Climate McCarthyism

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
137,543
Reaction score
28,767
Points
2,180
A U.S. member of Congress threatens MIT if it continues to allow the Koch brothers to provide funding to Dr. Willy Soon and Professor Richard Lindzen. If the AGW cult claims they are interested in science, then why are they using the tactic of cheap thugs?

Here's the letter:

Feb. 24, 2015
L. Rafael Reif
President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139

Dear President Reif:

As Ranking Member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, I have a constitutional duty to protect the public lands, waters and resources of the United States and ensure that taxpayers are able to enjoy them. I write today because of concerns raised in a recent New York Timesreport and documents I have received that highlight potential conflicts of interest and failure to disclose corporate funding sources in academic climate research. Understanding climate change and its impacts on federal property is an important part of the Committee’s oversight plan.

As you may have heard, the Koch Foundation appears to have funded climate research by Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, some of which formed the basis of testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology and the Kansas State Legislature’s House Energy and Environment Committee — funding that was not disclosed at the time. Exxon Mobil, in response to an inquiry from the House Science Committee, may have provided false or misleading information on its funding for Dr. Soon’s work. Southern Services Company funded Dr. Soon’s authorship of several published climate studies; Dr. Soon did not disclose this funding to many of those journals’ publishers or editors.

If true, these may not be isolated incidents. Professor Richard Lindzen at your Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences has testified to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology on climate change.(1) He has described the scientific community’s concerns as “mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.”(2). In 2009 he spoke at a conference held by the Heartland Institute,(3) a group funded in part by Altria and by the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation that proposed to teach children that climate change is a hoax.(4)

I am hopeful that disclosure of a few key pieces of information will establish the impartiality of climate research and policy recommendations published in your institution’s name and assist me and my colleagues in making better law. Companies with a direct financial interest in climate and air quality standards are funding environmental research that influences state and federal regulations and shapes public understanding of climate science. These conflicts should be clear to stakeholders, including policymakers who use scientific information to make decisions.

My colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships. Please respond to the following questions and requests for documents. Please ensure your response is in a searchable electronic format and that your reply quotes each question or request followed by the appropriate response. These inquiries refer to activities conducted between Jan. 1,2007, and Jan. 31, 2015.

1. What is MIT’s policy on employee financial disclosure? Please provide a full copy of all applicable policies, including but not limited to those applying to Prof. Lindzen.

2. For those instances already mentioned and others that apply, please provide:

a. all drafts of Prof. Lindzen’s testimony before any government body or agency or that which, to your knowledge, he helped prepare for others;

b. communications regarding testimony preparation.

3. Please provide information on Prof. Lindzen’s sources of external funding. “External funding” refers to consulting fees, promotional considerations, speaking fees, honoraria, travel expenses, salary, compensation and other monies given to Prof. Lindzen that did not originate from the institution itself Please include:

a. The source of funding;

b. The amount of funding;

c. The reason for receiving the funding;

d. For grants, a description of the research proposal and copy of the funded grant;

e. Communications regarding the funding.

4. Please provide all financial disclosure forms filed by Prof Lindzen in which MIT is listed as his professional affiliation, even if it is only stated for purposes of identification.

5. Please provide Prof Lindzen’s total annual compensation for each year covered here. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please provide a full response no later than March 16, 2015. Direct questions to Vic Edgerton at vedgerton@mail.house.gov or (202) 225-6065.

Very respectfully,

Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member

House Committee on Natural Resources
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
24,049
Reaction score
6,197
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Shorter Bri:

"HOW DARE YOU START DOING WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR YEARS!"

If you don' t like the tactic, then stop making it your specialty. Otherwise, go pound sand.
 

1stRambo

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
6,221
Reaction score
1,018
Points
255
Yo, this idiot Rep. Raul M. Grijalva is Obama`s biggest Puppet, look him up? He looks like he could use a brain, like the Scarecrow in the Wizard Of Oz!

"GTP"

brain.jpg
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,512
Reaction score
12,476
Points
1,430
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Congressional Republicans push back against the Democrat climate witch-hunt!

This is too dam funny. Saul Alyinsky would be proud of thess left wit morons. But the Republican response was priceless...

Senate EPW Republicans Take a Stand for Academic Freedom

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OKla.), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), today led all EPW Republicans in a letter promoting scientific discovery and academic freedom. The letter was sent to the same 107 recipients of letters sent earlier this week by Congressional Democrats to universities, private companies, trade groups, and non-profit organizations, asking for detailed information on funding climate science. As explained in the EPW Republican letter sent today, there is a real concern the Democrats inquiry may impose a chilling effect on scientific inquiry and free speech.

“Rather than empower scientists and researchers to expand the public discourse on climate science and other environmental topics, the [Democrats] letter could be viewed as an attempt to silence legitimate intellectual and scientific inquiry,” said the Senators in today’s letter.

There has been a public outcry in response to the Democrats letters. Noted climate scientist, Dr. Michael Mann spoke of the letters calling them “heavy handed and overly aggressive.” Earlier today the American Meteorological Society warned that the letters sent by Congressional Democrats send a “chilling message to all academic researchers.”

At the end of the day, those disagreeing with certain scientific findings should judge them based on whether or not they are sound and transparent,” said Chairman Inhofe.
Dam if that isn't a stick in the eye to these left wit morons..
 
OP
bripat9643

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
137,543
Reaction score
28,767
Points
2,180
Shorter Bri:

"HOW DARE YOU START DOING WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR YEARS!"

If you don' t like the tactic, then stop making it your specialty. Otherwise, go pound sand.
When did a Republican member of Congress ever write such a threatening letter to a university?
 
OP
bripat9643

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
137,543
Reaction score
28,767
Points
2,180
Isn't it grand, the McCarthyism of the Democrap party...Demonize those who disagree... :Love that Democrap WITCH HUNT....
Yep, and then they claim they believe in science.
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,033
Points
280
Location
Earth
A U.S. member of Congress threatens MIT if it continues to allow the Koch brothers to provide funding to Dr. Willy Soon and Professor Richard Lindzen. If the AGW cult claims they are interested in science, then why are they using the tactic of cheap thugs?

Here's the letter:

Feb. 24, 2015
L. Rafael Reif
President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139

Dear President Reif:

As Ranking Member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, I have a constitutional duty to protect the public lands, waters and resources of the United States and ensure that taxpayers are able to enjoy them. I write today because of concerns raised in a recent New York Timesreport and documents I have received that highlight potential conflicts of interest and failure to disclose corporate funding sources in academic climate research. Understanding climate change and its impacts on federal property is an important part of the Committee’s oversight plan.

As you may have heard, the Koch Foundation appears to have funded climate research by Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, some of which formed the basis of testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology and the Kansas State Legislature’s House Energy and Environment Committee — funding that was not disclosed at the time. Exxon Mobil, in response to an inquiry from the House Science Committee, may have provided false or misleading information on its funding for Dr. Soon’s work. Southern Services Company funded Dr. Soon’s authorship of several published climate studies; Dr. Soon did not disclose this funding to many of those journals’ publishers or editors.

If true, these may not be isolated incidents. Professor Richard Lindzen at your Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences has testified to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology on climate change.(1) He has described the scientific community’s concerns as “mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.”(2). In 2009 he spoke at a conference held by the Heartland Institute,(3) a group funded in part by Altria and by the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation that proposed to teach children that climate change is a hoax.(4)

I am hopeful that disclosure of a few key pieces of information will establish the impartiality of climate research and policy recommendations published in your institution’s name and assist me and my colleagues in making better law. Companies with a direct financial interest in climate and air quality standards are funding environmental research that influences state and federal regulations and shapes public understanding of climate science. These conflicts should be clear to stakeholders, including policymakers who use scientific information to make decisions.

My colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships. Please respond to the following questions and requests for documents. Please ensure your response is in a searchable electronic format and that your reply quotes each question or request followed by the appropriate response. These inquiries refer to activities conducted between Jan. 1,2007, and Jan. 31, 2015.

1. What is MIT’s policy on employee financial disclosure? Please provide a full copy of all applicable policies, including but not limited to those applying to Prof. Lindzen.

2. For those instances already mentioned and others that apply, please provide:

a. all drafts of Prof. Lindzen’s testimony before any government body or agency or that which, to your knowledge, he helped prepare for others;

b. communications regarding testimony preparation.

3. Please provide information on Prof. Lindzen’s sources of external funding. “External funding” refers to consulting fees, promotional considerations, speaking fees, honoraria, travel expenses, salary, compensation and other monies given to Prof. Lindzen that did not originate from the institution itself Please include:

a. The source of funding;

b. The amount of funding;

c. The reason for receiving the funding;

d. For grants, a description of the research proposal and copy of the funded grant;

e. Communications regarding the funding.

4. Please provide all financial disclosure forms filed by Prof Lindzen in which MIT is listed as his professional affiliation, even if it is only stated for purposes of identification.

5. Please provide Prof Lindzen’s total annual compensation for each year covered here. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please provide a full response no later than March 16, 2015. Direct questions to Vic Edgerton at vedgerton@mail.house.gov or (202) 225-6065.

Very respectfully,

Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member

House Committee on Natural Resources

Dear Rep. Raul M. Grijalva,

Go screw yourself. I'm not aware where you derive the authority to tell me what to order for lunch let alone anything else.

:)

Probably hire a writer to paint that up a bit. But basicly that should be his response.
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,512
Reaction score
12,476
Points
1,430
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
A U.S. member of Congress threatens MIT if it continues to allow the Koch brothers to provide funding to Dr. Willy Soon and Professor Richard Lindzen. If the AGW cult claims they are interested in science, then why are they using the tactic of cheap thugs?

Here's the letter:

Feb. 24, 2015
L. Rafael Reif
President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139

Dear President Reif:

As Ranking Member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, I have a constitutional duty to protect the public lands, waters and resources of the United States and ensure that taxpayers are able to enjoy them. I write today because of concerns raised in a recent New York Timesreport and documents I have received that highlight potential conflicts of interest and failure to disclose corporate funding sources in academic climate research. Understanding climate change and its impacts on federal property is an important part of the Committee’s oversight plan.

As you may have heard, the Koch Foundation appears to have funded climate research by Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, some of which formed the basis of testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology and the Kansas State Legislature’s House Energy and Environment Committee — funding that was not disclosed at the time. Exxon Mobil, in response to an inquiry from the House Science Committee, may have provided false or misleading information on its funding for Dr. Soon’s work. Southern Services Company funded Dr. Soon’s authorship of several published climate studies; Dr. Soon did not disclose this funding to many of those journals’ publishers or editors.

If true, these may not be isolated incidents. Professor Richard Lindzen at your Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences has testified to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology on climate change.(1) He has described the scientific community’s concerns as “mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.”(2). In 2009 he spoke at a conference held by the Heartland Institute,(3) a group funded in part by Altria and by the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation that proposed to teach children that climate change is a hoax.(4)

I am hopeful that disclosure of a few key pieces of information will establish the impartiality of climate research and policy recommendations published in your institution’s name and assist me and my colleagues in making better law. Companies with a direct financial interest in climate and air quality standards are funding environmental research that influences state and federal regulations and shapes public understanding of climate science. These conflicts should be clear to stakeholders, including policymakers who use scientific information to make decisions.

My colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships. Please respond to the following questions and requests for documents. Please ensure your response is in a searchable electronic format and that your reply quotes each question or request followed by the appropriate response. These inquiries refer to activities conducted between Jan. 1,2007, and Jan. 31, 2015.

1. What is MIT’s policy on employee financial disclosure? Please provide a full copy of all applicable policies, including but not limited to those applying to Prof. Lindzen.

2. For those instances already mentioned and others that apply, please provide:

a. all drafts of Prof. Lindzen’s testimony before any government body or agency or that which, to your knowledge, he helped prepare for others;

b. communications regarding testimony preparation.

3. Please provide information on Prof. Lindzen’s sources of external funding. “External funding” refers to consulting fees, promotional considerations, speaking fees, honoraria, travel expenses, salary, compensation and other monies given to Prof. Lindzen that did not originate from the institution itself Please include:

a. The source of funding;

b. The amount of funding;

c. The reason for receiving the funding;

d. For grants, a description of the research proposal and copy of the funded grant;

e. Communications regarding the funding.

4. Please provide all financial disclosure forms filed by Prof Lindzen in which MIT is listed as his professional affiliation, even if it is only stated for purposes of identification.

5. Please provide Prof Lindzen’s total annual compensation for each year covered here. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please provide a full response no later than March 16, 2015. Direct questions to Vic Edgerton at vedgerton@mail.house.gov or (202) 225-6065.

Very respectfully,

Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member

House Committee on Natural Resources

Dear Rep. Raul M. Grijalva,

Go screw yourself. I'm not aware where you derive the authority to tell me what to order for lunch let alone anything else.

:)

Probably hire a writer to paint that up a bit. But basicly that should be his response.
Let me help with that:

Dear Rep. Raul M. Grijalva,

Go fuck yourself....


Being "politically correct" is the denial of free speech and stops us from saying what needs to be said bluntly. Democrats have been at this denial game far to long and its time to be blunt with them..
 
Last edited:

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
24,049
Reaction score
6,197
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
So many denier hypocrites, weeping about getting a taste of their own medicine.

Deniers can dish it out, but squeal like the sissies they are when they get any back. A bigger pack of metrosexual limp-wristers you won't find anywhere.
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,512
Reaction score
12,476
Points
1,430
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
"The federal government does not have a monopoly on funding high-quality scientific research, and many of the nation’s environmental laws require decisions be based on the best scientific information available—not just federally funded research."

When you have an agenda, control of the input is a must. Republicans want the best possible information not just the party forced line of the Obama agenda to form informed decisions on our regulations and rules. This is precisely what the left does not want... Glad to see it finally put out there and Republicans taking a stand on this AGW farce.
 
OP
bripat9643

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
137,543
Reaction score
28,767
Points
2,180
So many denier hypocrites, weeping about getting a taste of their own medicine.

Deniers can dish it out, but squeal like the sissies they are when they get any back. A bigger pack of metrosexual limp-wristers you won't find anywhere.
When have Republican politicians ever threatened a university because an AGW cult member received government funding?
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
24,049
Reaction score
6,197
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
When has a Democrat done so? There were no threats. Why did you choose to lie about that?

In contrast, we have Cuccinelli suing U.Va, and actively trying to jail climate scientists for daring ot disagree with TheParty. Openly Stalinist of him, and you wholeheartedly supported it, as did every denier here. There's more than just a bit of Stalinist in every denier.
 
OP
bripat9643

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
137,543
Reaction score
28,767
Points
2,180
When has a Democrat done so? There were no threats. Why did you choose to lie about that?

In contrast, we have Cuccinelli suing U.Va, and actively trying to jail climate scientists for daring ot disagree with TheParty. Openly Stalinist of him, and you wholeheartedly supported it.
I just posted the threatening letter written by a Democrat thug member of Congress.

Mr Mann is suing Mark Steyn and the National Review simply for criticizing him. The only thing Cuccinelli's lawsuit was after was Michael Mann's emails and his records. Since those are both the property of the University of VA, they are public property and should be available to the public. What the lawsuit shows is that the AGW cult doesn't want to be open about its agenda and methods. It doesn't incriminate climate sceptics in the slightest.
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
24,049
Reaction score
6,197
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
So even when pressed, you won't show where the threats are in that letter. Again, why did you make up such a crazy story?

Steyn didn't just "criticize". He repeatedly called Mann a fraud, loudly and repeatedly, complete with a whole boatload of fabrications, and then refused to retract the claim. A more clear cut case of libel you won't find. It's expected you support that, given your cult's endorsement of lying.

Of course you support Cuccinelli's Stalinist attempts to send scientists to the gulag. He didn't just ask for emails, as you claim. He was actively trying to prosecute Dr. Mann for fraud. And all deniers support that tactic, being TheParty demands such obedience from them.

TheParty also demands that you lie by claiming the data is hidden, even though it never is. Everything you say on this topic is just parroting your cult's fables. Such a good obedient cultist you are, and I'm sure it's earning you a lot of cult brownie points.
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,512
Reaction score
12,476
Points
1,430
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
So even when pressed, you won't show where the threats are in that letter. Again, why did you make up such a crazy story?

Steyn didn't just "criticize". He repeatedly called Mann a fraud, loudly and repeatedly, complete with a whole boatload of fabrications, and then refused to retract the claim. A more clear cut case of libel you won't find. It's expected you support that, given your cult's endorsement of lying.

Of course you support Cuccinelli's Stalinist attempts to send scientists to the gulag. He didn't just ask for emails, as you claim. He was actively trying to prosecute Dr. Mann for fraud. And all deniers support that tactic, being TheParty demands such obedience from them.

TheParty also demands that you lie by claiming the data is hidden, even though it never is. Everything you say on this topic is just parroting your cult's fables. Such a good obedient cultist you are, and I'm sure it's earning you a lot of cult brownie points.
Well you really are a mindless drone moron.. You cant see the implied threats? REALLY?????
 
OP
bripat9643

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
137,543
Reaction score
28,767
Points
2,180
So even when pressed, you won't show where the threats are in that letter. Again, why did you make up such a crazy story?

Steyn didn't just "criticize". He repeatedly called Mann a fraud, loudly and repeatedly, complete with a whole boatload of fabrications, and then refused to retract the claim. A more clear cut case of libel you won't find. It's expected you support that, given your cult's endorsement of lying.

Of course you support Cuccinelli's Stalinist attempts to send scientists to the gulag. He didn't just ask for emails, as you claim. He was actively trying to prosecute Dr. Mann for fraud. And all deniers support that tactic, being TheParty demands such obedience from them.

TheParty also demands that you lie by claiming the data is hidden, even though it never is. Everything you say on this topic is just parroting your cult's fables. Such a good obedient cultist you are, and I'm sure it's earning you a lot of cult brownie points.
If the data is not hidden, then why is Mann refusing to release it and his emails? If Mann isn't guilty of fraud, then there should be no reason to keep this information confidential.
So even when pressed, you won't show where the threats are in that letter. Again, why did you make up such a crazy story?

Steyn didn't just "criticize". He repeatedly called Mann a fraud, loudly and repeatedly, complete with a whole boatload of fabrications, and then refused to retract the claim. A more clear cut case of libel you won't find. It's expected you support that, given your cult's endorsement of lying.

Of course you support Cuccinelli's Stalinist attempts to send scientists to the gulag. He didn't just ask for emails, as you claim. He was actively trying to prosecute Dr. Mann for fraud. And all deniers support that tactic, being TheParty demands such obedience from them.

TheParty also demands that you lie by claiming the data is hidden, even though it never is. Everything you say on this topic is just parroting your cult's fables. Such a good obedient cultist you are, and I'm sure it's earning you a lot of cult brownie points.
Well you really are a mindless drone moron.. You cant see the implied threats? REALLY?????
Unless it says "well have you thrown in the climate denier's gulag," they will never admit it's a threat.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,383
Reaction score
1,565
Points
290
Location
N/A
So even when pressed, you won't show where the threats are in that letter. Again, why did you make up such a crazy story?

Steyn didn't just "criticize". He repeatedly called Mann a fraud, loudly and repeatedly, complete with a whole boatload of fabrications, and then refused to retract the claim. A more clear cut case of libel you won't find. It's expected you support that, given your cult's endorsement of lying.

Of course you support Cuccinelli's Stalinist attempts to send scientists to the gulag. He didn't just ask for emails, as you claim. He was actively trying to prosecute Dr. Mann for fraud. And all deniers support that tactic, being TheParty demands such obedience from them.

TheParty also demands that you lie by claiming the data is hidden, even though it never is. Everything you say on this topic is just parroting your cult's fables. Such a good obedient cultist you are, and I'm sure it's earning you a lot of cult brownie points.
If the data is not hidden, then why is Mann refusing to release it and his emails? If Mann isn't guilty of fraud, then there should be no reason to keep this information confidential.
So even when pressed, you won't show where the threats are in that letter. Again, why did you make up such a crazy story?

Steyn didn't just "criticize". He repeatedly called Mann a fraud, loudly and repeatedly, complete with a whole boatload of fabrications, and then refused to retract the claim. A more clear cut case of libel you won't find. It's expected you support that, given your cult's endorsement of lying.

Of course you support Cuccinelli's Stalinist attempts to send scientists to the gulag. He didn't just ask for emails, as you claim. He was actively trying to prosecute Dr. Mann for fraud. And all deniers support that tactic, being TheParty demands such obedience from them.

TheParty also demands that you lie by claiming the data is hidden, even though it never is. Everything you say on this topic is just parroting your cult's fables. Such a good obedient cultist you are, and I'm sure it's earning you a lot of cult brownie points.
Well you really are a mindless drone moron.. You cant see the implied threats? REALLY?????
Unless it says "well have you thrown in the climate denier's gulag," they will never admit it's a threat.
What DOES it say? Where IS the thread? And what data IS HIDDEN?
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
24,049
Reaction score
6,197
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Given the current Stalinist tactics of Lamar Smith, I thought it would be a good time to bring back this thread.

According to all the deniers on this thread, Grijalva was evil for making his request for voluntary action. Also note that Grijalva backed down from it, admitted it was overreaching (which it was), and that he never asked for personal communications or anything other than current info.

And now we have Lamar Smith. Chair of a congressional committee, who is demanding, by force of law, all private and personal communications going back for as long as it takes. His offense is thousands of times more intrusive than Grijalva's.

And the same deniers who condemned Grijalva all support Smith enthusiastically. Hence, the obvious hypocrisy.

If any denier would like to show they're not a hypocrite, simply condemn Lamar Smith and the Republicans for their current actions. But I'm guessing we won't see any doing that. Deniers are political cultists, so when TheParty speaks, deniers have to fall in line. Being seen as a good party member is far more important to them than being seen as a hypocrite.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top