PDA

View Full Version : THE RESULTS ARE IN ... IT'S OFFICIAL!



LWW
01-03-2012, 04:42 AM
Of the top 18 most corrupt politicians ... 12 are demokrooks, 6 republichickens. All should, IMHO, be prosecuted.


<span style='font-size: 26pt'>LET THE DENIALS BEGIN! (https://www.judicialwatch.org/corrupt-politicians-lists/washingtons-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-for-2011/#holder)</span>

cushioncrawler
01-03-2012, 05:45 AM
Truenuff.
But in the usofa its whats dunn legally that iz the main worry.
mac.

Qtec
01-03-2012, 06:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Truenuff. </div></div>

Nah. You should know by now that 99.9% of what he posts is BS.

#4 on the list of “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” is Attorney General Eric Holder.
Guess what? <span style='font-size: 14pt'>He isn't a politician!</span>

Need I say more?

Q

Qtec
01-03-2012, 06:32 AM
Lets take #1 on the list.
Q...... Is this insider trading illegal?
Answer. Eh NO!

Never mind that they ALL do it, Cantor to the rescue.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cantor promises swift action on STOCK Act not really (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7391931n) </div></div>

Oh wait.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">STOCK Act scuttled. Guess who scuttled it? (http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000061556) </div></div>

Bachus may have been the worst offender, but he was not alone.

Q

LWW
01-03-2012, 07:07 AM
Again ... you should be ashamed of defending such activity.

That being said, we know you will defend anything done by anyone who bears the golden (D).

Soflasnapper
01-03-2012, 11:41 AM
It's not official in any respect, so it doesn't matter that 'the results' are in. This has the credibility of an RNC or DNC press release.

Let's go to Common Cause, Public Citizen, or other actual good government sites, to see who THEY say are the most corrupt, if that is of interest. Or go to hack sites from either side, to find out some more political spin on that question.

Hint: reading through this list reveals ridiculous standards of corruption, that aren't really corruption at all. Sexual harassment, while not good, isn't corruption. Nor is the use of the Speaker's transportation for family members, when that use is fully disclosed and properly paid for according to the same governmental standards that apply to everyone. Nor is the Speaker's transportation itself a corrupt arrangement, contrary to their statement.

That such bare bones and shall we say, politically oriented charges, get listed in what is actually a serious matter of official corruption, disqualifies Judicial Watch as a serious commentator on this question. Which we knew anyway from their past behaviors.

Gayle in MD
01-03-2012, 11:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Truenuff. </div></div>

Nah. You should know by now that 99.9% of what he posts is BS.

#4 on the list of “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” is Attorney General Eric Holder.
Guess what? <span style='font-size: 14pt'>He isn't a politician!</span>

Need I say more?

Q </div></div>

LOL, and he isn't the Attorney General who said, "I don't recall" a hundred and ninety-seven times, under questioning by the Senate Investigation Committee!

LMAO!

These righties are a joke.

They defended the most corrupt administration in the history of this country, and still refuse to acknowledge the gross corruption, and disastrous results of BUSH!

Worse, they are clinging to the hope that Jeb will jump in!!!!

That's says it all.


The definition of Republican Policies: fascism n. a merging of the interests of big corporations and government, adjoined with a systematic curtailment of civil liberties

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
01-03-2012, 11:56 AM
I don't recall... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxHTpw083ZU&feature=related)

Good one.
Holder has now been interrogated twice and answered all their questions and they still want him back!
Gonzo couldn't even remember his last name and they all gave him a pass!

Q

Gayle in MD
01-03-2012, 12:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don't recall... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxHTpw083ZU&feature=related)

Good one.
Holder has now been interrogated twice and answered all their questions and they still want him back!
Gonzo couldn't even remember his last name and they all gave him a pass!

Q </div></div>

LOL, and then followed up by five thousand missing e-mails in Rove's office, and a suspicious fire, in VP Dickhead Cheneycrook's office, and Rove, who denied being Novak's confirming source, after Novak himnself, stated, the Rove was a confirming source for the Plame outing....W

Is it a comedy show, or was it The Bush Administration?


Pick one! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6rQIn94Ll4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL7UCfaceZM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL7UCfaceZM&feature=related

Then pull out the popcorn popper for tonight!!! More Comedy will be on display. We get to watch the Iowa voters, shuffle back and forth from one clown to another all night long.

LMAO!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LWW
01-03-2012, 04:19 PM
Have you no honor?

Qtec
01-04-2012, 06:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have you no honor? </div></div>

LOL. If you had any honour, you would admit your post is pure partisan BS.

Q

hondo
01-04-2012, 07:05 AM
WTF! Where's Eric Cantor on this list? More partisan bullshit from dearless leader.
Of course eg eats this kind of BS up.

LWW
01-04-2012, 10:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have you no honor? </div></div>

LOL. If you had any honour, you would admit your post is pure partisan BS.

Q </div></div>

Now that's funny ... I listed them by party, while defending none of them.

It is the cabal leaping to defend one side while condemning the other.

It's a shame that you have no sense of shame.

LWW
01-04-2012, 10:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WTF! Where's Eric Cantor on this list? More partisan bullshit from dearless leader.
Of course eg eats this kind of BS up. </div></div>

Ask the authors.

Soflasnapper
01-04-2012, 10:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have you no honor? </div></div>

Have you no standards?

A hack list from a hack organization based on no known criteria that can be checked is 'official' and has 'results' that are 'in'???

LWW
01-04-2012, 11:22 AM
Why is it a hack list?

Why are they a hack organization?

Step away from the spoon and make your case.

What's that?

You don't have one other than that delivered by the spoon?

Quite obviously.

Soflasnapper
01-04-2012, 01:30 PM
Look no further than the Wiki entry, showing the opinion of their founder Larry Klayman of the organization after his leaving, and their opinion of him. Who knows them better than each other, and the relationship has dissolved into bitter backbiting and charges of illegalities and lawsuits and such, both sides against the other.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Founded by conservative attorney Larry Klayman in 1994,[3] Judicial Watch came to public attention <span style='font-size: 14pt'>after filing 18 lawsuits against the administration of Democratic U.S. President Bill Clinton and figures in the Clinton administration.</span> [Remember how they won all those lawsuits, and how shocking the revelations were that came from those wins? No, and neither do I, as these were merit-free partisan hack lawsuits that they lost or which ended up as nothing-burgers.] The organization received considerable financial support from prominent Clinton critics, including $7.74 million from conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.[4] This led Clinton administration officials to accuse Judicial Watch of "abusing the judicial system for partisan ends."[5]

[...]

In September 2003, Klayman left the organization to run for the United States Senate from Florida.[10] In 2006 Klayman sued Judicial Watch and its president Tom Fitton. The lawsuit charged Fitton misrepresented his academic and professional credentials upon hiring, and upon assuming his position engaged in false and misleading fund raising, misuse of donor money, failure to appoint an attorney as Chairman, failure to comply with a promised severance package to Klayman, and other actions which damaged Judicial Watch, the donors and Klayman.[11][12] The majority of Klayman’s claims have been dismissed, including all claims against Fitton and the other officers of the organization.[13] The only claims by Klayman that remain pending before the Court consist of allegations that Judicial Watch breached a severance agreement with Klayman.[14]

Judicial Watch has asserted several claims against Klayman.[15] On October 14, 2009, the Court found that Klayman breached the severance agreement by failing to pay Judicial Watch, $69,358,48 in unreimbursed personal expenses.[16] The remainder of Judicial Watch’s claims against Klayman, which include additional claims of breaches of the severance agreement and trademark infringement, remain pending before the Court as of October 5, 2010.[17]

[...]

In 2007 former donor Peter F. Paul sued Judicial Watch, accusing it of using his name to raise more than $15 million to support his lawsuit against Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton while doing little to advance his case.[20][21][22] All of Paul’s claims have been dismissed.[23]</div></div>

Their activities have included:

Suing the U.S. Senate to disallow the filibuster in their debates over confirmation of judicial nominees, coinciding with proposed efforts by Republican Senate leaders to internally do the same thing. [Not a peep about that profoundly ratcheted up abuse at this time where it's occurred about 150 times the past year, although using it on only 6 judges caused them to sue the Senate on behalf of the Republican Party president's nominees. Hmmm.]

Rejecting the adjudicated innocence of David Rosen, who served as campaign finance director for Democrat Hillary Clinton's campaign for the U.S. Senate and had been indicted for filing false reports.

Condemning as murder the death of Terri Schiavo, who lived for 15 years in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state and whose husband wished to allow to die. Her parents wished that she be kept on life support, and were joined in their pursuits by prominent Republicans.

Filing a lawsuit against the U.S. Secret Service for denying Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for access to Obama White House visitor logs from January 20 to August 10, 2009. [Did they ever even request, let alone file FOIA paperwork, or sue over, any such visitor log for any other president's WH?]

Gayle in MD
01-04-2012, 01:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Look no further than the Wiki entry, showing the opinion of their founder Larry Klayman of the organization after his leaving, and their opinion of him. Who knows them better than each other, and the relationship has dissolved into bitter backbiting and charges of illegalities and lawsuits and such, both sides against the other.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Founded by conservative attorney Larry Klayman in 1994,[3] Judicial Watch came to public attention <span style='font-size: 14pt'>after filing 18 lawsuits against the administration of Democratic U.S. President Bill Clinton and figures in the Clinton administration.</span> [Remember how they won all those lawsuits, and how shocking the revelations were that came from those wins? No, and neither do I, as these were merit-free partisan hack lawsuits that they lost or which ended up as nothing-burgers.] The organization received considerable financial support from prominent Clinton critics, including $7.74 million from conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.[4] This led Clinton administration officials to accuse Judicial Watch of "abusing the judicial system for partisan ends."[5]

[...]

In September 2003, Klayman left the organization to run for the United States Senate from Florida.[10] In 2006 Klayman sued Judicial Watch and its president Tom Fitton. The lawsuit charged Fitton misrepresented his academic and professional credentials upon hiring, and upon assuming his position engaged in false and misleading fund raising, misuse of donor money, failure to appoint an attorney as Chairman, failure to comply with a promised severance package to Klayman, and other actions which damaged Judicial Watch, the donors and Klayman.[11][12] The majority of Klayman’s claims have been dismissed, including all claims against Fitton and the other officers of the organization.[13] The only claims by Klayman that remain pending before the Court consist of allegations that Judicial Watch breached a severance agreement with Klayman.[14]

Judicial Watch has asserted several claims against Klayman.[15] On October 14, 2009, the Court found that Klayman breached the severance agreement by failing to pay Judicial Watch, $69,358,48 in unreimbursed personal expenses.[16] The remainder of Judicial Watch’s claims against Klayman, which include additional claims of breaches of the severance agreement and trademark infringement, remain pending before the Court as of October 5, 2010.[17]

[...]

In 2007 former donor Peter F. Paul sued Judicial Watch, accusing it of using his name to raise more than $15 million to support his lawsuit against Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton while doing little to advance his case.[20][21][22] All of Paul’s claims have been dismissed.[23]</div></div>

Their activities have included:

Suing the U.S. Senate to disallow the filibuster in their debates over confirmation of judicial nominees, coinciding with proposed efforts by Republican Senate leaders to internally do the same thing. [Not a peep about that profoundly ratcheted up abuse at this time where it's occurred about 150 times the past year, although using it on only 6 judges caused them to sue the Senate on behalf of the Republican Party president's nominees. Hmmm.]

Rejecting the adjudicated innocence of David Rosen, who served as campaign finance director for Democrat Hillary Clinton's campaign for the U.S. Senate and had been indicted for filing false reports.

Condemning as murder the death of Terri Schiavo, who lived for 15 years in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state and whose husband wished to allow to die. Her parents wished that she be kept on life support, and were joined in their pursuits by prominent Republicans.

Filing a lawsuit against the U.S. Secret Service for denying Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for access to Obama White House visitor logs from January 20 to August 10, 2009. [Did they ever even request, let alone file FOIA paperwork, or sue over, any such visitor log for any other president's WH?]

</div></div>

Your patience amazes me!

The definition of Republican Policies: fascism n. a merging of the interests of big corporations and government, adjoined with a systematic curtailment of civil liberties

Gayle in Md.

hondo
01-04-2012, 01:53 PM
Me too, Gayle. dub rants and rages and squirms and twists and spins and denies and Sofla just calmly slaps him upside the head with the truth.
Gotta admire dub's capacity for self-delusion, however.
He's like a guy who loses every round of a fight yet raises his hand before Michael Buffer announces the winner.
What a card!

OK, dub, time to bring your "Christian" alter ego back so he can call me every name in the book and run me off. Right?

Soflasnapper
01-04-2012, 02:06 PM
More on Mr. Klayman, here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/klayman053098.htm)

Highlights:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Armed with broad-ranging subpoena power by a federal judge and backed by money from an anti-Clinton foundation, Klayman himself has become a kind of permanent, privately funded independent counsel, pioneering -- Democrats would say abusing -- the use of civil lawsuits as a political weapon against the administration.

Described by a former colleague as the sort of guy who'd "sue you for criticizing his tie,"</div></div>, Klayman also became famous for suing his mother.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The specifics of where Judicial Watch gets money for its advertisements, direct mail, rent and staff of 10 is a topic Klayman testily avoids.</span> He declines to discuss which, if any, foundations have given the group money. Nor will he discuss how many donors send checks in response to Judicial Watch's voluminous direct-mail pitches and ads.

"I just don't get into that because of the current political climate," he said.

In 1997, Judicial Watch won a grant of undetermined size from a Richard Mellon Scaife foundation, said Edwin J. Feulner Jr., a Scaife board member and president of the Heritage Foundation. Scaife, a Pittsburgh billionaire, is a virulent Clinton critic.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Judicial Watch's direct-mail campaigns are handled by conservative activist Richard Viguerie. </span>Having sent several million solicitation letters in the past year, Judicial Watch has received contributions from roughly 40,000 different people, source familiar with the list said. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>[He got $7.7 million from Scaife and Scaife-controlled family trusts, which is why he didn't want to discuss his funding sources.]</span>

The direct mail and ads tend to paint Klayman as the only man honest enough to skewer a morally bankrupt administration well-versed in skulduggery. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>To trade attorneys familiar with his years in private practice, Klayman's rise to prominence has come as a shock. They describe him as a caricature of a combative and suspicious lawyer.

"There's a sort of 'fan club' of lawyers in Washington that follow his latest moves, mostly because we can't believe what he gets away with,"</span> said Louis Mastriani, a Washington lawyer who's worked both with and against Klayman, and one of few willing to discuss him on the record. "He plays fast and loose and he has no shame."

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Klayman's behavior has clearly enraged some judges. During a 1992 patent and trademark case, a California federal judge cited a "pattern of misconduct" when ordering Klayman & Associates to pay more than $20,000 of the plaintiff's fees and expenses for "unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying the proceedings." The judge then took the unusual step of permanently banning Klayman from again entering his courtroom.</span></div></div>

In one situation, even his right-wing idol presiding judge, Royce Lamberth, found he was lying and angrily reprimanded him.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Not that Lamberth has given Klayman everything he's requested. The judge blocked Judicial Watch's efforts to depose White House aide Rahm Emanuel, White House press secretary Michael McCurry and others, arguing that Klayman had not proven their relevance to the FBI files suit. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>And in January, the judge was incensed by a Judicial Watch fund-raising mailer pleading for $100,000 in donations to cover the expense of taking Hillary Clinton's deposition, an event described in the pitch as "imminent and inevitable."</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"You're not going to start with her, if you're ever going to get her," fumed Lamberth at a court hearing. "And the notion that I have authorized that she be deposed is poppycock."</span></div></div>

Soflasnapper
01-04-2012, 03:57 PM
This just in!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The good folks at Judicial Watch sent me an email broadside yesterday which made the shameless recommendation to "nuke Iran." Frightening stuff.</div></div>

From Joe Cannon's site, Cannonfire (http://www.cannonfire.blogspot.com/2012/01/brief-word-on-iowa.html)

LWW
01-04-2012, 05:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This just in!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The good folks at Judicial Watch sent me an email broadside yesterday which made the shameless recommendation to "nuke Iran." Frightening stuff.</div></div>

From Joe Cannon's site, Cannonfire (http://www.cannonfire.blogspot.com/2012/01/brief-word-on-iowa.html) </div></div>

Odd that he chose not to include the quote he refers to don't you think?

Oooops ... sorry ... of course you don't think, you just parrot whatever is spoon fed to you.

LWW
01-04-2012, 05:03 PM
That was funny.

hondo
01-04-2012, 05:21 PM
Where's johnny? Have you started taking your clozapine again?
If so, good for you and the forum.

LWW
01-04-2012, 05:48 PM
I think JohnnyD was repulsed by your vulgar homosexual advances.

Why you tortured such a gentle soul is something you will someday have to anser for.

Soflasnapper
01-05-2012, 04:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This just in!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The good folks at Judicial Watch sent me an email broadside yesterday which made the shameless recommendation to "nuke Iran." Frightening stuff.</div></div>

From Joe Cannon's site, Cannonfire (http://www.cannonfire.blogspot.com/2012/01/brief-word-on-iowa.html) </div></div>

Odd that he chose not to include the quote he refers to don't you think?

Oooops ... sorry ... of course you don't think, you just parrot whatever is spoon fed to you. </div></div>

You are a tool, but oddly and boldly, aggressively stupid, all at the same time!

Time to Nuke Iran, by Larry Klayman (http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/klayman/120101)

Dated January of this year.

If you send me your address in pm, I'll send you a large ShamWow to wipe the egg off your face.

LWW
01-05-2012, 06:43 PM
I should be embarrassed because your link didn't back up what it's author said?

That's rich ... now, don't you have some more thugocrats to make excuses for?

LWW
01-05-2012, 06:46 PM
Now, if the proof is there that Iran is is developing a nuclear weapon ... should we allow it to happen, should we invade with the loss of Iranian and US lives that this would entail, or should we use a neutron weapon as Klayman suggests and limit damage to only the nuclear facilities itself.

You have, again, talked yourself into a corner.

Soflasnapper
01-06-2012, 09:14 PM
You, like Klayman, are slightly behind the curve.

The neutron bomb is DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE BLAST DAMAGE, so as to mainly kill people, with little infrastructure damage.

Which is to say it would be entirely ineffective at penetrating deep underground sheltered bunker facilities.

And no, invading is not an option, period.

eg8r
01-06-2012, 09:42 PM
You are slightly behind the curve also. What makes you think the neutron bomb could not be the secondary explosive?

With your logic we would never have been able to blow up tanks.

eg8r

LWW
01-07-2012, 03:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are slightly behind the curve also. What makes you think the neutron bomb could not be the secondary explosive?

With your logic we would never have been able to blow up tanks.

eg8r </div></div>

Because that is what the regime's position is.

The far left will wake up one day with a western city sitting beneath a radioactive shroud of death and collectively bleat <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"WHY DIDN'T SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING!"</span>

IN REALITY, THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF A "BUNKER BUSTER" is that a penetrating charge get the larger weapon deep into the Earth.

With a neutron weapon, a massive explosion can be delivered ... the neutron bomb need not deliver less blast force than a regular fission weapon ... but delivers a far higher radiation yield.

This type device would be ideal for an underground installation as it would destroy the facility as well as all the staff ... and be "SAFE" within a few days.

Qtec
01-07-2012, 05:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The far Right will wake up one day with having to face up to the fact that GW is real and man made and collectively bleat "WHY DIDN'T SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING!" </div></div>

Q

LWW
01-07-2012, 06:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The far Right will wake up one day with having to face up to the fact that GW is real and man made and collectively bleat "WHY DIDN'T SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING!" </div></div>

Q </div></div>

I don't know anyone on the right that denies GW exists.

Do you?

In fact coming out of an ice age requires GW.

Next ridiculous statement please.

Qtec
01-07-2012, 06:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">During the Republican primary debate Wednesday night, Jon Huntsman was called out for his comment that the GOP is at risk of becoming the "anti-science party."

"Your chief political adviser has been quoted very prominently as describing the Republican Party as 'a bunch of cranks,' and said your opponents on the stage 'make a buffet of crazy and inane comments.' I'm sure that's insulting to some of these people up here," moderator John Harris said. "Who on this stage is anti-science?"

Huntsman declined to name exactly which of his opponents were making anti-science comments, but he did lament individuals who are questioning evolution and climate change:

"When you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call to question evolution, all I'm saying is that in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science," Huntsman said.

"We can't run from mainstream conservative philosophy."

Rick Perry is someone who has questioned the scientific consensus on both climate change and evolution.

"I do believe the science is not settled on this," he reiterated when asked about climate change tonight. He compared climate skeptics to Galileo, saying, "Galileo was outnumbered for a spell" -- even though in that case, Galileo was the scientist facing skeptics. </div></div>

Need I say more.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't know anyone on the right that denies GW exists. </div></div>

Sure you can. Use google.

Q

LWW
01-07-2012, 07:39 AM
You made the claim.

Qtec
01-07-2012, 08:10 AM
for starters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-E-3gS3ANo)

Q

Qtec
01-07-2012, 08:11 AM
where are they? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=McNbinUsA04)

Q

Qtec
01-07-2012, 08:17 AM
its a hoax.....Perry (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2OHAuvoUkQ&feature=related)

Q

Gayle in MD
01-07-2012, 08:22 AM
That says it all! They have consistantly denied GW, and Bush even censored studies that support the science, that we taxpayers paid for with our tax dollars.

The definition of Republican Policies: fascism n. a merging of the interests of big corporations and government, adjoined with a systematic curtailment of civil liberties

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
01-07-2012, 08:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush even censored studies that support the science, </div></div>

Correct. Forgot about that!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(NaturalNews) Inspectors general from both the Commerce Department and NASA are investigating allegations that the Bush administration tried to prevent scientists from speaking freely about global warming, announced Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, on Wednesday.

"These investigations are critical because the Republicans in Congress have ignored this serious problem," Lautenberg said, adding that the investigations "will uncover internal documents and agency correspondence that may expose widespread misconduct."

"Taxpayers do not fund scientific research so the Bush White House can alter it."

White House Council for Environmental Quality spokesperson Kristen Hellmer denied the charges, countering that the administration has held up the use of scientific processes when studying climate change.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/020972.html#ixzz1imb6XKhY
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But Burnett spilled about more than just this recent scuffle. He also noted that in the fall of 2007, the Council on Environmental Quality and the Cheney's office asked him to work with the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to remove portions of a report detailing the threats that climate change poses to human health. The document in question was the testimony that Julie Gerberding, director of the CDC, had prepared to give before the Senate environment and public works committee about the human impacts of global warming. After her testimony in October 2007, it came to light that the White House had edited it down from 14 pages to a mere four, cutting the six pages detailing the diseases and other health problems that would be exacerbated by a warming planet. Burnett's letter this week was the first evidence, however, that the call for edits came directly from Cheney's office, which he says asked him to "remove from the testimony any discussion of the human health consequences of climate change".

And according to Burnett, in January of this year, when EPA officials were preparing testimony for a Senate hearing about the decision to deny California a waiver so they could set higher standards for tailpipe emissions, an official in Cheney's office called Burnett to tell him that they wanted the phrase "greenhouse-gas emissions harm the environment" altered in the prepared remarks. Burnett refused, and in the end the testimony was presented as prepared. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Perry Officials Censored Climate Change Report</span>
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality doesn't want you to know that climate change is causing sea level rise in Galveston Bay.

Top environmental officials under Perry have gutted a recent report on sea level rise in Galveston Bay, removing all mentions of climate change. For the past decade, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), which is run by Perry political appointees, including famed global warming denier Bryan Shaw, has contracted with the Houston Advanced Research Center to produce regular reports on the state of the Bay. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>But when HARC submitted its most recent State of the Bay publication to the commission earlier this year, officials decided they couldn't accept a report that said climate change is caused by human activity and is causing the sea level to rise.</span> Top officials at the commission <span style='font-size: 14pt'>proceeded to edit the paper to censor its references to human-induced climate change or future projections on how much the bay will rise.</span>

John Anderson, the oceanographer at Rice University who wrote the chapter, provided Mother Jones with a copy of the edited document, complete with tracked changes from top TCEQ officials. You can see the cuts—which include how much sea level rise has increased over the years, as well as the statement that this rise "is one of the main impacts of global climate change"—here and embedded at the end of this story. As the document shows, most of the tracked changes came from Katherine Nelson, the assistant director in the water quality planning division. Her boss, Kelly Holligan, is listed as a reviewer on the document as well. </div></div>

Q

LWW
01-07-2012, 08:39 AM
It's a shame you don't even understand what the point is ... and none of those links support your position.

Qtec
01-07-2012, 08:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It's a shame you don't even understand what the point is ... and none of those links support your position.</div></div>

This is the point that a sane/intelligent person would say why. They would present their viewpoint and hopefully back up any claims with some kind of proof/link. Something you seem incapable of doing.

Q

Soflasnapper
01-07-2012, 11:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are slightly behind the curve also. What makes you think the neutron bomb could not be the secondary explosive?

With your logic we would never have been able to blow up tanks.

eg8r </div></div>

Not sure what you're referencing, but it's of interest that the neutron bomb was supposed to be usable against tank personnel, but advances in shielding has made them quite ineffective for that purpose.

But if you're imagining the use of a big bunker buster bomb, perhaps some air effect weapon, and THEN the use of a neutron bomb, the purpose of which is to have a lower blast effect but several orders of magnitude larger radiation effect to kill humans, I would argue you are proposing an immense war crime.

Get the job done with the bunkerbuster, and THEN irradiate the people of the country? What, for good measure? Like the Romans sowing the fields of Carthage with salt, for an eternal victory?

Barbaric and heinous, and something not for a military purpose, but more for revenge or ????

Soflasnapper
01-07-2012, 11:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The far Right will wake up one day with having to face up to the fact that GW is real and man made and collectively bleat "WHY DIDN'T SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING!" </div></div>

Q </div></div>

I don't know anyone on the right that denies GW exists.

Do you?

In fact coming out of an ice age requires GW.

Next ridiculous statement please. </div></div>

The old meaning of 'exists' question.

Exists, as in, it used to be going on?

Or exists, as in, it is going on right now?

Plenty of righties deny it is going on right now. I believe you have.

When people say that '98, or '05 have been the warmest years on record, what they are saying is that GW has stopped, if it ever was here. That in fact we are in GC, global cooling, on our way to an imminent ice age, actually.

I think you've said that as well.

So please clarify HOW you mean that all say GW exists. As a feature of the past?

LWW
01-07-2012, 12:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The far Right will wake up one day with having to face up to the fact that GW is real and man made and collectively bleat "WHY DIDN'T SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING!" </div></div>

Q </div></div>

I don't know anyone on the right that denies GW exists.

Do you?

In fact coming out of an ice age requires GW.

Next ridiculous statement please. </div></div>

The old meaning of 'exists' question.

Exists, as in, it used to be going on?

Or exists, as in, it is going on right now?

Plenty of righties deny it is going on right now. I believe you have.

When people say that '98, or '05 have been the warmest years on record, what they are saying is that GW has stopped, if it ever was here. That in fact we are in GC, global cooling, on our way to an imminent ice age, actually.

I think you've said that as well.

So please clarify HOW you mean that all say GW exists. As a feature of the past? </div></div>

Since you insist upon being a nit ... GW obviously has happened.

Whether or not it is continuing long term is in question, but I suspect that it is.

Now, the real question is whether or not it is man made.

The actual evidence of it being man made is, well, non existent.

Soflasnapper
01-08-2012, 02:43 PM
So you don't know anyone on the right who says GW ended, if it ever existed, because '98 or '05 were the hottest years on record?

Then you ought to read a bit more widely, as this is among the strong versions of AGW denial out there.

It's what Fred Singer says. Ever hear of him? St. Fred Singer, to the AGW deniers.

That you NOW espouse a slightly more defensible position-- that GW is occurring, just that we do not know how mankind contributes (or that we know mankind does not contribute)-- doesn't account for your prior championing of the stronger form of the denial, which DOES (and obviously, does) exist on the right.