'Bout time, too! This science shows such great promise in
Posted By: defeating cancer, paralysis, MS, etc. on 2009-01-23
In Reply to: Stem cell research has started - Full speed ahead
N/M
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Well, I say good for him! 'Bout time somebody grew
--
Only if you actually PART this time, as you promise to do.
But then again, you've repeatedly proven your fondness for the truth, so I think it's safe to say that you're not going anywhere. Out of all your posts, though, this one was just too precious to ignore.
As far as lumping me in the same category as GT and Observer, pardon me while I get all misty-eyed because this is probably the nicest thing you've ever said to me. By telling me that, you're telling me that I'm a person who sees things clearly and realistically. You're telling me that I have compassion for people who are in dire need of compassion these days. You're telling me that I don't worship a false idol like you do. You're telling me that I can see through the soulless, heartless, brainless moron whose boots you would gladly lick as you kneel to worship him. You're telling me that I support our troops because I value their lives and only feel their lives should be placed in jeopardy when absolutely necessary to defend this country and not for a war borne out of lies and deceit by a president who most likely packed away his plans to attack Iraq in the box marked Personal and brought them with him when he relocated to the White House. You're telling me that I have the insight, wisdom and intelligence to recognize when I'm being lied to and that I have the courage to vocally object to it, rather than make excuses for a man who only truly cares about rich people.
Best of all, you're lumping me with two other posters whose views I thoroughly respect and am always eager to read, people with brains and consciences and hearts.
So right when I become all misty-eyed at the wonderful compliment you've paid me, you say you're going to leave.
I suppose I can take solace in knowing that it's just another of your many, many lies, that you're probably just one of the many voices in MT's head, and I hope she doesn't kill you when she finds out you've complimented me, although I thoroughly understand the mounting panic and frustration those of your ilk must be feeling.
I hope you have a delightful evening, and once again, thank you so much for the wonderful compliment. 
Yup, forgot Glenn came over from CNN, yes, he has great informative shows....nm
nm
Great book everyone should read at this time... SM
'The Forgotten Man' by Amity Shlaes. Explains the recession of the 20s and the depression of the 30s and how it all happened. It wasn't the fault of pubs or dems - this had never happened before and no one knew what to do. What actually got us out of the depression wasn't stimulus or tax breaks or cuts in spending - It was WWII.
Yes, Obama the great uniter!..proves all the time
nm
Science? Guess we don't need it any more....
Poll: Give Bible story of creation equal time
Laurie Goodstein, New York Times
August 31, 2005 RELI0831
In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released Tuesday found that nearly 66 percent of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
The poll found that 42 percent of respondents hold strict creationist views, agreeing that living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.
In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time; of those, 18 percent said that evolution was guided by a supreme being, and 26 percent said it occurred through natural selection.
In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.
The poll was conducted July 7 to 17 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The questions about evolution were asked of 2,000 people; the margin of error is 2.5 percentage points.
The poll showed 41 percent of Americans want parents to have the primary say over how evolution is taught, compared with 28 percent who say teachers and scientists should decide and 21 percent who say school boards should.
Asked whether they believed creationism should be taught instead of evolution, 38 percent were in favor, and 49 percent were opposed. Those who believe in creationism said they were very certain of their views (63 percent), compared to those who believe in evolution (32 percent).
The poll also asked about religion and politics, among other things. Respondents agreed in nearly equal numbers that nonreligious liberals have too much control over the Democratic Party (44 percent agreed), and that religious conservatives have too much control over the Republican Party (45 percent agreed).
ARROGANT? The Decider had that down to a science!
Landing on that aircraft carrier with his fake package - hahahahaha - Mission Accomplished all right! See ya in the soup kitchen!
A "theory" is not SCIENCE anymore than the
theory of evolution is science. Science is a repeated study in the laboratory that produces the same result over and over.
Gravity is not a theory. You jump 100 floors, you die. Repeated over and over with same results, inside and outside the laboratory.
So much for your public education.
sorry 'bout that...this one should work
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/eveningnews/main4476173.shtml
sorry 'bout that GoUrdpainter!!! nm
.
How 'bout something a little newer......
By Dave Gonigam
02/11/09 Baltimore, Maryland When Bob Woodward slaps together his next instant-history book about the Panic of ‘08 (c’mon, you just know he’s going to), I imagine the book will open with the events of September 18-19, 2008.
Just using public sources, it’s now easy to glean that on those two days, a run on money-market funds brought the financial system to the edge of collapse, and Hank Paulson was threatening members of Congress with martial law if they didn’t pass a bailout.
The collapse revelation came a few days ago from Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pennsylvania) when he was interviewed on C-Span.
On Thursday [the 18th], at about 11 o’clock in the morning, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States to a tune of $550 billion being drawn out in a matter of an hour or two.
The Treasury opened up its window to help. They pumped $105 billion into the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks.
They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts, and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn’t be further panic and there. And that’s what actually happened.
If they had not done that their estimation was that by two o’clock that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy of the United States, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.
Now we talked at that time about what would have happened if that happened. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it.
Couple this with the remarks of Rep. Brad Sherman (D-California) on the House floor just days after the first bailout bill went down in flames. “Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill… that the sky would fall, the market would drop 2000-3000 points the first day, another couple thousand the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no.”
Careless bloggers have jumped to the conclusion this threat was delivered the same day there was a run on the money-market funds. But by the recollection of Sen. James Inhofe — who confirmed to a Tulsa radio station it was Hank Paulson himself who delivered that threat — the discussion took place on Friday the 19th.
It’s possible Paulson resorted to such dire language because the Dow popped 400-plus points in the final hours of trading the day before on rumors that Treasury and the Fed were hatching one of their many rescue plans — a rally that continued into the first hours of trading Friday. Ordinary scare language wouldn’t do under those circumstances. Or it’s possible Inhofe’s memory is fuzzy and the threat came the same day that everything nearly melted down.
Well, I’m sure Bob Woodward can make a few phone calls and clear up any discrepancies on the time frame. In the meantime, I’m more concerned about the potential for another Black Swan to show up before the month is out.
How 'bout something a little newer......
By Dave Gonigam
02/11/09 Baltimore, Maryland When Bob Woodward slaps together his next instant-history book about the Panic of ‘08 (c’mon, you just know he’s going to), I imagine the book will open with the events of September 18-19, 2008.
Just using public sources, it’s now easy to glean that on those two days, a run on money-market funds brought the financial system to the edge of collapse, and Hank Paulson was threatening members of Congress with martial law if they didn’t pass a bailout.
The collapse revelation came a few days ago from Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pennsylvania) when he was interviewed on C-Span.
On Thursday [the 18th], at about 11 o’clock in the morning, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States to a tune of $550 billion being drawn out in a matter of an hour or two.
The Treasury opened up its window to help. They pumped $105 billion into the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks.
They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts, and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn’t be further panic and there. And that’s what actually happened.
If they had not done that their estimation was that by two o’clock that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy of the United States, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.
Now we talked at that time about what would have happened if that happened. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it.
Couple this with the remarks of Rep. Brad Sherman (D-California) on the House floor just days after the first bailout bill went down in flames. “Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill… that the sky would fall, the market would drop 2000-3000 points the first day, another couple thousand the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no.”
Careless bloggers have jumped to the conclusion this threat was delivered the same day there was a run on the money-market funds. But by the recollection of Sen. James Inhofe — who confirmed to a Tulsa radio station it was Hank Paulson himself who delivered that threat — the discussion took place on Friday the 19th.
It’s possible Paulson resorted to such dire language because the Dow popped 400-plus points in the final hours of trading the day before on rumors that Treasury and the Fed were hatching one of their many rescue plans — a rally that continued into the first hours of trading Friday. Ordinary scare language wouldn’t do under those circumstances. Or it’s possible Inhofe’s memory is fuzzy and the threat came the same day that everything nearly melted down.
Well, I’m sure Bob Woodward can make a few phone calls and clear up any discrepancies on the time frame. In the meantime, I’m more concerned about the potential for another Black Swan to show up before the month is out.
How 'bout something a little newer......
By Dave Gonigam
02/11/09 Baltimore, Maryland When Bob Woodward slaps together his next instant-history book about the Panic of ‘08 (c’mon, you just know he’s going to), I imagine the book will open with the events of September 18-19, 2008.
Just using public sources, it’s now easy to glean that on those two days, a run on money-market funds brought the financial system to the edge of collapse, and Hank Paulson was threatening members of Congress with martial law if they didn’t pass a bailout.
The collapse revelation came a few days ago from Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pennsylvania) when he was interviewed on C-Span.
On Thursday [the 18th], at about 11 o’clock in the morning, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States to a tune of $550 billion being drawn out in a matter of an hour or two.
The Treasury opened up its window to help. They pumped $105 billion into the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks.
They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts, and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn’t be further panic and there. And that’s what actually happened.
If they had not done that their estimation was that by two o’clock that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy of the United States, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.
Now we talked at that time about what would have happened if that happened. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it.
Couple this with the remarks of Rep. Brad Sherman (D-California) on the House floor just days after the first bailout bill went down in flames. “Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill… that the sky would fall, the market would drop 2000-3000 points the first day, another couple thousand the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no.”
Careless bloggers have jumped to the conclusion this threat was delivered the same day there was a run on the money-market funds. But by the recollection of Sen. James Inhofe — who confirmed to a Tulsa radio station it was Hank Paulson himself who delivered that threat — the discussion took place on Friday the 19th.
It’s possible Paulson resorted to such dire language because the Dow popped 400-plus points in the final hours of trading the day before on rumors that Treasury and the Fed were hatching one of their many rescue plans — a rally that continued into the first hours of trading Friday. Ordinary scare language wouldn’t do under those circumstances. Or it’s possible Inhofe’s memory is fuzzy and the threat came the same day that everything nearly melted down.
Well, I’m sure Bob Woodward can make a few phone calls and clear up any discrepancies on the time frame. In the meantime, I’m more concerned about the potential for another Black Swan to show up before the month is out.
facts, evidence, science, and reason
Hasn't worked so well lately, has it?
This is not rocket science. If Americans have access to
it creates a win/win situation for us all. If they open that plan to such a broad base, they would be able to essentially write their own ticket in terms of policy and coverage. As the plan stands now, it is perfectly acceptable, affordable and offers broad choice.
If McCain and his supporters want to wallow around in the politics of nay-saying, fear and hate, no problem. Go for it, but don't expecct Americans who are ready for change and are looking forward instead of backwards in terms of policy to buy into all hat negativity. That's the Bush world mentality and those days are numbered now down to less than 100.
It doesn't take rocket science to figure out....
the crap you are posting is just that, crap.
I see you've been reading the junk science
mags, watching AL Gore movies. You really are being disingenous here. There are 692 scientists who have declared that global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity. Now, we are talking scientists with pedigress a mile long after their names. You make that insidious claim that the ice caps are melting, and yes, they are, like they usually do, but you neglect to speak to the fact that as they melt, bigger ice caps form that are not melting.
If you have the intelligence to read the report on Fox News, you will see that this is a UN initiative that has been in the works for years. It goes right along with their plan to strip property rights, huddle the masses in "villages," and only those in power will be the land owner barons.
Law of Logical Argument - Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
How 'bout something to back up your facts.
As far as I know, it happened under Clinton's watch. He didn't want to do anything but talk. Talk got us 911.
Apparently you don't understand statistics or science. Get educated, please!!
It's not scientifically sound to make pseudo-scientific statements about U.S. obesity based on a television program you saw that featured some obese people in it. But it seems when it comes to scientific fact, statistics or the truth - you CONS don't have a clue.
Rankings: Obesity Rates Grew In Every State But Oregon
Mississippi Ranked Heaviest State
POSTED: 8:29 am PDT August 23, 2005
UPDATED: 9:34 am PDT August 23, 2005
The obesity epidemic isn't winding down -- in fact, it's expanding, according to state rankings released Tuesday by Trust for America's Health, a nonprofit health advocacy group.
Obesity rates continued to rise last year in every state but Oregon. Mississippi ranked as the heaviest state, Colorado as the least heavy, according to the report, titled F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing in America, 2005.
The rankings are based on averages of three years of data from 2002 to 2004 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hawaii was not included in the report.
About 64.5 percent of adult Americans are either overweight or obese. The report found that more than 25 percent of adults in 10 states are obese, including in Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, Michigan, Kentucky, Indiana and South Carolina.
From the Christian Science Monitor earlier this year
|
from the March 16, 2005 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0316/p16s01-lire.html
For evangelicals, a bid to 'reclaim America'
The Center aims to increase its 500,000-strong e-mail army to 1 million, and to encourage Christians to run for office. It has plans for 12 regional offices and activists in all 435 US House districts. And a new lobbying arm in Washington will target judicial nominations and the battle over marriage.
If they don't vote our way, we'll change their view one way or another, executive director Gary Cass tells the group. As a California pastor, Dr. Cass spearheaded efforts to close abortion clinics and recruit Christians to seek positions on local school boards. We're going to take back what we lost in the last half of the 20th century, he adds.
For the faithful who gathered in Florida last month, the goal is not just to convert individuals - but to reshape US society.
By Jane Lampman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA. - For the Reback daughters, the big attraction was the famous Ten Commandments monument, brought to Florida on tour after being removed from the Alabama judicial building as unconstitutional. The youngsters - dressed in red, white, and blue - clustered proudly around the display.
For more than 900 other Christians from across the US, the draw at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church last month was a national conference aimed at reclaiming America for Christ. The monument stood as a potent symbol of their hopes for changing the course of the nation.
We have God-sized problems in our country, and only God can solve them, Richard Land, a prominent leader of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), told the group.
Their mission is not simply to save souls. The goal is to mobilize evangelical Christians for political action to return society to what they call the biblical worldview of the Founding Fathers. Some speak of restoring a Christian nation. Others shy from that phrase, but agree that the Bible calls them not only to evangelize, but also to transform the culture.
In material given to conference attendees, the Rev. D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge pastor wrote: As the vice-regents of God, we are to bring His truth and His will to bear on every sphere of our world and our society. We are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government ... our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors - in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.
This is the 10th conference to spread this cultural mandate among Christians, and although the church's pastor couldn't speak due to illness, others presented the message intended to rouse the conservative faithful, eager to capitalize on gains won during the November election.
This melding of religion and politics, Christianity and patriotism, makes many uneasy, particularly those on the other side of the so-called culture war, who see a threat to the healthy discourse of a pluralistic society.
This is an effort to impose a particular far-right religious view, and political and social policies that result from that, on others, says Elliot Mincberg of People for the American Way, a group that advocates for a diverse society. There's nothing wrong with trying to convince others to adopt their views, but [Dr. Kennedy's] effort is also to use the levers of government to force changes.
An energetic pastor who built Coral Ridge into a 10,000-member megachurch with far-reaching radio and TV audiences, the Rev. Dr. Kennedy regularly calls the US a Christian nation that should be governed by Christians. He has created a Center for Christian Statesmanship in Washington that seeks to evangelize members of Congress and their staffs, and to counsel conservative Christian officeholders.
Some critics suggest these views reflect far-right Presbyterian thinking, some of which extends to the realm of theocracy, the belief that God - or His representatives - should govern the state.
Frederick Carlson, author of Eternal Hostility: the Struggle between Theocracy and Democracy, says that if Kennedy is not a theocrat, he is certainly a dominionist, one who supports taking over and dominating the political process.
Kennedy is not in the theocratic camp, says John Aman, Coral Ridge spokesman. He does believe that Christians should not sequester themselves inside their stained-glass ghettoes, but seek to be 'salt and light' - apply biblical moral truth and the Gospel - to every area of society.
It's apparent that those who've traveled here from 40 states are eager to do just that. Many of them say they are most motivated by signs of moral decline in America, concern for their children's future, and what they see as an effort to keep God and religious speech out of public life.
The country is getting further away from Christian values, and we're being stifled, says Debbie Mochle-Young, of Santa Monica, Calif. Other nationalities are coming to live here and say, 'We want our beliefs,' but they don't let you have yours. Nathan Lepper, an Air Force retiree active in politics in Florida, says he has a personal passion to help America turn back to its moral and ethical bases.
Some are already involved in their communities - in antiabortion actions, in trying to prevent removal of feeding tubes from Terri Schiavo, or in efforts to oppose same-sex marriage by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Gabriel Carpenter, from Dryden, N.Y., works at a local crisis pregnancy center and is a coordinator for the now-required sexual abstinence program in New York public schools. He and his wife, Penelope, say they hope to learn more about how to share America's Christian heritage with others.
Christianity and patriotism are interwoven throughout the gathering, from Christian and American flags marched into the sanctuary, to red, white, and blue banners festooning the church complex, to a rousing patriotic concert. Several speakers emphasize the idea that America's founders were largely Christian and that their intent was to establish a biblically based nation. (No mention is made of other influences on the Founding Fathers, such as Englightenment thinkers or issues of freedom of conscience.)
David Barton, a leading advocate for emphasizing Christianity in US history, deftly selects quotes from letters and historical documents to link major historical figures such as George Washington to a Christian vision, and to suggest that the courts and scholars in the last century have deliberately undermined the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
Critics, including historians and the Baptist Joint Committee, challenge the accuracy of some of Mr. Barton's work, including what he calls the myth of separation of church and state.
In Blessed Assurance: A History of Evangelicalism in America, religious historian Randall Balmer of Columbia University writes that a contrived mythology about America's Christian origins has been a factor in the reentry of evangelicals into political life, helping sustain the conservative swing in American politics. Barton and others say they are recapturing truths hidden behind a secularist version of history, while critics say they are producing revisionist history that cherry-picks facts and ignores historical evidence.
But Barton is clearly a favorite speaker, with a theme buttressing the identity and purpose of those eager to reform the country. And there's plenty for them to do. Coral Ridge's Center for Reclaiming America is building a grass-roots alliance around five issues: the sanctity of life, religious liberty, pornography, the homosexual agenda, and creation vs. evolution.
The Center aims to increase its 500,000-strong e-mail army to 1 million, and to encourage Christians to run for office. It has plans for 12 regional offices and activists in all 435 US House districts. And a new lobbying arm in Washington will target judicial nominations and the battle over marriage.
If they don't vote our way, we'll change their view one way or another, executive director Gary Cass tells the group. As a California pastor, Dr. Cass spearheaded efforts to close abortion clinics and recruit Christians to seek positions on local school boards. We're going to take back what we lost in the last half of the 20th century, he adds.
Taking back is a major theme - taking back the schools, the media, the courts.
It's time to take back the portals of power, and particularly those of commerce, because commerce controls all the gates - to government, the courts, and so on, says businessman Michael Pink in a workshop. Recounting his own business success based on in-depth Bible study, Mr. Pink says he's now urging wealthy Christian businessmen to start using their earnings to purchase such prizes as ABC and NBC.
Interspersed between worshipful singing, prominent activist leaders tout recent successes. Alan Sears of the Alliance Defense Fund, who has led the charge in the states against same-sex marriage, talks of victories in Ohio and California and the phalanx of 800 lawyers now trained for the fight across the US. Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association highlights growing impact on the entertainment industry, from spurring FCC regulatory actions against broadcast indecency to causing major companies to pull their ads from TV programs.
Yet it's the most combative language that brings the crowd to its feet in applause: Judicial activists are running rampant and a God-free country is their goal.... All means to turn the tide must be considered, including their removal, urges the Rev. Rick Scarborough, founder of Vision America, which mobilizes patriot pastors across the US.
SBC's Dr. Land, credited with helping to turn out evangelical voters in the 2004 election, says Kennedy's conferences have an impact: No one has been more important in helping Christians of every denominational persuasion understand first, their evangelistic responsibility ... and then their responsibility to be salt and light in the world.
Others suggest that among evangelicals as a whole - whose numbers are estimated to represent at least 25 percent of the US population - the appeal and influence of such religio-political activism are limited.
This is more right wing and religiously politicized than the majority of evangelicals, says Christian Smith, professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Most would not make the kind of 'take back America' statements in such an overt way.
In an in-depth national study published in 2000 under the title, Christian America? What Evangelicals Really Want, Dr. Smith explored the views of a remarkably diverse group, with many holding conflicted views on political involvement and the issues and methods of activists.
Still, the 2004 election confirmed a growing mobilization of conservative Christians. And in a recent Barna survey of American pastors about their choice for the most trusted spokesperson for Christianity, Dr. Kennedy made the top 10, sharing the final spot with three others, including Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson and President Bush, each winning the vote of 4 percent of the clergy.
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
For permission to reprint/republish this article, please email Copyright |
|
Religious "voodoo?" Science has documented and shown that....sm
life begins at conception, those cells are living, have their code, and I have seen my own children on ultrasound as early as 8 weeks (with high risk pregnancies) fully formed, moving all extremities, trying to suck their thumbs, kicking, tiny heart beating away, with everything that you or I have, only inside the womb. Now if you wish to believe that a woman can do with THAT as she wants, so be it, I still have to stand with the pro-choice crowd not because I believe in abortion or that it is okay and not murdering a human being, but because I can see the instances where a woman would be justified in her actions, and let her make her own peach and atonement with God, as we all will. Science more and more is proving out what has been in the Bible all along. I do not think that was a fair or rational characterization of "religion," and it was hurtful and inflammatory. Choose to be atheist or agnostic, Christianity is not "voodoo."
How 'bout the "luxury tax" on beer, wine and...sm.
soda since the govt has decided that these things are detrimental to our health. Wonder where the "taxes on" phase will end - in 2012????? One can hope.........
How 'bout taxing health care, too
Heard dribs and drabs about this about a month ago. He wants to tax the employers who provide health care to the employees. Does that sound like he wants all of us to abide by HIS healthcare plan?
More on this later.
Great post, great insight, great analysis, thanks!..nm
nm
I did not say they said global warming as a general theory was not good science...
but that Gore's version in his movie was not good science. And I said it was debunked...but that they said it was bunk.
Here's one....an interview with a noted scientist in the field:
Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.
The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.
There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.
"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.
The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said. Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said. "It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."
Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe." Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.
"I have now worked for zero dollars since I retired, long enough that I have paid back the people of Wisconsin every cent they paid me to give me a wonderful, wonderful career. So we are even now. And I feel good about that," said Bryson.
So, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it? "Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?" Bryson shot back.
"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"
Speaking out against global warming is like being a heretic, Bryson noted. And it's not something that he does regularly. "I can't waste my time on that, I have too many other things to do," he said.
But if somebody asks him for his opinion on global warming, he'll give it. "And I think I know about as much about it as anybody does."
Up against his students' students: Reporters will often call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson said. "And that goes in the paper as 'scientists say.'"
The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years, he said. "It is sort of a smear."
Bryson said he recently wrote something on the subject and two graduate students told him he was wrong, citing research done by one of their professors. That professor, Bryson noted, is probably the student of one of his students.
"Well, that professor happened to be wrong," he said. "There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts."
While Bryson doesn't think that global warming is man-made, he said there is some evidence of an effect from mankind, but not an effect of carbon dioxide. For example, in Wisconsin in the last 100 years the biggest heating has been around Madison, Milwaukee and in the Southeast, where the cities are. There was a slight change in the Green Bay area, he said. The rest of the state shows no warming at all.
"The growth of cities makes it hotter, but that was true back in the 1930s, too," Bryson said. "Big cities were hotter than the surrounding countryside because you concentrate the traffic and you concentrate the home heating. And you modify the surface, you pave a lot of it."
Bryson didn't see AL Gore's movie about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth." "Don't make me throw up," he said. "It is not science. It is not true."
Another:
One of the world's leading meteorologists has described the theory that helped Al Gore win a share of the Nobel prize "ridiculous".
Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, spoke to a packed lecture hall at UNC Charlotte and said humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth.
"We're brainwashing our children," said Gray, 78, a longtime professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie (An Inconvenient Truth) and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."
Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said instead that a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - is responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.
However, he said, that same cycle means a period of global cooling will begin soon and last for several years.
"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Gray said.
"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Gray said.
He said his beliefs have made him an outsider in popular science.
"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."
Seeing a link here? They want grants, they have to buy into global warming. Hellooo. Follow the money.
This is from Newsvine (owned by MSNBC, home of Chris Matthews...biased yes, but in your favor), about the "consensus of scientists" who buy into Gore's theory:
Article Source: dailytech.comworld-news, global-warming, study, scientists - of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
Here is another: the scientists quoted are not conservatives.
Gore Slams Global Warming Critics
Reprint Information
Book on Katie Couric Makes Waves
In twin appearances last night former Vice President Al Gore dismissed critics of his global warming theory as a small minority not credible in their opposition.
In an unprecedented, uninterrupted eight-minute monologue on Keith Olbermann’s "Countdown," Gore characterized those scientists who dispute the reality of global warming as part of a lunatic fringe.
Later, on Charlie Rose’s show, Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, "The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”
NOTE: Again with the consensus...as stated above, the consensus he claims does not exist.
This flies in the face of such challengers as professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia who said: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
Famed climatologist and internationally renowned hurricane expert Dr. William Gray of the atmospheric-science department at Colorado State University went even further, calling the scientific "consensus" on global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." For speaking the truth he has seen most of his government research funding dry up, according to the Washington Post.
Neither Gray nor Dr. Carter believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.
Nor does famed Oxford professor David Bellamy who sniffs that Gore’s theory is "Poppycock!"
Writing in Britain's Daily Mail last July 9, Dr. Bellamy charged that "the world's politicians and policy makers ... have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credo of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide – the principal so-called greenhouse gas – into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.
"They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.
"As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and rubles into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist. The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic."
Wrote Dr. Bellamy "It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be [$1.3 trillion]. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.
"If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist – money that could be used in umpteen better ways: Fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.
"The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact."
In agreement with Dr. Bellamy were a host of other respected climatologists including the 19,000 who have signed a declaration that rejects Gore’s accusation that the rise of greenhouse gasses is caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels. As has been pointed out, previous ice ages have been preceded by a rise on CO2 levels long before there were humans or fossil fuels or backyard barbecues.
Commenting on the scientists who support Gore’s thesis, Dr. Carter one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change, says, "‘Climate experts’ is the operative term here. Why? Because of what Gore's ‘majority of scientists’ think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to U.S. science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of who know, but feel unable to state publicly, that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April, 60 of the world's leading experts in the field asked Canada’s Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake – either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents – it seems like a reasonable request, wrote Tom Harris in the Canada Free Press.
According to Harris, a mechanical engineer, former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball notes that even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
Adds Ball, among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not predictions but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
Canada's new conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been urged by more than 60 leading international climate change experts to review the global warming policies he inherited from his predecessor.
In an open letter that includes five British scientists among the 60 leading international climate change experts who signed the letter, the experts praise Harper’s commitment to review the controversial Kyoto Protocol on reducing emissions harmful to the environment. "Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science," they wrote in the Canadian Financial Post last week.
They emphasized that the study of global climate change is, in Harper's own words, an "emerging science" and added: "If, back in the mid 1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, they wrote.
"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.
"Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"
The letter is the latest effort by climate change skeptics to counter Gore's demonstrably false claims that there is a consensus that human activity is causing alleged global warming.
Listening to Al Gore makes one wonder if he is the one who believes that "the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.”
Okay, my friends, how 'bout a little Friday comic relief?
Probably already heard/read these, but here we go:
Only in America. Even though he stole 2.4 million he has agreed to pay back 1.8 million to make it right. So let that be a lesson to all you other congressmen out there. If you get caught stealing you may have to pay back a small fraction of what you took ... Don't you love how our system works? So if you're poor and you steal a loaf of bread it's a $200 fine, if you're a congressman who steals $2.4 million you get to keep a 25% bonus. --Jay Leno
Former head of FEMA Michael Brown has opened up his own private disaster agency. That's like Robert Blake opening up a marriage counselling facility. —David Letterman
A hunk of marble fell from the front of the Supreme Court building, a big hunk of marble. I believe it was the biggest thud at the Supreme Court since Harriet Miers —David Letterman
California Congressman Duke Cunningham resigned from office after admitting he broke the law by taking $2.4 million dollars in bribes. It's kind of ironic. The only time you can really be sure that a politician is telling the truth is when he's admitting that he's a crook. —Jay Leno
In his speech President Bush said we need to rebuild Iraq, provide the people with jobs, and give them hope. If it works there maybe we'll try it in New Orleans. —Jay Leno
From David Letterman:
Top 10 New President Bush Strategies For Victory in Iraq
10. Make an even larger 'Mission Accomplished' sign
9. Encourage Iraqis to settle their feud like Dave and Oprah
8. Put that go-getter Michael Brown in charge
7. Launch slogan, 'It's not Iraq, it's Weraq'
6. Just do whatever he did when he captured Osama
5. A little more vacation time at the ranch to clear his head
4. Pack on a quick 30 pounds and trade places with Jeb
3. Wait, you mean it ain't going well?
2. Boost morale by doing his hilarious 'Locked Door' gag
1. Place Saddam back in power and tell him, 'It's your problem now, dude'
Haha - how 'bout "rich peoples' fat wallets first?"
Well, now this is what I REALLY HEAR when tuning into Faux News...sorry 'bout that...
There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image; make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to the Outer Limits.
LOL
As usual, bringing up the past...how 'bout something original...
your inexperienced leader is already in over his head. It's okay sweetie, you'll get used to hearing your leader bashed and getting no respect. We had to endure that for 8 years now you will for the next 4.
Do you promise?.....nm
nm
You will, I promise you! nm
xxx
I promise you
that no matter how many drugs are floating around out there, I'm still not going to use any. It doesn't mean I approve of other people's use of them. Homosexuals can sodomize themselves silly. It doesn't mean I'm going to feel all warm and cozy for them and tell my children, "Look isn't that special?" Approval of sin makes a mockery of God.
He can promise the world now....
just like Clinton did. Then he will sit down with advisors who will tell him in a kind way what are you, nuts, there is no money. And he will have to come on TV and blame it all on the Republicans and that is why you won't get your tax cuts. Then he will turn right around and increase taxes on the wealthy who aren't near as wealthy anymore since the crash happened, more jobs will be lost, and we will go from recession to depression.
I don't think he will mean to cripple the country...but it will be crippled nonetheless.
I promise you, you will not wear us down.
Many may change their minds if you settle down somewhat and work, until the next vote, to present your argument.
However, you will not wear down or exhaust the will of those who are as passionate about upholding their values as you do yours.
Once again....another broken promise by the big O.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/11/12/obama_softens_ban_on_hiring_lobbyists/
So much for the change Obama promised to bring. Sounds to me like it is the same old political bullcrap of the rules not applying to certain people. Why bother saying stuff when you know you can't or won't do it?
I promise if you learn to spell. nm
How can he break a promise when he is not POTUS yet? nm
x
He's not a promise keeper yet. Don't jump the gun.
These press conferences are to let everyone know who's going to be in his cabinet and to reiterate that he had no contact with Blago. Why does he keep saying this? He supposedly is going to release documents "next week" that will prove it. So, I will wait until next week.
I just read an article by Morton Kondracke in the local newspaper where his health plan cost may top $3 TRILLION. That's almost as bad as the bailout plus. Where does he think this money is going to come from? THAT's the question I want answered.
All his other lofty promises, too. All will cost money. Who's going to pay? He can't tax the businesses as they are the key to jobs and, if he does that, the jobs will be gone. He can't tax the working people because, if he does that, he's backing out on his promise plus the working people can't take any more taxes.
With unemployment at such high rates and more every day, how long do you think unemployment benefits will last? Already Michigan and another state have 0 balances in their unemployment benefit chest. The governor of PA (Rendell) stated he only has enough employment benefits in the coffer to last 6 months IF there are no more people opening a claim. Without people working, they aren't paying taxes. Without tax money, the government can't provide benefits. Even SS is at risk to run out before the stated time mentioned a year or 2 ago.
So tell me, will he wave a magic wand and the money will appear? Probably, which will lower our dollar purchasing power and put us more into debt.
It's time for people to wake up. The depression is here. The reason the O read about FDR is to try and figure out what to do, but FDR didn't have a crisis such as this. This is above and beyond anything that ever happened.
That was McCain's campaign promise...
McCain promised "line-by-line", Obama promised "reform." Also, it is against the constitution (via Supreme Court) for the president to "line-by-line" - they can only sign or veto - that's it.
No dog? ANOTHER campaign promise broken?
I guess we shouldn't be too surprised that the "tax cuts for 95% of Americans" will "not likely survive a budget battle with Democrats on Capitol Hill".
That's good, Obama. Some leadership! And blame it on the legislature. That's your MO, isn't it,Obama? Blame everything on everyone else.
You love to have your cake and eat it too, don't you, you pathetic L O S E R.
Yet another campaign promise broken..... sm
This originally included pictures, but apparently they would not post here.
A Boeing 757 and a fleet of armored cars for Michelle’s sight seeing tour!
Michelle One
On Sunday, President Obama flew back to the United States on Air Force One. His wife, two daughters and her mother did a bit of shopping in Paris before taking their own Boeing 757 (C-32) over to London to do some sight seeing.
We all remember Obama’s admonishment to corporate CEO’s in February:
“You can’t get corporate jets, you can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers dime.”
Apparently that doesn’t apply to his wife.
The London Times opened it’s description of Michelle’s visit this way:
Motorcycle outriders, armoured Chevrolets and bullet-headed men in raincoats criss-crossed London yesterday as Michelle Obama and her daughters spent a second day on an unofficial visit to the capital.
The Times went on to describe that when Michelle and the girls arrived at Westminster Abbey, the building was closed to tourists with people already in told to “wait against the wall.” An American visiting the Abbey said “Right then I knew it was probably someone from our ‘royal family’.”
Michelle’s motorcade shut down the London street above as the First Lady of the World and her children go for Fish and Chips at a pub in Mayfair . The entourage inside the restaurant was 15 people while dozens more wait outside. Include the dozens of Air Force personnel to fly and service the plane, embassy personnel and other staff and we are talking about a serious expenditure of tax payer dollars.
Meanwhile, millions of Americans have lost their jobs and won’t be able to take their family on a summer holiday. Despite their circumstances they’ll still be expected to fork over the tax dollars to pay for Michelle’s trip!
tell the Hollywood crowd that...they always promise to leave, and never go....nm
More like Clinton's broken promise to cut our taxes
That little campaign platform that he would cut our taxes (middle income) when elected. Within days after being elected he raised our taxes to the highest ever in record history.
Also, according the to U.S. Treasury website that tracks the national debt, there was never a surplus because the debt rose every year. I know a lot of people don't like to hear that, but that is just the facts in black and white
During Clinton the National Debt was:
Fiscal
Year |
Year
Ending |
National Debt |
Deficit |
FY1993 |
09/30/1993 |
$4.411488 trillion |
|
FY1994 |
09/30/1994 |
$4.692749 trillion |
$281.26 billion |
FY1995 |
09/29/1995 |
$4.973982 trillion |
$281.23 billion |
FY1996 |
09/30/1996 |
$5.224810 trillion |
$250.83 billion |
FY1997 |
09/30/1997 |
$5.413146 trillion |
$188.34 billion |
FY1998 |
09/30/1998 |
$5.526193 trillion |
$113.05 billion |
FY1999 |
09/30/1999 |
$5.656270 trillion |
$130.08 billion |
FY2000 |
09/29/2000 |
$5.674178 trillion |
$17.91 billion |
FY2001 |
09/28/2001 |
$5.807463 trillion |
$133.29 billion |
As you can clearly see, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a budget surplus that he subsequently turned into a deficit. Its true the budget was "almost" balanced in 2000, but it never reached zero, let alone a positive number. Also, the growing deficit started in the Clinton budget, not the first year of the Bush admin.
To understand what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. Therefore I will attach a link that explains this.
I do know a lot of people really liked Bill Clinton as a President. No doubt about that. He had charisma and was very mesmerizing to listen to him speak, but you just can't toss out facts.
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
P.S., this article states you can access the US Treasury website to see for yourself.
Obama already trying to back out of his promise of change.
By Tim Reid, The Times of London
Barack Obama's senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week's election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harboring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve.
The sudden financial crisis and the prospect of a deep and painful recession have increased the urgency inside the Obama team to bring people down to earth, after a campaign in which his soaring rhetoric and promises of "hope" and "change" are now confronted with the reality of a stricken economy.
One senior adviser told The Times that the first few weeks of the transition, immediately after the election, were critical, "so there's not a vast mood swing from exhilaration and euphoria to despair."
The aide said that Obama himself was the first to realize that expectations risked being inflated.
And what about the promise Bush gave, I think about capturing him?
Well, we saw how far that went. By-by Bush.
Here we go again....another campaign promise bites the dust...
Obama Not Closing Door on Possible Health Tax
Referring to proposals to tax workers who get expensive insurance policies, Obama, who campaigned against the tax last year, said, "I don't want to prejudge what they're doing."
The unions are going to flip over that one...taxing of benefits. Benefits are the backbones of unions and their power over their members. Has it finally sunk in people...you cannot believe a word this man says. He lies as easily as the rest of us breathe. And the amazing thing is....it works for him. Blinded by the obamalight. lol.
Bush Breaks Nation's Promise to Veterans
This isn’t new (it’s from May), but it’s the first I saw it. I found it interesting but not surprising. Our Veterans deserve much better.
The source is: http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.aspx?c=klLWJcP7H&b=727693&printmode=1
VETERANS
Bush Breaks Nation's Promise to Veterans
Appearing yesterday at the Arlington National Cemetery to honor generations of sacrifices by American servicemen and women, President Bush said, "At our national cemetery, we take comfort from knowing that the men and women who are serving freedom's cause understand their purpose and its price." Yet the reality has been that the administration that most recently has sent those men and women to fight for freedom's cause has failed for live up to government's age-old promise to "care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan."
BUSH'S 2006 VA BUDGET HITS VETERANS HARD: President Bush's 2006 budget proposal included legislation that would raise veterans' premiums more than 100 percent on prescription drugs and add an annual $250 enrollment fee for veterans who want care for conditions not directly caused by military service and who generally earn more than $25,000 a year. The administration has recommended these same proposals in each of the past few years, only to have them beaten back by Congress each time. The user fee would increase costs for nearly 2 million veterans nationwide.
WAR VETERANS EXCLUDED FROM COST OF WAR ON TERROR: Conservatives in Congress rebuffed an effort to include $2 billion in emergency money for veterans' health care in the recently passed $82 billion Iraq war supplemental. The president's request increased the VA budget a mere 2.7 percent (including the increased co-pays and enrollment fees), hardly sufficient to deal with an expected influx of Afghanistan and Iraq war veterans in the coming years. Nearly 28,000 soldiers who served in Iraq and were discharged have already sought care at a VA facility. Of the nearly 245,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan already discharged from service, 12,422 have been in VA counseling centers for readjustment problems and symptoms associated with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. VA Secretary Jim Nicholson has said the budget circumstances are not "dire," yet Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Larry Craig (R-ID) was forced to increase the 2006 budget request by $1 billion. Dave Autry, a spokesman for the Disabled American Veterans, said, "Vets are owed a debt and the government has said they are eligible for health care. The government needs to pay for it. It's a continuing cost of our national defense."
BUSH WANTS TO SHUT DOWN VETERANS HOSPITAL IN HIS OWN BACKYARD: Veterans in Bush's backyard, near his ranch in Crawford, Texas, are protesting his administration's decision to close a VA hospital in their town. "It would be, in my opinion, a tragic mistake to shut down our hospital, especially during a time of war when tomorrow's veterans are in harm's way today," said U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Waco). In May 2004, then-VA Secretary Anthony Principi announced he would be closing three veterans hospitals nationwide and partially closing eight others. For his work, Principi was rewarded with an appointment to the chairmanship of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) commission.
VETERANS GROUPS SLAM BUSH BUDGET: More than 300,000 veterans' claims are pending before the VA, according to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, and the number of claims pending for more than six months rose from 47,000 in 2003 to 75,000 at the end of March 2005. The deteriorating condition of VA health care has elicited plenty of criticism. The American Legion called Bush's budget " the wrong message at the wrong time to the wrong constituency." The Vietnam Veterans of America said the budget did a "disservice to those of us who donned the uniform to defend the rights, principles, and freedoms that we hold dear." And the Veterans of Foreign Wars decried Bush's decision as "especially shameful during a time of war."
McPalin new FL stump promise: Will SHARE THE WEALTH of
McSocialist: Drill baby drill, my friends, my friends, my friends, my friends. Alternative nuclear energy safety: Blah, blah,, blah, blah!. Yeah, baby!
McCain: " I Can't Promise to Endorse Sarah Palin"
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/12/14/mccain-wont-endorse-palin-for-2012/
Gotcha. Reject candidates who promise what we know they can't deliver.
...although that does raise the little problem of who, then, we could possibly vote for?
I read an interesting statement over the weekend and can't find it now, but basically it was this: When we scream at our politicians we're really screaming at the electorate that put them in office. And at bottom, that really is the problem. The politicians are exactly what our electorate has chosen. And frankly, I don't see the electorate changing for the better - especially younger voters - for which I think we can thank at least one generation of parents who didn't parent, and teachers who didn't teach.
No it shows that I know something
you haven't bothered to check out for yourself.
France was right about IRAQ.
And WE IGNORED HITLER's atrocities until OUR economics were at stake, THEN we did the right thing, but NOT BEFORE.
|
