Will-ful Deception
Will-ful Deception
On Sunday, George Will published an opinion piece in the Washington Post and other major papers called “Let Cooler Heads Prevail.” The highlight of the piece is a string of citations from the 1970s, which he claims shows that scientists then believed the world was entering a long-term phase of “global cooling.”
Here is Will’s first citation:
Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”
Gilbert Martinez of the Stanford Democrats blog pulled the original article. He found that Will was being exceptionally dishonest. Specifically, Martinez discovered:
1. The article was discussing the impact of the earth’s orbital variations on global temperatures over periods of 20,000 years or longer.
2. The article’s analysis specifically excluded the impact of humans on the climate. (The predictions “apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends–and not to such anthropogenic effects as those due to the burning of fossil fuels.”
But Will’s column is deceitful in a larger sense as well. The fact is there was a temporary cooling pattern from the 1940s and the 1970s. Some in the media (notably Newsweek) improperly extrapolated that data into a long term trend of “global cooling.” But there wasn’t a single scientific publication that predicted “global cooling.” In fact, scientists warned against extrapolating the short-term trend into a long-term pattern. (Either through ignorance or malice Will concludes that, in the 1970s, scientists were “spectacularly wrong.”)
Meanwhile, Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity.
Question: Is there ever a point when printing mythology about global warming is incompatible with responsible journalism?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
George Will has built his entire career on obfuscation and deception. The only surprise is that legitimate media (sort of) still publishes him.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:26 amWhat makes you assume that George Will is a responsible journalist? He’s not: he’s a partisan opinion columnist who’s (as you point out) more than a little dishonest.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:33 amQuestion: Is there ever a point when printing mythology about global warming is incompatible with responsible journalism?
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:35 amNot as long as it remains compatible with the Bushco agenda.
All kinds of mythological beliefs are deeply imbedded into that agenda.
Mental constipation is Mr Wills strong suit.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:37 amBusted.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:37 amModern conservatism is all about lying. It’s one lie after another, built on a foundation of lies.
Election result: voter fraud
FOX news: liars
conservative pundits: liars
Iraq war: justified by lies of ommission and commission
Trolls: lie to themselves (if they really believe the garbage they vomit up here)
It’s really quite startling how many people willingly go along with the program. But considering many are evanglicals, they already have a predisposition towards cognitive dishonesty, so that explains at least part of it.
On the other hand, Jack Abramoff cynically played them for the fools they are. So there must be a lot more who go along with this fraud-on-a-national-scale just to make bucks. (Look at FOX, who plays both ends of the moral spectrum on their various networks.)
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:41 amAnd people wonder why the traditional news media is dying. When you can’t trust the news anymore, there really isn’t much point in paying to get it.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:41 amWhy do Conservatives have no problems throwing their grandkids under a passing truck or bus?
That’s what they are doing. Not only with the climate of our ONLY habitable planet (you got another?). They are doing the very same thing with the National Debt they are leaving others (kids and grand & great grand kids) to pay for. And this is from the folks who claim to be the ONLY voices of personal responsibility and honesty we have today.
Clue to lying hypocritical earth hating cheap bastard conservatives…Be very careful….Your kids and grandkids aren’t as young or as dumb as you’d hoped, even though you’ve tried your very best to ruin their schooling and development.
November elections. It’ll be sooooo sweet.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:43 amGeorge Will is a disciple of the Big Lie technique in convincing people of your position, even if it is untrue.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:45 amIs there ever a point when printing mythology about global warming is incompatible with responsible journalism?
Is there ever a point when it isn’t?
Sure, science fiction (Ray Bradbury rather than Star Trek) can be interesting. But as a basis for setting national policies? Well, the neocons do use the Bible in policy making, so why not George Will? It’s just as tragic.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:45 amIf you happen to travel to The Yukon and to Alaska, you can witness the die-off of the forest in the permafrost areas. It is quite extensive. When there is a forest fire in northern British Columbia, it burns itself out. You can’t fight a forest fire that is 300 miles from nowhere.
The earth is warming. It doesn’t matter if it is good or bad, it’s happening.
I quit reading George Will years ago. It’s a waste of time.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:47 amThat’s what they are doing. Not only with the climate of our ONLY habitable planet (you got another?).
Comment by kindness — April 3, 2006 @ 10:43 am
They think the rapture is going to occur in tehir lifetimes (just like Ronnie Raygun did), and so they have no conscience about destroying what’s here. Pathetic.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:49 amWHY DOES THE CLIMATE HATE AMERICA?!
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:50 amHoly Shit! Check This Out!
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:50 amGeorge Will should stick to what he seems to know : BASEBALL .
As far as his political acumen and scientific knwledge they leave much to be disired ,
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:50 amlike all that love the sound of their voice he becomes irrelevent .
George Will is an economic conservative so he attempts to carry their lies to propo up this years profits, but as Ford and GM show eventually even Lies won’t prop up the bottom line, in fact if they had done what people Will is attempting to discredit had wanted they would be producing the cars today that the public really wants, …SHORT SIGHTED…. sort of the vision of polluting the only planet we have to live on just to make more money, if the planet becomes uninhabitable what is the meaning of a big bank account?
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:51 am“But there wasn’t a single scientific publication that predicted “global cooling.†”
So his quote from Science Digest isn’t a real qoute then?
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:51 amglobal warming/climate change really is the issue where the Right’s refusal to acknowledge reality is completely mystifying. what do they stand to gain by denying the overwhelming scientific evidence?
publications also have a responsibility to make sure that scientific data is accurate, not just to wave it through. where is george will’s scientific credibility? selectively quoting from past science articles, while simultaneously suggesting that those who report the evidence of global warming are themselves guilty of distortion (in George Will’s world there is only spin, and no facts) is no better than the age-old practice of selectively quoting the scriptures to advance a predetermined argument.
there was a tornado last night here in TN that killed more than 10 people. last week storms ripped through Darwin in Australia. we shall see what interesting facts and trivia George Will and his fellow deniers come up with if we have a Hurricane Season that rivals last year’s in length and intensity.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:55 amglobal warming/climate change really is the issue where the Right’s refusal to acknowledge reality is completely mystifying. what do they stand to gain by denying the overwhelming scientific evidence?
http://opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=E01
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:00 amThe next Will column will deal with scientific writings from the 1300’s which conclude thet the earth is flat and the center of the universe. He will draw his readers to conclude that any talk to the contrary is a liberal plot to undermine Ameircan industry.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:05 amwe shall see what interesting facts and trivia George Will and his fellow deniers come up with if we have a Hurricane Season that rivals last year’s in length and intensity.
Comment by kingfelix — April 3, 2006 @ 10:55 am
They will say “God did it because he is mad that the middle class isn’t paying enough taxes.”
Sorry to hear about the tornadoes. Hope you’re okay.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:06 amDosn’t all this make it even stupider to rebuild new orleans at its current location?
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:07 amQuestion: Is there ever a point when printing mythology about global warming is incompatible with responsible journalism?
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:07 amSure, when you’re writing about examples of irresponsible journalism (like Will’s)
The next Will column will deal with scientific writings from the 1300’s which conclude thet the earth is flat and the center of the universe. He will draw his readers to conclude that any talk to the contrary is a liberal plot to undermine Ameircan industry.
Comment by Mark — April 3, 2006 @ 11:05 am
Funny!
Did you know that something like 20% of Americans already believe this? Seriously. There was a university study done on it last year.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:08 am“Did you know that something like 20% of Americans already believe this? Seriously. There was a university study done on it last year.”
It’s how we know the moon landing was faked, just like all the other space launches, because they show the earth round instead of as a cube.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:10 amIt’s how we know the moon landing was faked, just like all the other space launches, because they show the earth round instead of as a cube.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 11:10 am
Good morning funny boy.
I actually had a student come to tell me that the Moon Landing was a fake, and he could show me examples with photographs. His examples were really basic common sense things that were easily refuted… like the fact that the gravity of teh moon isn’t strong enough to pull the wrinkles out of the flag they’d just hung up, but he was saying that it was ‘waves’ and therefore ‘proof’ that it was a set up. Stuff like that.
I’ve learned that when people want to believe in something badly enough, they will rationalize damn near everything to ‘prove’ it.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:15 amDoes George Will deliberately lie or does he only see and hear what he wants? The modern Republican and conservative movement has become more of a religion depending on blind faith than on reason. Do we call the religious liars because they believe what they want regardless of evidence or reason?
We like to believe that highly intellegent and intellectual individuals like Will and Buckley would be more logical and reasonable yet the opposite is true. They use thier genius to twist, select, or ignore facts to justify thier beloved preconceptions and many pay them very well to help them do the same.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:17 amSqueegeeboo are you as STUPID as you sound or do they pay you to post here?
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:17 amConservatives like George Will are nature’s way of cleansing the earth of it’s human cancer. It’s the only explanation for their astonishing stupidity and complete denial of reality.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:18 amThere is considerable irony in this.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:18 am29
I believe he was being sarcastic.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:19 am#29 depends on which comment clif, some are jokes, others are stupidity, care to list specific comments so I can do a break down for you?
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:19 am#20
yeah, i guess what the right has to gain is, as usual, $$$, i just find it so hard to reconcile ignoring worldwide scientific opinion and foregoing the chance to Do Something with having your eyes light up over a suitcase stuffed with greenbacks.
is $$$ really that good?
natural justice dictates that george will will be whipped into the sky by a hurricane, from where he can continue to deny the evidence, “this? this is just a stiff breeze, nothing untoward. perfectly normal for alaska in mid-february…”
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:20 am#25 – well we now know where at least half of the 37% come from!
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:20 amI’ll just list them as stupid unless they are witty enough to elicit a laugh
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:28 amReading through some of the information linked in the above article. While the idea that global warming is caused by human activity, it sounds like in the mid-70’s many scientists were unsure. they do say to be careful about predicting long term climate trends. Case in point, during the 70’s was slight cooling. this trend did not continue. I do tend towards the thought that we are causing enviromental problems. How could we not a few million cars, factories etc. I do think it is correct to state, that unless the world as whole implaces the same restrictions, we won’t get anywhere.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:28 am#35 “#25 – well we now know where at least half of the 37% come from!”
I would think that the 20% would be the ignorant in America, seeing how as the majority of HS drop outs are Democractic voters, Something tells me those 20% are in the Bush hating majority.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:30 amI believe he was being sarcastic.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — April 3, 2006 @ 11:19 am
I know, was humoring him. It’s what we do. :)
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:33 am#38 point proven, no link to back up a STUPID comment
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:34 amis $$$ really that good?
Only if you actually think it buys anything of real value.
natural justice dictates that george will will be whipped into the sky by a hurricane, from where he can continue to deny the evidence, “this? this is just a stiff breeze, nothing untoward. perfectly normal for alaska in mid-february…â€
Comment by kingfelix — April 3, 2006 @ 11:20 am
ha! I’m sure you’re right!
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:35 amI would think that the 20% would be the ignorant in America, seeing how as the majority of HS drop outs are Democractic voters, Something tells me those 20% are in the Bush hating majority.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 11:30 am
Don’t know what urinal you get your ‘facts’ from, but the majority of PhDs are Democrats and independents.
Actually that 20% are strict constructionists of the Bible (i.e. Bush supporters). Read Revelations. It specifically referenced ‘the four corners of the earth’. The Bible also states that the universe is geocentric.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:39 amDon’t forget the Republican talking point, that democrats are all east coast liberal elite, I don’t think that High School dropouts would associate themeselves with that type of crowd.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:43 amEven if Will wasn’t being a weasel with the facts, his initial premise is false. He’s basically saying,
“because science was wrong in the past, it is wrong in the present.”
This Orwellian trust-us-not-the-truth panders to their ever-shrinking right-wing base who will never believe in evolution, global climate change, or an Iraqi civil war. Instead, they will happily follow Bush & Company blindly over the edge of a cliff, cheered on by jingoists like George Will & David Brooks.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:45 amPerhaps George Will should be given a home on the American/Canadian border and a pair of binoculars. When he sees a glacier coming, he’s to warn the country.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:47 am#28, I don’t think Will lies purposefully. I Actually don’t think he believes that he lies. He writes from a conservative view point that any restrictions on business are bad for the economy. I think he reads and writes his opinions honestly for the most part and I respect him far more than most conservative pundits. I also think that he, like most people in American, does not have the ability to actually read scientific papers, even the summaries. I used to read many many papers in my former life as a geologist. They are dry, and technical, not very interesting and difficult to follow if you don’t have the back ground in that field. Sometimes they are very difficult to read even if you do have the back ground. It is far easier to read a summary of a summary written by a non-scientific type to get your view on the subject. Unfortunately there are too many pseudo scientists out there putting out papers that sound scientific, but their main thrust is to pusha pre-determined point across, rather than to advance science. In our world today it seems to me that conservatives do not want any science that they do not believe in to be advanced while more liberal types are in favor of science regardless of the outcome. Will is simply advancing the conservative cause.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:48 amJawell
Look, the big thing here is that the whole global warming bit is actually only one of the problems caused by air pollution. It gets centre stage because the right decided to fight the relatively long-term issue rather then the short term issues like smog, increased incidence of cancer, and acid rain. There are a lot more reasons then just Global Warming for us to try and clean up our act as a species.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:48 am#42 If you do the research, you find that HS drop outs vote democrat, 2-4 year degrees vote republican, graduate level on vote Democrat again. Trying to google it for the sources I had seen a month or two ago, but busy day, so it might take me a bit to cite them, but don’t worry, I will.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:53 amMr. Boo – the level of a person’s education is not indicative of an individual’s level of intelligence. My mother has never taken a college course, however, she has read three newspapers a day and I do not know haw many books she reads weekly – it seems she is lways reading. She is one of the most intelligent people I know.
The we have W. He is supposedly well educated…..well we all know the results here!
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:57 amScience has the solution. Just listen to science and everything will be OK
31 March 2006
Recently citizen scientist Forrest Mims told me about a speech he heard at the Texas Academy of Science during which the speaker, a world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the extermination of 90 percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner. Apparently at the speaker’s direction, the speech was not video taped by the Academy and so Forrest’s may be the only record of what was said. Forrest’s account of what he witnessed chilled my soul. Astonishingly, Forrest reports that many of the Academy members present gave the speaker a standing ovation. To date, the Academy has not moved to sanction the speaker or distance itself from the speaker’s remarks.
If the professional community has lost its sense of moral outrage when one if their own openly calls for the slow and painful extermination of over 5 billion human beings, then it falls upon the amateur community to be the conscience of science.
Forrest, who is a member of the Texas Academy and chairs its Environmental Science Section, told me he would be unable to describe the speech in The Citizen Scientist because he has protested the speech to the Academy and he serves as Editor of The Citizen Scientist. Therefore, to preclude a possible conflict of interest, I have directed Forrest to describe what he observed and his reactions in this special feature, for which I have served as editor and which is being released a week ahead of our normal publication schedule. Comments may be sent to Backscatter.
Shawn Carlson, Ph.D.,
MacArthur Fellow,
Founder and Executive Director,
Society for Amateur Scientists
http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:57 amMark;
You said
I don’t understand this. What does belief have to do with science? Just because you don’t like a fact doesn’t mean it isn’t true and doesn’t have to be handled. I don’t like snow and transcendental numbers and both of them still exist. And the snow still has to be shoveled.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:58 ambut don’t worry, I will.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 11:53 am
Oh, that is something I will never worry about…
I think the reality is that the educations ends of the spectrum vote Democrat and the middle votes Republican. But will hold my breath waiting for your links ; )
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:58 amI would think that the 20% would be the ignorant in America, seeing how as the majority of HS drop outs are Democractic voters, Something tells me those 20% are in the Bush hating majority.
Comment by squegeeboo
squegeeboo – You are a stooge!
You know as well as everyone knows that these 20% are Bible thumping Republicans. Science to them is like kryptonite. Not only are they ignorant, but they are aggressively and willfully ignorant. They cannot accept any facts that would contradict their fantastical world view. Not only do they not want knowledge, but they would rather others not have it either.
Remember why God punished Adam and Eve? That’s right – for eating fruit from the tree of knowledge. Apparently, God hates sciency know it alls too.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:02 pmShe is one of the most intelligent people I know.
The we have W. He is supposedly well educated…..well we all know the results here!
Comment by Jules — April 3, 2006 @ 11:57 am
I have a couple of friend who are in their forties and never went to college. One works in a gym and the other drives a bus. Both read more in a month than the average college student. I call them self-educated. And it’s just as valid as earning a degree the traditional way.
However, they both voted Republican prior to their se;f-education, falling within the general spectrum that most in the middle vote conservatively. Of course there are always exceptions as both of my friends, like your mom, are presently Democratsl.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:03 pmWill has a long history of half-truths and distortions in his opinion pieces. I recall his famous “review” of Al Gore’s Eath in the Balance, which was so full of logical errors, distortions and outright lies that I used it for years to teach critical thinking!
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:04 pmApparently at the speaker’s direction, the speech was not video taped by the Academy and so Forrest’s may be the only record of what was said.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — April 3, 2006 @ 11:57 am
Enough said.
Though, if this were true, one whack job does not speak for all of Science. Just like you do not speak for all of well, anything really.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:06 pmI-RIGHT-I
So your friend of a friend said a scientist said something nasty at a convention which was conveniently un-recorded. Oh and he can’t actually describe the contents of the speech.
Yep that thar is what we call reliable reporting!
Seriously, your war on rationality is a losing one dude.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:07 pm#50
according to everyone but the offended scientist, Pianki was putting forth a theory on what could or might happen, not “advocating” killing off %90 of the population. Besides, according to daily Kos Pianki has been reported to the DHS.
http://www.dailykos.com
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:07 pmYet scientists are now extrapolating in exactly the same fashion as in the 1970s, mostly due to ignoring the effects of the Sun on the temperature on Earth. That Martinez has found someone back in the 1970s that did not accept the alarmist predictions of others does not discount that the media and many scientists at the time were all over the “global cooling” angle. You can find scientists today that will tell you much the same thing about the current warming trend. That doesn’t disprove that many scientists today, or at least their PR advocates, speak uncritically of an impending doom.
The truth is that the same people are doing the same thing as in the 1970s. Just look at new TIME magazine. The media is overplaying their hand for headlines and sales, while honest scientists are a lot more cautious about predictions.
This is also why James Hansen of NASA is so pissed off and claiming he is being censored: he wants his personal theories to be stated as fact, even though his own institution isn’t willing to back him up on it.
We simply do not have enough reliable data to be making the sort of predictions that are being made, or relying so heavily on models that don’t take into account things as important as the Sun.
When the Sun’s activity goes down, so will our temperature. It doesn’t get any easier than that. So the UN’s ICCP concluding that the temperature will increase 1-6 degrees by 2100 – this assumes that the current trend will continue unabated.
That is just as foolish as the scientists and the media of the 1970s. Which was the whole point being given by Mr. Will.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:08 pmLike I keep on saying, global warming is really just the sort of long term effect of air pollution. Nobody ever argues about smog, acid rain, cancer…
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:13 pmI-RIGHT-I
I heard that during a recent White House meeting George W. Bush admitted to being a Murderous Chicken-Fucker.
His comments weren’t actually recorded in any way, and are therefore not actually verifiable, but I am certain that he said these things.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:16 pm#38 #40 #42 #48 Finally found a few sources, 2k election, and 2004 election, for some reason I’m having a harder time than usual googling this one.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Although it does look like Bush is closing the gap on HS drop outs, so maybe in 2008 you guys can claim the uneducated vote republican.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:17 pm#56, I’m surprised that Adolf thinks there’s a point to be made there: he’s advocated for the painful death of at least 50% of the world’s population (muslims, Chinese, Russians, French, Venezuelans…non-dominionists, Jews…gays..).
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:18 pmI always loved the Pogo Comic Strip. Pogo always knew the enemy. “We are the enemy!” We, being the multitude of people who accept a class of elites in political parties who try to control our thinking. As a Biology major in the 60’s we discussed the green house effect, the warming of the planet but more importantly the distruction of habitat. Politicians are paid to stay in business and protect those who support them.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:18 pmAny poltician worth his salt can pay for enough scientific data to support anything needed for his clients. While we have an ever changing earth humanity contributes to already existing ecological problems not just global warming. Cutting back on carbon dioxide touches the energy billionaires.Energy related politicans can’t have a change in attitude regardless of the reprecussions to the environment. Money talks loud in Washington. Just wait until Washington starts to tax the air you breathe.
When the Sun’s activity goes down, so will our temperature. It doesn’t get any easier than that. So the UN’s ICCP concluding that the temperature will increase 1-6 degrees by 2100 – this assumes that the current trend will continue unabated.
That is just as foolish as the scientists and the media of the 1970s. Which was the whole point being given by Mr. Will.
Comment by Seixon — April 3, 2006 @ 12:08 pm
The sun maintains a relatively consistent temperature. It’s the process of nuclear fusion (where hydrogen atoms ‘fuse’ into Helium atoms, thereby giving off heat and light at a relatively consistent rate within the scale of a human life. The sun is slowly burning its;ef out, but over the course of 10 billion years. Nothing we’ll notice that much.) Solar flares and CMEs are not hot enough to maintain increases in temperature. If anything, they mostly disturb satellit communications and cell phones.
The reality of Global Warming is a resultof the Greenhouse Effect. And recent scientific drilling at the polar caps have examined 600.000 year old ice cores that capture the history of Earth’s cooling and warming cycles.
And it is based on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and not the sun.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:19 pmAlthough it does look like Bush is closing the gap on HS drop outs, so maybe in 2008 you guys can claim the uneducated vote republican.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
Nah, Bush can have you ; )
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:22 pm#65 Wait the Suns going to burn out? I’ve got to start planning for eternal winter/night. winght I’ll call it.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:23 pmActually that 20% are strict constructionists of the Bible (i.e. Bush supporters). Read Revelations. It specifically referenced ‘the four corners of the earth’. The Bible also states that the universe is geocentric.
Comment by unbelievable
Flat earth again. I thought I fixed your little problem with reading comprehension. The term “four corners of the earth” was a figure of speech then as it is now. They knew very well that the earth was a globe. It’s the same as when I call you an air-head. We all know that your head isn’t made up entirely of air.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:23 pmUnbelievable you are talking science to those who profess the earthis 6000 years old, flat, and the center of the universe. Kinda makes global warming hard to understand for them…..
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:23 pm#65 Wait the Suns going to burn out? I’ve got to start planning for eternal winter/night. winght I’ll call it.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
the course of 10 billion years.(it is currently 4.5 billion years old)
I would worry about global warming and the $9,000,000,000,000 public debt first
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:26 pmI heard that during a recent White House meeting George W. Bush admitted to being a Murderous Chicken-Fucker.
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — April 3, 2006 @ 12:16 pm
You do like saying that don’t you? ; )
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:29 pm#65 Wait the Suns going to burn out? I’ve got to start planning for eternal winter/night. winght I’ll call it.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
You should see how it freaks out the kids. Then, after I assured them that none of them will be around in 5 billion years to experience it supernova (do you wanna know about that part?), they start trying to problem solve their way off the planet and out of the solar system to escape it.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:33 pm#59 Just one thing: how many times weather forecasts have increased precission since the 1970s? Maybe those magic thingies called computers, who have multiplied the prediction capability, give to the actual scientifics a better hability to say what would happen in some few years than the ones of 35 years ago…
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:34 pmGeorge Will is part of the problem. These people who still question global warming (whether it be because of special interests, stupidity, energy company ties, etc.) are going to inhibit this country, and the rest of the world, from aggresively addressing the largest, most complex threat to mankind ever. Global warming is a weapon of mass destruction if we don’t start dealing with the problem quickly. Please read this short article:
Earth forum hears dire warnings of environmental collapse
George and the like are in for a big wake up call.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:35 pmOnce the sun goes nova, we won’t have to worry about the environment anymore.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:35 pmback to my point in #18 that I haven’t seen anyone tackle yet
“But there wasn’t a single scientific publication that predicted “global cooling.†(long term)
Then, inside of Will’s article “Science Digest (February 1973) reported that “the world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age.”"
I would think that the Science Digest would count as a scientific publication, but havn’t actually heard of it, is it more of a laymans journal covering science, or does that count as a single scientific publication predicting “global cooling”
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:37 pm#72 “You should see how it freaks out the kids.”
It gave my brother nightmares for weeks when we first found out as youngins. I was more concerned with more immediate threats though, like the closest monster, or my brother beating the snot out of me for no reason. Ahh, childhood, how I miss it.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:38 pmFlat earth again. I thought I fixed your little problem with reading comprehension.
No, you made some general gesture about you relying on the Bible and then refused to answer my questions More than once. I might be a lot of things, but telepathic is not one of them.
The term “four corners of the earth†was a figure of speech then as it is now.
All figures of speech have a basis in reality.
So, then, by the same token, the Creation stories could be a figure of speech for evolution. Except that the Y chromosome is a variant of the X, and not teh other way around (man came from woman, not woman from man). Don’t burst a blood vessel now.
They knew very well that the earth was a globe.
Actually, at that time, they did not. But it doesn’t address why they called the earth the center of teh universe when i is not. I’m pretty certain there’s nofigure of speech for that.
It’s the same as when I call you an air-head. We all know that your head isn’t made up entirely of air.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — April 3, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
It’s not me you call an airhead, it’s the bimbo who served you cold pizza. If you can’t tell the difference, you should get used to being single.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:40 pmUnbelievable you are talking science to those who profess the earthis 6000 years old, flat, and the center of the universe. Kinda makes global warming hard to understand for them…..
Comment by Clif — April 3, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
Good point.
You think they know where babies come from yet?
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:41 pmSeems the less educated ones went for bush this from your own link
VOTE BY EDUCATION 2004
BUSH KERRY NADER
TOTAL
No College Degree (58%) 53% 47%
College Graduate (42%) 49% 49% 1%
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:42 pm#79
given the restrictions on when you could have sex with your wife in the bible, I would say they knew where babies came from.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:45 pm#80 I believe my one you wanted cited was on HS drop outs, which voted for Kerry by a slight margin.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:46 pmYou think they know where babies come from yet?
Comment by unbelievable — April 3, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
I heard some of them telling their kids about a stork but I can’t figure out how a bird fits into the equation. (maybe that is where GWB got his human animal hybrid quote from his SOTU speech, cause he ain’t figgered it out yet either )
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:46 pmIt gave my brother nightmares for weeks when we first found out as youngins. I was more concerned with more immediate threats though, like the closest monster, or my brother beating the snot out of me for no reason. Ahh, childhood, how I miss it.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 12:38 pm
I’m glad I was the oldest. My youngest brother is 34 and still talks about how much he was beaten up as a kid.
You over the closet monster yet??? (My guess is a resounding ‘no’ considering that you voted for Pedro in 2004 : )
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:46 pm#79 Toddlers come from Paris, France (a common saying in Spain). If true, it would make many repugs hate themselves, and call themselves “freedom newborns” or something alike.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:47 pm#80 I believe my one you wanted cited was on HS drop outs, which voted for Kerry by a slight margin.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
Not statistically significant, only a 1% difference between the two, what is the margin of error…EVERY POLL has one.
However the difference between the # of with college and without gave GWB his margin of victory, Home schooled probably, most do not go on to higher education there,
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:51 pm#83 #79 From what I remeber from health, they come from one of two places, my mom having sex with the stork, or we can pick up your unwanted ones from the clinic and finish growing them :)
“You over the closet monster yet???” Of course I am, what do you think I am a baby? I’ve moved on to the cellar monster now, you have to run up those stairs quick before he grabs you from between them.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:51 pm#80 I believe my one you wanted cited was on HS drop outs, which voted for Kerry by a slight margin.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
And was even higher among those with graduate degrees.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:52 pmFrom what I remeber from health, they come from one of two places, my mom having sex with the stork, or we can pick up your unwanted ones from the clinic and finish growing them
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 12:51 pm
Which version do you tell yourself………………………………………………………………………………………..
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:54 pm#86
the home schooled go on to unaccredited universities. think Bob Jones. Their are others. I read a report about a Christian Fundamentalist school, I think in Maryland that had several of its students work as interns on the GWB re-election campaign during the 2004 election. I will see if I can locate the article. it makes for interesting reading.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:55 pm#83 #79 From what I remeber from health, they come from one of two places, my mom having sex with the stork, or we can pick up your unwanted ones from the clinic and finish growing them :)
Contrary to your homeschooled science lesson, all liberal women do not have a revolving door relationship with the abortion clinic (though, for your information, I was conservative the first 33 years of my life, and religious). But, as someone who believes in no afterlife, I am far more respectful than to create an unwanted child. Unlike the good Southern Baptist girls in my high school who used abortion as birth control, I’ve never been pregnant.
Of course I am, what do you think I am a baby? I’ve moved on to the cellar monster now, you have to run up those stairs quick before he grabs you from between them.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 12:51 pm
Is that your term for Satan? : )
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:58 pmGeorge Will looks exactly like a man who hasn’t taken a decent sh|t it fifty years.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:00 pmhttp://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050627fa_fact
I found the article. It is a new yorker piece.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:01 pmCliff – I have no problem admitting the Highest level of education vote dem, the facts are there to support it. I think Unbelievable was right with the “I think the reality is that the educations ends of the spectrum vote Democrat and the middle votes Republican” statement. Which if you go back to the 200 election I posted above shows HS drop outs voting decidedly Dem, and in 2004 voting barely Dem, so it would be interesting to see the ‘98 or ‘02 break down to put it into more context, as well as what happens this novemeber.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:01 pmI think Unbelievable was right
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
Mind if I highlight that? (I figure it’s a first – and a last :)
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:04 pmCreationists can’t be trusted to do science. Will is just another example of how people disqualify themselves from meaningful discourse when their only objective to make pre-approved noises that mean nothing.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:07 pm.
#95 I don’t know, if that gets around Tundra might start hating me too.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:07 pm#95 I don’t know, if that gets around Tundra might start hating me too.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
You’re safe. He’s agreed with me several times already. You, just this once :)
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:10 pm#76
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:11 pmWhen he talks about scientific publication he is talking about a Scientific paper concerning the specific point of long term global cooling. He is saying that no paper was produced therefore no publication(magazine) printed a scientific paper on the subject. If a publication wrote an article about the subject does not mean it is a scientific peer reviewed paper.
#94 13130 respondents They do not poll every person, and which states were polled? You are taking a suggestive poll which do not have a lot of statistical basis and attempting to expand it to fit your preconceived notion, the poll only allows 263 people from each state or a very small number to expand to a large population, a statistical anomaly from one selected area could skew the numbers a lot, thus find a larger sample that would not make the statistical anomalies so large or your off base using the polls as fact.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:13 pm#100 I’ve already cited two that agree with me, now its your turn to cite ones that disagree if you want to continue that, although yes, there could be a statistical issue with the 2004 poll that would throw it one way or the other, the 2000 seems pretty solid due to the % difference. For voting results, what else can you use besides polls?
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:16 pmI found the article. It is a new yorker piece.
Comment by krazny — April 3, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
From the article: “In her sophomore year, Muench had become the first—and, so far, the only—woman at Patrick Henry to run for a student-government executive office, when she entered the race for vice-president. Campaigns are unusually intense at Patrick Henry; candidates hire pollsters and form slates. One of Muench’s friends, Matthew du Mée, was on an opposing slate, and the race caused a strain. (Both lost.) Muench’s internship with Rove has given her a reputation, much envied on campus, as someone worth knowing.”
This makes me want to puke. It’s like reading the quarterly sorority update that sounds like a snobby patronization of those who aren’t perfect while ignoring the real world and real issues.
I have an idea for a reality television show. Take some of these sheltered rich folks and move them to New Orleans without their cellphones, credit cards, or attached umbilial cord. Now that would be a reason to turn on the set again!
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:19 pmWhat scares me more, is the push to create a Christian Fundamentalist country. We seperated church and state for a reason.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:25 pmI quote the poll numbers or questionnaire from 2000, polling 263 people per state is not enough to form a very much of a trend, in KY that would amount to about one person per county for the smaller counties like mine if the numbers were spread by population, thus not statistically large enough for spreading the numbers because too many differences through out the country and what places were the polls conducted, what states and what regions of the states makes a big difference….I know you want this to be true but a larger cross section of the country would be necessary and I doubt CNN had people all over the country they just did larger areas where they(CNN)actually exist and extended the results.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:25 pmOnce again for those not listening – an individuals level of education DOES NOT MATTER.
There are many well informed people with a low level of education and just as many highly educated that could not even name the sec of state.
Personally, I would much rather have individuals informed on issues. I do not believe education means you are making the best use of your vote.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:26 pmRe: Voting patterns, say what you want about uneducated people, but they were the ones initially against Vietnam and the Iraq War. The so-called educated people were for it. They may not be the most educated, but they are probably the most humane. (Note that in “Red States”, the lower class votes Dem while the middle/upper vote decidedly GOP–more so than wealthy in “blue states”.)
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:27 pm#105 I agree, but how would you go about determining that, I’ve always favored some sort of polling test that shows basic understanding of the issues and positions of the candidates before being able to vote, but apparently that makes me a ‘fascist’ or other such term, beyond its complete infesiablity due to language and time issues.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:33 pmHas anyone looked up the “Science Digest” article?
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:34 pm#105 I agree, but how would you go about determining that
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
By reestablishing the fairness doctrine that Reagan gutted what he took office, That would allow the opposing view points out and allow the citizens not the media (which in the case of GWB until late 2005 gave him very good press) to make informed decisions. And to force the federal government to stop from classifing everything that is embarrassing like Reagan and Bush41 presidential papres.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:49 pm#107 while I agree that an every citizen should know what issues are affecting the world, a test is not the answer.
Who would write it? What questions would be asked? Who would score it? What is considered a passing score? How would it be monitored? Who would pay for it?
We have this great piece of paper called the constitution that gives the citizens of the US the right to the exercise of the franchise. But of course, when has a little thing like the constitution ever stopped a republican!
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:49 pm#110 the fairness doctrine infinges to much on capatilism, unless the US wants to start paying for the dem/rep opposing views of every radio/tv station they have no right to enforce something like that. The declassifing would be nice though, although at least some of what they classify has to be for national security reasons, but how to tell? Interesting enough, conservative libertarian Neal Boortz regularly asks his readers/listeners to support Air America, because he’s afraid if it fails, the fairness doctrine might be re-established.
#111 come on now Jules, when has it ever stopped a democrat either?
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:57 pmThe religious right does not care about the Earth because they all expect to crowd into those few reserved seats during the End Days and watch their friends, neighbors, parents, sons, daughters self destruct! These “good people” have an expectation to meet, and if it means bringing on the end of the Earth with whatever means they have at hand, well, that’s just the price of the show! It’s actually very convenient to them to have so much power that they can help bring about the destruction of the Earth. They are pleased to be able to stand in the way of the rest of us trying to save the planet. This is what they have been praying for! Why would they stop now, just when everything is going their way?
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:58 pm#51, way to take it out of context. The guy is not advocating extinction, the guy is saying the world could be ripe for another extinction event. But good job on making the incorrect assumption that he is calling for genocide. You prove the point every time you talk, regardless of what the point is. Also you seem to be all for accountability, except when it comes to republicans.
#52 your words are exactly my thoughts. I fully believe that you can deny things all you want, but that does not make them not true. There are literally millions of pages of documentation on evolution, yet the right chooses to take the few words against it and use that to bolster their opinion. There are literally millions of words and documentation supporting global warming, yet the right chooses to take the political opinions as fact. In neither case does ignoring what you do not want to believe make it untrue.
#69 Figure of Speech? Are you denying the word of god? You bastard! No wonder christians think christianity is under assault with the likes of IRI out there. First he advocates almost everything that the bible is against, and now he denys the word of god.
#77 Science digest is to science what readers digest is to clasical literature. It’s more science fiction and what if stuff rather than scientific research. It is something a layman might read as opposed to Scientific American or some discipline specific journals.
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:12 pmSqueegie – I suppose you would call the Swift Boating of Senator Kerry fair?
This thread had some meaning earlier. the tangents have taken it where who’da thunk?
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:20 pmOk. Everyone stop in their tracks.
Any scientist with an agenda can pull the data either way. The fact is we don’t have enough data to know if we’re warming or cooling. We don’t even know what “normal” is.
Should we try to take care of the earth? Yes.
Should we be conscious in our waste of resources? Yes.
Should we react to a scientific subject emotionally? No.
To quote Penn Jillette, “It’s sexy to save the world.”
Here’s an example of misguided people meaning well. Tell you what, let’s treat the Earth in the same way our nature loving North American ancestors, the Indians (or Native Americans for you politically correct). Oh wait, they RAZED the forests! While we try to conserve the forests by putting out forest fires, all we do is cause them to burn more and more harshly due to all the overgrowth. Think it’s a coincedence all those lovely homes outside LA are burning up each year from the surrounding forests uncontrollably burning?
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:25 pmWhether you are polluting or conserving, stop trying to manage nature! It’s a tough cookie and it bites back!
#115 Just as fair as the fake memo or the claims that Bush was stupider then Kerry in college.
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:25 pmI’ve always favored some sort of polling test that shows basic understanding of the issues and positions of the candidates before being able to vote, but apparently that makes me a ‘fascist’ or other such term, beyond its complete infesiablity due to language and time issues.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
That idea sucked the first time when it was called Jim Crow.
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:39 pmHmm. Much Jacking Of Jaws.
Think about this.
The Earths Electromagnetic Field keeps us from getting crispy Crittered Right?
Did you Know that the Strength of the EM field has decreased by Half in the Last 6000 years or so?
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:53 pm#73- That reminds me of an episode of “The Twilight Zone”. In it the Earth has begun moving closer to the Sun, and ‘the end’ is inevitable, but she turns out to have a raging fever, and it was just a dream. BUT instead the Earth was really moving away from the Sun, and ‘the end’ was still coming. Now THAT was a scary episode!!!
As to Mr.Will, he must have a fever himself. His Editors should consider putting a “disclaimer” at the top of his Editorials, saying how his “opinions” are his own, and do not represent the views of the rational people of the world, or something to that effect. Just to clarify that he is not an “expert”, and is just offering his “opinion”.
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:54 pmIf the Field Decreaes due to Precession of the Fields Wobble, then Is This a Natural Cycle yet one of long duration?
SO 1 degree every 72 years?
Thats 360X72 for a Full Circle? =25,920
25,920 years for the Sumerian Circle to Complete.
Anyway this is my View, As always feel free to extrapolate from this analogy,
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:58 pm#116, You are right any scientist with an agenda can make the facts seem to fit what they want them to say…in writings that are not peer reviewed. Reality based science has to go througha review process whereby papers are put through the rigors. If they do nto survive, then they scientifcally get relegated to the junk pile. It is hard for a scientist with an agenda to get a paer through, but it is not hard for apolitician with an agenda to pick up on faulty work and treat it as gospel. The premise of your post about agenda’s is the rrepublican party take on all scientists and scientific studies that do not match republican ideology, and that is to cast doubt on the scintists themselves. Remeber Darwin was not happy with his own conclusions and it pained him to come to those conclusions, yet he publ;ishedd anyway, not for ideologyu, but for science and knowledge sake.
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:59 pm#117 re: the fake memo don’t forget that the secretary who typed the original said yes I typed one that said those very things, however this is not it. So there was a memo, and now it is gone…hmmm
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:02 pmunbelievable,
Yet the scientists are now warming up (no pun intended) to the idea that the Sun has a lot more to do with the warming of the Earth (wow, who would have thought?) than they thought. If you look at the graph over temperature vs time vs the Sun’s output you will see a very direct connection. If you look at CO2 vs the temperature, the connection is not direct, other than a general upward trend since 1980.
From 1930-1970, the CO2 kept going up, yet the temperature went down. How do the scientists explain this? They don’t – they ignore it.
It’s funny, because the CO2 was increasing about the same amount per year as it is doing now back then, and then they were screaming about “global cooling”. Doesn’t that seem a bit inconsistent?
Well, not if you look at the Sun’s output, which followed closely with the temperature trend.
Mars has also experienced a warming trend the last decade. CO2 or the Sun? Hmm, let’s take a wild stab at it, shall we?
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:03 pmBUT instead the Earth was really moving away from the Sun, and ‘the end’ was still coming. Now THAT was a scary episode!!!
I have not seen this movie..
Yet, I THINK you speak of the Galactic Horizon, the Big 12 of the Universal Clock that we shall pass thru.
Aye But Those words have been Written before, the challenge becomes for you to find where this is said.
“Creation Runs in Reverse”
Why Does this then mean that our thoughts Run Forward?
LOL, Make ya think!!
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:07 pmIt’s funny, because the CO2 was increasing about the same amount per year as it is doing now back then, and then they were screaming about “global coolingâ€. Doesn’t that seem a bit inconsistent?
Man Made CO2 and that Produced by Volcanoes DO NOT break down is Nature the Same, People fail to realize that and see Carbonated Beverages as GOOD Co2. Actually thats man made CO2
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:09 pmWe can keep taking Stabs at it, but WHY?
Wouldnt it be Prudent, since we dont Know, to go with the SAFE BET, and do all that we can to Avert this, if indeed it is manmade?
Perhaps its actually it’s two problems? One the Naturally Diminishing field, and secondly manmade co2?
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:14 pmAXIOM,
Was that supposed to be a rebuttal? I talk about A, and you talk about Z. WTF? LOL.
If CO2 is the thing that has warmed us up, why wasn’t it doing so during the “global cooling” period between 1930-1970? The CO2 trend has been virtually linear for the last 100 years. The temperature has not at all. Anyone want to explain?
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:15 pm#127 and all the swift boaters stand by their comments on Kerry, but theres more of them backing up their story then there are of secretaries backing up the memo.
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:30 pmSeixon,
I don’t know where you’re getting your numbers. Just because CO2 increased, doesn’t mean an immediate effect on the temperatures. It’s an accumulative condition.
“Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years.
That is the conclusion of new European studies looking at ice taken from 3km below the surface of Antarctica.
The scientists say their research shows present day warming to be exceptional.
Other research, also published in the journal Science, suggests that sea levels may be rising twice as fast now as in previous centuries.
Treasure dome
The evidence on atmospheric concentrations comes from an Antarctic region called Dome Concordia (Dome C).
Over a five year period commencing in 1999, scientists working with the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica) have drilled 3,270m into the Dome C ice, which equates to drilling nearly 900,000 years back in time.
Gas bubbles trapped as the ice formed yield important evidence of the mixture of gases present in the atmosphere at that time, and of temperature.
“One of the most important things is we can put current levels of carbon dioxide and methane into a long-term context,” said project leader Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland.
“We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:37 pmSeixon shows why CONservatives get worse grades in school than liberals do. Reading comprehension, reason and logic are always the tools of last resort for them. Anecdotal beliefs, preconceptions and trying to ‘fix the facts’ to their beliefs is standard fare. Seixon is an idiot.
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:51 pmSeixon,
Before you ‘pretend’ to know something, go do your homework FOR A CHANGE. May I suggest this graph which shows CO2 emissions? In particular the automobile and modern power generation from the electric grid shot up dramatically in the 1940s onward, and over the decades added a slow and steady increase in CO2 until threshold levels were crossed.
If you aren’t as stupid as you normally are, you might find this graph useful to help you understand why your statement (lies) that you posted are so stupid.
http://www.pewclimate.org/images/figure7.gif
Learn something before you speak, or STFU you moron.
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:55 pm#125- Hardly. “The Twilight Zone” that I was referring to was a T.V. show. I think they still show it on the Sci-fi network. As to the rest, whatever, Dude.
April 3rd, 2006 at 4:19 pm#129 My favorite swiftbaoter is the one who made the claim that he served on the same boat as Kerry and feels that Kerry is unfi to lead our country. Yet when the truth is revealed turns out he did serve on the same boat, just not at the same time. Most of those swift boaters never served one second with Kerry as there was only one guy on his boat who worked agaisnt him and that guy pretty much admitted that it wasn’t Kerry it was his being a democrat that was the probelm. God could run as a deomcrat and that guy would have voted aginst him. So the whole swift baot thing is a pack of lies pretty much and for them to continue to stand by them even as they are disproved is a remarkable thing.
April 3rd, 2006 at 4:35 pmGod could run as a deomcrat and that guy would have voted aginst him.
Comment by Mark — April 3, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
Though, I’m beginning to think that that’s who it will take for the Dems to take over in 2008.
April 3rd, 2006 at 4:46 pm“and all the swift boaters stand by their comments on Kerry, but theres more of them backing up their story then there are of secretaries backing up the memo. Comment by squishypoop”
And there are more soldiers backing up Kerry’s side, than those who say Bush ever served in his duty. Heck, a financial reward was offered for soldiers who would back up Bush’s claims of him meeting his service requirements in the NG, and no one remembered him. Yet virtually every soldier who served direclty with Kerry backed him up, as did the FULL release of the military records last year – after the election. But why would you care about ‘facts’, you’ll just do what most reichwingers do and ‘fix’ them to the fantasy you want to live in.
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:10 pmCOFFIN’S NEAT LITTLE ROWS speak loudest of this deception… How sad for the world…
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:12 pmOn the “It is hard for a scientist with an agenda to get a paper through” comment.
Take two things into consideration:
1. Slanted scientific papers are published every day from pharmaceutical companies to universities.
2. Most university environments are heavily liberal slanted so the general reaction, “Global warming is a danger” is easily accepted by their peers. Not that caring is a bad thing, but science isn’t about emotion.
I’ve not said there isn’t global warming, just that we don’t know if there is. Climate changes happen over hundreds or thousands of years, not decades. We don’t have enough data. Anyone, I repeat, anyone who tries to take a stand on the data is just plain wrong.
Check out the science surrounding Eugenics in the 20’s. It was just like global warming, fear spread by scientists, PSA’s by celebrities, Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill openly spoke about the danger of it. It was all supposedly “Scientific fact”.
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:26 pmThen they actually discovered genetics and it was all proven wrong.
Look it up and you’ll find out an even better reason why you never hear about it.
I’ll give you a hint, a Jewish painter in Germany used it and fear to do some pretty nasty stuff.
#136 Ryan, “But why would you care about ‘facts’, you’ll just do what most reichwingers do and ‘fix’ them to the fantasy you want to live in.”
Still waiting on you to prove that Bush committed a crime with the wire tappings, once you manage to do that one then you can talk about twisting facts.
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:34 pm“I’ve not said there isn’t global warming, just that we don’t know if there is. Thought”
Actually we DO know there’s global warming, how bad it will get, or whether it will snap back into a ‘big freeze’ is what we don’t know.
“Check out the science surrounding Eugenics in the 20’s. It was just like global warming, fear spread by scientists, PSA’s by celebrities, Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill openly spoke about the danger of it. It was all supposedly “Scientific factâ€.
Then they actually discovered genetics and it was all proven wrong.
Look it up and you’ll find out an even better reason why you never hear about it. Thought”
And that’s what you get for ‘thinking’, it was proven wrong through peer review of the ’science’, and genetics came along much after eugenics was trashed. The difference? Global warming IS peer reviewed, and the science holds up under scrutiny. In the 1920s reichwingers like yourself didn’t know much about what ’science’ was, so you bought off on Eugenics because it told you a simple story. Just like you buy off today from the ‘global warming naysayers’, and not because science supports your position, but because you don’t understand science.
Aren’t you glad that there are smarter, and better educated people to stop you guys from making stupid moves like Eugenics and the global warming messes you’re creating? You should be – but you’re probably too stupid to appreciate it.
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:36 pm“Still waiting on you to prove that Bush committed a crime with the wire tappings, once you manage to do that one then you can talk about twisting facts. Comment by squishypoop”
That’s easy:
Warrants on americans are guaranteed by the constitution – there is no provision for ‘in case of war ignore this’, and the president is ARTICLE II, of the constitution, meaning he has less power than Congress.
Sorry, but this has long since been proven, but only people who are too stupid, or too much denial, or too much anti-american like yourself would dare claim it wasn’t. You’re a fool, a coward, and an idiot.
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:39 pmWarrants on americans are guaranteed by the constitution – there is no provision for ‘in case of war ignore this’, and the president is ARTICLE II, of the constitution, meaning he has less power than Congress.
Comment by Ryan Neat — April 3, 2006 @ 5:39 pm
I actually got a letter from one of my elected neocons – Nathan Deal (the crook who swift boated Max Clelland to take his job), and of course it was a form letter. But it was a bunch of nonsense trying to convince me that the Partiot Act gave Bush the authority over the Constitution! But he’d be sure and keep an eye on things. What a load of crap…
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:45 pm#141 And where in that does it cover telephone calls to/from foreign countries? And you’ve seen the secret provisions that may or may not give him the authority to do this?
Whats that? You don’t have access to the secret provisions? Oh my, so it could be legal, just like it could be illegal, innocent until proven guilty still applies in this country or just not to ‘Reich’wingers or ‘CON’servatives?
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:53 pmInnocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply to democrats. Witness the Bill Clinton witch hunt.
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:56 pm“#141 And where in that does it cover telephone calls to/from foreign countries? squishypoop”
You forgot the part where the NSA admitted that several of the tapped phone calls were 100% domestic.
Once again, lies, deceptions, and ignoring of the truth. You make a great Nazi you know.
“And you’ve seen the secret provisions that may or may not give him the authority to do this? squishypoop”
You’ve been watching too many spy movies – Secret provisions? Bahaha, you’re a fool. No ’secret provision’ can trump the constitution – PERIOD. MORON.
“Oh my, so it could be legal, just like it could be illegal, innocent until proven guilty still applies in this country or just not to ‘Reich’wingers or ‘CON’servatives? squishypoop”
No it IS illegal, as no law by congress can trump a constitutional right – only a constitutional amendment can do that. And guess what butthead, constitional amendments don’t have ’secret provisions’. For someone who claims to be fighting for american values, you seem woefully ignorant on what those values and rights are. If you were smart you’d be happy for those of us that protect you from your own ignorance – but we both know you aren’t smart enough.
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:58 pmAnd squishypoop, I suggest you look up “United States v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)” which was a United States Supreme Court decision that specifically addressed FISA with issues of National Security. And it clearly stated the president does not have the power to violate the constitutional rights of citizens even if he ‘deems them a threat’.
Sorry, but this question has already been answered, but the power hungry Nazis you belong to don’t care about america or american values – instead all you care about is power and the exercise of it. You’re a threat to yourself, the world, our country and our constitution. But unfortunately most republicans aren’t patriotic enough, or smart enough to realize what they’re doing.
April 3rd, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Ryan “No ’secret provision’ can trump the constitution – PERIOD. MORON.”
Yet all sorts of non-constitutional programs trump the constitution every day. From your way of thinking, everytime a senator votes for an increase to medicade, SS, DOE, DOT, the Airforce, etc, they are violating the consitition and should be held accountable, yet they arn’t, and for many of those programs such as DOE and SS, if they arn’t funded liberals get mad.
So we have two ways of looking at it
1. You actually don’t care about the consitition and are just using it as a way to attack Bush.
2. You are looking at the intent of the programs before considering the legality of them, and if the intent seems valid, they’re ok. And if thats the case, you have one of the authors of the FISA act that Bush is violating, according to you, saying that he is not violating the intent of them, http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060329-120346-1901r.htm, so if your going off of intent, hes in the clear.
So what we have here is you being hypocritical due to your hatred of Bush.
April 3rd, 2006 at 6:52 pmWe used to be able to comment on Will’s oped pieces on line at the Poshington Wost, but not for this piece of lying trash. That means they know Will is wrong.
Once again, Will has written a piece so horrendous, that he should be fired for it. But since he takes the Bush/Cheney faith based position, he may get a raise instead.
April 3rd, 2006 at 7:15 pmSquishypoop, the court case of 1972 addressed the ‘legality’ and not the ‘intent’. It is you who’s using the ‘perceived good intentions’ of Bush – from your realm of delusion – to justify a violation of the Constitution.
As for your ‘claims’ about other programs being unconstitutional – bahaha, wow you’re such a STUPID person.
The founding fathers knew people like you as well – and you were a threat to the democracy for them too.
April 3rd, 2006 at 7:27 pm
The opinions of former FISA court judges are just that, opinions, and has no legal standing. Your use of it is an illogical argument. The true legal standing would come from the Senate, after an impeachment in the House.
It is you, squegeeboo who is wrong, due to your blind obedience of Bush, even when he clearly has broken the law on many occasions. Also, you do not understand federal law and how it relates to the Constitution.
April 3rd, 2006 at 7:32 pmSquishypoop,
Old Ben had other pieces of sage advice for idiots like yourself.
The strictest law sometimes becomes the severest injustice.
Benjamin Franklin
To Follow by faith alone is to follow blindly.
Benjamin Franklin
He that won’t be counseled can’t be helped.
Benjamin Franklin
Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.
Benjamin Franklin
He that’s secure is not safe.
Benjamin Franklin
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Benjamin Franklin
A great empire, like a great cake, is most easily diminished at the edges.
Benjamin Franklin
Distrust and caution are the parents of security.
Benjamin Franklin
Genius without education is like silver in the mine.
Benjamin Franklin
A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one.
Benjamin Franklin
A man wrapped up in himself makes a very small bundle.
Benjamin Franklin
All mankind is divided into three classes: those that are immovable, those that are movable, and those that move.
Benjamin Franklin
All wars are follies, very expensive and very mischievous ones.
April 3rd, 2006 at 7:36 pmBenjamin Franklin
sp conveniently left out the fact that the former FISA judges qualified their opinion with this:
The judges, however, said Mr. Bush’s choice to ignore established law regarding foreign intelligence gathering was made “at his own peril,” because ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security.
Seems like Will has company in the Will-ful Deception department.
April 3rd, 2006 at 7:40 pmSquishypoop,
There’s only one problem. Judge Allan Kornblum isn’t, and never was, a FISA judge.
That’s what you get for following the MOONIE TIMES. I can point you to a website that lists all of the current and former FISA judges if you like – but we both know that the ‘truth’ and ‘reality’ are two things that are severely toxic for you. It’s why you avoid both so fiercely.
Bahaha, Moonie Times – WHAT A GULLIBLE MORON YOU ARE!!!!
April 3rd, 2006 at 7:49 pmThe REAL story is here, and the 5 judges said:
Five former judges on the nation’s most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President George W. Bush’s domestic eavesdropping, have urged Congress to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.
In otherwords, both the ‘intent’ and ‘content’ of that Moonie piece are the EXACT OPPOSITE of what happened. I can also point you to the transcript of the hearings if you like – but we both know you’re too retarded to fact check – so why start now. Your brains are apparently as squishy as the rest of you are! Moonie Times – Bahaha – WHAT AN IDIOT YOU ARE!!!
April 3rd, 2006 at 7:52 pmOh, and then there’s the ‘co-author’ of the FISA law – what MORON (squishypoop?) doesn’t realize that CONGRESS writes these laws, not some 3rd tier DOJ attorney. Wow, reichwingers seem to be completely ignorant of how our government even works – no wonder they’re so eager to dismantle it into a police state! Morons!
April 3rd, 2006 at 7:56 pmAnd there is this:
Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer, has testified before Congress that such arguments about the “inherent authority” of the president could be used to justify any infringement of constitutional rights.
By this logic, he said, a president could round up Americans and imprison them, saying: “These are people who are likely to be spies and saboteurs and helpers of al-Qaida. I don’t need a warrant. And since Roosevelt did it in World War II (by interning many Japanese and Japanese Americans), I can do it now.”
Fein contends the framers of the Constitution never intended to give a president such authority.
http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/1143437116327220.xml?oregonian?lctop&coll=7&thispage=1
Squishy? Hello? Hello?
I think he died of embarrassment! Or maybe he’s just on another Kool-aid break.
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:02 pmKevin,
Kornblum is a government hack who argued that the FBI didn’t have a right to spy on Wen Ho Lee. This HACK has a long history of screwing with ‘liberals’ in government – and this latest effort to ‘pretend’ to be the FISA co-author. His methods, attitudes, and irresponsible behavior are completely consistent with squishypoop and the other ‘ineptitards’ of the reichwing. They lie, cheat, steal and destroy because they’re bratty children who grow up to be bratty adults.
So the same RETARD republican who argued that Clinton couldn’t use FISA to spy on someone KNOWN to have been involved with espionage now argues that the president doesn’t even have to be held to FISA? That’s what you call a HACK.
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:09 pm#153 There’s only one problem. Judge Allan Kornblum isn’t, and never was, a FISA judge.
I never said he was a judge, I said he was an auther of the FISA law. Did you miss that when I said “you have one of the authors of the FISA act” Now you have to claim things that I never said to prove your point?
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Benjamin Franklin”
By that argument we should never lock our houses or our cars, because by locking them we loose the liberty of being able to go in and out of them freely. Do I not deserve the liberty to have a car because I lock it when I’m not around them? Criminals should never be locked up, because it’s extra security for society, at the cost of a segment of societies liberties.
Franklin’s qoute is a nice sounding one, but everyone person/society has a little security, so does that mean none of us should have liberty? Aparently you think so.
Sounds like your source dosn’t call it illegal, it never even uses the words illegal or criminal in context to what Bush did, it just says the program should have court oversite.
“As for your ‘claims’ about other programs being unconstitutional – bahaha, wow you’re such a STUPID person.”
Where is your refutal to them not being unconsititional? Unable to have a valid reason, so resorting to insults again?
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:11 pmKevin “Fein contends the framers of the Constitution never intended to give a president such authority.”
And you think they ever intended for programs like SS, DOE, DOT, or any of the New Deal? Yet liberals in general never seem to upset at those programs.
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:15 pm“I never said he was a judge, I said he was an auther of the FISA law. Did you miss that when I said “you have one of the authors of the FISA act†Now you have to claim things that I never said to prove your point? squishypoop”
Actually it was the storry you cited that makes the false claim he’s a former FISA judge. I agree it’s a false claim, and unfortunately for you it’s YOUR evidence. And by the way, he’s NOT an author of FISA – that’s also a FALSE CLAIM.
And the whole point of the entire american system is OVERSIGHT – and FISA is an example of oversight. When the executive branch spies on americans without a warrant (court oversight based on JUST AND PROBABLE CAUSE), then yes it’s ILLEGAL. DUHHHHHH… How old are you 6? Basic concept seem to not exist in your psyche. Were you home schooled or just stupid?
Kornblum was just an attorney at the DOJ, FISA was written by CONGRESS. You’re such a RETARD.
And you car analogy just further shows you don’t know what ‘liberty’ is – no surprise, Nazis rarely do.
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:21 pm“And you think they ever intended for programs like SS, DOE, DOT, or any of the New Deal? Yet liberals in general never seem to upset at those programs. Comment by squishypoop”
Do those programs violate some constitutional provision, or are you upset simply because they didn’t exist? The interstates and airports didn’t exist either, are you saying those are also unconstitutional? Your comment is hysterical, irrational and retarded. The constitutionality of all of those programs were long ago settled, as was the unconstitutionality of SPYING ON AMERICANS WITHOUT A WARRANT. But the SS system doesn’t violate people’s civil liberties – whereas Bush has. Your inability to discern this simple fact is typical of the results of head trauma necessary to believe in the reichwing retarded society plan.
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:24 pmAnd squishypoop, the founding fathers expected things like the DOE to come along, and that’s why the gave congress the power to enact new laws. Please explain to me how the DOE violates the constitution, and what provision specifically (as I did with warrantless spying), and I’ll be happy to educate you on yet another one of your juvenile misconceptions. You’re as idiotic on your understanding of law, as that ‘claims to be an attorney Mighty Aphrodite and her inability to cite law’. You guys are all such ignorant fools. No wonder republicans statistically do more poorly in school – you’re all stupid!
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:27 pmRyan:
Amendment X-Bill of Rights
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The story never said he was a FISA judge. It had this to say about him “Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act” It dosn’t explicity say he isn’t one of the 5 mentioned in the article either, but they are covered in a seperate paragraph from him.
“No wonder republicans statistically do more poorly in school – you’re all stupid!”
Statistically HS drop outs vote Democrat, i linked to it higher up in this post, although sadly, we seem to be closing the gap on that from 2000 to 2004, so maybe in 2008 you can make that claim completly accuratly. You guys have the extremes, we have the middle when it comes to education level.
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:35 pmAnd FYI Squishypoop, those who argue that SS isn’t valid, miss the 16th amendment to the constitution which permits congress to levie taxes on incomes. And the supreme court has upheld twice that the SS (tax) is in fact just another implementation of the 16th amendment.
Sorry, but for someone who ‘claims’ to know things about america’s constitution, you’re woefully unskilled, ill prepared, and incorrect in your arguments. You’re out of your league little boy. Take some more classes in gradeschool, and come back when you aren’t so ignorant.
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:35 pmAs to your interstate point, ever hear of President Madison? I’m gonna guess his views would count more than either of ours:
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:39 pm“Having considered the bill … I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling this bill with the Constitution of the United States. … The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified … in the … Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers. …”
http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=1049
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. squishypoop”
Exactly, and the Constitution requires CONGRESSIONAL AND COURT oversights on military as well as search warrants as per the 4th amendment. This is NOT something that can be delegated to the president – PERIOD.
Ignorance is bliss, and all this posts shows is how ignorant you are.
“The story never said he was a FISA judge. It had this to say about him “Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act†It dosn’t explicity say he isn’t one of the 5 mentioned in the article either, but they are covered in a seperate paragraph from him. squishypoop”
The story claims that 5 former FISA judges said what Bush was doing was legal, and then listed Kornblum as a Judge and quotes him as though he’s one of the 5. It was an obvious effort to lead the reader to believe he was one of the 5, as the two sentences together lead the reader into believing this. When you say ‘these 5 judges say’, and judge Kornblum specifically said – then you’re saying he’s one of the 5. When in fact he wasn’t one of the 5, he wasn’t one of the FISA authors, and the 5 judges in question in fact said the OPPOSITE of what this story claims.
Sorry, but this story is INTENTIONALLY LYING, just as you are by reposting and relinking to such a disenguous propaganda piece.
“Statistically HS drop outs vote Democrat squishypoop”
Yes, as do the highly education – something the republican party is almost devoid of – as you prove. Poor americans vote for Democrats, because we alleviate poverty, improve education, invest in infrasture, and help ensure they can receive proper healthcare and food. You reichwingers are all euthanasia morons who believe poor and undereducated means a ‘bad person’. What’s a BAD PERSON, is someone like you who undermines a civil society and civil liberties to protect an inept man who was never qualified to lead in the first place.
As I said before, you’re a fool, a liar and an idiot – all of which you’ve proved nicely with this little ‘willful deception’ of your own.
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:44 pmRyan, you got a link for that SS fact, something I had never heard of, and wouldn’t mind reading up on.
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:46 pmAmericans for Prosperity? They’re almost as stupid as the Moonies!
And if Madison’s view of Congress had held, then we wouldn’t have interstate roads, an FAA and Federally funded airports, or virtually any other ‘feature’ of american life. And by the way, the Supreme court did settle this issue by saying that promoting the general welfare did entail building roads that crossed state lines and operated at a ‘federal’ level.
Many ‘local’ projects affect our national state, and national defense – just because you post a madison quote, from a whacko libertarian site, doesn’t mean you understand it, the laws around it, or the constitutionality of it. Clearly you’re not sophisticated enough in your understanding or intellect to grasp this concept.
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:50 pm“Ryan, you got a link for that SS fact, something I had never heard of, and wouldn’t mind reading up on. Comment by squishypoop”
And yet you post your ignorant opinion as though it were fact. This is exactly the sort of inept, laziness and stupidity you reichwingers always express. Go read a book, learn something and STFU until you do. You’re just another moron who thinks he’s smart because some reichwing propaganda site has fed him a pack of lies he WANTS to believe.
You seem to think you’re so smart, go find your own damn link and leave us alone until you’re educated enough to argue. Right now, you’re just a BIG FAT STUPID WASTE OF MY TIME.
FU Ahole.
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:53 pmMany ‘local’ projects affect our national state, and national defense -
So wiretappings to try and catch terrorists dosn’t count as national defense? Sounds like its ok for things to occasionally go against the constition if its for the national good, at least from your view, so you shouldn’t have a problem with this one. How are terrorists good for our nation, do you want anouther 9/11?
The Madison quote stands on its own, Enumerated Powers being the key term he used.
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:55 pmGood night ryan, I’m out for the night, when I get back I’ll try and remeber to check to see if you’ve provided those links you currently can’t seem to find.
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:04 pm“So wiretappings to try and catch terrorists dosn’t count as national defense? Sounds like its ok for things to occasionally go against the constition if its for the national good, at least from your view, so you shouldn’t have a problem with this one. How are terrorists good for our nation, do you want anouther 9/11? squishypoop”
Why don’t you just ask if everyone still beats their wives? This is a classic strawman from a naive moron with no intellectual gifts. It’s a non-sequitur, as your conclusion for the outcome of the action is the projection of someone who is ignorant.
Your entire post here isn’t even an argument, it’s the rantings of a stupid jackass. National defense and executive powers are checked by the legislative and court systems for domestic matters – PERIOD. It doesn’t matter if it’s a war or not. And the arguments of another 9/11 are completely irrelevant, as a warrant doesn’t undermine our security, and in fact it enforces it against a runaway executive. That’s why it’s called a ‘balance of powers’.
Bush has not shown that these balance of powers interfere with the execution of the war on terrorism – yet he violated them anyway. Your argument is that of a child, a naive and stupid child.
“The Madison quote stands on its own, Enumerated Powers being the key term he used. Comment by squishypoop”
And if you were more intellectual, you would recognize that he was arguing against the full weight of federal powers without state level balances. The supreme court agreed with him, and the conclusion didn’t mean what you thought it meant. There’s a reason that most roads are state and local roads.
Your ignorance combined with your arrogance make you a perfect semi-literate jackass republican. You’ve definitely found the political party where you belong.
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:04 pm“Good night ryan, I’m out for the night, when I get back I’ll try and remeber to check to see if you’ve provided those links you currently can’t seem to find. Comment by squishypoop”
You mean the ones you would have known about already if you weren’t inept and incompetent. Do you make a habit of projecting your failures and shortcomings on others? Sure you do, that’s why you’re a reichwingers.
Sorry, but your retardation is a self inflicted wound based on this stupid comment. You do know how to use Google don’t you? Find it yourself ineptitard.
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:06 pm“The Madison quote stands on its own, Enumerated Powers being the key term he used. Comment by squishypoop”
Promoting the general welfare is an ENUMERATED POWER, as is regulating interstate commerce. Roads (the item Madison was discussing) often fall under both of those categories. Perhaps building a local road between two local points was the point of the legislation – in which case he was right because the welfare benefits would have likely been entirely local. However the DOE, SS and everything else you post are readily defined under the enumerated powers of congress.
You’ve already shown you have little knowledge, and poor reading comprehension – so it’s no wonder these basic concepts are beyond your reach. I think you’re part of that ’stupid class’ that shifted to republicans in the red state. You’re just not literate enough to belong to the ‘middle’, you’re entirely too stupid, inept and careless.
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:10 pmRyan “You mean the ones you would have known about already if you weren’t inept and incompetent. Do you make a habit of projecting your failures and shortcomings on others? Sure you do, that’s why you’re a reichwingers.”
Im the inept one, yet you still havent posted the links, and you needed me to cite the 10th amendment, one of the ones on the Bill of Rights, before you even understood my argument. Interestingly enough whenever you’ve asked me for links I’ve backed my argument with them. Why can’t you? Don’t have a leg to stand on once you need to use actual facts?
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:36 pmNever mind, I found the article, it was the first hit on google, interesting stuff
For someone who supposidly follows the path of enlightenment, your very rude. Arn’t your people the ones who believe in karma? and respecting all beings, and honoring humankind? Seems like your hurting your chances at moving up a level on your next rebirth.
Cheers, look forward to you degrading me tomorow.
April 4th, 2006 at 12:14 amNow, let me see if I understand George Will’s argument. According to him, we are only experiencing a “normal” warming trend, similar to other warming/cooling fluctuations throughout history. Wrong!!!
1) Coral reefs, some 800 years old or more, are dying around the world. Several things are contributing to this: our oceans’ temperatures are rising and man-made contaminants from agricultural and industrial activity are flowing into the oceans. Both the temperature rise and the contaminants tend to breed disease among the coral reefs. However, if this were a natural phenomenon involving “normal” warming fluctuations, then the coral reefs wouldn’t be dying at such an alarming rate.
2) In Siberia, the supposedly permafrost peat bogs are thawing, releasing huge quantities of previously ice-trapped methane into the atmosphere. These permafrost peat bogs have remained frozen solid for 12,000 years, until recently. This proves that this “warming” trend is something that our world has not seen in the past 12,000 years, and therefore is not just a “normal,” short-duration heating/cooling fluctuation.
3) Scientists have recorded that the temperature in central Antarctica is increasing at three times the rate of other global temperature increases. Could this be related to the “ozone hole” that has grown larger in recent years over the South Pole?
4) Studies indicate that Greenland’s icepack is melting faster along the edges. Also, glacier quakes have increased in quantity at the same time that glaciers are moving faster toward the sea.
5) And finally, glaciers around the world are either shrinking dramtically or disappearing completely, which once again indicates that this period of warming is not a “normal” warming/cooling fluctation.
In other words, something major is happening to our earth’s ecosphere. Something that an apologist like George Will cannot explain away with his glib neo-conservative panderings. Now, whether anything can be done about it is another matter. But evidence is mounting that we are on the verge of a major, global ecological catastrophe. And George Will isn’t helping matters any with his head up his butt pseudo-journalistic meanderings.
April 4th, 2006 at 12:45 am“Im the inept one, yet you still havent posted the links, and you needed me to cite the 10th amendment, one of the ones on the Bill of Rights, before you even understood my argument. squishypoop”
What you mean, is I’ll never understand until I understand your ‘libertarian’ view of the 10th amendment. Once again your ‘ignorance’ shows, and I’m quite familiar with your reading. But this ‘constitutionality’ was settled decades ago in United States v. Darby by the supreme court – the arbiter of these issues. And the ruling disagrees with your views – period.
“Interestingly enough whenever you’ve asked me for links I’ve backed my argument with them. Why can’t you? Don’t have a leg to stand on once you need to use actual facts? Comment by squishypoop”
You have yet to cite a single legal reference for why those programs violate the 10th amendment, other than ‘because you believe it’, whereas the case I cited above actually SETTLED this decades ago. Just as the supreme court settled the legitimate and restrictive powers of FISA decades ago.
You posted unrelated texts, and things you ‘think’ should be relevant – but aren’t. All you’ve done is shown your ignorance of the law – nothing more.
“Never mind, I found the article, it was the first hit on google, interesting stuff squishypoop”
And yet you ‘claimed’ that SS was an illegal program without ever reading the court cases that settled this issue? That’s what I mean by stupid, lazy and propagandist. Learn to fact check, and realize that the moonie times prints the OPPOSITE of truth, as does much of the libertarian and reichwing press. You obviously prefer being lied to – no surprise you’re drawn to sources from such jackasses. They match your own personality.
“For someone who supposidly follows the path of enlightenment, your very rude. Arn’t your people the ones who believe in karma? and respecting all beings, and honoring humankind? Seems like your hurting your chances at moving up a level on your next rebirth. squishypoop”
Had it ever dawned on you that my treatment of you was a result of your own karma? You act like a retarded, irresponsible and unaccountable troll who posts the moonie times as a ’source’ – but it never dawned on you that I might be responding directly to your STUPIDITY? I didn’t think so… Respecting you is also pointing out when you’re stupid, and being HONEST about that stupidity. It’s frankly more respectful than you deserve, more honest than the crap you posted from your ’sources’, and more than you have the capacity to understand.
April 4th, 2006 at 12:55 amAnd squishypoop, the reichwing moonie times forgot to include this very interesting quote from Kornblum:
You guys sure do like ‘propaganda’ don’t you? You’re just Nazis version 2…
April 4th, 2006 at 1:34 amRyan and unbelievable,
You guys avoided what I said completely. Oh, and Ryan, you gave me a graph of EMISSIONS, not the CO2 level. Who’s the idiot?
The CO2 level in the atmosphere has had a linear progression upwards for at least 100 years. The temperature has not. The temperature has gone up and down within that period, something that cannot be explained by “lag” as you implied, unbelievable. Also, the general upswing trend in temperature began around 1910, before the industrial times really got anywhere yet.
You rely on ice core data – something that most see as very foolish. The most accurate readings we have is direct temperature readings. Readings from ice will always have inherent problems, just like carbon-dating gets less and less accurate the farther back you go.
As I said, you guys totally ignored everything I said, and went off about a bunch of nonsense. Ryan posts a graph of EMISSIONS, something I didn’t even talk about.
But since you did Ryan, you will see that the emissions by humans does not follow the CO2 level, either. We have emitted more CO2 than shows up in the atmosphere.
You guys never addressed:
1. The fact that the Sun’s output correlates very well with the temperature development, unlike CO2 levels.
2. Scientists have just now the last few years been assessing the effects of the Sun on the climate, and their models do not take the Sun into account as a variable, but a constant.
3. From 1930-1980 the temperature went up, down, up, down and then up. The CO2 level kept increasing at a linear rate. How can you explain that if CO2 levels are what is causing the temperature?
4. How could it be that in the 1970s, scientists were alarmed about “global cooling” when CO2 was increasing at much the same rate as it is doing now?
5. How do you explain the warming trend that has been taking place on Mars for at least the past decade? See Science Nov-Dec 2005, data from NASA.
To end this “discussion” (which has for some reason turned into talking about FISA, even while the former FISA judge who authored FISA says that Bush was not acting illegally……) I will quote Finnish and German scientists trying to look into the effects of the Sun on the climate.
From their 2004 report, published in 2005:
So as late as 2005, the scientists still are not all that sure how much the Sun affects the climate on Earth. Yet every Chicken Little talking about global warming points uncritically to CO2 as the only reason, completely ignoring any effect the Sun has at all.
Which would seem quite ludicrous knowing that the Sun is the Earth’s largest source of heat.
Given the inconsistencies with the theory on anthropogenic global warming, I think some people need to realize that we just aren’t sure at all why the Earth has gotten as warm as it has the last 30 years. Ignoring all the faults of the theory, and attacking me, who brings them up, instead of addressing my points, further enforces the view that the only people who hate science are the ones using it selectively and passing off theories as fact.
April 4th, 2006 at 6:11 amRyan,
The quote you took out of context from Kornblum had him describing that he was wary of the notion that Bush is like King George. The fact that you ascribe to someone a belief that is exactly opposite of reality, by taking them out of context, further enforces the view of you as a hapless partisan struggling for survival.
April 4th, 2006 at 6:18 amGeorge Will is a shill who’s made a career out of spewing stupid blather to support any of the outrageous lies Republicans use to fool working class morons into voting Republican.
April 4th, 2006 at 8:16 am#116:
“Ok. Everyone stop in their tracks.
Any scientist with an agenda can pull the data either way. The fact is we don’t have enough data to know if we’re warming or cooling. We don’t even know what “normal†is.
Should we try to take care of the earth? Yes.
Should we be conscious in our waste of resources? Yes.
Should we react to a scientific subject emotionally? No.
To quote Penn Jillette, “It’s sexy to save the world.â€
Here’s an example of misguided people meaning well. Tell you what, let’s treat the Earth in the same way our nature loving North American ancestors, the Indians (or Native Americans for you politically correct). Oh wait, they RAZED the forests! While we try to conserve the forests by putting out forest fires, all we do is cause them to burn more and more harshly due to all the overgrowth. Think it’s a coincedence all those lovely homes outside LA are burning up each year from the surrounding forests uncontrollably burning?
Whether you are polluting or conserving, stop trying to manage nature! It’s a tough cookie and it bites back!
Comment by Thought — April 3, 2006 @ 2:25 pm”
——–
I’m not sure what it is your trying to say.
You’re saying to not bother trying to “manage” the environment, because the indigenous Americans burned a few thousand (OK, maybe even 100,000) acres of grassland a year. And that messing with nature has unintended consequences.
First of all, the amount of pollution, and the types of pollution, we inject into the environment each year as a species makes your statement seem ludicrously naive. There’s a huge difference between burning byproducts of wood and grasses compared to hydrocarbons, sulfur dioxide, etc., both in toxicity and persisitence in the atmosphere.
OI submit just by doing what we’re doing already we are ALREADY performing a huge environmental experiment on the planet.
It would be one thing if the neocons fought against environmental regulations because they see flaws in the science, but there’s little doubt about it. But the neocons are willing to bet the well-being of future generations just to prove a political point.
And that is a shameful, blatantly un-Christian thing to do.
April 4th, 2006 at 9:39 amSeveral physical quantities that vary with the magnetic activity of the Sun and may affect the global climate have been identified, among them the total solar irradiance, the UV irradiance, and the cosmic ray flux. However reliable quantitative estimates concerning their efforts on climate have been difficult to obtain.
Comment by Seixon — April 4, 2006 @ 6:11 am
Seixon,
The amount of those sun generated electromagnetic radiation waves that get through the atmosphere is a direct result of the composition of the atmosphere. CO2 lets those things in, but doesn’t let them out. You might want to study how the atmosphere filters certain types of wavelengths based on its chemical composition.
You’re the first person I’ve heard bring it up, and considering how much I study science, I am going to approach it with skepticism. I’m not willing to rule out the sun’s involvement if you can prove it, but I am, unlike you, not unwilling to accept human accountability in all of this as well. To me that has been established by credible scientific methods and credible scientist, as well as – well, logic.
You’ll have to provide me with more of your sources so I can take a look at it in context. If you want a thoughtful answer, you’ll have to give me the material to do so.
April 4th, 2006 at 10:57 amHello Ryan Neat,
I don’t really have the time to explain this to you but I’ll make one last attempt.
Let’s start with your need to resort to calling me “stupid”. Obviously an emotional reaction from an emotional person. The perfect type of person to buy into scientific “fact” like global warming and Eugenics.
I agree that global warming is peer reviewed. It is also proven and disproven on both sides by peers who are like minded to their respective agenda. Your favorite point is worthless. Again the point is we don’t have enough data.
Take the temp readings from the closest city in the world near Antarctia over the last 30 years. You’ll find out the temp there is getting COLDER. Does that mean there’s no global warming? No. We don’t have enough data.
Again, I’m not saying there isn’t global warming. I’m not saying don’t conserve and be smart. I’m saying there’s not enough data to determine what is happening.
What I am saying is don’t buy into fake, political, fear minded agendas masquerading as science.
Eugenics did disappear due to peer review. It was abandoned after the Nazi’s used it as a justification to exterminate non-arian people. That was when all the public figures that supported it ran for the hills. It was later that it was scientifically disproven by the discovery and knowledge of genetics.
As for anyone like me buying off on Eugenics, I think you have your thought’s backwards. I would be the one asking for pure data and not reacting to the fear that “Our people’s good traits will be diluted by mating with immigrants.” You on the other hand, seem to react on the fear related to issues such as this and if you lived in the 20 would be a prime candidate to jump on the bandwagon.
If you read and UNDERSTOOD what I wrote you would see that I don’t belong to the global warming naysayers. I belong to the group that wants a true answer and doesn’t have an agenda. Unlike you.
So keep on your path. You seem like the type that will recycle your paper without thinking about that too. Go ahead don’t think about it for a second and cause more pollution from a second set of trucks on the road, more taxes from an inefficient process that is more chemically harming than making new paper. What about our tree shortage? There isn’t one. It’s a renewable resource and tree growers will ensure they aren’t going to cut into their profits by not replanting. Ever see a tree farm? I have one across from a cabin I own. I’ve never seen them cut anywhere in it because there is such a surplus they’ve not needed to cut there for over 30 years! But you go ahead and live in your little fear ridden world and do what you’re told. React emotionally instead of intelligently, stop name calling, (since your reactions to my post and others seems to be on a maturity level of a 12 year old) grow up.
April 4th, 2006 at 2:57 pmWe should do what Will’s ex-wife did: through out his junk and tell him, “take it somewhere else, Buster!!!”
April 4th, 2006 at 3:21 pmWe should do what Will’s ex-wife did: throw out his junk and tell him, “take it somewhere else, Buster!!!”
April 4th, 2006 at 3:21 pmunbelievable,
The amount of those sun generated electromagnetic radiation waves that get through the atmosphere is a direct result of the composition of the atmosphere. CO2 lets those things in, but doesn’t let them out. You might want to study how the atmosphere filters certain types of wavelengths based on its chemical composition.
Of course, but we simply don’t know enough about how the atmosphere behaves, even if the CO2 content is higher. What about the other gases? Are they at the same levels, or do they displace? Also, how much of an effect does this really have? What about cloud cover? There are tons of variables that are simply being ignored to latch onto the CO2 argument.
Regardless of the composition of the atmosphere, the Sun will be the most defining factor of how much heat comes to Earth.
Another thing is that there is so much emphasis on CO2, but not methane, for example. Why is that? Methane has also increased just like CO2 has, but we rarely ever hear the eco-freaks talking about it. Why? Is it perhaps because CO2 comes from cars and planes, while methane comes from livestock and production of natural gas? No way to blame that on Big Oil, now is there?
It seems like there is disproportionate focus by these so-called scientists which calls into question just how truthful they are being about this, and whether or not they actually have an ulterior motive for trying to sell us on this whole idea.
Also, I would refer you to an old scientist named Dr. William Gray. He is one of the most famous hurricane scientists and is probably the most profiled skeptic of anthropogenic global warming. Oddly enough, the media doesn’t touch this guy. I haven’t seen any critiques of him either. Go figure.
You’re the first person I’ve heard bring it up, and considering how much I study science, I am going to approach it with skepticism. I’m not willing to rule out the sun’s involvement if you can prove it, but I am, unlike you, not unwilling to accept human accountability in all of this as well. To me that has been established by credible scientific methods and credible scientist, as well as – well, logic.
That should tell you a certain something. If I am the first person to bring this up, then that shows the dishonest state of the debate about the climate. The reason being that the meteorologists dominating the global warming agenda have completely ignored the Sun because it doesn’t fit with their theories. Neither do a lot of other things. Everything that doesn’t fit is simply stripped from the models they used. The models are simply rigged to get the results that they wanted to get.
I am not beyond accepting human accountability, either. I think humans should focus more on harmful pollution, such as smog and dangerous gases, not to mention the pollution in our seas, lakes, and oceans. Focusing on this phantom menace, global warming, is just a distraction from what is really important. CO2 is, for all intents and purposes, not a dangerous gas at all.
I have long suspected that the reason why many scientists stay quiet while the more boisterous ones use theories as facts is because there is actually a good ulterior motive to lying about all of this, or they are shutting up because, as Dr. Gray surmised, they wouldn’t get funding for their research if they don’t churn out exactly what the bureaucrats want them to.
Don’t tell me you can’t see that this whole humans are the fault of everything angle doesn’t play perfectly into many of the UN’s intentions to tax the hell out of everyone. This works on the country level too, as governments in each country are given a “legit” argument to collect emissions taxes from companies and people. It is the perfect scam. Not to mention that the Kyoto protocol wouldn’t even alleviate any of the problems that the IPCC has forecast, and that the big losers of it would be, tada, the USA. The winners: India, China, etc.
After time, I am closer to believing that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is due to human interference, although I still don’t see this as proven one way or the other yet. However, I simply don’t see that this would have any noticable effect on the climate of the Earth.
Regardless of anyone’s view, all of this will be cleared up within 10-15 years. Then we’ll know who was right and who was wrong. In the mean time, there really isn’t a damn thing we can do about what’s happening anyways. Cut down on CO2 emissions if you want, there’s nothing wrong with that, but I think the focus should be on REAL pollution in front of everything else.
April 4th, 2006 at 7:21 pmGlobal warming is a proven fact. I’d like to see the list of scientists who disagree with it – they’re all parts of think tanks and religous organizations with very definite agendas to either promote continued short term return on investments, or to fulfill some misinterpreted Biblical prophecy. (Interesting how columnists like Will don’t usually attribute sources or give references, and when they do – it is always either mis-quoted, or it is from a member of above mentioned think tanks).
Remember all the tobacco industry funded studies that showed how lung cancer was not a direct result of smoking? If you’ve ever watched a smoker get lung cancer, though not scientific, it makes hard to take those studies seriously.
The only question about global warming is how fast, and how bad the damage will be. I’d say 90% of the serious scientists say it’ll be very bad – as in – destroy our way of life.
I wish it wasn’t true. I really hope I am wrong. I drive a 73 Mustang with a gas hog 351C4V engine. I love gasoline. But the simple fact is – either we stop this nonsense or we doom our grand children to a pretty brutal life at best.
On the other hand, we can’t continue this nonsense much past 2045 when oil will start to run out (given our current usage rate).
One more thing: if global warming isn’t a problem – it wont destroy the planet to reduce our dependency on oil (and it will solve a bunch of other issues, like funding terrorists). If it is a problem, reducing our dependency could save us. Even if we don’t really know – the conservative thing to do is to reduce our dependency. The radical solution is to just belive most scientists are wrong and go on about our selfish little lives.
Will is blessed with a great amount of talent. But the sad truth is he is either abjectly dishonest, or he has some serious mental problems. Just like everyone else said.
April 4th, 2006 at 7:36 pmSeixon,
I’d like to see your links to Scientific studies.
I do think we know a lot about atmosphere and how it functions. Another example would be to look at the planet Venus. Look at its atmosphere – mostly CO2 and sulphuric acid. It has a significant Greenhouse Effect. Then compare to the Moon, with no atmosphere and no Greenhouse Effect. There is a direct correlation between CO2 and Greenhouse Effect.
Please, send me to the places where you got your inforamtion, I’d like to read them in context and be able to check references. I don’t take the results of scientific studies lightly, and right now, I believe that we have in fact contributed to the Greenhouse Effect on the planet with the out put of CO2. And, yes, the enormous amount of cattle that contribute to methane that humans raise to feed billions of humans.
The planet has too many people on it. At this point, it’s nearly logically impossible to say that we don’t have an impact.
Show me your links. I’ll take them seriously. I’m open for an honest debate without name calling or condescention. I’d just like to see the evidence you have myself. Just like any good attorney would do before making an argument. Fair enough? Thanks
April 4th, 2006 at 10:20 pmI find it amazing that both sides of this flame war have forgotten the one big event that put global warming on the map.
I was studying college Biology in the sixties and there were indeed many threads of thought. Much was made of population problems and the effect on food etc, but the thought experiment was only general in terms of enviornmental impact. The Base equation was easy, the growth in population will stop, it is only a question of how pleasant it is (or not).
At that time “everyone” thought that Venus would be just a more “tropical” earth. The with life or not, it would be in the range to have liquid water about. It was very similer to the earth in size and not that much closer to the Sun.
I don’t think anyone was expecting the first spacecraft to land on Venus to MELT! The calculations of energy in and heat out did not give a hint of it. When the Obvious question was solved, people began to realize that but for a few percent “greenhouse” gasses that could be Earth. That Earth need not get to Venusian standards before things were VERY BAD is also not a long mental reach.
A quick relook at earth at the time that coal was laid down, and working out where stuff was with Continental drift (not understood in the ’60s) and folk realized that the C in the CO2 that made the coal and oil made the climate it was laid down in. and now we were releasing it back into the air.
Those facts alone are enough, All else is just fiddling around the edges.
April 5th, 2006 at 2:03 pmFor long specific stuff on Libertarians see my Blog http://freedemocrat.blogspot.com/
April 5th, 2006 at 2:07 pmOn the bright side, we know that there were at first many MORE right-wing nutjobs in this wagon train. Obviously a few of them got too close to the edge, and fell off.
April 5th, 2006 at 4:34 pmAbout number 7, and the decline of the amphibian population… have a gander at Chris Mooney’s book, The Republican War on Science, and you can see that many scientists have found a link between a certain globally used pesticide and the reproductive organs of frogs and other amphibians… of course, republicans (funded by the pesticide company) have been attacking those scientists (even the ones that were initially hired by the company to research the topic) and their work, trying to keep the pesticide on the market. Yet another issue that republicans have interfered with, destroying the world’s ecosystem all in the name of the American dollar.
April 6th, 2006 at 3:45 pm[...] In today’s LA Times columnist Jonah Goldberg – following George Will’s lead – argues that global warming may not be a problem (or even exist). Goldberg writes that “we don’t have a clear picture of what’s happening now, never mind what will happen.” He calls concern about climate change “millenarian battiness.” [...]
April 21st, 2006 at 2:56 pm[...] George Will is at it again. His column today is another lackluster effort to cast doubt about global warming science and the imperative to do something about it. Here is the key graph: [W]hen Gore says the scientific debate is “over,” he must mean merely that there is consensus that we are in a period of warming. [...]
June 11th, 2006 at 10:08 am[...] Climate skeptics routinely point to other periods of time where there were temperature changes — the early 20th century, the “medieval warm period” -– as “proof” that global warming isn’t real. This fundamentally misunderstands global warming science. The scientists have taken natural variations in temperature under consideration and concluded that the current warming trend is different. Human activity is driving it. [...]
June 22nd, 2006 at 1:27 pmassessing child behavior problems
Do you think many people may consider it?
March 14th, 2008 at 6:04 amJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 6:03 amEric
Great blog and I really enojoyed reading it. I appreciate your effort and the quality of the information you provide.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:39 pmFree Legal Aid Clinic
I have to say, that I could not agree with you in 100%, but it’s just my opinion, which could be wrong.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:58 pmbb king new york
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 17th, 2008 at 10:42 pmChubby Grannies Chubby Granny Masturbate Pussy Big Tit Chubby Grannys
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 2:13 amSex Free Sex Pictures Office Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 6:25 pmMonica
Attitude is the way you mentally look at the world around you. It is how you view your environment and your future. It is the focus you develop toward life itself.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:21 pmCore Values Of Universities
I enjoyed reading your blog. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:38 pmSex Gay Sex Anime Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 10:50 pmChubby Grannies Mature Chubby Women Mature Lesbians Blonde Chubby Bbw Fat
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 6:33 pmAnimal Sex Free Animal Sex Stories Sex With Dogs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 10:01 pmOnline Cash Advance
Easy service for cash payday loans nationwide.
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:37 pmspectrum cycles
I found your post comments while searching Google. Very relevant especially as this is not an issue which a lot of peaople are conversant with.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:05 amEric
I found you while searching google today. You’ll be happy toknowyour site was at the top of the results. Anyway. I added you to my Digg bookmarks. Good stuff!
March 25th, 2008 at 8:32 amConsolidation Debt
Debt services consolidation programs which offers essential consolidation.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:06 pmGay 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 26th, 2008 at 4:24 amDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 12:55 pmGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 27th, 2008 at 8:25 amProm Dresses Hat Hollister Clothing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 27th, 2008 at 10:45 amJack
This article is very good
March 30th, 2008 at 8:29 pmKds Bbs Pics Russian Child Models Ls Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 2:13 pmcredit score graph
Your site regarding %TITLE% looks very interesting to me. I found it doing a search for %KEYWORD%.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:17 pmsuitcase jokes
A Trackback is one of three types of Linkbacks, methods for Web authors to request notification when somebody links to one of their documents.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:19 am