" So who is really being hurt by the "blunt weapon" and what are the consequences?

My bird watcher spouse has a blunt weapon to control the birds that come to her bird feeders. It is a water gun. She feeds the woodpeckers and song birds and and squirrels but chases the starlings and coons away. When she fires her water gun no life gets killed and other life is enhanced.

With this weapon of which the Professor writes the lives of the American Citizen are being enhanced in the defence of God's Creation perhaps at the short term expense of greedy capitalists being denied more profits that effectively harm our Creator's World.

I am thankful for the right of my spouse and environmentalists to bear blunt weapons. "

" First, for all of you who love to praise Clayton as being "spot on", make sure you read the last sentence of his column closely - he admits that global warming does exist, and the science does have some merit.


Also, why does Mr. Clayson, as do many others, dismiss scientists, environmentalists, and politicians like Al Gore, who achieve no monetary gain from trying to help the citizens of the world, versus those who have such a deep financial stake in keeping things the way they are - like the Exxon's and British Petroleum's of the world.

Actually Mr. Clayson could have written the same column and replaced global warming with offshore drilling and made the same arguments.

The rest of his column is interesting, especially the part about the White House choosing to ignore the latest report on it and Mr. Clayson's reason's why they did so.

Fine, now let's have a column about why the White House not only didn't choose to ignore the ridiculous claims about the threat Iraq posed to the United States, but instead used and promoted the propoganda - part of which they were producing - to lead us into a multi-trillion dollar rat hole of a war that is wrecking our economy - and already wreaked Iraq's economy and infrastructure. "

" Scientists work to explain natural, observable phenomena with natural, observable explanations. They don't include God, faith and religion in their theories because they are not observable with the ordinary senses or instruments. Plus once you interject the literal interpretation of the bible or other religious texts into the conversation, the quest for explanations ends. Social science, like psychology or anthropology, can include religion as a factor in its study, because it can observe its affect on people. But no science can say what religious view is "right".

Some scientific theories lend themselves to interjecting a religious explanation. The "big bang" theory is based on observations and mathematics. A person of faith can easily conclude "so, that's how God created the world". Evolution is based on genetic research and observations. A person of faith can easily conclude "So, that's how God created man". All that's necessary for either of these theories to be compatible with Christianity is to let go of the literalness of the creation story and view it as a metaphor.

Global warming is also a theory that explains observations. In another article today, we read that the climate in Australia has changed and they are experiencing what seems to be a permanent drought. The northwest passage has opened up and penguins are washing ashore because they had to travel too far out to sea to find food. All observations. There are competing conclusions about this:
(1) Global warming is real and caused by people and we better do something about it fast.
(2) Global warming is real, but not as bad or quick as scientists say so we don't have to sacrifice yet.
(3) Global warming is real, but is a natural cycle and so nothing we can do will help.
(4) Global warming is not real, it's just some plot to destroy our greatness.

The thing about global warming that makes it so political is that the inequities in the distribution of resources and development all come into play. There will be winners and losers if we do nothing, and it turns out to be real. Russia, for example, has vast areas that would be far more habitable if the weather was a bit warmer. There will be winners and losers if we curb development. Add the natural tendency of people to believe what they want to believe, to act in their own short term best interests, and to view the world as competing groups of "us" and "them" and we can end up with a mess. Not the scientists' fault.

The good news is that the energy sources we need to develop to deal with an oil crisis (wind, solar, etc.) are the same ones we need to develop if we are going to decrease our green house gasses. So, setting aside the arguments on global warming, we'd better be moving in that direction. "

" This week, Prof. Clayson is back to doubting global warming. I say “back to” because he’s made it clear in other columns that he considers the whole idea bunk. And, depending on your viewpoint, his arguments this time are either logically un-rebuttable or logically so hazy as to prevent a rebuttal from even getting started. My point in response this time is mostly the latter.

Prof. Clayson asks, “Let's use global warming as an example. Why should a scientific theory be so embraced by some and so opposed by others?”

The problem is with his use of “others.” By using such an amorphous term, he makes it seem that there is a controversy between equally qualified sides. However, in back of his amorphous “others” is the fact that ALL scientists have agreed that there is global warming and that it is caused by humans. On the other side are some crackpots claiming to be “scientists” and ordinary people who have made it a cottage industry to construct false arguments, sometimes by twisting the science of reputable scientists, on why global warming either doesn’t exist or isn’t caused by humans. Despite Prof. Clayson’s attempt to make it seem that there is a division among scientific opinion, the “division” is really between scientific opinion on one hand and, on the other, some who don’t want to accept that scientific opinion.

But, why is there even that level of division?

Well, Prof. Clayson hints at the reason. He says, “When much less than "top" intellects, like Al Gore, win Nobel Prizes for pushing propaganda….” It’s my impression that Al Gore is probably the reason for a lot of people who are opposing efforts to counteract global warming. Before Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” the non-scientific community wasn’t paying any attention to what the scientists were saying about global warming. Then, Al Gore with his lectures and movie popularized the matter of global warming. The result was that he instantly gained popularity for the issue. But, a side effect was to energize people who wouldn’t accept what Al Gore had to say if all he said was, “The sky sure is blue today.”

Why?

Because in a knee-jerk fashion those on the hard right were against anything that Al Gore was for. Just because he was a liberal and a Democrat he HAD to be wrong. That’s just the way politics are now – particularly on the hard right. If your opponent says “X,” then the hard right says “Y.” And it’s hardly the way to run a society or government when the issue of global warming really is about life and death.

Let me now note some other things that Prof. Clayson says that require comment.

He says, “Note a recent AP story about the White House "ignoring advice on global warming." First of all, the White House did not ignore the report, they simply refused to change the Constitution, the present form of government, and the nature of the American economy to comply with the report's suggestions.”

Unfortunately, he doesn’t give any citation or other reference to enable determination of what “White House report” he is talking about. Given that, it’s impossible to determine whether his characterization of it is right or wrong. I sincerely doubt that his characterization is right since it seems doubtful that any constitutional problems in doing what is recommended would fail to be mentioned.

He says, “This week we learned more Americans are likely "to suffer" from kidney stones because of global warming. Is it any wonder part of the population gets cynical?” Again, there is no citation to enable critics to check his sources. But, it seems clear to me that global warming will cause all kind of health affects so that increases in kidney stones does NOT seem unlikely. What is so patently wrong with the idea that Prof. Clayson thinks that merely stating the conclusion is to debunk it?

He says, “If an idea is presented that the world is going to be destroyed, and destroyed by human action, then the people who always wanted to control and manage human behavior will gravitate to the ideas to justify what they always wanted to do.”

Who are these mysterious “people” who have “always wanted to control and manage human action?” I don’t know who he’s referring to. I deny that they exist. I’d challenge him to identify and prove that anybody wants to do that.

He says, “If an argument can be made that the world is being destroyed by too much freedom, too much commerce, too much reliance on obsolete religion and cultural ideals, then the people who never liked freedom, commerce or traditional values will be attracted toward these ideas.”

Again, who are these mysterious “people” who have “never liked freedom, commerce or traditional values”? I don’t know who he’s referring to. I deny that they exist. I’d challenge him to identify and prove that anybody wants to do that.

He says, “When people who hate capitalism begin to use global warming as the blunt weapon to control it, and when others begin to use the same ideas to control freedom and further strengthen the power of the federal government and the failed United Nations….”

Again, who are these mysterious “people” who “hate capitalism” and want to control freedom and augment government control? I don’t know who he’s referring to. I deny that they exist. I’d challenge him to identify and prove that anybody wants to do that.

And, I’d specifically deny that the United Nations is a failure. He can gratuitously claim so all he wants. But, without proof, I gratuitously deny it.

For those interested in the logic of argumentation, the lesson to be gleaned from Prof. Clayson’s column today is how easy it is to “prove” something when you keep your proof amorphous and unidentified. "

" Phil @ Jul 20, 2008 9:42 AM asks, "why does Mr. Clayson, as do many others, dismiss scientists, environmentalists, and politicians like Al Gore, who achieve no monetary gain from trying to help the citizens of the world...."

It's my guess that they dismiss Al Gore's claim because Al Gore is a liberal and a Democrat. By their own definition, a liberal and a Democrat can't be right on anything. So, it's just a matter of arguing against whatever Al Gore is for. "

" Excellent comment responses. So far.
Jan - I like that winners/losers paradigm and the example you gave of say, Russia benefiting in the short term from warmer climates.

I'm sorry I can't commend Clayson on yet another article. I keep an open mind as I read these columns and try to really see some rational points, and two weeks ago he had a pretty balanced one, but this is more of the same bitter dreck.
Matter fact, global warming isn't debatable, many on the right just still carry a candle that it's a cyclical phenomenon. Part of the Earth's natural life progression and not man-made. Clayson doesn't even do that. I suspect he wants to still tell us that the hottest global year on record was in the 1930's. That was America, not the planet's hottest.

What we have is a resentment towards the carrier of this message and God help me if I didn't wish it were a different person. Clinton/Gore = too polarizing. I would rather a less known, less partisan individual or group was the one advocating the kind of changes we need to maintain a healthy planet for future generations. I swear that I look at mine and worry about their kids and the legacy we are leaving. Time is spent by government officials (Inhoufe, Sensenbrenner, Bush), not even just neocon pundits, finding ways to sour Gore's credibility to the eyes of the public. It is getting us nowhere.
Hate Gore and grit your teeth and work together on some involved solutions. "

" AlGore is acheiving no monetary gains from promoting the fraud that is human caused global warming,,,, that piece of mis-information right there makes both cross and Phil's opinions on this subject null and void and makes me very suspect of any other opinions they have been propagandizing on this website.
They seem unable to see fault with those the left have anointed as saviors of the republic. Sickening partisianship such as that is a problem far greater then the natural cycles nature takes on this wonderful planet "

" Also, to add to my earlier comment, I just don't see Al Gore as that partisan. Polarizing, yes but not partisan. He keeps denying a run at office or trying to stake a political claim on this issue because he wants it to be about the issue and not him.
Do or do not believe that at your own discretion.
Clinton/Gore were mercilessly hassled during their tenure, not that Bush W. isn't, he is too, but Gore only responded to regular bashings.
This issue is much, much bigger than Al Gore. "

" cross1242 states.. "However, in back of his amorphous “others” is the fact that ALL scientists have agreed that there is global warming and that it is caused by humans."

cross, your statement is a blatant lie..
http://www.petitionproject.org/ "

" No Mr Clayson, the reason there is strong psychological (not scientific) resistence to global warming is the same reason there was resistence that smoking tobacco causes cancer: if you acknowledge the truth, you realize what a horrible mistake we are making.

"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07

"Father forgive them for they know not what they do" --Luke 23:34-35 "

" cire @ Jul 20, 2008 10:56 PM said, "cross, your statement is a blatant lie.." and cited a website.

At the website you cite, the opening page shows an signed but undated petition by Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb.

But:

(1) Edward Teller DIED on September 9, 2003.

(2) When he was alive, he proposed use of special nuclear reactors to neutralize the CO2 in the atmosphere. Given that, it's unlikely to deny that the problem he was proposing a solution to didn't even exist.

I'd propose that the signature of Edward Teller is a blatant forgery. If view of that, the whole site can be disregarded. "

" coalplant - don't believe cross or myself - research it yourself.

Go to wikipedia and read about Gore, or other places that deal in all the facts - not just one side of them.

On wiki you will read claims - from both sides - about Gore, his work, profits, energy use, etc., with links to other areas so you can study it further.

Or you can just read/listen to the right wing stuff and believe that because that is what you were told to believe. Why think for yourself when Rush and Hannity can do it for you. "

" I'm disappointed none of the bloggers liberal or conservative have replied to the article or each other, "baloney" in a one word paragraph. "

" Are these the same models that predicted a calamitous ice age back in the '70's?

There is nothing we puny humans can do that affects the temperature of the earth. The temperature of the earth changes on it's own. Variations in solar activity are the chief drivers, not CO2 emissions. Calling CO2 a pollutant is ludicrous.

End of story. "

" cross, you are so wrong on this matter that you're past the point of being able to defend your comments..

The Petition Project started in 1998, 5 years before Edward Teller died..and YES, he did sign it. So once again, you're blatantly incorrect.

http://www.petitionproject.org "

" Phil tries to argue that clayson is now admitting global warming exists AND is caused by humans. Baloney! I believe Clayson only states that, yes, due to global cyclical climate fluxuations it may be proved that the globe is currently in a warming state.

What Phil neglects to say is that Clayson also states the theory that humans are causing this situation and/or that humans can solve this 'warming' is poppeycock.

Let's face it, those scientists preaching the fear factor are promoting themselves as much as pushing for liberal agendas to try to tip the political climates to the left. For some reason the left wants economies to go bonkers trying to pay for socialist programs run by huge government.

On a side note, while driving this weekend, I noticed several still windmills in the countyside. The problem with these eyesores was just that, they were still because the wind wasnt blowing. Nice energy source this will be, huh.

Time to open up ANWR and drill, boys. "

" From Neal Boortz:

The American Physical Society represents 50,000 physicists. A unit of the APS called the Physics and Society Forum has declared that many of its members do not buy into OwlGore's apocalyptic man-made global warming scheme.
The Physics & Society Forum of the American Physical Society wrote, "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."
Perhaps the primary instigator for this was the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton, which mathematically proves that there is no "climate crisis." Monckton uses 30 equations to prove that "the computer models used by the UN's climate panel (the IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is 'climate sensitivity' (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2's effect on temperature in the IPCC's latest climate assessment report." In other words ... the UN's models were wrong. They were programmed to give you these fraudulently hyped numbers to scare people into acting.
Here are a few other facts published by Lord Monckton:
• The IPCC's 2007 climate summary overstated CO2's impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
• CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
• Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
• The IPCC's values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
• The IPCC's values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
• "Global warming" halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
• Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
• The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists' draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
• It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
• Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
• In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
Now can I say it ... for all of you global warmers out there who have your thongs in a wad over the poor polar bears or ice caps or rising seas .... I told you so.
End of portion from Neal Boortz.

Link to Lord Monckton's paper http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html

Of course, none of the persons mentioned here have credentials as good as Al -please line my pockets- Gore. "

" I want to submit another book at least for the libbies on the board. It's "The Age of American Unreason" by Susan Jacoby.

The book goes through what turns out to be a reoccurring strain in American society. While America is a product of Enlightenment thinking, American citizens periodically go though fits of anti-rationalist fervor. She goes though the history of that fervor as it has waxed and wained over our 230 years of existence. It seems there is always resistance to anyone who appears "too smart" but its dominance has periodically controlled events and then has fallen back from control.

The author says the the phenomena is one that is purely American. No other nation has any resistance to those who are "too smart" and some actually have a preference to those who are justifiably viewed as smart.

I'd suggest that the whole debate over global warming might be viewed from the ideas that Jacoby presents. "

" one of my friends tells me that most of Alaskan oil goes to Japan. So will the next slogan will be "a new pipeline, boys. a new pipeline" "

" cross...i think you are on to something regarding her book and global warming. however, one has to believe that one research report is more 'scientific, intellectual, rational, etc.' than the other? i consider myself a rational person who makes rational decisions. that being said, i don't watch a movie and believe all claims to be fact without researching the matter further.

her book also cites the media as a culprit to the dumbing down of america, that being said. movies like al gores and michael moores for that matter have played a large part in that. just saying, it goes both ways.

i think its an issue of how people present their messages.

"Know-it-all or know-all is an epithet applied to any person who exhibits the belief that he or she possesses a superior intellect and wealth of knowledge, and shows a determination to demonstrate his perceived superiority at every opportunity." "

" Hey, Cross hasn't found some website refuting Lord Monckton's essay or called him a non-credentialled crackpot yet. Cross, you must be slipping.
Looks like, yet again, professor Clayson is right, and the manmade global warming hoax has but one purpose: To empower losers in our society. "

" Cross+ wrote: The problem is with his use of “others.” By using such an amorphous term, he makes it seem that there is a controversy between equally qualified sides. However, in back of his amorphous “others” is the fact that ALL scientists have agreed that there is global warming and that it is caused by humans. On the other side are some crackpots claiming to be “scientists” and ordinary people who have made it a cottage industry to construct false arguments, sometimes by twisting the science ........
Cross, your knees must be sore from worshipping at the atheist church of liberal thought. You know, the one that views abortion as a sacrament and conservatives as devils. The one that has the Al Gore chapel. That one. All that chanting about man made global warming wasn't wasted, was it? "

" Mr. Clayson likes to take the easy way out and blame Al Gore for the propoganda. See if you discredit Al Gore, someone who has a track record of being correct on important issues, then all this global warming must be propoganda.

Of course the oil companies aren't pushing any propoganda at all! Heavens no, everything they do is in the best interest of the US citizens - even if it comes at the expense of their profits. What a farce - no one is lining their pockets more than the CEO's of the major oil companies.

Just rubs people the wrong way when someone like Al Gore is right about things - internet, Iraq war, global warming. No wonder we elected him president. Too bad the judicial activism of Scalia and his rogue gang took it from him. "

" Since Cross brought Susan Jacoby into this, I thought I would post her other published works:

Moscow Conversations (1972)
The Friendship Barrier:
Ten Russian Encounters (1972, British edition)
Inside Soviet Schools (1974)
The Possible She (1979)
Wild Justice: The Evolution of Revenge (1983)
Soul to Soul: A Black Russian American Family, 1865-1992 (with Yelena Khanga) (1992)
Half-Jew: A Daughter's Search for Her Family's Buried Past (2000)
Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism (2004)

One would wonder if her work with Communists, her directorship at New York's Center of Inquiry, and her OpEd assignments with the NY Post and LA Post allow her to be apolitical in the global warming discussion or any other. "

" Phil
wrote on Jul 21, 2008 6:47 PM:

" Mr. Clayson likes to take the easy way out and blame Al Gore for the propoganda. See if you discredit Al Gore, someone who has a track record of being correct on important issues, then all this global warming must be propoganda.

Of course the oil companies aren't pushing any propoganda at all! Heavens no, everything they do is in the best interest of the US citizens - even if it comes at the expense of their profits. What a farce - no one is lining their pockets more than the CEO's of the major oil companies.

Just rubs people the wrong way when someone like Al Gore is right about things - internet, Iraq war, global warming. No wonder we elected him president. Too bad the judicial activism of Scalia and his rogue gang took it from him. "

Nice one Phil. Best work of fiction I've seen in a long time. Let's see, Al Gore, didn't he grow a beard when Islamists attacked us? Gained a ton of weight when low carbs were the fad? He gives speeches on the threat of imminent global warming on the coldest days of the year. His simple little home uses more energy than many small towns. That Al Gore? The one that didn't win his home state when running for president. That guy? He hasn't been right about anything yet. "

" hetfield @ Jul 21, 2008 7:20 PM said, "One would wonder if her work with Communists, her directorship at New York's Center of Inquiry, and her OpEd assignments with the NY Post and LA Post allow her to be apolitical in the global warming discussion or any other."

Actually, hetfield, Jacoby says NOTHING about global warming. She write about just the strain of anti-rationalism among Americans. And, she writes mostly about historical events. So, saying that she's a "communist" doesn't matter because you can check whether the historical events she refers to actually happened -- and the did to my knowledge. "

" xdfred @ Jul 22, 2008 8:45 AM said, "Al Gore, didn't he grow a beard when Islamists attacked us?"

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. "

" Actually Cross, what she's saying is we're too dumb to follow some brilliant schnook, like Hitler or Lenin, like the enlightened Europeans tend to.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. " Whatever, just don't worship the schnook. See above. "

" xdfred @ Jul 22, 2008 9:54 AM said, "Actually Cross, what she's saying is we're too dumb to follow some brilliant schnook, like Hitler or Lenin, like the enlightened Europeans tend to."

No.

Does anyone else notice that xdfred keeps making up one new allegation after another? "

" Cross, you brought Jacoby into this by pretending her rational thinking would be a good way of dealing with global warming.

I merely researched how Jacoby came about her rational thought; with communists and liberals. I only stated that her so called rational view should not be the approach one takes on this issue.

Her claims that the great unwashed of this country cant make up their own minds is hogwash, by the way. Hitler was view as smart as well and we saw how that worked for he Germans.

It is this sort of liberal, European thinking that the left loves. Why, one can only speculate, but European politics has created some of the worlds cruelest most reviled dictators in history. Why would the left want to idolize them? Why does the left want to turn US policy to resemble them?

Tough questions that Barack Hussein Obama can not answer.

On BHO news, I see he is now flip-flopping on the war in Iraq. This guy is actually taking credit for successes in Iraq. What a joke.

Vote no to Socialism. Vote McCain! "

" Cross:
"Does anyone else notice that xdfred keeps making up one new allegation after another? "

Does anyone else notice that Cross never comes out and says he thinks i make up allegations? Regardless, what allegations? The author of the book you cited laments the fact that we free Americans don't follow the european model of following some slick shyster like Hitler or Lenin. People like Barack Hussein Obama and Al -call me sunshine- Gore keep trying. Thompson's letter this week says the same thing, that we need a benevolent dictator to save us from ourselves. Now who could he possibly be talking about?

So no allegations. Flat out statements. I'm just not that mealy mouthed, or as liberals like to say, nuanced. "

" Oh! Now we're quoting the ONE guy the right turns to whenever they need a bullet point list that, although debunked through and through, gives them some academic sustenance, or so they think, on global warming.

Is this the same Lord Monckton who also once argued the AIDS is a disease suffered by only homosexuals?

For those of you who don't know Chris Monckton has been decimated by real scientists and much of the above list Xdfred copied is a known exaggeration. I'm not going through point by point. I read this stuff when it came out in '06 or '07 and it resulted in ridicule bestowed on the noble sire Monckton by serious men, who were not only taking the time to correct his tripe but genuinely offended by such a charlatan. He basically got smoked for his little write up and the only people that take him seriously are ds's like Neal Boortz and I'm sure Sean Hannity or some putz like that.
Ooh, Monckton used equations and math! Look, they're right there on the paper. And his own M model depiction of climate along with all kinds of other "science" that exists unfettered in Monckton's own head. He is the David Blaine of science. Fake numbers work to fool those with a passing interest.
It's a joke and he's a joke. "

" There is no doubt that we have been better off the past eight years following slick shysters like Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Dick Cheney, and the biggest shyster of them all, GW Bush - the man who has defied the Peter Principle thanks to his fathers rich friends.

Now the slick shyster John McBush, flip-flopper of the highest magnitude, wants us to buy more of the same snake oil.

Al Gore couldn't touch this group when it comes to propoganda.

As Mr. Clayson says and I quote, "Global warming is in part good science" - which shows even he knows in his heart Mr. Gore is obviously onto something. "

" chester11
wrote on Jul 22, 2008 10:44 PM:

" Oh! Now we're quoting the ONE guy the right turns to whenever they need a bullet point list that, although debunked through and through, gives them some academic sustenance, or so they think, on global warming. Prove it. Just saying he's been debunked won't cut it. Face it. Human caused global warming is a scam.

Phil
wrote on Jul 23, 2008 8:56 AM:

" There is no doubt that we have been better off the past eight years following slick shysters like Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Dick Cheney, and the biggest shyster of them all, GW Bush - the man who has defied the Peter Principle thanks to his fathers rich friends. Actually we have been, until Democrats took over the congress. No terrorist attacks, good economy, etc. heck, the Supreme Court just reaffirmed the second amendment. "

" Good economy?????? What planet are YOU on????

I really cannot wait until November....I hope you and the rest of your ilk have developed an appetite for crow by then...you're going to need it. "

" Earth to MAC, what gloom and doom planet are you on. What is so bad about our economy? "

" Phil doesnt give Claysons entire quote'Global warming is in part good science, part bad science, part propaganda and part nonsense. The larger problem, however, is in assuming that it is all science, or all nonsense.


Why not Phil? Because Global warming being blamed on humans is nonsense. I suppose the great ice ages were humans fault too. Too many liberal cro-magnum men running around in the hills of Russia spouting communist beliefs.

Now tell me, how is Barack Hussein Obama going to fix this problem? Oh I know, he is going to flip flop and say there is now no global warming, as he has fixed it in his few days in the Senate.

For the record, me and my family are doing alot better the last 8 years then at any time previously.

I know it is my fault I am doing better without the governments help. I should have been on the doal the entire time, and let the lefty's treat me. "

" After that article appeared by Monckton, and I remember this Xdfred even though I wasn't engrossed with the issue at the time, the American Physics Society came out with a statement quickly denying any association it.

During your laborous research, did you forget to copy and paste this little nugget from the APS?

"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate.""

That's from their website and was released right after Monckton wrote his first piece.

"Xdfred wrote: The Physics & Society Forum of the American Physical Society wrote, "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

No Xdfred, The Physics and Society Forum of the APS did not write that. MEMBERS of the Physics and Society forum wrote it. Heck, for all we know, ONE of The Physics and Society Forum wrote that.
Certainly you're going to find some detractors, almost all partisan and on the same Gorehate diet as you. They probably have to eat their lunch in a stall at the APS because the other scientists think they're imbeciles.

"Face it, man-made global warming is fake", says Xdfred. Face it guys!
Close up your books, put down your science journals, and give it up. Xdfred has shown time and time again how right he is on all these issues; with repeating 5 or 6 different things he hears on Foxnews and never, ever, ever, ever offering an original, independent opinion on anything. Always following the GOP meme right down the line. Shoot, he even copied and pasted a debunked article, everyone!! "

" xdfred
wrote on Jul 23, 2008 10:56 AM:
" Earth to MAC, what gloom and doom planet are you on. What is so bad about our economy? "

Pick up a national newspaper. Not the Courier. Iowa has not felt the sting yet but it's not even a question of if. Pick up the newspaper of a non-Midwest major city and see the record foreclosures, record joblessness, DOW dives, value of the American dollar, and...

You know what? Don't do any of that. It does you no good. You seriously do not possess the ability, based on the stuff you write here, to change or see any other viewpoint but the hardright one.
Good luck with that. "

" What Chester? You want us to take what the liberal papers say as gospel? you have got to be kidding. The media has two goals; one, to blame Bush and all conservatives running for office for what they call a horrible economy.

Fact: we are not even in a recession. Not only that we havent had one quarter of domestic loss, let alone two.

Second, to elect Barack Hussein Obama! This is the agenda of the news print and most network news shows.

I have a better idea, call your friends and family to see how they are doing! I know you will be surprised.

As for record foreclosures; these idiot consumers took out terrible loans by themselves, with the help of the left in Congress. Oh, they say everyone HAS to own a house. Even if their income doesnt support it.

Time for the left fear mongering to end! Stop the liberals now, before they ruin the American way of life!

Vote no to Barack Hussein Obama and all liberals sitting in Congress! they have done nothing with the place for years now. "

" Of course, the definition of a "recession" is when YOU are unemployed. A "depression" is when I am unemployed. "

" cross1242
wrote on Jul 23, 2008 11:21 PM:

" Of course, the definition of a "recession" is when YOU are unemployed. A "depression" is when I am unemployed. "

Finally, something we can agree on! "

" Earth to Chester:

"Face it, man-made global warming is fake", says Xdfred There are two sides to this issue. How can anybody have an original opinion on an issues with only two sides? But it is a scam.


Pick up the newspaper of a non-Midwest major city and see the record foreclosures, record joblessness, DOW dives, value of the American dollar, and...Let's see, record foreclosures are the result of dogooders pressuring lending institutions to lend to questionable people and in questionable areas. What's that got to do with the general economy? Aren't there foreclosues going on all the time? Record joblessness? Look again, please. DOW dives? An increase in domestic energy supplies will alleviate that. The sooner the better. Just preparing to drill in ANWR will drop energy prices, boost the market, and help the dollar. And who is in the way of all that? So, what is so wrong with the economy? "

" Hey Chester, this one's for you:

From Neal Boortz
CONFESSIONS FROM A FORMER GREENHOUSE SCIENTIST
David Evans used to be a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office. He spent six years with the Australian government building models about the influence of carbon emissions on our atmosphere. This was the Aussie who wrote the carbon accounting model that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.
Well .. guess what Dr. Evans is saying today? Since he started working in the office in 1999, "new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming." By the year 2007, the evidence is conclusive: carbon played only a minor role in recent global warming and was not the main cause.
Dr. Evans put together some basic facts for the public and government officials in regards to global warming. Here is just a taste.
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980).
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
Keeping that last point in mind, Al Gore still preaches in his movie that the ice cores are the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. Dr. Evans says, "In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion."
So instead, what do we get? The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990 and yet there is no evidence that carbon emissions are actually causing global warming! It's a fraud. A fraud to enrich Gore, and a fraud designed to form the basis for repeated attacks on capitalism and free market economies.
End of Neal Boortz excerpt.

Another crackpot? Debunked? Face Chester, it's a scam. Lock stock and barrel. "

" xdfred @ Jul 24, 2008 9:40 AM said, "record foreclosures are the result of dogooders pressuring lending institutions to lend to questionable people and in questionable areas."

That's an odd conclusion. Most analysis's conclude that the bad loans were made because of deregulation of financial markets. It started under Reagan and continued under later "conservative" administrations.

And, their reason?

It was because of the conservative mantra of the "magic of the free market." If government would just get out of the way, they claimed, then the free market would take care of punishing those who did wrong and rewarding those who did right.

One thing I'm hoping will come out of a massive loss by hard-right Republicans in the fall is that it will be evident that the stuff about "the magic of the free market" has finally been rejected.

I know of no proof that anyone pressured the lenders to make what were bad loans. They did it on their own because they thought they could make a killing on predatory loans at high interest. And now, of course, the lenders are getting bailed out by the government.

What everyone should remember is that what the "free market" really means is that profits are to be privatized while the risks are socialized. "

" cross:
It is foolish to believe lenders intentionally make bad loans to make a profit. Ridiculous. Also, the loans were subprime loans. Loans at a very low interest rate to begin with, then fluctuate with the prime. So, wrong again. If lenders were allowed to lend to whom they think will repay loans, this wouldn't have happened. They were pressured into it. By charges of racism and discrimination. The usual tool..

From Thomas Sowell:

It must take either a willful determination to believe whatever they want to believe or a cynical desire to propagandize their readers for the New York Times to call "lucrative" the lending practices that have caused many lenders to lose millions of dollars, some to lose billions and some to go bankrupt themselves.
Blaming the lenders is the party line of Congressional Democrats as well. What we need is more government regulation of lenders, they say, to protect the innocent borrowers from "predatory" lending practices.
Before going further down that road, it may be useful to look back at what got us into this mess in the first place.
It was not that many years ago when there was moral outrage ringing throughout the media because lenders were reluctant to lend in certain neighborhoods and because banks did not approve mortgage loan applications from blacks as often as they approved mortgage loan applications from whites.
All this was an opening salvo in a campaign to get Congress to pass laws forcing lenders to lend to people they would not otherwise lend to and in places where they would not otherwise put their money.
The practice of not lending in some neighborhoods was demonized as "redlining" and the fact that minority applicants were approved for mortgages only 72 percent of the time, while whites were approved 89 percent, was called "overwhelming" evidence of discrimination by the Washington Post.
Some people are more easily overwhelmed than others, especially when they find statistics that seem to fit their preconceptions. But if we do what politicians and the media seldom bother to do-- stop and think-- an entirely different picture emerges.
In our own personal lives, common sense leads us to avoid some neighborhoods. If you want to call that "redlining," so be it. But places where it is dangerous to go are often also places where it is dangerous to send your money.
As for racial differences in mortgage loan application approval rates, that does not tell you much if you are comparing apples and oranges. Income, credit history and net worth are just some of the things that are very different from one group to another.
More important, in the same ways that blacks differ from whites, whites differ from Asian Americans. The fact that whites are turned down for conventional mortgage loans, and resort to subprime loans, more often than Asian Americans do is seldom reported in "news" stories about lending practices, even though such data are readily available.
Shocking as it may be to some, lenders are in the business of making money, and they don't much care whose money it is, so long as they get paid.
Politicians, on the other hand, are in the business of getting votes, and they don't much care whose votes it is-- or what they have to say or do in order to get those votes.
It was government intervention in the financial markets, which is now supposed to save the situation, that created the problem in the first place.
Laws and regulations pressured lending institutions to lend to people that they were not lending to, given the economic realities. The Community Reinvestment Act forced them to lend in places where they did not want to send their money, and where neither they nor the politicians wanted to walk.

End of excerpt. "

" Clinton's Resolution in 1995 caused this debacle. xdfred is spot on. The goal was to 'allow' lower income people the 'right' to own a house. This manipulation of the market by liberals allowed high risk lenders to feed on the low income folks, but ulimatley, these consumers singed the loans. Noone forced them to, other than the carrot dangling in front of them by the Dem's.

Without the left's stong urging(or strong-arming,) the market would never had underwritten these loans.

Barack Hussein Obama was given a really good rate, however, so at least some people made out. "

" xdfred and hetfield what you say is all baloney. More than anything, it shows your capacity to believe right-wing fabrications than to seek reality. As for Mr. Sowell, he's not only wrong, he's racist too. As is usual, it would take five times the words to refute everything he's making up and presenting as reality. If other libbies here want to do it, then have at it. At some point, there is just so much baloney that it's pointless to spend any time on refutation. "

" In other words Cross, you have no facts to support a comeback so you will not even try. "

" cross, we have been over this and over it. Current mortgage problems(certainly not a crisis, but an overblown situation of high risk lending) were caused by the Clinton administration and the demo congress. Their so-called 'it takes a village' should have been 'it takes a village to pay the mortgage on your $100,000 home, which you owe $300,000 on.'

They pushed everyone onto this American dream to own their own home. While I agree it is a dream, but when you dont have the income to pay the mortgage it is more like a nightmare.

Now try to deflect the issue all you want. Clearly noone is going to have their feelings hurt when you do.

As it stands, barack hussein obama doesnt have the experience or the IQ to resolve this minor issue, let alone an issue of importance. "

" "cross1242 wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:05 PM:
As is usual, it would take five times the words to refute everything he's making up and presenting as reality. If other libbies here want to do it, then have at it. At some point, there is just so much baloney that it's pointless to spend any time on refutation. "

Isn't it?? It's obvious these guys never pick up a book but post stuff from Neal Boortz's website, Neal...Boortz, and consider that a powerful response to a 6 paragraph post with obviously intelligent and well considered discourse.
As if we're not all on the internet and can't cherry pick information and omit detraction. It's ridiculous.
The APS stomped on Monckton's ham fisted theories. Does that matter to the chickenhawks here?
I haven't seen xdfred or hetfield once, not ONCE, in the two months I've been posting here, deviate from verbatim what is said daily on Rush Limbaugh. Everything is fundamental and absolute. and I bet anything they consider themselves independent and open minded. Xdfred every once in awhile will throw in a surprise and say something that gives me pause. Then right back to neocon hackery.
It all says that these guys fall for jingoism and faux outrage because they simply cannot think for themselves most of the time. They need to find demagogue pundits to guide their thinking.
Someone early on nailed it when they said if Al Gore hadn't pushed this issue and it was say, Rupert Murdoch, who does subscribe to the same belief as 90% of the scientific community that this is real, these guys would line right up.

And I can say till I'm blue in the face that major cities throughout America are experiencing this recession, real time, and Iowa has not felt the effects and you can read that in any major newspaper and it's immediately dismissed as "liberal media". That's their response. Liberal media! That way you don't have to consider anything that gets in the way of what Rush told you this morning.

Aren't you two sick of getting annihilated day in and day out? "

" "I haven't seen xdfred or hetfield once, not ONCE, in the two months I've been posting here, deviate from verbatim what is said daily on Rush Limbaugh. Everything is fundamental and absolute. and I bet anything they consider themselves independent and open minded. Xdfred every once in awhile will throw in a surprise and say something that gives me pause."

Also, it sounds like I'm contradicting myself a little here about Xdfred's POV's. Well, I'll backpedal somewhat and say that Xdfred on rare occasions makes a valid point. But I think that's because I'm not a dyed in the wool liberal and can share some other side opinions.
These guys don't possess that ability. And again, I bet anything they walk through life considering themselves independent thinkers. "

" I agree with cross again.

I seriously doubt hetfield or xdfred know anything about the mortgage business. But they do lurve a good baloney sambi. "

" Hey look at that!
I was just going to view (seriously) baseball scores and look what I stumbled across? Didn't even have to cherry pick it like Xdfred.

Off subject but since we do that consistently...
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/News/TheEconomyDyn.aspx?cp-documentid=8659522&GT1=33002&vv=600

"Americans are raiding their already fragile retirement piggy banks to weather financial hardships such as unemployment, medical emergencies and buying a home.

And they're doing it even though borrowing a modest $5,000 can dramatically erode savings over time, according to a study released July 15 by the Center for American Progress.

The study found workers in 2004 had $31 billion in outstanding 401(k) loans, a fivefold increase from $6 billion in 1989. Between 1998 and 2004, an average of 12% of families with 401(k) plans borrowed from them.

"They don't necessarily pay penalties. But the penalty is that they have fewer retirement savings," said Christian Weller, an author of the study.

As economic conditions grow bleaker, the number of people dipping into retirement money will only rise, he added.

A $5,000 loan, for example, could cut retirement savings by 22% even if the loan is repaid without penalty, according to the study. That's assuming the person has a $40,000 salary and is five years into a 35-year career."

Liberal media! Just more from the liberal media! Barack Hussein Obama! Lapel Pins! Liberal Media! Whining libbies! Teat suckling! Liberal Media! I have the vocab of a 6th grader! Liberal Media! Barack Hussein Obama! "

" If global warming "hype" gives birth to inventions and innovations for our energy requirements...is it really something to cry about. Or is making money on ideas that bring our society further along, part of the American Dream? "

" Monday, July 21, 2008 8:08 AM CDT
Dennis Clayson

The larger problem, however, is in assuming that it is all science, or all nonsense.

Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:10 PM CDT
Independent

Read it again hard righties. Even Clayson is leaving himself some wiggle room on this one. "

" Gravity doesn't exit.

If it did, airplanes couldn't fly and rockets couldn't possibly send people to the moon. And, if gravity existed, how can you explain at any NBA game how players are in the air from the top of the key all the way to the basket. And, how about trapeze performers? If gravity existed, they'd come falling to the ground (or into their net which everyone know is there just to suggest that gravity exists) as soon as they let go. And around my own house, my car keys are forever floating around the house from place to place so I have to hunt for them every time.

It's the Democrats who have convinced people that gravity exist. They do it because they want to keep people in one place so they can keep track to them. People have a divine right to fly whenever they want to. "

" cross1242
wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:05 PM:

" xdfred and hetfield what you say is all baloney. More than anything, it shows your capacity to believe right-wing fabrications than to seek reality. As for Mr. Sowell, he's not only wrong, he's racist too...." Translation: I can't refute this, so I'll throw a tantrum and add a racism charge instead. Do you know who Thomas Sowell is? He's an African American economist. So please prove racism. Is he racist against whites? Asians?

Isn't it?? It's obvious these guys never pick up a book but post stuff from Neal Boortz's.... Given the fact that you don't know anything about me, my education level, what I do for a living, etc. That's a pretty ignorant claim to make. Don't confuse ignorance with having a different point of view to yours. A smart person listens to smart people. Boortz and Limbaugh didn't get where they are by being dumb or dishonest.

"And I can say till I'm blue in the face that major cities throughout America are experiencing this recession"
Keep saying it all you want. Doesn't make it true. Not by a long shot.

"Aren't you two sick of getting annihilated day in and day out? " When it actually happens, I'll let you know.

"Americans are raiding their already fragile retirement piggy banks to weather financial hardships such as unemployment, medical emergencies and buying a home." Typical liberal half story story. Are they doing it to buy food? Or to pay for the house they couldn't afford in the first place? Big screen T.V.? What's the whole story?

Independent
wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:57 PM:

" I agree with cross again.

I seriously doubt hetfield or xdfred know anything about the mortgage business. But they do lurve a good baloney sambi. " Of course, what would a poor uneducated subsidized rent dweller like me know about the mortgage business? Nailed that one, didn't you.

Independent
wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:05 PM:

" If global warming "hype" gives birth to inventions and innovations for our energy requirements...is it really something to cry about. Or is making money on ideas that bring our society further along, part of the American Dream? " Oh, so now we're trying to justify trashing our economy in the name of the global warming scam? "

" cross1242
wrote on Jul 25, 2008 9:10 AM:

" Gravity doesn't exit.

If it did, airplanes couldn't fly and rockets couldn't possibly send people to the moon. And, if gravity existed, how can you explain at any NBA game how players are in the air from the top of the key all the way to the basket. And, how about trapeze performers? If gravity existed, they'd come falling to the ground (or into their net which everyone know is there just to suggest that gravity exists) as soon as they let go. And around my own house, my car keys are forever floating around the house from place to place so I have to hunt for them every time.

It's the Democrats who have convinced people that gravity exist. They do it because they want to keep people in one place so they can keep track to them. People have a divine right to fly whenever they want to. "

Another failed attempt at satirical humor or failed attempt at brilliance? Or a not so clever way to disguise the fact that you are wrong yet again and deflect the fact that you have no discussion. Either way you came up short. As usual. But I'll bet you read books......... "

" Ha! you liberals are something else. When facts fly in the face of your 'religion' you come firing back with Rush or Algore inventing the internet, and blah blah about destitute single mothers.

I have asked recently that instead of you buying into the doom and gloom of the economy, per the drive-bys, and instead talk to people about their situations. You have to look long and hard to find people who are struggling in this economy. Sure gas is high(thanks democrats!), and this cause other prices to increase.

I have spoken to several people, without asking their political stances either, and noone is struggling to make ends meet.

I guess more and more people are truly cynical of the newsprint and the liberal spin.

And Independent, I know more about the mortgage business than you do, my friend. This is where you post that you have been in the buz for 110 years of course so...

If you really are struggling making ends meet, get another job and pay your family more. Of course, the libs in congress, and Barack Hussein Obama just want to take more of your hard earned paycheck. This is another fact.

Oh and happy pay-raise day. The minimum wage just went up. Yippee!! Thanks libs. This will result in billions of additional tax revenues for Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, and Kennedy to spend on 'save the whales' projects.

Just say no to Socialism by voting NO to Barack Hussein Obama and all sitting democrats. (they all sit, as they dont do anything in DC.) "

" Global warming? How about the coldest summer on record for Anchorage, Alaska.

http://www.adn.com/life/story/473786.html "

" Nobel Prize winner and Columbia University economist Robert Mundell says that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would cause "a big recession, a nosedive." And who wants that to happen? Why, Democrats. The party of the people, supposedly.

http://moneynews.newsmax.com/streettalk/recession/2008/07/16/113395.html "

" Excerpt from Debra Saunders:
In a Washington speech last week, former Vice President Al Gore argued that America can produce "affordable" 100 percent carbon-free electricity within 10 years. My question: Why not five years? As long as Gore sees virtue in proposing completely unrealistic solutions, as in moving America from getting 3 percent to all of its electricity from renewable energy sources in a mere decade, wouldn't five years be twice as good?
And it matters that Gore is all wet because the longer Washington pols live in energy la-la land, the loonier and more costly America's energy situation becomes.
For decades, Democrats have dominated the debate, as they argued that Americans could become more energy independent, not by increasing oil production, but by focusing on producing more renewable energy. The result, as energy entrepreneur T. Boone Pickens so aptly points out, is a huge spike in the percentage of foreign oil America imports, from 24 percent in 1970 to almost 70 percent today.
End of excerpt.

Gee, why would anyone make fun of Al Gore? "

" xdfred :It is interesting in light of the following opinion to know when and where Mundell said the thing you are quoting him as saying on March 25, 12:29 P. M.


"With fiscal conservatism taking precedence over tax cuts in Washington these days, it's easy to see why supply-siders are gleeful over Stockholm's seeming recognition of one of their own. But supply-side economics is not what earned Mundell his Nobel."

By Peter Coy in New York copywrite 1999 "

" BUSINESSWEEK ONLINE : OCTOBER 25, 1999 ISSUE

Mundell Won the Nobel
For work that led to the euro, not for his supply-side theory "

" I think it would be fair and balanced to quote another Mundell statement.

"Beyond that, Mundell says, quoting former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, 'the global economy needs a global currency.'" this is a quote from same article which states his ideas about making Bush tax cuts permanent. "

" I don't think that a failure to make the Bush tax permanent will cause a recession. We already have a recession. It might make our present recession a little more painful for the top eschelon of CEO's.

My tax preparer checked out the Reagan tax laws in the years of the big changes in 1984 and 1985. The tax changes were a lowering of rates of tax while also eliminating the amount of deductions on dividends, captial gains, marriage deduction, state sales tax deduction, and allowing charitable giving deductions in addition to the standard deduction. My bottom line showed that the new laws made my income tax 146% higher plus an increase in Social Security rates and also the new tax for medicare.

That is why I chuckle about people who talk of the Reagan tax cuts. He was very persuasive and had most people fooled and the neocons were trying to bring back his style of government.
That is one of the factors in why we are in a recession

I also believe you will find that the individual income tax federal receipts from 1980 to 1988 went from 500 billion to 750 billion.

to check it out see an Almanac or:

www.heritage.org/research/features/budgechartbook/fed-rev-spend-boc-R2-Federal-Governement-Tax-Revenue.html "

" As long as someone brought up T. Boone Pickens...I would like to point out that this man is a real advocate of wind and solar generated electrical energy. So much so that he has put his money where his mouth is and has invested a good portion of his own personal fortune into it. "

" jeroze @ Jul 25, 2008 9:48 PM quoted Peter Coy as saying, "With fiscal conservatism taking precedence over tax cuts in Washington these days...."

Say, what? "

" The e news page from which this quote comes was written by Peter Coy in 1999.


Peter Coy is the Economics editor for BusinessWeek and covers a wide range of economic issues. He also holds the position of senior writer. Coy joined the magazine in December, 1989, as Telecommunications editor, then became Technology editor in October, 1992, and held that position until joining the economics staff. He came to BusinessWeek from the Associated Press in New York, where he had served as a business-news writer since 1985. Before that, Coy worked as a correspondent in the AP Rochester bureau. He began his career at the AP in 1980 as an editor in the Albany bureau. Prior to that, Coy was a reporter for the Waterbury (Conn.) Republican. He has appeared on numerous TV programs, including shows on CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC, among others. Coy holds a BA in history from Cornell University "

" Say, did everyone here pickup on the news from Scott McClellan that the White House regularly sent Fox News it's talking points for that day. The items were sent to Fox's brass as well as directly to the online news personalities. And, every time, they faithfully followed the White House's directions.

Of course, we all kinda knew that Fox was a White House propaganda organ, but to have it specifically confirmed is quite a surprise. "

" Oh yes, now I see what you are driving at Cross. Those words were from a 1999 quote of Coy which depict a Clinton era of conservativism...Tee Hee "

" Denying that there is an economic crisis...
I'm making thousands more than I made 4 years ago and it stretches about the same. I'm making that thousands more because I'm the exception to the wage stagnation prevalent throughout America. My inflation issue is relegated to Iowa, not in the major markets where people are losing jobs and homes left and right.
Xdfred and Hetfield - you go on and keep denying it...
Knock yourselves out. You're a couple of regurgitating parrots. I submit again that neither of you have expressed an independent opinion in the two months I've posted here. It is down the line neoconservatism and I got news for you. Those phone polls that show McCain close to Obama...how do you take polls like that? Through landline phones. Do you really think the millions voting for Obama in November are getting those calls?

You're gonna get dusted in the election, and I mean dusted, and you're gonna sit there scratching your melons wondering why. I'll tell you why. Because you ignore and dismiss everything that runs contrary to your narrow mindset as liberal media bias. You are embarrassing yourselves with that corny asseveration. It helps illustrate that you are incapable of objectively looking at issues, informing yourself from a variety of sources, and developing an open minded point of view.

I will admit to being guilty of being insulting at times, especially early on. That came from the way I saw Cross being treated by you two so I fed you some of your own medicine. And you can sit there and try to convince yourselves that your replies have been worthy but you're kidding one another.
I think even if I hadn't of spiked your punch and attempted civil debate I'd have been peppered with the "stupid lib", "commie!" garbage that makes you look like real geniuses.

Going camping with the fam. Enjoy your whining about a changing America, boys.

Time to move to Kosovo, conservatives, time to move. "

" jeroze wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:11 PM:
"I also believe you will find that the individual income tax federal receipts from 1980 to 1988 went from 500 billion to 750 billion."
Thanks for making the argument for supply side economics. Tax revenues grew because the economy grew due to the Reagan tax cuts. "

" Hey I just want to congratulate Chester on his last post. With that self congratulatory, patting himself on the back, stroking his own ego,almost Cross like post he has officially reached the Cross/Phil level of self delusional posting. Chester consider yourself above average as it usually takes folks like you more than two months to meet Cross's level of combined arrogance and ignorance, mixed with a little truth and mostly outright lying. You are a credit to the burnout, teat suckling, still living in the 60's liberal, the rest of us work to support.
Yep the economy is bad,,, Chester figured that out on his own,,just not here but everywhere else it's bad,,, just like everything he posts,,, it was an original idea he thought up all on his own.

Obama in 08
57 states, Ugh, hope,,Ugh, is what,ugh,I bring,,ugh to ughh, the Ugh table.
what an eloquent speaker "

" Great to see NO ONE here has ever misspoken. Any rational thinking person would realize, as a former instructor of constitutional law that Obama KNOWS the number of states. Now if you want to hear real fraudulent statements McCain has many. Reading this drivel is like watching 8 year old boys on the playground trying to show who is the alpha dog of the day. "

" another view---I wish you were correct in your assumption--I will not debate that tax cuts can stimulate enconomy..And I suppose we can all expect great advances in our economy as long as the tax cuts are not repealed....but then why are we in a recession now....have the tax cuts been repealed without my knowledge? "

" This is what I love about the posters here who consider themselves more enlightened, more intellegient, more open minded and the greatest fallacy of them all, they consider every one of their thoughts to be original and ground breaking liberal theology.

Fools, frauds and hypocrites,the three legs of the liberal stool

Yep 50674 Obama he mis-speaks,, but McCain he has real fraudulent statements. Your right this stuff is drivel and you might want to wipe your keyboard because you drivelled all over it.

Obama in 08
Ugh, ugh, ugh sorry I mis-spoke, I meant to say duh duh duh duh. "

" Coalplant watch your insults...you're just ticked because your dirty coalplant didn't go through. For your information (though I really don't consider YOUR opinion of anything important) I am NOT an Obama supporter but I am most definitely against that lying fraud of an old man McCain. No mis-speak here...clear enough?? "

" I am actually leaning toward voting for McCain, but I couldn't believe what coalplant has been writing about Obama mis-speaking and the "ugh, ughs" and "duh duhs" trying to make fun of Obama's speaking skills. I can only believe that coalplant is a far-righter and for any far-righter to claim that Obama is not an incrediable speaker after the unbelievable dunce we've had for the past 8 years is ludicrous. Sure, he'll mis-speak, as will McCain, but as an orator, only Reagan and JFK hold a candle to him as far as Prez candidates go in the past 50 years. Point out true short comings of Obama if you like, that's fair and honest. But when you try and take this present tack, you're just proving yourself to be a fool. "

" Coalplant wrote: "This is what I love about the posters here who consider themselves more enlightened, more intellegient..."
Intellegient, huh? This coming from the guy that keeps railing on about Obama's misstatement. Intellegient? You even had time to type it, read it, and correct it, before posting it. I guess I should assume that's how you think the word is spelled, Coalplant. But Obama has one mistake in a speech out of dozens and dozens of public speeches, you neocons all work up a lather about it. But it's ok for you.
Yea, I know it's juvenile but that's the cards you and your buddies keep playing. Pointless garbage about fumbled phrases and lapel pins.

Then Coalplant said: "You are a credit to the burnout, teat suckling, still living in the 60's liberal, the rest of us work to support." Really? You support my family and I, Coalplant? Haven't we been through this already? You got all defensive because I made a presumption about someone's real life functionality based on some things they've posted here. I've done that a couple times. You and your buddies do it in just about every one of your posts.
Look, you don't support me or my family. I support my family, tuffy.

Lastly, and I question my own judgment for engaging you at all but you also blathered:
"Yep the economy is bad,,, Chester figured that out on his own,,just not here but everywhere else it's bad,,, just like everything he posts,,, it was an original idea he thought up all on his own. "
No, of course I didn't think that up on my own. And I know what you're trying to say there, as long as I believe my opinion I can consider it an original though. Cause that's what I keep saying, right!? In both these topics we're talking about on this thread, the economy and global warming, the evidence on my side I believe is overwhelming over the evidence on your side. No, I'm not necessarily an economist and certainly not a meteorologist but I do inform myself from all sorts of sources, left, right and middle and I draw my conclusions based on objective analysis. And it's annoying at best, dangerous at worst, when ignorant zealots refuse to fact find and have preconceived opinions on everything.
There's no point in posting links. For any of you Newtons.
I'm seriously supposed to post links that the economy is in bad shape? "

" Yep, I misspelled "thought". I typed "though". Let's make a federal case out of it since that's the substantive part of speeches and posts.
I guess I'm not very intellegient. "

" Thank you Chester for your last two posts...Support your family,, the more you post, the more I think I am not only supporting your immediate family but perhaps any person you have ever had contact with.
And please what is with the Tuffy comment,I presume no toughness from the comments made here,, as I have said before it is just fun to watch you liberal frauds spin your wheels at any comment made about your theology or Obama your messiah. Chester in 08
All his opinions are original and based on an exhaustive search of all relevant materials

Obama in 08
Ugh hope ugh change ugh chester ugh ofjohn ugh 50674 ugh ugh ugh ugh "

" chester11
wrote on Jul 26, 2008 1:28 PM:

" Denying that there is an economic crisis...
I'm making thousands more than I made 4 years ago and it stretches about the same. I'm making that thousands more because I'm the exception to the wage stagnation prevalent throughout America. My inflation issue is relegated to Iowa, not in the major markets where people are losing jobs and homes left and right.
Xdfred and Hetfield - you go on and keep denying it...
Knock yourselves out. You're a couple of regurgitating parrots. I submit again that neither of you have expressed an independent opinion in the two months I've posted here. It is down the line neoconservatism and I got news for you. Those phone polls that show McCain close to Obama...how do you take polls like that? Through landline phones. Do you really think the millions voting for Obama in November are getting those calls?

You're gonna get dusted in the election, and I mean dusted, and you're gonna sit there scratching your melons wondering why. I'll tell you why. Because you ignore and dismiss everything that runs contrary to your narrow mindset as liberal media bias. You are embarrassing yourselves with that corny asseveration. It helps illustrate that you are incapable of objectively looking at issues, informing yourself from a variety of sources, and developing an open minded point of view.

I will admit to being guilty of being insulting at times, especially early on. That came from the way I saw Cross being treated by you two so I fed you some of your own medicine. And you can sit there and try to convince yourselves that your replies have been worthy but you're kidding one another.
I think even if I hadn't of spiked your punch and attempted civil debate I'd have been peppered with the "stupid lib", "commie!" garbage that makes you look like real geniuses.

Going camping with the fam. Enjoy your whining about a changing America, boys.

Time to move to Kosovo, conservatives, time to move. "


Ha! I love this response! This guy makes more money but still denies that it is good. He actually feels bad and wants to whine more about the good guys and how the economy really isnt in such bad straights. Chester wants to create fear out of one side of his mouth, but cash in and earn more out of the other side of his mouth. Chester should really just give all his wage raises to the do-nothing democratic party to allow them to save more polar bears and seal lions.

He then goes on to say what a real man he is by supporting his own family. Huh? Leftists dont want you to support your family, fraud! they want you to pay them to support your family. Alot of your statements prove how conservative you really are, and for that you have my respect.

Go out there and make a killing, man. Save, invest, earn so the left doesnt have to coddle you.

Say no to the Savior, Barack Hussein Obama this fall. He has zero chance of winning the election. Of a larger concern are the Kennedy, Clinton, Obama congressional do-nothings who scoff at the great-unwashed, as they like to say. These tax and spend abortionists need to go! Did you know that Kennedy actually killed a lady in the 60's? The fraud of Massachusettes! "

" I haven't seen stupidity this domineering in all my journeys on the internet.

I'm out for awhile. You're such a warrior, Coalplant.

Hetfield.......I don't even know what to say. How many people do you think will vote for Barack Hussein Obama in November? How many Democratic families in America. Tens of millions?
None of them have jobs or pay their bills? Like I said, I'm done for awhile, there's like 3 conservatives we go back and forth with out here and they contradict themselves and project with every post. If they feel that silence gives them some sort of victory, well, knock yourselves out, fellas..

"Say no to the Savior, Barack Hussein Obama this fall. He has zero chance of winning the election"
Zero chance. Zero.
You're quite the sharp one there, dude! "

" See you Chester you will be missed as I have enjoyed the playful banter,,,

I do want to thank you for your opinions and adding to the stupidity and hypocrisy present here every day,

I realize those conservative posters do get a little tiresome but the mainstrean Dems such as myself are sick of the liberals like yourself and cross misrepresenting everything the Democratic party should stand for.

Once again you seem to be taking some type of machismo from my posts that must be threatening to you. Kind of projecting something that's not there.

Anyway I still am laughing over your paragraph about spelling, even THOUGH yours was a mistake and mine was due to lack of intellIgience, I THOUGHT I would mention, how appreciative I was in your noticing it and helping me correct the error

Chester in 08
Websters has nothing on him

Obama in 08
For Hope, For change, oh lets be serious
just for the heck of it "

" So long Chester, don't let the door hit you on the way out. "

" Say it aint so Chester and chester11? The left is losing an upstart propagandist(?) I'm sure like the savior Barack Hussein Obama, you will flip-flop and be back.

Till then, enjoy your paycheck. It is well earned and i hope you get to keep alot more of it soon. your family needs it! "