Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
WSJ On The IRS
62 views
Skip to first unread message
alic...@yahoo.com
May 21, 2013, 7:14:02 AM5/21/13
to
Read the whole thing.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324787004578494961837484232.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
.............
In a CNN.com column Donna Brazile strikes the same theme with a sinister twist:
A government of, by, and for the people requires that people talk to people, that we can agree to disagree but do so in civility. If we let the politicians and those who report dictate our discourse, then our course will be dictated.
Why am I alarmed? Because two "scandals"--the IRS tax-exempt inquiries and the Department of Justice's tapping of reporters' phones--have become lynch parties. And the congressional investigation of Benghazi may become a scandal in itself.
In one breath Brazile urges everyone to be civil and respectful. In the next she labels her opponents with one of the most racially incendiary metaphors in the American lexicon. And note that she is casting government officials who abused their power as lynching victims.
.....................
The problem of media bias runs deep, and it often does not take the form of open partisanship. Here's an example, from a Washington Post story on the IRS scandal:
Nonprofit groups that do not have to pay taxes are supposed to ensure that political activity is not their primary purpose, so evidence that some of the new organizations seeking tax-exempt status were fronts for campaign organizations drew bipartisan interest. Good-government groups started pressuring the IRS to more closely scrutinize applicants. One such group, Democracy 21, wrote a series of letters to the IRS arguing that many of the groups should not receive favored tax status.
"In all of these cases, the groups were claiming (c)(4) status basically for the purpose of hiding their donors," said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer.
There's a whole world of bias in that phrase "good-government groups." According to the Inspector General's report, one of the red flags the IRS used to identify dissident organizations for targeting was "education of the public via advocacy/lobbying to 'make America a better place to live.' " Tea Party organizations conceive of themselves as good-government groups, just as Democracy 21 does. The Post accepts the latter characterization, but not the former, unquestioningly.
The description of Democracy 21 as a "good-government group" is especially inapt in this particular story. Wertheimer's organization wrote letters lobbying the IRS to take action against political groups of whose activities it disapproved. The IRS did Wertheimer's bidding, and in so doing massively abused its power. The IRS, not Wertheimer, is culpable for the abuse of power. But it is preposterous to label Democracy 21 "a good-government group" in the course of telling how its activities encouraged an abuse of governmental power.
-----------------
-Tom Enright
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324787004578494961837484232.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
.............
In a CNN.com column Donna Brazile strikes the same theme with a sinister twist:
A government of, by, and for the people requires that people talk to people, that we can agree to disagree but do so in civility. If we let the politicians and those who report dictate our discourse, then our course will be dictated.
Why am I alarmed? Because two "scandals"--the IRS tax-exempt inquiries and the Department of Justice's tapping of reporters' phones--have become lynch parties. And the congressional investigation of Benghazi may become a scandal in itself.
In one breath Brazile urges everyone to be civil and respectful. In the next she labels her opponents with one of the most racially incendiary metaphors in the American lexicon. And note that she is casting government officials who abused their power as lynching victims.
.....................
The problem of media bias runs deep, and it often does not take the form of open partisanship. Here's an example, from a Washington Post story on the IRS scandal:
Nonprofit groups that do not have to pay taxes are supposed to ensure that political activity is not their primary purpose, so evidence that some of the new organizations seeking tax-exempt status were fronts for campaign organizations drew bipartisan interest. Good-government groups started pressuring the IRS to more closely scrutinize applicants. One such group, Democracy 21, wrote a series of letters to the IRS arguing that many of the groups should not receive favored tax status.
"In all of these cases, the groups were claiming (c)(4) status basically for the purpose of hiding their donors," said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer.
There's a whole world of bias in that phrase "good-government groups." According to the Inspector General's report, one of the red flags the IRS used to identify dissident organizations for targeting was "education of the public via advocacy/lobbying to 'make America a better place to live.' " Tea Party organizations conceive of themselves as good-government groups, just as Democracy 21 does. The Post accepts the latter characterization, but not the former, unquestioningly.
The description of Democracy 21 as a "good-government group" is especially inapt in this particular story. Wertheimer's organization wrote letters lobbying the IRS to take action against political groups of whose activities it disapproved. The IRS did Wertheimer's bidding, and in so doing massively abused its power. The IRS, not Wertheimer, is culpable for the abuse of power. But it is preposterous to label Democracy 21 "a good-government group" in the course of telling how its activities encouraged an abuse of governmental power.
-----------------
-Tom Enright
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
May 21, 2013, 7:32:57 AM5/21/13
to
On 2013-05-21, alic...@yahoo.com <alic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Read the whole thing.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324787004578494961837484232.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
>
Tremendous article.
> Read the whole thing.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324787004578494961837484232.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
>
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation." - Bob Carter
dre
May 21, 2013, 9:33:54 AM5/21/13
to
I see your opinion piece and raise it with another based on, you know, actual _facts_:
http://www.politicususa.com/judge-rules-tea-party-group-illegally-aided-gop-expect-irs-scrutinize.html
> There has been no proof that the IRS targeted these groups for political reasons, and that is the only evidence that would create a scandal. There is ample evidence that True the Vote and King Street Patriots have repeatedly invited scrutiny due to their repeated and blatant disregard for the law.
http://www.politicususa.com/judge-rules-tea-party-group-illegally-aided-gop-expect-irs-scrutinize.html
> There has been no proof that the IRS targeted these groups for political reasons, and that is the only evidence that would create a scandal. There is ample evidence that True the Vote and King Street Patriots have repeatedly invited scrutiny due to their repeated and blatant disregard for the law.
xyzzy
May 21, 2013, 9:53:24 AM5/21/13
to
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732478700457849496183748...
"As we wrote Friday, this will be a scandal like Watergate if it turns
out that the IRS was acting under orders from Barack Obama or Valerie
Jarrett. If the White House's conduct turns out to be unimpeachable,
then it is something far worse: a sign that the government itself has
become a threat to the Constitution."
IOW, heads I win, tails you lose. Well played.
out that the IRS was acting under orders from Barack Obama or Valerie
Jarrett. If the White House's conduct turns out to be unimpeachable,
then it is something far worse: a sign that the government itself has
become a threat to the Constitution."
IOW, heads I win, tails you lose. Well played.
the_andr...@yahoo.com
May 21, 2013, 10:39:00 AM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 9:33 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:14:02 AM UTC-4, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Read the whole thing.
>
> I see your opinion piece and raise it with another based on, you know, actual _facts_:
>
> http://www.politicususa.com/judge-rules-tea-party-group-illegally-aid...
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:14:02 AM UTC-4, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Read the whole thing.
>
> I see your opinion piece and raise it with another based on, you know, actual _facts_:
>
Only left-favoring "opinions" are based on facts?
Isn't this what got us here in the first place?
CheeseHusker dos
May 21, 2013, 10:47:44 AM5/21/13
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sneaky, no? All about setting the narrative
dre
May 21, 2013, 10:58:35 AM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:39:00 AM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 21, 9:33 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:14:02 AM UTC-4, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Read the whole thing.
>
> >
>
> > I see your opinion piece and raise it with another based on, you know, actual _facts_:
>
> >
>
> > http://www.politicususa.com/judge-rules-tea-party-group-illegally-aid...
>
>
>
> Only left-favoring "opinions" are based on facts?
Only? No. Mostly? Yes. In this case? Absolutely.
> On May 21, 9:33 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:14:02 AM UTC-4, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Read the whole thing.
>
> >
>
> > I see your opinion piece and raise it with another based on, you know, actual _facts_:
>
> >
>
> > http://www.politicususa.com/judge-rules-tea-party-group-illegally-aid...
>
>
>
> Only left-favoring "opinions" are based on facts?
> Isn't this what got us here in the first place?
CheeseHusker dos
May 21, 2013, 11:03:12 AM5/21/13
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Moral authority entails a moral hazard: the temptation to abuse
> - Show quoted text -
political and cultural power. Today's liberal left conceives of itself
as being on the side of all that is good, right and reasonable. It
caricatures the right as racist, extremist, greedy, dishonest,
fanatically religious, prone to violence--and dangerous because,
through the Republican Party, it has maintained parity in the
political arena. Of the 10 presidential elections since Watergate,
each party won 5; and voters haven't entrusted the Democrats with full
control of government for more than two years since the Carter era.
If ordinary politics are a battle between good and evil, then winning
becomes an overriding moral imperative. The end justifies the means: "
Or something like that.
A pox on our political suburbia
dre
May 21, 2013, 11:21:07 AM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:03:12 AM UTC-4, CheeseHusker dos wrote:
> On May 21, 9:58 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:39:00 AM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On May 21, 9:33 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:14:02 AM UTC-4, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > Read the whole thing.
>
> >
>
> > > > I see your opinion piece and raise it with another based on, you know, actual _facts_:
>
> >
>
> > > >http://www.politicususa.com/judge-rules-tea-party-group-illegally-aid...
>
> >
>
> > > Only left-favoring "opinions" are based on facts?
>
> >
>
> > Only? No. Mostly? Yes. In this case? Absolutely.
>
> >
>
> > > Isn't this what got us here in the first place?
>
> >
>
> > I'm pretty sure what got us here is Republican obstructionism and fearmongering.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
>
> "Moral authority entails a moral hazard: the temptation to abuse
>
> political and cultural power.
True.
> On May 21, 9:58 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:39:00 AM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On May 21, 9:33 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:14:02 AM UTC-4, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > Read the whole thing.
>
> >
>
> > > > I see your opinion piece and raise it with another based on, you know, actual _facts_:
>
> >
>
> > > >http://www.politicususa.com/judge-rules-tea-party-group-illegally-aid...
>
> >
>
> > > Only left-favoring "opinions" are based on facts?
>
> >
>
> > Only? No. Mostly? Yes. In this case? Absolutely.
>
> >
>
> > > Isn't this what got us here in the first place?
>
> >
>
> > I'm pretty sure what got us here is Republican obstructionism and fearmongering.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
>
> "Moral authority entails a moral hazard: the temptation to abuse
>
> political and cultural power.
> Today's liberal left conceives of itself
>
> as being on the side of all that is good, right and reasonable.
> It
>
> caricatures the right as racist, extremist, greedy, dishonest,
>
> fanatically religious, prone to violence--and dangerous because,
>
> through the Republican Party, it has maintained parity in the
>
> political arena. Of the 10 presidential elections since Watergate,
>
> each party won 5; and voters haven't entrusted the Democrats with full
>
> control of government for more than two years since the Carter era.
> If ordinary politics are a battle between good and evil, then winning
>
> becomes an overriding moral imperative. The end justifies the means: "
CheeseHusker dos
May 21, 2013, 11:28:29 AM5/21/13
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Or if I had excoriated W's financial mismanagement and called his
> - Show quoted text -
administration onto the carpet a number of times for civil liberty
abuses.
Oh wait - I did that.
dre
May 21, 2013, 11:56:02 AM5/21/13
to
...to say nothing of the unjustified freak-outs, the near-complete and utter lack of respect for this President, and nearly equal total disregard for intellectually honest arguments, that'd be a much bigger step forward. Then we can finally talk about the nowhere-near-as-egregious-but-still-shitty things done by politicians on the left (well, as left as US politics is, which is to say center-left at best).
CheeseHusker dos
May 21, 2013, 12:06:58 PM5/21/13
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you for proving Mr. Taranto's point.
> - Show quoted text -
dre
May 21, 2013, 12:16:53 PM5/21/13
to
Gotta go, Michele Bachmann just said something crazy on TV again.
the_andr...@yahoo.com
May 21, 2013, 12:29:43 PM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 10:58 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:39:00 AM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On May 21, 9:33 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:14:02 AM UTC-4, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > Read the whole thing.
>
> > > I see your opinion piece and raise it with another based on, you know, actual _facts_:
>
> > >http://www.politicususa.com/judge-rules-tea-party-group-illegally-aid...
>
> > Only left-favoring "opinions" are based on facts?
>
> Only? No. Mostly? Yes.
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:39:00 AM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On May 21, 9:33 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:14:02 AM UTC-4, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > Read the whole thing.
>
> > > I see your opinion piece and raise it with another based on, you know, actual _facts_:
>
> > >http://www.politicususa.com/judge-rules-tea-party-group-illegally-aid...
>
> > Only left-favoring "opinions" are based on facts?
>
> Only? No. Mostly? Yes.
the_andr...@yahoo.com
May 21, 2013, 12:30:17 PM5/21/13
to
dre
May 21, 2013, 12:59:17 PM5/21/13
to
alic...@yahoo.com
May 21, 2013, 1:01:01 PM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:56:02 AM UTC-4, dre wrote:
It's a small step forward, at least. Now, about the WMDs, gerrymandering, unwarranted discrediting and dismantling of the the federal government, the racialization of various topics--to say nothing of actual racist words and deeds--the easily verifiable extremism, the religious fanaticism, and the frequent flirtations with inciting people to violence, the factually incorrect rewriting of history...
...to say nothing of the unjustified freak-outs, the near-complete and utter lack of respect for this President, and nearly equal total disregard for intellectually honest arguments, that'd be a much bigger step forward. Then we can finally talk about the nowhere-near-as-egregious-but-still-shitty things done by politicians on the left (well, as left as US politics is, which is to say center-left at best).
-----------------------------
It's a small step forward, at least. Now, about the WMDs, gerrymandering, unwarranted discrediting and dismantling of the the federal government, the racialization of various topics--to say nothing of actual racist words and deeds--the easily verifiable extremism, the religious fanaticism, and the frequent flirtations with inciting people to violence, the factually incorrect rewriting of history...
...to say nothing of the unjustified freak-outs, the near-complete and utter lack of respect for this President, and nearly equal total disregard for intellectually honest arguments, that'd be a much bigger step forward. Then we can finally talk about the nowhere-near-as-egregious-but-still-shitty things done by politicians on the left (well, as left as US politics is, which is to say center-left at best).
What is so wonderful here is that this can be easier applied to the left in the US.
Example?
Bush didn't lie about WMDs, but he was obviously wrong about them. Along with Clinton(s), Kerry, etc.
LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident that greatly escalated the Vietnam War. So, in Dre's mind, Bush's mistake, which resulted in a small fraction of the casualties of the Vietnam War, was "nowhere-near-as-egregious-but-still-shitty" as LBJ's LIE.
"the racialization of various topics" FFS, F-F-S, what a joke.
-Tom Enright
CheeseHusker dos
May 21, 2013, 1:02:49 PM5/21/13
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
> - Show quoted text -
alic...@yahoo.com
May 21, 2013, 1:07:27 PM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:56:02 AM UTC-4, dre wrote:
It's a small step forward, at least. Now, about the WMDs, gerrymandering, unwarranted discrediting and dismantling of the the federal government, the racialization of various topics--to say nothing of actual racist words and deeds--the easily verifiable extremism, the religious fanaticism, and the frequent flirtations with inciting people to violence, the factually incorrect rewriting of history...
...to say nothing of the unjustified freak-outs, the near-complete and utter lack of respect for this President, and nearly equal total disregard for intellectually honest arguments, that'd be a much bigger step forward. Then we can finally talk about the nowhere-near-as-egregious-but-still-shitty things done by politicians on the left (well, as left as US politics is, which is to say center-left at best).
------------------------------
...to say nothing of the unjustified freak-outs, the near-complete and utter lack of respect for this President, and nearly equal total disregard for intellectually honest arguments, that'd be a much bigger step forward. Then we can finally talk about the nowhere-near-as-egregious-but-still-shitty things done by politicians on the left (well, as left as US politics is, which is to say center-left at best).
Everybody can play!
It's a small step forward, at least. Now, about the WMDs,
federal government, the racialization of various topics--to say
nothing of actual racist words and deeds--the easily verifiable
extremism, the religious fanaticism, and the frequent flirtations
with inciting people to violence, the factually incorrect
rewriting of history...
...to say nothing of the unjustified freak-outs, the near-complete
and utter lack of respect for this President, and nearly equal total
disregard for intellectually honest arguments, that'd be a much
bigger step forward. Then we can finally talk about the
nowhere-near-as-egregious-but-still-shitty things done by politicians
on the right (well, as right as US politics is, which is to say
nothing of actual racist words and deeds--the easily verifiable
extremism, the religious fanaticism, and the frequent flirtations
with inciting people to violence, the factually incorrect
rewriting of history...
...to say nothing of the unjustified freak-outs, the near-complete
and utter lack of respect for this President, and nearly equal total
disregard for intellectually honest arguments, that'd be a much
bigger step forward. Then we can finally talk about the
nowhere-near-as-egregious-but-still-shitty things done by politicians
center-right at best).
----------------------
FDR's concentration camps? Nowhere-near-as-egregious?
-Tom Enright
CheeseHusker dos
May 21, 2013, 1:09:53 PM5/21/13
to
And don't you DARE mention eugenics
dre
May 21, 2013, 1:10:11 PM5/21/13
to
CheeseHusker dos
May 21, 2013, 1:15:20 PM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 12:10 pm, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:02:49 PM UTC-4, CheeseHusker dos wrote:
> > On May 21, 11:59 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:29:43 PM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > On May 21, 10:58 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:39:00 AM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 21, 9:33 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:14:02 AM UTC-4, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Read the whole thing.
>
> > > > > > > I see your opinion piece and raise it with another based on, you know, actual _facts_:
>
> > > > > > >http://www.politicususa.com/judge-rules-tea-party-group-illegally-aid...
>
> > > > > > Only left-favoring "opinions" are based on facts?
>
> > > > > Only? No. Mostly? Yes.
>
> > > > BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > >http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0531/Climate-change-Arctic-pass...Hide quoted text -
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:02:49 PM UTC-4, CheeseHusker dos wrote:
> > On May 21, 11:59 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:29:43 PM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > On May 21, 10:58 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:39:00 AM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 21, 9:33 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:14:02 AM UTC-4, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Read the whole thing.
>
> > > > > > > I see your opinion piece and raise it with another based on, you know, actual _facts_:
>
> > > > > > >http://www.politicususa.com/judge-rules-tea-party-group-illegally-aid...
>
> > > > > > Only left-favoring "opinions" are based on facts?
>
> > > > > Only? No. Mostly? Yes.
>
> > > > BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Anyone can make a page on the internet. ($1)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://www.novabiomatique.com/hydroponics-systems/plant-555-gardening-with-co2-explained.cfm
> - Show quoted text -
BTW - it's $2 now - inflation you know
the_andr...@yahoo.com
May 21, 2013, 1:30:42 PM5/21/13
to
Christians and Science?!?!
CheeseHusker dos
May 21, 2013, 1:31:43 PM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 12:30 pm, "the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com"
> Christians and Science?!?!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
6000 years of history together, babeeeeeee
> - Show quoted text -
Emperor Wonko the Sane
May 21, 2013, 1:53:29 PM5/21/13
to
http://news.mongabay.com/2013/0512-gen-lake-el-gygytgyn.html
Maybe CO2 isn't the only, or even primary factor in global temperature.
Doug
dre
May 21, 2013, 2:51:09 PM5/21/13
to
"Arctic monitoring stations show carbon dioxide levels are now above 400 parts per million. Carbon dioxide is the chief climate-change gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years. Before the Industrial Age, carbon dioxide levels were 275 ppm."
Michael Press
May 21, 2013, 3:21:53 PM5/21/13
to
In article
<b7d67f95-050e-4988...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
CO2 is so scarce in the atmosphere that commercial greenhouse
operators buy CO2 and pipe it in. CO2 is a fertilizer presently.
The Earth's plant life is _starved_ for CO2.
--
Michael Press
<b7d67f95-050e-4988...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
operators buy CO2 and pipe it in. CO2 is a fertilizer presently.
The Earth's plant life is _starved_ for CO2.
--
Michael Press
CheeseHusker dos
May 21, 2013, 3:25:09 PM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 1:51 pm, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:15:20 PM UTC-4, CheeseHusker dos wrote:
> > On May 21, 12:10 pm, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:02:49 PM UTC-4, CheeseHusker dos wrote:
>
> > > > On May 21, 11:59 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:29:43 PM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 21, 10:58 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:39:00 AM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On May 21, 9:33 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:14:02 AM UTC-4, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Read the whole thing.
>
> > > > > > > > > I see your opinion piece and raise it with another based on, you know, actual _facts_:
>
> > > > > > > > >http://www.politicususa.com/judge-rules-tea-party-group-illegally-aid...
>
> > > > > > > > Only left-favoring "opinions" are based on facts?
>
> > > > > > > Only? No. Mostly? Yes.
>
> > > > > > BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > > > >http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0531/Climate-change-Arctic-pass...quoted text -
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:15:20 PM UTC-4, CheeseHusker dos wrote:
> > On May 21, 12:10 pm, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:02:49 PM UTC-4, CheeseHusker dos wrote:
>
> > > > On May 21, 11:59 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:29:43 PM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 21, 10:58 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:39:00 AM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On May 21, 9:33 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:14:02 AM UTC-4, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Read the whole thing.
>
> > > > > > > > > I see your opinion piece and raise it with another based on, you know, actual _facts_:
>
> > > > > > > > >http://www.politicususa.com/judge-rules-tea-party-group-illegally-aid...
>
> > > > > > > > Only left-favoring "opinions" are based on facts?
>
> > > > > > > Only? No. Mostly? Yes.
>
> > > > > > BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
>
> > > Anyone can make a page on the internet. ($1)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> >http://www.novabiomatique.com/hydroponics-systems/plant-555-gardening...
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
>
> > > Anyone can make a page on the internet. ($1)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Riiiight:
>
> "Arctic monitoring stations show carbon dioxide levels are now above 400 parts per million. Carbon dioxide is the chief climate-change gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years. Before the Industrial Age, carbon dioxide levels were 275 ppm."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Before the Industrial Age, CO2 levels have been well into the
> - Show quoted text -
thousands - as in a factor of 10 higher than now.
Ever stop to consider that perhaps global warming causes human
civilization?
CheeseHusker dos
May 21, 2013, 3:25:43 PM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 2:21 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <b7d67f95-050e-4988-ab54-49972292c...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
greenhouses go 800-1,000 ppm
> In article
> <b7d67f95-050e-4988-ab54-49972292c...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> CheeseHusker dos <jonrus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 11:59 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:29:43 PM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > On May 21, 10:58 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:39:00 AM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 21, 9:33 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:14:02 AM UTC-4, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Read the whole thing.
>
> > > > > > > I see your opinion piece and raise it with another based on, you know, actual _facts_:
>
> > > > > > >http://www.politicususa.com/judge-rules-tea-party-group-illegally-aid...
>
> > > > > > Only left-favoring "opinions" are based on facts?
>
> > > > > Only? No. Mostly? Yes.
>
> > > > BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > >http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0531/Climate-change-Arctic-pass...Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 11:59 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:29:43 PM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > On May 21, 10:58 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:39:00 AM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 21, 9:33 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:14:02 AM UTC-4, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Read the whole thing.
>
> > > > > > > I see your opinion piece and raise it with another based on, you know, actual _facts_:
>
> > > > > > >http://www.politicususa.com/judge-rules-tea-party-group-illegally-aid...
>
> > > > > > Only left-favoring "opinions" are based on facts?
>
> > > > > Only? No. Mostly? Yes.
>
> > > > BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> >http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
>
> CO2 is so scarce in the atmosphere that commercial greenhouse
> operators buy CO2 and pipe it in. CO2 is a fertilizer presently.
> The Earth's plant life is _starved_ for CO2.
>
Absolutely - did you see the second link I posted? Commercial
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> >http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
>
> CO2 is so scarce in the atmosphere that commercial greenhouse
> operators buy CO2 and pipe it in. CO2 is a fertilizer presently.
> The Earth's plant life is _starved_ for CO2.
>
greenhouses go 800-1,000 ppm
Michael Press
May 21, 2013, 3:40:44 PM5/21/13
to
In article
<b7d67f95-050e-4988...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
CheeseHusker dos <jonr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<b7d67f95-050e-4988...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
CheeseHusker dos <jonr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
assertion in it until you research it because the
article is incautious at various points. It is a fact
that the Earth thrives with three times the current
atmospheric CO2 concentration. We are in the middle of
an ice age, so throw another gigaton of coal on the fire.
--
Michael Press
dre
May 21, 2013, 4:20:26 PM5/21/13
to
> Ever stop to consider that perhaps global warming causes human
>
> civilization?
Facts and science, not opinion and denial.
CheeseHusker dos
May 21, 2013, 4:36:09 PM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 3:20 pm, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:25:09 PM UTC-4, CheeseHusker dos wrote:
> > On May 21, 1:51 pm, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:15:20 PM UTC-4, CheeseHusker dos wrote:
>
> > > > On May 21, 12:10 pm, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:02:49 PM UTC-4, CheeseHusker dos wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 21, 11:59 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:29:43 PM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On May 21, 10:58 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:39:00 AM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On May 21, 9:33 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:14:02 AM UTC-4, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Read the whole thing.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I see your opinion piece and raise it with another based on, you know, actual _facts_:
>
> > > > > > > > > > >http://www.politicususa.com/judge-rules-tea-party-group-illegally-aid...
>
> > > > > > > > > > Only left-favoring "opinions" are based on facts?
>
> > > > > > > > > Only? No. Mostly? Yes.
>
> > > > > > > > BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > > > > > >http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0531/Climate-change-Arctic-pass...text -
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:25:09 PM UTC-4, CheeseHusker dos wrote:
> > On May 21, 1:51 pm, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:15:20 PM UTC-4, CheeseHusker dos wrote:
>
> > > > On May 21, 12:10 pm, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:02:49 PM UTC-4, CheeseHusker dos wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 21, 11:59 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:29:43 PM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On May 21, 10:58 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:39:00 AM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On May 21, 9:33 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:14:02 AM UTC-4, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Read the whole thing.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I see your opinion piece and raise it with another based on, you know, actual _facts_:
>
> > > > > > > > > > >http://www.politicususa.com/judge-rules-tea-party-group-illegally-aid...
>
> > > > > > > > > > Only left-favoring "opinions" are based on facts?
>
> > > > > > > > > Only? No. Mostly? Yes.
>
> > > > > > > > BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > >http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
>
> > > > > Anyone can make a page on the internet. ($1)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >http://www.novabiomatique.com/hydroponics-systems/plant-555-gardening...
>
> > > Riiiight:
>
> > > "Arctic monitoring stations show carbon dioxide levels are now above 400 parts per million. Carbon dioxide is the chief climate-change gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years. Before the Industrial Age, carbon dioxide levels were 275 ppm."- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Before the Industrial Age, CO2 levels have been well into the
>
> > thousands - as in a factor of 10 higher than now.
>
> Before the Industrial Age, human civilization wasn't nearly as sprawling and dependent on the status quo as now.
Hunh? If I'm reading this correctly, are you inferring we have a duty
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > >http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
>
> > > > > Anyone can make a page on the internet. ($1)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >http://www.novabiomatique.com/hydroponics-systems/plant-555-gardening...
>
> > > Riiiight:
>
> > > "Arctic monitoring stations show carbon dioxide levels are now above 400 parts per million. Carbon dioxide is the chief climate-change gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years. Before the Industrial Age, carbon dioxide levels were 275 ppm."- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Before the Industrial Age, CO2 levels have been well into the
>
> > thousands - as in a factor of 10 higher than now.
>
> Before the Industrial Age, human civilization wasn't nearly as sprawling and dependent on the status quo as now.
to override nature? Frankly I'm just glad Wisconsin isn't still under
a glacier as it was just a few 10,000s of thousands of years ago.
> > Ever stop to consider that perhaps global warming causes human
>
> > civilization?
>
> Ever stop to consider that it's cheaper to pollute than to clean up after one's business? Ever stop to consider that being environmentally incautious is what led to events like the Cuyahoga River spontaneously combusting on more than one occasion, or Beijing's air quality being basically unfit for human consumption even AFTER two weeks of a complete shutdown prior to the Olympics? The Earth is a closed system, and the fact is we don't know how it will react to man-induced changes. We *do* know, however, that 98% of all climatologists agree that the climate has changed because of man.
>
Ever stop to think that the biggest climate threat to human
civilization is global cooling? That's bad for Ag - we starve and we
die.
FWIW, I agree that there have been anthropomorphic effects on climate
- deforestation, urban heat islands, simple respiration, water
movement issues (dams, etc) and many others - I mean - duh, of course
they've had "an effect". Those are almost certainly bigger impactors
than ACO2. And of course ACO2 has had "an effect" - there are a lot
of us who breath. "An effect" is vastly different from primary
driver.
I'm pretty sure that 100% of scientists would agree that the climate
changed before man. A lot. And often. And is a natural process.
Unless you're some sort of evolutionist who believes the world started
6,000 years ago and has always been in a perfect state of stasis....
Michael Press
May 21, 2013, 5:23:17 PM5/21/13
to
In article
<b5968868-4022-4831...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
Yes, but not until after I posted.
--
Michael Press
<b5968868-4022-4831...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
--
Michael Press
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
May 21, 2013, 6:20:24 PM5/21/13
to
"Emperor Wonko the Sane" <do...@sorensensdomain.net> wrote in
> > > > > > Read the whole thing.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > I see your opinion piece and raise it with another based on, you know, actual _facts_:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >http://www.politicususa.com/judge-rules-tea-party-group-illegally-aid...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Only left-favoring "opinions" are based on facts?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Only? No. Mostly? Yes.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0531/Climate-change-Arctic-passes-400-parts-per-million-milestone
and the world was 8degreesC warmer then.
http://news.mongabay.com/2013/0512-gen-lake-el-gygytgyn.html
Maybe CO2 isn't the only, or even primary factor in global temperature.
Doug
-----
It did not *used to be*. But then no one was burning gigatons of
fossile fuels, either.
--Tedward
> > > > > > Read the whole thing.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > I see your opinion piece and raise it with another based on, you know, actual _facts_:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >http://www.politicususa.com/judge-rules-tea-party-group-illegally-aid...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Only left-favoring "opinions" are based on facts?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Only? No. Mostly? Yes.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0531/Climate-change-Arctic-passes-400-parts-per-million-milestone
and the world was 8degreesC warmer then.
http://news.mongabay.com/2013/0512-gen-lake-el-gygytgyn.html
Maybe CO2 isn't the only, or even primary factor in global temperature.
Doug
It did not *used to be*. But then no one was burning gigatons of
fossile fuels, either.
--Tedward
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
May 21, 2013, 6:40:07 PM5/21/13
to
"CheeseHusker dos" <jonr...@yahoo.com> wrote
-----
And in rather predictable fashion, at least for the past 400,000 years.
http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/historical-trends-in-carbon-dioxide-concentrations-and-temperature-on-a-geological-and-recent-time-scale_a210#
But that was before someone started burning gigatons of fossile fuel.
In the long run, AGW might fend off the impending ice age. In the
short run, it might suck too.
But the acidification of the ocean is not a good thing no matter what.
--Tedward
And in rather predictable fashion, at least for the past 400,000 years.
http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/historical-trends-in-carbon-dioxide-concentrations-and-temperature-on-a-geological-and-recent-time-scale_a210#
But that was before someone started burning gigatons of fossile fuel.
In the long run, AGW might fend off the impending ice age. In the
short run, it might suck too.
But the acidification of the ocean is not a good thing no matter what.
--Tedward
Dennis J
May 21, 2013, 9:27:00 PM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 06:53:24 -0700 (PDT), xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732478700457849496183748...
>>
>> .............
>>
>> In a CNN.com column Donna Brazile strikes the same theme with a sinister twist:
>>
>> A government of, by, and for the people requires that people talk to people, that we can agree to disagree but do so in civility. If we let the politicians and those who report dictate our discourse, then our course will be dictated.
>>
>> Why am I alarmed? Because two "scandals"--the IRS tax-exempt inquiries and the Department of Justice's tapping of reporters' phones--have become lynch parties. And the congressional investigation of Benghazi may become a scandal in itself.
>>
>> In one breath Brazile urges everyone to be civil and respectful. In the next she labels her opponents with one of the most racially incendiary metaphors in the American lexicon. And note that she is casting government officials who abused their power as lynching victims.
>>
>> .....................
>>
>> The problem of media bias runs deep, and it often does not take the form of open partisanship. Here's an example, from a Washington Post story on the IRS scandal:
>>
>> Nonprofit groups that do not have to pay taxes are supposed to ensure that political activity is not their primary purpose, so evidence that some of the new organizations seeking tax-exempt status were fronts for campaign organizations drew bipartisan interest. Good-government groups started pressuring the IRS to more closely scrutinize applicants. One such group, Democracy 21, wrote a series of letters to the IRS arguing that many of the groups should not receive favored tax status.
>>
>> "In all of these cases, the groups were claiming (c)(4) status basically for the purpose of hiding their donors," said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer.
>>
>> There's a whole world of bias in that phrase "good-government groups." According to the Inspector General's report, one of the red flags the IRS used to identify dissident organizations for targeting was "education of the public via advocacy/lobbying to 'make America a better place to live.' " Tea Party organizations conceive of themselves as good-government groups, just as Democracy 21 does. The Post accepts the latter characterization, but not the former, unquestioningly.
>>
>> The description of Democracy 21 as a "good-government group" is especially inapt in this particular story. Wertheimer's organization wrote letters lobbying the IRS to take action against political groups of whose activities it disapproved. The IRS did Wertheimer's bidding, and in so doing massively abused its power. The IRS, not Wertheimer, is culpable for the abuse of power. But it is preposterous to label Democracy 21 "a good-government group" in the course of telling how its activities encouraged an abuse of governmental power.
>>
>> -----------------
>>
>> -Tom Enright
>
>"As we wrote Friday, this will be a scandal like Watergate if it turns
>out that the IRS was acting under orders from Barack Obama or Valerie
>Jarrett. If the White House's conduct turns out to be unimpeachable,
>then it is something far worse: a sign that the government itself has
>become a threat to the Constitution."
>
>IOW, heads I win, tails you lose. Well played.
well Mourdock does want the GOP to win it all... and he's not even an
American...
--
"Beware of the Military-Industrial Complex!!" D.D.E
"iPOD -- I Prefer Other Devices"
"Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" Will Durant
"One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux
"the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME
To reply, SCRAPE off the end bits.
wrote:
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732478700457849496183748...
>>
>> .............
>>
>> In a CNN.com column Donna Brazile strikes the same theme with a sinister twist:
>>
>> A government of, by, and for the people requires that people talk to people, that we can agree to disagree but do so in civility. If we let the politicians and those who report dictate our discourse, then our course will be dictated.
>>
>> Why am I alarmed? Because two "scandals"--the IRS tax-exempt inquiries and the Department of Justice's tapping of reporters' phones--have become lynch parties. And the congressional investigation of Benghazi may become a scandal in itself.
>>
>> In one breath Brazile urges everyone to be civil and respectful. In the next she labels her opponents with one of the most racially incendiary metaphors in the American lexicon. And note that she is casting government officials who abused their power as lynching victims.
>>
>> .....................
>>
>> The problem of media bias runs deep, and it often does not take the form of open partisanship. Here's an example, from a Washington Post story on the IRS scandal:
>>
>> Nonprofit groups that do not have to pay taxes are supposed to ensure that political activity is not their primary purpose, so evidence that some of the new organizations seeking tax-exempt status were fronts for campaign organizations drew bipartisan interest. Good-government groups started pressuring the IRS to more closely scrutinize applicants. One such group, Democracy 21, wrote a series of letters to the IRS arguing that many of the groups should not receive favored tax status.
>>
>> "In all of these cases, the groups were claiming (c)(4) status basically for the purpose of hiding their donors," said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer.
>>
>> There's a whole world of bias in that phrase "good-government groups." According to the Inspector General's report, one of the red flags the IRS used to identify dissident organizations for targeting was "education of the public via advocacy/lobbying to 'make America a better place to live.' " Tea Party organizations conceive of themselves as good-government groups, just as Democracy 21 does. The Post accepts the latter characterization, but not the former, unquestioningly.
>>
>> The description of Democracy 21 as a "good-government group" is especially inapt in this particular story. Wertheimer's organization wrote letters lobbying the IRS to take action against political groups of whose activities it disapproved. The IRS did Wertheimer's bidding, and in so doing massively abused its power. The IRS, not Wertheimer, is culpable for the abuse of power. But it is preposterous to label Democracy 21 "a good-government group" in the course of telling how its activities encouraged an abuse of governmental power.
>>
>> -----------------
>>
>> -Tom Enright
>
>"As we wrote Friday, this will be a scandal like Watergate if it turns
>out that the IRS was acting under orders from Barack Obama or Valerie
>Jarrett. If the White House's conduct turns out to be unimpeachable,
>then it is something far worse: a sign that the government itself has
>become a threat to the Constitution."
>
>IOW, heads I win, tails you lose. Well played.
well Mourdock does want the GOP to win it all... and he's not even an
American...
--
"Beware of the Military-Industrial Complex!!" D.D.E
"iPOD -- I Prefer Other Devices"
"Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" Will Durant
"One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux
"the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME
To reply, SCRAPE off the end bits.
Michael Press
May 22, 2013, 2:01:34 PM5/22/13
to
In article
<93e70f1a-19b1-491c...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
So was the island of Manhattan. We see
the scrape marks in Central Park.
<http://www.geopic.pl/album/narzutniak_lodowcowy_glacier_rock_central_park.jpg.php>
--
Michael Press
<93e70f1a-19b1-491c...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
CheeseHusker dos <jonr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Frankly I'm just glad Wisconsin isn't still under
> a glacier as it was just a few 10,000s of thousands of years ago.
Less than 20000 years ago---a mile high.
> Frankly I'm just glad Wisconsin isn't still under
> a glacier as it was just a few 10,000s of thousands of years ago.
So was the island of Manhattan. We see
the scrape marks in Central Park.
<http://www.geopic.pl/album/narzutniak_lodowcowy_glacier_rock_central_park.jpg.php>
--
Michael Press
Futbol Phan
May 22, 2013, 2:10:50 PM5/22/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:01:01 PM UTC-5, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> Bush didn't lie about WMDs, but he was obviously wrong about them. Along with Clinton(s), Kerry, etc.
>
>
I guess I haven't been following the headlines very carefully. Which wars did Clinton and Kerry start because of their WMD lies?
>
>
> Bush didn't lie about WMDs, but he was obviously wrong about them. Along with Clinton(s), Kerry, etc.
>
>
>
> LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident that greatly escalated the Vietnam War. So, in Dre's mind, Bush's mistake, which resulted in a small fraction of the casualties of the Vietnam War, was "nowhere-near-as-egregious-but-still-shitty" as LBJ's LIE.
alic...@yahoo.com
May 22, 2013, 2:17:19 PM5/22/13
to
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:10:50 PM UTC-4, Futbol Phan wrote:
> > Bush didn't lie about WMDs, but he was obviously wrong about
> > them. Along with Clinton(s), Kerry, etc.
> I guess I haven't been following the headlines very carefully.
> Which wars did Clinton and Kerry start because of their WMD lies?
There were no "WMD lies" but if you feel that there were, than both Clintons, Al Gore, Kerry etc. are culpable.
> > Bush didn't lie about WMDs, but he was obviously wrong about
> > them. Along with Clinton(s), Kerry, etc.
> I guess I haven't been following the headlines very carefully.
> Which wars did Clinton and Kerry start because of their WMD lies?
>> LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident that greatly escalated
>> the Vietnam War. So, in Dre's mind, Bush's mistake, which resulted
>> in a small fraction of the casualties of the Vietnam War, was
>> "nowhere-near-as-egregious-but-still-shitty" as LBJ's LIE.
> Can't speak for Dre, but LBJ's lie was egregious too, although to
> blame the 55,000 US Vietnam deaths on that is more than a tad
> misleading. All of the Iraq casualties (and don't forget the
> many thousands of Iraqis too) came about directly because of
> Bush's lies.
-Tom Enright
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
May 22, 2013, 2:48:42 PM5/22/13
to
<alic...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> > Bush didn't lie about WMDs, but he was obviously wrong about
>> > them. Along with Clinton(s), Kerry, etc.
>
>> I guess I haven't been following the headlines very carefully.
>> Which wars did Clinton and Kerry start because of their WMD lies?
>
> There were no "WMD lies" but if you feel that there were,
Where exactly is the line between grossly over-exagerated and a lie?
> than both Clintons, Al Gore, Kerry etc. are culpable.
Cite the lies please.
--Tedward
>> > Bush didn't lie about WMDs, but he was obviously wrong about
>> > them. Along with Clinton(s), Kerry, etc.
>
>> I guess I haven't been following the headlines very carefully.
>> Which wars did Clinton and Kerry start because of their WMD lies?
>
> There were no "WMD lies" but if you feel that there were,
> than both Clintons, Al Gore, Kerry etc. are culpable.
--Tedward
alic...@yahoo.com
May 22, 2013, 3:21:30 PM5/22/13
to
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:48:42 PM UTC-4, The Undead Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
>>>> Bush didn't lie about WMDs, but he was obviously wrong about
>>>> them. Along with Clinton(s), Kerry, etc.
>>> I guess I haven't been following the headlines very carefully.
>>> Which wars did Clinton and Kerry start because of their WMD lies?
>> There were no "WMD lies" but if you feel that there were,
> Where exactly is the line between grossly over-exagerated and a lie?
Not sure, but I know where the line between "a lie" and "being wrong" is.
>>>> Bush didn't lie about WMDs, but he was obviously wrong about
>>>> them. Along with Clinton(s), Kerry, etc.
>>> I guess I haven't been following the headlines very carefully.
>>> Which wars did Clinton and Kerry start because of their WMD lies?
>> There were no "WMD lies" but if you feel that there were,
> Where exactly is the line between grossly over-exagerated and a lie?
>> than both Clintons, Al Gore, Kerry etc. are culpable.
> Cite the lies please.
What people seem to want to forget is that the WMD statement was one of 16 reasons given to invade Iraq, all the other reasons given were correct and inarguable. Right or wrong the invasion happens with or without the WMD claim.
If you belive that Bush lied, that's cool, I can see why some belive that. However, if you feel he lied than you should accept that Hillary and Bill, John Kerry, Joe Wilson, Rockefeller, Kennedy, Gore etc. all lied too.
-Tom Enright
> --Tedward
xyzzy
May 22, 2013, 3:36:08 PM5/22/13
to
On May 22, 3:21 pm, alicam...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:48:42 PM UTC-4, The Undead Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
>
> >>>> Bush didn't lie about WMDs, but he was obviously wrong about
> >>>> them. Along with Clinton(s), Kerry, etc.
> >>> I guess I haven't been following the headlines very carefully.
> >>> Which wars did Clinton and Kerry start because of their WMD lies?
> >> There were no "WMD lies" but if you feel that there were,
> > Where exactly is the line between grossly over-exagerated and a lie?
>
> Not sure, but I know where the line between "a lie" and "being wrong" is.
>
> >> than both Clintons, Al Gore, Kerry etc. are culpable.
> > Cite the lies please.
>
> Same lie that Bush allegedly told.
>
> What people seem to want to forget is that the WMD statement was one of 16 reasons given to invade Iraq, all the other reasons given were correct and inarguable.
What were the other 15 correct and inarguable reasons?
> On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:48:42 PM UTC-4, The Undead Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
>
> >>>> Bush didn't lie about WMDs, but he was obviously wrong about
> >>>> them. Along with Clinton(s), Kerry, etc.
> >>> I guess I haven't been following the headlines very carefully.
> >>> Which wars did Clinton and Kerry start because of their WMD lies?
> >> There were no "WMD lies" but if you feel that there were,
> > Where exactly is the line between grossly over-exagerated and a lie?
>
> Not sure, but I know where the line between "a lie" and "being wrong" is.
>
> >> than both Clintons, Al Gore, Kerry etc. are culpable.
> > Cite the lies please.
>
> Same lie that Bush allegedly told.
>
> What people seem to want to forget is that the WMD statement was one of 16 reasons given to invade Iraq, all the other reasons given were correct and inarguable.
> Right or wrong the invasion happens with or without the WMD claim.
and his neocon hawk plas wanted it to happen. About that, you are
correct.
>
> If you belive that Bush lied, that's cool, I can see why some belive that. However, if you feel he lied than you should accept that Hillary and Bill, John Kerry, Joe Wilson, Rockefeller, Kennedy, Gore etc. all lied too.
>
wrong on it. Those who lied, and those who were conned by the lies.
Please try to keep them straight.
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
May 22, 2013, 4:01:09 PM5/22/13
to
<alic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4b103c80-416c-4f80...@googlegroups.com...
> On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:48:42 PM UTC-4, The Undead Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
>
>>>>> Bush didn't lie about WMDs, but he was obviously wrong about
>>>>> them. Along with Clinton(s), Kerry, etc.
>
>>>> I guess I haven't been following the headlines very carefully.
>>>> Which wars did Clinton and Kerry start because of their WMD lies?
>
>>> There were no "WMD lies" but if you feel that there were,
>
>> Where exactly is the line between grossly over-exagerated and a lie?
>
> Not sure, but I know where the line between "a lie" and "being wrong" is.
>
>>> than both Clintons, Al Gore, Kerry etc. are culpable.
>
>> Cite the lies please.
>
> Same lie that Bush allegedly told.
>
> What people seem to want to forget is that the WMD statement was one of 16 reasons given to invade Iraq, all the other reasons
> given were correct and inarguable. Right or wrong the invasion happens with or without the WMD claim.
It was one of the bigger reasons.
>
>>>>> Bush didn't lie about WMDs, but he was obviously wrong about
>>>>> them. Along with Clinton(s), Kerry, etc.
>
>>>> I guess I haven't been following the headlines very carefully.
>>>> Which wars did Clinton and Kerry start because of their WMD lies?
>
>>> There were no "WMD lies" but if you feel that there were,
>
>> Where exactly is the line between grossly over-exagerated and a lie?
>
> Not sure, but I know where the line between "a lie" and "being wrong" is.
>
>>> than both Clintons, Al Gore, Kerry etc. are culpable.
>
>> Cite the lies please.
>
> Same lie that Bush allegedly told.
>
> What people seem to want to forget is that the WMD statement was one of 16 reasons given to invade Iraq, all the other reasons
> given were correct and inarguable. Right or wrong the invasion happens with or without the WMD claim.
> If you belive that Bush lied, that's cool, I can see why some belive that. However, if you feel he lied than you should accept
> that Hillary and Bill, John Kerry, Joe Wilson, Rockefeller, Kennedy, Gore etc. all lied too.
your credibility. The difference as to why Bush lied, or at best was
grossly exaggerated, was that he knew how flimsy the evidence was.
--Tedward
alic...@yahoo.com
May 22, 2013, 6:22:06 PM5/22/13
to
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:01:09 PM UTC-4, The Undead Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
>>>> I guess I haven't been following the headlines very carefully.
>>>> Which wars did Clinton and Kerry start because of their WMD lies?
>
>>> There were no "WMD lies" but if you feel that there were,
>
>> Where exactly is the line between grossly over-exagerated and a lie?
>
> Not sure, but I know where the line between "a lie" and "being wrong" is.
>
>>> than both Clintons, Al Gore, Kerry etc. are culpable.
>
>> Cite the lies please.
>
> Same lie that Bush allegedly told.
> > What people seem to want to forget is that the WMD statement
> > was one of 16 reasons given to invade Iraq, all the other reasons
> > given were correct and inarguable. Right or wrong the invasion
> > happens with or without the WMD claim.
> It was one of the bigger reasons.
>> If you belive that Bush lied, that's cool, I can see why some
>> belive that. However, if you feel he lied than you should accept
>> that Hillary and Bill, John Kerry, Joe Wilson, Rockefeller,
>> Kennedy, Gore etc. all lied too.
> They didn't lie. They were repeating a lie told to them. Quite
> shredding your credibility. The difference as to why Bush lied,
> or at best was grossly exaggerated, was that he knew how flimsy
> the evidence was.
If they "were repeating a lie told to them" it wouldn't be Bush's but the lie of the CIA. Furthermore Bill Clinton and Al Gore left office believing that Iraq had WMDs, were they lying at the time too?
>>>> I guess I haven't been following the headlines very carefully.
>>>> Which wars did Clinton and Kerry start because of their WMD lies?
>
>>> There were no "WMD lies" but if you feel that there were,
>
>> Where exactly is the line between grossly over-exagerated and a lie?
>
> Not sure, but I know where the line between "a lie" and "being wrong" is.
>
>>> than both Clintons, Al Gore, Kerry etc. are culpable.
>
>> Cite the lies please.
>
> Same lie that Bush allegedly told.
> > What people seem to want to forget is that the WMD statement
> > was one of 16 reasons given to invade Iraq, all the other reasons
> > given were correct and inarguable. Right or wrong the invasion
> > happens with or without the WMD claim.
> It was one of the bigger reasons.
>> If you belive that Bush lied, that's cool, I can see why some
>> belive that. However, if you feel he lied than you should accept
>> that Hillary and Bill, John Kerry, Joe Wilson, Rockefeller,
>> Kennedy, Gore etc. all lied too.
> They didn't lie. They were repeating a lie told to them. Quite
> shredding your credibility. The difference as to why Bush lied,
> or at best was grossly exaggerated, was that he knew how flimsy
> the evidence was.
-Tom Enright
> --Tedward
alic...@yahoo.com
May 22, 2013, 6:34:24 PM5/22/13
to
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:36:08 PM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
> > Where exactly is the line between grossly over-exagerated and a lie?
>
> Not sure, but I know where the line between "a lie" and "being wrong" is.
>
> >> than both Clintons, Al Gore, Kerry etc. are culpable.
> > Cite the lies please.
>
> Same lie that Bush allegedly told.
>
>> What people seem to want to forget is that the WMD statement
>> was one of 16 reasons given to invade Iraq, all the other
>> reasons given were correct and inarguable.
> What were the other 15 correct and inarguable reasons?
I find it sade that anyone would argue this topic without reading the very document that provided permission to invade:
> > Where exactly is the line between grossly over-exagerated and a lie?
>
> Not sure, but I know where the line between "a lie" and "being wrong" is.
>
> >> than both Clintons, Al Gore, Kerry etc. are culpable.
> > Cite the lies please.
>
> Same lie that Bush allegedly told.
>
>> What people seem to want to forget is that the WMD statement
>> was one of 16 reasons given to invade Iraq, all the other
>> reasons given were correct and inarguable.
> What were the other 15 correct and inarguable reasons?
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/pdf/PLAW-107publ243.pdf
President Clinton lied too, he said that Iraq was hiding WMDs. Although, I'm sure it could be argued that George Bush flew from Texas to DC and lied to Clinton. Cuz. He's. Just. That. Good.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c105:4:./temp/~c105j6KMHM::
(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.
(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.
>> Right or wrong the invasion happens with or without the WMD claim.
> Well right or wrong the invasion happens no matter what because Bush
> and his neocon hawk plas wanted it to happen. About that, you are
> correct.
>> If you belive that Bush lied, that's cool, I can see why some
>> belive that. However, if you feel he lied than you should accept
>> that Hillary and Bill, John Kerry, Joe Wilson, Rockefeller, Kennedy,
>> Gore etc. all lied too.
> If you're talking about WMDs, there are two classes of people who
> were wrong on it. Those who lied, and those who were conned by
> the lies. Please try to keep them straight.
-Tom Enright
xyzzy
May 22, 2013, 9:43:48 PM5/22/13
to
On May 22, 6:34 pm, alicam...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:36:08 PM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
> > > Where exactly is the line between grossly over-exagerated and a lie?
>
> > Not sure, but I know where the line between "a lie" and "being wrong" is.
>
> > >> than both Clintons, Al Gore, Kerry etc. are culpable.
> > > Cite the lies please.
>
> > Same lie that Bush allegedly told.
>
> >> What people seem to want to forget is that the WMD statement
> >> was one of 16 reasons given to invade Iraq, all the other
> >> reasons given were correct and inarguable.
> > What were the other 15 correct and inarguable reasons?
>
> I find it sade that anyone would argue this topic without reading the very document that provided permission to invade:
>
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/pdf/PLAW-107publ243.pdf
>
> President Clinton lied too, he said that Iraq was hiding WMDs. Although, I'm sure it could be argued that George Bush flew from Texas to DC and lied to Clinton. Cuz. He's. Just. That. Good.
>
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c105:4:./temp/~c105j6KMHM::
>
> (5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.
>
> (9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
>
> (10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
>
> (11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.
That's several reasons to say "Iraq didn't live up to its
> On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:36:08 PM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
> > > Where exactly is the line between grossly over-exagerated and a lie?
>
> > Not sure, but I know where the line between "a lie" and "being wrong" is.
>
> > >> than both Clintons, Al Gore, Kerry etc. are culpable.
> > > Cite the lies please.
>
> > Same lie that Bush allegedly told.
>
> >> What people seem to want to forget is that the WMD statement
> >> was one of 16 reasons given to invade Iraq, all the other
> >> reasons given were correct and inarguable.
> > What were the other 15 correct and inarguable reasons?
>
> I find it sade that anyone would argue this topic without reading the very document that provided permission to invade:
>
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/pdf/PLAW-107publ243.pdf
>
> President Clinton lied too, he said that Iraq was hiding WMDs. Although, I'm sure it could be argued that George Bush flew from Texas to DC and lied to Clinton. Cuz. He's. Just. That. Good.
>
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c105:4:./temp/~c105j6KMHM::
>
> (5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.
>
> (9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
>
> (10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
>
> (11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.
international treaty obligations." If that's really a reason, we've
got a LOT of invading to do.
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
May 23, 2013, 11:10:42 AM5/23/13
to
<alic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f6430046-590b-4b2a...@googlegroups.com...
and Gore had the exactly the very same intel from before, I dunno. What
fucking difference does it make? Does this mean Bush didn't lie because
they might have too?
--Tedward
Message has been deleted
0 new messages