Washington Times Provides Press Credentials to Right-Wing Lobbyist
Washington Times Provides Press Credentials to Right-Wing Lobbyist
Chris Horner is counsel at the right-wing Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which has received more than $1.3 million in funding from oil giant ExxonMobil. Horner “is also part of the Cooler Heads Coalition, “a group set up ‘to dispel the myth of global warming.’”
But when Horner attended last week’s U.N. Climate Change conference, he appeared not as a lobbyist, but as a journalist.
Horner attended the State Department’s Dec. 7 briefing with press credentials from the right-wing Washington Times. ThinkProgress spoke with Andrew Buncombe of London’s Independent, who confirmed that Horner was at the press-only briefing without even a notebook in hand. In a Jeff Gannon-style presentation, Horner promoted the Bush administration position, suggesting the U.S. position be portrayed as leading a “new consensus.”
In fact, the United States position is neither new, nor does it resemble anything like a consensus. More than 150 countries, including nearly every industrialized nation except the United States and Australia, agreed “to engage in talks aimed at producing a new set of binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions that would take effect beginning in 2012.”
Horner is not a journalist. He has published just a single op-ed in the Washington Times since 2003, and has never written a hard news article for the paper, according to a database search.
But he is quite experienced at underhanded tactics. He drew up plans, funded by ExxonMobil, to destroy Europe’s support for the Kyoto treaty on climate change.” The plan hoped to emulate the White Houses’s “success” in stalling progress on climate change: “In the US an informal coalition has helped successfully to avert adoption of a Kyoto-style program. This model should be emulated, as appropriate, to guide similar efforts in Europe.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
This brings me back to the preamble in Paul Krugman’s book, “The Great Unraveling” where he talked about “Revolutionary Powers”. Revolutionary powers care little about established protocol, including the press. The ends always justify the means to revolutionary powers, as they do to the Bushies and the hard right.
Does Horner advertise on gay prostitute web sites like Gannon?
December 12th, 2005 at 11:11 amIn fact you can read that excerpt, or at least part of it, here
It is a must read. Everything the neocons do makes sense when you read this.
December 12th, 2005 at 11:15 amI can only find one thing to say about this…
and I keep hearing that if you can’t say anything nice don’t say anything.
So I’m not going to say it.
Z.
December 12th, 2005 at 11:22 amHow about his Zwack-
He’s about as much a reporter as anyone else at the Washington Times.
There, wasn’t that kind of a compliment for Mr. Horner?
December 12th, 2005 at 11:27 amHey if it works in Iraq, then why not…it is a beacon of freedom and democracy not only for the Middle East, but for us as well!
December 12th, 2005 at 11:29 amThe words of the Washington Times’ owner, Sun Myung Moon:
“The country that represents Satan’s harvest is America.”
“God hates the American atmosphere,”
“Satan created this kind of Hell on the Earth. . . . I don’t like fallen America. It is heading for destruction in the very near future.”
American women, Moon said in a speech last fall, “have inherited the line of prostitutesâ€
“In the Last Days, it is natural that Western women will long for Oriental men and Western men will long for Oriental women,” Moon said last year. “Orientals,” he added, “are here to save your nation of America.”
Remember, this is the Republican Right Wing’s best friend saying these anti-American things.
December 12th, 2005 at 11:44 amDoesn’t Moon sound just like Osama Bin Laden?
Bin Laden is trying to destroy us with bombs.
Moon is trying to destroy us with money and propaganda. And his willing accomplices are the right wing of the Republican Party.
Who is looking out for us, babe?
Where’s Bill O’Reilly?
Journalism. HahHahHah
Jounalism. HahHahHahHahHahHah
Jounalism. HahHahHahHahHahHahHahHahHahHahHahHahHahHahHah
It just keeps getting funnier.
December 12th, 2005 at 11:46 amis it fair to say that Bush & Co. are out of touch with reality?
December 12th, 2005 at 11:47 amAn inside job from the press? That’s stunning! I’d notify the major networks and papers but they’re busy going out of business for doing hitjobs on American conservatives….I’ll call Fox News, they’re the only ones still standing…..
December 12th, 2005 at 11:47 amBush – Constitution
‘Just A Goddamned
Piece Of Paper’
By Doug Thompson
Capitol Hill Blue
12-9-5
Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.
Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”
And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “goddamned piece of paper” used to guarantee.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”
Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine  in the end  if something is legal or right.
Every federal official  including the President  who takes an oath of office swears to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a “living document.”
“”Oh, how I hate the phrase we have-a ‘living document,’” Scalia says. “We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete’s sake.”
As a judge, Scalia says, “I don’t have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it’s better than anything else.”
President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a “union between a man and woman.” Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.
Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.
“We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,” Scalia warns. “Don’t think that it’s a one-way street.”
And don’t buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.
But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just “a goddamned piece of paper.”
© Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill Blue
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml
Disclaimer
Email This Article
MainPage
http://www.rense.com
This Site Served by TheHostPros
December 12th, 2005 at 11:48 am*rim shot*
December 12th, 2005 at 11:48 amJesus, I mean, the Wash Times. Moonie organization that in itself qualifies as a lobbying arm of bushco.
Needless to say, I am not surprised.
December 12th, 2005 at 11:49 amDoes anyone know what the cornerstone of our democracy is?
It’s a FREE PRESS.
Our society is not perfect, but it is a self correcting society, cheifly because of a free press.
The Bush admin does not seem to understand this, and has already corrupted the so called democracy we are building in Iraq, by infecting their own free press with propaganda.
Now the Times wants to help corrupt our own democracy, by offering up this hack as a reporter.
December 12th, 2005 at 11:56 am#1 – “Does Horner advertise on gay prostitute web sites like Gannon?”
That would be just too cute. Although being a gay prostitute would be more reputable (and up-front) than what he’s doing now. Sleazy.
December 12th, 2005 at 11:57 amI admit I’m ill informed on the Kyoto treaty … I found this article that made some sense but I’m wondering what is the basis for the sentiments that are expressed here (at TP) … the article is from the begining of 05.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5280
A brief (sort of) quote from the attached article …
Global warming is real and is caused by emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). But existing climate models show we can do little about it. Even if everyone (including the United States) applied the Kyoto rules and stuck to them throughout the century, the change would be almost immeasurable, postponing warming for a mere six years in 2100 while costing at least US$150 billion a year.
Global warming will mainly harm developing countries, because they are poorer and therefore less able to handle climate changes. However, by 2100, even the most pessimistic forecasts from the UN expect the average person in the developing countries to be richer than now, and thus better able to cope.
So Kyoto is basically a costly way of doing little for much richer people far in the future. We need to ask ourselves if this should be our first priority.
Of course, in the best of all worlds, we would not need to choose our priorities. We could do all good things. We could win the war against hunger, end conflicts, stop communicable diseases, provide clean drinking water, improve education and halt climate change. But we can’t do everything. So we must ask the hard question: What should we do first?
Some of the world’s top economists — including three Nobel Laureates — answered this question at the Copenhagen Consensus last May. They found that dealing with HIV/AIDS, hunger, free trade, and malaria were the world’s top priorities, where we could do the most good for our money. Moreover, they put urgent responses to climate change at the bottom of the list. In fact, the panel called these ventures — including Kyoto — “bad projects,” because they cost more than the good they do.
December 12th, 2005 at 11:58 am
Interesting, Jacko, that you clipped the writers name, and the rest of the article. If you read the entire article, you would see that it is an opinion piece, which has been discounted by his own government as academically dishonest. But you knew that already, right?
December 12th, 2005 at 12:04 pmNice oppo Reality (#16).
December 12th, 2005 at 12:12 pmLook … I was just lookig for info. … it popped up. I have no clue about the author really, and I did know it was an opinion piece … but that’s the point. My real question is what do the readers here think about this statement …
Some of the world’s top economists — including three Nobel Laureates — answered this question at the Copenhagen Consensus last May. They found that dealing with HIV/AIDS, hunger, free trade, and malaria were the world’s top priorities, where we could do the most good for our money.
Does it hold any water (not just an opinion by the author here) ………. ?
December 12th, 2005 at 12:14 pmIts surprising to me that the Bush Administration continues to use these tactics. I just I’m just naive to think they would be ashamed to have been caught before–they truly have no shame.
The Bush Administration is leading our country down a dark path. They need to be stopped. But I don’t see any real progress being made to stop these Machiavelian taticians from achieving their twisted ends. I am troubled.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:14 pmFirst, those who opposed controlling global warming tried denying that it existed in the first place. When scientific evidence mounted and that failed, they painted a picture, as #15 did above, that doing nothing is somehow better than attempting to curb CO2 emissions. We’ve gone from problem doesn’t exist to problem is so bad nothing you can do will fix it. What an interestingly ridiculous position to argue from.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:15 pmAnd what are the opinions of the fact that while it appears we are warming … the earth has had many warming and cooling periods in the past 500 or so million years (and that we are actually still coming out of the most recent ice age). The earth, at least for the majority of its existence, has had zero ice on its surface … that’s been the norm.
So … are we experiencing part of the normal cycle, or are we putting that cycle in overdrive by our actions … if this is part of the normal cycle, can we really stop it … slow it? I’m asking … ?
December 12th, 2005 at 12:21 pmSo do you REALLY want to KNOW why the BUSHco doesnt care about envirmental issues? Ill Tell Ya.. -Aj
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In February 1998, the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the U.S based weather warfare facility developed under the HAARP program. The Committee’s “Motion for Resolution” submitted to the European Parliament:
“Considers HAARP… by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body…; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration… to give evidence to the public hearing …into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP program.” (European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99, 14 January 1999).
December 12th, 2005 at 12:23 pmWhat an interestingly ridiculous position to argue from
I’m not promulgating a position … I’m asking. Why do people get their panties in a wad when someone postulates from the opposite spectrum … If you’ve got a good link for a site that’s done some responsible research … I’d love to have it.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:24 pmJacko, so what if it isn’t the top priority, does that mean it doesn’t require action?
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt on your article. On liberal blogs, we expect opinion to be labeled as opinion, and peer-examined research to be labelled as such. I have to question you when you post the article in a way that misleads the reader.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:27 pmWwallace you are a Self Proclaimed Genius, you to IRI, can you please help me Unnerstan?
Im just a Poor old Fool, without a Purple Robe, and Husbandmen isn’t my GHORPA, if you Know whut I meen.
Pleez foourgeev my speeling TYPO Nietzes, Plese help the poor ignornt, and uneduumahcated folkz, like me,
to unnerstand,
Thank Yew, -Aj
December 12th, 2005 at 12:28 pmI don’t care how much money the oil industry makes, they can have it all, as long as they don’t hurt my planet while doing it.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:29 pmI’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt on your article. On liberal blogs, we expect opinion to be labeled as opinion, and peer-examined research to be labelled as such. I have to question you when you post the article in a way that misleads the reader.
Comment by Reality — December 12, 2005 @
REALITY LMAO
and the BUSHco TV propaganda wasnt Misleading?
Nor JUDY MILLER?
NOR Cheney?
NOR CONDI?
NOR BUSH?
Nor Lincoln media?
Nor Rendon Media?
Not to mention the FACT that the major MEDIA outets have Colluded with the TC, CFR, GOVT and other groups to implement their PLAN? for the last Forty Years?
LOL REALITY??
I really really Have to laugh at your post, its well, silly, L -Aj
December 12th, 2005 at 12:32 pmNo, you posted false research. It is your responsibility to post peer-reviewed research that postulates your point. Then we can discuss those theories.
Not to pick on you, but this is how the right-wing works- a scientific source, after years of research, writes a paper concerning its theory. The right-wing pundits then take the opposite side, hoping to muddy the waters.
Show us that your side has a right to hold the opinion that there is no global warming. Show us the peer-reviewed studies. Then we can start discussing your viewpoint.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:35 pm#28
December 12th, 2005 at 12:39 pmRemember, Gannon leaves impressions, not marks.
Show us that your side has a right to hold the opinion that there is no global warming. Show us the peer-reviewed studies.
I’m not sure why this is hard … I don’t have a side yet … I’m shopping for a side, so to speak.
It is your responsibility to post peer-reviewed research that postulates your point.
Look … I was looking for articles … I put into Google “Kyoto Treaty Good and Bad” … it popped up (like the 5th down). Not everyone posts peer-reviewed research here, Reality, and I didn’t post the article as support of anything but for a “what do you think” scenario … so far, I’ve only got what you think of the author. The claims that were made were not just those of the author … also referenced were the Nobel Lauretes … I was hoping to drill down on their theory and get people’s take on it.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:42 pmPerhaps you should contact those authors and ask them for more research
Morning Ryan … I was entreating the “goodwill” of those present to provide me with some info. … I would think that there are those here that would jump at the chance to have a conservative on their side with this Kyoto thing … I could be wrong.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:45 pmok, no problem- my take? It’s unproven BS put into the pipeline by RW oil interests who sponsor “research” that supports their worldview.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:47 pmGiacomo,
If you want some peer-reviewed evidence of global warming to look at http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm this is a good place to start. There’s a lot more where that came from.
The scary thing is that people like you still suggest in a public forum that global warming is part of a natural earth cycle of ice ages and “warming periods”. The process stops being natural when we actively and knowingly contribute to it. If you’re truly interested in researching the science of global warming, type global warming into dogpile or google. I have nothing to gain personally whether global warming exists or not, and after evaluating the evidence on both sides, I think it’s a pretty clear issue. I think you will be amazed by what you learn if you do some research, and then we can have this discussion about interglacial periods and natural patterns.
Until you do some research, your suggestions only add to the ignorance surrounding the issue.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:48 pmWe did our own research to form our position- now it is your turn to do yours. Democracy is hard work.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:49 pm#37
The RW has taught people that all opinions are equally valid, whether they come from careful study, or someone talking out of their ass.
This is why you see wingnuts sitting in front of school boards nationwide, arguing that creationism is just another scientific opinion, and deserves to be considered with the same weight as evolution.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:54 pmso, anyways (good question TROLL!!!) back to the right blatently hiring lobbyist to skew debates when only “objective” press is allowed…you know…this thread…I wouldn’t be surprised to see dreadlock wigs on the goose-stepping right so they can penetrate liberal groups
December 12th, 2005 at 1:09 pmAnd what are the opinions of the fact that while it appears we are warming … the earth has had many warming and cooling periods in the past 500 or so million years (and that we are actually still coming out of the most recent ice age). The earth, at least for the majority of its existence, has had zero ice on its surface … that’s been the norm.
So … are we experiencing part of the normal cycle, or are we putting that cycle in overdrive by our actions … if this is part of the normal cycle, can we really stop it … slow it? I’m asking … ?
Comment by Giacomo — December 12, 2005 @ 12:21 pm
You don’t need to be a rocket surgeon to see the fallacy in this reasoning, unless you can prove that it’s a normal part of the earth’s history to have 6+ billion people, (bio-mass) burning shit, cutting down trees and paving over the place, with heavy industry producing and selling fossil fuel burning cars with internal combustion engines the wealthier Chinese intend to put two of in every garage in the near future. Nothing to worry about. nothing to see here. Move along. You are blocking traffic.
December 12th, 2005 at 1:21 pmThe mere act of urban centers in the manner we traditionally do, with less greenery and heat reflecting black tops and heat retaining concrete buildings changes the climate. Nevermind the billions of hot-blooded humans and their combustible practices. Global warming is a fact that has nothing to do with the earth’s normal cycles of climate change. If chaos theory postulates that the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil can affect the weather in Idaho…
December 12th, 2005 at 1:26 pmIf you are looking for a way to vent your anger on this topic other than just writing comments, click here to take action with Greenpeace
December 12th, 2005 at 1:29 pmsorry, the link didn’t come through,
December 12th, 2005 at 1:30 pmhere is the site, just copy and paste:
http://members.greenpeace.org/action/start.php?action_id=74&ref_source=kyotoblog
“The earth, at least for the majority of its existence, has had zero ice on its surface … that’s been the norm.” GeoMetro
And during that time no breatheable atmosphere, plant or animals were also the norm – so what’s your point? We don’t live in that era, nor COULD we, yet if you produce enough global warming – we just might!
FOOL!
December 12th, 2005 at 2:47 pmIn the name of money, greed, whatever you want to call it, these guys will ruin the planet? Why? What will be left if the planet is destroyed? What in the world are they thinking?
December 12th, 2005 at 3:00 pm#47
December 12th, 2005 at 3:12 pmAs Bush said to Bob Woodward (R), in the long run we are all dead anyway.
I don’t get it I guess … I freely admit that I have NO opinion on the Kyoto Treaty because I haven’t fully investigated the issue … I ask for info., thinking that those here may have an intelligent opinion/sources that they’d want to share with me … I get one response related to this request (by Ryan the Angry Midget (I feel bad typing that)) …. also I get.
1) Ryan Neat – called me ignorant (I though I had already established the truth of this fact relative to this discussion but whatever), slow, lacking expertise, gravitating toward unchallenged and unsubstantiated bigoted opinions, etc (the usual Ryan Neat tome).
2) Chris in AZ calls me a troll
3) KillCOn responds by saying something akin to … with all these people doing all this stuff … something bad is bound to happen. This comment may be grounded in reality and common sense, but doesn’t have a firm grounding in empirical science (at least to the extent that he mentions such science … maybe it’s science, he doesn’t mention any except the whole butterfly’s wings to a hurricane progression thing).
4) Reality at first is pissed with me, but then backs off when he reads that I’m asking a question. He does make a random statement about the RW validating all opinions (or something like that).
How about this guys … there are two types of questions that I’ve seen on this site. Information Seeking and Challenging. As I said four times, I was seeking information. A small amount of decency could’ve led to a “read this” answer and I would’ve read it and responded back.
I get attacked for an opinion I haven’t even formed, and am dismissed as a “reichwinger”. Why is it hard to answer me … should I assume that Ryan the Angry Midget is the only one with a link to info … should I assume that because I don’t behave as venomous as IRI or MA you have no clue how to answer an honest question from a conservative … if you are right about what you think, why does a question from the opposite point of view inspire such anger … if a liberal asks me what I think (or what I’v learned, read, etc.), I answer them. It doesn’t make me mad, it doesn’t waste my time, and it doesn’t bother me if they don’t see it the same way. I don’t assume they’re stupid, ignorant, misinformed or without merit. They disagree. Many I speak with are certain of their positions … that’s great … substantiate them for someone that’s asking for it. If you can’t substantiate it, don’t accuse me of being stupid.
This must be the least progressive encounter I’ve ever had with any liberals in my life.
December 12th, 2005 at 4:00 pmMeanwhile, many people on this blog have given you links, saying “read this”, and you’ve ignored their articles. We’ve substantiated our position, it is up to you to accept it or reject it.
I could even accept you if you read everything, asked SCIENTISTS researching the issue their views, and then rejected global warming.
But you haven’t done the work. And you won’t. So pardon us if we don’t bend over backwards trying to educate you when you refuse to learn.
December 12th, 2005 at 4:10 pmThe claims that were made were not just those of the author … also referenced were the Nobel Lauretes … I was hoping to drill down on their theory and get people’s take on it.
Comment by Giacomo — December 12, 2005 @ 12:42 pm
I guess my comment didn’t post. Here it is again.
Some posters have already pointed out that Global Warming Deniers have moved from “it doesn’t happen” to “it happens, it’s normal -no big deal” kind of reasoning. That’s why your post got such angry replies.
Also, Bjorn Lomborg is a statistician, not a biologist, climatologist, or a epidemiologist. Scientists in these fields have been sounding the alarm for years, since Global Warming has a direct impact in their respective areas.
Check this article that touches on all that, and provides plenty of links:
Something Is Rotten in the State of Denmark
Also, the wikipedia has a great entry on Global Warming:
The scientific consensus on global warming is that the Earth is warming, and that humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions are making a significant contribution. This consensus is summarized by the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In the Third Assessment Report, the IPCC concluded that “most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities”.
Here are some sites with sound scientific information:
US Natural Resources Defence Council
US Environment Protection Agency
National Environmental Trust
December 12th, 2005 at 4:14 pmThis must be the least progressive encounter I’ve ever had with any liberals in my life.
Comment by Giacomo — December 12, 2005 @ 4:00 pm
To show you this is not left vs right, us vs them issue, see what the business leaders are saying:
“AEP´s decision to join the Pew Center on Global Climate Change Business Environmental Leadership Council represents an extension of our activities to address the concerns about global climate change on a voluntary, proactive and cost-effective basis”
American Electric Power (The US’ largest power company)
“At Exelon, we accept that the science of global warming is overwhelming. We accept that limitations on greenhouse gases emissions will prove necessary.”
Exelon Corp (A Fortune 500, and one of the US’ largest electric utilities)
“Consensus is growing among scientists, governments, and business that they must act fast to combat climate change. This has already sparked efforts to limit CO2 emissions. Many companies are now preparing for a carbon-constrained world.”
BusinessWeek: Global Warming
Religious groups are also asking something be done about global warming:
Interfaith Climate Change Training Event
Evangelical Leaders Swing Influence Behind Effort to Combat Global Warming
Energy and Global Warming
December 12th, 2005 at 4:17 pmLooks like something iritating dribbled down Horner’s chin. Maybe a hot Gannon?
December 12th, 2005 at 4:59 pm“I get attacked for an opinion I haven’t even formed, and am dismissed as a “reichwingerâ€.” GeoMetro
If you haven’t formed an opinion, then stop spouting nonsense about it and STFU until you do. There is a LOT of material you could read that would very quickly educate you, and yet here you are (AS USUAL) spouting your ill informed and idiotic opinions.
“should I assume that because I don’t behave as venomous as IRI or MA you have no clue how to answer an honest question from a conservative …”
No, when you find an honest conservative and send them over, I’ll be happy to have a conversation with them. You don’t qualify for that, you’re an idiot conservative who thinks he’s smart – which is dishonest to yourself first and foremost.
December 12th, 2005 at 5:11 pmWhat?! You mean you need training, experience and credentials to be a journalist?
December 12th, 2005 at 6:58 pmWhen blatant fouls like this occur by any member of the MSM, the rest of the industry should call them on it. The Times has insulted the entire industry with their partisan and cavalier appointment of Horner.
Wait–
Oh silly me! I also thought that outcry would have happened when Gannon invaded the WH press corps — journalists today are too chicken-livered to even stand up for themselves, much less pursue the truth and challenge the administration.
I can’t waait to hear how Tony Blankley will spin this.
December 12th, 2005 at 7:00 pmThis must be the least progressive encounter I’ve ever had with any liberals in my life.
Comment by Giacomo — December 12, 2005 @ 4:00 pm
These are words, labels, you shouldn’t toss around because you have no idea what they mean. I’m not just one or the other of them and I doubt most of the people here are either. I have a particular world view or perception of the world, and people, like yourself, whose particular world view is diametrically opposed to mine, out of ignorance, bias, prejudice, denial or delusion, are, to use one of chimpy’s Bushisms, “agin me”. period. Lot’s of clowny assed, wussy Republicans, like that pansy Lindsay Graham, have been trying to back-pedal that shit, now. Talking about unity and “can’t we all get along”. So have liberals and progressives. No. We can’t. One side is going to win and in the process, moderate or eliminate the other side, the other “world view”. I’ll give you three guesses which side that is. There is no going back. One side declared war on the other side, I’ll give you three guesses which, and that side is going to ride that horse, win or lose, to the end. You obviously have questions about the accuracy or efficacy of your “world view”. Good. If your “worldview”, your perception of reality changes, it matters little to me what label you apply to yourself, or try to apply to me.
December 12th, 2005 at 8:35 pm[...] Washington Times provides press credentials to right-wing lobbyist Chris Horner is counsel at the right-wing Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which has received more than $1.3 million in funding from oil giant ExxonMobil. Horner "is also part of the Cooler Heads Coalition, "a group set up "to dispel the myth of global warming." [...]
December 13th, 2005 at 3:01 amI worked at The Washington Times in a peon position. A former colleague and Church member from Germany thought his next door black neighbor in Hyattsville named Mr. Bush was loony for not supporting my colleague’s pro-Bush lawn sign–never mind the indelicate fact that the infamous white Bushes used to OWN the black Bushes several generations ago! No wonder the white Bushes oppose reparations! Worse yet, the lesser known Mr. Bush used to be a White House gardener when George H.W. was in office and nasty Barbara got the man fired when he tried to speak her about “old family ties”! It infuriated me that my “anti-Nazi” German Moonie colleague had no sympathy for his neighbor! I vaguely recall The Washington Post writing up the incident years ago. My own ex-boyfriend ran into Neil Bush at a Bangkok child brothel. Perhaps, the white Luciferian Bushes believe global warming tsunamis will wash away their sex scandals while mainstream media indifference ignores their black Civil War and Jewish WWII slavery scandals here.
December 13th, 2005 at 10:17 pmThere is so much hate peddling here- to our shame.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:30 amWhat are you doing besides blowing your mouth off? Are you helping schools, working for or ministering to the poor, are you volunteering, excelling at your job, just WHAT are you doing? Or are you teaching your children and others to hate, fueling the hate engines that already exist? Is that the sum total of your existence?
Ilean- How did you know? Of course I’m teaching my kids to hate and add fuel to the hate machines and….hold on….I’m a quart low on lefty cliche’s…..I’ll have to finish my rant later…..
December 14th, 2005 at 8:34 pmTurk- finally an honest reply..well, maybe not…if you were a true lefty (from what I’ve read on this site) you would never run out of labels and nasties.
December 16th, 2005 at 6:16 pmGood luck- you guys all need it.
XBOX 360
XBOX 360 games
December 18th, 2005 at 12:57 amCooking Recipes
Cooking Recipes
December 18th, 2005 at 1:00 amVerizon Ringtones
Verizon Ringtones
December 18th, 2005 at 5:25 pmBrad Pitt
Brad Pitt
December 18th, 2005 at 5:26 pmFree Horoscope
Horoscope
December 19th, 2005 at 7:52 pmXBOX 360
XBOX Games
December 19th, 2005 at 10:56 pmWedding Bands
Wedding Bands
December 21st, 2005 at 1:21 am50Cent
50Cent
December 21st, 2005 at 4:14 amTexas Hold Um…
The new word: Texas Hold Um…
January 8th, 2006 at 6:14 amMarkus…
It was quite useful reading, found some interesting details about this topic. Thanks….
December 8th, 2006 at 3:28 am[...] Many of those who actually deny global warming due so in an effort to support the unbridled right of humans to consume as much energy and fuel as they please. Most of these so-called experts also happen to be paid by oil companies. One example is Chris Horner, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism (more like the “Idiot’s Guide) and counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has received over $1.3 from ExxonMobil. [...]
March 5th, 2007 at 5:25 pm6 week weight loss program, http
March 17th, 2008 at 8:00 amGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 10:23 pmteaching credentials
Interestingly, this was on CNN last week.
March 20th, 2008 at 6:22 pmwedding bands
Hello there everyone!
March 28th, 2008 at 8:21 amSung
Never mistake knowledge for wisdom. One helps you make a living; the other helps you make a life.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:16 am