The propaganda of Rush Limbaugh, FOX not News, Glenn Beck et. al. that Obama is too arrogant (code for uppity) to listen to Republicans (code for white men)is brillantly refuted in the post. This excellent reply to the lies was written by blogger Ms M in the Letters to the Editor comment section of the North County Times, Friday February 26, 2010.
Fact-checking the GOP on healthcare reform
Senate Dems adopted 161 amendments and key GOP planks while soft-pedaling the public option. That's not compromise?
By Ethan Sherwood Strauss
http://www.salon.com/news/healthcare_reform/index.html?story=/opinion/feature/2010/02/23/hcr_amendments
The six Republican ideas already in the health-care reform bill
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/five_compronises_in_health_car.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas
Garrett ignores GOP influence in current health care legislation to say Obama will "start" incorporating GOP ideas
http://mediamatters.org/research/201002100034
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/82665-white-house-issues-list-of-gop-health-reform-ideas-included-in-obama-plan
Are the GOP's Ideas on Health Care Reform Any Good?
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/02/are-the-gops-ideas-on-health-care-reform-any-good/35699/
Friday, February 26, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Global Weirding, Thomas Friedman, New York Times
Our conned friends continue to believe the dangerous nonsense that bought and paid for, conmen like Beck and Limbaugh are pedaling to the gullible about what we humans are doing to the earth's climate and oceans.
Thomas Friedman summarized what everyone should know about human induced climate change. In his column in today's New York Times (see below), he introduces us to a new and more accurate term for this human caused climate change. He calls it "Global Weirding."
Here he is in his own words. Please pass on Friedman's comments to any of your friends or relatives who are still deluded dittoheads, broken-brained Beck viewers, or have been fooled by the FOX propaganda apparatus.
Thomas Friedman summarized what everyone should know about human induced climate change. In his column in today's New York Times (see below), he introduces us to a new and more accurate term for this human caused climate change. He calls it "Global Weirding."
Here he is in his own words. Please pass on Friedman's comments to any of your friends or relatives who are still deluded dittoheads, broken-brained Beck viewers, or have been fooled by the FOX propaganda apparatus.
Op-Ed Columnist
Global Weirding Is Here
Of the festivals of nonsense that periodically overtake American politics, surely the silliest is the argument that because Washington is having a particularly snowy winter it proves that climate change is a hoax and, therefore, we need not bother with all this girly-man stuff like renewable energy, solar panels and carbon taxes. Just drill, baby, drill.
When you see lawmakers like Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina tweeting that “it is going to keep snowing until Al Gore cries ‘uncle,’ ” or news that the grandchildren of Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma are building an igloo next to the Capitol with a big sign that says “Al Gore’s New Home,” you really wonder if we can have a serious discussion about the climate-energy issue anymore.
The climate-science community is not blameless. It knew it was up against formidable forces — from the oil and coal companies that finance the studies skeptical of climate change to conservatives who hate anything that will lead to more government regulations to the Chamber of Commerce that will resist any energy taxes. Therefore, climate experts can’t leave themselves vulnerable by citing non-peer-reviewed research or failing to respond to legitimate questions, some of which happened with both the Climatic Research Unit at the
Although there remains a mountain of research from multiple institutions about the reality of climate change, the public has grown uneasy. What’s real? In my view, the climate-science community should convene its top experts — from places like NASA,
At the same time, they should add a summary of all the errors and wild exaggerations made by the climate skeptics — and where they get their funding. It is time the climate scientists stopped just playing defense. The physicist Joseph Romm, a leading climate writer, is posting on his Web site, climateprogress.org, his own listing of the best scientific papers on every aspect of climate change for anyone who wants a quick summary now.
Here are the points I like to stress:
1) Avoid the term “global warming.” I prefer the term “global weirding,” because that is what actually happens as global temperatures rise and the climate changes. The weather gets weird. The hots are expected to get hotter, the wets wetter, the dries drier and the most violent storms more numerous.
The fact that it has snowed like crazy in Washington — while it has rained at the Winter Olympics in Canada, while Australia is having a record 13-year drought — is right in line with what every major study on climate change predicts: The weather will get weird; some areas will get more precipitation than ever; others will become drier than ever.
2) Historically, we know that the climate has warmed and cooled slowly, going from Ice Ages to warming periods, driven, in part, by changes in the earth’s orbit and hence the amount of sunlight different parts of the earth get. What the current debate is about is whether humans — by emitting so much carbon and thickening the greenhouse-gas blanket around the earth so that it traps more heat — are now rapidly exacerbating nature’s natural warming cycles to a degree that could lead to dangerous disruptions.
3) Those who favor taking action are saying: “Because the warming that humans are doing is irreversible and potentially catastrophic, let’s buy some insurance — by investing in renewable energy, energy efficiency and mass transit — because this insurance will also actually make us richer and more secure.” We will import less oil, invent and export more clean-tech products, send fewer dollars overseas to buy oil and, most importantly, diminish the dollars that are sustaining the worst petro-dictators in the world who indirectly fund terrorists and the schools that nurture them.
4) Even if climate change proves less catastrophic than some fear, in a world that is forecast to grow from 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion people between now and 2050, more and more of whom will live like Americans, demand for renewable energy and clean water is going to soar. It is obviously going to be the next great global industry.
Maureen Dowd is off today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17friedman.html
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Obama is incompetent. He cannot get anything done.
You don’t seem to grasp the very simple concept that we have a PRESIDENT, NOT A DICTATOR.
Republicans continue to OBSTRUCT any reform, with more filibusters in ONE YEAR than all the Southern racists used in opposing civil rights during the entire 20 years of the 1950’s and 1960’s COMBINED.
Why would anyone ever trust those Republicans who broke our economic system (and obstruct those trying to undo the damage) to fix it?
Emerald
The blog editor, con no more, would add. So interesting the cons want it both ways. They say, "Obama is a terrible socialist who is ramming his facist, socialist, communist agenda down America's throat" in one breath. In the next breath he should resign or be impeached because he is lazy and incompetent. Which argument do you want to go with my CONfused friends or aren't you folks troubled by internal inconsistency?
Republicans continue to OBSTRUCT any reform, with more filibusters in ONE YEAR than all the Southern racists used in opposing civil rights during the entire 20 years of the 1950’s and 1960’s COMBINED.
Why would anyone ever trust those Republicans who broke our economic system (and obstruct those trying to undo the damage) to fix it?
Emerald
The blog editor, con no more, would add. So interesting the cons want it both ways. They say, "Obama is a terrible socialist who is ramming his facist, socialist, communist agenda down America's throat" in one breath. In the next breath he should resign or be impeached because he is lazy and incompetent. Which argument do you want to go with my CONfused friends or aren't you folks troubled by internal inconsistency?
If you haven't watched John Coleman, you cannot criticize him
Why would anyone feel the need to actually watch an anti-science propaganda piece by someone with no science credentials?
I do not need to see every piece of propaganda by unofficial, uncredentialed sources in order to determine that, lacking credibility, I do not need to watch them.
In the same way, I doubt you watch very many of the liberal pieces but do not hesitate to discredit them.
While it is my opinion that Al Gore, who as DDWiz pointed out, is a non-scientist with a journalism degree just like Coleman, except that Gore also has a ton more additional achievements and has more credibility because he explains real science rather than arguing with it, I would never, ever cite him as an original source.
And don’t give me the baloney about all the “scientists” who disagree with the consensus view.
As has been pointed out by many in this blog, none more so than Wiz himself, the vast majority of them of them are (1) not real scientists, are (2) funded by oil companies, and (3)are not published in peer reviewed journals due to their ineptness.
If someone finds Coleman entertaining, watch him.
If not, there is absolutely no reason on earth to do so.
thanks to the wisdom of Emerald
I do not need to see every piece of propaganda by unofficial, uncredentialed sources in order to determine that, lacking credibility, I do not need to watch them.
In the same way, I doubt you watch very many of the liberal pieces but do not hesitate to discredit them.
While it is my opinion that Al Gore, who as DDWiz pointed out, is a non-scientist with a journalism degree just like Coleman, except that Gore also has a ton more additional achievements and has more credibility because he explains real science rather than arguing with it, I would never, ever cite him as an original source.
And don’t give me the baloney about all the “scientists” who disagree with the consensus view.
As has been pointed out by many in this blog, none more so than Wiz himself, the vast majority of them of them are (1) not real scientists, are (2) funded by oil companies, and (3)are not published in peer reviewed journals due to their ineptness.
If someone finds Coleman entertaining, watch him.
If not, there is absolutely no reason on earth to do so.
thanks to the wisdom of Emerald
The Republican Contract with America balanced the budget
CLINTON vs. GINGRICH -- the BALANCED BUDGET SHOWDOWN
Our CONfused friends inappropriately tries to deflect credit away from the Clinton administration that inherited recession and record deficits from Reagan/Bush and turned them into record surpluses and economic prosperity.
The model that turned things around was the Democratic model, not the so-called “Contract on America.”
Al Gore even wrote a book to describe the specifics of the Clinton proposal titled, "Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less" (1993) with a foreword by business efficiency guru Tom Peters (author of "In Search of Excellence"). It detailed specific cuts, economic stimuli, and government by targeted incentives instead of micromanagement and regulatory detail.
It was the Clinton/Gore proposal which passed in 1993, barely, without a single Republican crossover vote when the Democrats still had a majority; the Republicans, with their usual doom-and-gloom pessimism, predicted economic disaster. As usual, they got it wrong.
Again, there was a Republican alternative but that was not the one that passed.
Remember Newt Gingrich and his little tantrum, blocking passage of the Clinton budget and letting the government shut down after the Democrats lost their majority? As a result of the public outcry, rightly blaming Gingrich, he passed down and it was the Clinton Democratic proposal that actually passed, NOT Gingrinch’s “Contract On America” alternative. If “Iceman” wants to promote his ideological beliefs, fine, but rewriting history is not going to convince any intelligent person.
And what actually happened to the Republican predictions of doom and gloom and economic collapse? Every single year of Clinton's first term, budget deficits were reduced, until at the end of that term they crossed over into surpluses for the first time since it was done by -- guess who? -- LBJ and the Democratic Congress (FY 1969, passed in February 1968), despite the costs of the Apollo Moon Program.
When government operates more efficiently, it costs less, and taxes go down. When you do more with less, taxes go down. When you proactively prevent problems instead of reactively clean up the mess in their wake (the fence at the top instead of ambulances at the bottom), it costs less. When you encourage compliance with incentives rather than only through the heavy hand of punitive government force, it costs less and taxes go down. When you broaden the base of economic prosperity, there is greater productivity all around, real wealth goes up, and the tax base expands.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz
Our CONfused friends inappropriately tries to deflect credit away from the Clinton administration that inherited recession and record deficits from Reagan/Bush and turned them into record surpluses and economic prosperity.
The model that turned things around was the Democratic model, not the so-called “Contract on America.”
Al Gore even wrote a book to describe the specifics of the Clinton proposal titled, "Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less" (1993) with a foreword by business efficiency guru Tom Peters (author of "In Search of Excellence"). It detailed specific cuts, economic stimuli, and government by targeted incentives instead of micromanagement and regulatory detail.
It was the Clinton/Gore proposal which passed in 1993, barely, without a single Republican crossover vote when the Democrats still had a majority; the Republicans, with their usual doom-and-gloom pessimism, predicted economic disaster. As usual, they got it wrong.
Again, there was a Republican alternative but that was not the one that passed.
Remember Newt Gingrich and his little tantrum, blocking passage of the Clinton budget and letting the government shut down after the Democrats lost their majority? As a result of the public outcry, rightly blaming Gingrich, he passed down and it was the Clinton Democratic proposal that actually passed, NOT Gingrinch’s “Contract On America” alternative. If “Iceman” wants to promote his ideological beliefs, fine, but rewriting history is not going to convince any intelligent person.
And what actually happened to the Republican predictions of doom and gloom and economic collapse? Every single year of Clinton's first term, budget deficits were reduced, until at the end of that term they crossed over into surpluses for the first time since it was done by -- guess who? -- LBJ and the Democratic Congress (FY 1969, passed in February 1968), despite the costs of the Apollo Moon Program.
When government operates more efficiently, it costs less, and taxes go down. When you do more with less, taxes go down. When you proactively prevent problems instead of reactively clean up the mess in their wake (the fence at the top instead of ambulances at the bottom), it costs less. When you encourage compliance with incentives rather than only through the heavy hand of punitive government force, it costs less and taxes go down. When you broaden the base of economic prosperity, there is greater productivity all around, real wealth goes up, and the tax base expands.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz
Bush problems were a result of him kow towing to democrats
Tor 6 of the 8 years that Bush was in office he had a Republican Congress, got almost everything he wanted and made more "signing statements" than all other Presidents combined. In addition he had the entire AM radio frequency and a phony cable news network worshiping, praising his every move while calling those, with even mild disagreements, traitors.
It should be quite entertaining to see your vast number of examples of how Bush "kowtowed" to the Democrats.
Much to Bush's credit, he did start distancing himself from Cheney during his second term. Although it took him a while, even Bush saw the evil, the power-lusting monster that lurks in and defines the essence of Dick Cheney.
Thanks to Swift
It should be quite entertaining to see your vast number of examples of how Bush "kowtowed" to the Democrats.
Much to Bush's credit, he did start distancing himself from Cheney during his second term. Although it took him a while, even Bush saw the evil, the power-lusting monster that lurks in and defines the essence of Dick Cheney.
Thanks to Swift
Those who say Happy Holidays insult Christians and Christmas
Cons misstate the perspective of those who say, “Happy Holidays” to strangers during the period between mid-November and mid-January, when a number of holidays occur including Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, Solstice, Yule, Christmas, Kwanzaa, New Year, Epiphany and, in some years, Ramadan and/or the Feasts of Eid al-Adha and Al-Hijra.
Some of these holidays represent religious or cultural viewpoints, some are secular. But they all occur. And when you meet a stranger, not knowing their viewpoint, saying “Happy Holidays” is simply a gesture of respect to avoid judging others or imposing your choices on them.
But there is no instance in which someone finds the celebration of Christmas by those who observe it to be “offensive” as you incorrectly stated.
My own choice is to say “Happy Holidays” if I do not know the person’s preference, and to offer the appropriate greeting to them if I do. If I know someone celebrates Christmas, as I do, I will greet them with, “Merry Christmas.”
Thanks to 3D
Some of these holidays represent religious or cultural viewpoints, some are secular. But they all occur. And when you meet a stranger, not knowing their viewpoint, saying “Happy Holidays” is simply a gesture of respect to avoid judging others or imposing your choices on them.
But there is no instance in which someone finds the celebration of Christmas by those who observe it to be “offensive” as you incorrectly stated.
My own choice is to say “Happy Holidays” if I do not know the person’s preference, and to offer the appropriate greeting to them if I do. If I know someone celebrates Christmas, as I do, I will greet them with, “Merry Christmas.”
Thanks to 3D
Obama is going to let tax increase on small business by letting Bush tax cuts end
Letting tax rate changes passed by Bush expire have NO EFFECT on separate, subsequent tax cuts passed by Obama last year on those making less than $250,000, or in the current proposals which reiterate tax cuts for individuals and small businesses other than the very rich.
I can never tell whether the stench of these misrepresentations reeks of ignorance or malice, but disinfectant is in order.
Thanks to Emerald.
I can never tell whether the stench of these misrepresentations reeks of ignorance or malice, but disinfectant is in order.
Thanks to Emerald.
Obama is a socialist who hates working Americans
Sure my CONfused friends, the RepubliCON party may want him to dump progressives so he has no base left and no support in the country. But did you hear what Obama said recently on this subject?
"If the price of certainty is essentially for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression -- we don't tinker with health care, let the insurance companies do what they want, we don't put in place any insurance reforms, we don't mess with the banks, let them keep on doing what they're doing now because we don't want to stir up Wall Street -- the result is going to be the same," he said. "I don't know why we would expect a different outcome pursuing the exact same policy that got us into this fix in the first place."
Middle class Americans, Obama said, "are more and more vulnerable, and they have been for the last decade, treading water. And if our response ends up being, you know, because we don't want to -- we don't want to stir things up here, we're just going to do the same thing that was being done before, then I don't know what differentiates us from the other guys. And I don't know why people would say, boy, we really want to make sure that those Democrats are in Washington fighting for us."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/03/obama-calls-out-conservat_n_447697.html
This quote brought to us today by blogger, Ms M.
"If the price of certainty is essentially for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression -- we don't tinker with health care, let the insurance companies do what they want, we don't put in place any insurance reforms, we don't mess with the banks, let them keep on doing what they're doing now because we don't want to stir up Wall Street -- the result is going to be the same," he said. "I don't know why we would expect a different outcome pursuing the exact same policy that got us into this fix in the first place."
Middle class Americans, Obama said, "are more and more vulnerable, and they have been for the last decade, treading water. And if our response ends up being, you know, because we don't want to -- we don't want to stir things up here, we're just going to do the same thing that was being done before, then I don't know what differentiates us from the other guys. And I don't know why people would say, boy, we really want to make sure that those Democrats are in Washington fighting for us."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/03/obama-calls-out-conservat_n_447697.html
This quote brought to us today by blogger, Ms M.
Do you think San Diego weatherman John Coleman is lying or is he naive?
As I mentioned, I have shared a stage with him in the past when each of us were representing the views of our respective political parties. I found him to be gracious, likeable and an all-around nice guy.
I have a hard time thinking that he is lying and, with his lack of science credentials, it is easy for someone with just enough science background to try figure things out and think he has answers that have eluded real scientists. This is especially true with persons who, however otherwise gregarious and positive they may be, have the kind of oversized egos necessary to succeed in the kind of media field he is in.
I prefer to believe he is simply in error and, lacking any evidence to the contrary (such as outright grants or bribes from the pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS, which I have not seen in his case), prefer to believe that most people are basically decent.
Prior to 1492, those lacking science backgrounds believed for many centuries that the world was flat because those profiting off Big Religion (in both money and power) told them so, and because they could look out their front doors and it LOOKED flat, while the few educated scientists of the time were unanimous in their knowledge that the world is round and even knew its precise circumference (calculated by Eratosthenes back in 240BC). They were not “lying” or even particularly ignorant. They saw an optical illusion and did not have a grasp of the intricacies of the scientific realities that had been known for all those centuries.
This wisdom from blogger DDWiz
I have a hard time thinking that he is lying and, with his lack of science credentials, it is easy for someone with just enough science background to try figure things out and think he has answers that have eluded real scientists. This is especially true with persons who, however otherwise gregarious and positive they may be, have the kind of oversized egos necessary to succeed in the kind of media field he is in.
I prefer to believe he is simply in error and, lacking any evidence to the contrary (such as outright grants or bribes from the pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS, which I have not seen in his case), prefer to believe that most people are basically decent.
Prior to 1492, those lacking science backgrounds believed for many centuries that the world was flat because those profiting off Big Religion (in both money and power) told them so, and because they could look out their front doors and it LOOKED flat, while the few educated scientists of the time were unanimous in their knowledge that the world is round and even knew its precise circumference (calculated by Eratosthenes back in 240BC). They were not “lying” or even particularly ignorant. They saw an optical illusion and did not have a grasp of the intricacies of the scientific realities that had been known for all those centuries.
This wisdom from blogger DDWiz
Democrats in Sacramento caused California to go bankrupt
So let me see how conservative “logic” works here....
1. Republicans held the California governorship 21 out of the last 27 years....
2. During this time, Republicans have ALWAYS had enough votes to obstruct any fiscal policy by the Democrats that requires an outrageous 2/3 super majority needed to pass a state budget.
Democrats cannot pass any legislation, nor do they control the Executive branch (Arnold Schwarzenegger) that/who has all the power of appointments (judges, financial officers, bureaucratic decision-makers, contract awards), vetoes, executive orders, and all that.
So the mess is all California Democrats’ fault.
Why would anyone ever trust the Republicans who broke the system by constantly obstructing those trying to fix it?
This wisdom thanks to blogger Emerald
1. Republicans held the California governorship 21 out of the last 27 years....
2. During this time, Republicans have ALWAYS had enough votes to obstruct any fiscal policy by the Democrats that requires an outrageous 2/3 super majority needed to pass a state budget.
Democrats cannot pass any legislation, nor do they control the Executive branch (Arnold Schwarzenegger) that/who has all the power of appointments (judges, financial officers, bureaucratic decision-makers, contract awards), vetoes, executive orders, and all that.
So the mess is all California Democrats’ fault.
Why would anyone ever trust the Republicans who broke the system by constantly obstructing those trying to fix it?
This wisdom thanks to blogger Emerald
Canadian premier, Danny Williams is headed to U.S. for heart surgery
Yes, and my son and our family may be headed to Canada soon to find health care for him. You see we are among the filthy rich in America who get fine health care when they are not making tax free donations to "think" tanks that provide disingenuous information to bought and paid for AM radio con men to convince Americans not to provide health care for the sick and dying. Why? Because the filthy rich already can afford the world's best health care no matter its location, they just want to make sure they do not have to pay their fair share for other Americans to have health insurance too.
As my college graduate son formerly newspaper editor of his college newspaper slowly withers away from four autoimmune diseases for which the medicine costs to keep him alive cost our family tens of thousands of dollars, the filthy rich can feel safe from his pain and our bills. My sons condition started hitting him in his senior year of college. After doing every thing and more America asked of my son, he is left with no help when he got sick. The filthy rich can be secure in the knowledge that they will not have to pay even a penny toward any health care for him or any other sick American.
As long as the filthy rich can buy the mouth of Rush Limbaugh and Fox not News" anchors" and opinion makers, they can securely and cheaply live off the sweat of middle class and blue collar American brows. They can feel complete safety provided by American armed forces, police and firefighters but never have to pay what they owe for this safety and security to the American middle class and blue collar workers.
Our filthy rich friends will never have know when my son and many others like him finally die from treatable illnesses that the ordinary Americans can not afford. The filthy rich will not have to interrupt their non stop partying and full social calendars. All Hail the filthy rich!
The selfish class gets richer and richer. The CONfused and deceived dittoheads continue to get the shaft from the greatest liar and class traitor America has ever produced, Rush Limbaugh and the most successful propaganda machine since the Nazis, Rupert Murdock's FOX not News.
This post provided by blog editor and blogger--con no more
As my college graduate son formerly newspaper editor of his college newspaper slowly withers away from four autoimmune diseases for which the medicine costs to keep him alive cost our family tens of thousands of dollars, the filthy rich can feel safe from his pain and our bills. My sons condition started hitting him in his senior year of college. After doing every thing and more America asked of my son, he is left with no help when he got sick. The filthy rich can be secure in the knowledge that they will not have to pay even a penny toward any health care for him or any other sick American.
As long as the filthy rich can buy the mouth of Rush Limbaugh and Fox not News" anchors" and opinion makers, they can securely and cheaply live off the sweat of middle class and blue collar American brows. They can feel complete safety provided by American armed forces, police and firefighters but never have to pay what they owe for this safety and security to the American middle class and blue collar workers.
Our filthy rich friends will never have know when my son and many others like him finally die from treatable illnesses that the ordinary Americans can not afford. The filthy rich will not have to interrupt their non stop partying and full social calendars. All Hail the filthy rich!
The selfish class gets richer and richer. The CONfused and deceived dittoheads continue to get the shaft from the greatest liar and class traitor America has ever produced, Rush Limbaugh and the most successful propaganda machine since the Nazis, Rupert Murdock's FOX not News.
This post provided by blog editor and blogger--con no more
Scientist email prove they are all liars
It was from E-MAILs written by a few European scientist on one university's email system.
The email was not peer-reviewed science.
The ideas in the emails were rejected.
Oh, and NONE of the few discredited e-mails - which had no effect on the broad spectrum of scientific consensus - ever made it past peer review or had the slightest effect on the broad base of data used, most of which comes from American facilities such as NASA and NOAA which were not even involved.
But, anyway, what are cons trying to claim?
That because a few drops spill from one bucket that no bucket is capable of holding any water?
In fact, all cons do is discredit your own anti-science statements.
Any time anyone misrepresents sources, distorts facts and repeats trivial nonsense from unpublished sources that doesn’t even mean anything, they only discredit themselves.
Only the victims or perpetrators of Big Oil propaganda could hold such anti-science views.
I repeat, no matter how many times the CONfused repeat the same unverified propaganda, it does not alter the FACT that the EMAILS the CONfused quote from did NOT make it into peer-reviewed data, did NOT come from within the United States (from where the best and most data originates) and did NOT address ANY of the core scientific conclusions you are so desperate to misrepresent.
This information thanks to blogger, Emerald--North County Times-Lttrs to Ed.
The email was not peer-reviewed science.
The ideas in the emails were rejected.
Oh, and NONE of the few discredited e-mails - which had no effect on the broad spectrum of scientific consensus - ever made it past peer review or had the slightest effect on the broad base of data used, most of which comes from American facilities such as NASA and NOAA which were not even involved.
But, anyway, what are cons trying to claim?
That because a few drops spill from one bucket that no bucket is capable of holding any water?
In fact, all cons do is discredit your own anti-science statements.
Any time anyone misrepresents sources, distorts facts and repeats trivial nonsense from unpublished sources that doesn’t even mean anything, they only discredit themselves.
Only the victims or perpetrators of Big Oil propaganda could hold such anti-science views.
I repeat, no matter how many times the CONfused repeat the same unverified propaganda, it does not alter the FACT that the EMAILS the CONfused quote from did NOT make it into peer-reviewed data, did NOT come from within the United States (from where the best and most data originates) and did NOT address ANY of the core scientific conclusions you are so desperate to misrepresent.
This information thanks to blogger, Emerald--North County Times-Lttrs to Ed.
Meterologist, John Coleman, is an American hero for debunking global warming
John Coleman not only is not as an “American Hero” but he also is not a “meteorologist.” Our con friends are wrong on both counts. Coleman’s own website notes that he has a degree in JOURNALISM (not science) which he received in 1957 from the University of Illinois.
John Coleman, with whom I have shared a stage in the past, is a nice guy. Very jovial and likable. He is not a scientist. He is a TV weatherman.
In fact, all the things about Coleman could also be said of Al Gore:
Degree in journalism, not science.
Created a documentary on climate science.
Why, they could practically be twin brothers.
Well, other than Gore’s decades of actual public service (instead of just talking about it), and having won an election for presidency of the United States and that Grammy, Emmy, Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize.
And the fact that non-scientist Gore makes documentaries that explain science rather than put himself in opposition to the widespread consensus of real scientists.
So, which non-scientific journalism major do so many conservatives ridicule, and which do they call a “hero” while exaggerating his nonexistent science credentials?
Hmmmm. You don’t think those billions of dollars of propaganda from the pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS would have anything to do with that, do you?
Follow the money.
This post thanks to the wisdom of North County Times blogger, DDWiz
John Coleman, with whom I have shared a stage in the past, is a nice guy. Very jovial and likable. He is not a scientist. He is a TV weatherman.
In fact, all the things about Coleman could also be said of Al Gore:
Degree in journalism, not science.
Created a documentary on climate science.
Why, they could practically be twin brothers.
Well, other than Gore’s decades of actual public service (instead of just talking about it), and having won an election for presidency of the United States and that Grammy, Emmy, Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize.
And the fact that non-scientist Gore makes documentaries that explain science rather than put himself in opposition to the widespread consensus of real scientists.
So, which non-scientific journalism major do so many conservatives ridicule, and which do they call a “hero” while exaggerating his nonexistent science credentials?
Hmmmm. You don’t think those billions of dollars of propaganda from the pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS would have anything to do with that, do you?
Follow the money.
This post thanks to the wisdom of North County Times blogger, DDWiz
Republican hero, Everett Dirksen (R-IL) was key to getting 1964 Civil Rights bill passed, Robert Byrd, Democrat opposed it.
Again, Robert Byrd acknowledged the error of his ways, repudiated his past wrongs, and changed his ways and is today a respected member of the Democratic party.
Everett Dirksen was a LIBERAL Republican.
Today, he would be ridiculed as a RINO and forced, like so many others of his contemporaries, to quit the party he would no longer recognize and become a Democrat.
Democrats applaud the liberal Republicans of the past such as Lincoln, trust-buster Teddy Roosevelt and Everett Dirksen and, in some areas, Eisenhower. None of these heroes would be welcome in the tea party of today.
Shall we start a list of those Southern Democrats who followed the lead of Strom Thurmond and quit the Democratic Party on the issue of race and race alone, to be welcomed into the warm embrace of racist Republicans.
Do you really not know this?
Everett Dirksen was a LIBERAL Republican.
Today, he would be ridiculed as a RINO and forced, like so many others of his contemporaries, to quit the party he would no longer recognize and become a Democrat.
Democrats applaud the liberal Republicans of the past such as Lincoln, trust-buster Teddy Roosevelt and Everett Dirksen and, in some areas, Eisenhower. None of these heroes would be welcome in the tea party of today.
Shall we start a list of those Southern Democrats who followed the lead of Strom Thurmond and quit the Democratic Party on the issue of race and race alone, to be welcomed into the warm embrace of racist Republicans.
Do you really not know this?
I know it was the Democrats that were segregationists, Rush told me so.
Anyone knowledgeable about American history knows that SOUTHERN Democrats, out of step with their party, opposed Civil Rights during the 1950’s and the first half of the 1960’s.
Rush knows this fact very well. He is counting on being able to fool folks without any contradiction. With no fairness doctrine, he can say anything he wants. No one is allowed on his radio stations after his shows to set the record straight. Rush is not only a hired gun liar but he is a coward. He won't allow stations to broadcast any criticism or corrections of his lies (Randy Rhodes radio personality from Florida revealed that fact in 2005).
Further more, after LBJ signed the Civil Rights bill that finally passed in 1964, he lamented that he had lost the South for the Democrats for generations.
Those Democrats either retired, repented (as Byrd, who repeatedly acknowledged his error and apologized) or, like most, including Strom Thurmond, changed parties to REPUBLICAN.
Democrats say GOOD RIDDANCE to the RACISTS that were embraced with open arms by Republicans.
Rush knows this fact very well. He is counting on being able to fool folks without any contradiction. With no fairness doctrine, he can say anything he wants. No one is allowed on his radio stations after his shows to set the record straight. Rush is not only a hired gun liar but he is a coward. He won't allow stations to broadcast any criticism or corrections of his lies (Randy Rhodes radio personality from Florida revealed that fact in 2005).
Further more, after LBJ signed the Civil Rights bill that finally passed in 1964, he lamented that he had lost the South for the Democrats for generations.
Those Democrats either retired, repented (as Byrd, who repeatedly acknowledged his error and apologized) or, like most, including Strom Thurmond, changed parties to REPUBLICAN.
Democrats say GOOD RIDDANCE to the RACISTS that were embraced with open arms by Republicans.
Why doesn't CSPAN televise filibusters? Is it because they do not like Republicans?
The filisbuster has changed.
It used to be that, to filibuster, one or more senators would actually have to hold the floor.
Today, they merely invoke filibuster but do not actually give lengthy speeches.
I would support a return to the old protocol in which, if ya wanna filibuster, hold the floor, give speeches, read from the phone book, whatever, and see if we can outlast ya.
Democrats should demand that Republicans actually do this.
If Republican senators (the former Sourthern racists) actually had to do this, we would see far fewer filibusters carried through to completion
.
The failure of Democrats to demand this is a legitimate instance in which Democrats are rightly criticized for being “spineless.”
It used to be that, to filibuster, one or more senators would actually have to hold the floor.
Today, they merely invoke filibuster but do not actually give lengthy speeches.
I would support a return to the old protocol in which, if ya wanna filibuster, hold the floor, give speeches, read from the phone book, whatever, and see if we can outlast ya.
Democrats should demand that Republicans actually do this.
If Republican senators (the former Sourthern racists) actually had to do this, we would see far fewer filibusters carried through to completion
.
The failure of Democrats to demand this is a legitimate instance in which Democrats are rightly criticized for being “spineless.”
Segregations were all democrats, that is where the racism is
It's no secret that the New Deal depended upon segregationist Democrats. Eleanor tried to push Franklin toward working on civil rights issues. Franklin had to explain to her that he could not achieve his economic policies without the help of segregationist democrats who opposed civil rights.
I think Democrats have been much more honest about unsavory aspects of their past than the republicans. democrats don't deny distasteful aspects of their past--Hugo Black, Harry Truman, and Robert Byrd all admitted to their brief fling with the KKK, and expressed their profound regret and sadness for having been affiliated with it.
I don't read many republicans indicating much embarrassment over Nixon's southern strategy, which openly played upon the anger of white democrats who opposed the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. and it succeeded.
Just look at former Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott: a few years ago, right at the beginning of the 21st century, he remarked at Strom Shurmond's 100th birthday party that the country would have been better off if it had followed Mississippi's lead and voted for Thurmond for president in 1948. Thurmond's main campaign plank, and the platform for Dixiecrats in general, was segregation.
So as recently as a couple of years ago the Republican Majority Leader of the United States Senate espoused segregation.
I'm happy that the segregationists have left the democratic party. The republicans are welcome to them.
I think Democrats have been much more honest about unsavory aspects of their past than the republicans. democrats don't deny distasteful aspects of their past--Hugo Black, Harry Truman, and Robert Byrd all admitted to their brief fling with the KKK, and expressed their profound regret and sadness for having been affiliated with it.
I don't read many republicans indicating much embarrassment over Nixon's southern strategy, which openly played upon the anger of white democrats who opposed the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. and it succeeded.
Just look at former Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott: a few years ago, right at the beginning of the 21st century, he remarked at Strom Shurmond's 100th birthday party that the country would have been better off if it had followed Mississippi's lead and voted for Thurmond for president in 1948. Thurmond's main campaign plank, and the platform for Dixiecrats in general, was segregation.
So as recently as a couple of years ago the Republican Majority Leader of the United States Senate espoused segregation.
I'm happy that the segregationists have left the democratic party. The republicans are welcome to them.
Obama and big government caused the Recession
The AM radio con men and FOX not News try to convince the gullible that Obama, the Democrats and their Washington incompetence led to the economic crash and the ill-conceived bank bailout. The bought and paid for con men want to convince the public that it was government regulation that caused the problems. But those with memories understand that they are just pushing propaganda that their corporate CEO masters tell them to.
The truth is just the opposite of what the bank CEOs and their lack lackeys are trying to shovel down our throats.
Deregulation (as in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999) gave us credit default swaps and banks treating your money like a chronic gambler on a Las Vegas bender.
Republican economic policies gave us tax cuts for billionaires, 15 percent unemployment and took us from Clinton's $400 billion surplus to a $1.3 trillion deficit in only eight year.
The bank bailout was fully under way during the Bush administration. It was RepuliCON members of the Bush administration who demanded the bailouts be hurriedly passed overnight or the whole financial infrastructure would come down. When rationals said hey wait, aren't we paying too much for assets now worth pennies on the dollar? But the Bushies said no we have to pay 100% of the phony marked up value for what turned out to be almost worthless assets of Goldman Sachs.
Was that government incompetence or worse? Yes, but Bush controlled the executive branch of the government that planned the bailouts. Con men completely controlled the news cycle in America then as now with 'stories' from fact free FOX not News and the AM radio con men driving each news cycle.
The great national debt came as a result of the Bush tax cuts, the two wars fought on credit, and the huge medicare prescription drug program that was not paid for. Who was in charge of Congress when those decisions were made? Boehner, McConnell, Cantor and the other GOP leaders were in charge at the time. They took us to the brink of the next Great Depression, and you're going to trust them on economic policy again?
Obama plays golf more than Bush did
The Liar Limbaugh has recently used this slight of hand propaganda talking point: President Obama has played more golf than Dubya did while in office.
What Limbaugh didn't mention were Bush's 77 trips to the "ranch" in Crawford — about 30 percent of Bush's time in office — at a cost to the taxpayers of a whopping $226,072 each!
Obama plays golf Sunday afternoons and stays in D.C to work, where he belongs.
How much does a Sunday afternoon round of golf cost?
The goals of the Liar Limbaugh are to (1) imply that Obama is lazy. (Wonderful racism there, you know them blacks they so damn lazy.)(2) indicate that the mentally incompetent and easily distracted W was not so bad after all. (3) Knowing that the public will not buy number (2) try to make the public think that Obama is at least as incompetent, distracted and just plain worthless as Bush was.
What Limbaugh didn't mention were Bush's 77 trips to the "ranch" in Crawford — about 30 percent of Bush's time in office — at a cost to the taxpayers of a whopping $226,072 each!
Obama plays golf Sunday afternoons and stays in D.C to work, where he belongs.
How much does a Sunday afternoon round of golf cost?
The goals of the Liar Limbaugh are to (1) imply that Obama is lazy. (Wonderful racism there, you know them blacks they so damn lazy.)(2) indicate that the mentally incompetent and easily distracted W was not so bad after all. (3) Knowing that the public will not buy number (2) try to make the public think that Obama is at least as incompetent, distracted and just plain worthless as Bush was.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Milton Saier, liberal icon, wants to impose abortion on the poor
If someone has to base their entire premise on a lie, then it shows that even they know their position is groundless.
He accuses Professor Milton Saier of writing a letter that “suggests we impose birth control or abortions” on poor people. Since I read these letters every day, and I have read letters by Milton Saier, and could not remember any suggestion of mandating abortion or birth control, I went back and checked the letter Polito is referring to. The letter suggests PROVIDING birth control and abortion services - making them AVAILABLE to women - not requiring or mandating or forcibly “imposing” these options on anyone.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/letters/article_19a67997-5020-50b2-82eb-a2dbdad2791c.html
Similarly, I would agree with Prof. Saier that such services should be AVAILABLE, but I would never suggest that government impose decisions onto women that should be left to individual, personal choice.
Those who have to lie about their sources, or misrepresent those they purport to be responding to, admit that they are not able to respond to what the person actually said.
In other words, they have conceded the actual point.
He accuses Professor Milton Saier of writing a letter that “suggests we impose birth control or abortions” on poor people. Since I read these letters every day, and I have read letters by Milton Saier, and could not remember any suggestion of mandating abortion or birth control, I went back and checked the letter Polito is referring to. The letter suggests PROVIDING birth control and abortion services - making them AVAILABLE to women - not requiring or mandating or forcibly “imposing” these options on anyone.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/letters/article_19a67997-5020-50b2-82eb-a2dbdad2791c.html
Similarly, I would agree with Prof. Saier that such services should be AVAILABLE, but I would never suggest that government impose decisions onto women that should be left to individual, personal choice.
Those who have to lie about their sources, or misrepresent those they purport to be responding to, admit that they are not able to respond to what the person actually said.
In other words, they have conceded the actual point.
The majority of voters were against healthcare reform
In objective polls, almost 70% of Americans support health care with a strong public option and many other specific reforms.
The reason there was widespread opposition to the Democratic bill is that it was so watered down, no public option, and was larded with many gifts to special interests in the Healthcare and Pharmaceutical industries.
Even Democrats like myself who supported it did so holding our noses at the many weaknesses, because we felt it was at least a small step in the right direction and at least better than what we have now, and the imperfections could be addressed little by little down the line.
The reason there was widespread opposition to the Democratic bill is that it was so watered down, no public option, and was larded with many gifts to special interests in the Healthcare and Pharmaceutical industries.
Even Democrats like myself who supported it did so holding our noses at the many weaknesses, because we felt it was at least a small step in the right direction and at least better than what we have now, and the imperfections could be addressed little by little down the line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
