The Pretense of Knowledge

Walter E. Williams, Wednesday, December 02, 2009

The ultimate constraint that we all face is knowledge -- what we know and don't know. The knowledge problem is pervasive and by no means trivial as hinted at by just a few examples. You've purchased a house. Was it the best deal you could have gotten? Was there some other house you could have purchased that 10 years later would not have needed extensive repairs or was in a community with more likeable neighbors and a better environment for your children? What about the person you married? Was there another person who would have made for a more pleasing spouse? Though these are important questions, the most intelligent answer you can give to all of them is: "I don't know."

Since you don't know the answers, who do you think, here on Earth, is likely to know and whom would you like to make these decisions for you -- Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, George Bush, a czar appointed by Obama or a committee of Washington bureaucrats? I bet that if these people were to forcibly make housing or marital decisions for us, most would deem it tyranny.

You say, "Williams, Congress is not making such monumental decisions that affect my life." Try this. You are a 22-year-old healthy person. Instead of spending $3,000 or $4,000 a year for health insurance, you'd prefer investing that money in equipment to start a landscaping business. Which is the best use of that $3,000 or $4,000 a year -- purchasing health insurance or starting up a landscaping business -- and who should decide that question: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, George Bush, aczar appointed by Obama or a committee of Washington bureaucrats? How can they possibly know what's the best use of your earnings, particularly in light of the fact that they have no idea of who you are?

Neither you nor the U.S. Congress has the complete knowledge to know exactly what's best for you. The difference is that when individuals make their own trade-offs, say between purchasing health insurance or investing in a business, they make wiser decisions because it is they who personally bear the costs and benefits of those decisions. You say, "Hold it, Williams, we've got you now! What if that person gets really sick and doesn't have health insurance. Society suffers the burden of taking care of him." To the extent that is a problem, it is not a problem of liberty; it's a problem of congressionally mandated socialism. Let's look at it.

It is not society that bears the burden; it is some flesh and blood American worker who finds his earnings taken by Congress to finance the health needs of another person. There is absolutely no moral case, much less constitutional case, for Congress forcibly using one American to serve the purposes of another American, a practice that differs only in degree from slavery, which we all should find morally offensive.

Whether it is health care, education, employment or most other areas of our lives, I ask you: Who has the capacity to master all the complexity to make choices on behalf of others? Each of us possesses only a tiny percentage of the knowledge that would be necessary to make totally informed decisions in our own lives, much less the lives of others. There is only one reason for the forcible transference of decision-making authority over important areas of our private lives to elite decision-makers in Congress and government bureaucracies. Doing so confers control, power, wealth and revenue to society's elite. What's in the best interests of individual members of society, such as a person who'd rather launch a landscaping business than purchase a health insurance policy, ranks low on the elite's list of priorities.

-----

Poopsie?
Gene?

[Edit]

Good point and glad you brought it up.

You think yourself clever by being almost completely negative in your posts. In this way, you never have to man up and clearly say what you are FOR.

Nevertheless, whether it be through your slavish devotion to copy and paste from the far left Huffington Post or your support for the President, who, by his voting record was one of the top three leftists in the Senate, a pattern emerges.

Besides, the blood of a real American boils every time Obama bows before a foreign head of state. (3 and counting so far, btw.) You've given him a pass every single time.

P.S. How's "card check" coming along? Looks like the unions were played for the fools once again by the Democrats. You'll keep voting for them though and they obviously take you guys for granted, just as they do the blacks. What tools you guys are. Utter friggin tools.

[Edit]

Evidently, it is part of the Socialist handbook not to admit one's true political leanings. Not doing so is just one of the many reasons you richly deserve your designation as a phony, unprincipled fuk. You and your religious fellow extremists whining about “principles” is one of the bigger laughers of the day. Thankx for starting out my morning on an up note

[Edit]

Regardless of your overt denial of belng a leftist, every post you write says that you are.

Evidently, it is part of the Socialist handbook not to admit one's true political leanings. Not doing so is just one of the many reasons you richly deserve your designation as a phony, unprincipled fuk.

[Edit]

As the phony son of a bitch collects his Socialist Security/Medicare.

Ohh, BTW good job on fuking up the audio on this forum.

[Edit]

And, there are a couple Christian-Zionists. Part of the same bunch of assholes (see above). Above all else the Talibangelical in America bear the majority of the responsibility for the ongoing fiasco in the mid-east. They promoted it under the traitorous regime of Ron Raygone and culminated our destruction under Cheney/Bush. They would continue our downfall with the queen of disaster, the Wasilla hillbillie.

Most of the others are Libertarians. Noo, they are disaffected/disenfranchised republicants looking to relabel themselves. There isn’t a true “Libertarian” amongst any of them. As soon as they understand what a true libertarian stands for (individual liberty) they immediately run home to mama (I’m a con-servative/anti socialist sniff snort burb)

But, as I said, I am the only traditional, American-Conservative posting here.Maybe so

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

'"Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity.'"

Bull Shit Bill........ greed caused it, socialist greed..... and socialist greed exacerbates it........ unusual your ass Bill, it is common where socialists get any degree of control....... you dumb fuks are out of other people's money Bill, that always happens when socialists can't control themselves......

[Edit]

"Oxford Analytica" --oxford is synonymous with socialist

"Fiscal Stimulus Works" --Not for Real Americans

"Oxford Analytica, 11.26.09" --Again, synonymous with socialism........ try again Bill.

[Edit]

In other words they have no more idea about what is hasppening than you other socialists do. That's what I thought all along.

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

"A key goal enunciated by the President-Elect concerning the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is that it should save or create at least 3 million jobs by the end of 2010."

See? Not "by the end of 2009."

They repeat that claim often in the report, Murray. Four or five times, and it is not a very long report. It is hard to miss.

Oh, but Romer and Bernstein did say that they expected unemployment to stay at or below eight percent.

The did, but Romer and Bernstein add this prominent disclaimer:

"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. [Not small, Murray. Significant.] ...Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."

Did you read the news today, oh, Murray?

As many as 1.6 million jobs saved or created by the limited amount of stimulus funds that were spent between February and September of this year.

Can you count the number of months from February 17 through September 30, Murray? Let's count them together:

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven months, 1.6 million jobs.

And let's try to remember the key claim of the Romer-Bernstein report, that the stimulus package "should save or create at least 3 million jobs by the end of 2010."

1.6 million jobs in the first seven months, and 15 months to go.

"In case you missed it," we are already 1/2 way there with just 1/4 of the stimulus funds spent.

Do you think they'll get that 3 million job mark by next November's election, Murray?

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

Yes, Veracity-Robin is the moderator-operator.

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

Al Gore shows an error and I can't hear the bastard any more..... its always a good thing when Al Gore can't be heard or seen.

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

Seems the only thing that will shut that red bastards dirty lying leftist Democrat potty mouth is COLD WEATHER. tee hee, or scrolling the bastard off to never never land......... have a short life Al, very short.

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

I wonder what the Bush increase would have looked like sans 911? certainly you don't get all that HLS for free? Why couldn't we cut all the socialshit programs and just hire the socialshits to fill the positions?

[Edit]

[Edit]

I doubt that they care enough to explain why this is happening:

JOBLESS AMERICANS, Washington needs to explain why a socialist Congress is giving out 125,000 new work permits to foreign workers EVERY MONTH.

Congress and obama are destroying jobs, yet allowing foreign workers and illegal alien into the country, I don't see any sense in that even if Americans were not out of work.

[Edit]

By the way, that speech at Cairo got him nowhere.

The Muslim world doesn't think any more highly of us as a result. Actually, in their culture, they look down on people who bad mouth their own culture, even if it's one they also do not like or respect.

What an amateur this guy is.

[Edit]

Distubingly biased, isn't he?

I remember friends of mine had a bumper sticker in about 1988 that said, "I DON'T BELIEVE THE LIBERAL MEDIA."

At the time, I thought they were loony but the bias has just gotten much more obvious since then.

Sorry, Bruce & Patricia, you were onto something and I wrote you off.

[Edit]

Waf posted a You Tube video of Al Gore that automatically begins to play when you come onto the forum.

In a day or so, it will scroll to the archives and then you won't hear it anymore..

I doubt it was intentional. Most You Tube videos need you to click on them before they start playing. This one doesn't for some reason.

[Edit]

[Edit]

Still can't address Cap and Trade Tax or the man made global warming tax scam can you. Old farts like you are the cause of global warming, you are full of methane.

[Edit]

"“I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.” – Newsweek’s Evan Thomas on Obama’s speech at Cairo University in June 2009"

[Edit]

Thomas is a shill Evan Thomas is a Newsweek editor who is squarely in the bag for the left

[Edit]

[Edit]

Thomas shills for obamb The former link worked at first, now it redirects to Voy. Maybe they don't like links that expose the left.

[Edit]

“Who posting here on the Right was complaining about Bush's deficits or that he never once vetoed a bill?“

Other than me, Dr. Stadler?

Now back to the main question:

I’m curious why you are so silent about the apparent fudging of data to “prove” man is causing global warming.

As a man of hard science, as you so often and boorishly claimed, I thought you would be the first to stand up and decry what fakirs like Mann did to honest scientific research.

I expected you to berate those who conveniently “lost” the original raw data leaving us only with what has been, according to Mann, “tricked”.

Why so silent about the theft of science and scientific principles in the name of political gain.

Are you this far gone that you place your faith in liars instead of science, Dr. Stadler?

Poopsie?

[Edit]

I complained about his socialistic spending during both of his terms. On the question of vetos you are wrong. He vetoed one bill. I forget what it was but it deserved to be vetoed. It was late in his second term.

[Edit]

I complained about his spending during both of his terms. On the question of vetos you are wrong. He vetoed one bill. I forget what it was but it deserved to be vetoed. It was late in his second term.

[Edit]

Yes, but if I fremember right, he was older than I am and very sick. I expect that he might be dead by this time.

[Edit]

By Stephen Gandel Tuesday, Jul. 14, 2009

Back in early January, when Barack Obama was still President-elect, two of his chief economic advisers — leading proponents of a stimulus bill — predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%. It hasn't quite worked out that way. Last month, the jobless rate in the U.S. hit 9.5%....

This was in July. The unemployment rate is now officially at 10.2%. It was at 7.2% when Obama took office. So, anon a-clown, looks like you're the one who more fits the description of bald-faced liar and con-artist.

The two advisers who wrote the paper, Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, went on to land key jobs in the Obama Administration. Romer is the head of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, and Bernstein is the chief economist and economic-policy adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. And the stimulus bill that both economists championed became law in mid-February. What has not come to pass, however, is the boom in job creation that Romer and Bernstein predicted. A little over a month ago, the Administration said the stimulus bill had created or saved 150,000 jobs. That's a far cry from the 3 million to 4 million jobs that Romer and Bernstein foresaw back in January.

[Edit]

Unemployment will get worse before it gets better is what he plainly said.

We all knew that, Murray. Nothing could prevent it, and Obama said so.

Your straw man arguments flow more freely when you are looking at the straw man in your mirror, I take it.

You never answered the question -- in the winter of 1929, how many Republicans or Democrats thought the Great Depression would be as severe as it later became, when unemployment was 25% in the USA?

Yet, you whine because unemployment has risen to 10% from 8% in a disaster that Obama and the Democrats only inherited from the stupidest president and most corrupt congress since Reconstruction.

Man, you're a bald-faced liar and a con artist. Obama didn't promise you a rose garden that grows no thorns, and you know it. Quit whining.

[Edit]

Why do you think we all pretty much disown him, genius.

Fiscal discipline-wise he was a train wreck.

Obama is worse, of course. A detail you conveniently left out.

Must suck to you be you right now, by the way, with the exposure of massive fraud on the climate issue known as Climategate coming to light.

You sure drank and also dispensed a lot of that "politics masquerading as science" Kool-Aid on this issue.

Last edited by author: Tuesday, December 01, 14:10:38   Edited 2 times.
[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

So, you don't think "Bill" is Gene, I take it?

I see stylistic similarities.

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

By Stephen Gandel Tuesday, Jul. 14, 2009

Back in early January, when Barack Obama was still President-elect, two of his chief economic advisers — leading proponents of a stimulus bill — predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%. It hasn't quite worked out that way. Last month, the jobless rate in the U.S. hit 9.5%....

The two advisers who wrote the paper, Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, went on to land key jobs in the Obama Administration. Romer is the head of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, and Bernstein is the chief economist and economic-policy adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. And the stimulus bill that both economists championed became law in mid-February. What has not come to pass, however, is the boom in job creation that Romer and Bernstein predicted. A little over a month ago, the Administration said the stimulus bill had created or saved 150,000 jobs. That's a far cry from the 3 million to 4 million jobs that Romer and Bernstein foresaw back in January.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html#ixzz0W6RDR70u

[Edit]

Nice spin move but not good enough.

The Obama Administration sold the $787 billion stimulus bill as a way to hold unemployment under 8%.

Go hump somebody else's leg, "Bill." That's a saying made famous here by a guy named Gene, a person you evidently know very, very well.

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

It is a well known fact that Barack Obysmal is a liar.

[Edit]

Yes, I do think that Bill is Gene in drag. If you go back to the last time that he was here he made several comments that if he hadn't called himself "Bill" you would have sworn that it was Gene writing them.

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

"We are talking about the stimulus bill that was sold to the American people on the premise that it would hold unemployment under 8% if passed?"

No, we were talking about what Barrack Obama actually claimed when he promoted the stimulus package earlier this year.

"It's important for us to have a bill of sufficient size and scope that we can save or create 4 million jobs. That still means that you're going to have some net job loss, but at least we can start slowing the trend and moving it in the right direction."

-- Obama, Feb 9 stimulus press conference

"That's why we need to put money in the pockets of the American people, create new jobs, and invest in our future. That's why we need to re-start the flow of credit and restore the rules of the road that will ensure a crisis like this never happens again.

That work begins with this plan -- a plan I am confident will save or create at least three million jobs "over the next few years."

--Obama, January 8 stimulus speech

[Edit]

Do you think "Bill" is really Gene?

Could be.

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

That is a damnmed lie, Gene.

[Edit]

I’m curious why you are so silent about the apparent fudging of data to “prove” man is causing global warming.

As a man of hard science, as you so often and boorishly claimed, I thought you would be the first to stand up and decry what fakirs like Mann did to honest scientific research.

I expected you to berate those who conveniently “lost” the original raw data leaving us only with what has been, according to Mann, “tricked”.

Why so silent about the theft of science and scientific principles in the name of political gain.

Are you this far gone that you place your faith in liars instead of science, Dr. Stadler?

Poopsie?

[Edit]

That link didn't work.

[Edit]

Yes, it is. You can see how well that worked can't you? Even GeneBill can see that. He won't admit it, though.

[Edit]

[Edit]

Thomas is in the hammer and sickle bag.

[Edit]

Keeping them honest

[Edit]

As such, imbecilic assholes, they refuse to see that Black Friday is a term that retailers use to describe the day that may turn their bottom line black, positive, out of the red. But these imbecilic assholes prefer red for everyone, even the retail bottom line. These twits belong on Twitter.

[Edit]

We can call them twits also. Sold souls. Racists. Liars. Communists. Rich Leftists. Call them what you will, they are imbecilic assholes.

[Edit]

Nice shot of their vision.

[Edit]

Nice shot of their vision.

[Edit]

It gives me no joy to have arrived at that conclusion.

It's sad actually.

[Edit]

Why "scientists" Lie Why do pollsters lie, why do politicians lie, why do economists lie, what is in the lie for them?

[Edit]

Please tell us what you think about the political and scientific man-made global warming fraud that was recently confirmed.

Then go take a look at the inner cities, during the day and at night, if you dare. Then come back and tell us how much it has improved. From my observations, conditions have only improved for those that escape the cities.

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

So, the answer to my previous question is yes?

We are talking about the stimulus bill that was sold to the American people on the premise that it would hold unemployment under 8% if passed?

[Edit]

Countin those saved or created jobs sure can give ya leeway with the truth......

[Edit]

[Edit]

It's a success story that failures won't admit is a success, Murray.

"Despite its flaws, the stimulus package has helped underpin recovery and prevented even more savage job losses than those that have occurred."

Do you think Republican or Democrats predicted in 1929 that the Great Depression would be as severe as it was, Murray? In hindsight, you whine like a champ.

[Edit]

--Star Parker

Yes, when black poverty drops 35% between 1963 and 1969, it "is the same."

And don't tell that beautiful mind, but black poverty dropped another 33% after Reagan-ush finally left Washington, DC.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

"Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done... black Americans are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash."

If you stand up in front of Republicans and lie about poverty rates in the 1960s and beyond, you get a steady stream of cash, apparently.

[Edit]

Is this the same stimulus that was promised to keep unemployment under 8% if passed?

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

"As does Pat Buchanan, at times the Rev. Ted Pike does disappoint me."

Please get over it, the ones who will disappoint you the least during your tenure on earth are your mother and those you don't know exist.

[Edit]

On Feb. 13, at the urging of President Barack Obama, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The Act created the largest U.S. fiscal stimulus package since the Second World War, amounting to $787 billion (approximately 5% of U.S. GDP). To be disbursed over three years, it was introduced at a time of extreme stress in the U.S. economy, as reflected by:

--real GDP contracting at a quarterly annualized rate of approximately 6.5%;

--payroll cuts exceeding 600,000 per month; and

--financial markets under extreme stress and an equity market in the midst of a major decline.

Since then, these metrics have dramatically improved, although job losses continue. The most crucial U.S. political and economic debate in the coming months--in the context of calls from some Washington lawmakers for a "second stimulus' ahead of the November 2010 mid-term congressional elections--is to what degree government spending has helped avert further job cuts and an even more prolonged recession.

Original stimulus objectives. The basic goals of the ARRA were to:

--create new jobs and preserve existing employment;

--spur economic activity and invest in long-term GDP growth; and

--foster an unprecedented degree of accountability and transparency in government spending.

These objectives were to be achieved by:

--providing $212 billion in tax cuts and benefits for households and businesses;

--increasing federal funding for certain entitlement programs (such as extending unemployment benefits) by $267 billion; and

--making $308 billion available for discretionary projects in areas such as highways, broadband infrastructure and education.

Actual economic performance. Since the introduction of the stimulus package, U.S. economic performance has been mixed:

--Recovering growth. The most recent GDP numbers suggest that the U.S. economy is recovering. Whereas real GDP declined at an annualized pace of approximately 6.0% during the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009, by the third quarter GDP was rising at a 2.8% annualized rate.

--Abysmal job market. However, headline unemployment surged to 10.2% of the labor force in October.

Additional stimulus measures. In response to the weak employment performance, the administration adopted a number of measures aimed at bolstering fiscal stimulus:

--The summer 2009 "cash-for-clunkers" program intended to encourage new car purchases--and appears to have succeeded.

--An $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers.

--The announcement of a White House "jobs summit" to be convened in December.

Bears' argument. Those who believe that the fiscal stimulus package will not significantly strengthen the pace of the U.S. rebound or reduce unemployment rely on two principal observations:

--Disappointing growth? GDP growth numbers to date have been disappointing, considering that the largest direct impact that the fiscal stimulus has on GDP growth occurred in the second and third quarters of 2009. Beginning in the fourth quarter, the fiscal package's impact on GDP growth begins to fall and by the second half of 2010 it becomes a net drag.

--Unemployment and consumption. The stimulus has not prevented the opening up of unusually large gaps in the U.S. labor market. These gaps are presently exerting substantial downward pressure on U.S. wage incomes, which, in turn, are constraining U.S. consumption expenditure.

Verdict. Despite its flaws, the stimulus package has helped underpin recovery and prevented even more savage job losses than those that have occurred. However, this observation is unlikely to be politically salient for Obama if unemployment remains high ahead of the November 2010 mid-term elections.

Failures should contact their representatives and senators in Washington and urge them to oppose any effort by the Obama administration to lower unemployment in the next 11 months.

[Edit]

"What is really fascinating is the radical views held by “con-servatives” remain somewhat the same as they have always been."

Dear Little Gene, there is nothing radical about conservative views that built the world. Radical views are the leftist views that are trying to destroy the world. Your flaccid attempt to twist is duly noted. Now get back in the closet.

[Edit]

Last edited by author: Tuesday, December 01, 7:48:10   Edited 1 time.
[Edit]

Neither Bob or Gene can explain anything in a clear logical manner. Bob goes off on tangents or diversions, while Gene tries to muddy things with his constant dives into the realm of psychobabble.

Oh, I forgot, there is that, they both can and do brag in a very clear egotistical manner.

[Edit]

Why am I not surprised? I have always considered the UN to be the enemuy of freedom throughout the world. We need to separate ourselves from that bunch of Communist thugs immediately if not sooner.

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

As my mother used to say, "All is fair in love and war." They have declarerd themselves to be the enemy of anyone who is not Muzlim and who does not support Sharia law.

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

He is and he always has been.

[Edit]

I am not a supporter of Palin. I also don't defend her. However I would like to see a little honesty from those like yourself who are attacking her. I still think that you have the HOTS for her body.

[Edit]

[Edit]

If you bothered to read carefully (tall order I realize) you would see that I am not defending Palin in the least but reflecting back upon you the stench of the dishonesty of your posts.

In other words, you are a phony, unprincipled fuk.

[Edit]

What did Pat Buchanan says in that article that you have so much of a problem with?

[Edit]

Since you're exactly that way yourself, your point would be????

[Edit]

So I guess in a way we should be thankful to these people. Americans now have an opportunity to make a bunch of choices as to who we really are….

[Edit]

Murray, there is enough of her book/door stop online to satisfy the most ardent con-servative and besides, enough fact checkers have copies. It’s all about money Murray, fact and honesty never mattered to Palin.

Her book more than adequately points out (like many of her supporters) she never graduated to the 8th grade and is childishly attempting to get even for events she herself caused.

You “claim” to not be a supporter and in virtually the same breath defend her again the attack dogs that are rubbing the con-servative noses in the stench from the Wasilla hillbillie.

Besides, a new poll out would suggest the drug addict from the EIB is the #1 con-servative spokesman in America. Quite the distinction, I would say. As the leaders of the RNC have been so afraid of, conservatives (rather than remaking the RNC) are marginalizing it.

With Palin as the figurehead and the Rubbisho as spokesperson Obama is a shoein for 2012.

Like I have said many times, the word itself (conservatism) should be ripped out of the dictionary, it doesn’t exist any more..

[Edit]

Funny how you seem to conveniently keep forgetting that I am a huge non-fan of Palin's. Doesn't fit your template/advance your talking points that I am, so you ignore it and pigeon-hole me where it pleases you to do. Screw you for that, by the way.

In any case, you're the one whose focus is somewhere else other than reality.

Since you didn't read the book and fact check it for yourself, you could be just as guilty as propagating inaccuracies as you claim Palin is.

In other words, you're a phony, unprincipled fuk.

[Edit]

Does it seem fair to you to take a group, such as the Taliban, and build them up and use them to fight the Russians, and then when they have succeeded in that task, they turn on you and wage war on you as though you are the enemy?

[Edit]

You clowns really having a hard time with reality, huh…

Palin is a vindictive empty headed numbnut that will take you (self proclaimed) con-servatives down with her, in effect finishing the job Bush/Raygone started.

You/she do not have to worry about a bunch of fact checkers, her attacks on those surrounding her will do it for them…

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

Yes, it is how they operate. Lie, if that doesn't work, divert, if that doesn't work, distract.... and if that doesn't work, run for cover......... poor pathetic lefties..... no spine, no stomach for the truth, no brains, no guts, and no glory...... Humanity cannot allow those perverts to destroy freedom and the earth...... or their main target, the people of earth.......

Are socialists extra-terrestrials ?????? They do not act human...... they only breed within their small circle of borloks....... they grin as they lie and steal...... what is there about them that can be called human? Nothing that I can discover.

[Edit]

How much did you plan on raking in from your AGW fraud Boys? I hear Al is set to make Billions off the scam..... What about you Bob? What's in it the lie for you? Don't tell me you are not being paid to support the fraud, I don't believe that for a moment......... AGW has been confirmed as a lie..... why are you still trying to deny? Why are you still trying to pass the lie off as the truth? How much are you being paid? Who is paying you? Bob? Are you going to answer the questions before you are dragged into court? Nah, you will plead the fifth..... but, that's one of your rights........

[Edit]

[Edit]

Bob has left the forum in head hanging shame..... again.... so long Al Bob

[Edit]

Isn't your Al Gore a real hero, he can't admit truth..... Al and his goons try to suppress free speech..... something you would do if you could get away with it...... you are a sociopathic socialist Bob....

[Edit]

[Edit]

Whatsa matter Bobby? No one falling for your bull shit tonight???? Try back later when Gene is posting....... you can console and bull shit each other.....

[Edit]

actually Bob, you hair-brained toad, the fraud has not been exposed, it has been CONFIRMED . YOU have been exposed as a liar and supporter of that fraud, you have also been confirmed as a liar and supporter of that fraud. Bob, that fraud is of a criminal nature and it could mean prison terms for YOUR "scientists" and hopefully, YOUR leftist politicians..........

[Edit]

"Now, I can be certain that you have studied the scientific findings concerning global warming and that you actually can comprehend their meaning and the science that derived them, correct? Your education in the hard sciences---physics, math, chemistry--- has been what?"

R²'s education has nothing to do with your FRAUD Bob, not a fucking thing..... YOU have been exposed as a liar and proponent of using fraudulent data to rob the people...... Truly I am surprised you have the nerve to return and start your leftist bull shit when you have been exposed...... The emails and data manipulation have been confirmed you ass hole.... that makes you twice the liar and twice the ass

[Edit]

[Edit]

"One of your ideological brethren here waxed eloquent about the damage the 6.5 mm slug did to JFK's skull, reminding me of the shitbird at Vandenberg AFB who, when news of the assassination came over the intercom, stood up and blurted that JFK should have been shot long before that day."

That shit bird was a leftist ass hole like you.....

What's the matter Bob? Can't you explain your AGW lies???? You come waltzing in and immediately try to divert to ancient history....... dumb ass leftist freak...... you are in lock step with la cucuroachas..... you do not impress

[Edit]

[Edit]

Achilles = Al Gore = FRAUD = man-made global warming = scam = NWO = profits for socialist liars = communists = brain-wormed socialists

"I'm surprised that you haven't cursed JFK for his withholding air support for the Bay of Pigs fiasco."

What the fuck does that have to do with the lie put forth by you and the socialist Democrats regarding man-made global warming ??????? Don't give me your distractions and diversions you ass hole...... EXPLAIN WHY YOU have been LYING .......... Bob.

[Edit]

Achilles = Al Gore = FRAUD = man-made global warming = scam = NWO = profits for socialist liars = communists = brain-wormed socialists

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

Not an original though in his mind.....

[Edit]

That was what they left behind when they left Europe for these shores. England had the "Church of England" as the official national Church. Italy and others had the Roman Catholic Church as the official Church of the country. The purpose of the First amendment idea of "Freedom of religion" was to avoid the evils of having an official national Church and to avoid Government interferance in matters of religion. In the New World all were to be welcome no matter what they believed. Even atheists were welcome in the new nation as long as they followed the laws.

[Edit]

" 'I was walking back from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and I saw this boy in a yarmulke and ritual fringes coming back from the Western Wall, and he spat at me two or three times.'" "

He should have beaten the boy with a stick.... then pissed on the remains...... In the age of socialist induced AIDS, spitting on someone could be attempted murder........ and should qualify for on the spot execution.......

[Edit]

"Funny they hold JFK up as some kind of representative of same."

JFK wouldn't recognize or want anything to do with the socialist Democrats..... and they know it..... he didn't hold with communism......

[Edit]

"You phony, unprincipled fuk. If accuracy of the written word were truly important to you, it would have shown up in your own posts."

Uh oh...... UH OH!..... now you have put Gene in his place...... there is no arguing with what you just told the boy.......

[Edit]

[Edit]

That Bawney Fwank is a mean looking queer/fag/queenie/homosexual/choo-choo-er/limp-wrist/prancing Folsom Streeter....... errrr, I mean gaboy........ poor socialist gasbag/fart has no lips..... maybe they retract in public.....

[Edit]

You phony, unprincipled fuk. If accuracy of the written word were truly important to you, it would have shown up in your own posts.

[Edit]

There are rude, crude people in every group, unfortunately. It shouldn't happen but it does.

[Edit]

AWOL Achilles...... the resident global warming expert/supervisor (istch herr Jordan's duty blitzeniformachuningz der volks) has NOTHING to say about his comrades hoax being exposed....... dis vill not setzen vell vit Herr Gore-bellsaringin.......

[Edit]

Very good response. Thank you.

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

Came across a presidential portrait.... can't imagine his name though......
maybe it is nothing more than a look-a-like supporter....

[Edit]

Who diagnosed Gene's condition as an infestation of "brainworms" ????? I think it is very possible that it is a socialist based disease........ or malady if disease is the wrong word..... socialism is a disease, either socialism is a result of the brainworm malady or brianworms are a result of socialism....... either way they have holes in their platform and in their heads........

[Edit]

"Jesus jumped up Christ."

Actually, Jesus rose as the completed Christ..... it is not known if He did any jumping...... Surely His followers must have jumped for joy once it was known He had risen from the tomb and ascended to the throne......

Nah, you wouldn't know about that now would you????

[Edit]

[Edit]

OMG..... Gene will go insane over those Nanny-lips...... That picture is like porn to the boy......

[Edit]

More of the same about Landreiu's prostitutionization.... Don't ya just love how in vogue making up words has become ???????

"In a display of just how corrupt the federal government has become, Senator Mary LandrieuMary Landrieu literally sold her vote to bring the health care reform to debate in the United States Senate for a newly added amendment that will bring $300 million to her state. So desperate is Senate Majority Leader Harry ReidSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to round up votes to keep this wretched bill alive for further debate, that he must basically bribe a fellow senator with millions of our tax dollars to keep the bill from going down in defeat.IfIf there be any doubt about the quid pro quo, the language in the amendment promised federal aid for states hit by natural disaster in the past seven years and then added additional language which basically narrowed eligible state recipients down to Louisiana.It should be noted that Senator Landrieu was one of a handful of senators who had enough problems with health care legislation that, until the pot was sweetened for her state coffers, was not favorably disposed to vote for further debate.While acknowledging that this kind “horse-trading” undoubtedly goes on everyday in Washington D.C. without much visibility, it is especially disturbing to witness such a blatant trade of “funds for votes” on such a momentous piece of legislation. If this health care reform package is ultimately passed it will not only transform the degree of government involvement in our lives for generations to come, but will very likely bankrupt the entire country.It’s a sad day for our republic when any senator’s vote on a particular piece of legislation comes with a price tag."

You are correct, she is a high priced slut/whore....... and Reid is a pimp.....

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

"Considering he didn't get to Hawaii and Alaska would they then become 57 and 58 OR 58 and 59? "

Didn't obama explain all those states? His states of euphoria, nirvana, bliss, depression, oppression, impression, gullibility, naiveness, substance abuse highs states, oh yeah, he was being modest about his states, none of them The United States......

[Edit]

" Half Of US Debt Is Owed to Fed:"

Do you think that will ever register with Gene and Achilles ???????? They are so wrapped up in their envisioned share of the take that their own brilliance blinds them......... I don't think they can see past the tin cup they are holding........

I have been doing some more reading about the Illuminati, there is almost universal (from the left) agreement that the cult was disbanded long ago....... I say oh contraire....... its still alive and it is still there......

[Edit]

[Edit]

Chelsea Clinton's engagement today to Jewish banker Marc Mezvinsky, who works for Goldman Sachs, is another reminder that America is ruled by the Illuminati clan, joined by marriage, money and love of Lucifer.

The source of their power is the Fed which has pilfered the US government's credit card and used it to buy politicians and everything else worth owning, creating trillions in tax payer debt. ...

Almost six Trillion will be owed to the private Illuminati families who own the banks that own the Fed. For fiscal 2009, US taxpayers will cough up $380 Billion in interest, half of that to the Fed. By 2019, the cost of servicing the debt is expected to reach more than $700 Billion annually.

As you all know, billions were paid to these banks during the "credit crunch" so that they may now reward their lackeys with humongous bonuses. But as Goldman Sachs CEO, Lloyd Blankfein said, they "are doing God's work." Unfortunately, their God is Lucifer. ...

Ben Shalom Bernanke has warned Congress not to interfere with the Fed's "independence." In a veiled threat, he said it would "seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the United States."

This is a reminder that the US is the Illuminati's bitch, and should not get any other ideas, such as abolishing the Fed altogether and with it, six Trillion dollars in debt which they created out of thin air.

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

BTW, ever read anything by JOE BIDEN?

[Edit]

Even that isn't the problem near as much as it is that Real Americans don't trust the Mulatto boy to do the job, talks cheap....

[Edit]

There have been so many lies and distortions pointed out in Sarah Palin's Going Rogue since it was released last week that her end will come from friends and associates not those pesky liberal lefties.. ..

[Edit]

Alan doesn't believe Y'shua was a Jew, etc. Of course, in Alan's book, there are no Jews(he can't make a distinction between True Torah Jews and false Jews). I believe Alan is Jewish, but with his family history, he's blocked out some things. Plus, he was heavily influenced by a neighbor growing up. She "got whatever she could out of others." I asked him if he liked her or not. He didn't really like her. To that I told him, that's you(Alan). That's how others view you. After some contentious moments on Friday, he actually had tears running down his face. Trying to teach him, if you want to receive a blessing, you need to be a blessing. It's a tough message for those hating to look in the mirror darkly.

They're about to close the place. Me out!

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

I had a few boyz try to hassle me last Friday, in front of Planned Predators. We typically call these boyz, "junior." "Junior" will never be a man because, it takes a real man to raise a child. And, "junior" doesn't have what it takes. Had some 2nd district Cleveland cops confiscate a "choice" sign last week. Our "choice" signs show a dime in relation to an aborted, 10 week old, after conception, baby. I tell "junior," "your baby is alive." Amazing how it looks like a baby at 10 weeks. The fight goes on, on the streets of Cleveland, Ohio.

[Edit]

[Edit]

Yep.

[Edit]

If the shoe fitz...

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

Father Samuel Aghoyan, a senior Armenian Orthodox cleric in Jerusalem's Old City, says he's been spat at by young haredi and national Orthodox Jews "about 15 to 20 times" in the past decade. The last time it happened, he said, was earlier this month. "I was walking back from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and I saw this boy in a yarmulke and ritual fringes coming back from the Western Wall, and he spat at me two or three times."

Wearing a dark-blue robe, sitting in St. James's Church, the main Armenian church in the Old City, Aghoyan said, "Every single priest in this church has been spat on. It happens day and night."

Father Athanasius, a Texas-born Franciscan monk who heads the Christian Information Center inside the Jaffa Gate, said he's been spat at by haredi and national Orthodox Jews "about 15 times in the last six months" - not only in the Old City, but also on Rehov Agron near the Franciscan friary. "One time a bunch of kids spat at me, another time a little girl spat at me," said the brown-robed monk near the Jaffa Gate.

"All 15 monks at our friary have been spat at," he said. "Every [Christian cleric in the Old City] who's been here for awhile, who dresses in robes in public, has a story to tell about being spat at. The more you get around, the more it happens." ...

For Christian clergy in the Old City, being spat at by Jewish fanatics "is a part of life," said the American Jewish Committee's Rabbi David Rosen, Israel's most prominent Jewish interfaith activist.

"I hate to say it, but we've grown accustomed to this. Jewish religious fanatics spitting at Christian priests and nuns has become a tradition," said Roman Catholic Father Massimo Pazzini, sitting inside the Church of the Flagellation on the Via Dolorosa.

[Edit]

Rather than taking offense at the ramblings of an insane person, he is to be pitied.

[Edit]

When asked by Fox News’ Major Garrett what the White House thought about the ClimateGate scandal, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claimed that the existence of climate change was no longer “in dispute anymore.”

“On the order of several thousands of scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening. I don’t think that’s anything that is quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore.”

It seems the White House is either too caught up in its liberal ideological bubble to notice the large and growing number of people that doubt the shaky science behind the global warming fraud, or they just no longer care since the Obama administration’s goal is to push its agenda either way.

Later, Lester Kinsolving of WCBM Radio out of Baltimore, Maryland, asked Gibbs if he was “aware of the list, the published list of 31,000 scientists who oppose this idea of global warming.”

Gibbs, who has no scientific background of which I am aware of, responded that “there’s no real scientific basis for the dispute of this.”

The response by the White House mouthpiece reveals a lack of concern on the part of the Obama administration for the truth of the science in which they hope to push their ideological agenda.

[Edit]

Just a few months ago, the term “Climate Deniers” meant someone who denied that Global Warming was an absolute, unquestionable fact.

If you asked why some areas are colder, or why the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” depicted massive cold fronts, or why Al Gore says that air conditioning is a killer threat while running around town in an air conditioned limo, then you were a knuckle-dragging climate denier.

If you didn’t fall on your face and instantly believe anything the left said about the climate, you were a climate denier.

If you questioned the “hockey-stick” graph, which has been abandoned for a long time by most climatologists, you were a climate denier.

If you wondered why the founder of The Weather Channel says the Global Warming movement is a hoax, you were a climate denier.

If you wondered why the planet has been cooling since 1998, you were a climate denier.

If you wondered why over 31,000 scientists (over 9,000 of them having PhD’s) have signed a petition rejecting global warming, then you were a climate denier.

After the revelation of private emails from the Hadley CRU at East Anglia over a week ago, the term climate deniers now has taken on an entirely new meaning. As you can see from the massive amount of information on the ClimateDepot website, as well as the online, searchable database of the emails and documents (which have been authenticated by officials at the East Anglia University), the whole Global Warming movement has been based on an elaborate fraud. Data was manipulated to create the impression that the world was warming (when it was really cooling for the past 11 years) and it was all the fault of the modern western lifestyle.

The new definition of a “Climate Denier” is one who denies that the ClimateGate fraud is real, or that the emails and documents are real, or, worst of all, says it doesn’t matter and that their plans to reduce the lifestyles of the populace and institute cap and trade and other heavy taxes will continue. One such group is the UN group that was heavily relying on the data from the Hadley CRU, which has now been completely discredited.

[Edit]

[Edit]

Why did I say "Wilson"...It just came to me...Valerie Plame...Yeah baby!

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

In 1803, the US paid $11,250,000 dollars for the entire Louisiana Purchase.

In 2009, the Senate paid Senator Landrieu (by her own words) $300,000,000.

If one adjusts for inflation, she received nearly twice as much taxpayer dollars than the Louisian Purchase cost.

$11,250,000 in 1803 equals $153,576,434.37 today.

And gubment is frugal and sensible?

[Edit]

[Edit]

Who cares who the Clinton broad is engaged to? If the Huffington Post had any real news to report they wouldn't bother with that gossip. They are a gossip rag.

[Edit]

[Edit]

I have told him that numerous times. You see how much good it does. He doesn't even care what offends God either.

[Edit]

No one is suggesting that Christianity should be State sponsored. We just believe that there is nothing wrong with Christians taking an interest in politics either as you suggest there is. I had my interest in politics long before I became a Christian. I don't want Government telling me how or who to worship just as the founders believed.

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

How long will God show mercy to America? Jesus jumped up Christ. The son of a bitch is straight out of the Falwell/Robertson school of “America deserved 9-11”

He is the reason America came into existence; He, whether people like it or not, is whom this nation was founded upon. Absodamnedlootly!! Our forefathers left England because another bunch of religious nitwits wanted to force THEIR version of God on the populace.

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

runs from this site instead of trying to defend the indefensible rigging of data by High Priest Albert Gorebbels and his cult?

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

I was thinking the same but didn't think it was worth my time to point it out.

It's better you do it anyway because you're the one he accused.

[Edit]

[Edit]

Two well dressed people crash a party at the White House and everybody's got their panties in a bunch.

Meanwhile, the same politicians don't seem a bit upset about the millions who trespassed into the U.S. via the border.

[Edit]

Date: Nov 26th, 22:34

Did you know that separation of church and state is not part of the Constitution? Apparently, neither does the ACLU, liberals, or atheists. Contrary to what people believe, it is not law that the church be kept out of the government. If anything, the founding fathers did not wish to have the government meddling in church affairs, a fear founded in the disgusting state of affairs in Europe then and previously: the Inquisition, the quarreling among popes and kings, and etc.

Our government was constructed in order to prevent kings from forcing religious beliefs, practices, etc. upon the people. However, the government clearly needs Christian influence. Thomas Jefferson said that our government needs the basis of Christianity; otherwise, it will fail. All of our founding fathers believed in God, and all believed that it was God’s divine will that America be founded a source of freedom – including that of religion.

Since the beginning of the removal of God from the public, morality has slid rapidly. Any observer can clearly see this evidenced in society: shootings, terrorism, etc. Morals are being replaced by a “do what feels right” mentality; a dangerous, slippery slope. If there is no moral standard, anything, and everything, is acceptable. Homosexuality, for instance, is a complete rejection of any form of a standard. There might be other gross rebellions brewing in the future.

All this in the name of “separation of church and state.” Is it worth sacrificing Christianity for the sake of “separation of church and state”? Is it worth ignoring God for the ability for twisted ideas of “freedom” to come to fruition? Is it right?

How long will God show mercy to America? He is the reason America came into existence; He, whether people like it or not, is whom this nation was founded upon. Can a house without its foundation stand?

[Edit]

The Alaska Governor is far more than someone who appeals to the (conservative) base, she is someone who can make the base appeal to America.

This compact yet comprehensive diagnosis was made in the early hours of the Palin Derangement Syndrome (PDS) outbreak, when Sarah Palin was first being introduced to the nation. It still rings true as the Jurassic media continues a childish obsession with someone who does not control a single government lever.

Having said that, PDS has now matured past epidemic to full-blown pandemic status with a derangement component that is now insanely intense. Remember, Palin does not have one whit of legal authority over these people or anyone else. Yet as her elected status has ended, her effect on the elites has only increased. Perhaps it is time to update the correct initial diagnosis to contemplate the increased virulence of this mental and emotional malady.

snip

As many have correctly pointed out, the pundits' vitriol and patronizing comments smack of a hatred and anger that only thinly veils the real emotion underlying their irrational behavior: Fear. Part of it is fear that she will indeed hold public office again. But it goes even deeper than that.

snip

While people who live a conservative base type life have always outnumbered the elites, the last public figure who evidenced it simply by existing was Ronald Reagan. And yes, many of the attacks on Palin today are the same attacks Reagan endured decades ago and they are coming from the same quarters.

Palin and Reagan are similar in that they both can use a few simple words and communicate more truth to average Americans than the media elites can with rambling professorial or lawyer speak. When she told Charlie Gibson that "you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska," she refers to a profound sense of reality one automatically gets when you see your mortal enemy every single day. Now I understood it the day she said it. Send a memo to David Brooks please.

snip

So while the elites eventually beat back Gingrich and the Bushes, they seem to know they will never do that to Palin. They never could do it to Reagan either. Like Reagan, Palin seems to arrive at her beliefs with too much foundation to ever rattle. That gives power to her spoken and written words that other Americans can sense.

Yes, there are more of us than there are of them. Sarah Palin has reminded us -- and them -- of that fact. And it drives them bananas.

[Edit]

"Contrived internet persona duly noted. Somehow, reading you posts and content I seriously doubt that you even had"

to finish it so it applies to you, "a "career" as a bolt tightener". Your persona is all over the place, still trying to be all things to all people....... you end up being zip to yourself.......

[Edit]

Sarah Palin made the mistake of being a self-made woman who actually accomplished things in her own right instead of riding her husband’s coattails. (Hillary)

RE: "She worked next to her husband founding and managing a small business that continues to flourish. She was active in local school and community affairs. She ran for local office serving as a council person and eventually mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. She took on several positions in the state government. She resigned a high office to battle the insiders who had run the state for years. Elected Governor she was soon the most popular governor in America. She accomplished all this without using a family fortune, marrying for money or buying her way into prominence. She achieved position and influence the old fashioned way, she earned it."

You are taking common sense to Gene. Forget it. He doesn't understand common sense. She also made the mistake of being born a woman. To Gene women are only sex objects. They have no value in the world of politics. He has the HOTS for her.

Last edited by author: Monday, November 30, 10:18:14   Edited 1 time.
[Edit]

She worked next to her husband founding and managing a small business that continues to flourish. She was active in local school and community affairs. She ran for local office serving as a council person and eventually mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. She took on several positions in the state government. She resigned a high office to battle the insiders who had run the state for years. Elected Governor she was soon the most popular governor in America. She accomplished all this without using a family fortune, marrying for money or buying her way into prominence. She achieved position and influence the old fashioned way, she earned it...

[Edit]

Romney probably dropped out because he was spending his own money and eventually realized it was a Democratic year.

Maybe he ran last time just to build up his national name recognition next time. No doubt he's running next time.

[Edit]

[Edit]

"I can't stand to look at the face of Mike Huckabee or listen to his voice. How he got a job on FoxNews is beyond me. And, how in the world any Republican would vote for him is also beyond me."

Shouldn't be too hard to understand if you think about it........ pay off for dropping out so McCain could be the nominee...... what other reason could there be? That leaves why did Romney drop out.......... what was promised him.... of course I could be wrong about both of them....

[Edit]

[Edit]

”And as soon as your mummy and dada pay me back the money I paid in for them I’ll quit doing like they did.”

I see. Because gubment looted you, it’s OK for gubment to loot others to pay you.

Did the “Well, Billy’s parents let him do it” excuse work when you were physically a child?

No it didn’t so your mentally childish excuse won’t work here either.

------

”Others are able to intellectually digest events AND are capable of finding out truths to refute “beliefs”, especially those specifically designed to influence and corrupt.”

I eagerly await YOUR first attempt.

Still waiting.

Still waiting.

Still waiting.

[Edit]

Secrecy in science is a corrosive force

By Michael Schrage, Published: November 27 2009 11:11 | Last updated: November 27 2009 11:11

With no disrespect to sausages and laws, Bismarck’s most famous aphorism clearly requires updating. “Scientific research” is bidding furiously to make the global shortlist of things one should not see being made.

Understandably so. Sciences at the cutting edge of statistics and public policy can make blood sports seem genteel. Scientists aggressively promoting pet hypotheses often relish the opportunity to marginalise and neutralise rival theories and exponents.

The malice, mischief and Machiavellian manoeuvrings revealed in the illegally hacked megabytes of emails from the University of East Anglia’s prestigious Climate Research Unit, for example, offers a useful paradigm of contemporary scientific conflict. Science may be objective; scientists emphatically are not. This episode illustrates what too many universities, professional societies, and research funders have irresponsibly allowed their scientists to become. Shame on them all.

The source of that shame is a toxic mix of institutional laziness and complacency. Too many scientists in academia, industry and government are allowed to get away with concealing or withholding vital information about their data, research methodologies and results. That is unacceptable and must change.

Only recently in America, for example, have academic pharmaceutical researchers been required to disclose certain financial conflicts of interest they might have. On issues of the greatest importance for public policy, science researchers less transparent than they should be. That behaviour undermines science, policy and public trust.

Dubbed “climate-gate” by global warming sceptics, the most outrageous East Anglia email excerpts appear to suggest respected scientists misleadingly manipulated data and suppressed legitimate argument in peer-reviewed journals.

These claims are forcefully denied, but the correspondents do little to enhance confidence in either the integrity or the professionalism of the university’s climatologists. What is more, there are no denials around the researchers’ repeated efforts to avoid meaningful compliance with several requests under the UK Freedom of Information Act to gain access to their working methods. Indeed, researchers were asked to delete and destroy emails. Secrecy, not privacy, is at the rotten heart of this bad behavior by ostensibly good scientists.

Why should research funding institutions and taxpayers fund scientists who deliberately delay, obfuscate and deny open access to their research? Why should scientific journals publish peer-reviewed research where the submitting scientists have not made every reasonable effort to make their work – from raw data to sophisticated computer simulations – as transparent and accessible as possible? Why should responsible policymakers in America, Europe, Asia and Latin America make decisions affecting people’s health, wealth and future based on opaque and inaccessible science?

They should not. The issue here is not about good or bad science, it is about insisting that scientists and their work be open and transparent enough so that research can be effectively reviewed by broader communities of interest. Open science minimises the likelihood and consequences of bad science.

Debilitating and even fatal side-effects of new drugs might have been detected sooner if pharmaceutical companies had been compelled to share data on all the trials they ran, not just favourable ones. Similarly, the flawed and successfully overturned 1999 child murder conviction of Sally Clark might never have occurred if the statistical errors made by expert witness pediatrician Sir Roy Meadow had been questioned earlier. Data withholding played a distortive and destructive role in the cold fusion frenzy 20 years ago, when two scientists announced they had produced energy by cold fusion, only to be widely and quickly denounced by the scienitific community. Concealment and secrecy invites mischief; too many scientists seeking influence accept the invitation.

Achieving this is simple and inexpensive. It is not done by more rigorous enforcement of the Freedom of Information Act, although that would help. It comes from branding “openness” into every link of the scientific research value chain. Public or tax-deductible research funding should be contingent upon maximum transparency.

Scientists and affiliated institutions that will not make the research process as transparent as the end result will be asked to return the money or risk denial of future funds. University accreditation should be contingent not just upon faculty research and publication but by demonstrating policies and practices that champion data sharing. Professional societies and journals should make data sharing a condition of membership and publication. Researchers must be pushed to be more open at every step of their process.

The Royal Society not only makes data sharing a precondition of publication, it provides up to 10 megabytes of free space for supplementary data on its website. Unfortunately, too many scientific societies and publishers are less than rigorous or insistent about openness. Strip them of their tax-deductible status. Make opennes a condition of tax advantage. Of course commercial and proprietary issues can influence the manner of data sharing and transparency. But the East Anglia emails represent an individual and institutional imperative to err on the side of minimal disclosure even as researchers sought to maximise the academic and political impact of their work. That is perverse.

Public interest suggests scientists and their sponsoring institutions be made as legally, financially, professionally and ethically as uncomfortable as possible about concealing and withholding relevant research information.

If the University of East Anglia had been sharing more of its data and the computer models and statistical simulations running that data, the email hack would have been much ado about nothing.

When doing important research about the potential future of the planet, scientists should have nothing to hide. Their obligation to the truth is an obligation to openness.

The writer researches the economics of innovation and technology transfer at MIT and is a visiting researcher at London’s Imperial College (Source)

----------

Had you any belief in true, not political, science, you would agree with everything in this piece. Alas, Dr. Stadler, you won’t because you don't.

Poopsie?

[Edit]

[Edit]

Somehow, being called phony and dishonest by Gene doesn't seem to have much of a downside.

Since up is down and down is up in his world, it is actually in your favor.

[Edit]

And as soon as your mummy and dada pay me back the money I paid in for them I’ll quit doing like they did.

[Edit]

SEATTLE – The suspect in the slaying of four police officers gunned down in a coffee shop was not found Monday in the Seattle home where he was thought to have been holed up overnight, likely wounded from his bloody encounter with the officers.

Pierce County sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer said the location of Maurice Clemmons was not known, and it's possible he still could be in the neighborhood. Troyer also said people who know Clemmons told investigators he had been shot in the torso. ...

Clemmons has a long criminal history, including a long prison sentence commuted by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee nearly a decade ago, and a recent arrest for allegedly assaulting a police officer in Washington. ...

In 1989, Clemmons, then 17, was convicted in Little Rock for aggravated robbery. He was paroled in 2000 after Huckabee commuted a 95-year prison sentence.

Huckabee, who was criticized during his run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 for granting many clemencies and commutations, cited Clemmons' youth. Clemmons later violated his parole, was returned to prison and released in 2004.

On Sunday, Huckabee issued this statement on his Web site: "Should he be found to be responsible for this horrible tragedy, it will be the result of a series of failures in the criminal justice system in both Arkansas and Washington state."

[Edit]

"A phony muther fukker is still a phony muther fukker.."

You described yourself perfectly.

Nicely done!

[Edit]

I did and I do. BUTT; some people are gullible enough to believe everything they read on the internet, contrived personas included. A phony muther fukker is still a phony muther fukker..

[Edit]

smarmy: excessively or unctuously flattering, ingratiating, servile, etc.: the emcee with the smarmy welcome

I have never flattered you, unctuously or not.

You really need to get a dictionary.

[Edit]

”Maybe you could explain to about my “looting”??”

Do you take Socialist Security? Of course you do meaning you are looting from the pockets of young workers far less wealthy than you.

------

”Others are able to intellectually digest events AND are capable of finding out truths to refute “beliefs”, especially those specifically designed to influence and corrupt.”

I eagerly await YOUR first attempt.

Still waiting.

Still waiting.

[Edit]

POLITICALLY-correct penpushers have banned calling yobs "youths" - so as not to hurt their feelings.

Government bureaucrats insist they must be called "young persons" instead.

The edict is the latest in a long series of potty language changes enforced by petty officials.

It provoked fury last night, sparking accusations that Labour is being far too soft on the teenage criminals.

The order came in a code of practice issued by the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Children, Schools and Families on how to give out conditional cautions.

It reads: "A number of responses suggested the term 'youth' had negative connotations and should be replaced by 'young person'.

"Therefore throughout the code (with the exception of the term 'Youth Conditional Caution') 'youth' has been replaced."

The madness was exposed by Shadow Justice Secretary Dominic Grieve.

The senior Tory said last night: "Yet again ministers have shown they are more bothered about pandering to political correctness than coming down hard on the crime and anti-social behaviour."

Annoyed civil servants had to spend hours correcting the document itself, after they were the first to fall foul of the new rule.

More than 100 mentions of the banned word had to be deleted in the 26-page code.

Feltham Young Offenders Institute in West London will also be affected.

Previous PC language changes include substituting "winterval" for Christmas, so not to upset non-Christians, and saying "outcast" instead of "black sheep", in case it is seen as racist.

Read more at: The Sun

---------

You just gotta love leftists.

Poopsie?
Gene?

[Edit]

• I’ve know a few lifers in my time and to a man they were real, honest and pretty straightforward. None of them were smarmy phony irrelevant pricks (such as yourself and the couple of others that post regularly here)

The US military and naval forces are Constitutional. Well, at least you got something right

Your looting is not. Maybe you could explain to about my “looting”?? I write a check every month to provide for my wife’s healthcare and my Medicare supplement. Now IF I am looting because of Medicare than probably your mommy and daddy did as do other “con-servatives” here as well. The difference is I paid the maximum for many years supporting them, while you and your minimum wage conservative friends paid the minimum.

[Edit]

On Veteran's Day you claimed to honor and thank those who served and today you dishonor one who did.

Some core principles you've got there, Gene.

[Edit]

”and yet YOU guvvie are right there with your fellow Ass-troturfers suckling on Uncle Samuel’s (the America taxpayer) right rear teat.”

The difference is that I put my life on the line for years in defense of my country.

The US military and naval forces are Constitutional.

Your looting is not.

-----

”Others are able to intellectually digest events AND are capable of finding out truths to refute “beliefs”, especially those specifically designed to influence and corrupt.”

I eagerly await YOUR first attempt.

Still waiting.

[Edit]

and yet YOU guvvie are right there with your fellow Ass-troturfers suckling on Uncle Samuel’s (the America taxpayer) right rear teat.

Boratz is absolutely correct; we do need to divest ourselves of the slugs and “moochers”

[Edit]

How shameful that Virginia, the birthplace of Madison (principal author of the US Constitution) and Jefferson (principal author of the Declaration of Independence), has decided to quash both documents.

Today is the last day that property owners can decide for themselves if their establishment should be smoke free or not.

Here’s a thought for the looters who pushed for this thievery: If you don’t like smoke in a bar or restaurant - DON’T GO IN!

Stop using the gubment gun to force your beliefs down the throat of others.

Poopsie?
Gene?

[Edit]

CRU’s Tree-Ring Circus

Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewers?

By Mark Steyn

My favorite moment in the Climategate/Climaquiddick scandal currently roiling the “climate change” racket was Stuart Varney’s interview on Fox News with the actor Ed Begley Jr. — star of the 1980s medical drama St. Elsewhere but latterly better known, as is the fashion with members of the thespian community, as an “activist.” He’s currently in a competition with Bill Nye (“the Science Guy”) to see who can have the lowest “carbon footprint.” Pistols at dawn would seem the quickest way of resolving that one, but presumably you couldn’t get a reality series out of it. Anyway, Ed was relaxed about the mountain of documents recently leaked from Britain’s Climate Research Unit in which the world’s leading climate-change warm-mongers e-mail each other back and forth on how to “hide the decline” and other interesting matters.

Nothing to worry about, folks. “We’ll go down the path and see what happens in peer-reviewed studies,” said Ed airily. “Those are the key words here, Stuart. ‘Peer-reviewed studies.’”

Hang on. Could you say that again more slowly so I can write it down? Not to worry. Ed said it every 12 seconds, as if it were the magic charm that could make all the bad publicity go away. He wore an open-necked shirt, and, although I don’t have a 76” inch HDTV, I wouldn’t have been surprised to find a talismanic peer-reviewed amulet nestling in his chest hair for additional protection. “If these scientists have done something wrong, it will be found out and their peers will determine it,” insisted Ed. “Don’t get your information from me, folks, or any newscaster. Get it from people with Ph.D. after their names. ‘Peer-reviewed studies is the key words. And if it comes out in peer-reviewed studies . . . ”

Got it: Pier-reviewed studies. You stand on the pier and you notice the tide seems to be coming in a little higher than it used to and you wonder if it’s something to do with incandescent light bulbs killing the polar bears? Is that how it works?

No, no, peer-reviewed studies. “Peer-reviewed studies. Go to Science magazine, folks. Go to Nature,” babbled Ed. “Read peer-reviewed studies. That’s all you need to do. Don’t get it from you or me.”

Look for the peer-reviewed label! And then just believe whatever it is they tell you!

The trouble with outsourcing your marbles to the peer-reviewed set is that, if you take away one single thing from the leaked documents, it’s that the global warm-mongers have wholly corrupted the “peer-review” process. When it comes to promoting the impending ecopalypse, the Climate Research Unit is the nerve-center of the operation. The “science” of the CRU dominates the “science” behind the UN’s IPCC, which dominates the “science” behind the Congressional cap-and-trade boondoggle, the upcoming Copenhagen shakindownen of the developed world, and the now routine phenomenon of leaders of advanced, prosperous societies talking like gibbering madmen escaped from the padded cell, whether it’s President Obama promising to end the rise of the oceans or the Prince of Wales saying we only have 96 months left to save the planet.

But don’t worry, it’s all “peer-reviewed.”

Here’s what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael Mann of Penn State mean by “peer review.” When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann “consensus,” Jones demanded that the journal “rid itself of this troublesome editor,” and Mann advised that “we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers.”

So much for Climate Research. When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the “consensus” reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley (“one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change”) suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to “get him ousted.” When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. Mann, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Which in essence is what they did. The more frantically they talked up “peer review” as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: “How To Forge A Consensus.” Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: That’s “peer review,” climate-style.

The more their echo chamber shriveled, the more Mann and Jones insisted that they and only they represent the “peer-reviewed” “consensus.” And gullible types like Ed Begley Jr. and Andrew Revkin of the New York Times fell for it hook, line, and tree-ring. The e-mails of “Andy” (as his CRU chums fondly know him) are especially pitiful. Confronted by serious questions from Stephen McIntyre, the dogged Ontario retiree whose Climate Audit website exposed the fraud of Dr. Mann’s global-warming “hockey stick” graph), “Andy” writes to Dr. Mann to say not to worry, he’s going to “cover” the story from a more oblique angle:

I'm going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.

peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge building happens, would you agree?

And, amazingly, Dr. Mann does! “Re, your point at the end — you’ve taken the words out of my mouth.”

And that’s what Andrew Revkin did, week in, week out: He took the words out of Michael Mann’s mouth and served them up to impressionable readers of the New York Times and opportunist politicians around the world champing at the bit to inaugurate a vast global regulatory body to confiscate trillions of dollars of your hard-earned wealth in the cause of “saving the planet” from an imaginary crisis concocted by a few dozen thuggish ideologues. If you fall for this after the revelations of the last week, you’re as big a dupe as Begley or Revkin.

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” wondered Juvenal: Who watches the watchmen? But the beauty of the climate-change tree-ring circus is that you never need to ask “Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewers?” Mann peer-reviewed Jones, and Jones peer-reviewed Mann, and anyone who questioned their theories got exiled to the unwarmed wastes of Siberia. The “consensus” warm-mongers could have declared it only counts as “peer-reviewed” if it’s published in Peer-Reviewed Studies published by Mann & Jones Publishing Inc (Peermate of the Month: Al Gore, reclining naked, draped in dead polar-bear fur, on a melting ice floe), and Ed Begley Jr. and “Andy” Revkin would still have wandered out glassy-eyed into the streets droning “Peer-reviewed studies. Cannot question. Peer-reviewed studies. The science is settled . . . ”

Looking forward to Copenhagen, Herman Van Rumpoy, the new president of the European Union and an eager proponent of the ecopalypse, says 2009 is “the first year of global governance.” Global government, huh? I wonder where you go to vote them out of office.

Hey, but don’t worry, it’ll all be “peer-reviewed.”

Poopsie?
Gene?

[Edit]

Neal Boortz: Moochers need free-market dose

What’s the most surprising element of the current health care debate?

That would be the belief many government-educated Americans have that the Democrats pushing this health care takeover actually care all that much about their health.

This whole debate — and the Democrats’ attempt to seize control of a sixth of our nation’s economy — would have ended long ago if the American people had realized that this is about creating dependency on government and nothing else. Look, if these moochers had any concern whatsoever about the availability and quality of health care in this country, they would have turned the free markets loose.

There has never in the history of mankind been any social or economic system better able to improve the standard of living of the people, and that includes health care, than the competitive free market — a system, by the way, currently despised by the ruling (not governing, ruling) party in Washington. Our friends the Democrats, knowing the power of the free market, wouldn’t so much as propose allowing you to purchase health insurance across state lines, let alone give you the same tax breaks if you were to purchase health insurance on your own that your employer gets purchasing it for you.

All right. So, I’m not going to be able to convince you that your friends the Democrats are just out to grow government and their political strength. I can, however, use the words I have left (they really need to give me a bigger word budget) to dispel you of this absurd notion that you have a “right” to health care.

How do you receive health care? Compare health care to your right to free speech. All that is necessary for you to exercise your right to blab away on almost anything is for other people to refrain from stuffing a sock in your mouth. Not so with health care. Health care is a service. Free speech isn’t, nor are the other rights enumerated in our Constitution. Someone has to provide you with health care. They either have to administer to you personally, or they have to provide you with drugs or medical implements. To claim a right to health care, then, is to claim a right to either the time or the property of the people with the skills, the drugs or the equipment you may need.

Get the point?

You have NO right to a portion of another person’s life, or to their property. None. Therefore, you cannot have a right to health care.

Think about this: Once you perfect a claim to a portion of another person’s life or property for your health care, where does it stop? Do you then have a similar claim for shelter or three squares a day? How much of that person’s life and property belongs to you? How much can they protect from your ever-growing dependency on government?

You know ... I need to write more columns at 1 a.m. Clearly I nailed this “right to health care” thing. Perhaps I should quit while I’m ahead, but I’m going to spend a few more words stating the obvious.

How’s this swine flu thing working out for you?

Have you had any problems finding your swine flu shots? Tell me how you like that rate of return you’re getting on all of the money that was confiscated from you for Social Security!

And have you noticed that you can get your oil changed faster than you can work your way through the line at a post office? Private sector vs. government.

Are you really paying attention to the choices you’re making here? No? Well, isn’t it about time?

Poopsie?
Gene?

[Edit]

Even this is the expression of a belief.

[Edit]

Gene.

[Edit]

We all have the same remote ancestors. How have Christians polluted the teaching of God?

[Edit]

Where did they warn us about people of faith. Even though you don't believe it the founders were for the most part devout Christians.

[Edit]

Yes, we are all descended from Adam and Eve. Even Gene cannot refute that.

[Edit]

ahahhahahhahhaaaaa. Revisionist history duly noted. I damned near crapped my Depends with that laugher. To top it off you think Sarah P is a con-servative, sorta makes a mockery of that last ya ya..

Now listen up, nummie. The decade of HeeHawdism was sold to the goobers (some reside here) as a continuation of the conservative pants crapper presidency Bonso bin Raygone (I’m just like Raygone HeeHaww). Your fellow whiners here drank the Kool-Aid of Bonso reincarnate in 2000 and 2004 (Cheney/Bush). You did too and look what you did to my country, voting for the lesser of 2 eeviels in your small mind. Bush reinstalled the very traitors and globalists in his presidency we warned you about in the Raygone presidency.

[Edit]

I owe my existence to a collections of humans, not necessarily to the religious fanaticism that has polluted the teachings of a deity. The very same religious fanatics the founders warned us about.

Besides, we have seen what happened to our country when the “faithful” (in partnership with the globalist) did to our nation during the decade of the HeeHawdist (celebration of ignorance and those that practice it). Can you really blame America and its people for kicking you morons out of office??

[Edit]

[Edit]

”Others are able to intellectually digest events AND are capable of finding out truths to refute “beliefs”, especially those specifically designed to influence and corrupt.”

I eagerly await YOUR first attempt.

Still waiting.

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

Quite a few actually, it is the young that aren't so sharp anymore, along with a few retired bragging reprobate bridge builders, hej hej

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

”Aren’t you just a fountain of knowledge this morning, leg humper. You sure you and Connie don’t share a common ancestor??”

We all do.

”Others are able to intellectually digest events AND are capable of finding out truths to refute “beliefs”, especially those specifically designed to influence and corrupt.”

I eagerly await YOUR first attempt.

Still waiting.

[Edit]

[Edit]

[Edit]

As far as Palin; somebody is still trying to put lipstick on a pig (before you Palinites go ballistic that is a metaphor, I’m not calling St Sarah a pig, although……); her “visit” with Graham..

[Edit]