I think making Hillary Clinton secretary of state is an inspired idea. It really does take advantage of the Clinton name abroad; it could even put Bill Clinton to good use and keep him out of mischief; and Barack Obama has kept telling us that his Cabinet model is “Team of Rivals.” Unlike the vice presidency, a secretary of state has real constitutionally designated things to do. From Clinton’s point of view, it would be a natural position from which to run to succeed Obama in 2016. – Andrew Sullivan, andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com
Hillary Clinton has a pretty good life. She’s already just about the most powerful person in the Senate, and if she wants to formalize that status and become majority leader one of these years, she has an excellent chance. Who knows: She might even make it back to the White House. All of which raises a question: Why on earth would she want to be secretary of state? The job is an awful launching pad for the White House. It forces you to turn your energies away from domestic issues, which is what Americans usually vote on, and towards international questions that many find exotic and obscure. Besides, secretaries of state aren’t meant to be politically popular. – Peter Beinart, senior fellow, the Council on Foreign Relations
105 Comments
Does this mean Bill Richardson gets thrown under the bus?
Regular, what does it matter to you who Obama appoints as SOS? You appear to hate ALL members of the Democratic Party.
HATE – the bond that ties Republicans together.
#
Blaidd_Drwg69
Posted November 19, 2008 at 6:25 am | Permalink
Regular, what does it matter to you who Obama appoints as SOS? You appear to hate ALL members of the Democratic Party.
HATE – the bond that ties Republicans together.
—————–
Are you always this simple-minded in the morning or is this a life-long ambition of yours?
Although Sullivan and Beinart disagree on the merits, both seem to think that Clinton is still chasing the presidency. That job won’t realistically be open for a democrat until 2016, when the New York senator will be fast approaching seventy. So I don’t see the presidency angle in this at all. The question on the table for Clinton is if she wants to be a great senator or try to accomplish something great as secretary of state. Beinart mentioned that Clinton has a lot of power in the senate…really? She’s the junior senator from New York. I don’t doubt that she does influence policy, but in a legislative body that’s laden with seniority rules, her power there is somewhat limited.
I see Clinton as a person who likes to tackle something difficult, galvanizing her intelligence and energy toward working on complex issues. The Middle East alone would keep her busy. She’d get to travel around the world and talk to people, which would probably be interesting. Devising a clear-headed strategy in the various regions would also be a challenge.
Some commentators have mentioned that the senator and her husband would be difficult to handle. One Republican apparently asserted that you should never hire someone in that post if you can’t fire the person later. It would definitely be hard to fire Clinton. So the whole thing does carry a bit of risk.
But that’s life. Obama needs a smart team, and this is Clinton’s best chance to make her mark on world history.
Sorry Regular but the “time of day” has no bearing on the truth.
It wouldn’t matter WHO the SOS is, you’d criticize that person because we will have Barack Obama as the POTUS in January instead of McCain.
Prove that isn’t true.
#
Blaidd_Drwg69
Posted November 19, 2008 at 6:34 am | Permalink
Sorry Regular but the “time of day” has no bearing on the truth.
It wouldn’t matter WHO the SOS is, you’d criticize that person because we will have Barack Obama as the POTUS in January instead of McCain.
Prove that isn’t true.
————————–
I moved out of the country on what date? Therefore I have no voice in the country’s affairs anymore?
I don’t think so.
Ask those who have posted on the board, I’ve always liked Bill Richardson and wanted him to be the nominee for President. He is much more qualified than HillBilly in executive and affairs of state. I think Ben and I were about the only ones on this blog that were for Bill Richardson.
I think Bill Clinton should be appointed SOS. He’d be great.
Regular, you are flat out LYING (again).
You would never vote for a member of the Democratic Party over a member of the Republican Party, never. You will never convince me otherwise.
I think Bill Richardson would do well as SOS, as would Mary’s choice – Bill Clinton.
Blaidd_Drwg69
Posted November 19, 2008 at 6:44 am | Permalink
Regular, you are flat out LYING (again).
You would never vote for a member of the Democratic Party over a member of the Republican Party, never. You will never convince me otherwise.
——————
Yeah, never…
It’s why I voted for Bill Clinton on his first term as Presdient…never
I’ll await the apology from you when you are proven wrong later on when Ben comes on.
Bill Richardson should go be a Republican like he has always dreamed of. Business loving a$$.
This would not be my wish for Hillary. I’d rather see her replace the dull Harry Reid as Senate Majority leader. But perhaps she has international aspirations I don’t know of.
She is the most accomplished and talented woman public servant of the era. I’ll trust her in any job she chooses.
You can never prove you voted for Clinton.
“She is the most accomplished and talented woman public servant of the era. I’ll trust her in any job she chooses.”
What do you see as her greatest accomplishments? I guess I don’t know that much about her.
#
Blaidd_Drwg69
Posted November 19, 2008 at 7:04 am | Permalink
You can never prove you voted for Clinton.
————————
You cannot prove that I didn’t.
It so much easier to just call people liars that don’t conform to your strict ideological stance, now isn’t it.
The Clintons like to be in the lime light, this position would keep them there. In my opinion, anyone else besides that pair would be a better selection. They carry a lot of baggage, then again what political figure doesn’t.
“What do you see as her greatest accomplishments? ”
Well, she forced Republicans to take women seriously even if only in mockery. That dragged THEM forward a year or two.
She not only survived but thrived despite the best efforts of con radio (the very scum of America) to destroy her.
That’s for starters. Plus the fact that Obama would not BE President if not for Senator Clinton. SHE became a credible choice as a first woman President. This opened minds to allow for the first black man as President.
“What do you see as her greatest accomplishments?”
Combat experience.
I don’t think she is capable of doing the job, but I lean toward her getting and taking it as it would get her out of the Senate and all the potential harm she could do there.
That’s for you BJ.
bbbaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwkkkkkkk bawk bawk baaaaaaawwwwwkkkkkk!
Well Regular, you have been proven a liar here more than once.
If the shoe fits……….
Because of some of the huge blunders in foreign affairs she’s made in the Senate, she would not be my first or even fifth choice. But she’s still smart, shrewd, tough and capable, is well-versed in the art of diplomacy, and is well-known in foreign capitols throughout the world.
I could live with it.
Why in the world would Hillary Clinton leave a very safe seat and strong power base in the Senate to go become a fire-at-will lacky for Obama?
Now Senate Majority Leader, THAT she’d like to have.
I think Ben and I were about the only ones on this blog that were for Bill Richardson.
It’s a good thing you used “almost” in that sentence. I was in favor of Richardson from the beginning. I’d like to see him with a cabinet post. He has the experience. But would the people of NM be willing to let him go?
The asinine level of intelligence demonstrated by mxyzptlk’s comment above pretty well speaks for itself.
What a childish idiot.
At least I didn’t lie to everyone about meeting up with another blogger.
THAT is childish.
BJ was a fool and so are you if you think I feel any obligation AT ALL to meet someone in a parking lot to settle a beef that he had. BJ got taught a lesson, and someone is going to hand one to you one day as well.
You’re are so incredibly stupid to think so that I am surprised you can remember to keep breathing.
Off to work.
bbbaaaaawwwwwkkkkk bawk bawk bbbbbaaaaaawwwwwkkkkkk
Bawkslock has spoken .
Liar and coward.
It seems to me that Hillary Clinton’s interest have been more in domestic affairs rather than foreign affairs. I see her taking a larger role in the Senate and, as BlueJay notes, perhaps majority leader.
Bill Clinton, on the other hand, might be an interesting choice for some sort of Middle East role. After the failed Bush “roadmap to nowhere” we definitely need someone who will actually pay attention and do something?
I fail to see this refreshing ‘Change’. Replacing Bush’s people with Clinton’s people is not really change forward, it’s more like regression.
mxy and Blaidd_Drwg69 = chass or bj or someone with their level of intellect.
Hillary Clinton isn’t in line for the senate majority leader. In fact she is way down the line. She couldn’t even get Kennedy to give her the committee chair on national healthcare, something she desperately wanted to get a do over from the Clinton administration.
I have been a Bill Richardson fan from day one also. He has the experience he would need to do the job well. Has never been shot at. Doesn’t have some big donors with deep pockets she doesn’t want to reveal.
If Clinton answers truthfully the questionaire to be on Obama’s team will she even qualify.
I for one pledged to support Obama until he did something that would make him look untrustworthy. I look at the people he is lining up for his team and see the same lack of judgement he showed early on in his personal life. He is assemblying an entire Clinton retread crew. Eric Holder for AG no less.
I am still waiting for change but admit I am becoming skeptical.
I am not Chas or Blue Jay.
I am just me, the blaidd drwg.
by the way – great cartoon in this morning’s paper.
ksgrm suffers from hallucinations.
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) – Al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader used a racial epithet to insult Barack Obama in a message posted Wednesday, describing the president-elect in demeaning terms that imply he does the bidding of whites.
The message appeared chiefly aimed at persuading Muslims and Arabs that Obama does not represent a change in U.S. policies. Ayman al-Zawahri said in the message, which appeared on militant Web sites, that Obama is “the direct opposite of honorable black Americans” like Malcolm X, the 1960s African-American rights leader.
In al-Qaida’s first response to Obama’s victory, al-Zawahri also called the president-elect—along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice—”house negroes.”
—————-
The battles have started. Al-qaidas opinion of our new leader shouldn’t be surprising. It might alert some liberal thinkers to the fact that it wasn’t because of Bush that they didn’t like us. It is because we are us no matter who is leading us
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94I2MHO1&show_article=1
Blaidd_Drwg69
Posted November 19, 2008 at 9:20 am | Permalink
I am not Chas or Blue Jay.
I am just me, the blaidd drwg.
———
Then you must fall in the third class I mentioned.
——-
Apt across town. Gotta go. Have a great day!
okob – I have always said that extremists lie alQuada will hate us no matter what so that comes as no surprise. And if Obama can forge broad alliances to fight them they might REALLY learn to hate him.
Boxlock–
Did you have to change your nic because your old one got banned?
It might alert some liberal thinkers to the fact that it wasn’t because of Bush that they didn’t like us.
Of course not. It was because of our irrational, violent, greedy and destructive policies in the Middle East, but also a general lunatic fanatical ideology very similar to that promoted by Bush and his minions. And Al-Qaeda (which is not and has never been, contrary to Con thinking, the chosen representative of the Middle East) loved it, because it played right into their hands.
Things are a bit different now.
One view from the English-language version of a Lebanon daily (the same one that broke the Iran-Contra story in 1986):
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=97705
No and here’s why.
She can’t keep a secret when it will benefit her not to. She leaked that she was on the short list. That backed Obama into another corner. If he appoints someone else now, we will hear the Clintonistas screech.
This will be her pattern to get her way and have some control over the White House.
Also, there will be conflicts of interest and Bill gives speeches overseas.
Bad call all the way around. Might even be worse than having her as VP. She will try to elicit control and Bill will lean on her to do some of his bidding as well.
Capn, as you know from my Purple Chicken dispatch, I was the guy who actually dealt with the Eagle on the whole spoofing episode. I’ve refrained from making a big deal out of it, which would have elevated extremely juvenile behavior into something that actually mattered.
Along with Chas’ and probably others, my nic was spoofed once (that I know of) and while I was immediately concerned as to how deep this off-the-shelf script-kiddie exploit might have penetrated the Eagle’s security, I thought the fake post itself was quite amusing!
I would only note that I paid particularly close track of which nics went away when, and which new nics showed up when, and I’ll leave it at that! :)
The entire issue stemmed from one little known consequence of Gulf War I–our permanently stationing troops in the Land of the Two Holies, Arabia.
This was a direct violation of then Secr’y of War Dick Cheney’s declaration that our troops wouldn’t be in Saudi Arabia “one day longer than necessary.”
The first attack on the WTC came some THREE YEARS after troops were placed there.
Al Qaeda really doesn’t care about the U.S. and it’s only our arrogance that has made it all about us.
They want control of their holy land. Their war was always about Arabia, and the attack on the WTC was an attack on the Saudis for having American allies.
BTW, the Saudis monarchs are a corrupt, venal, libertine, gluttonous, whore-mongering lot of petty tyrants of the worst kind. They are also virulently anti-democratic.
The only reason they aren’t more dangerous is because their population is so small. They whip up anti-Americanism to get the heat off themselves for spending oil fortunes in London casinos, and generally creating nothing for ordinary, educated Arabians to do to earn a decent living.
“Obama makes the jihadists nervous because he is an appealing new face whose ascension undermines the belief that Islam and the West are locked in an inescapable clash of civilizations. “The Democrats kill you slowly without you noticing it. … They are like a snake whose touch is not felt until its poison enters your body,” observes Qaradhawi.
“Even in the Arab world, Obama is very popular,” explains Jean-Pierre Filiu, a French scholar of Islam. “The global jihadists leaned toward McCain because they hoped the confrontation would get worse.” ”
Which explains why they liked Bush so much. Heck – Bush even attacked alQuada’s enemies for them.
Interesting, Rage.
I finally checked my in-box today, but I didn’t see the whole story.
Checking again now . . .
“That’s for you BJ.”
What’s that, “nyah!”?
Bawks are you sure you’re a grandfather? Because you come across as like 11 years old.
“She leaked that she was on the short list. That backed Obama into another corner.”
That’s not correct, solie. Your Hillary hatred is showing.
Leaking implies a secret and the source for the story was Obama staffers.
But you DO illustrate the need for return of the Fairness Doctrine.
I don’t want to see Senator Clinton give up her future in the Senate but no one could argue that she is not tested in the area of pressure that Sec of State brings. I doubt anyone can name an American politician who has endured more scrutiny and criticism. The cons might learn alot they didn’t know they didn’t know about international affairs watching Hillary as Sec. of State.
Ah, okay, got it, Rage.
Looks like 3 long-time CON posters were involved from what I can tell.
I liked Ben’s idea actually, hehehe.
Hillary’s smart and capable.
Question is, does she want it and why, given that she could remain as a leading light in the Senate.
Anyway . . . I don’t have a problem with it.
Obama said he wants to work with people instead of against them, so this makes sense from that POV.
“put Bill Clinton to good use and keep him out of mischief..”
Actually it opens up a whole new world of opportunity for the documented sex predator.
#
Blaidd_Drwg69
Posted November 19, 2008 at 8:20 am | Permalink
Well Regular, you have been proven a liar here more than once.
If the shoe fits……….
———————–
Oh yeah?
Name some of those proven lies.
Hiding behind one of your muliple nicks again eh?
Or are you just too much of a liar to admit to it? :)
It amazes me how “some” of the liberal posters here are adamant against nic switching, yet when obviously one of their own invents a new one (who amazingly remembers things from long ago) they aren’t critical.
American_Way
Posted November 19, 2008 at 11:16 am | Permalink
It amazes me how “some” of the liberal posters here are adamant against nic switching, yet when obviously one of their own invents a new one (who amazingly remembers things from long ago) they aren’t critical.
———————
They work in a herd mentality. Collective mind/mind left.
Individuals scare them, so they feel they must destroy or humiliate the individual to protect the group.
It is sad. I pity them.
Has no one here considered the gravity of Clinton leaking her status as a SoS candidate and the possible implications of that practice in use as SoS?
IOKIYAC – It’s OK if you are a Clintonista?
There is a broader perspective:
IOKIYAD democrats
Regular posted November 19, 2008 at 11:09 am
#
Blaidd_Drwg69 posted November 19, 2008 at 8:20 am
Well Regular, you have been proven a liar here more than once.
If the shoe fits……….
———————–
Oh yeah?
Name some of those proven lies.
———————–
The multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ made multiple posts falsely accusing the Sierra Club of “screwing” the New Orleans levees.
And he added a false, fictional last paragraph to his copy/paste post here, using J M Walkers nic.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/05/open_thread_25-4/#comment-239232
Regular is a liar.
A liar will not be believed, even when he speaks the truth. — Aesop
Lookit that: Tom Daschle looks set to be tapped to be Secretary of Health and Human Services.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
If this goes through, smart, smart, smart move by the Obama folks. The good will left over from Daschle’s service as Majority Leader will go a long way toward greasing the skids for the healthcare overhaul that’s coming. It’s going to be tough, but Daschle is just the guy to be the public face of it.
Between that the proposal of Eric Holder for Attorney General, I think the Obama folks are exhibiting some serious smarts. Okobserver’s pre-emptory objection to him, stated without reasons, pretty much makes the case as to why he’s exactly the right pick.
And when Bush II went for a bunch of retreads from the NIXON Administration, okobserver, am I to imagine the same objections coming from you?
To be frank, I think Hillary Clinton would be nuts to leave the Senate to take the job of Secretary of State. However, being perceived as turning it down is a win-win for her AND for Barack Obama: for her, because she maintains her autonomy and ability to speak in her own voice; for him, because it demonstrates that he’s confident enough to surround himself with strong advisors.
And for the record: I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton would be a commanding and effective Secretary of State.
A liar will not be believed, even when he speaks the truth. — Aesop
Kinda like the IPCC
“for the documented sex predator.”
Another AmWay lie.
That’s right SolDevVB . . . there’s been a vast conspiracy between thousands of scientists worldwide, for many decades, to lie and falsify data. /sarcasm OFF
Hey, the proof is all in the “peer reviewed” lies in the draft of their last report. No sarcasm needed.
Cf I can only assume you weren’t around yesterday when JC Watts was raked over the coals because I mentioned his name and said I admired him.
Chass told me in no uncertain terms that he is a ‘lobbiest’ and therefore dirty.
Well not only is Dashle a lobbiest so is his wife. Double dirty. Or is this one of those for the ‘right’ only rules that are so prevalent here.
As for all of this nic switching nonsense. When the left starts cleaning up their own messes and exposing the many of their ilk who do just that they have absolutely no right to critisize anyone else.
I have had two nics. Within days of being challenged I fessed up to the switch. Never intended it to deceive. Just tired of the play on my name which btw still happens. I am reminded of and called by my old nic daily on the blog.
On the other hand Chass posts under so many different names I can’t keep track of them. When you catch him in one it goes away and he brings on another.
New nics come on from the left that are well versed on the history of the blog posters but the left thinks we should accept them as fresh and new.
Well Rage and Capn until you clean your own house you really can’t say much about nic switching.
bth
Posted November 19, 2008 at 1:10 pm | Permalink
“for the documented sex predator.”
Another AmWay lie.
Actually Ben this isn’t a lie per se as shown below.
“Since the Lewinsky scandal, Bill has received counseling for a sex addiction. He and Hillary have grown as a couple. She has burst out of her role as wife and first lady to become a politician in her own right. He has had a brush with death, in the form of his emergency heart bypass surgery in 2004. He has found his global calling as an active former president and is fully committed to helping his wife along her chosen path.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600894_pf.html
SolDevVB,
Do you judge all groups, companies, authors, etc by the errors in their draft reports?
okobserver posted November 19, 2008 at 1:42 pm
New nics come on from the left that are well versed on the history of the blog posters but the left thinks we should accept them as fresh and new.
—————-
Have you heard of lurking? Google?
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/archives/ ?
#
cosmos_originally
Posted November 19, 2008 at 12:13 pm | Permalink
Regular posted November 19, 2008 at 11:09 am
#
Blaidd_Drwg69 posted November 19, 2008 at 8:20 am
Well Regular, you have been proven a liar here more than once.
If the shoe fits……….
———————–
Oh yeah?
Name some of those proven lies.
———————–
The multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ made multiple posts falsely accusing the Sierra Club of “screwing” the New Orleans levees.
And he added a false, fictional last paragraph to his copy/paste post here, using J M Walkers nic.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/05/open_thread_25-4/#comment-239232
Regular is a liar.
A liar will not be believed, even when he speaks the truth. — Aesop
——————————–
Your statements on this matter show just how out of touch with reality you are.
No one gives a crap cosmos.
None of those statements were mine, but from other Websites, so in that sense I never lied, the Websites did. As far as I knew, they are the truth and still are the truth.
You keep bringing up the ‘joke post’ I did on JM Walker, of which I apologized for then and over and over.
Because you keep bringing it up after three years over and over shows everyone just what a warped mental case you really are.
No one cares cosmos, get it?
No one cares.
Your premise on calling me a liar several times a day over a three year is more than stalking, it’s mentally ill.
I think you should be banned permanently from this blog for harassing me on this matter every day for three years. If I did this to a Lib, you can bet my head would have been asked for long ago.
You are a perverted, mentally ill stalker cosmos.
No one thinks you are worth the ‘power and lead’ to blow yourself up with.
by the errors in their draft reports?
Erros? LMAO. Lies cosmos. Lies. And yes, if a company lies in a report, I will judge them by that.
A liar will not be believed, even when he speaks the truth. — Aesop
cosmos_originally
Posted November 19, 2008 at 1:59 pm | Permalink
okobserver posted November 19, 2008 at 1:42 pm
New nics come on from the left that are well versed on the history of the blog posters but the left thinks we should accept them as fresh and new.
—————-
Have you heard of lurking? Google?
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/archives/ ?
——————-
Just as I said Cosmos. They come out of the woodwork to defend it on the left but condemn it on the right. UH, UH, doesn’t work that way.
Google might be your friend but no one posting here has the time it would take to research a poster and become as well versed on a particualar poster as the new nics seem to be.
Clean up your house and then work on ours.
Multi-nic’d Regular,
Prove that you’re not a liar.
Post your Justice Dept and Congressional links that prove your (false) claim that the Sierra Club “screwed” the New Orleans levees.
Post your source for this paragraph,
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/05/open_thread_25-4/#comment-239232
“As a result of the 1997 lawsuit, the Army Corp of Engineer…”
Where are all the left’s ‘usual characters’ today??
;)
#
cosmos_originally
Posted November 19, 2008 at 2:13 pm | Permalink
Multi-nic’d Regular,
Prove that you’re not a liar.
Post your Justice Dept and Congressional links that prove your (false) claim that the Sierra Club “screwed” the New Orleans levees.
Post your source for this paragraph,
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/05/open_thread_25-4/#comment-239232
“As a result of the 1997 lawsuit, the Army Corp of Engineer…”
=========================
I already have 100 instances of proof for your posting the same reference post over and over cosmos.
Now, this is your last chance – either desist or I will arrange by support of my friends here, through petition, you have been stalking and harassing me with this same posts across all threads for years.
You are beyond mentally ill cosmos, you are stark raving mad and Brownlee needs to put an end to your tactics of harassment.
SolDevVB posted November 19, 2008 at 2:03 pm
by the errors in their draft reports?
And yes, if a company lies in a report, I will judge them by that.
—————
Which companies have publicly released their DRAFT (not FINAL, not OFFICIAL) reports?
Regular,
So you do NOT have any Justice Dept, or Congressional links?
No source for that paragraph?
Thank you for proving my point.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted November 19, 2008 at 2:27 pm | Permalink
Regular,
So you do NOT have any Justice Dept, or Congressional links?
No source for that paragraph?
Thank you for proving my point.
———————-
cosmos,
You just don’t get it.
This topic is not about the Justice Department, New orleans or the Sierra Club.
Your pattern of harassment evolves exactly like this, you post off topic in all categories of subject with the same information, with no other purpose than to harass.
This has not happened once or twice, or even a couple of dozen times.
This has occurred hundreds of times!
You have been forewarned – grow up cosmos.
“Now, this is your last chance”
What are ya gonna do Jimmuh? Hold your breath?
“I will arrange by support of my friends here,”
WHO is that? The cranky old crone that follows me around?
Go away Jimmuh. You aren’t funny anymore, just sad.
Too nice a day for this.
Cosmos you go right ahead on. I haven’t seen you caught in a lie or diestortion yet.
Back later to see what terrible wrath ol’ Reg calls down.
Regular posted November 19, 2008 at 11:09 am
#
Blaidd_Drwg69 posted November 19, 2008 at 8:20 am
Well Regular, you have been proven a liar here more than once.
If the shoe fits……….
———————–
Oh yeah?
Name some of those proven lies.
——————————-
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/05/dont_count_on_f/#comment-239958
Shut up Junior…
I have all the proof I need from the hundreds of post cosmos has repeatedly made on this one subject for harassment purposes.
The rules are very specific about harassment and this more than qualifies.
Damn I wish I didn’t have better things to do.
Ya live and die here by your own posts “Regular”.
It is not harrassment to remind readers, especially new ones, that you are FAR from a reputable poster and frankly, something of a kook.
Maybe you and ol’ bawks can start some sort of whiners club?
Oh and PLEASE save the coming eruption for this evening. I wanna be there!
Posted November 19, 2008 at 3:01 pm | Permalink
Damn I wish I didn’t have better things to do.
Ya live and die here by your own posts “Regular”.
It is not harrassment to remind readers, especially new ones, that you are FAR from a reputable poster and frankly, something of a kook.
Maybe you and ol’ bawks can start some sort of whiners club?
Oh and PLEASE save the coming eruption for this evening. I wanna be there!
——————-
No, cosmos lives and dies by what he posts here.
I just emailed the publisher of the Wichita Eagle.
Regular,
Send another email to Mr. Brownlee, and tell him all the LIES you’ve posted about what I’ve posted, about climate science, etc.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted November 19, 2008 at 3:07 pm | Permalink
Regular,
Send another email to Mr. Brownlee, and tell him all the LIES you’ve posted about what I’ve posted, about climate science, etc.
—————–
The difference between you and I cosmos and even though you disagree with me, I post my statements on topic and concurrent with the time being discussed.
I don’t keep bringing up old posts in off topic categories like you do – categories that have zero to do with climate change or anything else.
When I discuss subjects, I discuss them and then move on. You don’t have to like or even read them.
But to do what you do, dredge up posts as hold as two years and re-post them hundreds of times is beyond warped, it is mentally ill – especially why you do it off topic and for no other purpose than to harass.
You have been fore warned.
Which companies have publicly released their DRAFT (not FINAL, not OFFICIAL) reports?
You asked the question. I responded. Now you question your own question. Brilliant.
As per the “errors” in the draft report, didn’t you say the contributions came from peer reviewed papers? So the peer reviewed papers had lies, or to make is sunny, errors?
What does that say about the scientists and their peer review process?
SolDevVB,
Again. . . which groups (besides the IPCC) have publicly released their DRAFT (not FINAL, not OFFICIAL) reports? The IPCC drafts were not their final, official reports.
IIRC, the errors in the IPCC drafts were not from the original peer-reviewed papers.
The IPCC report is derived from peer reviewed papers, but the draft is not. Now you’re just being silly cosmos.
To refresh your memory, you asked a question. I answered it. Now you are questioning your question.
Here is a link to your question, silly; http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/11/pro-con-would-clinton-be-good-choice-for-secretary-of-state/#comment-471743
Whoops, and here was my response to your first silly question that you continue to question…
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/11/pro-con-would-clinton-be-good-choice-for-secretary-of-state/#comment-471751
Sol.
when you continue to assert that scientic research reviewed by hundreds other scientists is not merely erroneous or wrong, but “lies,” then no one of even normal intelligence need to take you seriously.
Any other academic disclipine where you want to accuse its practitioners of being part of some secret cabal? How about computer scientists?
Surely Donald Knuth is a fraud who just hasn’t been exposed yet! sarcasm off
SolDevVB,
If you want to check the original peer-reviewed papers for “lies”, they’re listed in the “References” at the bottom of each chapter.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
Regular posted November 19, 2008 at 11:09 am
Oh yeah?
Name some of those proven lies.
——————
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/11/open-thread-1119/#comment-471808
I remember vividly the ‘cold fusion’ fiasco many years ago. It had gotten widely reported, not only in our literaturebut also in the popular press. It was wrong. I had been one who had raised questions about the findings directy with some of the scientists involved. There were NO lies. There were errors. And the errors were discovered through the peer review (and replication) process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
As cosmos noted – it is VERY unusual to publsh a draft. The reason for doing so is to invite just the sort of careful and critical scrutiny this has received. that is why all of the supporting documents are published too.
“I just emailed the publisher of the Wichita Eagle.”
What, again?
Phillip can read here just like the rest of us.
I’m sure he has seen your threats to “unleash hell” and “blog warfare” and other such tips enough to convince him, as you have convinced everyone else, that you are a housebound, socially dysfunctional, crank.
What, again?
Phillip can read here just like the rest of us.
——————
Tell that to Rage!
BlueJay,
Thank you for the reminder.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/03/open-thread-319/#comment-316172
Boxlock–
“Did you have to change your nic because your old one got banned?”
Nope Capn, never been banned, haven’t even had anything removed as some of you DimLibs have.
Decided that even blogging with sickos like, well you all know who you are, was not healthy and deleted my account. Then when I decided to return for ‘Opinion’ comments found a nic can not be reactivated….so the 20 was added. Which actually is just fine because the original nic was about a boxlock 20 ga. I purchased for this hunting season.
By the way Capn, why are you and a few others so concerned with a slight change in nic?
Are you all so dim you can’t keep up and keep it straight? Does it cause you anxiety, a little paranoid maybe?
That’s not what I heard there bawks. And my sources are better than you.
I don’t think anybody has trouble remembering you bawks.
From your running with hoax stories, to your running FROM me, you’re kinda famous.
Heh, you wet your bed. Now sleep in it.
BJ…ha, I only helped you show yourself to be the complete childish fool you are, and I got a heck of a kick out of it too, it was easy.
Just for fun I challenge you now, not something so utterly ridiculous as to meet like hormone raged teenagers in a parking lot, but I challenge you to explain how calling someone out to meet in a stupid parking lot, to do whatever the hell you thought you were going to accomplish, is anything but asininely juvenile.
That’s my challenge to you BJ, run with it.
Oh, and BJ, I never have run “FROM” you, I don’t need to, you fall all over yourself all by yourself.
Already answered without being asked on the Pro/con gay marriage thread bawks.
I don’t re-fight battles you have already lost.
Ha, now looks who’s not showing up…and to a legitimate question too, not some hair brained dumb challenge.
Tell that to Rage!
Uhm. . . why?
I’ve only stated the basic facts, and my own actions and perceptions regarding them.
I don’t deny passionate views of whatever/whoever/whenever, but, honestly, on this crap, if you’re looking for some grand political conflict, I just wanted to know what the hell was going on.
If I implied some things, well, I would only note that correlation is not causation. But I’m not a big believer in instant coincidences either.
Color me agnostic.
Bawks–
Not a big fan of “say that to my face” challenges (ask XXX).
But you said you’d show up. Not just to him. To everyone.
I would have shown up. Hell, I’d bought him lunch.
You are a coward.
Tell that to Rage!
P.S. Okay, I get it. But you worded it a rather confrontational way, don’t ya think? ;)
Boxlock20,
I seriously doubt your explanation of your new nic. I would be happy to meet you for lunch. I am betting you are too cowardly to accept that invitation. If you are not, email me at: wilhelmwundt54@gmail.com . My guess is, I will never hear from you, given that you are such a shameless coward…
BTW, Regular, how about the daily caustic remarks you and your buddies lash out at me re: my vocation… and your allegations of multiple nics(especially GRANNY GOOD WITCH)… Even though you have all been told MANY times, that I use only one nic here…
So, for you, and granny, and all of the rest of your boneheads, that makes YOU all part of a longer harssment than you are alleging from Cosmos… At least he is challenging you to defend your positions… and all you do is say: “Cosmos is no scientist!!” Even though you have never once attempted to prove your accusation…
As for your harassment BS, looks to me like its the pot calling the kettle… well, not brown….
And now Regular, you come on this Blog trying to establish BOUNDARIES as to who you think can and cannot post here??? And that even after all of the sexually hinted posts you have made about Ms. Tara???
You sure you dont need new meds or something?
You know, if you think you got a case old man, why dont you take it up with your good lawyer buddy, GMC… Maybe he can set you straight… Cause if you take it to Ms. Nola, I got a hunch you might get laughed out of her office… especially, when a few bone digs will show you doing the same damned thing!!
Nite all!!
bzxnvimo jupnbv whtdvxoj uqsoxiwdz svogjwx veckphros iveplku
yajps wfqmpyo ezktioy ntypxfw