub plot.
Look, any reasonable person knows we have an oil problem. We have had for more than 30 years.When I said that we did not have a sustainable and dependable supply of oil, I was correct.
30 years ago, Carter began to try and address the issue. Had he been re-elected things might have been different.
So….we pushed back the problem. This required our continued interference in the mideast and all that entailed.
I give you, bush’s handlers saw the problem coming back. Peak predictable oil production and the rise of industrial China and India thrown in meant they had a choice.
They could find alternatives to petroleum (hard and expensive)
or they could secure the short future of US access to oil from the mideast( easier, less expensive we are not sure of yet)
They chose option 2. Hence our presence in Iraq. Most who know, including your Dad and I am sure you as well know that that presence is meant to be permanent.
Enter the sub plot of terrorism.
” I am not “scared” of terrorists. They are a problem like cock roaches which need to be destroyed. I am not scared of cock roaches either. More like disgusted with them.”
Well,
I didn’t mean to imply you were aftaid. Clearly you see terrorism as an issue.
What causes terrorism?
The short answer is: Our continued presence and interference in the mideast. So a permanent presence in Iraq will only grow more terrorists. Destroy them = kill them right? Yeah well they are not afraid to die and have been doing this sort of fighting for hundreds of years. I think you are looking at a long term problem America did not sign up for and cannot support.
So, where I am going is that by solving our addiction to petroleum, we mitigate golabal warming AND our dependance on mideast oil. No presence in the mideast and no terorism is just a side benefit.
So you see, while it will be difficult and expensive, addressing global warming AND our addiction to petroleum is no lose.
sursum,
If you haven’t seen yet, these are informative.FAQ’shttp://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_faq.html
‘Arctic sea ice loss compared to IPCC models’http://www.carbonequity.info/images/seaice07.jpg
JR,
Our pressence doesn’t cause terrorism anymore than building the world trade center towers caused them to be destroyed.
You and I look at things completely different JR.
I have yet to see anyone arguing for a permenant presence in Iraq either.
Do I think we will be meddling in the middle east for some time?
Of course. We will be meddling in nearly every region of the world which is effecting our economy.
You don’t think anything which will cost other people as a loss becuase it doesn’t cost YOU anything.
There are many other ways of addressing out dependence on foriegn oil rather than utopian dreams of not using oil.
As usual your reation to a burning house is to stand around thinking about why the house is burning and what might of caused it while we should be putting the fire out.
JR,
Our pressence doesn’t cause terrorism anymore than building the world trade center towers caused them to be destroyed”
Uh yeah, go look at why Bin Lade SAID he attacked America. Oh and just where is he?
“You and I look at things completely different JR.”
Yes I know. I’m trying to discuss. You want to fight.
“I have yet to see anyone arguing for a permenant presence in Iraq either.”
Ask your dad. I can go get a link if you like.
“Of course. We will be meddling in nearly every region of the world which is effecting our economy.”
Are you arguing for empire here? Empires do not fare well through history. Do we have the volunteers needed for this sort of policy?
“You don’t think anything which will cost other people as a loss becuase it doesn’t cost YOU anything.”
ok …..HUH? I’ve got a kid who may get drafted to advance your….ideas.
“There are many other ways of addressing out dependence on foriegn oil rather than utopian dreams of not using oil.”
I’m listening. Please list them.
“As usual your reation to a burning house is to stand around thinking about why the house is burning and what might of caused it while we should be putting the fire out.”
Uh No. I am talking change. You are advocating more of the same and worse.
AND with your ideas we get to keep global warming AND terrorism.
JR,
So you think we should base our forign policy on the demands of Bin Laden?
What next?
If I tell you that if you don’t stop blogging I am going to come to your home and toilet paper it will you stop blogging?
Because if you don’t, you are the cause of my toilet papering your home!
I am not arguing for an Empire. I am stating the simple fact that when our economy is dependant upon the supply and free flow of certain things we will act when that is going to be disrupted.
It is called protecting our interests.
The odds of your son getting drafted are slim to none. And you try to say I am scared?
“It is called protecting our interests.”
Posted by: Nathan | October 19, 2007 at 11:02 PM
The best way to “protect our interests” is cutting oil demand.
And I am arguing that we can solve our own problems at home and without foreign entanglements if we have the courage to do so.
The founders said something about that. I’m not clever blogger enough to toss it at you yet.
And yes Nathan you are arguing in favor of empire.
“I am stating the simple fact that when our economy is dependant upon the supply and free flow of certain things we will act when that is going to be disrupted.”
If that aint empire, what is it?
“It is called protecting our interests.”
No Nathan, it’s called protecting the status quo….and those who benefit from it.
I’m sorry Nathan. I have more faith in America than you. I think we can solve our problems creatively and not militarily.
JR,
Where did I say I didn’t think we could solve our problems creatively?
I didn’t say that protecting our interests was only by military force either.
Thanks for telling me what I am arguing for.
You might as well go argue with yourself at home since you are going to make up what I am arguing for anyway.
JR,
You better stop blogging or you are going to cause your home to get toilet papered!
Waiting for your creativity then Nathan. Or a suggestion even.
Don’t get so defensive. You didn’t use to in the past.
We are discussing not fighting.
You are…edgier than you used to be. Angry even. Bagging on Rox like you did and then you knew you did.
Hey we are trying to work together here.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen, it’s time for the Climate Clowns Comedy Hours where global warming is accelerated by huge discharges of hot air.And now, a word from our sponsor.
JR,
Where did I bag on Rox?
She posted something absurd. I question her intentions for doing so.
You constantly make straw man arguments JR.
You constantly say things and attribute them to me which I didn’t say.
Then you call me defensive for not agreeing with you.
If I am being defenisve it is only because you say something about me which isn’t true.
Perhaps if you would ingage me in an honest discussion this wouldn’t happen.
ingage = engage
I have asked Nathan. I am asking.
Go ahead. I am watching.
War created democracy in the US because we had to rid ourselves of the feudal monarchy before our homegrown democracy could grow.
However, that doesn’t mean that war is a necessary precursor to democracy.
Far from it. You can’t create democracy in a country by dropping a bomb on it.
Give a kid a hammer, and everything becomes a nail.
Give a kid a rifle, and the world’s problems can be solved by shooting people.
I am going to go quiet Nathan.
I know you are fighting two threads and multiple posters.
I don’t WANT to beat you. I want you on the side of progress and change.
Someone said, “We learn more by listening than talking.” …or something like that.
I’m listening. Other thread too.
Nathan,
You should read all of this 1990 op-ed, and also the footnotes at bottom of page.
‘Make Fuel Efficiency Our Gulf Strategy1′http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Security/S90-26_MakeFuelEffGulf.pdf
“Are we putting our kids in tanks because we didn’t put them in efficient cars? Yes: we wouldn’t have needed any oil from the Persian Gulf after 1985 if we’d simply kept on saving oil at the rate we did from 1977 through 1985….In 1989, the Pentagon used about 38 percent as much oil as the U.S. imported from Saudi Arabia, and estimated that its consumption could readily double or triple in a war. An M-1 tank gets 0.56 miles per gallon. An oil-fired aircraft carrier gets 17 feet per gallon. And no good outcome — in dollars, oil, or blood — is in sight.
But from inside an efficient car, the Gulf looks very different. From inside enough of them, its oil becomes irrelevant. National security, peacetime jobs in a competitive economy, and the environment demand immediate mobilization — not of tanks but of efficient cars, not of B-52s but of 777s, and not of naval guns but of caulk guns.”
Cosmos be fair.
Give Nathan a chance to answer.
My ears were ringing, so I stopped by to see what was up.
Talking about me behind my back, are you?
Be good.
Hi Rox.
You get that coded email and decoder ring I sent?
Kansas,
Thank you for the link to wichitaphotos. I’ve had it bookmarked for some time. I also have a a copy of the book Peerless Princess of the Plains, a postcard look at Wichita. Autographed by all three authors/compilers.
As I age, I’m more intrigued by history I can see.
The blue one, J? It was delivered by some guy in a trench coat.
Hey the guy I trusted it to was not in a trenchcoat Rox!
Again Nathan, I am eager to hear your ideas.
Let’s us go conspire Rox.
Not tonight, J. I have a headache.
Really, I’m off to get some sleep.
Enjoy your discussion, gentlemen, and keep it gentlemenly.
‘nite
I see its a usual day on the Blogosphere. You said… No you said… I didnt say that… You said that… As I read the posts, I see nearly everytime somebody says “I didnt say that” – Sure nuff, back upthread, they DID say that…
I just hope that some day we can learn how to talk to the issues raised, instead of talking to those who raise the issues…
I gotta sleep too.
I am eager to hear your ideas Nathan as to our energy future.
Nite…
Oh and don’t let Mr sock puppets savage me. I would not let anyone do that to you.
Good night; Good luck; and God bless; whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings all!!