@westside-steve said:

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/12/the-gingrich-divorce-myth/

WSS

Oh, I stand corrected. Thanks.

I apologize to Newt then lol

I bumped the mouse.

Yes, he's asking me. Nixon and Spiro Agnew did. The Bushes and Reagan did not.

Clinton did, and Obamao sickenly does. So, is it not wrong because somebody else

in another party did it?

I despised agnew and nixon like I despised Carter, Clinton(s), and Obamao(s).

I admired JFK. Despised, really despised LBJ. Liked Jerald Ford, who just was

'ok'.

Has any Rep ever worked to fight our 2nd Amendment ? Nope.

But why do liberals always suck up to the psychological defense mechanism of

projecting discussion points to another party, at sometime in history?

Either behavior is wrong, or not wrong. But with libs, it's wrong for a rep pres, but it

is fine if it is a dem pres. Whatever floats their locked-in emotional boat at any particular time.

@westside-steve said:

cal

@mld-woody said:

Didn't Newt leave his second wife on her death bed for his third wife?

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/12/the-gingrich-divorce-myth/

WSS

@browns149 said:

"The left always tries to control the message, dominate the perception of themselves."

And the right would never do such a thing?

Who are you asking?

WSS

And the right would never do such a thing?

And the poles? Please. They had every Republican candidate in first place at some point.

WSS

WSS

and ops at the WH wanted the prayer breakfast people to ask Carson to call and apologize to Obamao.

Carson said Obamao was only a few seats away, and never seemed to be

upset with his comments, and had no intention of apologizing.

It was great speech

What is concerning, that before Carson's speech, the WH repeatedly asked Carson for a pre-speech copy of his

speech.

Carson also declined. The left always tries to control the message, dominate the perception of themselves.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04/15/ben-carson-tells-real-story-of-prayer-breakfast-in-new-book-white-house-wanted-an-apology-112640

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/285137-carson-no-sneak-peek-for-obama

He's a smart man and a good doctor, but underhanded and not POTUS material. Of course he wouldn't be the first person to not be POTUS material and win anyhow, but Carson won't even sniff the nomination.

@westside-steve said:

1. Webb wrote a great book in the mid 2000s (non fiction) about the Scots Irish in America called Born fighting.

2. Crackpot? Dude was Ronny Reagan's SecNav. Of course a decorated combat vet that worked for our best recent president and preaches non intervention and smart intervention is so far out of the mainstream that he seems to be a crackpot.

I'll read your rant tomorrow Cal

WSS

@mohican said:

That's a stretch. She's John McCain in a pant suit. If Democrat voters were smart and really wanted to fix 'Murrica they'd vote for Jim Webb. On the Republican side Rand Paul. All others on the Repub side are big business, big war hacks.

Well maybe but he hasn't written anything substantial since Richard Harris and Glen Campbell were performing.

WSS

@clevfan4life said:

That's a stretch. She's John McCain in a pant suit. If Democrat voters were smart and really wanted to fix 'Murrica they'd vote for Jim Webb. On the Republican side Rand Paul. All others on the Repub side are big business, big war hacks.

A coworker was mysteriously canned after piping up about fracking run off getting into his well water. So any discussion about anything negative about coal or gas is off the clock and away from HR types.

corrects somebody you don't like. That is exactly why I called you Johnny, because

the kid next door did stuff like smart off to other kids, says he would beat them up,

then if they made a move to come up into his yard, he'd scream "HELP" and slam

the door shut.

Furthermore, woodpecker, YOU are an engineer. So, if engineers aren't qualified

to disagree with mmgw, then why in the hell are YOU allowed to be for it?

By your own sickenly arrogant assholish birdbrain admission, you aren't qualified to agree or disagree,

and you are far from being an engineer scientist.

You really need to STOP BEING AN ASSHOLE about stuff. There are plenty

of other folks on this forum, and other forums, that have mentioned something

to that effect to you. Nobody every said anything about most all scientists

colluding anything.

I say, it's a political movement, and it comes from the UN. And when the UN

says global redistribution of wealth to poor countries DEPENDS ON MMGW,

then I would think that that would give a lot more than 17,000 scientists pause

to say "hey, wtf?"

B. Do you really think that 17,000 scientists would lie out their rears? Really?

All I've ever said was, that if there are scientists who disagree, it is no fact.

C. Is it a possibility? Sure. Our CO2 is climbing, and I don't like that. But for all the expensive

pollution control we've enforced, was mentioned before, China and India are two of the worlds

worst polluters. They were exempt from the Kyoto treaty, as well as a lot of other poor countries.

D. Now, Having said that, and having shown you that the UN is using mmgw as a redistributer political device,

yes, I agree with you on one point, it IS too bad it became a political maneuver. But the maneuvering in

strictly on the liberal left. It's a rallying cause for the UN and liberalism to take away from the rich countries,

give to the poor, and the left will stop at nothing, will happily lower themselves into a mammoth-ridden tar pit

right to it's bottom, if it has one that is, to gain politically and leftwing culturally.

E. Logic, I understand what you are saying, btw. What do those experts at your company say about CO2 going up,

and mmgw not going up for well over a decade? I don't get it, that's all.

F. Now, back to woodypeckerhead, just once, you should stop the straw man crap. You are so fond of saying "HAHA

IF YOU THINK THAT __________, YOU ARE A MORON" kind of statement. There are very serious questions,

and as long as there are a large group of scientists who refuse to agree to mmgw, why in the hell does anybody

buy into it as some kind of profound truth of the ages?

G. And, btw, when "man made global warming" became "climate change" up on high, at the UN, I suppose,

how the hell is it, that you lefties started being psycho parrots again, and started chanting it immediately?

Doesn't that give the left pause, that they are so happily and easily manipulated?

H. And I stand by my question - to woodypeckerhead - why the hell does the left get to demand to question and

challenge everything THEY want questioned and challenged, but they get sickenly hostile when the right

challengs and questions what the left doesn't want challenged or questioned?

Know what I'm sayin? Of course YOU don't, woodypeckerhead, but that was to the rest of the board, who

aren't dishonest like you.[

I. I don't give a frak, as long as the wanton destruction of our rainforests and plains etc, are being destroyed

by the millions and millions of acres, and the mmgw crowd doesn't give a frak, they can shove it when they

cry about CO2 being caused by cows farting and farm machinery (TAX the farmers), and RV and SUV and

pickup trucks (TAX THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE RICH), and they bitch about campfires and woodburning

fireplaces (TAX EVERYBODY WHO DOESN'T LIVE IN THE CITIES, and they want to force entire rich

countries to fork over a hell of a lot of their money to the UN to redistribute it to poor countries (TAX EVERY

PERSON IN THOES COUNTRIES)....

I say it's a crock of crap. Sure, there is evidence that it is happening. But there is also evidence that it

it NOT. And when the left goes nutso and tries to blackball anybody who wonders why that is, and hides

that evidence to the contrary, forget about it.

J. My last point - the Kyoto Treaty EXCLUDED china, India, and a lot of poor countries. If mmgw was real, and

and looming devastating immediate GLOBAL CRISIS, why is that? Seriously.

@clevfan4life said:

Which Steve am i talking to then? Cause the Westside Steve from earlier this week was ranting about how we brought back the troops from Iraq too soon. I mean we're safe now right?

CFFL

I don't remember making any such rent. I think we all especially the most hyperbolic of us, tend to blame every member of the board for everything other left or right wing posters have to say.

but, and I hesitate to get any further into it, just for clarification I was kidding about being safe since we assassinated Osama bin Laden. I don't believe he planned or executed 911 and may or may not have even been briefed on it beforehand.

WSS

You really think the vast, vast majority of qualified scientists and scientific groups worldwide are all colluding together in some liberal scheme? Are you that dumb? That's not how this works. They have independent research, peer reviews, etc.

There is no denial of denier evidence. It is either bring skewed or sometimes just inaccurate. Myself and others have pointed this out numerous times.

I would count the one disagreeing with almost the entirety of the scientific community as the one in denial...

Too bad this became a political issue. Scientific issues should not be infected by politics.

Also. I am sure that the vast majority of the scientific community all just have a hive mind that is controlled by the UN. Their profession does not teach them to question data at all. Not ever.

Cal, I work in a field that has billions of dollars tied up in being able to burn oil and gas. When those guys tell you man made global warming is real even at great financial peril, I trust them.

But carry on as you wish. This argument has been hashed and rehashed a ton of times.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

then I'll post this again:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241

Now, any freaking "truth" that has 17,000 scientists disputing it....

is no truth. It's a controversial theory, the supporters of which have a

UN admitted hidden agenda, and a vicious anger about being questioned.

Which brings to mind somebody mentioned, I'm thinkin it was Woody, about

it's good to question everything, challenge everything.

But it is only bad to challenge or question when it's the liberals and the corrupt UN

say it's bad.

We've been over the fraudulent cherry picking of "scientific evidence" before, more than once.

All I am telling you, is that mmgw is the UN's weapon of choice, in a duel to redistribute wealth.

And, more and more, people are understanding that there is science supporting a strong

denial that mmgw is happening, or at least, there is NO crisis ,regardless of how strong'

the liberals want that political advantage.

The controversy is gaining traction. Censoring a whole group of scientists and science because it

doesn't fit the pro-liberal agenda is losing the argument a little at a time.