AP reported that Gore "bragged" he read energy bill, but he was asked if he had done so
SUMMARY: The AP asserted that, during a hearing on the energy bill, Al Gore "bragged" when he testified, "I have read all 648 pages of this bill." But the AP did not mention that Gore was responding to a question about whether he had read the bill.
In an April 25 Associated Press article about the House subcommittee hearings on "The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009," reporter Laurie Kellman asserted that former Vice President Al Gore "bragged" when he testified, "I have read all 648 pages of this bill," adding that Gore's statement was "a boast that would surprise no one who caught his teacher's-pet performance in the 2000 presidential race." However, Kellman did not mention that Gore made his statement after Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) specifically asked Gore and former Sen. John Warner (R-VA), his co-panelist, "Have you each read the bill in its entirety?"
In addition, Kellman misrepresented an exchange between Gore and Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), falsely claiming that Gore "compared Barton and Bernard Madoff, who swindled investors out of $50 billion." In fact, Gore did no such thing; rather, he compared Barton to "the investors who trusted Bernie Madoff."
From Gore's exchange with Walden:
WALDEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Vice President, Senator, it's good to have you before the committee.
I wanted to just note that, Mr. Vice President, your reference to 30 cents a day comes from an EPA study, I believe. Unfortunately, that EPA study also assumes 150 percent growth in nuclear power in order to achieve that 30 cents a day. And that nuclear part is not in this bill.
I know there's concern about worker retraining. Mr. Vice President, you said you wanted every coal worker who lost his job to get a job. Unfortunately, the worker-transition piece in this bill -- all we have is in parentheses, "to be supplied" -- page 568 of the bill.
And I've asked every other witness this: Have you each read the bill in its entirety? Can I get a yes or no?
GORE: Congressman, I have read all 648 pages of this bill. It took me two transcontinental flights --
WALDEN: I'm with --
GORE: -- on United Airlines to finish it.
WALDEN: And I get on another one at 12 -- or at 2 o'clock.
From Gore's exchange with Barton:
GORE: Congressman Barton, I want to address your -- the point that you made about the science.
I don't question your sincerity for one moment --
BARTON: And I don't question yours. So, we're equal on that.
I believe that it's important to look at the sources of the science that we rely on. With all due respect, I believe that you have relied on people you have trusted, who've given you bad information. I don't blame the investors who trusted Bernie
Madoff, but he gave them bad information, and --BARTON: I've never talked to Bernie Madoff.
GORE: I'm not saying that you -- I'm not saying that you have. But he gave them bad information and committed a massive fraud that ended up hurting most of all the people who trusted him.
From the April 25 AP article:
"I have read all 648 pages of this bill," Gore bragged, a boast that would surprise no one who caught his teacher's-pet performance in the 2000 presidential race. "It took me two transcontinental flights on United Airlines to finish it."
Also not surprising, Gore endorsed the bill.
[...]
When Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, asked Gore to explain the cost of the climate legislation, Gore ignored him. Instead, he held up The New York Times and summarized an article supporting his contention that some corporations had ignored their own research showing humans caused global warming.
Barton asked him to answer the question. Gore again held up the paper and summarized the story.
Gore then compared Barton and Bernard Madoff, who swindled investors out of $50 billion, prompting Barton to interrupt Gore: "I've never talked to Bernie Madoff."
"I'm not saying that you have," Gore replied.
He continued, challenging opponents of the legislation to "find the moral courage" to support it and the "moral imagination" to accept the problem. He lectured the panel on "the reality of the world today," pointing out that, "I gave my slide show to the Indian Parliament."
Even if he wasn't asked how is that bragging?
I guess it's bragging when the bar is set that low. I don't remember the details, but I believe it was Larry Speakes who was asked whether Reagan read a report or not, and he said he didn't think so, and that the report was five pages long, single spaced.
Yup. When an expert testifying before congress on the merits of a bill says that he has read it, that's not bragging. That would be like Roger Ebert "bragging" that he had seen the movie he was reviewing.
Good analogy.
"Even if he wasn't asked how is that bragging?"
One groups claim of bragging is another mans claim to being fully informed on an issue before speaking about it...
Something the corporate owned media does not seem to think public (past or present) officials should be doing in the face of us mythical little people.
Gore answered every stupid GOP 'gotcha" question, and this one was no different. Hoping to get a "NO" on his question, Gore had a ready answer and was too well prepared.
So the little media groupies had to come in and mischaracterize.
I wonder if Copernicus had the same problem after the Catholic priests refused to look thru his telescope?
I'm not sure that was intended to be a gotcha question. They were asking everyone if they'd read the bill. That reporter clearly has an axe to grind with Gore though.
Well, Shaggles, let me clear it up for you, then. OF COURSE this was supposed to be a "gotcha" question for Gore.
It's just like the ones asked by Rep. Blackburn of Tennessee about how much money Gore made off his environmental advocacy. When he crushed her argument by pointing out that what he makes goes back into contributions that support the movement, she tried to defend herself by saying, in effect, "it's not ME making accusations, I'm merely asking questions."
Gore didn't let her hide behind that dodge, telling her flat out that he knew exactly what she was doing, as did everyone else who could see and hear her.
By the time the Gore-Blackburn exchange was done, people in the hearing room were laughing out loud at her poor performance and the ease with which Gore refuted her baseless accusations. Of course, THAT didn't make the AP retelling, either.
Marsha Blackburn disgusts me. Almost as much as the woman from Arizona who cried on the floor of the house that her child may have seen Janet Jackson's breast.
Not to mention an infatuation with Gingrich.
I think this is a bit of nit-picking. The AP and most liberal media bashed our President for the past 8 years, and we're discussing the use of "brag" as offensive?
Well...I guess it generates conversation on this crazy theory that man has made the Earth warmer.
I am a conservative...and do not believe that man is going to cause the crazy scenarios detailed in Gore's testimony.
I don't think this is quite as scientific as Copernicus...its mostly voodoo and speculation. <open flood gates :) >
and we just take your word that the ap bashed bush, naturally. and brag is offensive, as in braggart. and man has made the earth warmer. are you saying that man cannot change the climate? it's not possible for that to happen?
Mefirst - Do conservatives believe the planet has warmed over the previous years? Yes. Global temperatures have varied by less than 1 degree. Do conservatives believe that man is causing the climate to shift....no.
Here's why. Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth attempt.
Also, how does global warming explain the documented medieval warming period, which lasted between 900 and 1300 AD. There was zero carbon emissions...
How do we explain that temperatures have been steadily increasing since the end of the last ice age in 1850. Then, when man first pushed large quantities of CO2 (1940), the temps started dropping...
The thermometer was first thought of in 1593, with the first mercury thermometer in 1714. That means that scientists would have 300 years of accurate temperature measurements. Remember, the variations are less than 1 degree...so we would need some accuracy to have a model, correct? Now, the planet is...approx...4.5 BILLION years old. So, these scientists have created a model of planetary warming based on 0.000006% of the data. And, extrapolated to NY going underwater!
No, I'm not a climatoligist. But, I can do basic logic.
the same old nonsense. no one denies that there have been climate cycles. no one. if you're saying that nothing man can do can affect the climate, you're in denial of science. it's not logical to say that we can pour unlimited amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and it will change nothing.
Please supply facts. I am willing to understand your position, but need more info. I really do have concerns that the science is not sound. I've given 3 reasons above, and have tons more.
Can you start by pointing me to why the 3 above are not valid?
No, I do not believe that man has the impact to the degree you do. But, we are not pouring "unlimited amounts"...I want to clean the Earth as much as the next guy...but not to the peril of our civilization. I think that global warming happens. The Earth has cycles. We may affect it in a tiny, miniscule way, but not to the degree that alarmists say...
Help me understand your point.
the only facts you have provided are that there have been climate cycles, and no one has denied that. you said that conservatives don't believe "that man is causing the climate to shift". so therefore you are saying it doesn't matter how much we pour into the atmosphere, it won't change anything. you're the one who needs to explain how that is scientifically possible.
No, I'm not a climatoligist. But, I can do basic logic.
Correct. Followed by (as far as I can see) a quite incorrect statement.
Jstephens, if you're confused as to why the flood gates haven't opened, you may want to check some MMFA items from, oh, a year or two ago.
The trick to being a good troll (that is, getting the attention you crave) is to regurgitate current right wing talking points.It's fun for people here to rebut the fresh BS, pretty boring to argue with old pablum like the stuff your above post is made of.It's been done.
Col. Sanders - I am not confused. Hence the fact that I noted it. On the term "troll", I'm not sure why bloggers on this site use that derogative term. I have not called anyone a name. Why must some resort to that?
In fact, I do not "crave attention". I do, however, crave intelligent debate to further the discussion. What I have found is that most responses on this site tend to name calling and/or dismissive arguments.
Exactly what has been done? The global warming debate, or the liberal bias in the media debate? And, is it done because you choose not to discuss facts, or did someone publish a definitive, unrefutable document on either subject? Of course, I know the answer...
That said, would you, or any other on this site, like to have the discussion with real intellectual honesty (and no name calling)? If not, please do not respond.
I have not called anyone a name.
Name calling doesn't make you a troll. Lying and repeating debunked talking points does.
So, is everyone on this site afraid of engaging in actual debate? Just like Al Gore, most progressives just choose to say the "argument is over" rather than actually reviewing the facts.
If troll is how you choose to address those that intimidate, so be it.
What do you want to debate?
I would like to understand why the discussion on global warming has been "decided", when so many questions still exist. Yes, some scientists have signed onto the concept of global warming. But an equal number have argued against.
Water vapor accounts for up to 85% of the greenhouse gases according to the NOAA. Then, CO2, NO2, methane...they all fit within the remaining portion. CO2 created by man is an even smaller portion of the overall CO2... We are very focused on CO2 in the global warming debate. And all conservatives want to reduce pollution, but not at the expense of civilization. We just don't have enough facts.
What about the Sun's contribution to global warming? Don't we all agree that the Sun has significantly more impact on our globe than man? Scientists have measured an increase in solar flares, and linked them to higher temps...Why is that discounted?
How about the story just two weeks ago saying Antarctic ice is growing? Link is: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html
On some issues, its political and bias creeps in. But for global warming, it seems that there are some SERIOUS holes in the theories that are not being addressed, and politicians are attempting to shut down debate to further an agenda...
But an equal number have argued against.
The only ones (a distinct minority) who have argued against global climate change are PAID by corporations for their opinions. Get the difference?
That is not true. Point me to one single source that has a count of pro-manmade global warming scientists vs anti. I have not found one...
As for paying...How about GE supporting cap and trade? Could it be because they stand to make a mint on selling wind turbines? Honestly, energy companies are going to pass any costs they incur from global warming legislation to us, the consumers. Even Obama said that, and I quote, "my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"
why do i get the feeling there's more to that quote than what you've provided?
Google it. Many sites have it, some with video.
jstephen, my post was the first under yours and i asked you a couple questions. you've chosen not to answer them so why are you whining that no one wants to debate you?
YOU intimidate? Is that a joke? You have brought nothing to the table but attacks and basless assertions. Mischaracterizations and inflamatory rhetoric. If you want a debate put some meat on the table your weak trite long ago debunked talking points are just dumb they dont DESERVE to be treated as if they were serious. They arent.
Its been done to death. You mean you thought the way to get intelligent debate was to be dismissive of the established scientific consensus calling it crazy and voodoo? Really? Is that what YOU call intelligent debate? By spewing the old and frankly silly talking point about the liberal media. The one that was lockstep for marching to a war hardly any liberals in the country supported? That wouldnt call Bush a liar when he was caught red handed in several lies? The ones that TRASHED Gore as a liar for the kind of exagerations that are a political tradition and flat out LIED to make him look bad by claiming he said he invented the internet? Yet overlooked Bush's FLAT OUT LIES during the same campaign? THAT liberal media? Only someone severly brainwashed could possibly take that seriously.
Good point. Intelligent debate should not start with name calling. Point taken.
"In fact, I do not 'crave attention'. "
Um, yeah, as evidenced by this little quip: "<open flood gates :) >"
"I do, however, crave intelligent debate to further the discussion. What I have found is that most responses on this site tend to name calling and/or dismissive arguments."
You will find both, since it's a free and open forum. But if you come in and open up by broadbrushing everyone based on one reply, you're bound to get far more namecalling and/or dismissiveness.
If the AP article chose to report what Gore or Warner actually said, maybe there would be a basis for an intelligent debate about climate change.
"I do, however, crave intelligent debate to further the discussion."
Intelligent like this?...
"crazy scenarios"... "voodoo and speculation"
You've set the bar pretty low, my friend.
Col. Sanders - I am not confused. Hence the fact that I noted it. (JStephens)
So, <open flood gates :) > was implying that the flood gates would not be opened? You're not even trying.
I wasn't tryiing to pick on you, or just name call, I was giving you some helpful advice, hoping to save you some embarrassment.
I suggested you go back and read some older threads here on topics related to this one. Tha would have made it clear to you what had "been done".
You chose to ignore my advice, and continued babbling, sliding predictably into the Conservative persecution complex zone. It's boring.Everything you wrote has been seen here a hundred times, and it doesn't get any more substantive through repetition.
You've said nothing interesting so far, but you did get some attention. That's what a troll is, not necessarily a name-caller. There's a whole gaggle of smarmy polite happy-face trolls her who never call names, they do what you do, insult everybody's intelligence and work out their passive-aggressive issues by putting a civil veneer over their dumbass right wing talking points.
I don't mean to discount your "feelings" , just don't get them confused with facts.If you ever decide to catch up, I'd be happy to discuss any topic with you.
Well you've come to the wrong echo chamber!
Be prepared to get the usual name calling, dodges, and obfucation and have your post picked apart if you disagree.
Have fun though, they are entertaining!
The same goes for you. If you want to open up by broadbrushing everyone who is inclined to disagree with you, then the few that do engage and debate without getting personal (such as myself) will be less likley to engage you at all.
The media isnt liberal. You can keep on trying to sell that bit of tripe but its sell by date was long ago reached. It is dumb. Flat out dumb. Calling it bragging when he was ASKED the question is disinformation and that is what this site is about. If you are going to get your panties in a bunch whenever this site does what after all is its very MISSION then perhaps this isnt the venue for you. Bush EARNED his criticism and the media was EASY on him. It refused to call him on his torrent of lies. They ignored the Downing street memo for a month while it was the biggest story in the world and didnt play up his ACTUAL idiocies and malaprops that would embarass a fifth grader then they say Gore is bragging for answering a question. Are you KIDDING ME? Where did you get your degree in climatology again? OH you dont HAVE one. See that is funny because those HUNDREDS OF SCIENTISTS WHO DO? They have a solid consensus that it IS Scientific. Which is why THEY have a thousand or so peer reviewed studies and papers on THEIR side and the industry inspired propaganda, well it DOESNT. So keep making fun of ACTUAL science while the screechmonkeys on the radio tell you what to think. It makes you look foolish
Really. Maybe not Kucinich enough, but liberal, progressive or whatever the latest tag line is.
Media dinners with the Obama admin
Gregory, Ifill, and Stephanopoulos? Those are the Sunday news shows of record. How can anything they say be taken as objective if they are cozied up to the administration for supper?
George Will hosted an Obama dinner, I believe. The reporters may tend to be on the progressive side, but the editors and owners and publishers tend to be more conservative.
<sigh> T-Bone, you are making it too easy...
President-elect Barack Obama spent Tuesday evening at a dinner party with several prominent conservative columnists, including William Kristol and David Brooks of The New York Times, according to an Obama transition pool report.
If you would like proof that the media has a liberal bias, just watch CNN. For the entire week before the 2006 election, CNN aired a series of shows called "Broken Government," where they discussed all the bad things Bush and the Republicans did. If that's not liberal, I don't know what is.
"we're discussing the use of "brag" as offensive?"
Uh, No.
We're discussing a false accusation of bragging, when in fact it was a response to a question. And it's not offensive, it's just plain false, dishonest and irresponsible.
I agree. To be honest, the AP thing was not really news-worthy. I don't think it shows bias, I think it shows poor taste on the part of the writer.
I am a conservative...and do not believe
the overwhelming scientific consensus, all that icky "fact" stuff.
The latter does seem to follow from the former, doesn't it?
Please refer to my follow-up posts on this thread. I do believe there are NUMEROUS facts that counter global warming alarmists.
I went on Google, and did a search for global warming. Then, did a follow-up search for debunking global warming. The top hit was a speech given by Sen Inhofe in 2006. It is a great read.
After that research, I have landed on not believing the global warming caused by man theory. I did my research, now look to my fellow bloggers to convince me.
The top hit was a speech given by Sen Inhofe in 2006. It is a great read.
Inhofe also doesn't believe in evolution and believes humans rode dinosaurs. You really need to do a better job in filtering you searches.
Again...trying to belittle the opposition. I did a quick search on google, and found no mention of dinosaur and Inhofe together, other than hate sites saying he IS a dinosaur. That's rich, when we look at Specter, Kennedy, Reid, and Frank...
Did you read the article?
As for sources...the global warming gang is behind Al Gore. He is no more educated on the subject than Inhofe, or you and I. What credentials does he bring? He's not a scientist. He is a politician. But at least the Inhofe paper references many outside sources. Gores presentation works from debunked "hockey stick" theories and obfuscation.
Maybe you think it's belittling, but that's because you just don't get it. Inhofe doesn't believe in evolution. That makes him a religious ideologue who doesn't accept science and therefore is not qualified to comment on global warming.
And about the dinosaurs:
Eh...I believe in the bible. Does that make me unqualified to discuss? In fact, according to the most recent polls, over 75% of Americans are Christian, implying they have the same beliefs. Are they all unqualified? In fact, over 2.1 Billion humans in the world are Christians who follow these beliefs...are they unqualified?
We don't believe that people rode dinosaurs, or that the Earth is 4000 years old. Only a very small, miniscule portion of the population take literal translations that far. And, there is no evidence that Sen Inhofe is one of them. You are defaming him with zero evidence.
Nice try in changing the topic from evolution to the number of Christians in the world.
It's really quite simple. If you don't believe in evolution, then you're basically saying you don't believe in science. And if you don't believe in science, what you have to say about global climate change should be disregarded.
Here's some recommended reading about Inhofe and his "beliefs":
http://www.baptists4ethics.com/news.php?viewStory=14084
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/14/browner-inhofe/
And your comment on Gore not knowing anything on the subject shows you really don't care about having a "discussion". Come back when you are ready to accept the fact and dismiss the liars.
That is not what I said. Read again. I said Al Gore does not know more on the subject than Inhofe. Both are politicians. Both have taken sources that support their argument.
The typical response when unable to refute the facts is to dismiss. I have posted specific facts from MY OWN research earlier in this thread. Yet, no one has pointed me to a document that answers or refutes them. Why? Don't tell me...it's old news, already debunked, and I'm a troll...I know, I know... :)
OK - what you did say was that Gore knows as much on this topic as you me or Inhofe. Gore wrote a book on the subject. I didn't. Don't think Inhofe did. Did you?
And you dismiss Gore because he's a politician. Well, I hate to break it to ya but Gore WAS a politician. Hasn't been in elected office for the past 8 years. And during that time I betcha he learned a whole lot more about our planet than you, me and Inhofe combined.
And about your link. Very interesting, but it pales in comparison to the multitudes of articles that a huge portion of the ice shelf is hanging on by a thread and glaciers are at their lowest levels in recorded history.
And the Pentagon, that bastion of lefty-think, has publicly stated that global warming is the biggest threat to our country's security.
More recommended reading:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/29/tech/main4978510.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/earth/17glacier.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0222-01.htm
First, your articles:
1. CBS points out the glacier break off on the EAST side. The article I provided shows that it is true that the east is having pieces break off, but the WEST is growing faster than the EAST shrinks. Part of a natural cycle. Plus, the article you provided does say that scientists are unsure if a more solid ice foundation will now form where the previous ice bridge existed.
2. NYTIMES - The article ITSELF admits that the Indian glaciers have not been studied until recently, and there is NO WAY for scientists to predict trends based on the current data. This is a pure fictional speculation.
3. Common Dreams is a self-proclaimed "progressive" news site. If you notice, I do not provide you links from Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, or the like. The are extrememly biased. Beyond that, I read that link, and laughed. "A previously secret memo" obtained by that web site? Please. Written by an advisor to the Pentagon, not the Pentagon itself??? Is there a credible site that references said "secret memo", or is this isolated to the moonbats?
Gore is a politician. Yes, he is not in office currently (thank GOD), but has run for office, and does actively campaign for others, and HAS NO OTHER JOB. And NO, Al Gore has shown ZERO evidence that he knows more than you, me, or Inhofe. The book was not written solely by Al...he created some slides to give a presentation. Then, hired a design firm to "spiff" them up, add content. Then, it was made into a movie...From that, he made the book. Yep, I KNOW I could do the same. I've read through his entire BIO, not one mention of scientific studies (aside from the ONE class on environment in college). Got that. Descent speaker...Got that. Knowledge of Powerpoint...got that. The ability to present only facts that support your agenda, and attempt to hide the opposition...may not have that. I like to present both sides, and have a good debate :)
Use the google yourself then about the Pentagon report. I just linked to the first one I found. I guess I have to filter my links to your requirements.
Your disdain for Gore is distateful. What has he done that offends you so much? (besides once being a Democratic politician)
But I guess you can afford to deny the climate reality because you mentioned earlier you believe in the bible. So why not let the planet be destroyed because you're going to heaven!!!
I will guess this thread has come to it's conclusion. You offer no more insight, have not answered any of my questions, accused me of hating a man with whom I have only political and scientific differences with, and say that because I believe in the bible, I deny scientific theories that have been proven wrong as recently as 1970.
I take it you are not a Christian.
Amazing the disdain the press & GOP has for Gore. At least the article didn't condecendingly refer to him as "Goreacle" like Millbank and Halperin always do in their articles.
Although the author did say that he "lectured" the questioners. This is a simple tactic used by the AP when describing Obama, as well. You will see that used again after his next press conference this week.
I, for one, read that as saying: Don't you tell us, the mighty GOP & AP, what to think. We will stick with our talking points, thank you very much.
Yeah, sheesh, did Al Gore run over the mainstream press' dog at some point?
Mind you, I know they don't care for anyone who's clearly smarter than they are. But a whole lot of people meet that description, yes?
Yes, indeed
To mk3872:
Very astute points made. The media and the GOP have always displayed distain for Al Gore and for anyone else that had smarts.
As for the "lecturing", these same media muffins and the GOP can't accept that an intelligent person can form coherent sentences when answering questions.
"We will stick with our talking points, thank you very much." So, what else is new?
Is this the same Joe Barton that tried a 'gotcha' question about why there's oil in Alaska if it's cold there now when talking to Secretary of Energy Chu?
I believe so. For those who missed it, the exchange is here. It's one of those things where you don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Excellent cross post. The disdain for scientific progress and knowledge is palpabel in both videos. Dr. Chu is much to polite. He should have said something along the lines of do your homework before you come to class son. I would have said, after laughing for a few minutes, call my 12 year old grandson and have him explain how the geology of the Earth works, I don't have time to get you up to speed, I have a department to run.
Are these the same "conservatives" who whined about not reading Obama's spending bill? Y'all probably didn't read this one either.
The evidence is growing to the extent that it is becoming overwhelming: the AP clearly has a right-wing agenda, and can no longer be regarded as a reliable source of accurate information.
This article also suggested that Gore avoided answering the question about the costs of addressing warming. Not true. He had already addressed costs prior to Barton's question, and he addressed it again, later, too. (More than once.)
I cannot help but notice the complete lack of reporting on the substance of Gore's remarks -- not only the rapidly accumulating and alarming new evidence of global warming he recited in specific detail (was this the lecturing?), but also his very direct and forceful attack on those who deny this evidence for their own purposes.
A terrible article, really. Was Gore really hogging the response time? Or was Sen. Warner content to defer to his colleague? Because Sen. Warner seems perfectly capable of making his views known when he wants to. And, btw, where was the reporting of those newsworthy views? Yet another non-report report.
The corporate media have been treating Gore this way for years, and in the primaries they gave Clinton a big dose of the same treatment. There does seem to be a kind of conspiracy to disparage what's left of our progressive political leaders.
Hmmmm I read the ad in the paper for a new battery charger for my tractor and my favorite lady never asked me if i did.. is that bragging ?
Sorry folks, I know it's OT but Fox's tea party had the intended effect:
Oklahoma Man Arrested for Twittering Tea Party Death Threats
In a series of tweets beginning April 11, CitizenQuasar vowed to start a “war” against the government on the steps of the Oklahoma City Capitol building, the site of that city’s version of the national “Tea Party” protests promoted by the conservative-leaning Fox News.
“START THE KILLING NOW! I am willing to be the FIRST DEATH!,” read a tweet at 8:01 PM that day. “After I am killed on the Capitol Steps, like a REAL man, the rest of you will REMEMBER ME!!!,” he added five minutes later. Then: “Send the cops around. I will cut their heads off the heads and throw the[m] on the State Capitol steps.”
Hayden’s MySpace page is a breathtaking gallery of right wing memes about the “New World Order,” gun control as Nazi fascism, and Barack Obama’s covert use of television hypnosis, among many others.
Goes to show you the FOX personalities never went much further than the mothers womb. They have no idea how serious it is to suggest the downfall of a government that gave them the opportunity to fall far from the womb and do good for the nation.
Have Oklahome police officers started growing a second head?
Perhaps this is the wrong time to point this out...but have you read that the Obama DoJ is going ahead with prosecution of Tim deChristopher while actively trying to thwart any investigations and prosecutions of Bush et al? Have you raad the statement by Anthony Romero of the ACLU referring to Obama as "more of the same"? How about Glen Greenwald who wrote recently on Salon about the Obama Admin calling for broader powers for spying than even Bush did, and saying Obama was "worse than Bush" for this reason? How about Obama's pick of Gary Gensler to head the Commodities Futures Trading Commission? Gensler is the guy who helped de-regulate the financial industry to allow credit default swaps and helped create the AIG catastrophe. How about Obama's recent silence about the collapse of the Employee Free Choice Act? There is more, but you get my point. Beware of Obama, he is not what he seems. (For the record I voted for him as I am a loyal Yellow Dog Democrat, but I feel I was defrauded of my vote.)
I'm not sure I've ever heard of this woman. Is she anything to pay attention to? After all, AP is not exactly the authoritative source of news the way it once was years ago.
i just googled her and nothing other than she wrote something about stem cell research. No biography no know schooling. Just a writer for AP.
Howdy Ag! Class of '82 here...
I Googled her, too, and found she is the reporter who claimed, apparently based on an AP photo, that Obama snubbed Hillary at Bush's State of the Union in 2008, a claim which others dispute. (BTW, your other Google results do not match mine, either.)
Have you ever wondered if Google filters search results?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElJFYwRtrH4
When I see hippies like that I conjure up four letter words...SOAP and WORK!
Did you forget to turn off the sarcasm flag? Or are you as ignorant as you post?
Do you ever even TRY to contribute to the discussion? Is this troll provocation the only thing you are capable of. That is of course besides giving us the rerun of the Rush Limbaugh show. What do you get out of coming here only to provoke us and try to annoy us? You remind me of Micheal Douglas' character in War of the Roses. When he couldnt be part of his wife's dinner party he came by crashed it and urinated on her fish. You KNOW you just dont have the capacity to enter into and add to the discussion so you just try to mess with and derail the discussion. Do you realize how pathetic that is?
And that same media are really supportive of Obama. Strange don't you think...
Even I admit that if the Republican's didn't steal the election in 2000 and Gore had rightfully entered the White House, the World would be a better place now. I wasn't crazy about Kerry a few years later but I think we passed up a good leader in Al Gore. Even to this day the Republican's gotta attack the man.
I appreciate your honest take on the issue and the ability to look past partisanship
They'll attack him only because he continues to be outspoken and passionate about the health of our planet. In their mind, Al Gore should be taking his rightful place in obscurity, and leaving the stewardship of our planet in the hands of the fossil fuel industry where it belongs.
Let's hope Al Gore continues to do what he is doing. Fossil fuels not only destroy the environment but it also conflicts with objective foreign policy decisions. (i.e. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.)
What he needs to do is upgrade to a more fuel efficient plane! The GII is fuel HOG!
Bearing in mind that Al Gore does not own a jet, I'll suggest to you that you "upgrade" from an H2 to a Prius.
They're also afraid that if any truly progressive politician ever ascends the Oval Office again, they might have their taxes raised (as Clinton did in 1993). And the Robber Barons, the Media Moguls, the Filthy Rich will stop at nothing to prevent that, they will filter Google and YouTube, they will spy on you, they will lie in the media, whatever it takes.
ok, my paragraphs have been stolen again!
Is anyone surpirsed that the media are still hounding Gore with biased and disparaging and or misleading coverage. They seem to have it out for him and any other genuinely progressive politicians. But they do seem to love Obama, he's about to make their portfolios very much wealthier with HMO mandates. (The ACLU's Anthony Romero recently stated that Obama "is more of the same". Glenn Greenwald has recently written in Salon that Obama is "worse than Bush". Do you wonder why these proven left wing progressive entities are saying these things...?