ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [254] -- A Very Full Week

[ Posted Friday, April 19th, 2013 – 17:17 PDT ]

Some weeks, I sit down to write this weekly wrapup, and find that there isn't that much to talk about, because nothing much happened that particular week.

This isn't one of those weeks.

In fact, too much happened in the past week to adequately pay enough attention to it all. We've had multiple stories this week which, in a normal week, would have dominated the headlines and been the subject of extended discussion. Most of these stories have either been pushed to the side, and will never get the attention they deserve, while a few stories have merely been postponed, and will eventually get the focus they have been denied this past week.

The big story, obviously, is the one that is still unfolding as I type this. Two men reportedly planted bombs at the Boston Marathon's finish line in an act of terrorism. The horror of this tragedy has hung over the week as a dark pall. Yesterday, photos and videos of the suspects were made public, and by last night one of them was dead and one on the run. Boston is currently locked down -- an incredible statement, really, when you consider what "locking down" a city of millions involves. The manhunt continues, house by house.

Today, with the identification of the two men, a whole lot of theories about the perpetrators and the reason for the attack were proven wrong. It was not Arabs, it was not Saudis, it was not some "lone wolf" right-wing homegrown domestic terrorist. If the information we have now proves correct, it was two Chechnyans. Which, quite obviously, wasn't really on much of anybody's radar screen.

It wasn't just the theorists and armchair speculators who got some major things wrong this week, it was also many journalists. In the never-ending quest for the scoop to end all scoops, many news organizations got ahead of the facts. This really isn't all that surprising, because this sort of thing has been happening pretty much since the dawn of journalism, in fact. It's certainly been around since the advent of the 24/7 cable news cycle -- CNN was just as wrong back in 1995 in their reporting on the Oklahoma City bombing as they were this week. But I don't mean to pick on CNN, as there were plenty of news reports this week which later were shown to be false, and I don't believe any news organization can honestly say they got all their reporting completely correct throughout the whole week.

Reporting the news is, at heart, taking the chaos of real-life events and presenting them as a story. The story-telling part is really what the news is all about, stripped to its core. When you're trying to tell a story without knowing crucial parts of it, the human impulse is to fill in the gaps while still keeping the storyline plausible. This, almost inevitably in a situation like we experienced this week, leads to jumping to conclusions and making sweeping assumptions.

I've been cautioning everyone all week long to not give in to the impulse of letting imaginations run wild. As the facts come in, there will be more than enough time for analysis. Because this is true, this is really all I have to say about Boston this week. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be inside the cordon and be exposed to such a massive manhunt. My thoughts are not only with the victims and their loved ones, but also with those affected by the ongoing and unfolding story. The citizens crouching in fear in their homes, the police and other frontline responders responsible for bringing an end to this fear, and all the rest of America glued to their television sets, radios, or computer screens, awaiting the final outcome.

Because it has been such an extraordinary week in the news and in politics, I'm going to skip over our normal format and not hand out my "awards" this week, because somehow celebrating and castigating Democrats seems a little... I don't know, "sophomoric"?... in the midst of the unfolding situation in Boston.

I will say that the most heartening thing I heard all week was one guy who decided to do something positive and proactive. It's a small thing, really, but it is also the story of how one man decided to do what he could to avoid ugliness later. Jaimie Muehlhausen registered the domain name "bostonmarathonconspiracy.com" and put the following message up on it:

I BOUGHT THIS DOMAIN TO KEEP SOME CONSPIRACY THEORY KOOK FROM OWNING IT.

PLEASE KEEP THE VICTIMS OF THIS EVENT AND THEIR FAMILIES IN YOUR THOUGHTS.

In an email to the site Salon.com, he explained his action:

Sadly, one of my first thoughts was that it would only be a matter of hours before a certain group of people would begin to say it was a government conspiracy; an act of terror on our own people for political gain. It's sickening, but take a look at the massive numbers of 9/11 conspiracy nuts -- people who think Bush and the gang took down the twin towers and ended the lives of nearly 3000 people so we could go to war. The heartless and sick Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists who think the Obama administration killed kindergartners to bolster the gun control debate. And there are plenty of others. Well, I was wrong. It didn't take hours -- it took minutes.

As I said, this is a small thing in the midst of a very large tragedy, but one that deserves applause nonetheless.

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 254 (4/19/13)

We're also going to dispense with our normal "Talking Points" format here. Instead of seven suggestions for how Democrats should be speaking about things, we are going to review seven stories that, in a more-normal week, would have been the main subject being discussed in the political world. The Boston story was so important and so large that it overshadowed all these other stories. As I said before, some of them will eventually get their chance on center stage as bills work their way through Congress, but some of them will never get the attention they deserved.

For now, we're going to set the Boston situation aside, and take a look at what would have been the big stories of the week had Boston not dominated the headlines all week long.

 

1
   Elvis? Really?

In an eerie parallel to the events immediately following 9/11, letters containing poison arrived in Washington addressed to a senator and President Obama. They were unconnected to the main terrorist attack. It was just a coincidence.

The crime was almost immediately solved, and a suspect was in custody with breathtaking speed. But because Boston had happened, we didn't get front-page headlines screaming "Elvis Impersonator Tries To Poison Obama!" The man behind the attack is apparently a disturbed individual who sent the poison ricin to his senator and to the White House. While not on the same level as bombing a sporting event, this too was an act of terrorism.

Because of the coincidental timing, this story will forever be an afterthought, in the same way the anthrax attacks were overshadowed by 9/11. But it is a reminder that more than one disturbed individual at a time can launch terrorist attacks. If Boston had not happened, we would be getting the same sort of in-depth coverage about why a man would try to kill two politicians, and what his twisted motivations for doing so were. And Elvis jokes. Because nobody was hurt in his attack, you just know there would be lots and lots of Elvis jokes circulating by now.

 

2
   Immigration

Sadly, when the news broke of who the Boston perpetrators were, a few opportunistic politicians began jumping to unfounded conclusions on the subject of immigration.

This was supposed to be the topic of the week, in the political world. The "Gang of Eight" unveiled their comprehensive immigration reform bill this week, after Marco Rubio appeared on seven Sunday political shows to introduce his effort to convince his own party to go along with it.

That's pretty impressive right there, since a "full Ginsburg" is only defined as going on five Sunday shows. Rubio, in fact, is the first to do seven, meaning that we either have to update the term ("Ginsburg plus two"?) or scrap it altogether in favor of the new term "a full Rubio."

Wonky semantics aside, Rubio made his case last Sunday, and he made it with one particular audience in mind: Tea Partiers in the House. "Look," he was essentially saying to his fellow Republicans, "it's not amnesty, and it's tough, and Republicans should get behind it because it is better than the situation we have now -- to say nothing of our party's future electoral prospects if we don't do this." Again, absent the Boston massacre, this would have been one of the biggest subjects of the week. As it was, the Republican response to the new bill has been mostly muted, mostly ignored, or (today) mostly off on bizarre tangents.

How strongly are House Tea Partiers going to fight Rubio's plan? So far, the right-wing media has not been very supportive. The radio talk show hosts and the usual suspects on television have mostly been going with their default position, which is: "changing any immigration law in any way whatsoever equals amnesty, period, end of sentence."

Hearings have been called in the Senate committee responsible for immigration, and even the Gang of Eight knows that their plan is going to be attacked with amendments -- many of which will be designed to kill the entire bill. It's going to be a long hard fight, and we're just in the middle of Round One. There are Republican hardliners in the Senate, but seeing as how four GOP senators are already on board, it is indeed conceivable that a bill could be passed with bipartisan support.

The House, however, is going to be a different story. As the news from Boston fades, it will be very interesting to see how the House Republicans (including the leadership) start speaking about the proposed Senate bill. Will the language get ugly? Will extremist statements be disavowed? Will there be enough Republican House members to kill any sort of immigration plan, no matter what it looks like? These will be the important questions at the end of this process.

 

3
   Gun control defeat

I've been skeptical that gun control was going to pass this year, even after the tragedy at Sandy Hook school in Newtown, Connecticut. But I have to admit, I did expect -- at the very least -- some sort of watered-down improvement of the background check system to pass the Senate. This was not to be, however. The bipartisan plan went down to defeat. But even if every Democrat had voted for it, it still would have been successfully filibustered. Republicans consider gun control to be a safe issue for them -- they feel free to vote against it because they think their constituents will back them up. Democrats are much more conflicted, considering gun control to be an issue that can get them voted out of office (see: 1990s). I was impressed that the Democrats got the number of votes that they did, and disappointed about the Democrats that voted against the measure. I was disappointed to see even reasonable improvements to background checks fail.

But one thing I take away from the effort is that President Obama seems more impressive than at any point in his first term on the issue, because he was not afraid to fail. In his first term, he always had an eye on his re-election chances, and shied away from several large and contentious issues (immigration, for one). He was, to be blunt, afraid to fail. This time, he was not.

Obama knew that banning assault weapons was likely to be a bridge too far. He knew the chances for success were dim. But he pushed it anyway, because he thought it was the right thing to do. When the entire gun control effort looked like it was drifting away, he began hammering on it for all he was worth. He shamed the Senate into holding the votes in the first place (Harry Reid would likely have been quite happy to have the whole thing die in committee). He knew he wasn't going to get most of what he was pressing Congress to do, but he didn't back away.

That is a point worth making. Yes, gun control failed this time around. It will likely not be brought up again until we've had another congressional election. But Obama did get the votes he asked for. And he did (if you'll pardon the expression) stick to his guns, and not back down even though the most likely outcome was failure. That is a welcome change, and I will be interested to see if he takes this approach on other contentious issues in the future.

 

4
   Yes, we tortured

An extraordinary report came out this week which should lay to rest any questions anyone still has on the subject. Yes, America tortured people. Yes, we threw out the rules of warfare and made up our own, complete with legalistic justifications. From the very top, our leaders decided to torture people. The Bush administration began and enacted these policies, but that doesn't let the Obama administration off the hook either, since Obama decided to just ignore the subject and hope everyone would just forget about it.

This report deserved a lot more attention than it has so far received. Mostly, because this was done in all our names. We all bear the responsibility for losing our moral compass in such a fashion. We did not conduct "enhanced interrogation," we tortured people. Let's call it what it is from now on. Let's toss the Orwellian language down the memory hole (if that isn't circular logic, somehow). We all need to come to terms with what was done, and that begins by calling it what it is, whether you support the idea or are aghast at it. From now on, you can either be pro-torture or anti-torture. Because that's the subject at hand. America torturing people.

 

5
   Texas explosion

Once again, this story would certainly have gotten a lot more attention if the Boston story weren't dominating the news. A chemical fertilizer plant exploded into a giant fireball which leveled a goodly portion of the small town in Texas where it was situated.

The death count will rise as more information is known, but the pictures were of complete devastation and the blast itself was measurable on the Richter scale. As of now, nobody really has any idea of what led to this disaster. Was it lax safety oversight? Was it an unavoidable accident? Was it actually a crime perpetrated by someone? We just don't know.

Coming, as it did, after the news from Boston, and after the news of the ricin attack, the news broke on an already-numb public, that's about the only thing you can say with certainty as of this point. Searching for clues may prove to be fruitless, as the factory has now been described as "no longer in existence" due to the severity of the explosion. We may never fully know what happened. If America hadn't already been focusing on the victims in Boston, the victims in Texas would be what we'd now be focusing on. Because no matter what the chain of events which led to the explosion, they are indeed victims of a tragedy.

 

6
   Texas justice

Elsewhere in Texas, arrests were made of a husband and wife in the murders of multiple people in the justice system. The man arrested was also, at one time, part of the same justice system. This was not some white supremacist prison gangbanger, this was a disgruntled former justice of the peace who apparently got caught stealing computer monitors.

This has all the hallmarks of a true crime story the media would have been all over, had they not had other stories to cover this week. "Ex-judge goes crazy, takes his revenge" would have been the front-page news. The media may get a second chance on this one, since he'll obviously have to be tried in a court of law.

 

7
   GOP washes its hands of Mark Sanford

To round out the week with some politics, we had the story of Mark Sanford's continuing meltdown on the campaign trail. This, in case you're wondering, is Mark "Appalachian Trail" Sanford, who is trying to crawl back into politics by winning a special House race against Stephen Colbert's sister.

The news broke that Sanford is due in court two days after the election, to answer charges that he broke a legal agreement with his ex-wife, and trespassed on her property to watch the Super Bowl with his kids. Sanford also felt fine with putting his young sons on stage with him and his mistress on the night he won the primary for the special House race.

The Republican Party decided it had had enough, when this news broke, and announced it was pulling all its money out of the race. While this seems like good news for Democrats, here's some cold water on such exuberance -- the Republicans are likely to wind up with this seat no matter what happens. If Elizabeth Colbert Busch wins the special election, the chances of her holding onto it in 2014 are pretty dim (when some Republican not named "Mark Sanford" runs against her, assumably). Six of ten voters in the district went for Romney, so it's pretty much a Republican stronghold. Sure, we'd love to see Colbert's sister in the House, but even if it happens, it likely won't be for very long. The Republicans have stopped wasting money on Sanford, but even without their big bucks, he still may win. Either way, Republicans aren't all that worried about this seat in the long run.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

211 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [254] -- A Very Full Week”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in a rare Friday Night Appearance....

    HHHHEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRREEEEEEE'S MICHALE.... :D

    But one thing I take away from the effort is that President Obama seems more impressive than at any point in his first term on the issue, because he was not afraid to fail. In his first term, he always had an eye on his re-election chances, and shied away from several large and contentious issues (immigration, for one). He was, to be blunt, afraid to fail. This time, he was not.

    Of course, he is not afraid to fail..

    Because there are no consequences to him if he does..

    Obama doesn't do a thing that is going to be risky to himself, personally..

    Because that's the subject at hand. America torturing people.

    And, because we did, countless hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of innocent men, women and children are alive today..

    Frankly, I'll sleep like a baby knowing that..

    And I defy anyone who has a problem with it..

    Would you torture an Adam Lanza to prevent a Sandy Hook??

    For me the answer is unambiguous and clear...

    Frakin' A I would!...

    Texas explosion

    I have to admit I was surprised that no one tried to connect Texas with Boston. Especially when both came around the same day as Waco, Columbine, Oklahoma City, etc etc...


    GOP washes its hands of Mark Sanford

    {{cough}} Anthony Weiner {{cough}} {{cough}}

    :D

    Michale

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    8th grade student suspended, arrested over gun t-shirt
    http://www.wowktv.com/story/22020264/8th-grade-student-arrested-over-gun-t-shirt

    I mean, come on people!?

    Isn't this just getting a BIT ridiculous???

    Michale

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:
  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    And finally, for those of you who claim I am against everything Obama does..

    Blocked by Congress from expanding gun sale background checks, President Obama is turning to actions within his own power to keep people from buying a gun who are prohibited for mental health reasons.

    Federal law bans certain mentally ill people from purchasing firearms, but not all states are providing data to stop the prohibited sales to the FBI's background check system. A federal review last year found 17 states contributed fewer than 10 mental health records to the database, meaning many deemed by a judge to be a danger still could have access to guns.

    The Obama administration was starting a process Friday aimed at removing barriers in health privacy laws that prevent some states from reporting information to the background check system. The action comes two days after the Senate rejected a measure that would have required buyers of firearms online and at gun shows to pass a background check. That's already required for shoppers at licensed gun dealers.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/19/obama-taking-executive-action-on-guns-after-senate-vote/?test=latestnews#ixzz2Qzuc4Rwa

    This is something I applaud and something which the Left have fought against for decades.

    We NEED to get this information out into nationwide databases..

    I applaud Obama for ignoring the hysterical elements of his base and pushing for this..

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    A senior Justice Department official told ABC News that federal law enforcement officials are invoking the public safety exception to the Miranda rights, so that Tsarnaev will be questioned immediately without having Miranda rights issued to him.
    -FBI Spokesman

    Amazing...

    If this was reported under a Republican Administration, the Left would blow a gasket...

    But, because it's Obama......

    All we see is a collective {{yyyaaaawwwwnnnnnn}}

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    How ironic that the Patriot Day bombing scumbag is being treated at the Beth Israel Medical Center in Boston...

    I have to admire the medical professionals there.. I don't know if I would have the integrity to actually save the scumbag's life..

    "He's in a lot of pain, right?"
    "Probably. Uh.. Dean???"
    "Let's just give it a moment...."

    -SUPERNATURAL, Appointment In Samarra

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Sadly, one of my first thoughts was that it would only be a matter of hours before a certain group of people would begin to say it was a government conspiracy; an act of terror on our own people for political gain.

    I heard that Glenn Beck is supposed to reveal the inside "truth" about the government conspiracy on Monday ... *sigh*

    Maybe this is why Fox had to let him go?

    -David

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe this is why Fox had to let him go?

    Yet many people who believe that Bush orchestrated 9/11 are still employed by the MSM and are at near celebrity status with the Left..

    At least Fox had the integrity to cut Beck loose..

    Just think how much better the vast majority of the MSM would be if they showed such integrity...

    I'm just sayin'.... :D

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Definitely a bad week for social media. I think social media is a great tool to bring people together and I have huge hopes for people using it to bring back community and social values. It is a great way for people to regain power against large Corporations who have eroded the power of the individual and society for years now. For example, it has recently been successfully used to name and shame Corporations who avoid tax or to draw attention to the social damage caused by their businesses.

    But this week saw the negative side of this as internet detectives everywhere accused a variety of people from an innocent Saudi guy in hospital for injuries to a another innocent guy finding himself on a right-wing rag newspaper's front page because of these internet detectives. The problem with today's fast paced informational age is that people want information NOW and don't want to wait.

    Almost all of the media should have issued a call to be calm, not jump to conclusions and wait for information. Sadly only a minority did and the sensationalist side of the Corporate media once again showed it's ugly face.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    But this week saw the negative side of this as internet detectives everywhere accused a variety of people from an innocent Saudi guy in hospital for injuries

    For the record, your "innocent" Saudi guy is on the Terrorist Watch List...

    a another innocent guy finding himself on a right-wing rag newspaper's front page because of these internet detectives.

    Also, for the records, your most egregious violations of ethics and common sense came from the LEFT Wing "rags" such as Binders Full Of Women....

    Sadly only a minority did and the sensationalist side of the Corporate media once again showed it's ugly face.

    CNN being the most high profile "ugly face" in this particular instance. Another Biased Left Wing News/Propaganda outlet..

    Blame where blame is due.....

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Debbie Wasserman Schultz, what a waste of a hyphen. This empty-headed addled perm-mannequin. We have soldiers calling into my show telling me that they're getting their tuition that they were promised cut when they get back from war, and this jerk is whining about some butt-kissing staffer of her not being able to afford a Yoplait with their baloney on white. This stuff has got to stop."
    -Dennis Miller

    Now THAT is funny! :D

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    michty6 wrote:

    For the record, your "innocent" Saudi guy is on the Terrorist Watch List...

    Is this coming from the same sources who had concluded that he was responsible for the attack? Because if so I would doubt anything those sources said about the guy... This sounds like the kind of crap I would expect them to come out with to try and remove some of the egg off their face.

    CNN being the most high profile "ugly face" in this particular instance. Another Biased Left Wing News/Propaganda outlet..

    Blame where blame is due.....

    Lol CNN left wing. They are the epitome of the problems in the American media just now by trying to show a 'balanced' right and left side, going for the 'big scoop' instead of researching the actual facts and, you know, doing some actual journalism...

    And I agree - blame where blame is due = the Corporate sensationalist American media where money trumps good journalism.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is this coming from the same sources who had concluded that he was responsible for the attack? Because if so I would doubt anything those sources said about the guy... This sounds like the kind of crap I would expect them to come out with to try and remove some of the egg off their face.

    Translation: Your facts don't fit my agenda, so I am simply going to ignore it and/or ridicule it out of ignorance..

    Lol CNN left wing. They are the epitome of the problems in the American media just now by trying to show a 'balanced' right and left side, going for the 'big scoop' instead of researching the actual facts and, you know, doing some actual journalism...

    Like I said.. Left Wing rags..... :D

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Ah more 'fact' abuse. Just like the 'facts' were obvious within 12 hours of the attack and it was clearly the Saudi guy, the 'facts' don't lie. You should call the authorities and ask them if they've looked at the 'facts' because based on the 'facts' they have shot one innocent man and have another innocent man in custody...

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is this coming from the same sources who had concluded that he was responsible for the attack?

    Once again, you create false arguments just so you can bat them down.. Likely because you haven't a chance against the REAL arguments..

    The fact is, Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi was *NEVER* stated as being "responsible for the attack"...

    He was always a suspect... Just a suspect.

    Did the Left Wing rags run with it and give it more import than due?

    Of course. It's what Left Wing (and Right Wing) rags do...

    But NO media outlet *EVER* claimed that Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi was "responsible" for the attack...

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ah more 'fact' abuse. Just like the 'facts' were obvious within 12 hours of the attack and it was clearly the Saudi guy, the 'facts' don't lie.

    Once again, you create a fantasy and then in turn ridicule the fantasy you created..

    You create your own arguments and then you debate them with yourself.. :D

    Yer your own debate partner... :D

    I feel a tad superfluous... :D

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:
  18. [18] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Like I said...

    Left Wing rags....

    A facebook page now counts as a left wing rag?!? Really?

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    A facebook page now counts as a left wing rag?!? Really?

    About as much as the Right Wing "rags" that Michty pointed out...

    Michty *DID* say "social media" did he not???

    I am sure you would agree that the "rag" definition must be applied equally, eh??

    Or is that too much to ask???

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/295189-report-bombing-suspects-not-licensed-to-own-guns#ixzz2R9aLSDwS

    Once again, we see that criminals don't obey gun laws..

    So WHY on earth would anyone think that more gun laws are the answer???

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    About as much as the Right Wing "rags" that Michty pointed out...

    The new york post?

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    The new york post?

    I must have whispered it so low you didn't hear it..

    S O C I A L M E D I A

    Better??? :D

    That's what we were discussing....

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Well, if by social media you are talking about michty6's post [9], the social media was Reddit & 4chan combing through all the Boston marathon photo's they could find and coming up with the wrong people to whom the New York Post (Right wing Rag) put on their front page. Though I never thought of the New York Post as a "right wing" Rag, I've just thought as it as a Rag and possibility an insult to rags at that...

    So instead of whispering, maybe you should be reading?

  24. [24] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Though I never thought of the New York Post as a "right wing" Rag, I've just thought as it as a Rag and possibility an insult to rags at that...

    LOL

    Interestingly enough, it's owned by Rupert Murdoch yet differs from Fox. I think the NY Post is more like Murdoch's UK paper. Lots of sensationalism. Lots of National Enquirer type stuff. With a right-wing slant.

    -David

  25. [25] 
    akadjian wrote:

    In other hilarity, Glenn Beck revealed today that ... wait for it ...

    The Saudi terrorist the Post reported must be somehow still involved and ...

    The Obama administration is covering it up!

    -David

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    I DID read.. That's why we were discussing social media and Left Wing rags like Binders Full Of Women..

    David,

    Interestingly enough, it's owned by Rupert Murdoch yet differs from Fox. I think the NY Post is more like Murdoch's UK paper. Lots of sensationalism. Lots of National Enquirer type stuff. With a right-wing slant.

    Well, I am sure glad we're not making this a Right v Left issue, eh? :D

    In other news, the Obama Administration wasn't satisfied with sticking the lower income and middle class with a tax hike over payroll taxes..

    NOW they are supporting an across the board tax hike on the Internet..

    And ya'all STILL think that Obama is a "warrior" *FOR* the middle class??

    Seems to me Obama is a warrior AGAINST the middle class...

    Michale....

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    OOooooo This must be making the Left have a conniption fit!!

    Days before his second term ended in 2009, Bush’s approval rating among all adults was 33 percent positive and 66 percent negative. The new poll found 47 percent saying they approve and 50 percent saying they disapprove. Among registered voters, his approval rating today is equal to President Obama’s, at 47 percent, according to the latest Post-ABC surveys.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bush-library-opening-puts-his-presidency-back-in-the-spotlight/2013/04/22/bb7e6b9c-ab65-11e2-a8b9-2a63d75b5459_story.html?hpid=z1

    What have I always said??

    As time goes by, we will discover what a really great President Bush was..

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Go Ahead, Admit It: George W. Bush is a Good Man
    http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/go-ahead-admit-it-george-w-bush-is-a-good-man-20130422

    This is a very heart-warming article that puts it in perspective, as far as I am concerned..

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    akadjian wrote:

    This is a very heart-warming article that puts it in perspective, as far as I am concerned.

    Without reading your article, I have no doubt Bush is a good person. I've always felt that way.

    However, many of his judgments and decisions left a lot to be desired.

    -David

  30. [30] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I DID read.. That's why we were discussing social media and Left Wing rags like Binders Full Of Women..

    So you are trying to pawn off a facebook page as a left wing rag...

    The left wing media must have done well this round if you have to scrape facebook to back up your tit for tat rant of the day, heh...

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Without reading your article, I have no doubt Bush is a good person. I've always felt that way.

    Trust me. You will WANT to read the article..

    Bashi,

    So you are trying to pawn off a facebook page as a left wing rag...

    If a Left Wing Facebook is TRYING to do the job of a news organization, don't you think they should be held to the same standard..

    On the other hand, considering the so-called "standards" of the other media rags, perhaps the FB page *WAS* meeting those "standards"... eh??

    The left wing media must have done well this round

    And yet...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/04/17/this-just-in-to-cnn/#comment-35638

    I rest my case....

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    michty6 wrote:

    About as much as the Right Wing "rags" that Michty pointed out...

    Yes a Facebook page is comparable to a right-wing-rag newspaper RUNNING A PHOTO OF INNOCENT MEN ON THEIR FRONT PAGE.

    Amazing. Everyday Michale logic never ceases to amaze me.

  33. [33] 
    michty6 wrote:

    There have been many disappointing things in the way the US media and people handled this attack and manhunt.

    I think when the President of a country (the Czech Republic) has to come out and make a public statement that his country is not where the bombers were from just because it kinda sounds like it, then people in the US need to take a long hard look in the mirror about how quickly they jump to conclusions and where they get their information from.

  34. [34] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol one more thing. Calling CNN a 'left wing rag' shows me that you neither understand what 'left wing' nor 'rag' mean. Lol.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes a Facebook page is comparable to a right-wing-rag newspaper RUNNING A PHOTO OF INNOCENT MEN ON THEIR FRONT PAGE.

    Yer the one that brought up Social Media, Captain Dunsel...

    I think when the President of a country (the Czech Republic) has to come out and make a public statement that his country is not where the bombers were from just because it kinda sounds like it, then people in the US need to take a long hard look in the mirror about how quickly they jump to conclusions and where they get their information from.

    Considering that it WASN'T the "President Of The Czech Republic", but rather the LEADER of the Chechnya region, I have to wonder where YOU are getting your information from..

    Actually, I don't have to wonder.. I know you are getting your information solely and completely from the ignorant Left Wing rags you refuse to acknowledge even exist..

    Amazing. Everyday Michale logic never ceases to amaze me.

    Considering YOUR logic leads you to believe that the Catholic Church's sole and complete raison d'etre is to support pedophilia AND you think that the Czech Republic is relevant to the Patriot Day bombers, do you REALLY think you are qualified to comment on *MY* logic??

    I'm just saying...

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    If we had a referee here, I believe the term he/she would be using would be:

    "POINT TO MICHALE"

    :D

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    No point to Michale. I saw the video yesterday, though I think it was the Czeck ambassador rather than president that was making public remarks...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    No point to Michale. I saw the video yesterday, though I think it was the Czeck ambassador rather than president that was making public remarks...

    You'll have to prove that because there is absolutely NO RELEVANCE the Czech Republic has to the Patriot Day Bombing..

    I know that a couple of Left Wing rags tried to make the connection, but (as usual) they were utterly devoid of any factual information..

    The Patriot Day Bombers hailed from Chechnya, NOT the Czech Republic....

    POINT 2 TO MICHALE

    Like I said before.. I know it may come as a shock to all of ya, but (more often than not) I *DO* know what I am talking about....

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    You'll have to prove that because there is absolutely NO RELEVANCE the Czech Republic has to the Patriot Day Bombing..

    Duh. That's the point. And yet some on social media were making that mistake. For proof here let me link to the tv program i was watching yesterday...oh wait, tv doesn't work like that...

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    While there is a somewhat number of muslims in the Czech Republic, their influence on the country has been minimal..

    A much larger influence of muslims were in the Slovakia region after the country of Czechoslovakia was split in half..

    Most of the muslim influence in the region comes from the former Yugoslavia and came to prominence after the country was broken up into Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Croatia, etc etc..

    Muslims came to prominence initially when they opposed Soviet influence in the region. This ire was later turned on the US when the US/NATO forces began the campaign..

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    I stand corrected.. Muslim influence in Slovakia is even more minimal than it is in The Czech Republic..

    I was conflating Slovakia and erroneously put it in the Bosnia sphere of influence..

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Incidentally, Slovakia is the only country in Europe that doesn't have a mosque...

    Bashi,

    Duh. That's the point. And yet some on social media were making that mistake. For proof here let me link to the tv program i was watching yesterday...oh wait, tv doesn't work like that...

    OK, so we are agreed that the Czech Republic has NOTHING to do with the Patriot Day Bombing, even though Michty AND you intimated it did..

    I am sure Michty will now say, "Oh I was just pointing out how badly the Right Wing rags got it wrong", since you have given him the option..

    Regardless, just because you see it in some Left Wing rag, doesn't make it true..

    Ya'all were treating it as if it was true..

    GAME, SET AND MATCH

    :D

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Uh...the story here is linguistic mistakes not islamic influence...

    Probably ought to quit while you are behind on this one...

  44. [44] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Considering that it WASN'T the "President Of The Czech Republic", but rather the LEADER of the Chechnya region, I have to wonder where YOU are getting your information from.

    Lolol you completely missed my point. Amazing. Bashi is right though, it was the ambassador not the President. He referenced the President talking to Obama though that's where I got that from.

    You'll have to prove that because there is absolutely NO RELEVANCE the Czech Republic has to the Patriot Day Bombing..

    Exactly. But because of horrific media and ill informed Americans the Ambassador (and President) of the Czech Republic had to actually state this because Americans were too stupid to recognise that Czech Republic =/= Chechnya.

    Also you keep referring to 'left-wing rags'. Let me repeat:

    Calling CNN a 'left wing rag' shows me that you neither understand what 'left wing' nor 'rag' mean. Lol.

    Lolol just an amazing run of posts from you Michale keep the entertainment coming...

  45. [45] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Probably ought to quit while you are behind on this one...

    Don't listed to Bashi. You've got us right where you want us, keep it coming!

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    ACK!!!

    OK mea culpa... I misread Michty's initial statement..

    Take back the points, and put the Dunsel cap on me! :D

    In my defense, however, there WAS a statement from a Chechnya leader that said that the responsibility for the actions of the Patriot Day bombers falls to the US...

    It was that statement that I thought Michty was referring to...

    My bust.. :D

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Calling CNN a 'left wing rag' shows me that you neither understand what 'left wing' nor 'rag' mean. Lol.

    On this one I am on firmer ground..

    It's well documented that CNN is a leader in carrying the torch for Obama..

    There is absolutely NOTHING Right Wing about CNN....

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    Uh...the story here is linguistic mistakes not islamic influence...

    Probably ought to quit while you are behind on this one...

    No doubt... :D

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    The crime was almost immediately solved, and a suspect was in custody with breathtaking speed.

    Suspect has been released..... :^/

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    The crime was almost immediately solved, and a suspect was in custody with breathtaking speed. But because Boston had happened, we didn't get front-page headlines screaming "Elvis Impersonator Tries To Poison Obama!" The man behind the attack is apparently a disturbed individual who sent the poison ricin to his senator and to the White House. While not on the same level as bombing a sporting event, this too was an act of terrorism.

    Interesting to note here that the "suspect" was arrested based SOLELY and COMPLETELY on his Right Wing Internet postings..

    But, of course, no one here cares about that. He's a Right Winger, so he deserves what he gets, right?? :^/

    Whew!!! Glad this lil tidbit came along... :D

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Awww you caught on ;) I get your point though in fairness the Chechnyan President also had to make a similar statement since the responses around America were 'nuke Chechnya!'... 'yeh we should totally nuke the Czechs!'.

    My favourite were calls to 'nuke Czechoslovakia' which is just amazingly ignorant on so many levels!

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    My favourite were calls to 'nuke Czechoslovakia' which is just amazingly ignorant on so many levels!

    Can't argue with that... :D

    You are a true gentleman not to rub it in so much. :D

    Credit where credit is due..

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Interesting to note here that the "suspect" was arrested based SOLELY and COMPLETELY on his Right Wing Internet postings..

    I think he was arrested quickly because he had a history of sending rant letters to politicians, which is not against the law but once he crossed the line, his file told the authorities who he was and where to find him. Was he right wing? I thought he was just crazy as he sent the ricin letters to his republican representative as well as Obama.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    WOW

    AP says Twitter account hacked, report of White House explosions false; stocks plunge but quickly recover
    http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2013/04/23/news/doc5176c2683afca747015851.txt

    That must have been an exciting time for a few minutes...

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Was he right wing?

    Yea, he was constantly slamming Obama and Democrats.. :D

    What lead the FBI to him was that the letters containing the ricin were signed they same way the guy signed his posts...

    Hmmmmm Maybe I should stop signing my posts.. :D

    Michale.....

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:
  57. [57] 
    michty6 wrote:

    It's clearly a left-wing guy framing him ;)

  58. [58] 
    michty6 wrote:

    WOW

    AP says Twitter account hacked, report of White House explosions false; stocks plunge but quickly recover
    http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2013/04/23/news/doc5176c2683afca747015851.txt

    That must have been an exciting time for a few minutes...

    Lol the Dow plunged almost 200 points then back up 200 points in 3 minutes. Someone probably made a bundle in those 3 minutes...

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's clearly a left-wing guy framing him ;)

    As I said to Bashi above..

    "No doubt" :D

    Lol the Dow plunged almost 200 points then back up 200 points in 3 minutes. Someone probably made a bundle in those 3 minutes...

    Ever read STORMING HEAVEN??

    A good read if yer into terrorism for the purposes of Stock Market manipulation... :D

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But, of course, no one here cares about that. He's a Right Winger, so he deserves what he gets, right?? :^/

    I called my buddy Obama this afternoon and he's sending the black helicopters to your house :)

    -David

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    I called my buddy Obama this afternoon and he's sending the black helicopters to your house :)

    Woot!!!

    Flight reunion!!! :D

    A good read if yer into terrorism for the purposes of Stock Market manipulation... :D

    Let me re-purpose that to say if you are into READING about fictional accounts of terrorism for the purposes of Stock Market manipulation...

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    With Baucus retiring at the 2014 Mid-Terms, looks like the GOP is one step closer to controlling the Senate..

    I can't imagine that Montana would go Democrat, what with Dems stepping on their own pee-pees by pushing ridiculous and useless Anti-Gun legislation...

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    what with Dems stepping on their own pee-pees by pushing ridiculous and useless Anti-Gun legislation...

    http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/04/23/miller-tsarnaev-brothers-killed-mit-officer-because-they-needed-a-gun/

    Like I said, ridiculous and useless Anti-Gun legislation..

    You want to solve the gun violence problem??

    Automatic Death Penalty w/ no chance of appeal for anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime..

    You'll see gun violence plummet....

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Baucus ... good riddance.

    -David

  65. [65] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW, apparently Alex Jones is pushing an even grander government conspiracy about the Boston bombings.

    http://www.salon.com/2013/04/19/alex_jones_is_phoning_it_in/

    Of course it's all because the government wants to take away guns and freedums

    It's both fascinating and scary that so many people believe in the nuttiness.

    -David

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Baucus ... good riddance.

    Yea, it's annoying when a politician ignores the National Party agenda and actually represents his constituents, eh??

    Of course it's all because the government wants to take away guns and freedums

    It's both fascinating and scary that so many people believe in the nuttiness.

    As opposed to the LEFT's nuttiness that we need to get rid of the 2nd Amendment to prevent attacks like the Patriot Day bombing, eh?? :D

    Michale.....

  67. [67] 
    akadjian wrote:

    As opposed to the LEFT's nuttiness that we need to get rid of the 2nd Amendment to prevent attacks like the Patriot Day bombing, eh?

    I have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about.

    If there is such a conspiracy theory, I don't know anyone on the "left" who actually believes in it.

    The difference, Michale, is that millions of people listen to and believe people like Alex Jones & Glenn Beck.

    It is true that these people are so far out there that the general Republican party is trying to distance themselves from them. But it's crazy that so many people believe the nuttiness.

    The situation you describe also sounds crazy, but I have no trouble admitting that and don't see mass amounts of people thinking it's sane in the way massive amounts of people still buy into Beck or Jones.

    -David

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about.

    And therein lies part of the problem..

    If there is such a conspiracy theory, I don't know anyone on the "left" who actually believes in it.

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_rn=11&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=2nd%20Amendment%20resp&cp=22&gs_id=13c&xhr=t&q=2nd+Amendment+responsible+for+Boston&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=2nd+Amendment+responsible+for+Boston+&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45580626,d.eWU&fp=b1abc50c9856b45a&biw=1440&bih=763

    The difference, Michale, is that millions of people listen to and believe people like Alex Jones & Glenn Beck.

    And millions of people listen to and believe people like Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Rachael Maddow, etc etc etc...

    The situation you describe also sounds crazy, but I have no trouble admitting that and don't see mass amounts of people thinking it's sane in the way massive amounts of people still buy into Beck or Jones.

    Who says mass amounts of people buy into Beck or Jones??

    Why, Beck and Jones of course...

    The problem here is you want to paint the entire Right Wing with the Beck/Jones brush, yet you claim that the crazies on the Left are just isolated whack jobs..

    How does that work, exactly??

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    akadjian wrote:

    And millions of people listen to and believe people like Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Rachael Maddow, etc etc etc...

    True. But they're not pushing insane conspiracy theories like Beck or Jones.

    Neither are Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity or the other standard conservative pundits.

    The problem here is you want to paint the entire Right Wing with the Beck/Jones brush

    No. I want to call out the people who watch Beck & Jones for what they are ... conspiracy nuts.

    I'd be perfectly happy if people on the right didn't buy into the nuttiness of these folks.

    "Of course ... that's what the government wants ... is for you to not listen to us ..." - Beck/Jones :)

    -David

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    True. But they're not pushing insane conspiracy theories like Beck or Jones.

    Perhaps not THIS particular time.. But they have...

    No. I want to call out the people who watch Beck & Jones for what they are ... conspiracy nuts.

    And I want to call people who watch Maddow and Moore and Maher for what they are... elitist asshole jerks...

    I'd be perfectly happy if people on the right didn't buy into the nuttiness of these folks.

    As I would be for people on the Left...

    Unfortunately, you and I have little power over them, save commenting on how moronic they are... :D

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I want to call people who watch Maddow and Moore and Maher for what they are... elitist asshole jerks...

    Present company (if any) excepted, of course.. :D

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Here's the thing..

    We can change all the names, substitute Obama with Bush, replace Republicans with Democrats, Beck with Moore, Jones with Maddow, etc etc and then we would be back in the Bush years and the complaints would be identical albeit diametrically opposite..

    That's why I can't get all excited over the kookiness of people like Jones and Beck and their conspiracy theories..

    Because, during the Bush years, all the kookiness and conspiracy theories came from the Left...

    And so it goes and so it goes...

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that Truthers outnumber Birthers two to one..

    So, do we REALLY want to compare kooks on the Right & Left???

    Each side has their kooks. And each side's kooks have as much influence as the other on their respective ideologues...

    Which is why it's so great to be un-beholden to any political ideology...

    You get to laugh at BOTH side's kooks... :D

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    akadjian wrote:

    elitist asshole jerks

    This idea of "elitist" which we've heard so much about from the right is intriguing.

    What do you think makes them elitist asshole jerks?

    In particular, I'd be interested in that claim about Rachel Maddow. Bill Maher, I'll give you :)

    -David

  75. [75] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that Truthers outnumber Birthers two to one.

    Source?

  76. [76] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Each side has their kooks. And each side's kooks have as much influence as the other on their respective ideologues.

    This is true for one party and one party only.

    The kooks on the right have a great deal of influence on the agenda of the Republican party. Witness gun control. 90% of people agreed w/ the law put forward and the 10% won.

    The kooks on the left which you cite are typically 2 guys standing outside in Philadelphia who have absolutely zero influence on the center-right policy of the Democratic party.

    Big difference.

    -David

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is true for one party and one party only.

    Of course you would think that..

    Because you are looking at it from one side...

    If you looked at it from the middle, you would know it to be true..

    The kooks on the right have a great deal of influence on the agenda of the Republican party. Witness gun control. 90% of people agreed w/ the law put forward and the 10% won.

    Bullshit... 90% of the people said it's good to keep guns away from criminals and kooks..

    But, as I have pointed out, the current legislation did nothing of the sort..

    The ONLY way to quell gun violence significantly is to make it VERY expensive to use a gun to commit a crime. One would pay with their life...

    I don't understand the reluctance to impose this. The Left has absolutely NO PROBLEM in vilifying, demonizing and penalizing law-abiding responsible gun owners..

    Yet this same Left would scream to high heavens if we actually penalized the very people who are COMMITTING the gun violence...

    It defies logic...

    Big difference.

    From your perspective, it's understandable you would think that..

    But, if you would hold EACH side in disdain, you would see that there really isn't any difference in the influence of their respective kooks...

    Neither is any better or worse than the other...

    But, again, I completely understand why, from the Left's perspective, they would have that opinion..

    Just like people on the Right claim that their Left's kooks control the Party Agenda...

    Still looking for that cite on the Birther/Truther stat.. It's from a 2006 pool and I am trying to tie down the specifics. Over 50% of Democrats believe Bush was, either by commission or omission, responsible for 9/11... Compare that to 1 in 4 believe Obama is not eligible to be POTUS..

    So, not quite 2 to 1, but close enough for Federation work.. :D

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Pew Research ... 17% of people believe Obama is a Muslim (nearly 1/3 of Republicans)

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g9Fu0WbCqTWm6kF5FRgE1KTl3fWQ

    Yes, please find your poll as it would be interesting to see the question asked. Because virtually no one believes he was involved in causing 9/11 as the Truthers argue.

    17% of voting America ...

    If that's 17% of 100 million, that's 17 million people.

    That's a lot of misbelief (a word I think I just made up)

    -David

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also sure that you would agree that claiming your POTUS is not a citizen and not eligible to be POTUS is absolutely NOTHING compared to claiming your POTUS was complicit, either by commission or omission, in the deaths of over 3000 innocent people..

    So, while the strict numbers may (or may not) have relevance, there is absolute NO moral equivalency between the Truthers and the Birthers..

    The Truthers win the Horrible Moronic Assholes award hands down...

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Automatic Death Penalty w/ no chance of appeal for anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime..

    Btw the NRA would not support this. It would damage gun sales.

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pew Research ... 17% of people believe Obama is a Muslim (nearly 1/3 of Republicans)

    You've been hanging around michty too long. You are starting to adopt his schtick of changing the argument. :D

    We're not discussing Muslim. Being a Muslim would not disqualify Obama for POTUS. As far as I am concerned being a Muslim is as bad (or as good, depending on one's perspective) as being a Christian..

    We're discussing CITIZENSHIP and ELIGIBILITY for the office of the President...

    That is at the heart of the Birther movement..

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Btw the NRA would not support this. It would damage gun sales.

    Doubtful..

    Criminals rarely get their guns thru legal channels..

    Sometimes, they even kill cops to get them...

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol I had no idea what a 'Truther' was so I had to Google it.

    I fail to see how a 'Truther' is left-wing. Any conspiracy which the backbone is 'the Government is bad and is doing/covering up X/Y/Z for A/B/C reason' is a far right conspiracy.

    By basic definition, left-wing politics is about Government regulation and strong Government to fix the inequalities/biases/conflicts of interest (etc) in the system; right-wing politics is about 'free market' and reducing Government. Any conspiracy which advocates that the Government is bad and is doing things to take over the world/country is always rooted in right-wing ideology.

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's a lot of misbelief (a word I think I just made up)

    "Furthertheless is not a word! Stop using it!"
    -Charlie Sheen, SPIN CITY

    :D

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Criminals rarely get their guns thru legal channels..

    Sometimes, they even kill cops to get them...

    I can tell you what the NRA 'argument' would be. This law would deter 'law abiding' citizens from using their guns to protect their family. Therefore we oppose it.

    Translation: it will impact gun sales, we oppose anything that impacts gun sales because we are the gun manufacturer's bitch.

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    I fail to see how a 'Truther' is left-wing.

    "President Bush" should have been a tip off.. :D

    Any conspiracy which advocates that the Government is bad and is doing things to take over the world/country is always rooted in right-wing ideology.

    Of course it is.. :^)

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Any conspiracy which advocates that the Government is bad and is doing things to take over the world/country is always rooted in right-wing ideology.

    Of course, no Lefty ever uttered the words, "vast right wing conspiracy" right??

    We can always discuss the Koch brothers conspiracy, the Corporate Take Over conspiracy, etc etc etc...

    But yer right. There are NO Left Wing kooks and their conspiracy theories..

    It's all coming from the Right..

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Uhm far right lunatics hated and still do hate President Bush. Compared to their ideology he was practically a socialist.

  89. [89] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol I've never heard of any of these conspiracies. Michale you really need to take a long hard look at the media and blogs you read and watch daily.

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Uhm far right lunatics hated and still do hate President Bush.

    Right.. And everyone on the Left just LOVED Bush.. :D

    Lol I've never heard of any of these conspiracies.

    And because YOU never heard of them, they must not exist, right?? :D

    I don't think ANYONE here would actually deny that those conspiracy theories exist..

    It was Hillary Clinton who uttered the words, "vast right wing conspiracy"... :D

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can tell you what the NRA 'argument' would be. This law would deter 'law abiding' citizens from using their guns to protect their family. Therefore we oppose it.

    How exactly would that law deter law-abiding citizens from protecting their families??

    The law gives them the right to protect their families, ergo they would not be committing any crime..

    The NRA is definitely on the side of greater enforcement of existing laws..

    They would likely be tickled pink at this law.. :D

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    michty6 wrote:

    And everyone on the Left just LOVED Bush.. :D

    Doesn't really have anything to do with it. Hardly anyone on the left likes Obama. He is regularly attacked from the left for the weak principles he barely fights for. The idea that lunatic far right guys are going to drop their lunatic far right fantasies and conspiracies just because a Republican is in office is nonsense. Yes, there will probably be less of them - especially if the guy is a white, male Republican - but will they drop them? Heck no.

    I don't think ANYONE here would actually deny that those conspiracy theories exist..

    I don't really care to be honest. But you can't deny that the vast amount of conspiracies there are are usually on the right-side of politics - Government is bad/evil/terrorist and is doing X/Y/Z to come for our guns/take over the world etc etc etc.

    They would likely be tickled pink at this law.. :D

    You clearly underestimate how much the NRA are merely now the bitch of the gun manufacturers. So much so they are no longer supporting policies they used to support. You should write to the NRA with your idea and see what they say...

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hardly anyone on the left likes Obama.

    Yea, right.... :D

    We are obviously inhabiting different dimensional realities here...

    I don't really care to be honest. But you can't deny that the vast amount of conspiracies there are are usually on the right-side of politics -

    Abso-frakin'-loutly, I can..

    Matter o fact, I just did...

    You clearly underestimate how much the NRA are merely now the bitch of the gun manufacturers.

    I completely understand that you think this is true.. But, you believing it does not make it so..

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    michty6 wrote:

    We are obviously inhabiting different dimensional realities here...

    I'm going to hazard a guess that I read considerably more left-wing minded news media and blogs than you do. I can name very few who are happy with Obama. We've been through this many times before - Obama gives fantastic left of centre speeches but then Governs from a right of centre position. Look no further than his latest budget in which he advocated cuts to SOCIAL SECURITY. Trust me when I say that did not go down well in left minded circles.

    Abso-frakin'-loutly, I can

    Well I would cite polls that show how ludicrous a percentage of Republicans belief such utter bullshit as 'Government is coming for our guns', '9/11 was a conspiracy', 'Obama is a Muslim/Kenyan/Satan' etc etc but you'll just ignore them as you usually do so I'm not going to waste my time.

    I completely understand that you think this is true.. But, you believing it does not make it so..

    Well my opinion is based on changes in the NRA funding (they are now waaaay more funded by gun manufacturers than before) and 'completely coincidental' changes in their politics to go further towards pro-gun-manufacturer positions than they even used to be themselves (background checks being a good example).

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm going to hazard a guess that I read considerably more left-wing minded news media and blogs than you do. I can name very few who are happy with Obama. We've been through this many times before - Obama gives fantastic left of centre speeches but then Governs from a right of centre position. Look no further than his latest budget in which he advocated cuts to SOCIAL SECURITY. Trust me when I say that did not go down well in left minded circles.

    This is very interesting and I mean that sincerely..

    Can you point to some mainstream pundits/msm that feel this way??

    Well I would cite polls that show how ludicrous a percentage of Republicans belief such utter bullshit as 'Government is coming for our guns', '9/11 was a conspiracy', 'Obama is a Muslim/Kenyan/Satan' etc etc but you'll just ignore them as you usually do so I'm not going to waste my time.

    9/11 conspiracy is a Left Wing meme.

    Sorry to break that one to ya...

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    'Government is coming for our guns'

    I am also constrained to point out that there is valid evidence that this IS the case..

    The simple fact that the government is opting to create gun-owner databases which won't do ANYTHING to prevent a Sandy Hook or a Columbine as opposed to beefing up security forces and loosen up CCW laws that WILL actually prevent a Sandy Hook or a Columbine.

    One of the BEST things that our government can do is eliminate Psycho Shooting Galleries, AKA "Gun Free Zones". Because it's obvious that Gun Free Zones, rather than be solutions, are actually part of the problem IE disarming law-abiding citizens and making sure only criminals and psychos are armed..

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note:

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-04-23/obama-deportation-progam-likely-to-be-blocked-judge-says

    Looks like Obama DOESN'T have the discretion to NOT deport illegal aliens...

    Hmmmmm I believe someone made that point a while back..

    Why, I do believe it was me!!! :D

    Michale

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, Benghazi is back in the news again..

    The House released their report that ripped the Obama Administration for all the lies, deception and incompetence..

    But what is REALLY interesting is this article from a while back..

    ======================
    White House accuses Sen. Cruz of fueling political divisions

    WASHINGTON -- White House press secretary Jay Carney accused Sen. Cruz of working to divide Americans along party lines.

    The row between the White House and the Republican from Texas began when Cruz appeared on the Senate floor and held up a copy of the Washington Post with the headline of "Obama Knew."

    "The president knew what?" he asked. "My constituents would like to know the answer to that and many other questions, not to blame the president or any other American, just to know."

    Carney responded in his daily news briefing.

    "I have to say, with disappointment, that Sen. Cruz, having seen that same headline, did not call the White House, did not ask if it was accurate or not," he said.

    "Instead, he immediately went to the floor of the Senate, and I'm sorry to say that he followed that headline and divided."

    Hours later, the freshman senator fired back.

    "What I said is completely in line with what was said by other senators on both sides of the aisle who are asking respectfully for information to respond to questions that are legitimately being posed by the American public," he told reporters.

    "We have a responsibility to ask for information, and I think that is not only appropriate but necessary. You know, nobody is more entitled to answers to these questions than the people of Texas, and I take that responsibility very seriously."

    He added: "I am seeking answers and information. I am not looking to point fingers or place blame on anybody."
    =====================

    WOW! How awesome is that!!!?? :D

    Michale

  99. [99] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Can you point to some mainstream pundits/msm that feel this way??

    Not sure, I don't know what you consider mainstream. I don't really watch US media that much. If you want to see a leftist perspective go over to Huffpo and see the amount of abuse from all pundits Obama is taking on this...

    disarming law-abiding citizens

    Lol 'law-abiding citizens' makes me giggle everytime I see it. It has got to be one of the dumbest phrases I've ever seen. EVERYONE is a law abiding citizen up until they commit their 1st crime. Almost every major attack or gun shooting in the last 10 years was perpetrated by a 'law abiding citizen'! I would much rather have the situation that when the law abiding citizen snaps and decides to commit his 1st crime that he doesn't have a massive weapons array available to him. But hey that's just me, you guys do your own thing lol.

    Looks like Obama DOESN'T have the discretion to NOT deport illegal aliens...

    Another thing he takes lots of heat on the left from btw. While he is pushing immigration reform he is deporting people in record numbers. I bet that this fact is not mentioned at all in the right-wing media (nor the record levels of border security etc).

  100. [100] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That's what I'm sayin', michty

    I read a number of what would be characterized as "left" blogs and no one ever talks about any 9/11 Bush conspiracy.

    We're too busy discussing how to pressure Obama into actually being the liberal President the Right accuses him of being.

    Apparently though, it's important to some that there be a 'Left' and that it be as nutty as the 'Right' because the claim that the Left & Right are equal is an important cornerstone of conservative propaganda.

    The idea behind this is that if you create enough noise, the strongest signal wins.

    And the strongest signal is often the signal with the most money behind it. The strategy worked to discredit evolution. It worked to confuse the issue on global warming.

    So we're likely to see the BS continue.

    -David

  101. [101] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW, michty ... did you watch that Jon Stewart skit?

    How he got the prime minster of Australia to appear absolutely amazes me. One of the most brilliant pieces of comedy I've seen.

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not sure, I don't know what you consider mainstream. I don't really watch US media that much. If you want to see a leftist perspective go over to Huffpo and see the amount of abuse from all pundits Obama is taking on this...

    Yea, he takes heat from commenters, but I wouldn't call them "pundits"...

    Apparently though, it's important to some that there be a 'Left' and that it be as nutty as the 'Right' because the claim that the Left & Right are equal is an important cornerstone of conservative propaganda.

    It's not "important" at all.

    It's just the way it is...

    But ya'all don't see it because you are beholden to a particular ideology which ALWAYS sees different ideologies as "the enemy"...

    "You can't win!! I've got god on my side!!"
    -Max Von Sydow, NEEDFUL THINGS

    The strategy worked to discredit evolution.

    Evolution is discredited!!??? Why wasn't I informed!!???

    It worked to confuse the issue on global warming.

    No.. SCIENCE is confusing the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) issue..

    Haven't you been reading?? Pro Global Warming scientists are having a really hard time explaining why their ain't any warming in their Global Warming theory...

    http://www.independent.ie/world-news/climate-scientists-cant-explain-global-warming-slowdown-29200278.html

    The simple fact is, we don't know enough about global climate to even know what we don't even know yet!

    Taking action based on ignorance is as moronic (AND as dangerous) as trying to diffuse an unknown bomb blindfolded...

    So we're likely to see the BS continue.

    Yes we are..

    Until such time as people try employing a little common sense instead of a whole lot of hysterical partisan bigotry...

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pro Global Warming scientists are having a really hard time explaining why their ain't any warming in their Global Warming theory...

    "Excuse me? Hello?? Eventually, you are going to have dinosaurs on your Dinosaur Tour, right?? Right?? Hello?? Hello???"
    -Jeff Goldblum, JURASSIC PARK

    :D

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Part of the strategy is accusing the opposition of doing exactly what they're doing.

    My favorite instance of this is Republicans accusing Democrats of trying to gut social security even though the entire Republican platform consists of gutting government programs and they would like nothing better than if Democrats went along with any piece of this plan.

    It's kind of like a children's game of "I know you are but what am I"

    Or, I know you're ideological, but what am I.

    :)

    -David

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or, I know you're ideological, but what am I.

    But, in this case, it simply doesn't apply..

    Once you can honestly say that you slam Democrats as much as I slam Republicans, THEN you might have a case..

    But my non-ideological bona fides are well established...

    No one else here (with one possible exception) can make that claim...

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    akadjian wrote:


    No one else here (with one possible exception) can make that claim.

    Sure, Michale.

    That statement sounds kind of ... how shall I say it ... elitist.

    You, and only you, are capable of logical thought.

    Did you invent the Internet too, Al Gore?

    -David

  107. [107] 
    michty6 wrote:

    And the strongest signal is often the signal with the most money behind it. The strategy worked to discredit evolution. It worked to confuse the issue on global warming.

    So we're likely to see the BS continue.

    It works particularly well in America where the toothless Corporate media doesn't hold politicians to account but plays their game.

    How he got the prime minster of Australia to appear absolutely amazes me. One of the most brilliant pieces of comedy I've seen.

    Former Prime Minister ;)

    The simple fact is, we don't know enough about global climate to even know what we don't even know yet!

    Taking action based on ignorance is as moronic (AND as dangerous) as trying to diffuse an unknown bomb blindfolded.

    Nonsense of the highest levels. The simple facts are the majority of scientists (who have no agenda or any other motive to make this up) agree there is a Global Warming issue that needs address; a minority (backed and paid for by the Oil Companies) strangely enough disagree. It's like when scientists (who had no agenda or any other motive to make this up) said smoking was bad for you and caused lung cancer yet other scientists (paid by the Tobacco companies) strangely disagreed with this. For years the 'debate' when on with people loudly proclaiming the non-Corporate scientists were wrong. To look back now it is LAUGHABLE that this was even in doubt.

    Global Warming is such a simple, simple, simple issue:
    (1) Oil and gas are finite and will have to be replaced (FACT)
    (2) There is a greater than 0% chance they may be destroying the planet (FACT)
    (3) Replacing oil and gas now - to reduce the probability that they are destroying the planet - rather than later is therefore logically and rationally a simple decision to make.

    No one else here (with one possible exception) can make that claim...

    Lolol amazing. Michale who reads far-right sites and votes Republican is ideologically pure. Other commentators who don't even live in America, have never voted for either party and don't even watch American media aren't ;) Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

  108. [108] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Former Prime Minister ;)

    Hahahahah ... brilliant, it was simply brilliant!!!

    :)

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nonsense of the highest levels. The simple facts are the majority of scientists (who have no agenda or any other motive to make this up) agree there is a Global Warming issue that needs address;

    This has to be a first..

    Such complete and utter ignorance of the facts AND of reality has left me speechless...

    Even Global Warming proponents aren't THIS blindly ignorant of the facts.

    And THAT says a lot..

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kudos, CW...

    Another 100%...

    It's almost like the old days! :D

    Michale

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK I lied.. I am not speechless..

    Doesn't it bother you Michty that NOT ONE SINGLE Global Warming Prediction has EVER happened? All the gloom and doom and snow disappearing from the face of the earth, sea levels rising dozens of feet and global temperatures soaring..

    NONE OF IT HAS HAPPENED...

    Doesn't it bother you that MANY of the Global Warming predictions have been downright WRONG and some even FANTASTICALLY wrong??

    "Failed. Failed. Impressively failed!"
    -Doctor, ARMAGEDDON

    I mean, seriously.. Try to forget hysterical emotionalism and look at things logically and objectively..

    Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) predictions have 100% completely NEVER come to pass...

    DOZENS of predictions (Polar Bears, Robins In Northwest Territories, Kilimanjaro, Himalayan Glaciers, etc etc have been completely, thoroughly and utterly debunked and PROVEN wrong by PEER REVIEWED science..

    Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) scientists have admitted that there has been NO WARMING for decades. And even worse, they can't explain why!?

    I won't even bother getting into how Pro Global Warming scientists have been caught RED-HANDED, fudging data and conspiring to discredit scientists who dispute the Pro Global Warming scientists...

    ALL of what I have stated is VERIFIABLE and DOCUMENTED fact...

    And, despite ALL of this factual evidence, you STILL think that the Earth is in imminent danger of demise...

    I bet you still believe in Santa Claus too, right???

    :D

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    akadjian wrote:

    All the gloom and doom and snow disappearing from the face of the earth, sea levels rising dozens of feet and global temperatures soaring.

    It's been pretty well documented that the Arctic ice cap is shrinking.

    I mean, pics are everywhere. Here's a sample ...

    http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/20100428-melting-arctic20ice.jpg

    My favorite piece of evidence is the USDA's revised planting tables. They revised them per warmer climate in 2012 because it was obvious to everyone that some plants simply weren't growing as far South as they used to. (See below.)

    And haven't you noticed that the so-called "super storms" like Sandy seem to be increasing?

    Seriously, Michale. For someone who claims to be so objective, it's pretty amazing how much data you're able to ignore.

    -David

  113. [113] 
    akadjian wrote:

    http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2012/120125.htm

    Seriously ... ask any farmer if things are getting warmer.

    Now whether global warming will lead to huge global disasters is another question, but it's getting tougher and tougher ... err, should I say warmer and warmer to stick your head in the sand and deny it's happening.

    -David

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's been pretty well documented that the Arctic ice cap is shrinking.

    And the Antarctic ice cap is growing...

    Seriously, Michale. For someone who claims to be so objective, it's pretty amazing how much data you're able to ignore.

    Ya know, I could say the EXACT same thing to you..

    What about all the evidence that YOU ignore??

    What about all the peer reviewed scientific evidence that disputes the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory??

    *I* am the ONLY one here who IS objective. Do you know how I know this??

    Because *I* can concede that YOU may be right..

    But YOU cannot reciprocate..

    Seriously ... ask any farmer if things are getting warmer.

    Yet, MANY scientists who are PRO Global Warming have conceded that the warming stopped decades ago..

    I bet you didn't even READ the article I posted above, did you??

    Once again, WHO is objective here??

    The one who admits that we don't know enough and that there really MIGHT be Global Warming??

    Or the one who refuses to even entertain the possibility that they may be wrong??

    Finally, consider this one piece of evidence..

    EVERYTHING that happens, climate wise, is because of global warming..

    When it's hot and dry, scientists say it's because of global warming.

    When it's cold and wet, scientists say it's because of global warming.

    When there is no snow, scientists say it's because of global warming.

    Where there is tons of snow and huge blizzards, it's because of global warming.

    Now... Ask yourself..

    What would an OBJECTIVE person say about crap like that??

    Since "objective" is the watchword for this particular comment, could you also please explain how an "objective" person can buy into the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory when any and EVERY prediction based on that theory has NEVER been accurate???

    Also, please explain how many MANY theories that have been put forth by Pro Global Warming scientists have been SPECTACULARLY wrong?? Proven wrong by peer reviewed science...

    Your belief in the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory is exactly like people who would still believe that the Earth is flat..

    Despite ALL the FACTUAL and SCIENTIFIC evidence to the contrary, you STILL believe in the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory.

    That's not science, David.

    That is faith. Pure and simple..

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is faith. Pure and simple..

    And, as such, it's probably a good idea to end the discussion..

    It's NEVER a good idea to call one's religion into question and point out the illogic of it all..

    :D

    Michale

  116. [116] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The argument you seem to be making is that if two sides present any evidence whatsoever for a theory, both theories are equally comparable.

    The argument we're making is that on one side, there is virtually overwhelming evidence presented and reconfirmed by scientists.

    On the other, you have an extremely small amount of evidence against the theory typically presented by scientists who represent the oil and/or gas industry.

    Hmmm ... which side is more believable. But forget that for a second.

    I believe you're against the theory because you're convinced that somehow this will harm industry.

    What I'd argue is that this is actually a great opportunity for industry if they would take advantage of it rather than fight against it. More and more, whether the deniers want it or not, people are looking for ways to either save energy or generate it in new ways. We can either lead that change or get caught behind when someone else does.

    Another way to look at it is that, if Republicans keep fighting against science, pretty soon they're going to become an anachronism. So this is also an opportunity for the Republican party.

    -David

  117. [117] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Because *I* can concede that YOU may be right.

    I would agree with you that there's a lot that's still unknown about climate change and the impact. However, the general theory that the Earth is warming is well established and not in dispute among reputable scientists.

    -David

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    The argument you seem to be making is that if two sides present any evidence whatsoever for a theory, both theories are equally comparable.

    No.. I am saying that if BOTH sides of an issue present COMPELLING evidence of their theories, that a truly objective person would give BOTH theories equal credence and not ignore the evidence that is not politically palatable..

    On the other, you have an extremely small amount of evidence against the theory typically presented by scientists who represent the oil and/or gas industry.

    How can you claim objectivity and still spout such ludicrous "conspiracy theories"???

    You don't think there isn't big money in PRO Global Warming theories??

    Look at the BILLIONS and BILLIONS that have been made and spent supporting the unproven theory..

    How much richer is Al Gore today then he was 2 decades ago??

    You can't tell me that the ONLY place money has influence is on the side of those who dispute the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory..

    At least, you can't and try to claim the mantle of objectivity..

    I believe you're against the theory because you're convinced that somehow this will harm industry.

    No, I am against the theory because I, as an OBJECTIVE bystander can see that the science on the other side of the issue is equally compelling.

    You refuse to even acknowledge that THAT science even exists..

    So who is objective here and who isn't??

    Another way to look at it is that, if Republicans keep fighting against science,

    "There you go again"
    -Ronald Reagan

    *YOU* and Democrats are "fighting science" as much as you claim Republicans are.

    THAT is the fact that you are blinded to..

    You refuse to accept ANY science that disputes the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory AS science...

    You simply spout ad hominem attacks against the scientists as simply pawns of the oil and gas industry..

    Once again, how can you claim to be objective when you refuse to acknowledge as valid ANYTHING that disputes your political view??

    Like I said above..

    You are not talking science. You are talking faith..

    And faith is the OPPOSITE of science..

    Think about it..

    Michale

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Let's forget about the scientists that dispute the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory..

    Yer right. They are a bunch of liars and cads and crooks who are bought and paid for by the oil/gas industry and would rather see the planet destroyed (which is impossible, by the bi) to earn a few bucks.

    Yer right..

    So....

    Let's talk about the scientists who are pro Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory..

    THOSE scientists have been saying that Global Warming stopped a couple decades ago.. That warming hasn't been "statistically significant" since the mid 90s...

    THEY are saying they can't explain that..

    THEY are saying that the planet should be warming faster because there is MORE CO2 in the air..

    THEY are at a complete loss to explain WHY the CO2 rise is constant and accelerating yet the temps are not following suit..

    It YOUR scientists that are saying this. YOUR priests are "questioning their faith"...

    What's your "objective" response to this??

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That's just it though.

    No scientists are saying that global warming isn't occurring.

    Every time you cite a source it's either a conservative source, a deliberate misinterpretation by a conservative source, or some work which has been discredited (typically from a conservative source).

    -David

  121. [121] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I don't know what you think the scientists motives are. I mean it's clear what the scientists denying Global Warming's motives are (lots of $$$$$$ from Oil and Gas companies to continue their 'research') but what exactly is the motive of the scientific community to completely make up 'Global Warming'? Just for shits and giggles.

    Again, the issue is simple. I present you with my 3 step logic once more, please indicate which of the 3 points you disagree with:

    (1) Oil and gas are finite and will have to be replaced (FACT)
    (2) There is a greater than 0% chance they may be destroying the planet (FACT)
    (3) Replacing oil and gas now - to reduce the probability that they are destroying the planet - rather than later is therefore logically and rationally a simple decision to make.

  122. [122] 
    michty6 wrote:

    It's like smoking all over again. Credible scientists (with absolutely no motive to say so) state that smoking causes lung cancer and is bad for your health. Other scientists (who want Tobacco Company $$$$) produce 'studies' denying this.

    Now looking back it is LAUGHABLE that it was even in doubt that smoking causes lung cancer and is horrible for your health.

    But back in the day (and still today out there) people were making the exact same nonsensical stupid judgements you hear now about Global Warming like "my Gran has smoked for 100 years and she is fine!" This is the equivalent of "yeh but we just had a really cold winter, so much for Global Warming!"

    It's basically stupid people who have no idea how science (or even basic scientific sampling) works - or even what Global Warming is - trying to insert their own 'gut feelings' into science.

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    This may have gotten too intense.. This is why I don't like this discussion because it's almost like knocking someone's religion..

    But, just ta show ya I still like ya, David... :D

    http://sjfm.us/temp/25apr13.jpg

    I still wear it.. It's comfy... Even if I get dirty looks :D

    Michale

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    No scientists are saying that global warming isn't occurring.

    siigghhhhh Yes there are.... There is TONS of peer-reviewed science from the Pro Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) scientists that state this. Unequivocally...

    So who is putting their heads in the sand now???

    That is my entire point. You refuse to accept ANYTHING that disputes the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory..

    Even if it comes from your own scientists!!

    Michale

  125. [125] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Sorry David I have to fix your post from [120] as I believe it was slightly inaccurate.

    You have to bare in mind that outside of America Global Warming is accepted by every single Government. Also remember that Conservatives outside of America aren't lunatic nut-case whack-jobs and actually hold reasonable positions on a wide range of subjects. So I fixed your post slightly:

    Every time you cite a source it's either an American conservative source, a deliberate misinterpretation by an American conservative source, or some work which has been discredited (typically from an American conservative source).

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    or even what Global Warming is

    That's because it's had so many different names..

    Which PROVES that it's not about science..

    It's about marketing a unsavory and unpopular political agenda...

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    (2) There is a greater than 0% chance they may be destroying the planet (FACT)

    There is a greater than 0% chance that you could be killed by a terrorist or a falling meoteor or a mugger or a jealous co-worker..

    Using YOUR reasoning, you should NEVER leave the house..

    But, on the other hand, there is a greater than 0% chance that a sinkhole could develop under your....

    MY GODS, MICHTY!!!! GET OUT OF THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    You see how utterly ridiculous that position is??

    Michale

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, following your reasoning to it's logical progression..

    There is a greater than 0% chance that a muslim will commit a huge terrorist attack in the US that will kill millions..

    Using your reasoning, we should go out and kill every muslim in the world, to prevent this..

    That's the problem with your reasoning. Hell, that's the problem with your entire position.

    It totally and completely ignores the possibility that you MIGHT be wrong and it utterly fails to take into account the consequences...

    Preventing a terrorist attack that kills MILLIONS of innocent people is a GOOD thing. No doubt about it..

    But is that possibility WORTH totally murdering millions and millions of muslims many of them completely and unequivocally innocent??

    You tell me...

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    michty6 wrote:

    There is a greater than 0% chance that you could be killed by a terrorist or a falling meoteor or a mugger or a jealous co-worker..

    Using YOUR reasoning, you should NEVER leave the house..

    But, on the other hand, there is a greater than 0% chance that a sinkhole could develop under your....

    Very true. However, I can't personally do anything to mitigate these risks and reduce the probability of them happening.

    With Global Warming we can - reduce our use of Oil and Gas and we reduce our risk that our use of Oil and Gas is destroying the planet. The fact that WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THIS ANYWAY AT SOME POINT SINCE THEY ARE FINITE RESOURCES makes the decision to do so all the more easy.

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK this has gone just WAY beyond the normal hit-n-mention of this subject...

    Unless there is a sign from Olympus, I am going to bow out from the discussion...

    Michale

  131. [131] 
    michty6 wrote:

    There is a greater than 0% chance that a muslim will commit a huge terrorist attack in the US that will kill millions..

    Using your reasoning, we should go out and kill every muslim in the world, to prevent this..

    Nope you're still not getting it. Muslims are not finite resources that are going to need to be be replaced anyway down the line...

    It totally and completely ignores the possibility that you MIGHT be wrong and it utterly fails to take into account the consequences...

    Uhm this is the EXACT problem with your position. Couldn't have said it better myself.

    Preventing a terrorist attack that kills MILLIONS of innocent people is a GOOD thing. No doubt about it..

    But is that possibility WORTH totally murdering millions and millions of muslims many of them completely and unequivocally innocent??

    Replacing Oil and Gas (which we'll have to do anyway) won't require killing millions of people. In fact, quite the opposite. By decreasing our reliance on energy from volatile regions of the world, the world will probably become a safer place at the same time. Much of the military action, killings and global agenda of the past decades has been related to Oil and Gas (COUGH IRAQ COUGH COUGH). Without it's poisonous influence on Global Relations who knows how much better a place the world could become...

  132. [132] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Unless there is a sign from Olympus, I am going to bow out from the discussion...

    Who cares about the derail. It was going to happen at some point when someone challenged your stupid 'Global Warming yet the planet is cooling' nonsense...

  133. [133] 
    michty6 wrote:

    It totally and completely ignores the possibility that you MIGHT be wrong and it utterly fails to take into account the consequences...

    Uhm this is the EXACT problem with your position. Couldn't have said it better myself.

    To further this point here is what happens when our positions are wrong:

    Mine = We replace Oil and Gas with sustainable energy. We would've had to have done this anyway at some point. Potential benefits less horrific weather events, less reliance on Oil and Gas from volatile regions of the world, less war, less famine, less droughts (etc). Potential costs are mainly economic as the transition may be tough depending on how it is handled - but this is a cost that would have to be born anyway.

    Yours = We do nothing. At some point down the line we have to replace Oil and Gas anyway - the later we leave it the higher it is likely to cost. Oh and if we leave it too late the entire planet gets destroyed. I guess we could always move to another planet?

    Yeh I can see why yours sounds like such a great idea. I'm sure my Grandkids would adjust really well to life on Mars.

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dammit Michty!!

    The only reason I am dragged back is because I think you have inadvertently hit on common ground..

    Mine = We replace Oil and Gas with sustainable energy. We would've had to have done this anyway at some point. Potential benefits less horrific weather events, less reliance on Oil and Gas from volatile regions of the world, less war, less famine, less droughts (etc). Potential costs are mainly economic as the transition may be tough depending on how it is handled - but this is a cost that would have to be born anyway.

    Yours = We do nothing. At some point down the line we have to replace Oil and Gas anyway - the later we leave it the higher it is likely to cost. Oh and if we leave it too late the entire planet gets destroyed. I guess we could always move to another planet?

    This is not true, but you can be forgiven for not knowing because you weren't here...

    I am fully and completely ALL for Green Technology..

    If you want to replace oil energy, I am the biggest supporter of that there is.. Why do you think I am so pissed that billions and billions and billions of dollars has been spent TALKING about energy independence when that money could have gone well on the way to MAKE IT HAPPEN!!

    Where we part ways is when you say, "Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) is going to destroy the planet!!! SO we must destroy our economy to prevent it!!!"

    THAT is a political argument that has absolutely NOTHING to do with science and EVERYTHING to do with ideology..

    If you want to talk about easing pollution, I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with ya...

    If you want to talk about expanding Green Technology, then I am there with ya and we won't have ANYTHING to disagree about...

    If you want to discuss getting away from foreign oil, then we will be 1000% in agreement..

    But if you want to argue that we have to do all of the afore or else we will destroy the planet (which is impossible) or destroy the planet's climate (which is ALSO impossible) then I will ridicule such a position at the drop of a dime...

    Michale

  135. [135] 
    michty6 wrote:

    THAT is a political argument that has absolutely NOTHING to do with science and EVERYTHING to do with ideology..

    Not true at all. This is what I was talking about before. Only Conservatives in America make this a political issue. Conservatives ALL OVER THE WORLD do not consider it so (although the idiotic Conservative party in Canada is moving increasingly towards the American position).

    Like I mentioned there is worldwide consensus on Global Warming (except for Conservatives in America). It isn't a political issue. It is a scientific issue which Conservatives (in America) have politicised.

    But if you want to argue that we have to do all of the afore or else we will destroy the planet (which is impossible) or destroy the planet's climate (which is ALSO impossible) then I will ridicule such a position at the drop of a dime...

    Well if there is a >0% probability that this might happen (which even the most ardent Global Warming lunatic fanatic will agree) then why on earth would you risk waiting to replace something that needs replacing? The disagreement is on the percentage, not that it is >0%. The disagreement is also on the exact impact - how many cities will be left underwater (etc).

    And by the way Oil and Gas are already destroying your economy. As they are finite resources supply will naturally drop over time whilst demand will increase - natural laws of supply and demand dictate the price of oil is only going to go up over time.

    Consider that in the last 20 years alone the price of a barrel of oil has increased more than 10 fold (i.e. more than 1000%).

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well if there is a >0% probability that this might happen

    Let me say it again.

    It is TECHNOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the human race to destroy the planet.

    PERIOD..

    Given that, there is a ZERO PERCENT chance of humankind destroying.

    ZERO.. ZILCH... NADA... NONE...

    So, any effort to prevent that is wasted effort because it just ain't possible..

    Barring a cosmic collision, this planet will still be turning when humans have gone the way of the Dodo...

    Some are already AT that point.....

    ...but I digest...

    Michale

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since there really isn't any common ground and no one but me can be objective, I (once again) bow out..

    Michale

  138. [138] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Sorry Michale you are, as usual, wrong when it comes to global warming. The article you posted says that warming has slowed not stopped for one decade not two.

    Here is NASA/Columbia university data that shows it pretty well: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

    As for the antarctic ice, you should probably learn the difference between sea ice and glacial ice. The sea ice is increasing in certain areas and reducing in other areas with a small overall net increase. The glacial ice is melting.

    Where we part ways is when you say, "Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) is going to destroy the planet!!! SO we must destroy our economy to prevent it!!!"

    Who is saying this? I've yet to see a real climate scientist say this. Is this your usual trick of putting words into other's mouths or can you back it up?

    The problem with your political analysis of science is if someone actually disproved global warming in a per reviewed and reproducible form, they would pretty much get a tenure track or other high level position at the university or research institution of their choice. The rewards would be immense. That's unlikely to happen. Climate science is complex. There is unlikely to be a single paper E=MC2 type explanation as climate science is tens of thousands of papers examining all sorts of phenomena, not always titled in ways that make it obvious to non-science types that it is about climate science.

    I'm still waiting for a good per reviewed article from you. One from an institution with access to satellites and super computers and can't be trivially linked to oil funding. It's been years of waiting, but hey, I'm patient...

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Under the WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED heading...

    Obama has stated that use of chemical weapons would be a red line..

    Ample evidence exists that chemical weapons HAVE been used in Syria...

    Obama does nothing....

    "This is line of death!! You cross it, you die!!! OK, you cross THIS line, you die!! OK, you knock on my door, I not come out! nyaa nyaa.."
    -Robin Williams channeling Muamar Qadaffi

    :D

    Michale

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm still waiting for a good per reviewed article from you. One from an institution with access to satellites and super computers and can't be trivially linked to oil funding. It's been years of waiting, but hey, I'm patient...

    I have posted dozens and will again if Olympus decrees it so...

    The fact that you refuse to accept them is indicative you don't WANT to believe.

    You apparently prefer faith over science..

    That's your right. Just as it is my right to show that it IS faith and not science..

    Faith is the OPPOSITE of Science...

    Faith is the anti-Science..

    And FAITH is ALL that Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) proponents have..

    Michale

  141. [141] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Then why are all your global warming(the earth is actually warming) links and arguments so faith based?

    Follow the link I posted. It's from NASA. Disprove the data.

  142. [142] 
    michty6 wrote:

    It is TECHNOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the human race to destroy the planet.

    PERIOD..

    Given that, there is a ZERO PERCENT chance of humankind destroying.

    Lol we're not talking about Global Warming blowing up the planet (that would be an issue related to nuclear capacity). I don't know the exact science, as I'm not a scientist, but potentially destroying vast swaths of our planet (if not the entire planet) simply because Conservatives in America are morons doesn't sound like a good plan of action to me.

    And FAITH is ALL that Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) proponents have..

    No it's actually the exact opposite. You have only faith that you are wrong and we don't destroy our planet. I shall call you a Human Caused Global Warming (but let's not do anything about it) proponents. Or Human Caused Global Warming (duuuuuh but I looked out my window and it's cold today so the scientists must be wrong) proponent.

    Your faith is based on the ludicrous principle that a bunch of scientists got together and - completely for shits and giggles - decided to make up a story about Global Warming, when they have absolutely no incentive to do so.

    My faith is that scientists are better at science that you and Conservative idiots (in America) are. And since they have no incentive to lie to me and since it is a documented fact that the solution they are proposing will have to be implemented anyway - at some point in the future - it makes the decision to implement the solution now, rather than later, incredibly easy.

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Grrrrrrrrr

    Then why are all your global warming(the earth is actually warming) links and arguments so faith based?

    My position on Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) has been and always will be is that we don't know enough to know what we don't even know..

    There is legitimate science that supports the theory and there is legitimate that disputes the theory.

    THAT is what an OBJECTIVE person would say...

    It is ya'all who refuse to accept ANY science that disproves the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory...

    Follow the link I posted. It's from NASA. Disprove the data.

    Is that the same NASA who has changed it's position half a dozen times when it was discovered they were using flawed data???

    NASA has released so much flawed data and graphs, but if you want comments on their current data:

    science.slashdot.org/story/11/07/28/2249238/new-nasa-data-casts-doubt-on-global-warming-models

    You want Peer Reviewed??

    NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

    You see my point..

    There is PLENTY of REAL peer-reviewed science out that that disputes the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory..

    But ya'all won't accept it based on IDEOLOGY..

    That's faith... Pure and simple..

    Now, you are going to come back with "yea, well those scientists are poopy heads!!" or some other similar non-scientific retort..

    And so it will go on and on...

    Ya'alls definition of science is single minded..

    If it disputes the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory, it really isn't science..

    Like I said.. Faith...

    Pure and simple...

    Now, quit it!! Ya KNOW I have no self-control over this subject...

    Michale

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol we're not talking about Global Warming blowing up the planet (that would be an issue related to nuclear capacity). I don't know the exact science, as I'm not a scientist, but potentially destroying vast swaths of our planet (if not the entire planet) simply because Conservatives in America are morons doesn't sound like a good plan of action to me.

    What arrogance..

    You HONESTLY believe that humans are smart enough to DESTROY the planet???

    REALLY??!!

    And you people call ME arrogant??!!

    Michale

  145. [145] 
    michty6 wrote:

    There is legitimate science that supports the theory and there is legitimate that disputes the theory.

    The good thing about my position (that is, using simple logic and rationale to solve the problem) is I don't even care how much 'theory' you throw at me to 'prove' Global Warming isn't happening.

    The fact that there is a >0% probability that something we will have to replace anyway might be destroying the planet (or parts of the planet even) makes the decision really easy.

    Also you still haven't answered what the motives are for the scientists who have shown Global Warming to be a risk. Just doing it for shits and giggles? Just to annoy you? Because there certainly is a heck of a motivation for the other side of the argument (in America, the only place where this side of the argument exists)...

  146. [146] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Where we part ways is when you say, "Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) is going to destroy the planet!!! SO we must destroy our economy to prevent it!!!"

    Right.

    So back to the business argument ...

    I see green energy as more of an opportunity than a threat to the economy. And ... I'd rather see us lead in this area than be behind.

    Not sure why the fact that warming could pose a threat bothers you. But I figured you as someone likely interested in the technology angle.

    -David

  147. [147] 
    michty6 wrote:

    You HONESTLY believe that humans are smart enough to DESTROY the planet???

    REALLY??!!

    And you people call ME arrogant??!!

    Are you kidding me? You seriously don't think that humans are capable of destroying large swaths of the planet? Heck yes they are. They have even already destroyed large parts of it and no doubt will continue to destroy large parts of it directly (eg. Deforestation) or indirectly (eg. Global Warming) in future.

  148. [148] 
    michty6 wrote:

    So back to the business argument ...

    I see green energy as more of an opportunity than a threat to the economy. And ... I'd rather see us lead in this area than be behind.

    Good luck. You'll have to catch Europe/China first ;)

    There isn't even an argument here. If you wait till Oil and Gas have almost run out the cost and impact to the economy will be CONSIDERABLY worse than the cost of starting now and phasing it out year by year.

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see green energy as more of an opportunity than a threat to the economy. And ... I'd rather see us lead in this area than be behind.

    Yea, we're doing such a bang up job what with all these green companies going bankrupt, due to greed and incompetence...

    Now, if we had taken the billions and billions and billions of dollars that had gone to LOBBYISTS and LAWYERS and MORONS like Al Gore and PUT that into Green technology, we would be a LOT further ahead..

    TRUE or FALSE???

    Are you kidding me? You seriously don't think that humans are capable of destroying large swaths of the planet?

    Humans might make areas (or even the entire planet) unlivable for a few centuries or even a few millenia..

    But it is nothing but human arrogance to think that puny......

    "PUNY GOD..."
    -Hulk, THE AVENGERS

    ... and narrow and shallow minded humans can actually destroy the planet...

    Michale

    Michale

  150. [150] 
    michty6 wrote:

    You sound like the religious crowd Michale. Screw science etc it is arrogance to think God would let us destroy His planet!

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not sure why the fact that warming could pose a threat bothers you.

    Because it's complete and utter felgercarb for all the reasons I have stated above and NO ONE has addressed...

    Matter of fact MANY scientists have stated that a little global warming (such as the kind we have seen) is actually beneficial to humans..

    If one wants to talk about going green to end pollution and use of fossil fuels?? Sure, I am 1000% on their side in that..

    If one wants to talk about doing it to prevent humans from destroying the planet?? I'll treat them as the Flat-Earth morons that they are...

    No offense to anyone here.. :D

    Michale

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    You sound like the religious crowd Michale. Screw science etc it is arrogance to think God would let us destroy His planet!

    You brought god into it, not me..

    I simply say that humans are too stoopid to destroy the planet..

    If you would like me to be more politically correct, then I would say that humans do not possess the technological capability to destroy the planet...

    But it all is the same...

    Humans are not smart enough to destroy the planet.

    Period..

    Michale

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ironically enough, it's people like ya'all who are part of the problem..

    Ya'all support all the lobbying and the lawyering and the talking and the seminaring to the tune of BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars..

    Wouldn't it be BETTER to spend all those billions on green technology and green R&D???

    You people support the status quo..

    I am more inclined to take the billions and actually put it into productive use...

    Michale

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    And with THAT, I am well and truly done with this topic..

    Michale

  155. [155] 
    akadjian wrote:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

    BTW, Michale. This article was written by a Senior Fellow at The Heartland Institute.

    The Heartland Institute is a conservative and libertarian think tank.

    It appears this Heartland fellow draws some different conclusions than the peer-reviewed work he actually cites.

    The key point from the paper itself is that "the presence of time varying radiative
    forcing in satellite radiative flux measurements corrupts the diagnosis of radiative feedback"

    While Mr. Conservative Libertarian's conclusion is "The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed."

    So while the scientists seem to be saying "the measurements are suspect," Mr. Conservative Libertarian takes it to the next step and says "less global warming will occur".

    Don't get me wrong, the pace of global warming is a hot subject for debate. But even Mr. Conservative Libertarian doesn't say it's not happening. Merely that it might not happen as quickly as projected.

    -David

  156. [156] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I simply say that humans are too stoopid to destroy the planet

    Oh no we are definitely stupid enough. I mean look at Conservatives in America ;)

    Ya'all support all the lobbying and the lawyering and the talking and the seminaring to the tune of BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars..

    Wouldn't it be BETTER to spend all those billions on green technology and green R&D???

    Huh? I don't support any of this. And none of this is the problem.

    The problem is American Conservatives who will not admit that Green Energy is the future (generally because they are being paid not to admit this).

    Furthermore, if Green Energy got 1/10 of the subsidies thrown at Oil and Gas Companies it wouldn't be the 'economy damaging' (LOL) monster Conservatives try to show it to be.

    You people support the status quo..

    Uhm no Conservatives support the status quo. It is almost by DEFINITION what a Conservative is.

    Their 'science' which 'disproves' Global Warming is how they justify supporting the status quo. Anyone with half a brain knows this is nothing to do with why and that it all comes down to $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

  157. [157] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Good luck. You'll have to catch Europe/China first ;)

    Yeah, I know. Our political culture holds us back as much as anything. But we have made a number of significant investments recently. It's just a shame our government is influenced so strongly by the likes of the Exxons and Halliburtons of the world.

    -David

  158. [158] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW, check out the Heartland Institute website ...

    http://heartland.org/

    It appears that adding a green colored background and using an "earth friendly" name is all you need.

    -David

  159. [159] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Don't get me wrong, the pace of global warming is a hot subject for debate. But even Mr. Conservative Libertarian doesn't say it's not happening. Merely that it might not happen as quickly as projected.

    This is usually how it goes. The first step is admitting you're wrong whilst also not admitting you're wrong about the EXACT detail. Then eventually you move to the consensus position. It is pretty much exactly what happened with smoking:

    Step (1) Smoking doesn't harm your health (now gimme some $$ Tobacco industry!)
    Step (2) Ok maybe smoking isn't that good but your findings are over the top, there is no way it causes lung cancer!
    Step (3) Ok I guess it may cause lung cancer...
    Step (10) Ok fine, I guess smoking maybe is actually the single greatest cause of preventable death in the world today.

  160. [160] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    NASA has released so much flawed data and graphs, but if you want comments on their current data:

    Read the actual study and criticisms about it rather than the link bait headlines. It does not say what you want it to. It points out problems in the short term predictive models, something that is well known in climate science. As a side note: the author also believes in intelligent design over evolution and the editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing resigned because this study slipped through. Here is a rebuttal of the article: http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2011.pdf [pdf]. You can find links to the original article in the slashdot comments...

  161. [161] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yeah, I know. Our political culture holds us back as much as anything. But we have made a number of significant investments recently. It's just a shame our government is influenced so strongly by the likes of the Exxons and Halliburtons of the world.

    Like I said before, Conservatives all over the world have accepted Global Warming and Climate Change - except for the backwards Conservatives in America.

    I actually did some work for BP and Shell and they're not as bad as you'd think they would be - I was certainly surprised. Don't get me wrong, they're no angels and their interest in renewable energy is largely because they know that this will be the future of their companies and where the money will be in energy in future. But they are starting to shift the focus of their R&D departments more away from 'how to get oil out the ground cheaply, safely and efficiently' to renewable energy research...

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrat reveals 3 things liberals don't get about George W. Bush
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/25/democrat-reveals-3-things-liberals-dont-get-about-george-w-bush/

    Once again. Puts it all in perspective..

    MANY Lefties should well and truly be ashamed of themselves..

    Michale

  163. [163] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I don't particularly hate Bush as a person. Not in the same way that I hated say Romney as a person and a politician and everything about him and everything he stands for.

    Bush to me, like most of the rest of the world, just came across as a dumb guy way over his head.

  164. [164] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I actually did some work for BP and Shell and they're not as bad as you'd think they would be - I was certainly surprised.

    It makes sense because at some point you have to recognize that your business model needs to change. The only question is at what point. And whether you will be able to survive as a business at the point you decide. The more forward thinking companies will anticipate and adapt.

    Unfortunately, I think there's a lot of profit to be made short term through fighting and lobbying. At least here in the 'States anyways.

    -David

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bush to me, like most of the rest of the world, just came across as a dumb guy way over his head.

    And yet, FIVE terrorists have made it to their targets under President Obama..

    Under President Bush..

    Post 9/11 not ONE SINGLE terrorist made it to their targets..

    Now, no one is a bigger fan of Obama's expansion of Bush CT policies than I..

    But the evidence clearly shows that Bush did it right and it's Obama who is over his head..

    But I don't expect you to buy into logic. You have made it clear that, with you, ideology trumps logic any day of the week and twice on Sunday...

    Michale

  166. [166] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Post 9/11 not ONE SINGLE terrorist made it to their targets..

    Lololol I love this line. Basically because ONLY ONE 9/11 happened under Bush he deserves credit for this! LOLOLOL. Amazing.

    But the evidence clearly shows that Bush did it right and it's Obama who is over his head..

    But I don't expect you to buy into logic. You have made it clear that, with you, ideology trumps logic any day of the week and twice on Sunday...

    Evidence like the polls of every single country in the world (except Pakistan) showing that Obama has a higher approval rating than Bush? Or evidence as in 'I'm Michale and my opinion is evidence'? I'm going to guess the latter. But thanks for giving your biased-right-wing American opinion about how the rest of the world probably saw Bush. I mean it's not like I was living in the rest of the world at the time and still continue to, so who am I to say this in the face of such 'Michale-evidence' ;)

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    Evidence like the polls of every single country in the world (except Pakistan) showing that Obama has a higher approval rating than Bush?

    Put up or shut up..

    Cite the evidence..

    Or evidence as in 'I'm Michale and my opinion is evidence'?

    When you have two and a half decades in the field under your belt, I'll consider your opinion as evidence.

    You don't so I won't...

    Michale

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    Evidence like the polls of every single country in the world (except Pakistan) showing that Obama has a higher approval rating than Bush?

    Besides... We're not talking popularity..

    Any airhead moron can win a popularity contest..

    Like, according to you, Obama... :D

    Michale

  169. [169] 
    michty6 wrote:

    The reason Bush was seen unpopular (this was in the UK, so I'd imagine it applies elsewhere) is that he was seen as a complete buffoon and it was considered dangerous having him near the big red button. This is why Obama's approval ratings are much higher and I'd guess why they are much higher elsewhere too (except Pakistan - it's probably fairly obvious why his approval ratings are lower than Bush there).

    I'm still laughing about the 'only one 9/11' happened under Bush comment, that's amazing logic!

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    (this was in the UK, so I'd imagine it applies elsewhere)

    Newsflash for you, Sonny Jim.. The British Empire ended a LONG time ago.. :D

    This is why Obama's approval ratings are much higher and I'd guess why they are much higher elsewhere too

    Still waiting for this evidence..

    I posted a link a while back (Check FTPs ) that showed Obama's popularity was below Bush's worldwide... :D

    Even if we WERE talking about popularity, which we were not...

    I'm still laughing about the 'only one 9/11' happened under Bush comment,

    Of course you are. That's because (as usual) you are trying to make it say something it obviously doesn't..

    But it DOES prove my point. How much you hate Bush to the point that you just make shit up...

    Michale

  171. [171] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Still waiting for this evidence..

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/161201/leadership-earning-lower-marks-worldwide.aspx

    I'll save you the reading with some quotes:

    Despite these poorer scores, approval ratings for the most part remain stronger than they were at the end of the last Bush administration.

    Median approval of U.S. leadership in Europe has slipped 11 points since Obama's first year in office but was still twice as high in 2012 as it was during the last years of the Bush administration

    Approval Edges Downward in Asia

    Although the Obama administration shifted its foreign policy focus to Asia in 2011, Gallup's surveys found ratings heading in a negative direction 2012. The 37% median approval in 2012 was still higher than any rating during the Bush administration.

    But it DOES prove my point. How much you hate Bush to the point that you just make shit up...

    Lol nope. Amazing. I make stuff up but you literally just made up that I hate Bush.

    Your lolololine is in black and white on this page (I'm sure you've mentioned it before): Post 9/11 not ONE SINGLE terrorist made it to their targets.. You're saying that Bush did well because, aside from the biggest terrorist attack ever in American history, there were no other terrorist attacks! Lololol

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    Today's eye-opening Zogby poll for the Arab American Institute Foundation should be a wake-up call to the White House on its failing foreign policy. After two and a half years of bashing Israel, appeasing rogue regimes such as Iran and Syria, and promising a new era of relations with the Muslim world, Washington is now less popular in major Arab countries than it was when George W. Bush was in the White House.

    The poll surveys Arab opinion in six countries: Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, and reveals that "Arabs see the Obama Administration's handling of most Middle East policy issues as having made no contribution to improving US-Arab relations. Only on the issue of the "no-fly zone over Libya" do a majority of Saudis and plurality of Lebanese see a positive contribution."

    I would have thought you were tired of being spanked... :D

    Michale

  173. [173] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're saying that Bush did well because, aside from the biggest terrorist attack ever in American history, there were no other terrorist attacks! Lololol

    Do we credit Abraham Lincoln with the fact that there was never a nuclear attack on the US during his presidency??

    No, of course we don't.. Why??

    Because there wasn't much of a threat...

    PRE-911, there wasn't much of a terrorist threat beyond the normal "background noise"..

    The TIME when a leader needs to be MOST attentive is POST attack..

    Such as FDR after Pearl Harbor..

    Bush kept this country safe at a time when terrorism was at it's HIGHEST threat level..

    NOT ONE SINGLE terrorist made it to it's target Post 9/11, despite an overwhelming desire and capability to do so...

    Obama?? FIVE terrorists have made it to their targets...

    You were the one that brought up Bush's competence..

    I was simply pointing out that, in the field of my chosen expertise, Bush slams Obama to the ground, no contest...

    Michale

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would have thought you were tired of being spanked... :D

    OK, that was a bit unkind..

    In fairness to you, it's as I always said. Anyone can find ANY stat or ANY poll that will support ANY position or opinion...

    Michale

  175. [175] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I would have thought you were tired of being spanked

    LOOOOOOOOL you provided a poll (no link or anything, just a quote - I assume that means it's data is incredibly weak or it is massively outdated or something...) that shows Obama is unpopular in the ARAB world (actually less than 6 mainly tiny countries). Wow. You should call yourself Sherlock Michale with such amazing detective work. Amazing. What's next, a poll showing Obama is unpopular in North Korea? Iran? Lololol.

    The data I provided covers countries making up the vast majority of the ENTIRE WORLD, including the Arab world, and was taken within the last 5 months. And it shows not only is Obama not more popular than Bush but even at his LOWEST LEVEL OF POPULARITY he is double as popular as Bush in the vast majority of the world.

    My poll = covers countries making up almost the entire 6 billion population of the world.
    Your poll = doesn't even cover 1% of the world's population.

    Only one person got spanked here with their horrendous efforts to prove Bush is more popular than Obama (lolol a crappy survey of 6 tiny countries in the Arab world) and it certainly wasn't me.

    Bush kept this country safe at a time when terrorism was at it's HIGHEST threat level..

    NOT ONE SINGLE terrorist made it to it's target Post 9/11, despite an overwhelming desire and capability to do so...

    Lolol your logic is HORRIFIC. Just after a mass terrorist attack is the LEAST likely time for someone else to attack because they are doing so when the country is at it's highest security level.

    Saying Bush has a great record with regards to terrorism, despite the largest terrorist attack ever in the history of the USA occurring under his watch, is like saying Hitler, despite starting the largest war ever seen in the entire world, actually has a great record when it comes to starting wars because aside from this he didn't start any wars... It's literally on this level of stupidity. Hilarious though, keep em coming.

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    Saying Bush has a great record with regards to terrorism, despite the largest terrorist attack ever in the history of the USA occurring under his watch, is like saying Hitler,

    Godwin.

    You lose.. :D

    Michale

  177. [177] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Clinton has a great record with regards to Presidential extra marital affairs because, aside from the one extra marital affair that happened while he was President, no other extra marital affairs occurred.

  178. [178] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I've found a new game :)

    OJ has a great record with regards to murdering women because, aside from the one time when he murdered a women, no other woman has been murdered by him.

  179. [179] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Bush (both) actually have a very good record on not invading Iraq because, aside from the time they both invaded Iraq, no other invasions of Iraq were performed during their Presidencies.

  180. [180] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Kanye West actually has a very good record on not interrupting people receiving awards at award shows because, aside from the time he interrupted someone receiving an award at an award show, no other award show interruptions have occurred at award shows he has been to.

    This one's my favourite so far :)

  181. [181] 
    michty6 wrote:

    John Wilkes Booth actually has a very good record on not assassinating Presidents because, aside from the time he shot and assassinated a President, no other Presidential assassinations have been perpetrated by him.

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clinton has a great record with regards to Presidential extra marital affairs because, aside from the one extra marital affair that happened while he was President, no other extra marital affairs occurred.

    Your game is flawed.. Again, I am not surprised.

    Clinton had a buttload of marital affairs. At least 4 were documented...

    Of course, I am sure you would dispute what the definition of "is" is, so it's useless to expect logic and objectivity from you..

    Everything Liberal/Left/Democrats is goodness and light...

    Everything Republican/Right is evil incarnate..

    That ought to take care of ANY discussion you may want to have in the future...

    Michale

  183. [183] 
    michty6 wrote:

    The Titanic actually has a pretty good record of not sinking, aside from that time when it sunk and hundreds of people died, it has not sunk in decades.

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, one thing is DEFINITELY certain..

    Much to this country's detriment re: National Security.....

    White House: We don’t know if Syria red line has been crossed
    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/25/white_house_we_don_t_know_if_syria_red_line_has_been_crossed

    ...... Obama is no Bush....

    One has to wonder if he EVER made a red line he DIDN'T ignore...

    Michale

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh NOW we know why Obama is not responding to his own Red Line..

    "I'd say that given our own history with intelligence assessments, including intelligence assessments related to weapons of mass destruction, it's very important that we are able to establish this with certainty and that we are able to present information that is airtight in a public and credible fashion to underpin all of our decision-making. That is, I think, the threshold that is demanded given how serious this issue is," the official said. "But again, I think nobody should have any mistake about what our red line is... It is absolutely the case that the president's red line is the use of chemical weapons or the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups."

    It's all Bush's fault... :^/

    Again, I wish I could say I am surprised....

    Michale

  186. [186] 
    michty6 wrote:

    ...... Obama is no Bush....

    You got that one right.

    I presume in this context you mean he isn't prepared to rush into a war based on flimsy security reports and uncertainty about what's actually going on in the country? Then you're spot on, very good observation.

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    "It is clear that ‘red lines' have been crossed and action must be taken to prevent larger scale use. Syria has the ability to kill tens of thousands with its chemical weapons. The world must come together to prevent this by unified action which results in the secure containment of Syria's significant stockpile of chemical weapons."
    -Senator Dianne Feinstein

    "Our intelligence community does asses with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent Sarin"
    -SecDef Chuck Hagel

    "It is our conclusion that the 'red line' has not been crossed in Syria."
    -Obama White House

    Suddenly I have this urge to sing Kenny Rogers' COWARD OF THE COUNTY

    How can we trust a man who won't even act on his own Red Lines???

    Michale

  188. [188] 
    Michale wrote:

    I presume in this context you mean he isn't prepared to rush into a war based on flimsy security reports and uncertainty about what's actually going on in the country?

    Senator Dianne Feinstein is certain what is going on in the country..

    "It is clear that ‘red lines' have been crossed and action must be taken to prevent larger scale use. Syria has the ability to kill tens of thousands with its chemical weapons. The world must come together to prevent this by unified action which results in the secure containment of Syria's significant stockpile of chemical weapons."

    SecDef Chuck Hagel is "certain" what is going on in Syria...

    "Our intelligence community does asses with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent Sarin"

    These are DEMOCRATS and OBAMA ADMINISTRATION officials, Captain Dunsel..

    Obama is just a chicken-shit coward who can't even be trusted to defend HIS OWN red lines...

    I know, I know.. You don't care about the tens of thousands of innocent people who have died in Syria..

    They aren't illegal immigrants or criminals you can coddle, so you really don't give a rat's ass about them..

    All you care about is hating and bashing Bush...

    Michale

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can equivocate and postulate all you want, Michty..

    But the facts are these.

    Chemical weapons HAVE been used in Syria..
    FACT

    Obama stated that, if chemical weapons were used in Syria, then US/NATO would act..
    FACT

    Obama lied.. Thousands died..

    Wasn't that the line every hysterical moron used with Bush???

    Michale

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently Obama's "Red Line" is actually a Yellow Line.

    A Yellow Line that runs right down the middle Obama's back....

    Michale

  191. [191] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Lehman Brothers actually had a really good record of investing up until 2008 when they went bankrupt and nearly took down the entire world economy. They haven't caused any crashes since though so they are clearly doing a bang up job.

    Heheh.

    This is kind of fun!

    -David

    "Hey laughing boy, no more bullets!"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylqEN7J3GLA

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Laugh it up, Fuzzball"
    -Han Solo, STAR WARS: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK

    I realize you are using the tried and true tactic of being utterly ridiculous so as to cover up that ya'all have absolutely no facts to refute my facts. :D

    " 's OK.. I understand, this ain't no never-never land.."
    -J. Geils Band, FREEZE-FRAME

    :D

    Michale

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, ya'all completely and unequivocally blame Bush for 9/11 even though the FACTS clearly show that Clinton bears as much responsibility for it..

    I am further constrained to point out that, while ya'all completely and unequivocally blame Bush for all the ills of this country in the here and now, ya'all (for the most part and with notable exceptions) hold Obama completely blameless..

    The huge rise of the deficit is Bush's fault, not Obama's..

    Benghazi is not Obama's fault..

    All the bad things is NOT Obama's fault. And 90% of the bad things are all Bush's fault.

    And ya'all have the unmitigated temerity to say "Well, I know Bush is a good man."

    What utter felgercarb...

    Ya'all feel EXACTLY for Bush as I feel about Obama.

    Don't bother denying it.. The evidence is plentiful and conclusive..

    Michale

  194. [194] 
    michty6 wrote:

    But the facts are these.

    Chemical weapons HAVE been used in Syria..
    FACT

    Lolololol. I am sure before the Iraq war your statement was: 'WMD are in Iraq and ready to be used. Fact'

    Thankfully your President isn't as callous about the big decision of rushing into war as you are. And throughout this thread you have been wondering why the rest of the world doesn't like your brand of right wing lunatic Republicans in charge??

  195. [195] 
    michty6 wrote:

    The Khmer Rouge actually has a pretty good record on Genocide, aside from the time they committed one of the biggest programmes of genocide ever seen in the entire world, there has been no genocide committed from them since.

  196. [196] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lance Armstrong actually has a pretty good record with performance enhancing drugs, aside from the times before 2004 when he cheated his ass of by drugging the shit of out himself, he hasn't taken any drugs since 2004 - an amazing record.

  197. [197] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Oh now I see where you've been getting this stupid argument Michale. Sorry, I hadn't been up to date with Limbaugh blog. Anyway if we hadn't already mocked your lolargument to death here is a more serious response: http://nomoremister.blogspot.ca/2013/04/right-wingers-play-intramural.html

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lolololol. I am sure before the Iraq war your statement was: 'WMD are in Iraq and ready to be used. Fact'

    Syria has nothing to do with Iraq..

    When are you people going to quit using Bush as an excuse for the incompetence of Obama??

    The bottom line is Obama created a solid and unequivocal red line.

    That red line has been crossed..

    Now Obama wants to equivocate..

    As I said above.. Obama's Red Line is a yellow line.. Right down the middle of Obama's back..

    Michale

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's the thing..

    If I am wrong and SecDef Hagel is wrong and Senator DiFi is wrong and Obama acts then the WORST thing to happen is that Assad is yanked from power and tens of thousands of innocent Syrians are alive..

    If I am right and SecDef Hagel is right and Senator DiFi is right and OBAMA and YA'ALL are wrong and Obama does nothing??

    Tens of thousands of innocent Syrians are brutally butchered and ANY future "red line" from Obama will be laughed at and ridiculed..

    Obama will have neutered himself and the United States..

    Yea.. Ya'all are right..

    The latter option is the best course of action... :^/

    Michale

  200. [200] 
    michty6 wrote:

    If Chemical Weapons are being used then I am all for Obama taking the necessary steps to approach the international community and coordinate a response.

    The idea that he would do so based merely upon news reports coming out and without being certain is on the highest levels of moroncy (I just made this word up, I like it).

    Whatever intelligence Obama gets is better than your 'internet/media intelligence'. I would've thought you'd have learned that after posting your 'facts' about an innocent Saudi guy just a week ago all over the internet and all the other complete and utter media/internet FAILS following the Boston marathon attacks. It seems that no matter how horrendously wrong you get it, one week later you're back to being 'certain' and knowing the 'facts' again jumping in without haste - completely believing whatever your media sources are feeding you once more. It seems the old adage 'learn from your mistakes' isn't a big one with you and others...

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Chemical Weapons are being used then I am all for Obama taking the necessary steps to approach the international community and coordinate a response.

    Wrong.. Those steps and coordination have been done.

    Obama's red line was that the United States would **ACT**.. Not that the United States would CONSULT.. Would CO-ORDINATE..

    "The United States will ACT!"

    The idea that he would do so based merely upon news reports coming out and without being certain is on the highest levels of moroncy (I just made this word up, I like it).

    Once again you change the argument.

    We are not talking "MEDIA REPORTS"...

    We are talking the HEAD of the Senate Intelligence Committee, A DEMOCRAT, who says UNEQUIVOCALLY that red lines have been crossed.

    We are talking about Obama's select choice for SecDef saying that Red Lines have been crossed..

    Face it.. Obama is a coward and has absolutely NO moral courage whatsoever..

    " Never again will I allow our political self-interest to deter us from doing what we know to be morally right. Atrocity and terror are not political weapons, and to those who would use them, your day is over. We will never negotiate. We will no longer tolerate and we will no longer be afraid. It's your turn to be afraid."
    -President Marshall, AIR FORCE ONE

    I really wish that Obama would grow a pair...

    Michale

  202. [202] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Hmm let's see:
    - Media bandwagon saying they have (used) Chemical Weapons
    - Senior politicians saying they have (used) Chemical Weapons
    - Senior intelligence officials saying they have (used) Chemical Weapons

    What he should do is invade, without being back by the UN. Don't raise taxes, or do anything to pay for it - just throw never ending amounts of money at it.

    When no Chemical Weapons turn up - not a big deal. Just wait till they open the Obama Presidential Library and everyone will have forgotten all about it...

    Because in aMURICA we don't learn from our mistakes! We repeat them over and over and over again. aMURICA!

    U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

  203. [203] 
    michty6 wrote:
  204. [204] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama said that use of chemical weapons is a red line..

    Chemical weapons have been confirmed from MULTIPLE SOURCES to have been used..

    Obama runs scared..

    His red line is a yellow stripe...

    "These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Speaking of Kevin Bacon.. Anyone catch the new FOX show THE FOLLOWING??

    That's what TV *SHOULD* be...

    AWESOME show...

    Michale

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama said that use of chemical weapons is a red line..

    Chemical weapons have been confirmed from MULTIPLE SOURCES to have been used..

    Obama runs scared..

    His red line is a yellow stripe...

    But it's OK.. I am sure you don't care that tens of thousands of Syrians have already died and potentially hundreds of thousands more will die from WMDs...

    They are probably all terrorists anyways, so I can understand why you really don't give a rat's ass if they are brutally put down in one of the most horrific manners imaginable..

    I am PROUD of you!! You are definitely well on your way to becoming a me... :D

    Michale

  206. [206] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am PROUD of you!! You are definitely well on your way to becoming a me... :D

    Now THAT is what you call "Dirty Pool" :D

    Michale

  207. [207] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yeh I'm surprised at your sudden sympathy with a country that is almost fully Muslim. I'd have thought you'd be happy to see tens of thousands of these 'terrorist supporters' being wiped out...

    Or is it that you're happy they aren't being wiped out fast enough, that's why Obama must act NOW! Don't wait. Don't confirm the intelligence. Don't mobilise the international community. DO IT NOW GOD DAMN IT YOU PUSSY.

    The media said it, so it must be true. Just ask President Romney or that Saudi terrorist or the many other terrorists (other than, you know, the actual real terrorists last week) that the media caught!

    Rushing in didn't work before but I've got a good feeling about it this time. LET'S DO THIS!

    aMURiCA!!!!!!

  208. [208] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Cameron said he agreed with Obama that Chemical Weapons were a red line. CAMMMMMMMMMERON! WHY AREN'T WE AT WAR YET???

    I'm getting impatient, really need to get to war ASAP. Damn wimpy Emperor Cameron. How dare you actually take the time to confirm the intelligence and make an informed decision.

    WE WANT RASH ACTS NOW! WE DEMAND IT. GO RASH OR GO HOME!

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can be hysterical all you want, michty..

    It won't change the FACTS..

    FACT: Obama said that use of chemical weapons was a "red line".

    FACT: Obama's own SecDef and OWN Party Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman have stated UNEQUIVOCALLY that chemical weapons have been used in Syria..

    ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION: Obama is a neutered coward who is afraid to take stand because he lacks moral courage..

    If you dispute this, PROVIDE SOME RELEVANT FACTS OF YOUR OWN

    You can't because you have none..

    All you have is hysterical emotionalism.

    Your entire slew of arguments are based on NOTHING but hysterical emotionalism...

    Michale

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/one-giant-leap-for-mankind-13bn-iter-project-makes-breakthrough-in-quest-for-nuclear-fusion-a-solution-to-climate-change-and-an-age-of-clean-unlimited-energy-8590480.html

    THIS is the kind of project that we REALLY need to get behind....

    THIS is science at it's finest..

    No fear-mongering.. No billions and billions spent on hot air IE Al Gore and Lobbyists and UN Crooks/Con-Artists..

    Just PURE indisputable science...

    But no one will get behind this because it means that morons like Gore and Mann and Hanson don't get dick...

    Michale

  211. [211] 
    Michale wrote:

    FACT: Obama said that use of chemical weapons was a "red line".

    FACT: Obama's own SecDef and OWN Party Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman have stated UNEQUIVOCALLY that chemical weapons have been used in Syria..

    For the record, I am not advocating action in Syria one way or the other.

    ALL I am saying is that by ignoring his own Red Line, Obama is neutering himself and this country.

    Our enemies AND our allies MUST know that we say what we mean and we mean what we say..

    Next time Obama feels the need to issue a "red line" he is going to get laughed at..

    Forget Syria..

    That's simply a point that NO ONE can deny...

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.