Shock: The Dems New War On Your Security
NRO: I am reliably informed that House Democrats are attempting, under the radar screen, to strip the King Amendment from the legislation based on an alleged technical violation of Byzantine House rules.
Washington Times: Democrats want ‘John Doe’ provision cut
By Audrey Hudson
July 19, 2007
Democrats are trying to pull a provision from a homeland security bill that will protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leadership aides.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
[…] Shock: The Dems New War On Your Security July 19th, 2007 — budsimmons Shock: The Dems New War On Your Security […]
July 19th, 2007 at 8:29 amfigures…liberals..they make me more and more mad everyday!
July 19th, 2007 at 8:33 amFine! If I can’t report the terrorists to the proper authority without getting sued….I’ll just take care of them myself whenever I see one!
The 3 S’s(shoot-it…shovel-it…shut-up)
July 19th, 2007 at 8:49 amNo surprise here. The dems have been looking everywhere for votes. I believe Hilary Clinton is attempting to make sure all federal prisoners have the opportunity to vote as well. This is just par for the course.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:53 amShit, when will it ever end. These idiots get dumber by the day.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:56 amYeah, democrats want all americans dead. Great analysis guys! Man, this site really is the worst for fear mongering.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:57 amTake it easy, the dems have to let AlQ know they’re still work’in for ‘em, after losing the vote after their ‘Sleep-Over For Peace’ thing went down in failure.
If AlQ weren’t so busy having their asses beat they’d release another cave video to remind the dems who was there for them last Nov.!
July 19th, 2007 at 9:02 amLike hell the flying imams don’t understand…they understand all too well the implications of stripping this provision out of the legislation.
And you know what, even if the Democratic Friends of Islam get this taken out, it won’t shut me up, guarantee you that. I’m not so sure it will shut any other John Doe up either……let ‘em sue me. It will be easier to get blood out of a rock.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:06 amJackM, this site is not trying to strip the bill, the democrats are. Point the finger in the right direction, all the while remembering that three other fingers are pointing right back at yourself.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:08 amHow come no one seems to be able to name names of who is on this conference committee? How do we find out?
July 19th, 2007 at 9:08 amKathyM, you missed my point entirely.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:13 amJackM–Feel free to respond to my comment!
July 19th, 2007 at 10:08 amJack M you’re a complete idiot with the mind of a 5 year old if you think the point was that Democrats want everyone dead. The point is that their blind powerlust pushes them to take irresponsible chances with our security, and worse, in order to appease potential voting blocs.
If you’re going to think like a 5 year old, may I recommend Disney.com.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:10 amAnd as for fearmongering, there is a difference between pointing out clear and established threats, and inventing them for political gain and literal profit, like the notion that New York is going to be underwater in a decade. Which I’m sure you subscribe to.
Again, go to Diseny.com and get yourself some nice floaties.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:14 amIf they’re going to do that, they might as well remove the 911 functionality from phones as well. Don’t want to report anything suspicious to the proper authorities, you know…
Fuck that shit. I’ll shoot the fuckers myself then.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:35 amRaw Dawg:
you need to look up sarcasm in the dictionary, sir. And be more respectful in your posts…I did not insult you and expect the same courtesy extended. “Clear and established threats,” huh? Like Iraq and Saddam Hussein? I was all for going into Afghanistan and hunting Al Qaida to the ends of the earth. What’s more, I am all for going after homegrown threats here in America. These are clear and established threats, sir.
As for New York being underwater, I have no idea what you’re talking about–I do think climate change is real, as over 90% of the scientific community does. If you think differently than what science tells us, fine–show me your evidence to contradict all the research done in this area…who’s the 5 yr old, now?
July 19th, 2007 at 10:40 amInfidel: I have no idea what you’re getting at…right now, the GOP is joining the democrats in their plans for redeploying our troops in to different areas of Iraq and out of Baghdad, ie out of a civil war. To say that dems support AlQ is the worst kind of BS rhetoric. Truly it does not deserve a response.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:43 amThe DEMs can not be trusted with the security of the US, following Clintons security failings that caused 9/11, to the Dems desire for an AQ win in Iraq to their continual weakening of domestic security (the wall that they put up between the CIA and FBI and the above, a desire to hand all the advantages to terrorist regarding airline security). Pathetic.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:54 amI have no idea what you’re getting at…right now, the GOP is joining the democrats in their plans for redeploying our troops in to different areas of Iraq and out of Baghdad, ie out of a civil war.
This is BS on many levels. First, if the GOP was joining the Dems how do you explain the defeat of every attempt of the Dem congress to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and hand AQ a win in Iraq (just like Clinton dd in Somalia). Second, there is no civil war in Iraq. A recent ORB poll found that a mere 20 % of Iraqis felt that there was a civil war, that Iraqis in Iraq, not Dems in the beltway.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:56 amJackM. If it will make you feel better, here’s a post just for you.
OK everyone on Pat’s website: You are all mongers of fear! I fear your mongering of fear will spread fear mongering. It’s time to tell the truth and unmonger what has been mongered! Namely- Fear. We have nothing to fear and not even fear itself, so, consequently, nothing to monger. Why?
Because there is no Global War on Terror. If John Edwards says it (xoxoxoxo), then you can take that to the bank that he’s probably sued and bankrupted. But don’t fear or monger! All the gunfire you see on TV news? Why that’s just cowardly US Infantry shooting innocent civilians. This is a war designed to make Bush’s poll numbers go up and seize oil, remember?
Now, JackM.(Jack Monger?), we must start the mongering of fear where fear does exist, namely, Global Warming. Now, although Global Warming and Global War on Terror sound similar, Global Warming is different. Now, I don’t want to monger in fear, but basically in 10 years,
WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!! WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE, HORRIBLE WET DROWNING DEATHS BECAUSE TEMPERATURES WILL GO UP A MASSIVE, WHOPPING, HUGE, GIGANTIC…. 2 DEGREES!!!!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GURGLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
VOTE FOR JOHNNY ‘TOY BOY’ EDWARDS BECAUSE HE AND HIS $400 CARBON FOOTPRINT HAIRCUT WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE… LIKE LEO SAVED KATE WINSLETS LIFE IN ‘TITANIC’(sigh…).
So, all you redneck, beer drinkin, truck drivin, gun shootin, yeehawin Pat Dollard Red Stater’s with only 4th grade edumacations, what have we learned from the wit and wisdom of Jack ‘Mongering for all mongers of fear’ M., is this…
-1. There is no such thing as a Global War on Terror. Everybody right now, hit the backspace key until you reach the ‘r’ in ‘War’ and type in ‘ming’. Be afraid of that and not the fake dead Americans from 9/11 and before and after from fake terrorist bombings. I’m on the hunt for the faux dead, but amazingly, I’m unable to find a single person who is fake dead and will tell there fake tale.
-2. WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE IN 10 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-3. Everybody, it isn’t politically correct and not nice that your all sharing a different opinion with JackM. You’re all bordering on hate speech and when Comrade Clinton takes over, you will all be jailed, along with the Republican party, so the First Amendment can be properly protected.
And there you have it JackM. I hope this has made you ‘feel’ better. Because without you, I never, ever, would have figured out that the Democrats don’t want all Americans. They just want power and are willing to put all Americans lives at risk. Your right, it’s different than wanting us dead. I see it clearly. Thanks for your contribution JackM.
Thank you for seeing it JackM’s way.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:58 amJack M -
Nice how you whine like a little bitch about being insulted, then protest your higher ethical conduct about not extending insults and renouncing them, and then reveal your true lying self by signing off with an insult - “who’s the 5 year old now”.
I hope you are merely pretending to be stupid in some reverse tactic in the service of your rhetoric. Again, if you think my point was to disavow the resonable possibility of global warming ( and no none is certain of it’s constancy - it could diminish almost immediately, and the amount at which it has even thus far warmed is negligible ) than you are either stupid or a liar. My point spoke for itself, and its tedious to have to repeat it: Global Warming as a primarily man-made and man-curable phenemenon is being used by the left as a lever to achieve a variety of political ends, and by certain, particularly “star”, individuals for personal financial gain. The left has embraced Global Warming and their use of it is true fearmongering, whereas the Right’s common-sense acknowledgement of the self-avowed and easily threat of global jihad is not a campaing of ‘fearmongering”. That’s pure leftist propaganda. You claim not to be a leftist, but you spout leftist propaganda. Claiming not to be a leftist is usually the first sign of leftists on websites - they make that claim in order to gain a sympathetic ear. The proof is in the pudding. Your pretense that I was arguing against ANY Global Warming is a display of your disingenousness - it was an attempt to deflect from the point laid out above, now twice made.
And as for the clear and definable threats, I was addressing the topic of the post. You chose to defend the Dems position on the legislation, although I am sure now you will try to deny that. Oh that’s right, you already did, by saying you were being sarcastic. You were defending the Dems and its quite clear. You’re just like the Muslim congressman who said Bush perpetrated 9-11, on tape, and then denied it.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:13 amdeathstar:
Not a civil war? What do you call it when two factions of the same country are killing eachother? As for your ORB poll source, I need more info or the link, etc.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:14 am“To say that dems support AlQ is the worst kind of BS rhetoric.” JackM, who reports and exagerates every bomb that blows up in Iraq and tries to make US efforts look hopeless every dang day?? Who is ready to condemn the troops on any flimsy charge of a terroist operative?? Who said, “The War Is LOST”. Harry “Poopy Pants” Reid, that’s who.
Don’t tell me about the worst kind of BS and rhetoric, Sir.
Just because someone can cleverly tangle them up in it. It’s pretty easy.
You’re NOT honest when you play dumb, JackM.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:17 amRaw Dawg:
Wow, am I addressing Sean Hannity? So, do you think global warming is a problem, or not? I think it is a problem, and I would like to see something done about it. As for your point that dems are using this for political gain, I’d say, “Duh!” They seem to be the only ones concerned about the issue, of course they are going to gain from it politically…I do not agree with you that they are making people afraid of it. That’s my opinion, you are free to disagree. And, could you clarify who financially benefits from going after the issue of globabl warming?
When I think of fear mongering I think of how we got into Iraq in the first place…images of “mushroom clouds” and my whole family killed by terrorists, for instance. Sound familiar? This is fear mongering. What’s more, there is clear financial gain to be made from war…especially when the pentagon is outsourcing for everything (laundry, food service, etc.) Do you at least agree with this last point?
July 19th, 2007 at 11:27 amInfidel: if you choose to believe the war in Iraq is not going poorly, that is your perogative. The fact that violence is worse now than in the past is indicative that efforts may not be going especially well–this is not exaggeration, it does not require exaggeration to come to the conclusion that Iraq is a quagmire.
All the points you brought up are not especially relevant. The take home point is that the country wants us out, it elected the dems into office in 2006 to get us out. They are failing the people just as the previous Congress.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:35 amUhhhh…. JackM?
I don’t have a 5 year old, but this HIGH SCHOOLER, Kristen, but her first paragraph in her Global Warming debunking site,http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaundercf/id12.html
is this:
“I will demonstrate that the Earth’s warming climate is a result of natural variance and that man made changes in the warming climate in the last 40 years are negligible at best. I will insert pieces of the puzzle from new scientific studies that were not available or were ignored in previous global warming studies.
I add a possible piece of the puzzle, nuclear weapons testing in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, that may have made a small contribution to cooling at that time.
After reviewing numerous scientific studies and observing data, it is clear that the theory that “man made increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are causing global warming” is not likely.
I will demonstrate that a negative trend in the El Nino Southern Oscillation (more and stronger La Ninas) from 1945 to 1975 and a postive trend in the ENSO from 1975 to present (more and stronger El Ninos) correlates better with global temperature changes than greenhouse theory. Thus, ENSO is probably the largest contributor to global warming in the past 30 years.
The economic and political climate surrounding this issue has made it nearly impossible for scientists and researchers to objectively view the mountain of recent data.
While I will use much of the available and updated scientific data, I will also interject common sense, something that is seriously lacking in the debate on this issue. For instance, you might notice my use of the one ten-thousandth figure. Were you aware that the total man made CO2 increase in the atmosphere over the last 150 years is just that, one ten-thousandth of total atmosphere?”
Her entire study is online. Read it. Just because scientists said so, doesn’t mean it is so. Like blood-letting from leaches 200 years ago. Scientists wouldn’t lie to you right? Just follow the money, who is paying them?
Nobody’s paying this girl…
July 19th, 2007 at 11:38 ambd:
Yeah, I’m sure her “report” is accurate. Kristen clearly has more intelligence than nobel laureates and climatologists. Your remark that these people are led by greed is incredibly insulting–the great thing about science is that you can dissect the research, look for flaws in methodology, results and conclusions. Science is transparent–if something is wrong and irreproducible, it will be discovered. Those that falsify their research are inevitably caught.
PS You should also be aware that medical practices 200 years ago did not follow the scientific method, the point is erroneous.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:47 amHere, for all you fear mongers on “global warming”, here’s a great place to relieve yourself of some ignorance:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71
July 19th, 2007 at 11:48 amHey bd, that’s MRS. monger to you….
July 19th, 2007 at 11:58 ambd:
It is also interesting that your friend Kristen set out to debunk global warming…this is a problem. This allows an individual to cherry-pick data and skew it to whatever conclusion they want.
My guess is that you do not know a lot of scientists and are unfamiliar with how one gets a scientific grant–most people do not, so that’s fine. Let me tell you, that if one is subjective in his/her science and allows political and economic pressures to “fudge” some numbers or interpretations, that person will have several problems. One, they will be out on their ass-you falsify data, you will get found out and you will be fired. Two, you will not ever be able to erase the black mark and your resume and will be unable to get a research grant in the future. Finally, the scientific community in any given area is not very big–your reputation will be destroyed.
Please do not question an entire area of research and the integrity of those carrying out the research just b/c you do not agree with the conclusions.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:03 pmInfidel: if you choose to believe the war in Iraq is not going poorly, that is your perogative. The fact that violence is worse now than in the past is indicative that efforts may not be going especially well–this is not exaggeration, it does not require exaggeration to come to the conclusion that Iraq is a quagmire.
JackM, if your hypothesis is correct how do you explain that sectarian violence in Iraq in June was at the lowest level for a year. Talk about an inconviniant truth!
July 19th, 2007 at 12:04 pmLamplighter:
Your list does not change the fact that over 90% of those in that area of research accept global warming as a scientific fact. That’s a large majority of experts, don’t you think?
July 19th, 2007 at 12:05 pmJackM.
The point is that you are so willing to ’see’ right-wing conspiracies of anti-global warming, but you won’t allow yourself the point that maybe, just maybe, John Edwards, Kerry, Hillary Clinton and yes scientists too could ever possibly be fudging numbers and lying for their own gain.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:05 pmNot a civil war? What do you call it when two factions of the same country are killing eachother?
When its only in a small part of the country and is not very intense its not civil war.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:10 pmJack M-
So 90% of the “Scientific community” believes Global Warming is manmade and can be fixed by man? And they agree that the specific policies so far embraced by Gore and the Dems should be instituted?
Prove it. First prove your “90%” claim, and then the second.
And, to be fair, I’d like to see you give a similar report on the notable scientists who disagree with both of those positions. I’m sure you’d want to do that since you’re not a propagandist and all.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:12 pmJack M is another mindless libturd. Global Warming is a crock. And I don’t need your B.S stats. Why don’t you go hang out at the Daily Kos or something dumbass.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:18 pmJackM: if you would look at the materials I referenced, which would take quite a bit of time, you would see that, for instance, the man who “invented” global warming 20-30 years ago, Dr. Allegre, is not convinced it’s man made. Solar flares seem to explain most of it. Up until 20 years ago, from approx. 1940-79, we were in fear of a “new ice age.” So…the hysteria goes on. As for the experts, I think for myself. There are plenty of smart scientists with whom I proudly stand in skepticism of man made global warming and the need for prompt, hysterial reaction. After all, isn’t global pollution a greater threat to our well being????? And isn’t a dirty bomb an even greater threat? Let’s have some perspective here. Also, I might add: whose ox is getting “Gored”? Those 90% of scientists to whom you refer DEPEND on continued and increasing GOVERNMENT FUNDING for their livlihoods!!!
July 19th, 2007 at 12:21 pmDan, you’re a gentleman and a scholar.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:24 pmbd:
I’ll start off with your last point: I think all politicians are crooked bastards that have been bought and paid for on both sides of the aisle. But, that does not exclude them from doing some good every once in awhile.
Scientists have been caught fudging numbers and lying…but the way scientific discourse is modeled makes it difficult to impossible to getting away with it forever. For example, the first thing a scientist does to build off another’s work is to reproduce his results. When other labs cannot reproduce someone’s results, questions pop up and you then make inquiries into whatever journal published the work.
It’s important to note that scientific journals have their own review systems in place to check the validity of a study. These studies are reviewed by other scientists–so there are multiple checks to make sure that the work that is being submitted is legitimate and important.
I never said there is a right-wing conspiracy, either. Please explain.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:31 pmWow. It’s gettin’ hot in here!
C’mon… Jack is an obvious wandering sheep or a liberal troll. Regardless, I do not care or am I swayed by any of his BS. His words attempt to deny the purpose of our mission in the world. He thinks he can make a few posts from his tiny “cube” of the world and stir the shit and get blood boiling. The, he has done his daily duty, while he sits back in awe of his own “brilliance.”
I do find it interesting that such people spend time in political disputes on the internet in an attempt to feel significant. The irony is… people like this will always be insignificant… cowaring behind the brave, while talking chit. It makes me laugh. Much like pointing and laughing at the fat kid inhale his potato chips at lunch, half in pitty for his ignorance of what he doing to himself… half is plain old humor of the spectacle. Thanks for the entertainment.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:32 pmMy point exactly, Lamplighter, though better said.
Well done.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:34 pmLamplighter:
Well-stated. I do concede that in areas where I know very little, I tend to rely on what most experts agree on…this is not specific to just science, either. Many people like to do “armchair science,” which I completely disagree with. One cannot test a hypothesis by sitting around and thinking about it…one must conduct experiments and rely on observation.
I disagree vehemently with your last statement, I addressed this issue in my posts to bd. If you are unfamiliar with how research grants are obtained and the dangers of falsifying research, feel free to read them.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:36 pm“My guess is that you do not know a lot of scientists and are unfamiliar with how one gets a scientific grant–most people do not, so that’s fine. Let me tell you, that if one is subjective in his/her science and allows political and economic pressures to “fudge” some numbers or interpretations, that person will have several problems. One, they will be out on their ass-you falsify data, you will get found out and you will be fired. Two, you will not ever be able to erase the black mark and your resume and will be unable to get a research grant in the future. Finally, the scientific community in any given area is not very big–your reputation will be destroyed.”
I’m glad Pat puts stuff up like this so we can see how stupid and at best naive these leftists are. Yeah, Jack, the world is orderly and neat and perfect, and scientists never never build entire careers on giving reports that they know will advance their fame, relationships and influence. And they never, ever get away with it for long. History contradicts you and you are tragically naive. You have an acadmenic’s unrealistic view of the world, because academics don’t traffic in the real world. You’d have us all believe that the “scientific community” has somehow formed itself into a an ultimately perfecrt system of checks and balances unlike the rest of the world. You believe this, because you exist in the world of concepts, instead of the world.
And more importantly, as far as Global Warming goes, the allgeged “conclusions” of the alleged scientists you cite are speculative conclusions, not definitive ones. They are not telling us that a glass that falls from a table onto concrete will shatter. They are self-admittedly only speculating as to what might happen. You would have us believe in reading tea leaves if you’d have us believe that anyone can tell us what the weather is going to be decades from now. Ironic that you rely on very unscientific means to argue for science. And you conveniently ignore all the Scientists who disagree with your unsubstantiated “90%”. They are all speculating on both sides of the aisle. Any claim to the contrary is a petulant pretense. Grow up. Or at least wise up.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:37 pmScoutOut:
I never said what you claim. All I am stating is that there is a vast majority of climatologists that have concluded global warming is a real phenomenon. The statistic is from the National Academy of Sciences.
As for producing a rebuttal, I am certain you can find this yourself. However, there is a noted MIT professor who does not accept global warming. I’m sure you can Google this.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:40 pmJackM….Global Warming is from the millions like you that spew Hot Air on a daily basis…
July 19th, 2007 at 12:47 pmNow let’s get back to the subject at hand…There are a lot of people on this Earth that need killin’..Let’s start with these Jihad motherf****rs!!!!
Well, Jack, if you don’t believe that global warming is man made and can be cured by man, then what is your point?
Why don’t you believe that Global Warming is man made and can be cured by man?
July 19th, 2007 at 12:48 pmJack M:
That’s right Jackass. And you are a moron and a liberal twit. You should go elsewhere, unless you want people here to continue to shit on you and your fucked up libtard views.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pmScoutout:
Take shots all you want…I am very familiar with the process of scientific research. I thought you might take something away from my knowledge, instead you attack the messenger. I don’t know what your area is in, but rest assured I would show more respect to you if you were simply trying to pass on knowledge.
Also, you show your own ignorance in saying “speculative conclusions.” They base conclusions on observations. In the case of global warming, scientists must rely on statistics and models. There are weaknesses in every model, and these weaknesses are addressed.
I don’t know where you get off calling me naive or stupid. If anything I am a cynic. In your last post you continually put words in my mouth and draw conclusions based on your own bias against science. If you want to have a discussion, let’s have a discussion–if you have questions about my sources or knowledge, fine.
Finally, I don’t know what you mean by, “history contradicts me.” If you knew anything about science you would know that charlottans (sp?) get discovered and the truth, at some point, bears out.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:50 pmLadyAngler–well stated. It must be easy to be you. You can pin-poiint people without ever knowing them…it must save you a lot of time.
I can see that you do not like discourse or discussion. You clearly know what the right thing is all the time. Congratulations.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:56 pmJackM.,
Here’s what we see that is different from what you see:
Global Warming is a tool used to instill fear and get people to vote Democrat. Global Warming hasn’t killed anyone. Yes, you could debate that, but that’s the point, it debatable.
Terrorist have killed. That’s not debatable. They killed American civilians before 9/11. Now, finally we’re doing something about it. Honestly, doesn’t stripping the King Amendment scare you a little?
July 19th, 2007 at 12:57 pmAll I am stating is that there is a vast majority of climatologists that have concluded global warming is a real phenomenon. The statistic is from the National Academy of Sciences.
A gallup poll of scientists activly involved showed that the majority do not believe in global warming. Another inconviniant truth!!!
July 19th, 2007 at 1:00 pm“My guess is that you do not know a lot of scientists and are unfamiliar with how one gets a scientific grant–most people do not, so that’s fine. Let me tell you, that if one is subjective in his/her science and allows political and economic pressures to “fudge” some numbers or interpretations, that person will have several problems. One, they will be out on their ass-you falsify data, you will get found out and you will be fired. Two, you will not ever be able to erase the black mark and your resume and will be unable to get a research grant in the future. Finally, the scientific community in any given area is not very big–your reputation will be destroyed.”
Total BS.
Science is as corrupt as every other human endeavor.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:02 pmI am completely familiar with how grants are applied for and obtained, and the scientific method. However, if there is a political charade that appropriates more money to “study global warming” as opposed to “intelligence collection” as a national security issue(such as occurred in the latest appropriations for the CIA/DoD), that is a problem. So, the money pot gets bigger for the “study of global warming” at the universities, no specific findings needed. The materials I cited covered the issue of political correctness in science–so those voicing skepticism in certain academic circles are ridiculed or worse–fired.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:30 pmJack M
Answer my last question.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:33 pmRight and wrong are generally black or white. It is people’s personal agendas that tend to grey the lines. I, however, was given the gift of smelling bullshit from great distances, even the distance between you and I.
I am what they call a “no nonsense woman.” I do not wish to engage is a discussion with anyone who will argue the same tired, old invalid points. I simply do not have the energry to redirect you or herd cats for that matter. Have a nice day.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:33 pmJack M:
We’re already familiar with the psudoscience of Global Warming. If we want your views we could go watch Heidi Cullen or Al Gore.
No science is settled. Polls mean nothing. I’ve seen and continue to see a long list of scientists who dispute global warming as caused by man.
Finally, any scientist that is unable to critically think things through, rather than “conforming” to a particular pov, is no longer worth my time.
Global warming is much to do about nothing. Even the planets in our solar system are slightly warming. So did man cause Venus to warm up? Hell no. It’s the sun that is doing the warming.
We have all read the data. We have our own conclusions. Unlike some scientists, we walk in lock-step to no one.
We think for ourselves…
One of the fun parts of being an adult is we can smell Bullshit a mile away. Al Gore, Heidi Cullen, et al…are bullshitters from the word go.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:47 pmJackM Shut the fuck up already!
Clearly nobody likes you or agrees with you.
Preach your bullshit to someone who hasen’t heard it from the media day after day.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:04 pmdeathstar:
I don’t know why you would say “science is corrupt as every other human endeavor.” Where do you get this…are you familiar with certain areas/scientists. For my money, I would trust a scientist long before a politician or lawyer.
As I stated earlier, with science, the truth will out. Sometimes it takes time, but it eventually gets figured out. Something like, how a neuron fires or how a muscle contracts. There were all sorts of theories as to how it happens–eventually truth was found. My point is that is does a scientist little good to falsify his results or conclusions. It will get found out eventually.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:06 pmIt does a scientist little good to falsify his results or conclusions…
Except if it provides his funders with the answers they want.
Hence Eugenics in Nazi Germany. Accredited scientists, funded to the hilt, because they spun numbers to make there funders and masters happy.
We don’t want that with Global Warming.
Eugenics went on for years… How long Global Warming?
Simply put, we see too many other scientists, including the father of Global Climatology come out against this as bunk.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:47 pmFrom “Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/father-of-climatology-calls-manmade-global-warming-absurd/
July 19th, 2007 at 3:02 pmTo Jack M, if a scientist is given a grant to prove global warming, do you think that he is going to cut off his gravy train, if he keeps getting grant renewals stipulating that humans are the main cause?
July 19th, 2007 at 6:02 pmThe New York Times ran articles in the late 1890’s about global cooling, in the 1920’s global warming, 30’s cooling. Ten years ago, Newsweek was scaring us about global cooling, and you want us to believe all that we are the cause.
Eco freaks complain about industries polluting the enviroment with mercury, the number one cause of mercury being released is valcanos and tutonic plate shifts, I think Daily Kos is a better site for you.PS I have two college degrees, so I think I am well informed, I think that the liberals come up the the flavor of the month, first it was Big Oil Companies, then Walmart, then Big Pharmacy companies, then the NRA,then right wing radio talk shows. John Edwards sees two Americas,him and us.
The first mendment will be torn up if a Liberal Democrat is elected President. He or she will use the IRS to tear everyone a new asshole that doesn’t follow lock step with them, Bill Clinton did, you don’t Hillary would ?
I do believe that we are in a warm cycle globally, but I think this a scam to cut back on capitalism. We are 4% unemployment rate, guess how many would be on the goverment dime and would have the purse strings, the Democrats. They would have you just where they want you. BUCk UP Jack and be a MAN,instead of a whiny fence sitting coward, go left of go right, there are no moderates HERE!
LadyAngler, well put, I think we hould ignore JacK M as the fool he is.
July 19th, 2007 at 6:11 pmI didn’t major in typing.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:03 pmJackM ,
I hope you are still engaged in this conversation, I’m a late comer who wished to attempt to answer some questions you had:
“Not a civil war? What do you call it when two factions of the same country are killing eachother?”
I call it similar to the bllods and crips going at it:gangland warfare. but civil war means there are 2 definitive sides . In iraq there are at least 3 sides(sunni, shia , kurd, then you have shia for Mookie , and shia for the moderate cleric(name escapes me, older guy), then you have al qaeda(insurgents)and thir taliban style of government, then you have afew secularists, and then the christian and other religious minorities. to have a civil war would imply unity at least amongst many groups against the others.
“Your list does not change the fact that over 90% of those in that area of research accept global warming as a scientific fact. That’s a large majority of experts, don’t you think?”
assuming that statistic is correct, since when does percentages have anything to do with science? it is either 100% or not real science. Science is not a democracy.
“And, could you clarify who financially benefits from going after the issue of globabl warming?”
Al Gore has set up a carbon credits company with a partner. The partner had another similar company in massachusettes that has been sued because he lied to investors about its main source of income. That source was the federal government which decided to pull the grant and he hid that fact while selling off his shares in the company. Isnt al gore saying we need to byuy carbon credits? the man is benefitting in that way, and off course by virtue of his movie and the fact that he goes on many highly paid speaking engagements, tells you he is profiting immensley from this scare.
Oh and by the way, a year ago al gore said our planet has 10 years left at its current rate of polluting before we destroy this earth.
the main contention by conservatives is not the idea of whether warming is occuring , but to what degree we are contributing to it. it is this that there are many scientists in disagreement.
I suggest you check the michael yon web link here for further info on what is really happening in iraq, and you will see there is not, and never has been a civil war in iraq, the brunt of the killing of civilians for the last few years has been done by insurgents.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:10 amScientific “consensus” used to say that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the planet was flat. Those who argued the contrary were branded as heretics.
Some things never change.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:24 amCrush Liberalism: That was the church, not science. Science disproved that.
Can you say, “owned?”
July 20th, 2007 at 8:06 amJackM:
You own no one here. You can excercise your Id somewhere else. You’re a dickhead.
July 20th, 2007 at 8:28 amWow, miss a day, miss a lot. Flying imams, continual effort of them to break us down so we dare not question what they do. Lower your eyes infidel as we pass by. I’m a certified nut and my VA check proves it. A government certified nut. I see any shit in an airport or train station I’m going to shout at the top of my lungs, right in front of them. It’s against the law to sue a veteran for his check. The old proverbial, ‘can’t get blood out of a stone’.
JackieM, how’s it feel to run into a buzzsaw?
July 20th, 2007 at 9:06 amDan, I just owned Crush Liberalism, don’t you think? And Dan, for a Christian, you sure are angry. You people cannot deal with an opposing point of view and it is sad. You said it yourself, you post so that people will agree with you and like you. You’re an asshole, and I could kick the living shit out of you if I was so inclined.
Have a nice day, you pompous ass!
July 20th, 2007 at 9:24 amJackM:
You just ain’t shit asshat. Go fuck your mother punk.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:33 amJackassM:
I told you stupid ass you own no one here. Your asinine comments are proof that you are a wannabe, poser, asshat.
I say again: Go fuck yourself chump.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:35 amHey Dan, how’s the obesity and pre-diabetes treating you? You know, D, you should try an exercise program. It has been scientifically proven that the chances of getting some action increase ten-fold.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:03 amJackOff:
I got your “owned” right here, bitch:
“In early Classical Antiquity, the Earth was generally believed to be flat. Greek philosophers from that time period were prone to form conclusions similar to those of Anaximander, who believed the Earth to be a short cylinder with a flat, circular top. It is conjectured that the first person to have advocated a spherical shape of the Earth was Pythagoras (6th century BC), but this idea is not supported by the fact that most presocratic Pythagoreans considered the world to be flat.”
Not exactly representatives of the church, were they, dumbass?
And yeah, science used to say that the Earth was the center of the universe. Sorry, mental midget, but you lose. Game, set, match. Thanks for playing, you are the weakest link, goodbye!
July 20th, 2007 at 11:27 amProblem #1: philoshophers are not scientists. Aristotle could be considered the first scientist becuase he tried to base his conclusions on observation, but was found to be wrong almost across the board.
Problem #2: Pythagorus, though a brilliant mathematician, did not use the scientific method to come to his conclusions.
Problem #3: Copernicus and Galileo are the fathers of astronomy and were greatly persecuted for their scientific publications by the Church. The Church deemed that anyone who says the Earth is not the center of the universe is a heretic. They burned Copernicus at the stake b/c he would not recant.
You are a true scholar.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:16 pmMust recant on the last statement–it was Bruno who was burned at the stake by the Church, it was Galileo who was threatened, but he quickly recanted and said the Earth does not rotate around the sun.
The point remains, man, scientists, like Galileo, were persecuted for publishing the truth contrary to Church doctrine. Do what you will with this information.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:43 pmhey Jack i see you didnt say anything regarding my answers to your questions. By the way did the pope preside over the burnings? wasnt the state at the time affiliated with the church kind of like communist china has state run churcvh’s as a means of controlling the people. In reality the church did niot run the state thoiugh it did have strong reperesentation it didnt carry out any of the persecutions.
July 22nd, 2007 at 5:37 pm