Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

President Clinton and Drugs...."a nose like a vacuum cleaner." A long post.....part of a liberal education.

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Rightwinghank

unread,

Aug 18, 2006, 8:36:20 AM8/18/06

DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
SECTION: THE STORY OF A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
SUBSECTION: DRUGS
Revised 8/20/99

NewsMax.com 8/26/99 Carl Limbacher "...it just Inside Cover, or has
anybody else noticed that reporters have suddenly cooled on their
favorite pursuit: hounding George W. on the cocaine question? Maybe
it's the recent surveys showing Americans don't care if Bush Jr. used
the drug a generation ago? But more probably it's the fact that the
press' own double standard has become so blatantly apparent that even
they now worry about seeming unfair. Reporters have been slammed lately
for not going after President Clinton on the same question -- and the
entire U.S. media knows it risks a credibility crisis should the Bush
bashing continue..... Thanks to Gennifer Flowers' Aug. 6 allegation --
first reported here -- where she claimed Clinton used a "substantial
amount" of cocaine, news editors have been faced with a stark choice:
Find an allegation against George W. as credible and damaging as
Flowers' account -- or let the coke rumors about Bush die a natural
death. ....Besides Flowers, those witnesses could include: SHARLINE
WILSON, the former Little Rock drug dealer who told a federal grand
jury in 1990 that she watched as Bill Clinton used cocaine in her
presence..... SALLY PERDUE, the former Arkansas beauty queen who claims
she had a four month affair with the President in 1983, has told
reporters that Clinton used cocaine in her presence and that he seemed
quite familiar with how the drug is used: "He had all the equipment
laid out, like a real pro," said Perdue. ....L.D. BROWN, the former
Clinton bodyguard and onetime head of the Arkansas Police Association,
recounts his own suspicions about the President's cocaine use in his
book: "Crossfire: Witness in the Clinton Investigation." ....JANE
PARKS, Roger Clinton's onetime landlady, has said that during the
mid-1980's Bill Clinton was a "frequent visitor" to his little
brother's expensive Vantage Point apartment, which shared a wall with
Parks' office. According to the account Parks has given reporters, the
Clinton brothers enjoyed partying with girls who appeared to be high
school age. "There was drug use at these gatherings....and (Parks)
could clearly distinguish Bill's voice as he chatted with his brother
about the quality of the marijuana they were smoking. She said she
could also hear them talking about the cocaine as they passed it back
and forth." ("Partners in Power" by Roger Morris) ...ROGER CLINTON, the
President's own half-brother, is said to have offered one of the most
damning accounts of his sibling's cocaine use. A 1984 police
surveillance videotape reportedly shows Roger telling one of his coke
connections, "Got to get some for my brother. He's got a nose like a
vacuum cleaner." ....TERRY DON CAMP, an Arkansas prisoner who testified
on behalf of fellow inmate Perry Steve Risinger in Risinger's 1996 jail
break trial, put Clinton in the company of Mena cocaine smuggler Barry
Seal on at least one occasion. ...DR. SUSAN SANTA CRUZ claims no direct
knowledge of Clinton's involvement with cocaine. But in 1992, instead
of releasing the then-candidate's medical records, Santa Cruz and other
doctors who had treated Clinton were called upon to verbally detail
Clinton's medical history for the press. "Her listing of Mr. Clinton's
history included allergies, a strained ligament in his left knee from
unspecified causes and rectal bleeding from hemorrhoids in 1984. His
surgical history includes a procedure to open up his sinuses in 1979
and a tonsillectomy in 1952." (Washington Times -- March 12, 1996)
Medical experts say that heavy cocaine usage often leads to sinus
damage.....MONICA LEWINSKY, the sex crazed White House intern who
nearly destroyed a presidency, told Linda Tripp that Clinton "sometimes
seemed to 'zone out' on her." When Tripp asked for an explanation,
Monica replied, "I think he's on drugs". (New York Post -- Oct. 3,
1998) ..."

DRUGS

Roger Clinton, Clinton's half-brother, a convicted cocaine dealer, is
caught on tape saying, "Gotta get some for my brother. He has a nose
like a vacuum cleaner."

Retired FBI agent Gary Aldrich writes of drugs and the White House and
appointees.
Sharlene Wilson talks at length about Clinton's cocaine use, suffers
extreme sentence
Clinton's insistence that drug use was not bar for security clearance
to work in White House
. Clinton refuses to release any medical records, despite every other
presidential candidate in history having done so.
Clinton's admission of drug use though "didn't inhale."
Clinton's utensils picked-up when at a restaurant in England
White House appointee, Patsy Thomasson power of attorney to run Dan
Lassater's operation while he was in prison for cocaine distribution
Murder of Jerry Parks and theft of his records about cocaine and sex.
Arkansas Development Finance Authority
Jocelyn Elders

SHARLINE WILSON:" I lived in Little Rock, Arkansas, O.K.? And I worked
at a club called Le Bistro's, and I met Roger Clinton there, Governor
Bill Clinton, a couple of his state troopers that went with him
wherever he went. Roger Clinton had come up to me and he had asked me
could I give him some coke, you know, and asked for my one-hitter,
which a one-hitter is a very small silver device, O.K., that you stick
up into your nose and you just squeeze it and a snort of cocaine will
go up in there. And I watched Roger hand what I had given him to
Governor Clinton, and he just kinf of turned around and walked off."

Fiske (former attorney for BCCI and Clifford former head of BCCI and
former Defense Secretary) appointed as first Whitewater IC. Bill
Clinton "The investigation of Whitewater is being handled by an in
dependent special counsel, whose appointment I supported. Our
cooperation with that counsel has been total."

10/30/96 Investors Business Daily editorial "..A lot of testimony has
bubbled up. But is it credible? Sally Perdue, a former Miss Arkansas
and Little Rock talk show host who said she had an affair with
then-Gov. Clinton in 1983, told the London Sunday Telegraph that he
once came over to her house with a bag full of cocaine. ''He had all
the equipment laid out, like a real pro.'' Gennifer Flowers says she
saw Clinton smoke marijuana and carry joints with him when he first
began visiting her in 1977. Clinton was Arkansas' attorney general from
1977 through 1979. His first term as governor ran from 1979 through
1981. He was governor again from 1983 through 1992. Two Arkansas state
troopers have sworn under oath that they have seen Clinton ''under the
influence'' of drugs when he was governor. Sharlene Wilson is a
bartender who is serving time on drug crimes and has cooperated with
drug investigators. She told a federal grand jury she saw Clinton and
his younger brother ''snort'' cocaine together in 1979. Jack McCoy, a
Democratic state representative and Clinton supporter, told the Sunday
Telegraph that he could ''remember going into the governor's conference
room once and it reeked of marijuana.'' Historian Roger Morris, in his
book ''Partners in Power,'' quotes several law enforcement officials
who say they had seen and knew of Clinton's drug use. On a videotape
made in 1983-84 by local narcotics officers, Roger Clinton said during
a cocaine buy: ''Got to get some for my brother. He's got a nose like a
vacuum cleaner.'' One-time apartment manager Jane Parks claims that in
1984 she could listen through the wall as Bill and Roger Clinton, in a
room adjoining hers, discussed the quality of the drugs they were
taking. R. Emmett Tyrrell, editor of American Spectator magazine, has
tried to track down rumors that Clinton suffered an overdose at one
point. The incident supposedly occurred after the young politician lost
the governorship in 1980 and fell into an emotional tailspin. Tyrrell
asked emergency room workers at the University of Arkansas Medical
Center if they could confirm the incident. He didn't get a flat ''no''
from the hospital staff. One nurse said, ''I can't talk about that.''
Another said she feared for her life if she spoke of the matter. The
president himself has helped fuel suspicions of an overdose or some
other drug problem by refusing to make his full medical records
public..These mealy-mouthed explanations and non-denial denials are
mirrored in White House policies that were negligent or worse. The
Secret Service reports that more than 40 staffers brought in by Clinton
had such serious (and recent) drug problems that they had to enter a
special testing program for security reasons.."

7/18/96 AP "Some of the Clinton White House employees who were placed
in a special drug testing program had used cocaine and hallucinogens
and were originally denied White House security passes, Secret Service
agents testified Wednesday. The testing program was created as a
compromise so the new administration's workers could keep their jobs,
according to Arnold Cole, who supervised the Secret Service's White
House operations. "Initially, our response was that we denied them
passes," Cole background said in a deposition released by the House
Government Reform and Oversight Committee..But he was briefly
questioned about the drug issue, which came to light earlier this week,
saying that despite his agency's original concerns about the workers,
"at one point they did receive a pass." Asked who ultimately determined
whether workers who had recently used drugs would be suitable, he
answered: The issue "would be resolved at the highest levels" of the
White House. Another agent's deposition revealed the background checks
turned up use of hard drugs. "I have seen cocaine usage. I have seen
hallucinogenic usages, crack usages," said Jeffrey Undercoffer, when
asked to describe the types of drugs used by employees who were placed
in the special programs. The Associated Press reported Monday that 21
Clinton White House workers had been placed in the special testing
after their background checks indicated recent drug abuse."

Freeper Wright is right! 7/23/98 ".I DID receive an indication this
morning from another source which quotes an MD as saying that the
*problem* Clinton has is continuing.It'll come out in the end. DC
sources late last night who have seen hard evidence call the situation
*explosive*. "

Conspiracy Nation Vol 9 Num 06 ".To those who have read about Clinton's
early days, it is clear that he grew up in a dysfunctional environment
and that later he connected, at least tangentially, with the cocaine
sub-culture. According to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, writing in the
London Sunday Telegraph ("Clinton 'took cocaine while in office,'" July
17, 1994), Bill Clinton may have "engaged in regular use of cocaine and
marijuana during his rise to political prominence in Arkansas."
Evans-Pritchard bases his story, in part, on the testimony of Sally
Perdue, who claims to have had an affair with the then-Governor.
Clinton, on one occasion, is said to have had a bag of cocaine from
which he prepared a "line" on Perdue's living room table. Says Perdue:
"He had all the equipment laid out, like a real pro." .This editor has
had the pleasure of innumerable conversations with Sherman Skolnick.
While some may question how discerning Mr. Skolnick is regarding what
his various informants tell him, I myself know that he has
highly-placed sources with whom he is in regular contact. Some of these
sources are in the White House. The allegations of a specific "five
lines a day" Clinton cocaine habit were first conveyed to me by Sherman
Skolnick earlier this summer.."

7/23/98 Freeper Doug from Upland George Putnam Show "Remember the guy
who didn't inhale? Remember the guy who says he never violated American
drug laws? Remember the guy who tried it once but didn't like it?
Remember the guy who told that an MTV audience that if he had it to do
over again he would inhale? Remember the guy who told a NEW YORK TIMES
reporter a week before the 1996 election that he has never used
mind-altering drugs? Yes, we remember him. That is the same man who has
had to GO TO REHAB THREE TIMES FOR HIS COCAINE PROBLEM! . On the George
Putnam show today, Larry Nichols chronicled a meeting he was at with
Bill Clinton and Witt Stephens, brother of Jack Stephens. Larry says
that Witt told Clinton that they would give him 100K in support for
another run for the governorship (after he was defeated)but he had to
"dry out on the white stuff." Betsey Wright has admitted to Nichols
that on two other occasions Bill had to go to rehab for cocaine. In
discussing this with Nichols in the past, he has told me that he has
been unsuccessful in locating the place where Clinton was treated. He
believed it was somewhere in Minnesota. .."

7/23/98 Jon Dougherty USA Journal Onling "Information passed to a talk
radio program by a reporter for the USA Radio Network late Wednesday
night indicated that Secret Service agents testifying in a Grand Jury
hearing separate from the Lewinsky hearings have alleged drug use
within the White House. According to USA Radio correspondent Jack
Christy, the "bombshell" report was based on other information Christy
and others had been gathering on the issue to the agents' testimony
yesterday. "We are hearing allegations that what the Secret Service is
testifying about is drug use within the White House," Christy said
during a phone call to the George Putnam Show on KIEV-AM in
Seattle.Christy also said that the Secret Service agents which have
been compelled to testify before Ken Starr's grand jury "are decent,
honorable people, but they witnessed the president in a compromised
position." That, he said, put them in a very delicate situation.
Christy suggested that Starr's final report to Congress regarding his
four-year investigation will be "all inclusive," and that there may be
nothing left for legislators to do "except impeach the guy, unless he
resigns for medical reasons beforehand.""

10/31/96 Orange County Register. Letters To The Editor. "After reading
the letter to the president written by Eldon Griffiths in the Register
on Oct.17, I felt compelled to write a letter expressing my views on
Bill Clinton. I retired from the United States Secret Service as the
agent in charge of protection for the Los Angeles area immediately
after Clinton was elected president in 1992. The primary reason I
retired was because I had become disenchanted with the egotistical
arrogance of the Clinton staff and because I saw character flaws in
Clinton that I had not seen in the five past presidents I had protected
since 1970. His attention to image and style but lack of substance and
character was evident in private. He was the ultimate con man.The
accumulation of files on the American people and allowing "dopers" to
work as White House staff so offend me that I can no longer remain
silent. I just wish the American people felt values, substance, and
character were important. Ron Williams Huntington Beach "

Now, with the rumor that the Lewinsky matter will only be about 4% of
Starr's report and the knowledge that 300 pages of the report have
already been written, what kind of information regarding obstruction,
witness tampering, abuse of power will be put forward? And will this
story, seemingly ignored by the mass media and not followed up by the
Post, and up being the nail in the coffin? The New York Post 6/9/98
John Crudele "A KEY figure in the Arkansas financial community could
turn out to be Kenneth Starr's secret weapon in the investigation of
President Clinton. Sources say William McCord, who took over as head of
Lasater & Co. after Clinton friend Dan Lasater went to jail for drug
distribution, signed a plea agreement in May 1995 after being accused
of financing a massive gambling operation.McCord's closeness to Lasater
could fill in a lot of blanks for Starr. And McCord apparently has been
very willing to talk. In fact, he was so helpful to Starr and other
probers that the government asked an Arkansas court to reduce his
sentence.There is no indication in the plea-bargain - a copy of which
was recently found unsealed in an Arkansas courthouse - as to what
specific information McCord has provided. From his background, he could
be very helpful to Starr in the racketeering case he is fashioning
against the president. Starr's team of FBI investigators and
prosecutors has been putting together a case alleging Clinton used
financial institutions in Arkansas for his own benefit in a pattern of
organized corruption.Lasater's firm sold bonds for the state when it
needed to raise money for such projects. McCord purchased Lasater's
company soon after Lasater pleaded guilty in 1986 to one count of
conspiracy to distribute cocaine. He served six months of a 30-month
prison sentence before being pardoned by then-Gov. Clinton. When McCord
got into trouble with regulators in 1988, Lasater financed the sale of
the company, which McCord had renamed United Capital Corp., to a
concern that later became a partner of Lasater's. .If all McCord did
was give Starr information about how money was being diverted in
Arkansas, that would be a lot of trouble for the president. But if
McCord is able to connect Clinton in any way with Lasater's drug
dealings, the testimony would be devastating."

Washington Weekly 4/1/96 "On the weekend of September 21, 1991,
Arkansas State Police Investigator Russell Welch met with IRS
Investigator Bill Duncan to write a report on their investigation of
Mena drug smuggling and money laundering and send it to Iran-Contra
prosecutor Lawrence Walsh.. Returning to Mena on Sunday, Welch told his
wife that he didn't feel too well. He thought he had gotten the flu..In
Fort Smith a team of doctors were waiting. Dr. Calleton had called them
twice while Welch was in transport and they had been in contact with
the CDC. Later the doctor would tell Welch's wife that he was on the
edge of death. He would not have made it through the night had he not
been in the hospital. He was having fever seizures by now. A couple of
days after Welch had been admitted to St. Edwards Mercy Hospital, his
doctor was wheeling him to one of the labs for testing when she asked
him if he was doing anything at work that was particularly dangerous.
He told her that he had been a cop for about 15 years and that danger
was probably inherent with the job description. She told Welch that
they believed he had anthrax. She said the anthrax was the military
kind that is used as an agent of biological warfare and that it was
induced. Somebody had deliberately infected him. She added that they
had many more tests to run but they had already started treating him
for anthrax..Even though Welch and Duncan sent boxes of evidence to
Lawrence Walsh in Washington, Walsh never showed any interest in Mena
at all."

Wall Street Journal Micah Morrison 4/18/96 ".Linda Ives appears to be a
simple housewife-- born in 1949, graduated from Little Rock's McClellan
High School, and married to Larry Ives, an engineer on the Union
Pacific railroad. But her tale is one of the most Byzantine in all
Arkansas, involving the murder of her son and his friend, allegations
of air-dropped drugs connected to the Mena, Ark. airport, a series of
aborted investigations and, she believes, cover-ups by local, state,
and federal investigators. The case started nine years ago, when Bill
Clinton was governor of Arkansas. Today, with Mr. Clinton in the White
House, it is still rattling through the state, with one of the
principal figures making bizarre headlines in the local press as
recently as the last few weeks. Above all, the "train deaths" case
opens a window into the seamy world of Arkansas drugs. The bare facts
of the case are these: At 4:25 a.m. on Aug.23, 1987, a northbound Union
Pacific train ran over two teenagers, Kevin Ives and Don Henry, as they
lay side by side, motionless on the tracks. Arkansas State Medical
Examiner Fahmy Malak quickly ruled the deaths "accidental," saying the
boys were "unconscious and in deep sleep" due to smoking marijuana. "We
didn't know anything about marijuana at the time," Mrs. Ives says. But
when medical experts found the explanation implausible, "we really
began asking questions." The families held a press conference
challenging the ruling, which received wide publicity in Arkansas. This
in turn provoked an investigation by a local grand jury in Saline
County, a largely rural area between Little Rock and Hot Springs.
Ultimately the bodies were exhumed and another autopsy was performed by
outside pathologists. They found that Don Henry had been stabbed in the
back, and that Kevin Ives had been beaten with a rifle butt. In grand
jury testimony, lead pathologist Joseph Burton of Atlanta said the boys
"were either incapacitated, knocked unconscious, possibly even killed,
their bodies placed on the tracks and the train overran their bodies."
In September 1988, the grand jury issued a report stating, "Our
conclusions are that the case is definitely a homicide.". The results
of any continuing federal investigation touching on the Ives and Henry
deaths will be presented to Mr. Bank's successor as U.S. attorney for
the Eastern District. So Linda Ives' crusade will end up in the hands
of Ms. Casey, the longtime Clinton ally and campaign worker who recused
herself from Whitewater cases only after making several crucial
decisions. President Clinton appointed her U.S. attorney in Little Rock
in August 1993, shortly after his unprecedented demand for the
immediate resignation of all sitting U.S. attorneys. Mrs. Ives says she
is not optimistic about Ms. Casey. "But then," she adds, "it's not like
I'm going to go away, either."

Wall Street Journal 4/18/96 ".Bill Clinton's gubernatorial
administration assumed a role in the Ives and Henry case shortly after
Dr. Malak's marijuana-induced accidental death ruling. Dr. Malak, an
Egyptian-born physician appointed medical examiner during Mr. Clinton's
first term, already had been buffeted by a number of controversial
cases..But when the Saline County grand jury probing the case attempted
to subpoena the outside pathologists, Gov. Clinton balked. Betsy
Wright, his chief of staff, submitted an affidavit saying she did not
"know when the two pathologists will return to Little Rock" ..Two
months later, Gov. Clinton revived a long dormant state Medical
Examiner Commission to handle the Malak controversy. The panel was
headed up by the director of the Arkansas Department of Health,
Joycelyn Elders. In January 1989, the Medical Examiner Commission ruled
on the Malak case. There was "insufficient evidence at this time for
dismissal" of Dr. Malak, Dr. Elders announced. Nine months later, Gov.
Clinton introduced a bill to make the state more competitive in hiring
forensic pathologists--by giving Dr. Malak a $32,000 pay raise; the
state Legislature later cut the raise by half. Ms. Wright says the
salary was raised in anticipation of removing Dr. Malak and attracting
a new medical examiner. Dr. Malak was eased out of his job and given a
position as a Health Department consultant to Dr. Elders a month before
Gov. Clinton announced his presidential run.."

World Net Daily 9/22/98 David Bresnahan "As heads are still spinning
over sex, perjury, abuse of power and security scandals in the White
House, trained dogs brought in by the Secret Service detected drug use
in and around the Oval Office, sources tell WorldNetDaily. While
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr is said to be aware of the drug
problems in the White House, no mention of such problems were in his
report to Congress. But reports indicate as many as 25 percent of the
White House staff have a history of illegal drug use, say the sources..
Several sources have reported independently of each other that Monica
Lewinsky's dress not only had evidence of a sexual encounter with Bill
Clinton, but also traces of cocaine. "There was a significant amount of
cocaine residue," said one source close to the FBI. Another source with
ties to the White House Secret Service confirmed the allegations and
was astonished the Starr report does not mention more about the dress.
"The dress is not the only evidence Starr has regarding drugs in the
Oval Office," said the source.

London Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard 9/24/98 "IN THE interests of a
drug-free world it is perhaps time for Britain and other Western
democracies to consider banning President Clinton from visiting their
countries. After all, President Ernesto Samper of Colombia is now a
pariah because of allegations that he once accepted campaign funding
from the drug cartels - and it is hard to make the case that the
hapless Samper did anything the current incumbent of the White House
has not done himself. The allegations that Clinton dipped into the drug
trough while Governor of his own narco-banana-state in Arkansas are
equally persuasive.."

White House Press Briefing 10/6/98 Joe Lockhart ".MR. LOCKHART: I
don't. I can look into that. I really have no knowledge of how the
background investigations on Cabinet members -- I'm very familiar with
White House staff, who are all subject to an incoming drug test and
then random tests. Q Is the President tested for drugs? MR. LOCKHART:
No. Q He's not? MR. LOCKHART: No, not that I'm aware of. Q Why not?
(Laughter.) I mean, he's the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces,
shouldn't he be tested for drugs if the Armed Forces are tested? PJ,
what about that? (Laughter.) MR. LOCKHART: Next? (Laughter.).Q Joe,
getting back to this drug situation, why doesn't the President want to
be tested as a good example? I mean, Ronald Reagan certainly
volunteered. MR. LOCKHART: I'm just not aware of that or -- Q The whole
White House staff, you say, is tested for drugs -- MR. LOCKHART: Right.
Q -- but not the President. I'm astounded. Doesn't he want to be? MR.
LOCKHART: Well, I have had no discussion with him, nor do I think it's
a problem."

White House Briefing 10/9/98 Freeper report ".Q: Joe, does the White
House believe that it would be a seperation of powers were
Congress--which the Constitution, as you know,, says shall set the
rules for land and sea forces--if they were to pass a bill requiring
that the Commander-in-Chief of these forces be drug tested like all of
these forces and what you revealed as required of everybody at the
White House except the President? Mr. Lockhart: Thats an interesting
constitutional issue, and let me consult with constitutional experts,
and I'll come back to you. Q: What you did on the platform there. There
have been two columns written--one of them in the New York Post--that
deal with the President's firing of the White House doctor and a number
of other drugs and the President questions. And my question- Mr.
Lockhart: Excuse me, what White House doctor? Q: The first one, when he
came here--I believe it's Bell or-- he was fired because he wouldn't
inject something that they didn't tell him what it was. (laughter) Why
wouldn't the President, given all of this problem, wouldn't he be
willing to get this behind us by voluntarily being tested for drugs, as
President Reagan did? Mr. Lockhart: Again, let me look at the first
question and I'll come back to you. Q: When will you come back? Mr.
Lockhart: Maybe next week, maybe never. (laughter) next
please...(laughter)."

The New York Times 10/11/98 James Bennet " The investigations into
officials of the Clinton Administration continued to yield startling
tidbits. Two black members of President Clinton's cabinet said they had
to submit urine samples, apparently for drug testing, while two white
cabinet secretaries said they did not, according to testimony by Carol
E. Browner, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Ms.
Browner described the conversation while testifying in the trial of
Mike Espy, the former Agriculture Secretary, who had to submit a
sample. Commerce Secretary Ron Brown also gave one. Joe Lockhart, the
new White House press secretary, said drug-testing policy varied by
agency. White House staff members are tested, he said, but the
President is not.."

10/20/98 from Freeper quidam ".Dr. James Y. Suen, (Ethnic Chinese
believed first generation) Chairman of the department of Otolaryngology
(ear, nose and throat disorders) atGeorge Washington University. His
office number in Little Rock (501) 686-xxxx.(I have the real number)He
also is a practicing at the University Of Arkansas "University
Hospital"where WJC was reportedly treated for cocaine abuse (accounts
vary one to twooccasions) while he was Governor. Dr. Suen is suspected
of being the attendingphysician.He is recognized as an authority of on
Cancer of the Ear Nose and Throat and haspublished.He has performed
several operations on the President, on his throat, ears andnose. This
is relatively typical for someone that has had extensive nasal
traumadue to cocaine abuse. He has reportedly lost hearing due to an
opportunisticinfection in both ears after having had a "throat"
operation in Dec of 96. The infection lingered and (repeatedly
returned) and damaged the hearing in bothears. This led to WJC having
to have hearing aides installed in both ears in Octof 97. Wife is named
Karen, (also Chinese) they have both been able to stay in theLincoln
bedroom--- quidam."

12/15/98 John Crudele and Tom Golden ".Linda Tripp had another story
for Ken Starr that'll probably came out in her still-secret grand jury
testimony. She told the Independent Counsel about drug use in the White
House. Here's what we know that hasn't come out publicly yet. When
Tripp first surfaced with her gossip from inside the White House, she
was telling a story about drugs around the Oval Office. Nothing
specific. Nothing about Clinton himself. Just stories that drugs were
available in close proximity to where the President worked. Remember,
as a White House worker, Tripp was in a position to see and hear
things. She was, for instance, questioned extensively before Congress
about the circumstances surrounding Vince Foster's death and about a
note that was found in his briefcase. Tripp's story about drugs had
nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky.. At one point an Arkansas
investigator with a connection to Starr sent a handwritten note to
someone in the Little Rock office of the Independent Counsel that read:
``The name is Linda Tripp, not ....! Remember, drug use in the White
House. Please make sure this gets to the right person!`` The note was
signed with the first name of the investigator and was addressed to a
secretary in that office..The note was not dated and the investigator
is still unsure of when it was sent, although it probably was in
mid-1996. I have a copy of it. ..Starr's office was even given a second
heads-up on the drug accussations. After Tripp's name popped up in the
Lewinsky matter earlier this year, the investigator says he reminded
Starr's office about his earlier note. ``The first time, I called them
to make sure they had the name right,`` says the investigator. ``Then I
sent a note just to make sure they had the spelling and everything
correct.'' he recalls. ``You assume the information is in good hands.
But I called them again just to make sure it didn't slip through the
cracks.'' Starr's office won't comment. But in the past, both this
investigator and I have discussed aspects of the investigation as it
relates to drugs with sources close to the Independent Counsel..The
last time was when a source of mine said ``I wouldn't say we were
investigating drugs.`` He put a strange emphasis on the word
``investigating,'' which could have meant that there never was an
investigation, that he didn't like use of that word, or that it already
had been concluded. He didn't elaborate..."

WorldNet Daily 2/25/99 Joseph Farah "...One of the secrets of the
Clinton administration's success at staying in power has been to plot
such dastardly deeds that few Americans could even grasp their evil
intent. Right at the top of the list of such conspiracies -- now well
documented, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of WorldNetDaily
columnist Charles Smith -- is the Clipper Chip project. It involves all
of the following: a treasonous relationship with China, a plan to tap
every phone in America, drug money and, of course, the usual intrigue
of administration figures such as Webster Hubbell, Al Gore, Ron Brown,
Janet Reno and Clinton himself...The story starts in 1992 when AT&T
developed secure telephones untappable by the federal government. The
company planned to make them available to the American public. Instead,
the Clinton administration interceded and bought up all the phones with
a secret slush fund.... By 1994, White House aide John Podesta had been
called into the inner circle of the Clipper project. Meanwhile,
Podesta's brother, Tony, a lobbyist and fund-raiser was representing
AT&T. His donors and clients, including AT&T, were invited to
participate in trade trips to China and obtain valuable export deals
with Beijing...By 1996, Reno was urging the all-out federal takeover of
the computer industry and the banning of any encryption technology that
doesn't let the government in the back door. Interestingly, the first
target of the government's wiretap plan was its own Drug Enforcement
Administration. Hmmm. The Chinese sought information obtained from such
taps -- which may explain why Chinese drug lord Ng Lapseng gave as much
money to the Democratic National Committee as he did. It's no wonder
Reno didn't want to investigate the penetration of the DEA by the
Chinese. After all, Ng was photographed with her bosses, Bill and
Hillary Clinton at a DNC fund-raiser...."

Wall Street Journal 3/3/99 Micah Morrison "...Since drug smuggling at
Mena is established beyond doubt, a brief review of some facts seems in
order: Mena was a staging ground for Barry Seal, one of the most
notorious drug smugglers in history. He established a base at Mena in
1981, and according to Arkansas law-enforcement officials, imported as
much as 1,000 pounds of cocaine a month from Colombia. In 1984 he
became an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration, flying to
Colombia and gathering information about leaders of the Medellín
cartel. He testified in several high-profile cases, and was
assassinated in Baton Rouge, La., in 1986. Two investigators probing
events at Mena say they were closed down--William Duncan, a former
Internal Revenue Service investigator, and Russell Welch, a former
Arkansas State Police detective. They fought a decade-long battle to
bring events at Mena to light, pinning their hopes on nine separate
state and federal probes. All failed. And Messrs. Welch and Duncan were
stripped of their careers. In 1986, Dan Lasater, Little Rock bond daddy
and an important Clinton campaign contributor, pleaded guilty to
cocaine distribution. The scheme also involved Mr. Clinton's brother,
Roger. Both Mr. Lasater and Roger Clinton served brief prison terms.
Gov. Clinton later issued a pardon to Mr. Lasater. On Aug. 23, 1987,
teenagers Kevin Ives and Don Henry were run over by a northbound Union
Pacific train near Little Rock in an area reputed to be a haven for
drug smugglers.... In 1990 Jean Duffey, the head of a newly created
drug task force, began investigating a possible link between the train
deaths and drugs. Her boss, the departing prosecuting attorney for
Arkansas's Seventh Judicial District, gave her a direct order: "You are
not to use the drug task force to investigate public officials." In a
1996 interview with the Journal, Ms. Duffey said: "We had witnesses
telling us about low-flying aircraft and informants testifying about
drug pick-ups." Dan Harmon, who had earlier been appointed special
prosecutor for the train deaths, took office in 1991 as seventh
district prosecutor. Ms. Duffey was discredited, threatened, and
ultimately forced to flee Arkansas. In 1997, a federal jury in Little
Rock found Mr. Harmon guilty of five counts of drug dealing and
extortion, and sentenced him to eight years in prison for using his
office to extort narcotics and cash..."

News Dispatches 3/3/99 Rodger Schultz "...But there Palladino was,
scoping out Leach's Northwest Washington premises one evening as the
congressman arrived home in 1994. Palladino, a San Francisco private
detective who had been paid more than $100,000 by the Clinton campaign
in 1992 to deal with what Clinton intimate Betsey Wright called "bimbo
eruptions," quickly scurried away, and Leach never went public with
what he saw. But the House Banking Committee chairman privately told
colleagues the intended message was clear: You mess with us, we'll mess
with you...."

Wall Street Journal 4/15/97 Micah Morrison "...Mr. Harmon served as
prosecuting attorney for Arkansas's Seventh Judicial District from 1990
until his abrupt resignation in July 1996. Earlier, he had insinuated
himself as a volunteer investigator and later special prosecutor in the
controversial "train deaths" murder case of teenagers Kevin Ives and
Don Henry, unsolved since 1987. A federal grand jury charges that Mr.
Harmon (and two associates, Roger Walls and William Murphy) "operated
the Seventh Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney's Office as a
conduit to obtain monetary benefits to themselves and others, and to
participate and conceal criminal activities." The defendants are not
directly connected with President Clinton. However, the Harmon
indictment is the clearest charge yet that during Gov. Clinton's tenure
certain Arkansas law enforcement officials were dealing in drugs.... In
June 1991, then-U.S. Attorney Chuck Banks cleared Mr. Harmon, saying
there was "no evidence of drug-related misconduct by any public
official." Mrs. Ives is not impressed with the current indictment.
She's conducted a decade-long campaign over the airwaves, and lately
the Internet; her account was elaborated in a story on this page on
April 18, 1996. She charges that Mr. Harmon was at the murder scene and
that "high state and federal officials" had participated in a coverup.
"I firmly believe my son and Don Henry were killed because they
witnessed a drug drop by an airplane connected to the Mena drug
smuggling routes." She scornfully notes that the current indictment
only goes back to August 1991, two months after U.S. Attorney Banks
cleared Mr. Harmon in the earlier probe. "Are we to believe Dan Harmon
was clean in June, but dirty in August?"...Someone else who believes
Linda Ives is former Saline County Detective John Brown, who reopened
the case in 1993 and found a new witness he says saw Mr. Harmon on the
tracks the night the boys died. Detective Brown's work caught the
attention of the FBI's new top man in Little Rock, Special Agent I.C.
Smith. A storied figure in the bureau, Mr. Smith was sent to Little
Rock in August 1995 by Director Louis Freeh. The Harmon indictment is
part of a new interest in public corruption by investigators under Mr.
Smith and Ms. Casey...Earlier last week, Ms. Casey also indicted
Arkansas lawyer Mark Cambiano on 31 money laundering and conspiracy
counts. The indictment said the $380,000 Mr. Cambiano allegedly
laundered had come from a methaphetamine ring, and that $20,000 of it
went to the Democratic National Committee and $9,770 to President
Clinton's inaugural fund....

Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders suggested studying the legalization of
drugs - her son has been charged with felony drug violation

Eight days after Dr. Elders called for the legalization of drugs, the
Little Rock police issued a warrant for her son's arrest on drug
charges.

7/98 Online Progressive Review (4/96) ".The London Telegraph has
obtained some of the first depositions in ex-CIA contract flyer Terry
Reed's suit against Clinton's ex-security chief -- and now a high- paid
FEMA director -- Buddy Young. According to the Telegraph's Ambrose
Evans-Pritchard, "Larry Patterson, an Arkansas state trooper, testified
under oath this month that there were 'large quantities of drugs being
flown into the Mena airport, large quantities of money, large
quantities of guns.' The subject was discussed repeatedly in Clinton's
presence by state troopers working on his security detail, he alleged.
Patterson said the governor "had very little comment to make; he was
just listening to what was being said." Evans-Pritchard also reports
that Bill Duncan, an ex-IRS investigator, who has a 7,000-page computer
file on Mena, had his computer broken into in January 1995. His files
were tampered with but he doesn't know how badly. Terry Reed case
hamstrung by judge: Ex-CIA pilot Terry Reed's civil case that
threatened to expose details of the Mena arms and drug running
operation has been placed under extreme strictures by an Arkansas
judge. Judge George Howard says that no evidence can be submitted
concerning Mena, the CIA, Dan Lasater, the Arkansas Development Finance
Agency, and the Clintons. The ruling will likely be appealed.."

7/98 Online Progressive Review ".In another article Evans-Pritchard
tells the story of the seventh judicial district task force appointed
to investigate corruption among public officials in 1990: "It was
closed down when an informant, Sharlene Wilson, testified before a
federal grand jury that she had witnessed Governor Bill Clinton and
other key figures taking cocaine. Soon afterwards Wilson was charged
with minor drug dealing and sent to prison, although the US Supreme
Court has now ruled that her conviction was a clear case of entrapment.
The prosecutor in charge of the task force, Jeanne Duffey, was forced
into hiding, and eventually moved to Texas.."

House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Secret Service agent
Jeff Undercoffer testimony: "I have seen cocaine usage...I have seen
crack usages" reported in the FBI files of more than 40 White House
aides. They were given temporary security clearance despite objections
from the Secret Service.

There has been a 38% increase in the use of cocaine among the young in
just the last four years according to statements made before Hatch's
committee.

According to Arkansas Supreme Court 5/17/93, Sam L. Anderson Jr. was
the attorney for - and cocaine distribution co-conspirator with Roger
Clinton (Clinton's half brother) - Count I of Anderson's conviction
involved Roger Clinton and said: "On or about November, 1983 [***5] and
continuing through the end of February, 1984, SAM ANDERSON, JR., the
defendant herein, did knowingly and wilfully combine, conspire,
confederate and agree with Roger Clinton to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation of
Title 21 United States Code, Section 841(a)(1)."

Clinton: "My brother nearly died from a cocaine habit and I've asked
myself a thousand times: what kind of fool was I that I did not know
that this was going on?" he said. "How did this happen that I didn't
see this coming and didn't stop it?"

In 1984 Gov. Clinton's brother, Roger, was arrested for cocaine
possession while working at menial jobs for Little Rock "bond daddy"
Dan Lasater, a major Clinton supporter. The next year, Lasater's
company was awarded a $30 million state bond-underwriting contract.
Then in 1986, Lasater was convicted on conspiracy to possess and
distribute cocaine. Roger Clinton, in a plea deal with prosecutors,
testified against him. Both men serve relatively brief jail sentences.
While Dan Lasater is in jail, his business was run by Patsy Thomasson,
who later became a Clinton White House aide. After serving part of a
30-month sentence on federal charges, Lasater was given a state pardon
by Gov. Clinton.

Clinton halted drug testing for White House staff in 2/93

7/98 Online Progressive Review ".When Clinton was inaugurated, Arkansas
Governor Jim Guy Tucker came to Washington to see his old boss sworn
in. That left the state under the control of the president pro tem of
the senate, Little Rock dentist Jerry Jewell. Jewell used his power as
acting governor to issue a number of pardons, one of them for a
convicted drug dealer, Tommy McIntosh. The pardons were a big subject
of controversy in Arkansas and not the least of the questions was: how
did McIntosh get included? Enter Robert "Say" McIntosh, father of
Tommy, and a colorful political activist. According to the Washington
Times, many in the state "say it was a political payoff, offered in
exchange for dirty tricks Mr. McIntosh played on Clinton political
opponents during the presidential campaign, or as a payoff for stopping
his attacks on Mr. Clinton." It seems that the elder McIntosh had
worked for Clinton in his last state campaign and, according to
McIntosh in a 1991 lawsuit, the governor had agreed not only to pay him
$25,000 but to help him market his recipe for sweet potato pie and to
pardon his son. He also alleged that Clinton expected McIntosh's help
in covering up a trail of sexual indiscretions. McIntosh dropped his
lawsuit a month after Clinton was elected president and, he claims,
after the president-elect agreed to get his son out of jail. . The
younger McIntosh was released 18 years before he was eligible for
parole. ."

Randall Terry Radio Broadcast Interview 5/1/96 Interview with Jean
Duffey "...Jean Duffey headed a drug task force for the law enforcement
community in Arkansas. Duffey and three other law enforcement agents
have come forward in a new video called "Obstruction of Justice: The
Mena Connection." The video deals with the murders of two boys and
their connection with drug money. All four law enforcement agents came
from different agencies. All of them met with stonewalling and
opposition from highly placed officials....Randall Terry: ...The clear
implication of the video is that Dan Harmon and other law enforcement
agents murdered these boys. Jean Duffey: Well, that's absolutely
correct. Randall Terry: You're not a crackpot - you're involved in law
enforcement. There are other law enforcement [officers] in the film,
all risking life and limb and future careers to say things against some
very powerful people. You really believe that these boys were murdered
by law enforcement agents? Jean Duffey: I don't think there's any doubt
about it. And I believe the law enforcement agents were connected to
some very high political people because they have never been brought to
justice and I don't think they ever will be. I think they are protected
to avoid exposing the connection...Randall Terry: Explain to the
listeners who Dan Harmon was at the time and who he is now. Jean
Duffey: At the time he was a person who was in and out of politics in
Saline County. He had been a judge. He had been a prosecutor and, at
the time the boys were murdered, he was in private practice. After they
were murdered, he approached the parents of the two boys and [offered]
his services to find out who had murdered the two boys. And he was
subsequently appointed to be special prosecutor to head a county grand
jury. Now for years the parents thought that Dan Harmon was trying to
solve their murders, but later found out that he had very wisely put
himself into a position of not only orchestrating the coverup, but
being in the position of controlling the information that came in and
the information that went out. Randall Terry: Well, it's worse than
that. People who came forward and said that they had information on
these murders ended up getting murdered, themselves. Jean Duffey: There
have been several murders of potential witnesses. Anyone who could have
solved this murder many years ago has been systematically eliminated.
Randall Terry: What did these boys see that was so critical that they
were murdered that night - that the third boy who was with them, and
then escaped - who ran away, was tracked down and murdered a year later
- what was so critical to this whole process that all these people had
to be killed? It's just - it sounds crazy! Jean Duffey: It really does.
I've been called crazy before - that's for sure...."

AP 3/16/99 "... An undercover probe into Mexican drug trafficking was
shut down by the Clinton Administration even as U.S. Customs agents
were looking at Mexico's defense minister as a suspect, The New York
Times reported today. The agents were mystified by the decision to end
the investigation on schedule rather than extend it to explore
information involving the top-level official, particularly in view of
intelligence reports "pointing to corruption at the highest levels of
the Mexican military,'' the Times said. According to The Times, the
agents had learned from drug-trade bankers in early 1998 that certain
"clients'' wanted to launder $1.15 billion in illegal funds, and "the
most important'' of them was Mexico's defense minister, Gen. Enrique
Cervantes. Although the information was passed to Washington, "no
further effort was ever made'' to investigate Cervantes' alleged role,
and prosecutors did not even raise the subject with traffickers who had
pleaded guilty and were cooperating with the government in the case,
the Times said. The decision was sharply questioned by William F.
Gately, identified by The Times as a former senior Customs agent, now
retired, who ran the undercover operation. "Why are we sitting on this
type of information? It's either because we're lazy, we're stupid or
the political will doesn't exist to engage in the kind of investigation
where our law enforcement efforts might damage our foreign policy,''
Gately said... Senior administration officials maintained the decision
to end the inquiry was based on security, not concern about foreign
policy, the Times said...."

NY Post online 6/3/99 Richard Johnson Page Six "...BILL Clinton's
penchant for triangulation dates back to his Oxford days - when he
allegedly bedded two women at the same time. Clinton nemesis
Christopher Hitchens - who was dating one of the women at the time -
revealed the romp during a panel discussion at a recent Los Angeles
book fair..... Earlier in the day, Hitchens offered his own take on why
our artful dodger can honestly claim he "never inhaled" marijuana while
at Oxford. In those days, said Hitchens, everyone was baking pot into
brownies and cookies. Clinton, he tells his audience, was known as "a
cookie-guzzling goof-off." Hitchens, who was a student at Oxford when
Clinton was a Rhodes scholar there, denounced liberals who have
romanticized the President as a product of '60s idealism. "If he had
been an extremist," says Hitchens, "I would have known him." But the
two men never crossed paths."..."

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover.shtml 7/27/99 Carl Limbacher "...An
Arkansas parole board has recommended early prison release for Sharlene
Wilson, the onetime Little Rock drug dealer who told a federal grand
jury in 1990 that she witnessed then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton use
cocaine on multiple occasions. ....Wilson has been incarcerated for
most of the Clinton presidency as part of what many believe is a
political vendetta by Clinton allies in his home state, who fear she
knows too much about the Mena drug-running scandal. Wilson now resides
at the Grimes-McPherson correctional facility in Newport, Arkansas. The
federal drug probe witness testified that she began selling cocaine to
Clinton's brother Roger as early as 1979. Wilson has told reporters
that she sold two grams of cocaine to Clinton's brother at the Little
Rock nightclub Le Bistro, then witnessed Bill Clinton consume the drug.
"I watched Bill Clinton lean up against a brick wall," Wilson revealed
to the London Telegraph's Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in 1995. "He must
have had an adenoid problem because he casually stuck my tooter up his
nose. He was so messed up that night, he slid down the wall into a
garbage can and just sat there like a complete idiot." Wilson also
described gatherings at Little Rock's Coachman's Inn between 1979 and
1981, where she saw Clinton using cocaine "quite avidly" with friends.
An Arkansas Police video shows Roger Clinton telling one cocaine
dealer, "Got to get some for my brother. He's got a nose like a vacuum
cleaner."...."

AP 7/30/99 George Gedda "...A retired Army general joined Thursday with
House Republicans in warning that the phase-out of the U.S. military
presence in Panama could be a boon to South American narcotraffickers.
``Panama is critical to counterdrug efforts,'' said retired Gen. George
A. Joulwan, who once led all U.S. military operations in Latin America.
Testifying before the House International Relations Committee, Joulwan
said losing the U.S. military infrastructure in Panama will affect the
U.S. ability to prosecute the war on drugs. Under the Panama Canal
treaties, the United States has until the end of the year to terminate
all military operations in Panama -- a process that is well under way.
Committee chairman Benjamin Gilman, R-N.Y., said the authors of the
1979 pact ``could not have foreseen neighboring Colombia's drug-fueled
agony, nor the sophistication of the drug cartels' corrupting criminal
reach.'' Gilman said it was a mistake for the United States to have put
itself in the position of closing Howard Air Force Base, from which
15,000 military flights had taken off annually. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,
R-Calif., said Panama has no army, navy or air force with which to
combat ``the well-armed narcoterrorist forces'' in Colombia In
addition, he said the Panama Canal, instead of reverting to Panamanian
control as prescribed under the treaties, ``is now in the hands of
communist China,'' saying numerous entities with close ties to China's
People's Liberation Army are very active in Panama...."

Associated Press 8/6/99 George Gedda "...House International Relations
Committee chairman Benjamin Gilman said today the Clinton
administration's failure to get high-performance helicopters to
Colombia is ``directly responsible for the massive heroin crisis'' on
the U.S. East Coast. Gilman, R-N.Y., commented in testimony prepared
for a hearing of a House Government Reform subcommittee.....He said
Congress appropriated funds in 1996 to purchase over 30 new long-range,
high-altitude helicopters for the Colombian National Police for
eradication of opium poppy fields. But, he said, only two have been
delivered. Gilman added that heroin-related deaths and overdoses in the
United States ``could have and should have been eradicated at the
source'' years ago...."

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover.shtml 8/6/99 "...Flowers gave her
shocking account to Inside Cover during an exclusive appearance Friday
afternoon on Sean Hannity's WABC talk radio show in New York, where the
onetime Clinton confidante answered an array of probing questions on
topics considered taboo in other news venues. INSIDE COVER: Ms.
Flowers, (former Clinton girlfriend) Sally Perdue says that Bill
Clinton used drugs in her presence, specifically cocaine. Did you ever
see Bill Clinton use drugs in your presence? FLOWERS: Yes. He smoked
marijuana in my presence and offered me the opportunity to snort
cocaine if I wanted to. I wasn't into that. Bill clearly let me know
that he did cocaine. And I know people that knew he did cocaine. He did
tell me that when he would use a substantial amount of cocaine that his
head would itch so badly that he would become self conscious at parties
where he was doing this. Because all he wanted to do while people were
talking to him is stand around and scratch his head. ...."

The New Australian No 129 8/9-15/99 James Henry "...Sometime in the
mid-fifties Kruschev presided over a secret meeting of Warsaw Pact
officials. It was there that he revealed the intention of the Soviet
Union to encourage the drug trade as part of its war of subversion
against the US.... However, the Sino-Soviet split saw Beijing pursue an
independent drugs campaign against the US.... There is no doubt that
the main motive for Clinton's bombing of Serbia was to drive his
scandals out of the media. However, the end of the campaign witnessed a
curious turn of events which would have probably escaped a great deal
of attention if they had remained in isolation. Let's take a look at a
few facts that the Clinton networks have chosen to ignore. Germany's
Federal Criminal Agency reports that Albania is the center of Europe's
heroin trade and also acts as a conduit to the US. Of particular
interest is that the trade is under the virtual control of the KLA
leadership, formerly considered by the State Department to be a
terrorist organisation, until Clinton decided otherwise. Not only does
the leadership have strong links to Islamic terrorists it is also noted
for (surprise, surprise) its anti-Western pro-Beijing views....Not only
is Clinton's decision in danger of turning Kosovo into a drug lord's
mandate it might also create a beachhead in Europe for Middle East
terrorists. ....We now come to Colombia which produces 66 percent of
the heroine and about 80 percent of the cocaine that enters the US. For
30 years Marxist-Leninist guerillas have been waging a vicious war to
turn the country into a Marxist totalitarian state. These Guerrilla's
have now formed an alliance with the drug lords, enabling them to use
drug money while waging their own drug war against the capitalist US.
Clinton's response to these drug-running terrorists was to unofficially
send Peter Romero to meet with them and formulate a peace plan. The
so-called peace plan involved handing half the country over to the
communist guerrillas and allowing them to keep both their arms and the
drugs trade. What kind of treaty would hand over half a country to a
pack of Marxist totalitarians...What gives here? Is Clinton planning on
doing to Colombia what a Democrat-controlled Congress did to South
Vietnam? A few CIA and the State Department officials have already
arrived at that conclusion. As for Romero, Clinton's nominee for
Assistant Secretary of State, believe it or not, the best that can be
said of him is that he has criminal-like lack of judgement....".

Capitol Hill Blue 8/10/99 Bruce Sullivan "...The chairman of the House
International Relations Committee says that President Clinton is guilty
of "benign neglect at best and gross dereliction at worst" in his
handling of an escalating guerilla war in Colombia, which is financed
almost entirely by the Latin American country's coca crop. "Illicit
drugs are directly linked to the growing strength and aggressiveness of
the narco-guerillas, who today threaten Colombia's very survival as a
viable democracy," Rep. Ben Gilman, (R-NY), told CNSNews.com.Last week,
Clinton's director of drug control policy, Gen. Barry McCaffrey,
appeared before Gilman's committee and testified that another $1
billion in emergency funds may be needed for Colombian
counter-narcotics efforts, in addition to $289 million already
allocated this year. "The United States has paid inadequate attention
to a serious and growing emergency in the region," said McCaffrey. Two
Marxist guerilla groups - the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
(FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN) - have gained control of
40 percent of Colombia, and virtually all of the land used for the
cultivation of coca and poppy, the raw ingredients for cocaine and
heroin. Meanwhile, the U.S. is abandoning Howard Air Force Base in
Panama, a move that Gilman called "hasty" and "not appropriate."..."

FoxNews AP 8/10/99 "...A Colombian arrested for drug trafficking last
year may be the first alleged cocaine boss extradited to the United
States in a decade, prosecutors said Tuesday. Extradition proceedings
are under way for Alberto Orlandez Gamboa, a former Caribbean coast
cartel chief who allegedly has smuggled tons of cocaine to Europe and
the United States since 1991, deputy chief prosecutor Jaime Cordoba
said. Gamboa, alias "The Snail,'' was arrested in June and jailed in
Bogota. Police were not fooled by hair implants on his formerly balding
head....The new law overturned a previous ban on extradition, written
into Colombia's 1991 constitution. But the lack of retroactivity in the
new law protects the drug lords most desired by U.S. prosecutors, the
jailed former heads of the now-defunct Cali cocaine cartel...."

Los Angeles Times 8/10/99 "...Colombia is in trouble. Every day, on
average, 10 Colombians are killed in political violence--mostly,
according to the U.S. State Department, by right-wing paramilitary
groups. Drug production is growing at an alarming pace, with coca
cultivation having doubled from 1995 to 1998. Meanwhile, the economy
has gone into a deep recession. The mounting political and military
instability poses problems for Colombia's neighbors. Peru's President
Alberto Fujimori has blistered his Colombian counterpart, Andres
Pastrana, for trying to negotiate peace with the left-wing guerrillas
who control half of the country, while Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has
declared his neutrality on Colombia's conflict with the guerrillas, all
but legitimizing the rebels. The violence has spilled into Ecuador,
with Colombian guerrillas kidnapping Ecuadorean businessmen and
Colombian paramilitary members killing politicians....."

Dallas Morning News 8/10/99 Tod Robberson "...Panama is willing to
reopen talks with the United States regarding the use of its territory
for American military and counternarcotics operations, the incoming
foreign minister said Monday. Foreign minister-designate Jose Miguel
Aleman said the government of President-elect Mireya Moscoso, who will
take office Sept. 1, wants to take a fresh look at the issue of U.S.
military access once the 1979 Panama Canal treaties are fully
implemented at the end of this year. The incumbent government of
President Ernesto Perez Balladares has categorically rejected the idea
of any extended U.S. military presence and has demanded the full
withdrawal of all U.S. military personnel from Panama by Dec. 31, as
required under the canal treaties. U.S. officials acknowledge that the
loss of access to Panama, home to Howard Air Force Base, the region's
top counternarcotics surveillance outpost, has put a crimp in American
anti-drug efforts. Although Howard is still operating, its
counternarcotics flights have been transferred to other sites in
Ecuador, Aruba and Curacao. Panama, which has no military, is described
by U.S. officials as increasingly vulnerable to drug traffickers and
guerrilla incursions from its southern neighbor, Colombia, the largest
single source of cocaine and heroin sold in the United States...."

The Center For Security Policy 8/13/99 "...: Over the past two nights,
Dan Rather, reporting from Colombia, has capped off the CBS Evening
News with a stark wake-up call: The United States is becoming
increasingly embroiled in the narcotics-underwritten mayhem that is
engulfing that Central American nation, putting vast quantities of
drugs on this country's streets and threatening to destabilize
Colombia's region from Brazil to Mexico. The Shape of Things to Come As
the CBS broadcast of 11 August put it: "Very rapidly in recent weeks,
the following things have happened -- it appears suddenly -- to put
Colombia very much on Washington's radar screen: First, the crash of a
US military reconnaissance plane that killed five Americans on an
anti-drug mission last month. Two of the bodies were returned today.
Then, the sudden arrival of the Clinton administration's drug czar,
Barry McCaffrey, who, in a reversal of policy, called for up to $1
billion to be spent fighting what he now calls narco-guerrillas....The
highest level talks in Bogota in a decade were held this week between
U.S. and Colombian officials. That reflects general confidence in the
new Colombian government, but also alarm over the fact that an
estimated 40 percent of the country is already in rebel hands. "There
is also a growing fear, even among government officials, that the
crisis in Colombia could spread to the surrounding countries. These
nations, many of which are newly established democracies, including
Ecuador, Peru, Brazil and possibly even Venezuela and Panama, can not
afford to have their fragile democracies wrecked by insurgents as is
happening in Colombia."....To what extent is the Clinton Administration
putting at risk sensitive "sources and methods" of intelligence as part
of its reported program of providing Colombia with real-time
intelligence? The Administration has repeatedly seen
intelligence-sharing as a technique for endearing itself to those like
Russia, the UN, Cuba and the PLO that are more likely to use such
information against the United States and its vital interests than be
constructively influenced by this practice.(3) Under its current
president, Andres Pastrana, the Colombian government may be less prone
to such behavior than other beneficiaries of what the Clinton team
seems to regard as noblesse oblige. Given that government's history of
corruption, the suborning influence of drug operatives and the
incompetence of the Colombian military, however, it is not unreasonable
to question whether American intelligence will be compromised by the
narco-guerrillas, or even foreign governments with whom they have ties
that are hostile the United States. ..."

Washington Post 8/14/99 "...U.S. officials are investigating between
six and eight embassy employees and dependents in Colombia to determine
whether they used the mission's postal system to smuggle illegal drugs
or other contraband to the United States, according to knowledgeable
sources in Washington and Bogota.... The new inquiries were triggered
during a follow-up review of embassy mailing records and have not led
to criminal charges. But U.S. officials described the inquiries as
particularly embarrassing, because Colombia produces 80 percent of the
world's cocaine and most of the $289 million in annual U.S. aid to the
South American country goes to combat drug trafficking. ...."

http://www.nypostonline.com/news/1442.htm 8/15/99 Brian Blomquist
"...Immigration inspectors at JFK and Newark airports fear that
hundreds of criminals have entered the country through New York since
March, when the FBI cut off access to its database. "It's open season.
The doors are open," one port inspector at JFK told The Post. "We no
longer check for criminal aliens. We don't have the tools to do it. We
can't stop them if they want to come in." Officials with the
Immigration and Naturalization Service said that, until March, they
routinely used the FBI criminal database to screen all foreign
passengers on incoming overseas flights. But then, on orders from FBI
Director Louis Freeh, the inspectors were told that their access was
cut off. They could use the FBI database for specific criminal cases,
but not for widespread screening. The border inspectors were getting
about 150 "hits" per month with the FBI system, INS officials said. A
"hit" is when the database matches a passenger's name with the name of
a known criminal. Inspectors say they're "crippled" without the FBI
system. They say they've caught "thousands of criminals [mostly drug
dealers] and inadmissible aliens" and "hundreds of aggravated felons"
in the two years they were getting into FBI computers. Now, one
inspector said, "Unless a non-citizen has cocaine falling out of his
bag, we have no way of knowing if he's a criminal." The INS inspectors
do have access to the State Department's computer to check for
terrorists. FBI officials say their dispute with the INS boils down to
protecting civil liberties. They note that inspectors never were
supposed to be using the FBI criminal database in the first place...."

NewsMax.com 8/12/99 Carl Limbacher "...The Washington Post's Howard
Kurtz has been fully briefed on what Gennifer Flowers had to say Friday
about President Clinton and cocaine. Inside Cover contacted Kurtz
Wednesday morning to share Flowers' recorded account of Clinton's
cocaine use, after the Post writer ignored the issue in a lengthy
screed about completely unsubstantiated rumors that George W. Bush had
used the drug. On Wednesday the Post writer seemed to be trying to
legitimize the unsourced Bush rumors with a report headlined, "Drug
Use: A Campaign Issue in the Making." Despite Kurtz's inability to
produce a single account from anyone saying that they'd either seen or
heard of Bush using cocaine, Post editors felt Kurtz' story was
newsworthy enough to warrant primetime exposure on page A02. ....Though
the topic has been in play for lttle more than a month, the press has
now queried Bush directly on the as yet unfounded charge more
frequently than President Clinton has been challenged on the "R"
question..... The Washington Post, along with the rest of the
mainstream media, has assiduously avoided asking Clinton the "C"
question, despite published accounts from four people who claim to have
either seen him use cocaine or report circumstances where Clinton's use
of the drug was plainly obvious. A fifth, former Little Rock drug
dealer Sharline Wilson, gave her sworn eyewitness account of Clinton's
cocaine use to a federal grand jury in 1990. Kurtz wrote, "An admission
of having tried cocaine, the focus of major federal anti-drug
initiatives and much inner-city violence, could be more problematic"
than a confession about using marijuana. The President has admitted to
illegal marijuana use in England after first telling reporters who
asked about drugs, "I've never broken the laws of my country." After
Clinton's classic marijuana obfuscation, mainstream reporters dropped
further inquiries about Clinton's drug use. In a bit of unintended
irony, the Post writer noted, "Questions about the personal lives of
candidates.....are often triggered by specific allegations, such as
when Gennifer Flowers charged in 1992 that she had a long-running
affair with candidate Bill Clinton." What about Flowers' specific
allegation, just delivered on Friday, regarding Clinton's cocaine use?
Hasn't that news reached the Washington Post yet? Inside Cover played
the following tape recorded exchange into Mr. Kurtz answering machine
Wednesday morning: INSIDE COVER: Ms. Flowers, Sally Perdue says that
Bill Clinton used drugs in her presence, specifically cocaine. Did you
ever see Bill Clinton use drugs in your presence? FLOWERS: Yes. He
smoked marijuana in my presence and offered me the opportunity to snort
cocaine if I wanted to. I wasn't into that. Bill clearly let me know
that he did cocaine. And I know people that knew he did cocaine. He did
tell me that when he would use a substantial amount of cocaine that his
head would itch so badly that he would become self conscious at parties
where he was doing this. Because all he wanted to do while people were
talking to him is stand around and scratch his head...."

WorldNetDaily 8/19/99 J R Nyquist "... Mexico's top drug trafficking
cartel, run by the Arellano Felix brothers in Tijuana, is working
closely with the Chinese. According to Jamie Dettmer, writing in the
August 23 issue of Insight magazine, ships arriving in Mexico from
China may contain "more than illegal immigrants." The Chinese are
pumping people and supplies into Mexico, and the cargo is considered so
sensitive that it is "often under the apparent protection of Chinese
and Mexican naval vessels." American authorities are helpless, as
usual, to block this strategic smuggling operation on our southwest
border. America is helpless because President Clinton will not support
improved border controls, and he won't get tough with the Mexican
government. Clinton's immigration policy can be characterized as
appeasement of the Mexicans, appeasement of the Chinese and a "who
cares?" attitude....."

The Washington Weekly 4/6/98 Michael Levine Laura Kavanau-Levine "...As
an ex-DEA agent I found the complete lack of coverage by mainstream
media of what I saw during last month's congressional hearings into CIA
Drug Trafficking both depressing and frightening. I sat gape-mouthed as
I heard the CIA Inspector General testify that there has existed a
secret agreement between CIA and the Justice Department, wherein
"during the years 1982 to 1995, CIA did not have to report the drug
trafficking by its assets to the Justice Department." To a trained DEA
agent this literally means that the CIA had been granted a license to
obstruct justice in our so-called war on drugs; a license that lasted,
so the CIA claims, from 1982 to 1995, a time during which Americans
paid almost $150 billion in taxes to "fight" drugs..... This might also
explain Janet Reno's recent and unprecedented move in blocking the
release of a Justice Department investigation into CIA drug
trafficking.....One of the most distressing things for me as a
25-year-veteran of this business to listen to was when Congresswoman
Waters said that the hearings were not about CIA officers being
indicted and going to jail. "That is not going to happen," she said.
Almost in the same breath she spoke of a recent case in Miami wherein a
Venezuelan National Guard general was caught by Customs agents
smuggling more than a ton of cocaine into the US. Despite named CIA
officers being involved in the plot, as Congresswoman Waters stated,
the Justice Department will not tell her anything about the case
because of "secrecy laws." No wonder chairman Goss was snickering. She
could not have played more neatly into CIA hands than to surrender
before the battle was engaged..."

>From the Clinton's Dealings with Women Up Close and Personal Section

Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault

WorldNetDaily.com 8/9/99 "...Gennifer Flowers, long-time girlfriend to
Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, has reiterated that she believes the
president is capable of murder and that she suspects he is responsible
for at least some of the many mysterious deaths associated with him in
recent years. New York's WABC radio talk show host Sean Hannity asked
Flowers last Friday about her statements on Chris Matthews' CNBC
"Hardball" program that implied she believed Clinton was behind the
killings of some who threatened his political career. Specifically,
Hannity asked Flowers if she believed the president was directly
involved. "I believe that, that's very possible. ... I'm not saying
that Bill necessarily picked up the phone and placed an order," she
added. "He perhaps may have had a discussion with some of his
operatives and made known his wishes. Perhaps by not even using the
words but making it clear to them what he wanted accomplished. ... I
think, knowing Bill the way I know Bill, that he generally has a pretty
good handle on what's going on around him and who's doing what, and
when they're doing it and why they're doing it." .....Hannity asked
Flowers about a report that San Francisco private detective Jack
Palladino, who was paid $110,000 by Clinton's 1992 campaign to suppress
what then-Clinton Chief of Staff Betsey Wright described as "bimbo
eruptions," had grilled her friend Loren Kirk on whether Flowers was
"the type to commit suicide." "Yes, she told me about that," said
Flowers. "Several people called me and told me that they had been
approached by Palladino. And they gave me a run down of the things that
he had said, the questions he had asked, his demeanor." "So it wasn't
just Loren Kirk who relayed that question to you?" asked Hannity. "Oh,
no," she said. "It was many, many people. That was a very common
question that he asked of every one of them." "That's bizarre," said
Hannity. ....."You know, I have been in fear for my life, I had been in
fear for my safety before my story became public; a few months before
and certainly since then," Flowers told Hannity. "And I think you would
agree with me that all of the women that have come forth and told their
story about whatever type of relationship they had with Bill Clinton,
all have said that they have been threatened." Flowers said that just
before her name became public in January 1992, her home was entered and
ransacked. She added: "Whoever that was had a key to my home." Flowers
also told Hannity that Clinton had offered her cocaine while serving as
governor of Arkansas...."

Kurtz wrote, "An admission of having tried cocaine, the focus of major
federal anti-drug initiatives and much inner-city violence, could be
more problematic" than a confession about using marijuana. The
President has admitted to illegal marijuana use in England after first
telling reporters who asked about drugs, "I've never broken the laws of
my country." After Clinton's classic marijuana obfuscation, mainstream
reporters dropped further inquiries about Clinton's drug use. In a bit
of unintended irony, the Post writer noted, "Questions about the
personal lives of candidates.....are often triggered by specific
allegations, such as when Gennifer Flowers charged in 1992 that she had
a long-running affair with candidate Bill Clinton."

What about Flowers' specific allegation, just delivered on Friday,
regarding Clinton's cocaine use? Hasn't that news reached the
Washington Post yet? Inside Cover played the following tape recorded
exchange into Mr. Kurtz answering machine Wednesday morning: INSIDE
COVER: Ms. Flowers, Sally Perdue says that Bill Clinton used drugs in
her presence, specifically cocaine. Did you ever see Bill Clinton use
drugs in your presence? FLOWERS: Yes. He smoked marijuana in my
presence and offered me the opportunity to snort cocaine if I wanted
to. I wasn't into that. Bill clearly let me know that he did cocaine.
And I know people that knew he did cocaine. He did tell me that when he
would use a substantial amount of cocaine that his head would itch so
badly that he would become self conscious at parties where he was doing
this. Because all he wanted to do while people were talking to him is
stand around and scratch his head...."

GENNIFER FLOWERS: PASSION and BETRAYAL published by Emery Dalton Books
G Flowers 8/23/99 "...Just about anything Bill did was okay with me. I
wasn't about to criticize him for fear of creating distance between us.
so when he casually put his hand in his pants pocket and puled out a
joint one night, I was startled but kept silent. I thought how foolish
it was of him to carry marijuana around, but it was typical of his
bulletproof attitude. He felt comfortable enough to continue smoking
marijuana occasionally when he was with me. I didn't object. By the
way, he most certainly did inhale. I never saw him use cocaine, but he
talked about it. He complained about how cocaine really had a bad
effect on him. It didn't stop him from using it, though. He told me
about a party he had been to, and said, "I got so f----- up on cocaine
at that party." He said it made his scalp itch, and he felt conspicuous
because he was talking with people who were not aware drugs were at the
party, and all he wanted to do was scratch his head. He was afraid if
he continued to walk around scratching his head, people would think
something more serious than dandruff was going on with him....."

Washington Times 8/24/99 Andrew Cain "....President Clinton entered the
cocaine fray yesterday -- albeit by proxy -- saying he has never used
the drug. Gennifer Flowers, who had an affair with the president, told
Fox News Channel on Aug. 18 that Mr. Clinton once told her he had used
cocaine. "The president has never done cocaine," said Jim Kennedy, a
spokesman for the White House counsel's office. "That applies to his
entire life." As Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush tries
to fend off questions about past drug use, Mr. Clinton addressed a
rumor that has swirled about him for years. In Roger Morris' 1996 book
"Partners in Power," a dual biography of the president and first lady
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Morris quotes the president's younger
half-brother on a 1983-84 surveillance film stating, "Got to get some
[cocaine] for my brother. He's got a nose like a vacuum cleaner."
....As for Mr. Clinton, Miss Flowers said in an interview on the Fox
program "Hannity & Colmes" that Mr. Clinton had smoked marijuana in her
presence as attorney general and as governor. "He made it very clear
that if I ever wanted to do cocaine, that he could provide that," she
said. Miss Flowers said Mr. Clinton "also told me that there were times
he did so much cocaine at parties that his head would itch." But in
March 1992, Betsey Wright, a Clinton campaign aide, told the Los
Angeles Times that Mr. Clinton, then the governor of Arkansas, had
never used cocaine or knowingly been in its presence. "I asked him the
following questions" she told the newspaper. " 'Bill, have you ever
used cocaine?' He replied, 'No.' "I said, 'Bill, have you ever been in
a room where you were aware there was cocaine?' " "He replied, 'No.' "
During his 1992 presidential campaign Mr. Clinton denied that he had a
12-year affair with Miss Flowers. But he later testified under oath in
the Monica Lewinsky affair that he had a sexual encounter with the
former television reporter and cabaret singer. In November 1990, Mr.
Clinton, then governor of Arkansas, pardoned Dan Lasater, a Little Rock
bond trader and convicted cocaine distributor who had contributed to
his campaign. Mr. Lasater once loaned $8,000 to Roger Clinton to pay a
drug debt. Mr. Clinton said in 1994 that he barely knew Mr. Lasater,
and that the bond trader had contributed to the campaigns of other
Arkansas Democrats as well, including Sens. Dale Bumpers and David
Pryor...."

NewsMax.com 8/27/99 "...Hillary Clinton knew that her husband used
cocaine and pressured him to quit, Gennifer Flowers told Fox News
Channel's Sean Hannity on Thursday. Appearing on Hannity's WABC New
York radio show, Flowers also said she has specific knowledge of other
women who claim they were sexually assaulted by the President and who
may be ready to come forward. Mrs. Clinton, an all but announced
candidate for one of New York's U.S. Senate seats, has yet to be hit
with the cocaine question by reporters. But after a month-long media
feeding frenzy over unsourced rumors that George W. Bush may have used
the drug, the question may be unavoidable.....HANNITY: Do you have any
knowledge that he's involved with any other women? FLOWERS: I do. Not
that he is involved with someone at this point but that there are a
couple of women who have had a problem with him that may come forward.
HANNITY: In the Juanita Broaddrick sense? FLOWERS: Yes. HANNITY: There
are other women out there alleging that he assaulted them? FLOWERS:
Yes. HANNITY: And you think that we may be hearing from them in the
near future? FLOWERS: I think it's possible. It's been my understanding
that they are very scared. HANNITY: Have you ever spoken with any of
these people? FLOWERS: I have not. HANNITY: Have you ever spoken to
anybody who has spoken to them? FLOWERS: I have. HANNITY: And they've
told you their stories? FLOWERS: Yes, they have...."

CNSNews.com 8/25/99 "...Gennifer Flowers, the woman with whom President
Bill Clinton admitted having an affair in Arkansas, is disputing White
House claims that Clinton has never used cocaine. "I know that Bill was
using cocaine," said Flowers Wednesday in an interview on the Rush
Limbaugh radio program. "He talked to me about that. I do know that
Hillary Clinton knew, at a point, that Bill was doing cocaine. She
demanded that he stop. I asked him what he was going to do and he said
'I'm gonna stop," said Flowers, who dated that particular incident to
"around 1984, 1985." ...."I am not surprised at any lie that Bill
Clinton tells at this point," said Flowers of the White House denial of
cocaine use by the president. She suggested that people "question his
definition of 'using' cocaine, as he has an odd definition of 'having
sex,'" said Flowers, who first met Clinton in the late 1970s when he
was Arkansas attorney general...."

NewsMax 8/25/99 Carl Limbacher "...Dr. Sam Houston, a respected Little
Rock physician and once a doctor for Hillary's cantankerous father,
Hugh Rodham, says it is well known in Little Rock medical circles that
Clinton was brought to a Little Rock hospital for emergency treatment
for an apparent cocaine overdose. According to Houston, who told us he
spoke to someone intimately familiar with the details of what happened
that night, Clinton arrived at the hospital with the aid of a state
trooper. Hillary Clinton had been notified by phone and had instructed
the hospital staff that Clinton's personal physician would be arriving
soon. When Mrs. Clinton arrived, she told both of the resident
physicians on duty that night that they would never practice medicine
in the United States if word leaked out about Clinton's drug problem.
Reportedly, she pinned one of the doctors up against the wall, both
hands pressed against his shoulders, as she gave her dire warning.,,,,:

9/22/96 The Electronic Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard "...THE longer
Bill Clinton resists pressure to release his medical records, the
stronger the suspicions that he is hiding something important, perhaps
even something that could affect the outcome of the presidential
election..... In a biting editorial last week the Wall Street Journal
asked whether Clinton was covering up a history of drug use. Drugs are
a much more serious matter. If the American people were ever led to
believe that Clinton was a heavy user of cocaine while Governor of
Arkansas, the scandal would be thermonuclear. .....Stories about past
drug use by Bill Clinton are a staple of Right-wing radio talk
programmes. But no major newspaper in the US has ever published an
investigative exposé. This is not because drug use is too much of a
tabloid issue. Far from it. The mainstream media were quick to print
the uncorroborated allegations of a convicted felon who claimed to have
sold marijuana to a young Dan Quayle. In the case of Bill Clinton, a
number of people have come forward with direct knowledge of drug use,
but the press always finds a reason to impugn the source's credibility.
Nothing short of documentary proof will induce them to examine the
claims. Hence the intense speculation in Washington about the medical
records. 'Bill was so messed up that night, he slid down the wall into
a garbage can'....Then there is the case of Sharlene Wilson, currently
serving a prison term in Arkansas for drug offences. She told The
Sunday Telegraph two years ago that she had supplied Bill Clinton with
cocaine during his first term as Governor. "Bill was so messed up that
night, he slid down the wall into a garbage can," she said. The story
has credibility because she told it under oath to a federal grand jury
in Little Rock in December 1990. At the time she was an informant for
the Seventh Judicial District drug task force in Arkansas. Jean Duffey,
the prosecutor in charge of the task force, talked to Wilson days after
her grand jury appearance. "She was terrified. She said her house was
being watched and she'd made a big mistake," said Duffey. "That was
when she told me she'd testified about seeing Bill Clinton get so high
on cocaine he fell into a garbage can . . . I have no doubt that she
was telling the truth." Shortly after Wilson's testimony the drug task
force was closed down. Duffey was hounded out of her job and now lives
at a secret address in Texas. Wilson was charged with drug violations.
In 1992 she was sentenced to 31 years for selling half an ounce of
marijuana and $100- worth of methamphetamine to an informant. She
protested that she was "set up" to eliminate her as a political
liability and she appealed on the grounds of entrapment...."

Sally Perdue - post incident threats

NewsMax.com 6/11/99 Carl from Oyster Bay "...The internet's Capitol
Hill Blue reports this week that Sally Perdue, the onetime Arkansas
beauty queen who told journalists that she slept with Bill Clinton and
watched him use cocaine "like a real pro", no longer lives in the
country. Her testimony, had it been available several months ago during
Clinton's impeachment, might have had a real impact. She told reporters
years ago that she was threatened with physical violence in the
presence of witnesses by a Democrat operative who she has publicly
identified. Perdue, according to Capitol Hill Blue, now resides in
Beijing...."

NewsMax.com 6/12/99 Carl from Oyster Bay "...On Friday Inside Cover
checked with world renowned private investigator Rick Lambert, who,
along with his wife Beverly, was responsible for unearthing Jane Does
such as Juanita Broaddrick. In late 1997, just after hearings into the
Clinton campaign's China connection began in Washington, the Lamberts
were hired as the lead investigators for Paula Jones. "I can confirm
that when we were looking for Sally Perdue, she was in China, to the
best of my knowledge," Lambert told Inside Cover. The investigator
wouldn't divulge his sources, but did reveal that he had reason to
believe Perdue had gone from a teaching position in the U.S. to a "well
paying" job in Beijing. Perdue lost her job as a college librarian just
after she went public about her Clinton affair in 1992. Lambert
described his astonishment at the news of Perdue's change of address.
"This was around the same time that the Chinagate scandal was breaking
in D.C. and after I got the information on where Sally was, I remember
saying to Beverly, 'Well what a coincidence.' " Another source who
spoke only on condition of anonymity told Inside Cover that Perdue was
hired by CocaCola, the international soft drink mega-corp, and then
sent to Beijing. Perdue is known to have relatives in the Atlanta area
where Coke is headquartered. Coke has traditionally supported the
Democratic Party over the years...."

NewsMax.com 6/12/99 Carl from Oyster Bay "... Perdue went public with
her claim of a 1983 Clinton affair during the 1992 Democratic
convention. She quickly became the target of the Clinton campaign's
"bimbo eruptions" swat team, which spread stories that she was unstable
to the American press. But in 1994 Perdue gave the British press new
details, which included a vivid description of her former lover using
cocaine "like a real pro" and frolicking in Perdue's negligee while
serenading her with his sax. Sometime after the Arkansas governor
announced his bid for the White House, Perdue says a Democrat operative
offered her bribes and threatened to break her legs if she didn't stay
silent. She identified the operative, who set up a meeting with her at
a Missouri restaurant, as Ron Tucker. Perdue was wary of meeting with
Tucker, so she posted a witness within earshot. Because of that
witnesss, Perdue would be able to substantiate the threat, which would
lend credibility to some of the gamier details in the rest of her
account. Obviously, Perdue would have been one of the most explosive
witnesses at a prospective Paula Jones trial. Or, even worse from the
White House's standpoint, at the House impeachment hearings...."

www.judicialwatch.org 7/29/99 98-1991 (WBB) Browning v Clinton Motion
"...Plaintiffs would also like to question Ms. Sally Perdue, a former
Miss Arkansas, about her claim that a known Democratic Party operative
tried to hush her up during the 1992 campaign about an alleged affair
with Clinton. She says that the man stated to her that "they knew that
I went jogging by myself and he couldn't guarantee what would happen to
my pretty little legs." On information and belief, Ms. Perdue has left
the United States because of such threats and is presently in China.
Plaintiffs seek leave to depose her as soon as she is located or
otherwise becomes available. ..."

SHARLENE WILSON

Capitol Hill Blue 6/9/99 "...Now serving a 31-year sentence for minor
drug offense (selling a half ounce of marijuana and $100 worth of an
amphetamine) at the women's prison at Tucker, Ark. She got to know then
Gov. Clinton through brother Roger and attended toga parties where she
said the governor used coke. She testified in 1990 to a grand jury that
she had seen Bill Clinton using drugs, and when her testimony leaked
out, she fled the state for fear of her life. She later returned, it is
said for a family funeral, and was arrested for the drug crime, despite
having been a top informant for drug enforcement. Sharlene was my best
informant, said Jean Duffey, former head of the drug task force in
Saline County. "They couldn't silence her, so they locked her up in
jail and threw away the key. That's Arkansas for you." Her prosecutor,
Dan Harmon, was also her ex-boyfriend. He is now in prison for
drug-related crimes. VULNERABILITY: Wilson's record of illegal
activities..."

>From THE CAST Section:

Patsy Thomasson
Director of White House Office of Administration
Former aide("top lieutenant") to convicted drug dealer Don Lasater
(pardoned by Gov. Clinton)
Got her security clearance 13 months into her job
Participated in ransacking Vince Foster's office the night of his death
David Watkins memo on the first lady's involvement in Travel Gate, was
found in her files - seven months after a House committee launched its
investigation
Testified to the Grand Jury about the placement of Monica Lewinsky in
the Pentagon
Testified to Congress that "there was no reason for concern that White
House aides lacked permanent passes because they nonetheless had gotten
`requisite security' approval
Referring to the "mole" who perpetrated the Kremlin's most successful
penetration of the CIA discovered to date, she said "We don't think we
have any Aldrich Ameses at the White House. But we certainly could."
When Aldrich asked the Office of Administration for a copy of the
"secret" phone list, as director she responded "Screw the FBI! To hell
with the FBI! They're not getting this list!"
Congress requested a Special Counsel to investigate her for two
possible violations of 2 U.S.C. Section 192 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1001
- misrepresentations or false statements to Congress concerning Health
Care Task Force
The SEC investigated her as the head of a group of Arkansas investors
for insider trading on the Tyson 1992 purchase of Arctic Alaska
Was one of Gov. Clinton's top administrative aides
Was recommended to Lasater by Clinton when she was an Arkansas highway
commissioner
Vice President of Lasater's bonding company
Hired Clinton's half brother, Roger, as a limo driver
When Lasater was convicted and was in jail, she took over as head of
the firm with Lasater's power of attorney
While she was in charge, Gov Clinton continued to funnel all the
state's bonds through the company, $664 million
Her name turned up on one Drug Enforcement Administration document
detailing a passenger manifest of persons flying with Lasater from
Latin America.
Reassigned to State Department, in charge of embassies, has diplomatic
immunity
Handled the sale of the Clinton/Lasater connected Angel Fire (Phoenix)
to Sangre de Cristo
President of Phoenix Group
When she appeared before Starr's Grand jury on the travel office
firing, 6 FBI agents searched her apartment that night

Buddy Young
Former Arkansas Police Captain
Bill Clinton's head of security
Reported to have been Barry Seal's contact at the Governor's mansion.
On the day following Vincent Foster's murder, promoted to a senior
position with FEMA and moved out of Washington D.C. to the Denton.
Texas FEMA office.
Has now returned to Washington DC. as the number 2 man at FEMA.
In 1993 Clinton appointed him to a $92,000-a-year federal post
Two former Arkansas state troopers say Young warned them not to talk to
reporters about Clinton's sex life
Smeared the reputation and questioned the credibility of Larry
Patterson (re: Jones v Clinton lawsuit)
William Henry LaRoche Jr. says he talked to him during the Iran-Contra
operation in 1984
State policeman told Jerry Park's widow that 5 men who moved in his
social circle conspired the murder of her husband, they flipped coins
Reported that Webb said '"Let me tell you, Vince. This Celeni
situation: if you don't shut your f**king mouth,' he said, 'Buddy Young
will make sure you're horizontal.'"
Larry Nichols testified that he dug up dirt on Clinton's opponent and
turned it over to him.

Dan Lasater

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boy Clinton (Regnery, 1996) pp 107-108 R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr. Freeper
Faith: "...Lasater made his first fortune in the 1960s while quite
young. He established the Pondersona Steak House chain in Indiana. He
then began breeding race horses in Kentucky and Florida. He met
Clinton's mother, Virginia Kelley (who was then Virginia Dwire), at Oak
Lawn Park race track in Hot Springs, where both gambled avidly on the
horses, and where his horses were frequent winners. In 1979 she
introduced Lasater to her son, Roger Clinton. Precisely when Lasater
met brother Bill is unclear to me, but by 1982 Lasater had become a
major contributor to Clinton's political war chest and one of Little
Rock's infamous "bond daddies." His firm became well known for its
libertine soirees featuring pretty young things and cocaine. After
Clinton's 1982 reelection the governor gave his new supporter access to
underwriting the state's tax-exempt bonds. From 1983 to 1985, Lasater's
firm figured in fourteen state bond issues worth about $1.6 million,
though Lasater was under investigation in a drug conspiracy. In all
fourteen issues, Clinton's old law firm, Wright, Lindsey & Jennings,
did the legal work. . . . When Clinton established the Arkansas
Development Finance Authority as a bond-issuing agency to assist
economic growth in Arkansas, Lasater was a major underwriter. Even when
law enforcement agencies began investigating Lasater's drug habits, his
lucrative dealings with the state continued. In early 1985 Lasater's
stable hand and driver, Roger Clinton, made a deal with U.S. Attorney
George Proctor, pled guilty on two counts of cocaine distribution,
testified against Lasater before a grand jury, and went to the
calaboose for two years. Despite it, in May Lasater won permission to
underwrite a $30 million bond issue for a new communications system for
the Arkansas state police that Governor Clinton had strongly supported.
The communications system was a notable failure, but Lasater walked off
with $750,000. He was soon indicted for drug distribution and served
six months. Clinton later pardoned Lasater, the official explanation
being that without the pardon, Lasater could not get his hunting
license back...."

2/3/94 Chicago Tribune William Gaines Gary Marx ".The Illinois S&L case
suggests that Hillary Clinton, as a private attorney, had a glaring
conflict of interest. As an attorney for the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corp., she helped negotiate a secret, out-of-court settlement that
ended the government's suit against a family friend and an influential
benefactor of her husband..In the Illinois case, the problem stems from
the Clintons' friendship with Dan Lasater, a convicted felon whose
high-flying bond trading firm played a hand in the troubles of several
savings and loans, including First American Savings and Loan
Association, an Oak Brook institution headed by another politician, Dan
Walker, who was governor of Illinois from 1973 to 1977. It all started
in 1979 in an unlikely venue-the Oaklawn Park racetrack in Hot Springs,
Ark. Clinton's mother, the late Virginia Kelley, had a passion for
thoroughbred horseracing, and her box at the track was next to
Lasater's.By early 1983, Lasater had given Roger Clinton a job at his
Florida horse farm; Clinton had reclaimed the governor's mansion; and
Lasater's bond firm had been added to a list of brokerage firms
eligible to underwrite state bond issues, a classification that
generated millions of dollars in business for his firm, according to
published reports. Over the next two years, the ties between Lasater
and the Clintons grew stronger. The Clintons benefited from the
relationship. Lasater contributed money to the governor's campaign;
lent Roger Clinton $8,000 to pay off a drug debt; sponsored fundraising
parties at his offices; made his private plane available to the
ambitious young governor for campaign jaunts; and encouraged his staff
to donate to the governor's campaign, promising higher commissions to
compensate for the donations, according to published reports. At one
point in 1985, he also made his plane available to squire celebrities
to a charity function organized by Hillary Rodham Clinton. Lasater
benefited from the closer ties, too. In the summer of 1985, Clinton
successfully lobbied the Arkansas legislature to approve a contract for
Lasater to sell $30.2 million in bonds for the new state police radio
system. The contract netted Lasater's firm $750,000, according to a
report in The Los Angeles Times. Meanwhile, Lasater spread his
financial wings beyond Arkansas, signing deals to trade Treasury bond
futures with several savings and loans, including Walker's First
American. The S&Ls were trying to compensate for their money-losing
mortgage lending operations by engaging in the high-risk deals being
peddled by Lasater. But things began to sour in late 1985, both in
Illinois and in Arkansas. At First American, Walker discovered that
Lasater's bond firm didn't have the magic touch. According to court
records, Walker's S&L lost at least $361,572 in T-bond futures trades
made by Lasater's firm. "They had general authority to trade, but they
were supposed to call the (First American) operating officer each time
they made a trade," Walker said in a telephone interview. "They did not
do that." Meanwhile, law enforcement officers in Arkansas had started
picking up reports that Lasater had another problem: He was
distributing cocaine to friends and business associates at swank
parties he threw in Little Rock and Hot Springs. Walker struck first,
filing a 1985 suit against Lasater's bond firm alleging that the
company committed mail, wire and securities fraud by using First
American funds for unauthorized T-bond futures trades. Walker never got
Lasater in court. First American was seized in 1986 by federal
officials, who later charged the former Illinois governor with lending
himself $1.4 million in federally insured deposits. Walker was
eventually convicted of bank fraud and perjury. Federal officials also
collared Lasater; they convicted him of cocaine possession and
trafficking in 1986. Meanwhile, the federal regulators who seized First
American decided to pursue the savings and loan's $3.3 million suit
against Lasater to see if they could recoup some money for American
taxpayers, who funded the billion-dollar bailout of hundreds of
bankrupt savings and loans, including First American. The government's
deposit insurance fund hired the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, where
Hillary Clinton was a powerhouse. Rose had successfully solicited the
government's legal work on failed savings and loans in Arkansas months
earlier. The Lasater connection caused no end of problems for Gov.
Clinton. During his re- election campaign in 1986, Clinton came under
attack from his Republican opponent for steering state contracts to
Lasater while Lasater was under investigation for drug trafficking.
Clinton acknowledged being friends with Lasater but denied knowing
about Lasater's drug activities. Clinton was re-elected. In 1987,
Lasater went off to serve his prison sentence after giving Patsy
Thomasson, another key Clinton supporter and Democratic Party activist,
legal authority to manage his assets, according to court records. Most
of the Rose firm's S&L legal work was handled by Webster Hubbell, now
the No. 3 official at the U.S. Justice Department. But the firm
assigned the government's suit against Lasater to Hillary Clinton and
Vincent Foster, who later became deputy White House counsel for
President Clinton and who committed suicide last July. In late 1987,
court records show, Hillary Clinton and Foster negotiated a
confidential settlement. Lasater paid the government $200,000 in return
for the dismissal of its $3.3 million suit against him. Whether Lasater
got off cheaply at the expense of the American taxpayer depends upon
his assets at the time and the strength of the evidence against him,
legal experts say. Nevertheless, Thomas Scorza, a former assistant U.S.
attorney who teaches legal ethics at the University of Chicago Law
School, said Hillary Clinton's decision to represent the government in
a lawsuit against Lasater raises serious questions about her
professional conduct. "

.................................
Google "clinton drugs" first hit.(sic)

love
hank
...............................................

BC

unread,

Aug 18, 2006, 9:11:36 AM8/18/06

Rightwinghank wrote:

A huge, rambling and incoherent pile of nonsense.
The bottom line is that voting for Bush was a
stupid, stupid thing, especially on the second go
round, and in general having Republicans in control
of both congressional houses in addition to the
white house has been nothing but bad news. The
only interesting Clinton thing related to any of this
is that Clinton was initially seen as a disappointment
after he left: he had all these ideas and potential
but let his not-so-honorable "player" tendencies get
the best of him, allowing Republicans to tie up the
country's business in essentially a grossly trumped
up witch hunt.

But now, after almost 6 years of Bush, people are
realizing, dumbass blow jobs or not, we had it awfully,
awfully, good under Clinton all things considered.

You hardcore Bush supporters should just give it up.
Bashing Clinton hasn't helped and isn't going to help
the image of that lying, sorry-ass incompetent who's
hopefully going to be impeached for real reasons at
some point and be given a hard boot, along with his
worthless Vice-President. The Brits may have found
a better role for you guys: I saw the excellent British
horror flick "The Descent" the other day, and they
made good use of local Appalachian area Bush
supporters for the scary cave dwellers. So maybe all
you Bush supporters can put your scary behavior to
better use than at a voting booth or even on Usenet
and right-wing blog sites. I think you more urban
Bush supporters would really help with a remake of
C.H.U.D.

Hope this helps.

-BC

john...@gmail.com

unread,

Aug 18, 2006, 9:53:45 AM8/18/06

It's interesting, and kind of pitiful, how as GWB and his
administration continue to self-immolate, his partisans can't come up
wth any better defense than to attack Bill Clinton.

Trampdad

unread,

Aug 18, 2006, 9:58:08 AM8/18/06

johnb...@gmail.com wrote:

> It's interesting, and kind of pitiful, how as GWB and his
> administration continue to self-immolate, his partisans can't come up
> wth any better defense than to attack Bill Clinton.

They're just taking after Rush. It's amazing how he continues to draw
an audience without an original idea in over 10 years.

singlew...@gmail.com

unread,

Aug 18, 2006, 10:10:36 AM8/18/06

Always I ask, and never the let replies.

What is your plan? What do you have to say on the issues? When you
take over the country (right....) how will you deal with high energy
costs? What will you do with Iraq? Please tell all of us, what is the
liberal agenda towards the invasion of illegal mexicans from the
south? Let's finally hear some ideas from the left, because they
apparently want us to vote for them, but all they have to say is "we
hate bush, and we love dead babies, and queers"

Just see if you can answer the question without bothering to bash the
existing government, because we know you hate them, but the point is,
why should anyone vote democratic. Simply doing so, because the folks
there now suck, is not a good reason.

Just wondering....

Mark

Trampdad

unread,

Aug 18, 2006, 10:34:24 AM8/18/06

singlew...@gmail.com wrote:

> Always I ask, and never the let replies.
>
> What is your plan? What do you have to say on the issues? When you
> take over the country (right....) how will you deal with high energy
> costs? What will you do with Iraq? Please tell all of us, what is the
> liberal agenda towards the invasion of illegal mexicans from the
> south? Let's finally hear some ideas from the left, because they
> apparently want us to vote for them, but all they have to say is "we
> hate bush, and we love dead babies, and queers"
>
> Just see if you can answer the question without bothering to bash the
> existing government, because we know you hate them, but the point is,
> why should anyone vote democratic. Simply doing so, because the folks
> there now suck, is not a good reason.
>
> Just wondering....
>
> Mark

Interesting how your list of issues is populated by problems created or
made far worse by the current administration...

Jim C.

unread,

Aug 18, 2006, 12:32:23 PM8/18/06

<john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155909225.4...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

>
> It's interesting, and kind of pitiful, how as GWB and his
> administration continue to self-immolate, his partisans can't come up
> wth any better defense than to attack Bill Clinton.
>

No it isn't interesting, it's freaking boring and pathetic.
Shows the total lack of substance in the GOP that they can't do anything but
harp about a man who can't run against them anymore.
Of course I suspect they are really afraid he'll get into the elections by
endorsing candidates and that'll be the kicker that sends a bunch of their
crooks home.
Could that be it guys ?

Jim C.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

BC

unread,

Aug 18, 2006, 11:27:40 AM8/18/06

singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> Trampdad wrote:
> > johnb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > It's interesting, and kind of pitiful, how as GWB and his
> > > administration continue to self-immolate, his partisans can't come up
> > > wth any better defense than to attack Bill Clinton.
> >
> > They're just taking after Rush. It's amazing how he continues to draw
> > an audience without an original idea in over 10 years.
>
> Always I ask, and never the let replies.

I assume you mean "the left".

Let's clear up the terminology first. If you voted for
Bush, you're conservative/right-wing and *NOT* even
moderate. So when you refer to people of a differing
philosophical background, the correct term is "non-
right-winger" and *NOT* "the left".

>
> What is your plan? What do you have to say on the issues? When you
> take over the country (right....) how will you deal with high energy
> costs?

The best way to start is by having a real energy plan
with conservation as a centerpiece and the reinstitution
of non-dumbass CAFE fuel guidelines.

Actually since Bush and the Republicans have been
so wretched at getting anything done right, you will
find that any plan that isn't retarded will be a huge
improvement.

> What will you do with Iraq?

Bush did a fine job making a colossal mess there
that might not be fixable without putting a lot more
troups, which is unlikely to happen. Probably all
that can be done at this point that would at least
help the US's badly tarnished image is to make
much more of an effort at rebuilding infrastructure.
Militarily I would favor a harsh, possibly covert
crackdown on arms suppliers. It's been way too
easy for any group with a grudge to get their hands
on explosives and bombs.

> Please tell all of us, what is the liberal agenda
> towards the invasion of illegal mexicans from the
> south?

How about just enforcing the laws, maybe? Again,
the border issue became a crisis under Bush, so
now that's another mess you can thank him for.
Iraq has been a major drain on resources to the
point that getting National Guard troops to Katrina
type situations, nevermind border policing duties,
is now problematic.

Like anything else, you look at the situation and
come up with a plan. Rich folk will likely have to
go back to paying more of their mostly lucky-gotten
wealth in taxes to finance a lot of this stuff.

> Let's finally hear some ideas from the left, because they
> apparently want us to vote for them, but all they have to say is "we
> hate bush, and we love dead babies, and queers"

No, it's been much more the case of you right-
wingers going "We hate facts, science, logic,
ethics, competency, fairness, equal-opportunity,
wide-spread prosperity, and peace."

>
> Just see if you can answer the question without bothering to bash the
> existing government, because we know you hate them, but the point is,
> why should anyone vote democratic. Simply doing so, because the folks
> there now suck, is not a good reason.

You sound like the type who would keep going
to a lousy, incompetent auto-mechanic because
you'd be afraid a new mechanic would be even
worse. But all you had to do was just learn even
a teeny bit about cars, just enough to tell the
difference between bad and good.

>
> Just wondering....

Not nearly enough.

-BC

singlew...@gmail.com

unread,

Aug 18, 2006, 1:26:06 PM8/18/06

BC wrote:

>
> Let's clear up the terminology first. If you voted for
> Bush, you're conservative/right-wing and *NOT* even
> moderate. So when you refer to people of a differing
> philosophical background, the correct term is "non-
> right-winger" and *NOT* "the left".

You proceed from a false assumption. I did NOT vote for Bush I never
voted for him, and I am NOT a Republican.

>
> The best way to start is by having a real energy plan
> with conservation as a centerpiece and the reinstitution
> of non-dumbass CAFE fuel guidelines.

That is not what the democratic platform calls for. It tells me that
they want to RAISE gas taxes, and force people out of their cars.

Conservation? We are conserving. Consumption has risen by tenths of a
point over the years, even tho millions more are here illegally and
driving, and hundreds of thousands are coming of driving age so it
would seem that we are actually using less per capita, than say, half a
dozen years ago, and the price has nearly tripled. Conservation has
nothing to do with the price, as there is plenty of oil, and with more
refineries, there would be plenty of gas. Neither of the things you
mentioned will lower the cost of gasoline, although I honestly
appreciate that you came back with any kind of a reply. OTOH, I did ask
for a plan, and so you said "we need an energy plan" which is
undefined. I'll give you a 50/100 points on that. :-) What IS the plan?

I would also like to know what about natural gas, home heating oil, and
electricity? You spoke of gasoline only.

>
> Actually since Bush and the Republicans have been
> so wretched at getting anything done right, you will
> find that any plan that isn't retarded will be a huge
> improvement.

Here is the standard liberal bitching. Avoid the issue, and complain
about the past. That may make you feel better, but it will not fix
anything, and it will NEVER convince anyone to vote democrat. Demos
need answers, not finger pointing. Never was their chance any better
than it is now, to recoup the power they crave, but first, they have to
answer the questions, and respectfully, Kerry saying we need an energy
plan, does not address anything. We all know we need a plan. What is
the plan?

>
> > What will you do with Iraq?
>
> Bush did a fine job making a colossal mess there
> that might not be fixable without putting a lot more
> troups, which is unlikely to happen.

So again, you are unable to just answer the question, without delving
into the past, preffering to blame, rather than face the reality of
"here we are, now what?" That is the pressing question. Most of us can
see that bush and congress have screwed up. We agree. Now its time to
quit bitching, roll up our sleeves, and figure out what to do. What's
the plan?

> Probably all
> that can be done at this point that would at least
> help the US's badly tarnished image is to make
> much more of an effort at rebuilding infrastructure.

Who cares about our image. What are you going to do to put an end to
the issue, once and for all? We are rebuilding their infrastructure,
but we are not doing it the right way, imo.

> Militarily I would favor a harsh, possibly covert
> crackdown on arms suppliers. It's been way too
> easy for any group with a grudge to get their hands
> on explosives and bombs.

I could get on board with that. Can you point me towards one
democrat/liberal who has taken that position, for I am not seeing any
of them who think that way? I am seeing democrats as 'cut and run' and
vote out anyone in favor of the war. You are advocating a continuance,
albeit a different approach, so kudos for your POV, but its not the
liberal mantra, as far as I can tell. When I hear Gore, Pelosi, Boxer
and Kennedy moaning, I do not hear anything close to what you have
advocated here. Why is that?

>
> > Please tell all of us, what is the liberal agenda
> > towards the invasion of illegal mexicans from the
> > south?
>
> How about just enforcing the laws, maybe?

See above. Find me a democrat for president or congress who agrees with
you. I don't think you can.

>
> > Let's finally hear some ideas from the left, because they
> > apparently want us to vote for them, but all they have to say is "we
> > hate bush, and we love dead babies, and queers"
>
> No, it's been much more the case of you right-
> wingers going "We hate facts, science, logic,
> ethics, competency, fairness, equal-opportunity,
> wide-spread prosperity, and peace."

I am not a right winger. I am just right. The left, on the other hand,
does not agree with what you have put forth. You are closer to what I
profess, than to the liberal approach. However, your inability to write
one paragraph without moaning about the right, reveals that you are
simply a confused liberal.
>

> You sound like the type who would keep going
> to a lousy, incompetent auto-mechanic because
> you'd be afraid a new mechanic would be even
> worse. But all you had to do was just learn even
> a teeny bit about cars, just enough to tell the
> difference between bad and good.

Actually, I have put forth none of my opinion, only asked for yours, so
how you manage to decide what I believe or expect, is beyond me. Since
I never said anything about what I want to see, how can you possibly
conclude that I am incompetent, and know nothing about "cars"

Fact is, I asked if you could answer my questions without getting your
panties all in a bunch over bush, and you failed,just as all liberals
always do.

How can the democrats expect to retake control, if they cannot go five
minutes without swearing at the present government officials? Its
childish to keep doing that, and few will vote any kind of whining
liberal into office. Demos need to take a hint... Get professional, get
honest, let the past go, and show voters what the world will be like
when they take back the government. So far, it looks like it will be
just businsess as usual, finger pointing, blame, and an "energy plan"
of undefined parameters.

Still not ready to vote Democrat. Want to keep trying to convince me? I
am listening, but the more you bitch out bush, the less I will pay
attention. That does not mean I would not vote for a republican to
replace him, or anyone in Congress. I know they ALL have to go,but I am
not seeing why they have to be turned into democrats.

The more you put up a defined plan on the issues, the more I will
listen, the more you piss and moan about the past, the less credibility
you have to offer for the future.

Mark

BC

unread,

Aug 18, 2006, 1:40:51 PM8/18/06

singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> BC wrote:
>
> >
> > Let's clear up the terminology first. If you voted for
> > Bush, you're conservative/right-wing and *NOT* even
> > moderate. So when you refer to people of a differing
> > philosophical background, the correct term is "non-
> > right-winger" and *NOT* "the left".
>
> You proceed from a false assumption. I did NOT vote for Bush I never
> voted for him, and I am NOT a Republican.

Really? Then explain this comment of yours:

"'Let's finally hear some ideas from the left, because

they apparently want us to vote for them, but all they
have to say is 'we hate bush, and we love dead babies,

and queers'".

This reeks of a Republican/conservative/dumbass
mindset.

-BC

George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.

unread,

Aug 18, 2006, 1:51:18 PM8/18/06

On 18 Aug 2006 05:36:20 -0700, "Rightwinghank"
<rightw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
>SECTION: THE STORY OF A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
>SUBSECTION: DRUGS
>Revised 8/20/99
>
>NewsMax.com 8/26/99 Carl Limbacher "...it just Inside Cover, or has
>anybody else noticed that reporters have suddenly cooled on their
>favorite pursuit: hounding George W. on the cocaine question?

No. I can't recall a single reporter asking a single question about
that.

ever

singlew...@gmail.com

unread,

Aug 18, 2006, 3:13:23 PM8/18/06

BC wrote:
> singlew...@gmail.com wrote:

> >
> > You proceed from a false assumption. I did NOT vote for Bush I never
> > voted for him, and I am NOT a Republican.
>
> Really? Then explain this comment of yours:
>
> "'Let's finally hear some ideas from the left, because
> they apparently want us to vote for them, but all they
> have to say is 'we hate bush, and we love dead babies,
> and queers'".
>
> This reeks of a Republican/conservative/dumbass
> mindset.
>

What reeks is a liberal idiot who thinks there is only left or right,
one side or the other, either black or white. I don't subscribe to that
attitude, as I will vote for and support whomever I think is best
qualified. Some of us are independent thinkers, something that you
seem to know nothing about.

Just because I refer to the left, doesn't mean I am a republican.

All the left has is abortion, and a hatred for Bush. If they have more,
we are not hearing about it, above the tired old crying and whining.

BC

unread,

Aug 18, 2006, 4:52:31 PM8/18/06

singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> BC wrote:
> > singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >
> > > You proceed from a false assumption. I did NOT vote for Bush I never
> > > voted for him, and I am NOT a Republican.
> >
> > Really? Then explain this comment of yours:
> >
> > "'Let's finally hear some ideas from the left, because
> > they apparently want us to vote for them, but all they
> > have to say is 'we hate bush, and we love dead babies,
> > and queers'".
> >
> > This reeks of a Republican/conservative/dumbass
> > mindset.
> >
>
> What reeks is a liberal idiot who thinks there is only left or right,
> one side or the other, either black or white. I don't subscribe to that
> attitude, as I will vote for and support whomever I think is best
> qualified. Some of us are independent thinkers, something that you
> seem to know nothing about.

Yeah, right. Characterizing the left as only being
about "we hate bush, and we love dead babies,
and queers" puts a lie to your claims. You're no
more an "independent thinker" than a common
Bush-supporting redneck.

If you were truly interested in who's "best
qualified," you wouldn't have phrased your
comments the way you did.

As it now stands, nobody who is smart, well-
informed, and ethical wants anything to do with
either Bush or the Republican leadership, which
means that for any problem or issue you want
addressed -- energy policy, Iraq, Iran, internal
security, education, infrastructure, immigration,
et al -- voting Republican means voting in a "C
Team" at best to deal with matters. Asking for
specific solutions at this stage is iffy at best
since the extent of the problems are not
publically well-known for the most part, and
what actual resources we have to bear is
even less well-known. For instance, is it really
true that our National Guard is unprepared for
war because of severe equipment shortages,
and how would that translate into dealing
with emergencies or extra duties like border
security, nevermind war-related issues?

You made some other comment about how
you don't care about the US image -- if people
don't trust or even respect you, that *is* an
issue when trying to resolve violent conflicts.
Removing Bush and anyone who supported
him would likely go a long way towards
regaining world respect.

Getting back to energy policy, there is an
awful lot to any meaningful policy that goes
well beyond looking for new sources of oil
& energy or even conservation. It's well past
the time to look at how goods and people are
transported in this country, both in and out
of urban areas. We're already feeling the
practical impact of global warming, so we need
smart scientists and engineers on board to
look for practical/clever solutions for both the
short and long term, and at this point science
and Republicanism don't mix at all well.

Make it easier for yourself, pick a topic, any
topic that a responsible federal government
needs to deal with and look at how not just
Bush but Republicans in general have been
handling matters, including the quality of
people they have on staff, and ask yourself,
"Is there any way possible to do a worst job?"

That should make things easier for you to
figure out, oh Mister "Independent Thinker"
dumbass.

-BC

singlew...@gmail.com

unread,

Aug 18, 2006, 6:09:38 PM8/18/06

BC wrote:
> singlew...@gmail.com wrote:

> Yeah, right. Characterizing the left as only being
> about "we hate bush, and we love dead babies,
> and queers" puts a lie to your claims. You're no
> more an "independent thinker" than a common
> Bush-supporting redneck.

And you are not speaking the truth, for I do not support bush, and I
never said I did. You made that up inside your hate and your anger.

>
> If you were truly interested in who's "best
> qualified," you wouldn't have phrased your
> comments the way you did.

My comments revolve around the fact that liberals have NO plan, and
through all of this, you have not shown any inclination to show me that
I am wrong. NO PLAN, other than you think we need one.......

>
> As it now stands, nobody who is smart, well-
> informed, and ethical wants anything to do with
> either Bush or the Republican leadership,

Nah, you are just so full of hate, and so stupid on the issues of real
life, that you don't know what the hell you are saying. You really just
called 30% - 40% of all americans stupid, ignorant and unethical... No
matter how bird brained you are, that cannot be a fact. Try to stay
away from the absolutes, they will kill you every time.

> means that for any problem or issue you want
> addressed -- energy policy, Iraq, Iran, internal
> security, education, infrastructure, immigration,
> et al -- voting Republican means voting in a "C
> Team" at best to deal with matters.

Unless I find another person who shares my values, be they donkeys,
elephants, or independents. You seem to think the only choice is no
republicans, but I say the only choice is PEOPLE who speak on the
issues, and share my values and ideas. They could be any group, so long
as they put up plans, explain what they will do, and stay away from
bitching about how much they hate someone else.

>Asking for
> specific solutions at this stage is iffy at best
> since the extent of the problems are not
> publically well-known for the most part, and
> what actual resources we have to bear is
> even less well-known. For instance, is it really
> true that our National Guard is unprepared for
> war because of severe equipment shortages,
> and how would that translate into dealing
> with emergencies or extra duties like border
> security, nevermind war-related issues?

You are doing the liberal jig. Liberals historically don't support the
national guard, and regardless of that, I want to hear that they WILL
support them, and how, rather than a side-stepping "its too hard to
figure out" that tells me absolutely nothing.

>
> You made some other comment about how
> you don't care about the US image -- if people
> don't trust or even respect you, that *is* an
> issue when trying to resolve violent conflicts.

I don't give a damn what France thinks of the US. I don't give a crap
what China thinks of the US. I don't live my life worring about what
others think of me. I live the way I think is right and if someone
agrees, that's great, but I am not going to alter myself to meet
someone else's ideals, and the US ought not go about looking for
approval from anyone but Americans. If we were Americans, united, and
willing to work together, then the world can either join us, or go to
hell.

>
>. We're already feeling the
> practical impact of global warming,

You are brainwashed, and want to spend hundreds of billions of $$ and
bankrupt the US even further, to solve a problem that man has nothing
to do with, and cannot ever control.

>so we need
> smart scientists and engineers on board to
> look for practical/clever solutions for both the
> short and long term, and at this point science
> and Republicanism don't mix at all well.

That is a totally indefensible, broad sweeping, ridiculous
statement.....What you mean is "we need scientists and engineers who
will back up my position on everything" Real scientists, don't have
"positions" and real scientists don't accept man made global warming as
a reality.

>
> Make it easier for yourself, pick a topic, any
> topic that a responsible federal government
> needs to deal with and look at how not just
> Bush but Republicans in general have been
> handling matters, including the quality of
> people they have on staff, and ask yourself,
> "Is there any way possible to do a worst job?"
>

No, I suggest you answer my points first. What is the
liberal/democratic stand on the invasion from the south? You said to
just enforce the laws, and I DEFY you to show me one, credible, liberal
politician who agrees with that stance. Just one will do.

I DEFY you to show me where any credible, mainstream, liberal
politician can do anything more than just say "we need an energy plan"
and you will not find ONE liberal politician of consequence, who thinks
we should do anything but retreat and surrender in Iraq.

Your problem is, you are asking people to jump from the roof of a
burning building, but you are not showing them the net. You declare
that "if you jump, I will runa and get you a net" but you have not
shown any sign of possessing that net. No one is going to jump, until
they can see where they are going to land. If the present government is
failing us, that does NOT automatically mean that liberals/demos/left
are the answer.

I ain't jumping, till you show me the net, and so far, you have just
called me names, and tried to turn it into a personal attack, rather
than coming up with answers and facts...

Sorry, but it doesn't take a lot of brain power to call someone a
dumbass on usenet. Why should I waste time with someone whose best
response to a legitimate question is "you are stupid?' If that is all
got, you pretty much proved my point about liberals having no answers.

Thanks,

Mark

BC

unread,

Aug 18, 2006, 6:54:39 PM8/18/06

singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >. We're already feeling the
> > practical impact of global warming,
>
> You are brainwashed, and want to spend hundreds of billions of $$ and
> bankrupt the US even further, to solve a problem that man has nothing
> to do with, and cannot ever control.

'Nuff said. You *are* a standard, off-the-rack,
one-size-fits-all, anti-science, conservative
idiot. If you quack like a duck, waddle like a
duck, etc., etc., it's a waste of time to try to
claim you're actually, truly, really a beagle.

-BC

singlew...@gmail.com

unread,

Aug 19, 2006, 11:06:49 AM8/19/06

BC wrote:

> singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> 'Nuff said. You *are* a standard, off-the-rack,
> one-size-fits-all, anti-science, conservative
> idiot. If you quack like a duck, waddle like a
> duck, etc., etc., it's a waste of time to try to
> claim you're actually, truly, really a beagle.
>

If it bails out like a chicken, if it won't answer questions like a
chicken, and if it refuses to discuss issues, its a liberal.

Man caused global warming is totall bullshit, and it takes a liberal
with an IQ of about 12, and an ego as big as Texas, to believe that
puny man can affect the atmosphere in such a negative way.

Stupid liberals........

BC

unread,

Aug 19, 2006, 3:33:20 PM8/19/06

Really? Remember the Ozone Hole? A few decades
of CFC use and, whomp, an undeniable human-caused
problem in the atmosphere that nobody saw coming.
http://www.beyonddiscovery.org/content/view.article.asp?a=73
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17116

You clueless anti-science types love to second guess
real scientists, but that just puts you in the company
of crackpots and oil-industry sponsored liars. And in
terms of the environment and earth, we're not talking
about the entire planet -- it's that relatively extremely,
extremely thin layer of atmosphere and water that we
call the "biosphere" we're concerned about. There is
only about a 12 mile gap between the top of Mt. Everest
and the bottom of the Mariana Trench. The diameter of
the Earth is about 7,926 miles at the equator and about
7,901 miles at the poles, which makes the tallest
mountains and deepest trenches by comparison no
more that imperceptible imperfections on a new
billiard ball. Actually, the earth is literally slightly
smoother than a new billiard ball:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3120/is_200406/ai_n7778765

And for your further edification, this is something a
periodically update and post for the benefit of the
highly confused regarding global warming:

****
In terms of the global warming "debate," here are how
the sides in the line up:

Side One: with few and fast diminishing exceptions,
the entire global scientific community:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Global
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7665636

Side Two: with extremely few exceptions, pro-lassiez-
faire, right-wing, anti-science frauds & crackpots and
their organizations, often couched in bogus, scientific-
sounding names, publications and web sites. Not to
mention being funded by the likes of ExxonMobil and
Philip Morris:
http://www.globalwarming.org
http://www.nationalcenter.org/Kyoto.html
http://www.cato.org/hottopics/globalwarming.html
http://www.oism.org/news
http://www.friendsofscience.org
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10488
http://www.envirotruth.org
http://www.marshall.org
http://www.sepp.org
http://www.climateark.org
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=013106I
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm
http://www.americanpolicy.org

Some background to some of these sites and
the companies and people behind them:
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=4870
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Milloy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1398885,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1501646,00.html

So on one hand you have pretty damn good unity
among scientists that the current global warming
trend is a genuine problem caused primarily by
humans, and the other, you have the contrarian
view held almost exclusive by crackpots and the
easily duped & confused.

Choose your side carefully.
****

-BC

singlew...@gmail.com

unread,

Aug 19, 2006, 3:57:39 PM8/19/06

BC wrote:
> singlew...@gmail.com wrote:

> > BC wrote:
>
> Really? Remember the Ozone Hole?

Yea, the one that comes and goes, that moves around, and the one that
has ALWAYS been there, and until we had equipment to accurately monitor
it, we knew almost nothing about? Yea, I know about it. So what? No one
heard of it, till someone could detect it. Since no one knows what it
was doing before we could observe it, the idea that we causd it, or
make it grow and shrink, is stupid and assinine to assume. You think
CFCs caused it, but they have been gone for decades, and it continues
to move, shrink, grow, and basically do what it most likely has always
done.

Sucker...

> ****
> In terms of the global warming "debate," here are how
> the sides in the line up:

Yea,,,, wikepedia is where I go when I need facts :-(

Sucker....

>
> Side One: with few and fast diminishing exceptions,
> the entire global scientific community:
>

> Side Two: with extremely few exceptions, pro-lassiez-
> faire, right-wing, anti-science frauds & crackpots and
> their organizations, often couched in bogus, scientific-
> sounding names, publications and web sites. Not to
> mention being funded by the likes of ExxonMobil and

Ahh, you are so biased, you couldn't even put up web pages without your
poltical bias showing through and proving how you don't know what you
are talking about, you just hate people.

>"he entire global scientific community"

Total bullshit lie.

> So on one hand you have pretty damn good unity
> among scientists that the current global warming
> trend is a genuine problem caused primarily by
> humans, and the other, you have the contrarian
> view held almost exclusive by crackpots and the
> easily duped & confused.
>

No, on the one side, we have people who back up what you say, which you
figure makes them right and then there is the majority on the other
side, who disagree with you, so they are not only wrong, they are
crackpots and and the confused.

Pretty lame science going on there buddy...

> Choose your side carefully.

I am on the right side in every way. You, on the other hand, are too
easily duped by mass media. No one with any brains, who lacks an
agenda, is on your side.

Globaloney is the word. Man is NOT causing significant global warming,
and those who really know the issues, and who are actually looking for
the causes, are finding them. Those who inhabit the weather channel,
and Washington DC, with an agenda, are making things up, while you
fall for it, hook, line, and sinker.

The overwhelming question is, if you believe it, what are you doing
about it? Your PC was made from petro chemicals, the electricity that
powers it causes your version of gw, the hundreds of PCs that make up
the link you need to post here, draw more power and caused a ton of
mining to occur in order to fabricate the lines that connect them. The
people who drive to work to maintain those systems every day are
"destroying" the earth, but you are still making them do it, by buying
and using your PC. The list of things you are doing to contribute to
what you call a problem, makes you a titanic hypocrite, in addition to
being a fool.

You haven't got a clue as to what you are talking about, you are just
goose-stepping along with the liberal mantra.....

Sucker........

Mark

BC

unread,

Aug 19, 2006, 5:25:41 PM8/19/06

singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> BC wrote:
> > singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > BC wrote:
> >
> > Really? Remember the Ozone Hole?
>
>
> Yea, the one that comes and goes, that moves around, and the one that
> has ALWAYS been there, and until we had equipment to accurately monitor
> it, we knew almost nothing about? Yea, I know about it. So what? No one
> heard of it, till someone could detect it. Since no one knows what it
> was doing before we could observe it, the idea that we causd it, or
> make it grow and shrink, is stupid and assinine to assume. You think
> CFCs caused it, but they have been gone for decades, and it continues
> to move, shrink, grow, and basically do what it most likely has always
> done.

??!! What a maroon! Do you use the Internet at all for
anything besides porn, right-wing moron sites, and
arguing with your superiors? Here go get yourself an
"edumacation":
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone/history.html

>
> Sucker...

Fact-free moron.

>
>
> > ****
> > In terms of the global warming "debate," here are how
> > the sides in the line up:
>
> Yea,,,, wikepedia is where I go when I need facts :-(

Hmmm, did I only reference a Wikipedia entry? Let's see,
what did I post for cites....oh, here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Global
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7665636

All cites, including the Wikipedia one, with references
to genuine scientific studies and up-to-date info.

Where are you getting your info, "Little Miss Rightard's
Guide to Fact-Free but Correct Beliefs"?

>
> Sucker....

Dinky puller.

>
> >
> > Side One: with few and fast diminishing exceptions,
> > the entire global scientific community:
> >
> > Side Two: with extremely few exceptions, pro-lassiez-
> > faire, right-wing, anti-science frauds & crackpots and
> > their organizations, often couched in bogus, scientific-
> > sounding names, publications and web sites. Not to
> > mention being funded by the likes of ExxonMobil and
>
>
> Ahh, you are so biased, you couldn't even put up web pages without your
> poltical bias showing through and proving how you don't know what you
> are talking about, you just hate people.

Ummm, all of those sites *are* crackpot sites that you
can trace back to utterly non-scientific, right-wing/
corporate sponsors. They have no connection
whatsoever with legitimate scientific organizations.

Maybe you're just more naive than stupid.

>
> >"he entire global scientific community"
>
> Total bullshit lie.

No. You can count on a maimed hand the number
of scientists of any note worldwide that disagree
with the contention that humans are the primary
cause of the current round of global warming. For
all practical purposes, the consensus of the entire
global scientific community *is* that humans are
causing global warming. I double-dawg dare you to
come up with a non-crackpot cite saying showing
otherwise.

>
> > So on one hand you have pretty damn good unity
> > among scientists that the current global warming
> > trend is a genuine problem caused primarily by
> > humans, and the other, you have the contrarian
> > view held almost exclusive by crackpots and the
> > easily duped & confused.
> >
>
> No, on the one side, we have people who back up what you say, which you
> figure makes them right and then there is the majority on the other
> side, who disagree with you, so they are not only wrong, they are
> crackpots and and the confused.

Nope. I got it exactly right. I triple-dawg dare you
to post anything supporting your extremely, extremely
confused nonsense that I can't rip apart in a second as
a crackpot site. Your best bet is to find something by
Richard Lindzen -- he's essentially the last holdout
scientist of any note, but I should mention that even
he has more than a few issues
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

>
> Pretty lame science going on there buddy...

The only thing "lame" is your pretense to be anything
other than a typical anti-science right winger.

>
> > Choose your side carefully.
>
> I am on the right side in every way.

Ah-ha -- the truth comes out, although it was pretty
damn obvious you were "on the right side" all along.
"Independent thinker" my Bush-bashing ass....

>You, on the other hand, are too
> easily duped by mass media. No one with any brains, who lacks an
> agenda, is on your side.

So are you a crackhead or more into crystal meth?

>
> Globaloney is the word. Man is NOT causing significant global warming,
> and those who really know the issues, and who are actually looking for
> the causes, are finding them. Those who inhabit the weather channel,
> and Washington DC, with an agenda, are making things up, while you
> fall for it, hook, line, and sinker.

I would say you're a crystal meth sort of guy -- much
more the rural right-wing drug of choice. Although I
wouldn't be surprised if Oxycontin is your real choice
especially after the press Rush Limbaugh got for
taking it.

>
> The overwhelming question is, if you believe it, what are you doing
> about it? Your PC was made from petro chemicals, the electricity that
> powers it causes your version of gw, the hundreds of PCs that make up
> the link you need to post here, draw more power and caused a ton of
> mining to occur in order to fabricate the lines that connect them. The
> people who drive to work to maintain those systems every day are
> "destroying" the earth, but you are still making them do it, by buying
> and using your PC. The list of things you are doing to contribute to
> what you call a problem, makes you a titanic hypocrite, in addition to
> being a fool.

Actually I tend to just upgrade my PC's instead
of just junking them willy-nilly. Me personally, I
would give tax incentives to PC manufacturers to
make their PC's more easily upgradable to extend
their life time, in addition to setting up a consistent
national system for recycling all electronics. I
actually would slap a "recovery tax" on such items
to cover the cost of recycling them.

So do you post things as soon as you get a buzz
or when you're crashing?

>
> You haven't got a clue as to what you are talking about, you are just
> goose-stepping along with the liberal mantra.....

I'm guessing you do it when it's fading and you're
coming down hard.

>
> Sucker........

Pants pooper.

-BC

Message has been deleted

singlew...@gmail.com

unread,

Aug 20, 2006, 2:04:32 PM8/20/06

Grumplestiltskin wrote:

> >
> > Man caused global warming is totall bullshit, and it takes a liberal
> > with an IQ of about 12, and an ego as big as Texas, to believe that
> > puny man can affect the atmosphere in such a negative way.
> >
> > Stupid liberals........
> > >

> Wow I can't believe it. I've been searching for the Ultimate Moron for
> many, many years. Like yeti, I had heard such a creature existed but I
> didn't really believe it. But here's the proof.

Happy to oblige your search. Do YOU have ANY proof that man-caused
global warming is significant, beyond the theories postulated by SOME
climatologists? Do you have ANY proof, that after spending trillions
of dollars and devestating the world economies, this so called global
warming will abate?

You are aware that the moron who has been digging up web pages that
"prove" global warming, seems to be ignoring the equal amount of
compelling evidence that he is an idiot? Its out there for anyone who
wants to learn the TRUTH, which is very much different than just
pasting URLs that support ONE side of the argument. I don't have to
prove anything. The proof is there for all who seek it. Some people
just have too much time on their hands, and sadly, they invest it very
poorly. Me? I won't spend more than the few minutes it takes to post
this, because IF someone is truly seeking the facts, rather than
desperately trying to defend a chosen position, they will find those
facts, and reach the proper conclusion.

Do you have understanding of the cyclical nature of the earth's
environment that has been going on for millions of years? Do you have
any answer to the question of what caused the last warming cycle, that
occured before anyone was burning fossil fuels? Can you explain to
anyone with a brain, how the earth has managed to warm and cool dozens
of times over the recorded history that man has exhumed from the
earth?

If you can't explain why the earth warmed after the last ice age, then
you have no grounds to explain why it is warming now.

Do you understand that the fossil records tell us of warm/cool cycles
and how long they last, and even how quickly they occur, and that we
are on the precipice of a COOLING cycle, first preceeded by a quick
heating cycle, just as has happend countless times in the millions of
years the earth has existed? These are facts. Go look them up.

Do you understand anything about the FACT that the sun's energy output
increases and decreases over time, and that at this moment, its energy
output is peaking, which WILL DEFINITELY warm the atmosphere of the
earth?

Are you aware that you cannot HEAT a large, deep, body of water from
above? Are you aware that the oceans are warming from BELOW? Get
yourself a big old pot of water, and a torch, and see if you can warm
the water at the bottom of that pan, by blowing heat onto its surface.
You can't do it. It won't work.

How do your agenda driven scientists explain the oceans warming from
bottom, upward, and generating increased, record levels of CO2? They
can't, and they won't go near that issue, because that doesn't match
their agenda of fossil fuels causing the problem.

How is it that much of the polar ice masses north, and south, are
floats on the ocean, yet the scientists you worship are declaring that
the levels of the ocean may rise 20+ feet. You are aware that a glass
of water, filled with ice, and then water, right to the brim, will NOT
overflow as the ice melts? You are aware that the ice displaces its own
weight, and therefore does not add one drop to the level of the water,
as it melts?

Before you decide that the emissions from cars and factories are
causing a problem, you must first determine the overall size of the
atmosphere, and then calculate the amount of emissions ejected each
day/month/year, and THEN decide if the atmospere can disperse it and
cope with it. You do not know the amount of emissions, relative to the
size of the atmosphere, and those numbers are NEVER considered by the
agenda driven "scientists" who have you buffaloed into thinking that
one drop of water, on a two thousand square foot carpet, will destroy
that rug.

Do some research yourself. Get the numbers, create the equations, and
realize for yourself that Mt St Helens puked more trash into the
atmosphere than man did for years and years, and the atmosphere ate it
up, and didn't even blink. You just do not know how big the earth is,
and how large this ball of air that surrounds it, really is, much less
what it is capable of doing. You just keep reading the liberal mantra,
and buying it hook line and sinker.

These are the same scientists who say that we will see an increase in
hurricanes, and so far, this year..... well, that speaks for itself.
Massive hurricanes in the Gulf are caused by the Atlantic ocean being
slightly warmer than the Pacific. Hmmmm, one ocean, warmer than the
other...... Hmmmm. That is hard to explain, if the entire planet is
warming all at once, but easy to see, once learn that the oceans are
warming from beneath, due to extreme volcanic activity beneath their
bedrock.

When you can prove that shutting off all man made emissions will reduce
the temp of the climate significantly, when you can prove that YOU
know the ideal temperature of the earth, and that spending trillions
of dollars world wide, and bankrupting nations to do it, will achieve
this, as yet unknown, perfect temperature, then you can make a claim
that change is required.

Until then, you are just an Al Gore groupie, and Al Gore is one of the
biggest assholes that America ever produced, only slightly ahead of
those who glob onto his stupid conclusions, and wish to move the
people of the earth back into the 18th century.

Think for yourself. The facts are out there, read them, both sides, and
apply a modicum of wisdom and logic, before you jump on the bandwagon,
because twenty five years ago, the earth was doomed because it was
COOLING, and well, we know how that panic worked out, don't we? I am
glad we did not bankrupt America in order to figure out how to stop the
cooling that was declared to be inevitable.....

All the cursing, and swearing in the world, won't change the FACT that
man does not have the power or capability, to alter the climate of the
earth.

BC

unread,

Aug 20, 2006, 3:07:13 PM8/20/06

So do you mix your crystal meth with Oxycontin?
I don't think that's adviseable even for an utterly,
eye-rollingly clueless, science-hating maroon

-BC

singlew...@gmail.com

unread,

Aug 20, 2006, 3:52:29 PM8/20/06

BC wrote:

>
> So do you mix your crystal meth with Oxycontin?
> I don't think that's adviseable even for an utterly,
> eye-rollingly clueless, science-hating maroon
>

ooooo... that was a good one. Another liberal who is afraid of
answering question, discussing the issues, and is only capable of lame
attempts to denigrate those who disagree. Why do you bother with such
tripe? No one cares that you think you are cook because you make stupid
comments. Everyone can see that you are a typical liberal. No answers,
nothing of value, just sad little comments that would get your ass
kicked if the conversation was face to face.

Such a tough guy with his keyboard.

Are you getting a little nervous now that school will be starting up
again soon?

Steven Douglas

unread,

Aug 20, 2006, 3:52:33 PM8/20/06

To <singlew...@gmail.com> ... obviously BC doesn't have an
intelligent answer to the points you made above, so I'd stop wasting my
time if I were you. As I'm sure you know, usenet is overrun with
leftist fanatics who are incapable of changing their minds once they've
been indoctrinated. I have enjoyed this exchange between you two up to
this point, and I wish BC could have come up with a real response
rather than just resorting to a silly (and immature) ad hominem.

BC

unread,

Aug 20, 2006, 6:31:09 PM8/20/06

singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> BC wrote:
>
> >
> > So do you mix your crystal meth with Oxycontin?
> > I don't think that's adviseable even for an utterly,
> > eye-rollingly clueless, science-hating maroon
> >
>
>
> ooooo... that was a good one. Another liberal who is afraid of
> answering question, discussing the issues, and is only capable of lame
> attempts to denigrate those who disagree. Why do you bother with such
> tripe? No one cares that you think you are cook because you make stupid
> comments. Everyone can see that you are a typical liberal. No answers,
> nothing of value, just sad little comments that would get your ass
> kicked if the conversation was face to face.

OK, I'll get serious for a few seconds. I posted a pile
of links to scientific and governmental organizations
clearly demonstrating and with piles of data and
references that the current round of global warming
is human caused and the evidence is so compelling
that there *is* a genuine, world-wide scientific
consensus regarding it. All you've offered in rebute
has been nothing but vague, standard right-wing
crackpot comments like "Do YOU have ANY proof

that man-caused global warming is significant, beyond
the theories postulated by SOME climatologists? Do
you have ANY proof, that after spending trillions of
dollars and devestating the world economies, this so
called global warming will abate?"

All those links I gave contained said evidence. The
much maligned -- mostly by the right-wing -- "hockey
stick" graph showing a dead-on match of CO2
emissions by human activity with global temperatures
has been verified:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html

Since you've haven't presented a single shred of
evidence to support any of your utterly-ludicrous-to-
anyone-who-knows-something-about-this-stuff despite
my "dawg dares," why should I or anyone else take
anything you say seriously? Seriously. As far as
science goes, there is no more real debate on
whether humans are causing global warming -- it's
all now about getting a handle on the consequences,
especially in regards to potential "tipping points" that
would have very dramatic and devastating effects.
Whatever crap you've read or come across stating
or implying that there is still some sort of controversy
in the scientific community regarding the human
factor in the current global warming trend is exactly
that, crap, whether from a crackheaded right-wing
news site or from a timid corporate mainstream one;
it's just dis/misinformational BS that has nothing to
do with what real scientists involved in the major and
serious studies on the matter think and believe.

Now getting back to your drug habits, just remember:
http://www.worth1000.com/entries/77000/77479sXaW_w.GIF

Hope this clarifies.

-BC

BC

unread,

Aug 20, 2006, 6:44:43 PM8/20/06

What "points" would those be aside from a pile
of ludricrous and utterly unsubstantiated opinion
without a single cite or any coherent logic
whatsoever? Note that he basically swept away
all the links I gave to scientific and governmental
organizations as being what, just one opinion?:

"No, on the one side, we have people who back
up what you say, which you figure makes them
right and then there is the majority on the other
side, who disagree with you, so they are not only
wrong, they are crackpots and and the confused."

I double-dawg dareed him "to come up with a
non-crackpot cite saying showing otherwise" and
he hasn't been able to do so. That makes him fair
game for derision by the implied rules of Usenet
Netiquette.

An another un-backed-up comment on your part
will make you fair game as well. Well, fairer game....

-BC

singlew...@gmail.com

unread,

Aug 20, 2006, 8:07:52 PM8/20/06

BC wrote:

> I double-dawg dareed him "to come up with a
> non-crackpot cite saying showing otherwise" and
> he hasn't been able to do so.

My foul mouthed, dirty minded friend.... I would remind you that there
is a very big difference between "cannot," and "doesn't care to
bother."

The simple fact that YOU can decide what is a crackpot site, and what
is an acceptable source, tells me not to bother with your idiotic
challenge, as anything I say that disproves you point, will be
declared a crackpot site. Whey you control the definitions, there is no
point in anyone bothering to respond to you whacko charges.

If I showed you proof beyond a doubt, you still would not accept it. I
have done so many times, in other groups, in conversations at work, and
no matter what the facts, you and your ilk will still go along with
whatever suits you. I am sick to death of pointing out the facts, so if
it means that much to you, next time you need to support yourself with
google, consider searching out the other side as well. Its all there,
and I have no need to waste time rehashing it.

Web searches can be used to support just about ANY position, on any
argument, from God to baseball stats. Big deal. Try reading, and using
whatever grey matter has developed between your pointy ears.

Usenet ettiquite does not require me to spend my free time arguing
with ignorant punks who don't know how to do research, but are only
capable of using google to find sites that back up their warped
perceptions of how they want things to be.

I've seen charts that link the CO emissions to the rise in temps. So
what? Given the cycles the earth has ALWAYS gone through, its nothing
but a useful conincidence.

As for me not answering your claims, how about answering mine? If you
are not required to answer, why should I?

What is the correct temperature of the planet earth? Where is the
proof that after trillions are spent, and societies crumble, there will
be any difference? If we ceased all CO emissions today, how long will
it take to get the earth back to normal, and since no one knows what
normal is, how will we know when we achieved the goal and that were
wise in our efforts?

How do you heat the middle and bottom of the ocean from above? What
heated up the earth, after the last ice age, and every ice age before
that? Answer those questions with your weak links. Oh wait, they
don't want to address anything that might foul up their neatly packaged
explanation, no matter how many holes the "conclusion" has in it.

You think you are just so smart to proclaim that I won't answer your
points, but you have not put forth any answers to what I declared.
Therefore, your credibility is a big fact zero.

I have read those pages, and many, many more books and papers, but
unlike you, I read BOTH sides, to get the facts, and apply reason and
logic, to avoid the agenda-driven results that the left desires. Try
reading the facts, and then coming to your own conclusions, based only
on the facts.

The answer is in the bigger picture. The earth constantly cycles from
warm to cold, and back to warm. The fossil records show that a small,
quick, heating cycle preceeds very long cooling. We are in a quick
heating cycle, that, based on fossil records, in a very short time, as
in 20-30 years, will turn to a cooling cycle. Since you are obviously
all of about 19 years old, you will live to see it happen. They you
can remember this conversation, and have to admit that I was right, and
you were wrong.

Steven Douglas

unread,

Aug 20, 2006, 10:06:53 PM8/20/06

He made some points and asked some questions, and I was looking forward
to an intellectual response to at least *some* of those
points/questions from you. For instance, this particular point
intrigued me:

> > Are you aware that you cannot HEAT a large, deep, body of water from
> > above? Are you aware that the oceans are warming from BELOW? Get
> > yourself a big old pot of water, and a torch, and see if you can warm
> > the water at the bottom of that pan, by blowing heat onto its surface.
> > You can't do it. It won't work.
> >
> > How do your agenda driven scientists explain the oceans warming from
> > bottom, upward, and generating increased, record levels of CO2? They
> > can't, and they won't go near that issue, because that doesn't match
> > their agenda of fossil fuels causing the problem.
>

> Note that he basically swept away
> all the links I gave to scientific and governmental
> organizations as being what, just one opinion?:

Well, just above in the part of his post I quoted, he mentioned agenda
driven scientists in the plural. But I did look at your links, and I
found a few things that piqued my interest. For example, this:

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
[quoting] In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that
the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being
affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the
concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter
radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50
years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)]. [end quote]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Notice the IPCC says "...[M]ost of the observed warming over the last
50 years is LIKELY to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations."

The use of that word "likely" further intrigued me, so and when I
looked at another of your links, I found this:

National Academies Synthesis Report
[quoting] The long-awaited NAS synthesis report on surface temperature
reconstructions over the last few millennia is being released today.
[...]
The report calls into question the confidence in certain fairly
specific previous conclusions, e.g. the tentative conclusion in Mann et
al (1999) that the 1990s and 1998 were the warmest decade and year,
respectively, of the past 1000 years. There are two important points
here left unmentioned in the report: (1) Mann et al (1999) attached the
qualifier "likely" to these conclusions, which in standard (e.g. IPCC)
parlance corresponds to a roughly 2/3 probability, i.e., implies
slightly better than even odds of being true, a fairly conservative
conclusion. The conclusion was followed by the statement "More
widespread high-resolution data which can resolve millennial-scale
variability are needed before more confident conclusions can be
reached..." [end quote]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report

So, now I know the qualifer "likely" (in standard IPCC parlance)
corresponds to a roughly 2/3 probability. Hmm, interesting.

>
> I double-dawg dareed him "to come up with a
> non-crackpot cite saying showing otherwise" and
> he hasn't been able to do so. That makes him fair
> game for derision by the implied rules of Usenet
> Netiquette.

Well, you see, there are others reading that exchange between you two
... and some of us are likely on the fence about this issue. So we're
looking for a good debate between two knowledgable people, and then one
of you punted just when it was getting good. If you really want to
convince the various lurkers who are also reading, you should really
put forth some convincing arguments as well as answers to questions. I
was encouraged by the other poster's remarks to do some research, and I
found this:
[quoting]
Consensus Among NOAA Hurricane Researchers and Forecasters* (see
editor's note)
There is consensus among NOAA hurricane researchers and forecasters
that recent increases in hurricane activity are primarily the result of
natural fluctuations in the tropical climate system known as the
tropical multi-decadal signal. The tropical climate patterns now
favoring very active hurricane seasons are similar to those seen in the
late 1920s to the late 1960s. The current active hurricane era began in
1995, meaning the nation is now 11 years into an active era that could
easily last several decades (20-30 years or even longer). We can expect
ongoing high levels of hurricane activity - and very importantly high
levels of hurricane landfalls - as long as the active era continues.
[...]
*EDITOR'S NOTE: This consensus in this on-line magazine story
represents the views of some NOAA hurricane researchers and
forecasters, but does not necessarily represent the views of all NOAA
scientists. It was not the intention of this article to discount the
presence of a human-induced global warming element or to attempt to
claim that such an element is not present. There is a robust, on-going
discussion on hurricanes and climate change within NOAA and the
scientific community.

http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag184.htm

So there you have it -- "There is a robust, on-going discussion on
hurricanes and climate change within NOAA and the scientific
community." How about that?

>
> An another un-backed-up comment on your part
> will make you fair game as well. Well, fairer game....

Really? You see, I haven't made up my mind on this issue yet. I would
be far more easy to persuade by a rational argument rather than your
childish "fair game" comments. I am a conservationist in my personal
life. I do everything I can to recycle and cut down on greenhouse
emissions. But I am also leery of the fear tactics being used by some
(particularly leftists) to promote the "manmade" global warming issue.

EXAGGERATED SCIENCE
How Global Warming Research is Creating a Climate of Fear
By Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr

[excerpt] Science is deteriorating into a repair shop for conventional,
politically opportune scientific claims. Not only does science become
impotent; it also loses its ability to objectively inform the public.

An example of this phenomenon is the discussion surrounding the
so-called hockey stick, a temperature curve that supposedly portrays
developments of the last 1,000 years. The curve derives its name from
its hockey stick-like shape. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, a panel of climate researchers established by the
United Nations, rashly institutionalized the hockey stick curve as an
iconic symbol of human-induced climate change. In the curve, the
upward-tilting blade of the hockey stick that follows decades of stable
temperatures represents human influence.

In an article we published in the professional journal "Science" in
October 2004, we were able to demonstrate that the underlying
methodology that led to this hockey stick curve is flawed. Our
intention was to turn back the spiral of exaggerations somewhat, but
without calling the core statement into question, which is that
human-induced climate change does exist. Prominent members of the
climate research community did not respond to the article by engaging
use in a dispute over the facts. Instead, they were concerned that the
worthy cause of climate protection had been harmed.

Other scientists are succumbing to a form of fanaticism almost
reminiscent of the McCarthy era. In their minds, criticism of
methodology is nothing but the monstrous product of "conservative
think-tanks and misinformation campaigns by the oil and coal lobby,"
which they believe is their duty to expose. In contrast, dramatization
of climate shift is defended as being useful from the standpoint of
educating the public. [end excerpt]

Hans von Storch, 55, is the director of the GKSS Institute for Coastal
Research (IfK) in Geesthacht, Germany, which researches water and
climate in coastal areas. Together with Nico Stehr, 62, a sociologist
at Zeppelin University in Friedrichshafen, Germany, is a long-time
researcher of public attitudes about climate change.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00.html

Scientific consensus and the scientific minority
[quoting] In a standard application of the psychological principle of
confirmation bias, scientific research which supports the existing
scientific consensus is usually more favorably received than research
which contradicts the existing consensus. In some cases, those who
question the current paradigm are at times heavily criticized for their
assessments. Research which questions a well supported scientific
theory is usually more closely scrutinized in order to assess whether
it is well researched and carefully documented. This caution and
careful scrutiny is used to ensure that science is protected from a
premature divergence away from ideas supported by extensive research
and toward new ideas which have yet to stand the testing by extensive
research.

However, this often results in conflict between the supporters of new
ideas and supporters of more dominant ideas, both in cases where the
new idea is later accepted and in cases where it is later abandoned.
Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
discussed this problem in detail.

Several examples of this are present in the relatively recent history
of science. For example:

* the theory of continental drift proposed by Alfred Wegener and
supported by Alexander Du Toit and Arthur Holmes but soundly rejected
by most geologists until indisputable evidence and an acceptable
mechanism was presented after 50 years of rejection.
* the theory of symbiogenesis presented by Lynn Margulis and
initially rejected by biologists but now generally accepted.
* the theory of punctuated equilibria proposed by Stephen Jay Gould
and Niles Eldredge which is still debated but becoming more accepted in
evolutionary theory.
* the theory of prions -proteinaceous infectious particles causing
transmissible spongiform encephalopathy diseases- proposed by Stanley
B. Prusiner and at first rejected because pathogenicity was believed to
depend on nucleic acids now widely accepted due to accumulating
evidence.
* the theory of heliobacter pylori as the cause of stomach ulcers.
This theory was first postulated in 1982 by Barry Marshall and Robin
Warren however it was widely rejected by the medical community
believing that no bacterium could survive for long in the acidic
environment of the stomach. Marshall demonstrated his findings by
drinking a brew of the bacteria and consequently developing ulcers. In
2005, Warren and Marshall were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for
their work on H. pylori [end quoting]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

BC

unread,

Aug 21, 2006, 10:35:31 AM8/21/06

singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> BC wrote:
>
>
> > I double-dawg dareed him "to come up with a
> > non-crackpot cite saying showing otherwise" and
> > he hasn't been able to do so.
>
> My foul mouthed, dirty minded friend.... I would remind you that there
> is a very big difference between "cannot," and "doesn't care to
> bother."

In other words, "Arrk, parrk-parrk, arrk...."

>
> The simple fact that YOU can decide what is a crackpot site, and what
> is an acceptable source,

Did I decide this? Let's go back and see what I had
posted:

****
In terms of the global warming "debate," here are how
the sides in the line up:

Side One: with few and fast diminishing exceptions,

the entire global scientific community:

Side Two: with extremely few exceptions, pro-lassiez-

faire, right-wing, anti-science frauds & crackpots and
their organizations, often couched in bogus, scientific-
sounding names, publications and web sites. Not to
mention being funded by the likes of ExxonMobil and

Philip Morris:
http://www.globalwarming.org
http://www.nationalcenter.org/Kyoto.html
http://www.cato.org/hottopics/globalwarming.html
http://www.oism.org/news
http://www.friendsofscience.org
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10488
http://www.envirotruth.org
http://www.marshall.org
http://www.sepp.org
http://www.climateark.org
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=013106I
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm
http://www.americanpolicy.org

****

Feel free to dispute the groupings in any way you
can, but that "Side Two" list *are* all crackpot sites
by any definition. This one in particular is a good
primer:
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=4870
To quote:
"In 1998, Exxon devised a plan to stall action on
global warming. The plan was outlined in an internal
memo (see the memo as a PDF file). It promised,
"Victory will be achieved when uncertainties in climate
science become part of the conventional wisdom" for
"average citizens" and "the media."

"The company would recruit and train new scientists
who lack a "history of visibility in the climate debate"
and develop materials depicting supporters of action
to cut greenhouse gas emissions as "out of touch
with reality."

And this is a link to that Exxon memo:
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/3860_GlobalClimateSciencePlanMemo.pdf

Sorry, but you and the other "skeptics" were and
are being played for fools.

This all pretty much explains why the Iraq and even
the Afghanistan campaigns have gone poorly and
why nothing constructive has been done domestically
since the Republicans have been running things: they
are just plain too stupid to be making any important
decisions. Give you or them a hammer, a nail and a
piece of wood and you guys would lose the wood,
break the hammer, and end up with a nail through
your thumb.

And I'll let you demonstrate this:

>tells me not to bother with your idiotic
> challenge, as anything I say that disproves you point, will be
> declared a crackpot site. Whey you control the definitions, there is no
> point in anyone bothering to respond to you whacko charges.

My definition of a "crackpot" is someone with little
or no applicable scientific training making claims
and coming up with theories that are either based on
taking snippets of info completely out of meaningful
context or are on "info" that has no connection to
scientific research whatsoever.

What's your definition?

>
> If I showed you proof beyond a doubt, you still would not accept it. I
> have done so many times, in other groups, in conversations at work, and
> no matter what the facts, you and your ilk will still go along with
> whatever suits you. I am sick to death of pointing out the facts, so if
> it means that much to you, next time you need to support yourself with
> google, consider searching out the other side as well. Its all there,
> and I have no need to waste time rehashing it.

What "proof beyond a doubt"? You make statements
like "If you can't explain why the earth warmed after

the last ice age, then you have no grounds to explain

why it is warming now" without a single clue that this
is taking bits of info out of context, which essentially
renders the info worthless. It's exactly like saying "I
beat my wife regularly at Monopoly" but having someone
else repeat it you just saying "I beat my wife regularly".

Part of the reason why there *was* up until several
years ago genuine controversy in the scientific
community about the nature of the current round of
global warming is that there were all there cooling
warming cycles in the past that were not entirely
well understood. But guess what? They did more
research to better understand those cycles, worked
on better theories to match the ever growing data on
how earth's climate works, and were able to come
to a consensus about the human contribution to the
current warming cycle. That's called science. You
trying to second guess all this painstakingly detailed
and complex research by throwing out random bits
of info you pulled off the Internet puts you squarely
into the crackpot category. It's like you claiming
that the speed of light can be exceeded by flying a
spaceship to a few miles per hour below it and then
shooting a bullet from the front of it. No, the physics
doesn't allow this whether you understand and/or
believe it or not.

This isn't a bad guide:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

>
> Web searches can be used to support just about ANY position, on any
> argument, from God to baseball stats. Big deal. Try reading, and using
> whatever grey matter has developed between your pointy ears.

Well, it takes a wee bit of knowledge to understand
that anything appearing at www.sciencemag.org or
www.nature.com has a wee bit more scientific credibility
than stuff appearing at places like
www.friendsofscience.org or even www.wsj.com and
www.foxnews.com

All web sites are *not* created equal.

>
> Usenet ettiquite does not require me to spend my free time arguing
> with ignorant punks who don't know how to do research, but are only
> capable of using google to find sites that back up their warped
> perceptions of how they want things to be.

Again, I offered up a pile of links to scientific and
government organizations while you offered up
nothing but a whole big steaming pile of crackpot
opinion. And I even double-dawg dared you to cite
any credible site that backs you up, and you haven't
even responded with a non-credible site at least.

>
> I've seen charts that link the CO emissions to the rise in temps. So
> what? Given the cycles the earth has ALWAYS gone through, its nothing
> but a useful conincidence.

Yeah, charts, graphs, data -- who needs 'em, right?
Just wiggly lines on a piece of paper -- what do they
have to do with the real world, eh?

>
> As for me not answering your claims, how about answering mine? If you
> are not required to answer, why should I?

What "claims" pray tell would these be?

>
> What is the correct temperature of the planet earth?

What, you're looking for an absolute single number?
There is none because you adjust the global average
drastically by changing what to include, especially in
the upper atmosphere where things get colder and
colder the higher you go until you hit space and near
absolute zero. But -- surprise, surprise -- scientists
kind of figured out and agreed on what should be
measured in order come up with meaningful and useful
global temperature averages:
http://www.nsc.org/EHC/climate/ccucla8.htm
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309068916/html

> Where is the
> proof that after trillions are spent, and societies crumble, there will
> be any difference? If we ceased all CO emissions today, how long will
> it take to get the earth back to normal, and since no one knows what
> normal is, how will we know when we achieved the goal and that were
> wise in our efforts?

So, by that logic, why should you get up in the
morning since you could get killed by a car? Also,
who says you have to spend "trillions"? In many
cases, you can reduce emmissions and actually
reduce costs simply through greater efficiency:
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/greenhouse/greenhouse4/wisconsin.html

>
> How do you heat the middle and bottom of the ocean from above? What
> heated up the earth, after the last ice age, and every ice age before
> that?

There are any number of causes for past ice ages
and any number of possible explanations:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/glaciation.html
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/climate_patterns/

But trying to connect these long term and long
past climate changes to the current global
warming trend is like trying to connect the history
of automotive development to why your particular
car has, say, a hard time starting up in the morning.
As I've pointed out, real scientist have looked at
and separated out the human factor in the current
warming trend, just as you might determine that
your car has problems starting up after whenever
you get a large fill-up from a certain gas station.

> Answer those questions with your weak links. Oh wait, they
> don't want to address anything that might foul up their neatly packaged
> explanation, no matter how many holes the "conclusion" has in it.

I think I answered enough, don't you think? Or do
you think at all?

>
> You think you are just so smart to proclaim that I won't answer your
> points, but you have not put forth any answers to what I declared.
> Therefore, your credibility is a big fact zero.

So in other words, "My anus-originated information
minus your cites, divided by spoon and multiplied by
goldfish equals yo' mama"

>
> I have read those pages, and many, many more books and papers, but
> unlike you, I read BOTH sides, to get the facts, and apply reason and
> logic, to avoid the agenda-driven results that the left desires. Try
> reading the facts, and then coming to your own conclusions, based only
> on the facts.

"Both sides" imply another side that you have failed so
far to provide any references to. The other side of rainbow
perchance? The land where chickens cross to perhaps?

>
> The answer is in the bigger picture. The earth constantly cycles from
> warm to cold, and back to warm. The fossil records show that a small,
> quick, heating cycle preceeds very long cooling. We are in a quick
> heating cycle, that, based on fossil records, in a very short time, as
> in 20-30 years, will turn to a cooling cycle. Since you are obviously
> all of about 19 years old, you will live to see it happen. They you
> can remember this conversation, and have to admit that I was right, and
> you were wrong.

Them's must be some kinda of "fossil records" that can
predict we're in a 20-30 yr heating cycle. And that claim
doesn't quite match up with these here sites and jiggly
graphs:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

So about that drug habit of yours....

-BC

Jim C.

unread,

Aug 21, 2006, 2:12:40 PM8/21/06

Yep,
What the hell, let's just ignore emission control altogether.
After all all that brown stuff in the air around L.A., Pheonix and other
large cities is just a figment of our imagination.
You got it right skippy ! BTW Hows your oil stock doing ?

Jim C

BC

unread,

Aug 21, 2006, 3:25:01 PM8/21/06

You know, I'm not too sure if I'm that happy as
sometimes being seen as some sort of all-purpose
expert. I've never been shy about saying that I'm
basically just a troll. With that said....

> For instance, this particular point
> intrigued me:
>
> > > Are you aware that you cannot HEAT a large, deep, body of water from
> > > above? Are you aware that the oceans are warming from BELOW? Get
> > > yourself a big old pot of water, and a torch, and see if you can warm
> > > the water at the bottom of that pan, by blowing heat onto its surface.
> > > You can't do it. It won't work.

This is just an example of taking bits of info out
of important context. For one thing, the ocean
currents are not static like a big pot of water,
or even like a large lake. Not only are the currents
directional, but they also go from surface to deep
and back again:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/thc/

Now take that big pot of water: to semi-dupe the
ocean currents, you would need to install little
pumps to cause a flow of water that circulated
from side to side and down and up. And with that
circulation, you *will* heat the water at the bottom
of the pot via heating the surface water because
it will gradually circulate down to the bottom.

That actually gives me a thought experiment: take
a very big, wide metal pot of water and set it in a
refrigerated room and then put a small, controlled
flame under it but not in the middle -- pick some
place towards the edge. Also add a small, fine
automatic water dripper to restore water lost
through evaporation. The temperature differential
between the hot spot at the bottom of the pot and
the chilly air at the top should cause a distinct
mini-current system to form that should be very
consistent in its dimensions, flow rates, and
temperature gradients even with the dripper. It
will achieve a certain very delicate equilibrium.

OK, now use a blow torch and experiment with
heating up different parts of the surface water: do
you think that little delicate equilibrium will stay
the same? How about if you just make the
room a little less chilly?

Actually, have you ever had a Lava Lamp? If so,
have you ever noticed the difference in the
flow patterns, often dramatic, based on the
temperature of the room?

The ocean currents are even more relatively
sensitive to any perturbations because as I
pointed out before, our biosphere, which
includes our water and atmosphere, is really
only a vaninishly thin coating on the surface of
the earth. The dramatic shades of blue ocean
and white clouds you see from space are all
like thin, ultra delicate coats of paint.

> > >
> > > How do your agenda driven scientists explain the oceans warming from
> > > bottom, upward, and generating increased, record levels of CO2? They
> > > can't, and they won't go near that issue, because that doesn't match
> > > their agenda of fossil fuels causing the problem.

"Agenda driven scientists" eh? Let's see now,
getting back to my big metal pot, instead of
there being one small flame under it, have
several, but unevenly distributed -- those will
represent the geothermal activity at the junction
of the tektonic plates. Make the room much
colder, but add a small heat lamp attached to a
clock-like mechanism that moves the heat lamp
above the surface of the pot's water in a steady,
even circular pattern -- that represents the heat
from the sun. Leave this all alone for a little bit
for it to reach a new circulation equilibrium.
Remember that automatic dripper to add back
evaporating water? Add dissolved CO2 to the
water it drips back into the pot water -- that
represents both natural CO2 created by
living organisms and the somewhat more
unnatural stuff created by human activity.

Now you may wonder about how much of that
dissolved CO2 is natural and how much is
not -- well:
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_gcc.html

Does that address the "point" for what it's
worth?

It's the nature of real scientists to qualify all
conclusions, especially in regards to something
as complex as a planetary climate/ecosystem.

Ramp up that little "big pot" thought experiment
of mine to a huge but shallow Pyrex bowl and
make it into a combination terrarium/aquarium
with little "islands" of soil and vegetation amid
a mini-ocean of small fish, crustaceans, and
what not. Again let it all reach a state of
equilibrium and map out all the currents, temp
distributions and such, and then see how little
or much it takes at her surface in terms of
temperature averages and distribution to cause
changes. Now think about how complicated it
would be to gather up all the data you would
need to create a useful model of this system in
a way you can predict the effects of toying with
it one way or the other. Earth's system is at
least a million times more complicated. That's
why supercomputers have been put to use
climatology and meteorology since there's
been supercomputers.

Hence the use of the word "likely".

The hurricane issue is a side note from the
overall global warming issue. As I said, "As far

as science goes, there is no more real debate on
whether humans are causing global warming -- it's
all now about getting a handle on the consequences"

and things like possible increased hurricane activity
are one of the consequences that the scientists are
trying to get a handle on.

Actually understanding how global warming can
affects hurricane activity is not so hard to understand:
the warmer the water, the more strong the hurricane
is likely to become. This is caused by the temperature
differential between the warm water and cold air at
the higher altitudes. This is why hurricanes coming
straight across from the southern Atlantic usually
quickly get stronger when they reach the Caribbean/
Gulf of Mexico area, which always has warmer water.
So an overall upward shift in average water temps
for both the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico should cause
an upward shift in average hurricane intensity. This
should also increase the average number of hurricanes
as well since more tropical storms will "graduate"
into hurricanes since they too will get more intense
on average, and as well as there being an more
extended hurricane season because of the overall
warmer weather..

But bear in mind that we're talking averages and not
will happen in a given year, since there are usually
not that many hurricanes and tropical storms per
season.

But, those flaws have turned out to be minor and
as I already said, the "hockey stick" model has
been verified:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/23/news/warm.php
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html

>
> Other scientists are succumbing to a form of fanaticism almost
> reminiscent of the McCarthy era. In their minds, criticism of
> methodology is nothing but the monstrous product of "conservative
> think-tanks and misinformation campaigns by the oil and coal lobby,"
> which they believe is their duty to expose. In contrast, dramatization
> of climate shift is defended as being useful from the standpoint of
> educating the public. [end excerpt]
>
> Hans von Storch, 55, is the director of the GKSS Institute for Coastal
> Research (IfK) in Geesthacht, Germany, which researches water and
> climate in coastal areas. Together with Nico Stehr, 62, a sociologist
> at Zeppelin University in Friedrichshafen, Germany, is a long-time
> researcher of public attitudes about climate change.
>
> http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00.html

That piece is from over 1 1/2 yrs ago and is literally
old news -- Storch is now firmly on board now with
the consensus:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/060619_ushouse_energycommercehvs.pdf

Pertinent quote:
"Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced
that we are facing anthropogenic climate change
brought about by the emission of greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere."

I have no idea what Stehr thinks now, but he's just
a sociologist and not a climate expert.

That's true: the H. Pylori theory for ulcers was
initially widely doubted and even outright rejected,
but then the evidence get piling up and piling up
supporting it, until even the strongest skeptics
relented.

Very much like Hans von Storch did in regards to
human-caused global warming.

I rest my case, and fingers.

-BC

Message has been deleted

Steven Douglas

unread,

Aug 21, 2006, 5:41:37 PM8/21/06

Okay, I understand that. You've been confidently expressing some
knowledge on the topic, so I expected to see more of that. And now,
having already read the post I'm now responding to, I'll say right up
front I'm impressed.

Yes. If you had answered some of those questions like that in the first
place, I'd have had no reason to jump in and express my disappointment.

Actually, I got the idea from the article I posted that he already
agreed with the conclusion, he just didn't like the methodology used to
come up with the hockey stick. And he didn't like the way IPCC
immediately institutionalized it. His article was more a criticism of
the way science sometimes jumps on conclusions some scientists desire,
and tries to discredit other scientists whose conclusions they don't
like:

[quoting] "Other scientists are succumbing to a form of fanaticism

almost reminiscent of the McCarthy era. In their minds, criticism of
methodology is nothing but the monstrous product of "conservative
think-tanks and misinformation campaigns by the oil and coal
lobby,"which they believe is their duty to expose. In contrast,
dramatization of climate shift is defended as being useful from the

standpoint of educating the public." [end quote]

Good job. Posting in this style is much more effective in convincing
readers to agree with you than posting in that other style. Thanks.

Steven Douglas

unread,

Aug 21, 2006, 5:43:43 PM8/21/06

Grumplestiltskin wrote:
> In article <1156113883.0...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, BC

> <call...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > What "points" would those be aside from a pile
> > of ludricrous and utterly unsubstantiated opinion
> > without a single cite or any coherent logic
> > whatsoever? Note that he basically swept away
> > all the links I gave to scientific and governmental
> > organizations as being what, just one opinion?:
> > "No, on the one side, we have people who back
> > up what you say, which you figure makes them
> > right and then there is the majority on the other
> > side, who disagree with you, so they are not only
> > wrong, they are crackpots and and the confused."
> >
> > I double-dawg dareed him "to come up with a
> > non-crackpot cite saying showing otherwise" and
> > he hasn't been able to do so. That makes him fair
> > game for derision by the implied rules of Usenet
> > Netiquette.
> >
> > An another un-backed-up comment on your part
> > will make you fair game as well. Well, fairer game....
> >
> > -BC
>

> Relax, BC. Steven Douglas and SingleWchildren are one and the same
> person.

Nice try, but wrong.
>
> In fact you dont even need to debate one. Debating with morons is
> always bad for the health.

Actually, BC just did a great job, no thanks to you.

Steven Douglas

unread,

Aug 21, 2006, 5:51:39 PM8/21/06

Jim C. wrote:
> Yep,
> What the hell, let's just ignore emission control altogether.
> After all all that brown stuff in the air around L.A., Pheonix and other
> large cities is just a figment of our imagination.

Oh, I just realized this was for me. I don't know about Phoenix, but
the air in L.A. is better now than it was 30 years ago. California has
been leading the way with the California Air Recources Board. For
instance, all paint sold in California had to be reformulated to meet
strict pollution standards. And what do you know, the federal
government adopted that standard for the entire nation. I'm happy with
the way pollution controls have improved over the years. Believe me,
the smog in L.A. was unbearable some years ago. Of course there's still
room for improvement, but things are moving in the right direction.

BC

unread,

Aug 22, 2006, 1:10:02 PM8/22/06

Well, thanks. While I am a troll, I am aware of a few
things and I do try to be responsible. I'm not so sure
how all this evolved from "President Clinton and Drugs....
"a nose like a vacuum cleaner."

The problem with the original Spiegel piece is that both
its headline and a comment about the scientific
consensus played right into the hands of the right wing,
anti-global warming groups:

****
EXAGGERATED SCIENCE

How Global Warming Research is Creating a Climate of Fear

By Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr

The polar ice caps are disappearing! The Gulf Stream is soon
to reverse! Right? Well, maybe. But calling such apocalyptic
theories into question is becoming more and more difficult for
skeptical scientists. Meanwhile, the public is getting tired of
being fed a diet of fear.

.....

Is there scientific consensus?

The public statements made by well-known German climate
researchers create the impression that the scientific
fundamentals of the climate problems have essentially been
solved. They claim that the scientific community has already
established the conditions for taking concerted action. In this
case, concerted action means reducing greenhouse gases
as much as possible.

This is a view that in fact does not correspond to the situation
in the scientific community. That's because a significant
number of climatologists are by no means convinced that the
underlying issues have been adequately addressed. Last year,
for example, a survey of climate researchers from all over the
world revealed that a quarter of respondents still question
whether human activity is responsible for the most recent
climatic changes.
****

I guarantee that article was responsible for von Storch
appearing before that US committee questioning the
"Hockey Stick" model: the committee was strictly a
witch hunt by Republican Joe Barton, one of congress's
better known anti-science, global warming skeptics, and
evidently intended to cast aspersions on the hockey
stick model in particular and the idea of human-caused
global warming in general, but fortunately things did not
turn out as Barton probably had hoped:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4693855.stm
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/hearing.htm
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/aug/business/pt_wsj.html
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2006/2006-06-22-10.asp

Indeed, from that PDF file, it appears that von Storch was
not too happy either with Barton's attitude:
"Having this situation in mind, I consider Rep. Barton's
requests to the three scientists as inadequate and out-of-
scale. However, the language used by Rep. Barton makes
me perceiving this request as aggressive and on the verge
of threatening."

As far as the original Speigel article goes, I'm not
sure if von Storch and Stehr had a legitimate beef:
they were complaining about supposed politics in
the scientific community regarding global warming,
as in a bias against any scientist still skeptical of
global warming, and they used a Michael Crichton
novel, the environmentalist-bashing "State of Fear,"
to illustrate their points. And then they went on to
use the "Hockey Stick" climate as an example of
how, "Science is deteriorating into a repair shop for

conventional, politically opportune scientific claims.
Not only does science become impotent; it also loses
its ability to objectively inform the public."

The problem is that however you gather your data,
once you do your calculations and graphing, you
still end up with a hockey stick for a graph for the
global warming trend, as von Storch himself ends
up doing in that PDF file! He might have some
legitimate beefs about Michael Mann's original
work having a flawed methodology and that Nature
magazine should have reviewed it more thoroughly
and had printed much more in full, but it turns out
that the flaws were minor and that Mann and his
colleagues were pretty much right on the money.

It might be that von Storch, being German, had no
good idea at how politicized not just global warming
but science in general has become in this country.
Scientific research here is constantly being second
guessed by the likes of Steven Milloy, who runs
www.junkscience.com and is a Fox News contributor.
Milloy also happens to be a crackpot, but how is Joe
and Jane Public, who are unlikely to be regular
Science and Nature readers, to know this? The guy
appears on Fox News so he must know something,
eh? And then you have politicians like Joe Barton and
this guy:
http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climateupdate.htm

Hopefully, after the "hockey stick" committee hearing,
von Storch won't be so quick to blame again fellow
scientists for playing politics.

But I kind of like the other style too....you're welcome,
though.

-BC

sbm...@shaw.ca

unread,

Aug 24, 2006, 9:57:48 AM8/24/06

singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> Grumplestiltskin wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Man caused global warming is totall bullshit, and it takes a liberal
> > > with an IQ of about 12, and an ego as big as Texas, to believe that
> > > puny man can affect the atmosphere in such a negative way.
> > >
> > > Stupid liberals........
> > > >
> > Wow I can't believe it. I've been searching for the Ultimate Moron for
> > many, many years. Like yeti, I had heard such a creature existed but I
> > didn't really believe it. But here's the proof.
>
> Happy to oblige your search. Do YOU have ANY proof that man-caused
> global warming is significant, beyond the theories postulated by SOME
> climatologists? Do you have ANY proof, that after spending trillions
> of dollars and devestating the world economies, this so called global
> warming will abate?

They keep posting the proof, but you keep saying you're too lazy to
read it.

>
> You are aware that the moron who has been digging up web pages that
> "prove" global warming, seems to be ignoring the equal amount of
> compelling evidence that he is an idiot? Its out there for anyone who
> wants to learn the TRUTH, which is very much different than just
> pasting URLs that support ONE side of the argument. I don't have to
> prove anything. The proof is there for all who seek it. Some people
> just have too much time on their hands, and sadly, they invest it very
> poorly. Me? I won't spend more than the few minutes it takes to post
> this, because IF someone is truly seeking the facts, rather than
> desperately trying to defend a chosen position, they will find those
> facts, and reach the proper conclusion.
>

> Do you have understanding of the cyclical nature of the earth's
> environment that has been going on for millions of years? Do you have
> any answer to the question of what caused the last warming cycle, that
> occured before anyone was burning fossil fuels? Can you explain to
> anyone with a brain, how the earth has managed to warm and cool dozens
> of times over the recorded history that man has exhumed from the
> earth?
>

Two things wrong with that, shit for brains. First off, the glacial
retreat started about 20,000 years ago and came to a dead stop 8,000
years ago. The warming trend is OVER. If anything, it should be
getting ready to come back down.

Next, it took 12,000 years for the climate to warm by about 8C. That
works out to about 0.066n degrees C per century. We've had 0.6C
warming in ONE century. That's about ten times the rate of warming
during the ice age. Got it now?

> If you can't explain why the earth warmed after the last ice age, then
> you have no grounds to explain why it is warming now.
>

We know it has a heck of a lot to do with CO2. The graph of CO2
concentration in the atmosphere follows the planet's mean temperature
almost perfectly.

> Do you understand that the fossil records tell us of warm/cool cycles
> and how long they last, and even how quickly they occur, and that we
> are on the precipice of a COOLING cycle, first preceeded by a quick
> heating cycle, just as has happend countless times in the millions of
> years the earth has existed? These are facts. Go look them up.

News flash: we just had the "quick" heating cycle. By your own logic
the Earth should be getting cooler, not warmer.

>
> Do you understand anything about the FACT that the sun's energy output
> increases and decreases over time, and that at this moment, its energy
> output is peaking, which WILL DEFINITELY warm the atmosphere of the
> earth?

> '

The output of the sun changes by no more than a tiny fraction of a
percentage point, and the small change we get is not nearly enough to
account for the warming we're seeing.

> Are you aware that you cannot HEAT a large, deep, body of water from
> above?

Who told you that? Get some physics education, idiot. Heat will
travel to wherever it's colder. It doesn't care about "up" or "down".
The sun is in the sky, moron. You're saying the sun can't heat up the
oceans?

>Are you aware that the oceans are warming from BELOW? Get
> yourself a big old pot of water, and a torch, and see if you can warm
> the water at the bottom of that pan, by blowing heat onto its surface.
> You can't do it. It won't work.

You can do it, it will work if you keep the torch on for long enough.

>
> How do your agenda driven scientists explain the oceans warming from
> bottom, upward, and generating increased, record levels of CO2?

Circulation, idiot.

>They
> can't, and they won't go near that issue, because that doesn't match
> their agenda of fossil fuels causing the problem.
>
> How is it that much of the polar ice masses north, and south, are
> floats on the ocean, yet the scientists you worship are declaring that
> the levels of the ocean may rise 20+ feet. You are aware that a glass
> of water, filled with ice, and then water, right to the brim, will NOT
> overflow as the ice melts? You are aware that the ice displaces its own
> weight, and therefore does not add one drop to the level of the water,
> as it melts?
>

Oh, man. I thought we had run out of idiots who fell for that line.
THat piece of crap was first distributed by a senior fellow at the CATO
institute, and is a perfect example why it qualifies as a cornball
site.

The teeny little problem with your logic? Most of the world's ice is
on LAND. As in Antarctica, Greenland, Siberia, Northern Canada. Try
holding that ice cube in your hand and letting it drip into the glass
as it melts, see what happens, idiot.

> Before you decide that the emissions from cars and factories are
> causing a problem, you must first determine the overall size of the
> atmosphere, and then calculate the amount of emissions ejected each
> day/month/year, and THEN decide if the atmospere can disperse it and
> cope with it. You do not know the amount of emissions, relative to the
> size of the atmosphere, and those numbers are NEVER considered by the
> agenda driven "scientists" who have you buffaloed into thinking that
> one drop of water, on a two thousand square foot carpet, will destroy
> that rug.

Actually, idiot, they can estimate how much CO2 we're putting out quite
easily and they have done that. You're just too lazy to read about it.

>
> Do some research yourself. Get the numbers, create the equations, and
> realize for yourself that Mt St Helens puked more trash into the
> atmosphere than man did for years and years, and the atmosphere ate it
> up, and didn't even blink. You just do not know how big the earth is,
> and how large this ball of air that surrounds it, really is, much less
> what it is capable of doing. You just keep reading the liberal mantra,
> and buying it hook line and sinker.
>

Retard. Volcanoes have been erupting at the same rate for millenia.
The CO2 we produce is on top of that.

> These are the same scientists who say that we will see an increase in
> hurricanes, and so far, this year..... well, that speaks for itself.
> Massive hurricanes in the Gulf are caused by the Atlantic ocean being
> slightly warmer than the Pacific. Hmmmm, one ocean, warmer than the
> other...... Hmmmm. That is hard to explain,

The Gulf Stream, moron.

>if the entire planet is
> warming all at once, but easy to see, once learn that the oceans are
> warming from beneath, due to extreme volcanic activity beneath their
> bedrock.
>

Moron. On AVERAGE the planet is heating up, but of course there are
going to be regional differences. And if the Atlantic is heating
faster than the Pacific, guess what's going to happen?

As for the increased volcanic activity, I guess you have a cite for
that? Exactly what proof do you have that there is more volcanic
activity on the ocean floor, other than your fevered imagination?

> When you can prove that shutting off all man made emissions will reduce
> the temp of the climate significantly, when you can prove that YOU
> know the ideal temperature of the earth, and that spending trillions
> of dollars world wide, and bankrupting nations to do it, will achieve
> this, as yet unknown, perfect temperature, then you can make a claim
> that change is required.

You think that global warming won't have an economic impact? Go check
out what the pine beetle is doing to the US lumber industry because the
winters aren't getting cold enough to kill them off. That's only a
small taste of what to come.

And if humans are behind the warming, humans can stop it. End of story.

singlew...@gmail.com

unread,

Aug 24, 2006, 1:23:12 PM8/24/06

sbm...@shaw.ca wrote:
> singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Grumplestiltskin wrote:

> They keep posting the proof, but you keep saying you're too lazy to
> read it.
>

Its not proof, its very subjective evidence that does not stand up to
real science.

>
>
> Two things wrong with that, shit for brains. First off, the glacial
> retreat started about 20,000 years ago and came to a dead stop 8,000
> years ago. The warming trend is OVER. If anything, it should be
> getting ready to come back down.

There have been MANY warming/cooling cycles of the earth in the last
20,000 years, not just one. Government schools failed you........

>
> Next, it took 12,000 years for the climate to warm by about 8C. That
> works out to about 0.066n degrees C per century. We've had 0.6C
> warming in ONE century. That's about ten times the rate of warming
> during the ice age. Got it now?

Do you really believe that in 1910, science was able to accurately
monitor the temps of the earth to the tenths of degrees? You really
believe that anyone today, knows what the actual, accurate temperature
of the earth was 8000 years ago? What did we do, find Fred Flintstone's
diary? You have to be completely stupid to accept anyone's claim to
know the temp of the earth, over 12,000 years ago, to withing a few
degrees. Government schools have failed you...

Even in 1935, no one could measure temps of the earth to a tenth of
degree. That technolgy did not exist with any accuracy.

> News flash: we just had the "quick" heating cycle. By your own logic
> the Earth should be getting cooler, not warmer.

Probably about ten or twelve more years of warming, and then the very
cooling cycle will kick in. Its in the fossil records, its pretty much
of a fact. Just because it didn't happen this year, doesn't change what
will occur very soon.

> > '
>
> The output of the sun changes by no more than a tiny fraction of a
> percentage point, and the small change we get is not nearly enough to
> account for the warming we're seeing.
>

Ooooo, the government schools have failed you again. Check it out, and
learn for yourself that the output of the sun changes dramatically, and
most certainly alters the temperature of the earth's atmosphere. It may
not cause all the increase, but it certainly has a significant effect.

>
> > Are you aware that you cannot HEAT a large, deep, body of water from
> > above?
>
> Who told you that? Get some physics education, idiot. Heat will
> travel to wherever it's colder. It doesn't care about "up" or "down".
> The sun is in the sky, moron. You're saying the sun can't heat up the
> oceans?

Dear idiot,

You are saying that if you increase the temp of the air above an ocean
2.5 miles deep, all of .6 degrees, that will raise the temp of the sea
bed several degrees? You need to find a school that teaches facts, not
agendas.......

The actual facts are, that the temps on the ocean floor, are rising,
but those recorded mid ocean are less, and the surfaces even less. That
it heat RISING from the ocean floor, not convencting downward, from top
to bottom. Watch those government schools, they will screw you up every
time....

> You can do it, it will work if you keep the torch on for long enough.

No, not unless the torch puts out enough energy to heat the entire mass
of the water, and .6 degress ain't gonna do it.

> Circulation, idiot.

Physics wasn't your best class in that government school, was it?>

>
>>
> Actually, idiot, they can estimate how much CO2 we're putting out quite
> easily and they have done that. You're just too lazy to read about it.
>

What is the point in calling me an idiot, when I can just as easily
call you a flaming asshole? Those words don't add anything to your
credibility. Its not HOW much CO2 we are putting out, its HOW MUCH is
it, RELATIVE to the size of the atmosphere, and the abitlity of that
atmosphere to absorb it and essentially filter it.

You need to come back and show how large the atmosphere is, relative to
the amount we are dispersing, before you can show that we are having a
detrimental effect. You and so many other "chicken littles" are afraid
that a drop if water in a gallon of milk will destroy the flavor of
that milk.

Hey, ever notice that when satellites and even things like Skylab are
allowed to enter the atmosphere and burn up, no one cares?You know why,
because it is such a tiny amount of debris, relative to the ocean that
it won't make any difference. Same thing with CO2 emmisions. Not enough
to make a signficant difference.

>
> Retard. Volcanoes have been erupting at the same rate for millenia.
> The CO2 we produce is on top of that.

Do you figure you are hurting my feelings with your childish reparte'?
All you are doing is revealing your immaturity.

. What we produce pales in comparison, and adds virtually nothing
compared to volcanic eruptions, emissions from the warming oceans, the
energy output of the sun, etc.

>
> As for the increased volcanic activity, I guess you have a cite for
> that? Exactly what proof do you have that there is more volcanic
> activity on the ocean floor, other than your fevered imagination?

You need to find your own answers. I don't do research for usenet. I do
it, I learn, and I move on. Its not my job to educate you and everyone
else in this sewer of a newsgroup. Others have done the legwork, and
published the information for kids like you, to read, and evaluate for
yourself. You see, science doesn't do anything more than research, and
publish findings. Science doesn't care if the earth is warming or not.
Politicians and agenda driven scientists do, but real scientists just
put out the data, and you can decide for yourself.

If you care, if you REALLY want to understand the issue, rather than
just regurgitation of tired old web pages, you will do the looking, and
find the answers for yourself.

Just ask your mom to enter the search terms into google, or better yet,
read actual science magazines and research papers. There is more out
there than CNN and MSNBC.

Plus, whatever I post, will be only declared crackpot science by
freaking geniuses like you anyway. Your ilk has all the good web pages,
and everything else
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060720103605.htm

> You think that global warming won't have an economic impact?

Global cooling, global warming... we can't control either of them. In
the 70's and 80's, we were doomed because cooling was occuring.
Glaciers were growing, and we were going to suffer thse consequences.
Didn't happen. Won't happen from warming either, unless we get into the
panic mode, and start doing things that are unneccessary, and we start
to deconstruct the economy we have built and go backwards. Knee jerk
reactions based on hypocrital idiots like al gore will be more
devestating than anything globalony can inflict on u.

> out what the pine beetle is doing to the US lumber industry because the
> winters aren't getting cold enough to kill them off. That's only a
> small taste of what to come.

oooooo, I am scared. I know all about the pine beetles, and your tiny
explanation of the cause is all wet. Nice try tho.

>
> And if humans are behind the warming, humans can stop it. End of story.

I hope it is the end of the story, because all you are doing is putting
up bullshit scare tactics, and goose stepping with the environmentalist
nazis who would put us all back in the 19th century because of a theory
that so far, has no basis in fact.

Trouble is, you even admited that the earth is warming naturally, and
you believe we are adding to it. If we cease all emission today, the
earth will still warm, and although it might take longer, the results
will be the same. The beetles will destroy the trees, the oceans will
wipe out the coastlines, the ice will melt, and we will all die. Just
gonna happen a hundred years from now, instead of next year. Big
deal..... The difference is, trillions will be spent, millions will
suffer the consequences, and the results will still be the same.

You can fit the population of the earth into an area of about 35 square
miles. You can take every automobile's tailpipe, and add them together
to make one big pipe that puts out fossil fuel emissions, but that pipe
is only slightly bigger than Yellowstone Lake. Not big enough to emit
anywhere near an amount that would affect the atmosphere. You can't
even fill Lake Tahoe halfway with all the crude oil that we have pumped
from the earth in our history, but you wackos want the level headed
thinkers to believe that burning that small drop of crude, relative to
the size of the earth, destroyed the atmosphere?

Get real. Take a trip. Get in a plane. Go into space. You and your
insane clown group don't know what the heck you are talking about. Man
can barely make a mark on this planet, and is incapable of altering its
overall environment.

Your problem is, you live in a concrete jungle of roads, parking lots,
houses and cars all wedged into a small area, and its damn hot anymore,
because you built heat sinks that radiate all night during the summer,
so your average city temps seem to be climbing. That ain't global
warming. That is localized, stupid warming.

Better move to the top of the Rockies (like we want you around here)
and be as high as you can when those oceans rise 22ft.... (bullcrap)
and wipe out civilization as we know it. I wonder what happened to the
bears, the trees, and the pine beetles when the earth was warming and
cooling dozens of times before man was even a part of it. Gasp!!

Call me all the names you want, the FACTS are much different than the
liberal agenda, and the media reports.

sbm...@shaw.ca

unread,

Aug 25, 2006, 1:22:00 AM8/25/06

singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> sbm...@shaw.ca wrote:
> > singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Grumplestiltskin wrote:
>
> > They keep posting the proof, but you keep saying you're too lazy to
> > read it.
> >
>
> Its not proof, its very subjective evidence that does not stand up to
> real science.

How do you know that without reading it? Or do you prefer to wallow in
ignorance.

> >
> >
> > Two things wrong with that, shit for brains. First off, the glacial
> > retreat started about 20,000 years ago and came to a dead stop 8,000
> > years ago. The warming trend is OVER. If anything, it should be
> > getting ready to come back down.
>
> There have been MANY warming/cooling cycles of the earth in the last
> 20,000 years, not just one. Government schools failed you........
>

Where did you go, dipshit U? Show me the evidence that there has been
more than one glacial retreat in the last 12,000 years.

> >
> > Next, it took 12,000 years for the climate to warm by about 8C. That
> > works out to about 0.066n degrees C per century. We've had 0.6C
> > warming in ONE century. That's about ten times the rate of warming
> > during the ice age. Got it now?
>
>
> Do you really believe that in 1910, science was able to accurately
> monitor the temps of the earth to the tenths of degrees?

Nope. But there is now. And since Earth's climatic record has been
preserved in the Antarctic ice, it is possible to not only Earths' mean
temperature, but also the atmospheric content over the last few tens of
thousands of years. Didn't you read about that when you were studying
at Dipshit U.?

>You really
> believe that anyone today, knows what the actual, accurate temperature
> of the earth was 8000 years ago?

Yup. Thanks to climatic scientists, tree rings, and Antarctic ice
cores.

>What did we do, find Fred Flintstone's
> diary?

See above. Of course, if you were anywhere near the climate expert you
claim to be, you'd know about the methods used already. Incredible
what they don't cover over at Dipshit U.

>You have to be completely stupid to accept anyone's claim to
> know the temp of the earth, over 12,000 years ago, to withing a few
> degrees. Government schools have failed you...

ANd yet you claim that there have been several "warming and cooling"
cycles over the last 8,000 years. Mind telling us how you came to that
conclusion if you can't measure temperature that far back? Or were you
just lying before? I hear lying is a degree program at Dipshit U.

>
> Even in 1935, no one could measure temps of the earth to a tenth of
> degree. That technolgy did not exist with any accuracy.

Actually, they could. A simple thermometer will do the job if it's
calibrated correctly.

>
> > News flash: we just had the "quick" heating cycle. By your own logic
> > the Earth should be getting cooler, not warmer.
>
> Probably about ten or twelve more years of warming, and then the very
> cooling cycle will kick in.

LOL!!! According to who? The climate scientists at Dipshit U? Where
are you getting that from, moron.

>Its in the fossil records,

REally? They have a palentology department at Dipshit U.?

>its pretty much
> of a fact. Just because it didn't happen this year, doesn't change what
> will occur very soon.
>

Cool. I'll bet you ten thousand dollars it doesn't happen.

> > > '
> >
> > The output of the sun changes by no more than a tiny fraction of a
> > percentage point, and the small change we get is not nearly enough to
> > account for the warming we're seeing.
> >
>
> Ooooo, the government schools have failed you again. Check it out, and
> learn for yourself that the output of the sun changes dramatically, and
> most certainly alters the temperature of the earth's atmosphere. It may
> not cause all the increase,

Which is exactly what I said, moron. Don't they teach reading at
Dipshit U?

> but it certainly has a significant effect.

> >
> > > Are you aware that you cannot HEAT a large, deep, body of water from
> > > above?
> >
> > Who told you that? Get some physics education, idiot. Heat will
> > travel to wherever it's colder. It doesn't care about "up" or "down".
> > The sun is in the sky, moron. You're saying the sun can't heat up the
> > oceans?
>
> Dear idiot,
>
> You are saying that if you increase the temp of the air above an ocean
> 2.5 miles deep, all of .6 degrees, that will raise the temp of the sea
> bed several degrees?

Nope. IT will raise it by .6 degrees if given long enough to work.

You need to find a school that teaches facts, not
> agendas.......

You need to find a school that teaches physics. Dipshit U. doesnt' seem
to be cutting it.

>
> The actual facts are, that the temps on the ocean floor, are rising,

Uh huh. Where are you getting this from? The oceanography department
at Dipshit U?

> but those recorded mid ocean are less, and the surfaces even less. That
> it heat RISING from the ocean floor, not convencting downward, from top
> to bottom. Watch those government schools, they will screw you up every
> time....
>

Actually, idiot, the temperature of the water at the ocean bottom is
almost always a constant 4C. The reason for this is simple; that's the
temperature at which water reaches it's maximum density, so water at
that temperature sinks to the bottom.

> > You can do it, it will work if you keep the torch on for long enough.
>
> No, not unless the torch puts out enough energy to heat the entire mass
> of the water, and .6 degress ain't gonna do it.

Actually if you learned your physics at somewhere else than Dipshit U.,
you'd have learned that it WILL do it. You see, heat flows from
anywhere it's hotter to where it's colder. Thermodynamics 101. I
guess they don't teach that coursae at Dipshit U. The only way do stop
or reverse the temperature flow is to do work.

>
>
> > Circulation, idiot.
>
> Physics wasn't your best class in that government school, was it?>

Actually, I have a B.Sc. in Physics. And not from Dipshit U.

>
> >
> >>
> > Actually, idiot, they can estimate how much CO2 we're putting out quite
> > easily and they have done that. You're just too lazy to read about it.
> >
>
> What is the point in calling me an idiot, when I can just as easily
> call you a flaming asshole?

I can call you an idiot AND an asshole, since you claim to be "right"
while refusing to even look at opposing evidence. Ignorance is the
trademark of assholes.

>Those words don't add anything to your
> credibility. Its not HOW much CO2 we are putting out, its HOW MUCH is
> it, RELATIVE to the size of the atmosphere, and the abitlity of that
> atmosphere to absorb it and essentially filter it.

I realize you probably won't read this, because you're an ignorant
retard, but here's the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2

>
> You need to come back and show how large the atmosphere is, relative to
> the amount we are dispersing, before you can show that we are having a
> detrimental effect. You and so many other "chicken littles" are afraid
> that a drop if water in a gallon of milk will destroy the flavor of
> that milk.

It's not a drop, it's 24,000 million tonnes per year. The mass of CO2
in the atmosphere is approximately 2 million tonnes. So we're adding
about 1% a year right now. It adds up.

>
> Hey, ever notice that when satellites and even things like Skylab are
> allowed to enter the atmosphere and burn up, no one cares?You know why,
> because it is such a tiny amount of debris, relative to the ocean that
> it won't make any difference. Same thing with CO2 emmisions. Not enough
> to make a signficant difference.

The amount above is about 100 times more than what's put out by
volcanoes, which was what put the CO2 there in the first place. You
honestly don't think that's going to make a significant difference?
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, incidentally, has increased by 40%
since the Industrial Revolution. You think volcanoes are doing that?

>
> >
> > Retard. Volcanoes have been erupting at the same rate for millenia.
> > The CO2 we produce is on top of that.
> Do you figure you are hurting my feelings with your childish reparte'?
> All you are doing is revealing your immaturity.
>
> . What we produce pales in comparison, and adds virtually nothing
> compared to volcanic eruptions, emissions from the warming oceans, the
> energy output of the sun, etc.

Like I said, what we get from volcanoes is 1% of what we put out.
You've got a point about the warming oceans - the worry is that global
warming could start a positive feedback cycle, producing even more
warming. That's what they mean when they talk about "tipping points".
SOmething you'd know about if they allowed reading at Dipshit U.

> >
> > As for the increased volcanic activity, I guess you have a cite for
> > that? Exactly what proof do you have that there is more volcanic
> > activity on the ocean floor, other than your fevered imagination?
>
> You need to find your own answers. I don't do research for usenet.

So, in other words you have nothing but your own fevered imagination to
back up your claim.

>I do
> it, I learn, and I move on. Its not my job to educate you and everyone
> else in this sewer of a newsgroup.

Obviously, they don't have a debating team at Dipshit U. Otherwise
you'd know that it's the job of the guy making the claim to back it up.

>Others have done the legwork, and
> published the information for kids like you, to read, and evaluate for
> yourself. You see, science doesn't do anything more than research, and
> publish findings. Science doesn't care if the earth is warming or not.
> Politicians and agenda driven scientists do, but real scientists just
> put out the data, and you can decide for yourself.

And real writers don't make claims without being able to back them up.
I guess they dont' teach writing at Dipshit U, either.

And anyway, what would you know about research, retard? You already
admitted you don't read anything. Yeah, that's real good research
strategy there, straight out of the Dipshit U. textbooks.

>
> If you care, if you REALLY want to understand the issue, rather than
> just regurgitation of tired old web pages, you will do the looking, and
> find the answers for yourself.
>
> Just ask your mom to enter the search terms into google, or better yet,
> read actual science magazines and research papers. There is more out
> there than CNN and MSNBC.
>
> Plus, whatever I post, will be only declared crackpot science by
> freaking geniuses like you anyway.

At least we read those and make up our own mind. You prefer to wallow
in ignorance.

>Your ilk has all the good web pages,
> and everything else
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060720103605.htm
>
> > You think that global warming won't have an economic impact?
>
> Global cooling, global warming... we can't control either of them. In
> the 70's and 80's, we were doomed because cooling was occuring.

Yeesh. About a half-dozen scientists came up with this 30 years ago,
and they changed their minds after about a year. And of course the
rightards never let us hear the end of it. Oh well, its a good lesson
to other scientists not to go public with your research before you've
collaborated your findings.

> Glaciers were growing, and we were going to suffer thse consequences.
> Didn't happen. Won't happen from warming either, unless we get into the
> panic mode, and start doing things that are unneccessary, and we start
> to deconstruct the economy we have built and go backwards. Knee jerk
> reactions based on hypocrital idiots like al gore will be more
> devestating than anything globalony can inflict on u.

Yah yah. Tell it to New Orleans.

>
> > out what the pine beetle is doing to the US lumber industry because the
> > winters aren't getting cold enough to kill them off. That's only a
> > small taste of what to come.
>
> oooooo, I am scared. I know all about the pine beetles, and your tiny
> explanation of the cause is all wet. Nice try tho.
>

THe lumber industry is sure scared. The beetle is killing more trees
in North America than forest fires.

> >
> > And if humans are behind the warming, humans can stop it. End of story.
>
> I hope it is the end of the story, because all you are doing is putting
> up bullshit scare tactics, and goose stepping with the environmentalist
> nazis who would put us all back in the 19th century because of a theory
> that so far, has no basis in fact.
>
> Trouble is, you even admited that the earth is warming naturally,

Actually, idiot, I said it was cooling naturally. Do try to keep up.

>and
> you believe we are adding to it. If we cease all emission today, the
> earth will still warm, and although it might take longer, the results
> will be the same. The beetles will destroy the trees, the oceans will
> wipe out the coastlines, the ice will melt, and we will all die. Just
> gonna happen a hundred years from now, instead of next year. Big
> deal..... The difference is, trillions will be spent, millions will
> suffer the consequences, and the results will still be the same.
>
> You can fit the population of the earth into an area of about 35 square
> miles. You can take every automobile's tailpipe, and add them together
> to make one big pipe that puts out fossil fuel emissions, but that pipe
> is only slightly bigger than Yellowstone Lake. Not big enough to emit
> anywhere near an amount that would affect the atmosphere.

Actually, idiot, it's more than enough. Which you'd know if you'd
bothered to read that link I sent you.

>You can't
> even fill Lake Tahoe halfway with all the crude oil that we have pumped
> from the earth in our history, but you wackos want the level headed
> thinkers to believe that burning that small drop of crude, relative to
> the size of the earth, destroyed the atmosphere?

Because, you idiot, the atmosphere is also an extremely small part of
the Earth. If the Earth were the size of an apple, the total
breathable air would be about the thickness of the skin. Something
they don't teach you, I guess, at Dipshit U.

>
> Get real. Take a trip. Get in a plane. Go into space. You and your
> insane clown group don't know what the heck you are talking about. Man
> can barely make a mark on this planet, and is incapable of altering its
> overall environment.
>
> Your problem is, you live in a concrete jungle of roads, parking lots,
> houses and cars all wedged into a small area, and its damn hot anymore,
> because you built heat sinks that radiate all night during the summer,
> so your average city temps seem to be climbing. That ain't global
> warming. That is localized, stupid warming.
>
> Better move to the top of the Rockies (like we want you around here)
> and be as high as you can when those oceans rise 22ft.... (bullcrap)
> and wipe out civilization as we know it. I wonder what happened to the
> bears, the trees, and the pine beetles when the earth was warming and
> cooling dozens of times before man was even a part of it. Gasp!!

It was just fine because like I said, the warming/cooling was one-tenth
what it is now and the flora/fauna had plenty of time to move with the
climate. Now, It's been proven that our climate is heating up too fast
for our forests to keep up.

>
> Call me all the names you want, the FACTS are much different than the
> liberal agenda, and the media reports.

How would you know? You refuse to look at the facts.

Oh, I almost forgot. Somehow, you left out this bit. I know you're
not a snip coward or anything, so I'll just repost this for you.

> How is it that much of the polar ice masses north, and south, are
> floats on the ocean, yet the scientists you worship are declaring that
> the levels of the ocean may rise 20+ feet. You are aware that a glass
> of water, filled with ice, and then water, right to the brim, will NOT
> overflow as the ice melts? You are aware that the ice displaces its own
> weight, and therefore does not add one drop to the level of the water,
> as it melts?

There, now you can dispute this. Feel free to consult with your
professors at Dipshit U. if you need help.

BC

unread,

Aug 25, 2006, 10:45:20 AM8/25/06

Back with your crackpot science again, are we?
How many times do you need your butt spanked
before you understand that extrapolating from
random bits of info is *NOT* science. The right
wing loves to pull information out of context all
the time when it suits them, blissfully ignoring
that this almost always completly strips the
information of meaning, just as much as when
you pull select phrases and words out of a
statement someone makes and then re-paraphase
them to claim that's what the person said.

Remember how Al Gore is mocked to this day
for supposedly claiming that he "invented the
Internet"? He actually never claimed that, but
take a few choice words out of context, and then
have the highly misleading rephased version get
circulated by people who don't like Al Gore, and
Voila! -- an urban myth is born
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Looking through the rest of your post, you do
pretty much the same thing -- you make wrong
assumptions about how measurements are
made, including the fundamental one that you
think scientists haven't been factoring in the
differences in measuring temperatures with
satellites, themometers, and ice core drilling.
Duh, a very fundamental part of science is
figuring out how to measure the very hard to
measure, from comic mass distribuition and
density to ancient global temperatures. Its a
form of delicate forensics, combining observation
theory, logic, and clever measurements. The
asteroid impact theory for the extinction of
dinosaurs started off as an observation in 1980
when Luis Alvarez and his son Walter were on
on a geology expedition in Italy when they
noticed a band of sedimentary rock with
unusually high levels of iridium, a rare element
usually associated with meteors. They were
able to date the band of rock as being about
65 million years old, which coincidently -- or
perhaps not so coincidently -- corresponds to
the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary when the
dinosaurs disappeared.

Hence an idea/theory is born.The impact
theory for dinosaur extinction was not exactly
immediately fully embraced by paleontologists
at the time, but that just meant that everyone
got to do some exciting and interesting science
that supported or disproved the theory. Literally
and intellectually, no stone was left unturned.

You crackpots -- and I'm using that mostly as
an accurate description and not just as an
insult -- don't really understand how science
works and you think you can outguess and out-
theorize a legion of very brainy, well-educated,
highly trained experts whose job it is to make
sense of highly complex processes. You
throw out bits and pieces of opinion and out-of-
context info and go "What about this, what about
this, what about this...." ad infinitum, but that's
not asking intelligent questions -- it's more like
a child petulently demanding a candy bar at the
checkout and not being satisfied with the reasons
given for why he/she is being denied it.

And just because you can find comfort and
support with other crackpots on the Internet
and in crackpot, anti-science web sites doesn't
change anything -- a million crackpots are just
a million crackpots, no more, no less.

If you really want to understand climate in an
way that will allow you to ask intelligent
questions, go make the effort to understand the
basics, starting with a good book on the subject,
something like this:
http://vig.prenhall.com/catalog/academic/product/0,1144,0131496964,00.html

Ignorance is easy; knowledge is simply not as
easy.

-BC

marika

unread,

Aug 27, 2006, 5:04:12 PM8/27/06

Rightwinghank wrote:

i'm watching cspan, rush is on presenting some sort of award to the
members of the tv show 24.

he is trying to make the argument that because 24 shows torture scenes,
it's ok for the us to torture. that's some twisted logic

> DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
> SECTION: THE STORY OF A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
> SUBSECTION: DRUGS

see the constant gardener for a real conspiracy that happened and
continues to

> Revised 8/20/99
>

If you get a minute, go HERE http://december1.proboards9.com/ or any
of the dates onthe board.

It's the rideshare board for protests on Dec. 1

I think you should go along to one of their rallies, because who I am
certain will be attending the big protest
is a big Bobby Seale fan, after all, no? you should offer to give
rides to some of these poor souls up at some pre-determined pick up
location don't you? Maybe about 8am or so, ... at some
Country Buffet rest stop on the main drag through the middle of
Virginia? Whaddya think? if they are very agreeable, any where
"Vegan4Life" lives, they are sure to live close by, so it is no
problem
for them to arrange a meeting place, don't you think? wear a black
Tshirt
that says "All My Heroes Still Wear Masks- ALF", and drive a bright
green VW beetle with a bumper sticker that says "Free the Animals" on
the left side and "Honk if you're vegan" on the right side. tell them
you
couldn't make it to the earlier gigs espcially the one in Arkansas
where you could truly argue against clinton, because you
had mid-terms (PoliSci is SUCH a bummer!) so you are really pumped up
for
this one!

or pick them up in a maroon 1998 Ford
Taurus, but it isn't a "vegan-labeled" car because you are borrowing
it
from your older brother (the carnivore!) for the weekend. But you'll
be
wearing a really KEWL bandanna on your head, and two different color
Chuck Connor sneakers (one red, one black- of course!) so you'll be
easy
to identify.

mk5000

'the series was actually based on les miserables, but it was before the
musical so this comparison wasn't often drawn'--barry morse

0 new messages