thinkprogress.org — Emails released today by Rep. Waxman show that, one month after Hurricane Katrina, Bush officials blocked a NOAA scientist from discussing the links between global warming and hurricanes on TV. ThinkProgress has the emails.
Sep 19, 2006 View in Crawl 4
duffy40Sep 20, 2006
Free speech does not cover destruction of private property or firebombing police, and for those of you who think that it does, go to your free speech zone.
successrealmSep 20, 2006
@successrealmIf you do not see where the other posts were applicable to the subject of the starting post, then you don't see it. I believe you believe what you believe. Have a nice day. (4wheels)Apparently, YOU do not see, and "believe" only what you "want" to "believe"...My VERY FIRST statement on this thread talked of the "shift" from the THREAD TOPIC of a BUSH OFFICIAL......to more "but but but's" . Perhaps you need examples?It's APPARENT that you do.--"Listen DAMN IT for the one thousandth time, Katrina and the recent history of hurricanes is cyclical." (Had NOTHING to do really with the TOPIC of the OFFICIAL, but went on a rant about HURRICANES)--"The same left-wingers have been against big corporations (the ones not controlled by the government anyway) since long before theories of global warming." (AGAIN..Had NOTHING to do really with the TOPIC of the OFFICIAL, but went on a rant about "left wingers"...)--"Nothing but a screed from a left-wing propaganda site. No digg. " (..Had NOTHING to do really with the TOPIC of the OFFICIAL, but went on a rant about "left wing propaganda". More "shifting" and trying to divert or not discuss the issue at hand)--and on and on and on....Have you been asleep? Have you not seen the incessant "shoot the messenger" tactics and the inability to discuss instead, the MESSAGE?I fully understand...You speak of "biasedness", but can't seem to understand that I, and others, can easily see the "baisedness" in your statements here, and the SUBMITTED statements from your profile...<a class="user" href="http://www.digg.com/users/4wheel/submitted">http://www.digg.com/users/4wheel/submitted</a>Psssht....you have a nice day...
successrealmSep 20, 2006
@successrealmIf you do not see where the other posts were applicable to the subject of the starting post, then you don't see it. I believe you believe what you believe. Have a nice day. (4wheels)Apparently, YOU do not see, and believe only what you "want" to "believe"... It's evident from your statements here, and from your very own "submitted" articles in your profile, 4 wheelsMy VERY FIRST statement on this thread talked of the "shift" from the THREAD TOPIC of a BUSH OFFICIAL......to more "but but but's" . Perhaps you need examples?It's APPARENT that you do.--"Listen DAMN IT for the one thousandth time, Katrina and the recent history of hurricanes is cyclical." (Had NOTHING to do really with the TOPIC of the OFFICIAL, but went on a rant about HURRICANES)--"The same left-wingers have been against big corporations (the ones not controlled by the government anyway) since long before theories of global warming." (AGAIN..Had NOTHING to do really with the TOPIC of the OFFICIAL, but went on a rant about "left wingers"...)--"Nothing but a screed from a left-wing propaganda site. No digg. " (..Had NOTHING to do really with the TOPIC of the OFFICIAL, but went on a rant about "left wing propaganda". More "shifting" and trying divert or discuss the issue at hand)--and on and on and on....Have you been asleep? Have you not seen the incessant "shoot the messenger" tactics and the inability to discuss instead, the MESSAGE?I fully understand...You talk of "biasedness" but can't seem to understand that I, and others, can easily see the "baisedness" in your statements here, and the SUBMITTED statements from your profile...<a class="user" href="http://www.digg.com/users/4wheel/submitted">http://www.digg.com/users/4wheel/submitted</a>pssht, you have a nice day..
piznutSep 20, 2006
It is perfectly legal for them do do this, afaik. Is it ethical? Probably not. But when did ethics ever have anything to do with politics? I'm not trying to draw any party distinctions here. I think politicians are mostly dishonest and I realize that the PACs that control the democratic party better represent my interests as an atheist, middle-class man than the PAC and corporate interests that control the republican party. If I were rich and / or fundamentalist christian, I expect that my typical voting habits would change. It's like corporate fascism, but nobody wants to actually acknowledge it. I don't like the system, but honestly there are more important things for me to worry about...things that more directly affect my life.Politics are rarely about actually honest debate. While I would say that the situation has become noticeably worse in my lifetime it's all just the status quo, imo.
mgreenwaldSep 20, 2006
Not every protester is going to fire bomb police and destroy property. Just punish the ones that do not all of them this is clearly complete disregard for our 1st amendment rights.
successrealmSep 20, 2006
"Good grief. Are you thick? I've explained in plain english that what you try to describe as a "shift" are relevant to the points being made about the article posted in the posters minds."(4wheels)Really? How in the hell are the three or four examples I offered of others here speaking of "left wing," etc., RELEVANT to the thread title and not SHIFTING? Care to explain that lunacy of yours? "All you've done is throw posts that I've submitted into the fray (isn't that "shifting"?) and crying about me not telling you that you're right."1) I threw EXAMPLES of OTHERS post’s here RELEVANT to my original statement that some here would shift from the ISSUE, to other areas...You stated I was seeing things, I then POINTED those very things out to you which you should have immediately been able to ascertain.YOUR posts and the examples I offered, were ONLY brought up for you, after you mentioned "biasedness"? Did you conveniently forget that part alex? Of course you did.....2) No one is crying about you not telling me I'm "right". I simply posted (AGAIN) my original point, which was in reference to the "shifting" of others FROM the topic, to "Gore", "hurricanes in this year", etc. Try to keep up here...I made a statement about “shifting” and I showed EXAMPLES of such, FROM this very thread itself. YOU stated it was apparently a mirage and I was only seeing things. I was right, and you have the examples before you, period. This isn’t that difficult."You also gave me "clear and concise examples" of my opinion, which I was already aware of before you gave me the examples. I can't tell you you're right because, well, you're not."My "clear and concise examples" statement was in reference to those here who "shifted" from the TOPIC of a BUSH OFFICIAL to "gore", "Hurricanes in the last few years", etc, NOT to YOUR statements. I then only gave examples of YOUR statements in regards to the issue YOU brought up about biasedness, 4 wheels. Take a breath, read back through thread, and gather your thoughts a little better."I will tell you you're right about one thing though. The comment I made about the meds was absolutely adolescent, and I shouldn't have done that, but hey, I was tired of explaining." Perhaps you should do a little more READING, instead of "explaining". It's apparent you got lost a long time ago in this conversation. It has been EXPLAINED to you what my ORIGINAL statement was, and the examples I provided which were based on REALITY should have been enough for you. YOU stated I was seeing things, I then SHOWED you the very things that were apparent....and ON this thread as examples."There's no need in me calling you a lib. Why point out the obvious?"I'm probably more "conservative" than YOU are pal. How about realizing that everyone you disagree with concerning the Bush Administration is not simply a "dem/librul" just because you ASSume so...Grow up!Acting like I'm a "lib" is easier for you, andsimply gives you a simpleton reason to do nothing more than make childish statements about me "being on meds" and diverts from YOUR inability to stay in the debate and on the ISSUE at hand which is, and has been all along,---"Bush Official Blocked Scientist From Discussing Glbl Warming/Hurricane Link"
isthisnametakenSep 25, 2006
I guess you finally found the button to turn off Caps Lock. Or your shift key is broken.
isthisnametakenSep 25, 2006
Back to the arguement. Read State of Fear by Michael Crichton. He does a great job presenting all the facts, backing up with evidence and cites all his resources. I assure you once you read it you will be convinced that you will never have to worry about global warming again...but I'm sure instead you'll just keep your ignorant point of view and bash me by calling me a "child" or something.