How Liberals Debate

[wiggles]

and what?

follow the link, check out all the cut and pastes there, and let me know if you have a problem with them is what

 

[wiggles]

Problem is, to you narcisist libs, if a source disagrees with you, then its auto matically not credible.

Case in point, al bore. He proclaimed the jury is out, the debate is over, global warming and the consequences are a fact. Yet thousands of credible scientists have said they arent sure global warming is happening, and if it is, is it due to man, and even if it is due to man, is it really going to have the dire consequences predicted.

Dont forget, Mother Jone, one of your pet propaganda protaginists, had on its front cover, a frozen earth is its mag, ohhh, back in about 88 I believe, then the rage was global freezing, hahahhahahah

Oh, and I ONLY site credible sources,

you show me a "credible scientist" who says CO2 from human activity isn't changing the earth's climate and I'll show you a toady for the dirty energy industry

 

[glockmail]

Yes Tweddledumb, no matter where you you take you BS I'll find you. So, you actually have a female posting support. The last time that happened she was you. I bet you cropped out the infant and printed her photo and keep it near your petrolem jelly jar.

I see we have yet another lib who uses personal attacks on someone's wife since he can't justify his ludicrous positions. I may need to put this it my “Rate these posts” thread.

 

[wiggles]

or the Nation - a real socialist rag. Good for lining bird cages or wrapping fish. Other then that, a waste of paper and ink

this from the guy who cut and pastes a bunch of shit from NewsMax

 

[red states rule]

this from the guy who cut and pastes a bunch of shit from NewsMax

Try pointing out where Newsbusters is wrong. They point out the liberak media bias - that seems to be your complaint about the site and my posts

 

[red states rule]

you show me a "credible scientist" who says CO2 from human activity isn't changing the earth's climate and I'll show you a toady for the dirty energy industry

Translation - anyone who does not sprew the liberal takling warming on global warming (or is it global cooling) is an enemy of the liberal state and must be silenced

 

[red states rule]

follow the link, check out all the cut and pastes there, and let me know if you have a problem with them is what

your problem seems to be with the truth

 

[red states rule]

Why the dead cat tweddle?

the only thing dead is your brain.

 

[Gem]

you show me a "credible scientist" who says CO2 from human activity isn't changing the earth's climate and I'll show you a toady for the dirty energy industry

The same is quickly becoming true of the other side as well, however. Show me a scientist who feels that polar bears are going to be relegatd to zoos and the oceans rising will kill us all in 10 years...and I'll show you a scientist who is getting millions in research money from climate change/environmental groups, etc.

There needs to come a point where we look at the SCIENCE, rather than bitching about who paid for it.

 

[wiggles]

The same is quickly becoming true of the other side as well, however. Show me a scientist who feels that polar bears are going to be relegatd to zoos and the oceans rising will kill us all in 10 years...and I'll show you a scientist who is getting millions in research money from climate change/environmental groups, etc.

There needs to come a point where we look at the SCIENCE, rather than bitching about who paid for it.

Gee, will NASA do?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/warming.html

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/warming2.html

 

[Psychoblues]

Don't give up, wiggles. For the sake of God, DON'T GIVE UP!!!!!!

Gee, will NASA do?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/warming.html

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/warming2.html

Some of these ignosaureses will never give up. Thy believe Dinosaurs never existed, they believe science is only a theory and that mankind has no common ancestry or responsibility to all other life on earth. They also proclaim to admire and wish to preserve life. They also wish to exclude life from all other than indictrinated Christians. They also have no problem with the total death and destruction of any one or any society that can't agree with them or otherwise offer treasures that offset their own failed negotiations from only a "business" side of the equation. I could go on and on, but I beg you, wiggles, DON"T GIVE UP!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jillian]

Gee, will NASA do?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/warming.html

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/warming2.html

Yeah...that famous liberal bias.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

you show me a "credible scientist" who says CO2 from human activity isn't changing the earth's climate and I'll show you a toady for the dirty energy industry

Exactly my point. Thanks for proving me right. !

You have already made your conclusion BEFORE I have given you any names. Shame on you.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

you show me a "credible scientist" who says CO2 from human activity isn't changing the earth's climate and I'll show you a toady for the dirty energy industry

And?????

Your post is pointless. I could also say, show me a credible scientist who denies that sun spots are changing the earths climate.

 

[wiggles]

How many times are you going to reply to that post?

 

[wiggles]

Yeah...that famous liberal bias.

Of course that will go unacknowledged.
Or someone will say NASA's an ultraliberal outfit with a vested interest in the wind turbine industry.

 

[red states rule]

Frostbite, equipment damage end latest Bancroft-Arnesen trek
PATRICK CONDON
Associated Press

SCOTT TAKUSHI, PIONEER PRESS

A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite.

The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.

"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.

On Monday, the pair was at Canada's Ward Hunt Island, awaiting a plane to take them to Resolute, Canada, where they were to return to Minneapolis later this week.

Bancroft, 51, became the first woman to cross the North Pole on a 1986 expedition. She and Arnesen, 53, of Oslo, Norway, were the first women to ski across Antarctica in 2001.

But the latest trek got off to a bad start. The day they set off from Ward Hunt Island, a plane landing near the women hit their gear, punching a hole in Bancroft's sled and damaging one of Arnesen's snowshoes.

They repaired the snowshoe with binding from a ski, but Atwood said the patch job created pressure on Arnesen's left foot, which led to blisters that then turned into frostbite.

Then there was the cold - quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.

"My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold," Atwood said.

She said Bancroft and Arnesen were applying hot water bottles to Arnesen's foot every night, but had to wake up periodically because the bottles froze.

The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming. In contrast to Bancroft's 1986 trek across the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will Steger, this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted.

Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.

"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."

---
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/16887788.htm

 

[red states rule]

this from the guy who cut and pastes a bunch of shit from NewsMax

shit to libs is telling the truth about the liberal media


GMA Highlights Hillary's Call for Gonzales Resignation, Buries Clinton History of Firings
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on March 14, 2007 - 12:19.
If ABC was going to provide a platform for presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to express her moral outrage over the firings of the eight US Attorneys and call for AG Gonzales' resignation, didn't the network have an obligation to let viewers know that her husband's administration had itself peremptorily fired more than ten times that many US attorneys -- and that a close personal associate of Hillary's was intimately involved?

Senior national correspondent Jake Tapper scored the exclusive with Hillary. In the excerpts aired, Hillary in high dudgeon declared that "the Attorney General, who still seems to confuse his prior role as the president's personal attorney with his duty to the system of justice and to the entire country, should resign."

Continued Hillary: "There's evidence of political interference and pressure being put on them to engage in partisan political activities."

Demanded Hillary: "The president needs to be very forthcoming. What did he say, what did he know, what did he ask people to do? Karl Rove is clearly in the middle of this. I think he owes the Congress and the country an explanation."

In an immediately following interview, former Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos grilled AG Gonzales, confronting him with Hillary's call for his resignation and offering his personal opinion that "it really does appear here at least that you were singling out prosecutors who weren't with the program."

But at no time during either of the segments were viewers told that when the Clinton administration took over in 1993, it fired all 93 sitting US attorneys. Tapper did raise the issue during the course of his interview with Hillary. But that portion of the interview was not aired. It was relegated instead to the ABC News website, where it would be viewed by a tiny fraction of the millions who watched Good Morning America.

Here is the exchange as appearing on the website:

When Clinton's husband took office in 1993, one of the first actions his attorney general took was to remove every U.S. attorney. Clinton was asked how this was different from the termination of eight U.S. attorneys last December.
"There is a great difference," Clinton said. "When a new president comes in, a new president gets to clean house. It's not done on a case-by-case basis where you didn't do what some senator or member of Congress told you to do in terms of investigations into your opponents. It is 'Let's start afresh' and every president has done that."
But as the Wall Street Journal had documented in an editorial this morning, The Hubbell Standard, it is simply untrue that "everybody did it" as Hillary suggests. Writes the WSJ:

As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness -- and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno -- or Mr. Hubbell -- gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in Chicago, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.
That Hillary's hike to the moral high ground is very much a part of her presidential campaign is evidenced by the mass email she circulated within hours of the airing of her GMA interview inviting people to sign her petition calling on AG Gonzales to resign . . . and also soliciting contributions.

ABC could, and should, have given viewers the full picture.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11409

 

[red states rule]

No left leaning bias in the media? Yea, right............


CBS's Cohen Wrong on Reno: She Pushed Attorneys Out the Door
Posted by Ken Shepherd on March 14, 2007 - 15:12.
CBS legal pundit Andrew Cohen is back at it again with a new blog post at Katie's e-sandbox, "Couric & Co.":


As always, thank you for taking the time to read my post and to write a response. The more dialogue and discussion and debate we have on this topic the better. It is true that Janet Reno, as her predecessors before her had done, asked for the resignations of U.S. Attorneys. This is standard operating procedure designed to allow the President to have in place his own federal prosecutors. What is different about this current episode is that a Republican White House sought to replace Republican-appointed federal prosecutors mid-stream who were by all accounts doing precisely what they had been asked to do. We now know, from last week’s testimony, why in some cases this was so and the answers we got make it clear that the reasons were not high-minded or lofty.


Of course, Cohen got it wrong yet again. In 1993, Clinton's attorney general did not just show President George H.W. Bush's appointees the door, she pushed them through it and told them not to let it hit them on the way out.

As Michael Isikoff reported in the March 24, 1993, Washington Post, Reno's press conference had called for the "immediate resignation of all U.S. attorneys so they can be replaced by Clinton appointees." Reno denied that the abrupt action would harm the federal government's case against Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), insisting that an interim prosecutor could just as ably handle the case.

Isikoff's colleague at the Post, Dan Balz, reported on March 23, 1993, that the Reno/Clinton move was an abrupt forced resignation, adding that Republicans noted that previous administrations gradually eased out old U.S. attorneys with their replacements in a case-by-case fashion.

Isikoff's article also noted that Reno took time in her March 23 news conference to push for adoption of legislation before the Democratically-controlled Congress to stiffen federal penalties for protesters who block abortion clinics.


In other words, Reno's announcement was made in a politics-rich environment, tucked in a news conference filled with policy pronouncements favorable to the Clinton camp's liberal base.

As we've previously reported, however, there was no media outrage about the Clinton/Reno mass firing.



http://newsbusters.org/node/11414

 

[red states rule]

Clinton Fresh: In '93, CNN Described Mass Attorney Firings as 'Clean Sweep'
Posted by Tim Graham on March 14, 2007 - 16:13.
The media’s historical omission of Clinton’s mass dismissal of 93 U.S. Attorneys has led to demands on the MRC archive for footage of Janet Reno’s declaration of the act – and our staff found an April 12, 1993 CNN special report where reporter Ken Bode called it a “one-day clean sweep.” Reno declared: “I have asked for their resignations at the request of the President…It’s important that we build a team that reflects our desire to have a Justice Department marked by excellence, marked by diversity, marked by professionalism, and integrity. I want teamwork where we’re both interested in achieving justice throughout America.” Video clip: Real (1.7MB) or Windows (1.9MB) plus MP3 (295KB).


Bode’s report as a whole earned our old “Janet Cooke Award” that month for slanting dramatically against the Reagan-Bush Justice Departments, allowing Reno to defend herself, but not GOP attorneys general Ed Meese or William Barr. As we wrote at the time:


Bode's story moved on to Clinton: "Clinton's first public office was Attorney General of Arkansas. He was aggressive, high- profile, populist...If the Justice Department will reflect President Clinton's policies, expect the new attorney general to be much stronger on civil rights enforcement, pay attention to environmental laws, support the rights of children, and a continued emphasis on crime and public safety." Bode aired no one taking issue with Clinton's years in Arkansas or his present policies.


Bode ended on a properly even-handed note, suggesting that Janet Reno's firing of 93 U.S. attorneys "raises suspicions that the Clinton administration is willing to put politics above enforcing the law." Bode let fired U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens charge politics were involved in taking him off the investigation of House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. He also concluded that the Rostenkowski probe "has become a highly visible test of how political the Justice Department will be under Bill Clinton and Janet Reno." But Bode interviewed Reno and let her declare herself non-political in three soundbites. That's very unlike his treatment of Reagan-Bush officials, who were simply left out.


But much of the report was a harsh critique of conservative politicization of the justice system:


Bode selected an increasingly popular target, the Reagan and Bush Justice Departments: "For the last decade, the Justice Department was an ideological warehouse for conservative thinkers. At the same time, Justice became a political arm of the White House." Bode aired sound bites from Donald Ayer, a disgruntled former Justice official, and Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Bode explained: "The Department of Justice will always reflect the policy priorities of a President, but the Reagan-Bush Department went further, undermining laws the administration opposed."


Bode caricatured the GOP record: "The Reagan-Bush agenda included a hard line on abortion, a rollback on civil rights -- trying to restore tax credits for segregated schools, for example -- also attempts to minimize affirmative action requirements." To explain this, Bode brought on liberal Ralph Neas of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. He aired no one defending Reagan policies.

Bode also underlined liberal charges that the Reagan-Bush GOP had a racist pattern of punishing black politicians in political corruption cases, and a lax approach to S&L fraud -- a rich critique compared to the Whitewater File Shredders who came next. The man who's number two to Al Gonzales now gave me a rebuttal back then to the charge of right-wing politicization:


Former Justice official Paul McNulty replied to MediaWatch: "What about the 1960s? Was the Johnson administration politicized because it 'undermined' racist laws? In the 1980s, we wanted to bring on reforms as well -- to correct oppressive regulation, restore a sounder reading of the Constitution, question discriminatory civil rights laws. Every administration is suppose to advocate policies in legislation and in judicial advocacy."


That sounds like a much better answer than what we’re hearing today.
http://newsbusters.org/node/11452