posted April 08, 2008 11:12 AM              

well like i said ,the terminology in Hindi in India is different , i didnt know what it was called in English. is THAT clear enough for ur third grade bully brain ????

and correct me if i m wrong, when have i ever said anything that made u think i m leftist ????

jeez talk about issues

AG, well as always what i intended to be nothing but a light humor thread has turned into a dissection lounge....and ANN is the cockroach

posted April 08, 2008 01:13 PM            

AG has so much patience that he has reproduced those conversations over here again.

And you don't wanna be a extreme right in this country for the same reason that you don't wanna be part of shiv-sainiks of Mumbai. Ruling people by fear, patriotism and religious dogmas.

Actually anyone is free to do as they please and not be biased by my opinions. I am stating my observations so far.

posted April 08, 2008 10:06 PM            

The issue under discussion when that poll came up several years ago was the lying press. The poll was used to attempt showing the exact opposite of what I said and it failed. The poll showed 79% of respondents didn't believe the Times is a highly credible source for news.

You live in your own little world of subjective reality. The people taking that poll live in the real world of "objective reality".

In that world, the world you have difficulty interacting with and in, the world of objective reality, the people who took that poll understand the English language. They are:

More intelligent than you
More objective than you
More rational than you
More logical than you
More reasonable than you

They understand the use of the word most; they know what it means as it was used.
Beyond that, their opinion about the press has been validated by time and events. Events I told you were going to come to pass as soon as I saw the lack of credibility they assigned to the press.

I told you news organizations have only one item to sell the public and if the public doesn't trust the press to sell them factual information then they'll stop paying for the product.

I told you the other thing newspapers and news magazines and broadcast news have to sell is advertising. No newspaper can make a profit from selling newspapers to consumers. It's the advertising revenues which make the newspaper business profitable or not...and newspaper advertising rates are tied to subscription numbers. When readership declines advertisers will not pay the high per column inch rates they formerly paid.

I told you the newspapers were in big trouble..after I read that poll.
Now acoustic in your world of subjective reality all is well. The people trust the press. But that's bullshiit and the facts on the ground prove it.

Since that poll was published, newspapers have taken a beating and it's not because more people get their news online. All those newspapers have online sites too. All those newspapers sell advertising for online readers to see.

Their revenues are way down, their stock prices are way down and there have been layoff, buyouts and general downsizing across a broad spectrum of news publications. Some pretty big newspapers have been sold as their profits declined.

When that poll was published the stock price of the NY Times was over $52 per share. NYT closed today at $19.33. Their share price has hit a low of $14.48 in late January this year.

NYT is not the only newspaper stock to show huge losses of share price. They're almost all in trouble.

The Pew Poll showed why and it was obvious to me what was going to happen. I told you way back then what was going to happen and it did happen.

Your bubble world of subjective reality is faulty. In the real world of objective reality cause and effect exist and it's been played out on this subject.

Now acoustic, I'm through with the subject of the Pew Poll. Enough time has been wasted proving what was always obvious to objective people in the real world.

posted April 08, 2008 10:23 PM            

quote:

---

well like i said ,the terminology in Hindi in India is different , i didnt know what it was called in English.

Relax JW, this thread was meant for fun

i M surprised JW u didnt see that right away, GOTCHA ...VDI

---

I'm surprised you didn't see it right away VDI. Your first clue should have been when I mentioned the EEG

Now VDI, take your own medicine and Chillll.

posted April 09, 2008 03:17 AM            

I correctly interpretted the data. Pew bears that out when it shows you the favorability of national newspapers at 61% for 2005 (the year our original chart was created in):

Now let's go over Columns 4 & 3 for our original chart:

• U.S. News - 66%
  
• Wall Street Journal - 66%
  
• Time - 63%
  
• New York Times - 62%
  
• Newsweek - 63%
  
• USA Today - 60%
  
• Associated Press - 58%
  

Now it's impossible to say that 79% of respondents didn't believe the Times is a highly credible source for news if 60% or more of those respondents view them alongside all the other national newspapers favorably. Impossible.

You've lost this one over and over and over and over and over again. When does it end, J? When are you going to get it through your head that I'm not only right, but I've been right the whole time on this? When are you going to show some integrity and answer my question as to what Column 3 logically infers on a 4-point scale? I'm only asking for you to think like a person answering a question on a scale. Is that so difficult?

quote:

---

But that's bullshiit and the facts on the ground prove it.

---

You keep trying to make this about NYT's stock, but our discussion has always been about this credibility factor, has it not? Don't change the subject.

The fact that I've shown you that even amongst Republicans 41% still view the NYT favorably speaks volumes. This whole issue of credibility has arisen out of Republican propagandists trying to bring down MSM. the shepherds have spoken, and the sheep have acted accordingly. Meanwhile, the shepherdless maintain mostly positive views. Independents are mixed, but still 60% view MSM newspapers favorably. Yeah, the Republican war has been somewhat effective, but MSM is certainly not out.

posted April 09, 2008 10:08 AM            

You merely continue to show just how intellectually dishonest you really are acoustic.

Once again, you've posted the results of a different poll which is not and was not the poll under discussion. You are hopeless acoustic, helpless too in any discussion where reason, logic and rational analysis is required for you to keep up your end.

You could have checked this for yourself if you weren't too damned lazy to get off your leftist ass and do your own homework.

Newspapers are in deep shiiit. Newspapers have been in deep shiiit going back to the Pew Poll which was being discussed. In your subjective reality, all is well. In the real world of objective reality, newspapers are on the ropes.

The fact is, I told you way back when and I also told you WHY it was going to happen..before it happened.

Your argument is full of the kinds of mistakes those make when they're talking from their own little subjective bubble world.

Newspapers, stock prices in 2002 v today.

Belo Corp
$29 down to $10

Dag Media
$7 down to 95 cents

Gannett Corp
$91 down to $29

Journal Register
$21 down to 22 cents

Lee Enterprises
$48 down to $10

Media General
$72 down to $15

McClatchy Co
$74 down to $10

New York Times
$52 down to $19

R H Donnelley Corp
$83 down to $6

Sun Times Media
$20 down to 76 cents

Tribune Company
$52 down to $33

Washington Post
$996 down to $682

posted April 09, 2008 10:53 AM            

Ann Coulter

Suspiciously, Daniel Pearl's widow is suddenly being lavishly praised by the Treason Lobby. Jane Mayer, co-author of the discredited hit-book on Clarence Thomas, "Strange Justice," published an article in The New Yorker last week recounting that Mariane Pearl was called by Alberto Gonzales in March with the news that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had admitted to American interrogators that he had personally beheaded her husband and they were going to release the transcript to the press. Mayer wrote: "Gonzales' announcement seemed like a publicity stunt."

Frank Rich followed up with an article in The New York Times saying of Gonzales' call: "Ms. Pearl recognized a publicity ploy when she saw it."

Inasmuch as these are journalists who adjudge George Bush more evil than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, their perception of reality is to be treated gingerly. But if Ms. Pearl is toying with the idea of becoming the latest liberal cause celebre, she might want to consider the trajectories of the rest of them.

All the Democrats' most dearly beloved anti-war/anti-Bush heroes invariably end up in the Teresa Heinz Kerry wing of the nut-house. Scott Ritter went from being a trusted U.N. weapons inspector valiantly defending poor, misunderstood Saddam Hussein from George Bush's imperialistic war to being just another creep trying to have sex with underage girls.

Cindy Sheehan once had "absolute moral authority." Now she's just a madwoman writing mash notes to Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez.

Max Cleland was a war hero who lost his limbs as a result of Viet Cong grenades, giving him the stature to gleefully taunt George Bush and Dick Cheney. "Where the hell were you in the Vietnam War?" Cleland responded to Cheney. "If you had gone to Vietnam like the rest of us, maybe you would have learned something about war."

Then we learned Cleland was a victim only of his own clumsiness and had dropped the grenade on himself in Vietnam after stopping for a beer.

Bill Burkett was the left's most admired military veteran since Benedict Arnold. He claimed Bush had shirked his National Guard duty and said he had the documents to prove it. According to Dan Rather and CBS News, Burkett was a "solid" and "unimpeachable" source who was being attacked by "partisan political operatives."

And then Burkett turned out to be a foaming-at-the-mouth loon. He was eventually forced to admit on air that he had "misled" CBS on the phony National Guard documents, which is a little like Hugo Chavez "misleading" Sean Penn. Burkett's current medical diagnosis: too crazy to be a homeless person.

The congressional campaign of anti-war Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett was treated in the media as if it were the Second Coming. The New York Times described Hackett adoringly as a "lean 6-foot-4, he is garrulous, profane and quick with a barbed retort or a mischievous joke." The Times even produced the obligatory quote-ready Republican who said that "Mr. Hackett's service had caused him to consider voting Democratic."

Then we found out with a little more specificity what some of those quick-witted barbs were. Hackett called the president a "chickenhawk," referred to Bush's "Bring it on" statement as "the most incredibly stupid comment," and called Bush "the biggest threat in America." Yes, he was a veritable Noel Coward, that Hackett.

Soon, even Rep. Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Chuck Schumer were trying to get Hackett to drop his next political campaign for the U.S. Senate.

Gen. Wesley Clark was once compared to Eisenhower, which, in mediaspeak, means: "He is virulently anti-Bush." Democrats were so tickled to have found an anti-war Southerner and retired general, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert asked, is he "just a mirage?"

Then it turned out the only war Clark wanted to lead was America's War on Fetuses, declaring that abortion should be legal for any reason until the moment of birth. Soon Clark was buddying around with Michael Moore and Madonna. Also, he claimed he had received calls from "the White House" by which he meant "a think tank in Canada."

Last we heard, Gen. Clark was on the alternate list for "Dancing With the Stars."

Joe Wilson went from being billed in the media as a trusted adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and billed (by himself) as an eyewitness to the president's "lies," to being an apron-wearing househusband who had been sent on an errand by his wife.

Not only did he fail to debunk the Niger yellowcake story, he also forgot to bring home the quart of milk his wife had requested. (Wilson is now demanding a congressional investigation into who leaked the classified information that his wife wears the pants in the family.)

The Joe Wilson celebrity tour officially ended when The Washington Post editorialized: "It's unfortunate that so many people took (Wilson) seriously" -- not the least of whom were reporters at The Washington Post itself.

Most recently, The New Republic's "Baghdad Diarist" has been unveiled as a liar, another illustrious chapter in that magazine's storied history of publishing con men and frauds.

posted April 09, 2008 11:18 AM            

quote:

---

because their stories fluff up your little subjective bubble reality.

---

The most subjective person in GU is you. Hands down, and with no competition.

quote:

---

Once again, you've posted the results of a different poll which is not and was not the poll under discussion.

---

Once again I posted Pew's own record of their own data. What's intellectually dishonest is trying to suggest that providing Pew's own take on its own data is somehow out of bounds. That is an totally ridiculous thing to say. Any entity that studies a subject on an ongoing basis should be able to account for the information they've found. That is reasonable. That is logical.

quote:

---

The fact is, I told you way back when and I also told you WHY it was going to happen..before it happened.

---

You said it was credibility. It may be partly due to that, but in no reasonable way can it be contrued that this erroneous perception is the only reason that the newspaper business is transforming.

________________________________________________________

posted April 09, 2008 11:26 AM            

Switching polls doesn't earn you any debate points acoustic. In fact, in the real world...not your little subjective bubble world, that kind of intellectual dishonesty disqualifies you from any reasonable discussion. Notice acoustic, I said reasonable. Just one of the other personal qualities you lack as you've proved over time by your growing list of brain dead unreasonable statements here.

Facts are facts. The newspaper industry almost across the board are in deep do. I told you it was going to happen and I told you why it would happen and it did happen.

My set of facts are valid.

posted April 09, 2008 11:57 AM            

Ann Coulter

In their latest demonstration of how much they love the troops, liberals have produced yet another anti-war hoax.

The New Republic has been running "true war" stories from a brave, anonymous liberal penning dispatches from Iraq. The famed "Baghdad Diarist" described his comrades joyfully using Bradley fighting vehicles to crush stray dogs, mocking a female whose face had been blown off by an IED, and defacing Iraqi corpses by wearing skull parts on their own heads.

Various conservatives began questioning the plausibility of the anonymous diarist's account — noting, for example, that Bradley vehicles don't "swerve," as the diarist claimed. The editor of The New Republic responded by attacking the skeptics' motives, complaining that some conservatives make "a living denying any bad news that emanates from Iraq."

But when that clever retort failed to quiet rumblings from the right wing, The New Republic finally revealed the "Baghdad Diarist" to be ... John Kerry! Actually it was Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, Democratic candidate for president circa 2028. (That gives him 20 years to learn to pronounce "Genghis.")

In revealing himself two weeks ago, Beauchamp lashed out at "people who have never served in Iraq." He said he was too busy fighting "an actual war" to participate in "an ideological battle that I never wanted to join."

He had tried to stay out of ideological battles by writing made-up articles in a national magazine claiming soldiers in Iraq had become callous beasts because of George Bush's war, killing to "secure the riches of the empire." Alas, this proved an ineffective method of keeping his head low. Beauchamp's next bid for privacy will be an attempt to host "The Price Is Right."

In response to Beauchamp's revelation that he was the "Baghdad Diarist," the military opened an investigation into his allegations. There was no corroboration for his stories, and Beauchamp promptly signed an affidavit admitting that every single thing he wrote in The New Republic was a lie.

According to The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb — who has led the charge of those who "make a living denying any bad news that emanates from Iraq" — Maj. Steven F. Lamb, the deputy public affairs officer for Multi-National Division-Baghdad, said this of the Baghdad diarist:

"An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by Pvt. Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims."

In response, The New Republic went into full Dan Rather loon mode. This astonishing post showed up on The New Republic Web site on Tuesday afternoon:

"A STATEMENT ON SCOTT THOMAS BEAUCHAMP:
"We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Maj. Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, 'I have no knowledge of that.' He added, 'If someone is speaking anonymously (to The Weekly Standard), they are on their own.' When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, 'We don't go into the details of how we conduct our investigations.' — The Editors"

It's good to see Mary Mapes is working again.

What on earth is going on? Either the military investigation found that Beauchamp lied or it didn't. Either military personnel corroborated stories of soldiers wearing skulls as crowns or they didn't. Either Army spokesman Maj. Steven Lamb gave a statement to The Weekly Standard or he didn't.

At the same time as The New Republic was posting the above statement, which completely contradicted The Weekly Standard's update, renowned right-wing news outlet ABC News confirmed that the military has concluded that Beauchamp was writing "fiction." ABC also quoted Goldfarb's account and said that Maj. Lamb reiterated his statement that Beauchamp's stories were false to ABC. The New York Times had the same story on Wednesday.

The New Republic has gone mad. Perhaps the magazine brought its former employee, fantasist Steven Glass, out of retirement. It's long past time for The New Republic to file for intellectual Chapter 7. Arthur Andersen was implicated in fewer frauds.

And we wonder how Democratic congressmen can lie about a vote they lost on the floor of the House — captured on CSPAN for all the world to see — changing the vote so that they win.

posted April 09, 2008 01:14 PM            

quote:

---

Switching polls doesn't earn you any debate points acoustic. In fact, in the real world...not your little subjective bubble world, that kind of intellectual dishonesty disqualifies you from any reasonable discussion. Notice acoustic, I said reasonable. Just one of the other personal qualities you lack as you've proved over time by your growing list of brain dead unreasonable statements here.

---

Switching polls? Really?!
I guess this is the kind of argument you make when you have none, isn't it? Yeah, nevermind the historical data collected by the very entity which provided our original data. Pretty lame tactic if you ask me. The only person being intellectually dishonest here is the guy who has consistently misrepresented the data despite having been logically challenged on it time and time again.

quote:

---

When 79% of respondents say the Times and other newspapers are not highly credible sources for news, it's over.

---

They don't say that.

Perhaps we should break this down in order to help you understand:

Q: We can agree that the people surveyed were asked to rate credibility on a scale, right?

A: I think the answer is yes to this as the question was, "Please rate how much you think you can BELIEVE each organization I name on a scale of 4 to 1. On this four point scale, "4" means you can believe all or most of what the organization says. "1" means you believe almost nothing of what they say."

Q: Is it correct that we agree that when people are asked to rate things on a scale, the extremes of the scale are always opposite, and whatever is in between are shades of either pole? Some examples of survey questions posed the same way would be:

http://fcgov.com/2001citizensurvey/rating-scale.php
(Just the bit in the table, not the commentary)

Or these scales 2 - 5 (Scale one is weighted in favor of the positive side, so we'll throw that one out):

posted April 09, 2008 02:57 PM            

Ann Coulter

I just woke up from watching the Democrats' debate last Thursday, and I am rested and ready to report!

Someone needs to tell the Democrats to stop talking about their families. I know they're trying to demonstrate their "family values," but using actual, live human beings to illustrate the freakish ideas of the Democratic base just makes normal people uncomfortable.

When Chris Dodd was asked about gay marriage, he said he always thinks of his little daughters — aged 2 and 5 — and imagines them turning out to be lesbians, saying he would want them treated equally.

To prove his bona fides to the environmentalist nuts, Obama said: "We've also been working to install lightbulbs that last longer and save energy. And that's something that I'm trying to teach my daughters, 8-year-old Malia and 5-year-old Sasha."

So we finally have an answer to the question: What do Democrats teach their daughters? Is it:

(a) integrity
(b) character
(c) the importance of always telling the truth

No! The answer is: (d) They teach their daughters to use low-energy lightbulbs. This is so important that it apparently bears mentioning during a debate under high-intensity TV studio lights.

(How many kids does it take to screw in a lightbulb? In the Barack household, evidently, it takes two.)

"Best in Show" for cringe-inducing mentions of family members went to John Edwards. In the single most appalling moment of the debate, John Edwards reminisced about the time his father, who was sitting in the audience, totally humiliated him as a child.

"I can remember vividly my dad after church once Sunday, when I was about 10 years old, taking us — it's our whole family — into a restaurant. I was dressed up. I was very proud to be there, and we sat, got our menus, looked at the menus, and the waitress came over and my father said, 'I'm sorry. We have to leave.' I didn't understand. 'Why? Why do we have to leave?' And I was embarrassed. I found out when we got outside the reason we had to leave is he couldn't pay the prices that were on the menu."

Thanks for the memories, Pop!

The not-visibly-insane Democrats all claim they'll get rough with the terrorists, but they can't even face Brit Hume.

In case you missed this profile in Democrat machismo, the Democratic presidential candidates are refusing to participate in a debate hosted by Fox News Channel because the hosts are "biased." But they'll face down Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!

At this, even Hillary Clinton was thinking, "Come on, guys — let's grow a pair."

Obama was asked to name "America's three most important allies around the world" — a question rejected as "too easy" on Fox's new game show "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" Any politically savvy 11-year-old could have named Britain, Australia and Israel.

B. Hussein Obama answered: "the European Union." Which is (a) not a country, and (b) not an ally.

What was his next guess? Epcot Center?

In addition to not being a country, the "European Union" happens to be composed of people who hate our guts. It is the continent where Moveon.org-style lunatics are the friendly, pro-American types and the rest are crazy Muslims.

Obama did eventually mention Japan as an ally — along with China and Afghanistan — which would have been a better answer to the question: "Who are America's four or five most important allies?" But at least he named a country that could conceivably be called "an ally."

Of course, it took Obama less time to remember an American ally than it took John Edwards to remember Jesus. Edwards was asked who his "moral leader" was — and he was stuck for an answer.

I had time to shout "Jesus" at the TV 20 times, exhaust myself, and have a sandwich before Edwards finally coughed up "mah lowrd." Even then it appeared that Edwards was not actually naming the Savior but exclaiming, "Mah lowrd, that's a tough question!"

Edwards then put "mah lowrd" (assuming that was his answer) on a par with other moral leaders such as his father — who had embarrassed him so as a child — and his wife. (When he mentioned his spouse as a "moral leader," Hillary visibly tensed for fear that she might be asked the same question.)

In fairness to Edwards, asking a trial lawyer to name his favorite moral leader is like asking the president of Iran to name his favorite Jew. (Answer: George Soros.)

posted April 09, 2008 03:37 PM            

Ann Coulter

No matter how much liberals try to dress up their nutty superstitions about global warming as "science," which only six-fingered lunatics could doubt, scratch a global warming "scientist" and you get a religious fanatic.

These days, new religions are barely up and running before they seize upon the worst aspects of the God-based religions.

First, there's the hypocrisy and corruption. At the 1992 Democratic Convention in New York, Al Gore said: "The central organizing principle of governments everywhere must be the environment." The environment would not, however, be the central organizing principle of Gore's own life.

The only place Al Gore conserves energy these days is on the treadmill. I don't want to suggest that Al's getting big, but the last time I saw him on TV I thought, "That reminds me — we have to do something about saving the polar bears."

Never mind his carbon footprint — have you seen the size of Al Gore's regular footprint lately? It's almost as deep as Janet Reno's.

But I digress. As has been widely reported, Gore's Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the energy of the average home in that state. But it's OK, according to the priests of global warming. Gore has purchased "carbon offsets."

It took the Catholic Church hundreds of years to develop corrupt practices such as papal indulgences. The global warming religion has barely been around for 20 years, and yet its devotees are allowed to pollute by the simple expedient of paying for papal indulgences called "carbon offsets."

Americans spend an extra $2.2 billion on gas a year because they're overweight, requiring more fuel in cars to carry the extra pounds. So even with all those papal indulgences, Gore may have a small carbon footprint, but he has a huge carbon butt-print.

Further proving that liberalism is a religion, its practitioners respond with the zeal of Torquemada to any dissent from the faith in global warming.

A few years ago, Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg wrote a book titled "The Skeptical Environmentalist," disputing the hysteria surrounding global warming and other environmentalist scares. Lomborg is a Greenpeace anti-war protester — or, as he is described on liberal Web sites, he is a "young, gay vegetarian Dane with tight T-shirts." His book was cited favorably in The New York Times.

But for questioning the "science" behind global warming, Lomborg was brought up on charges of "scientific misconduct" by Denmark's Inquisition Court, called the "Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation." I take it Denmark's Ministry of Truth was booked solid that day.

The moment anyone diverges from official church doctrine on global warming, he is threatened with destruction. Heretics would be burnt at the stake if liberals could figure out how to do it in a "carbon neutral" way.

Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball is featured in the new documentary debunking global warming, titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." For this heresy, Ball has received hate mail with such messages as, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further global warming."

I'm against political writers whining about their hate mail because it makes them sound like Paul Krugman. But that's political writers arguing about ideology.

Global warming is supposed to be "science." It's hard to imagine Niels Bohr responding to Albert Einstein's letter questioning quantum mechanics with a statement like: "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further quantum mechanics."

Come to think of it, one can't imagine the pope writing a letter to Jerry Falwell saying, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further infallibility."

If this is how global warming devotees defend their scientific theory, it may be a few tweaks short of a scientific theory. Scientific facts are not subject to liberal bullying — which, by the way, is precisely why liberals hate science.

A few years ago, The New York Times ran an article about the continuing furious debates among physicists about quantum mechanics, which differs from global warming in the sense that it is supported by physical evidence and it doesn't make you feel good inside to "do something" about quantum mechanics. It is, in short, science.

Though he helped develop the theory of quantum mechanics, Einstein immediately set to work attacking it. MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark called the constant testing and arguing about quantum mechanics "a 75-year war."

posted April 09, 2008 06:15 PM            

Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.

Forget the lunacy of people claiming to tell us the precise temperature of planet Earth in 1918 based on tree rings. Or the fact that in the '70s liberals were issuing similarly dire warnings about "global cooling."

Simply consider what noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge are demanding that we do to combat their nutty conjectures about "global warming." They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth.

There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming," but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.

They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton — with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)

Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates, which they expect to be unaffected by their negative growth prescriptions for the rest of us.

There was more energy consumed in the manufacture, construction and maintenance of Leonardo DiCaprio's Malibu home than is needed to light the entire city of Albuquerque, where there are surely several men who can actually act. But he has solar panels to warm his house six degrees on chilly Malibu nights.

Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter — luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.

Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants –- those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill.

Because of the industrialization of agriculture –- using massive amounts of fossil fuel — only 2 percent of Americans work in farming. And yet they produce enough food to feed all 300 million Americans, with plenty left over for export. When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet?

"Global warming" is the left's pagan rage against mankind. If we can't produce industrial waste, then we can't produce. Some of us — not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess — are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.

Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukranians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book "Silent Spring" written by ... Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.

But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off "useless eaters." If we have to live in a pure "natural" environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas — 299 million of you are going to have to go.

Proving that the "global warming" campaign is nothing but hatred of humanity, these are the exact same people who destroyed the nuclear power industry in this country 30 years ago.

If we accept for purposes of argument their claim that the only way the human race can survive is with clean energy that doesn't emit carbon dioxide, environmentalists waited until they had safely destroyed the nuclear power industry to tell us that. This proves they never intended for us to survive.

"Global warming" is the liberal's stalking horse for their ultimate fantasy: The whole U.S. will look like Amagansett, with no one living in it except their even-tempered maids (for "diversity"), themselves and their coterie (all, presumably, living in solar-heated mansions, except the maids who will do without electricity altogether). The entire fuel-guzzling, tacky, beer-drinking, NASCAR-watching middle class with their over-large families will simply have to die.

posted April 09, 2008 07:42 PM            

There is nothing so dangerous as a Southern liberal hoping to be invited to a Graydon Carter party.

As is now well-known, Durham prosecutor Mike Nifong falsely accused three white Duke lacrosse players of gang-raping a stripper, even as evidence piled up proving it never happened. In the weeks after an unstable stripper — or, since this is not a Hollywood movie, "a stripper" — accused the players of rape, Nifong stated on national TV: "I am convinced that there was a rape." He called the players "hooligans," contemptuously sneering that their "daddies could buy them expensive lawyers."

Envy is an emotion well-known for producing model behavior.

Revealing his own motives, Nifong said defense attorneys for the non-indicted players "were almost disappointed that their clients didn't get indicted so they could be a part of this spectacle here in Durham." Hello, Vanity Fair? Did you see where I talked about their "daddies"?

The Arianna Huffington of the legal profession might still have made his star turn at a Vanity Fair party, but for the fortuity of the defense lawyers discovering that he had tried to hide DNA evidence from the defendants, revealing that the stripper, Crystal Gail Mangum, had the DNA of four different men in or on her person, including the driver who took her to stripping gigs and enough other men to bring a class-action suit against her.

None of the DNA matched any Duke lacrosse players, who are starting to look like the only adult males in the Durham area who haven't had sex with Mangum.

Nifong has tried to portray himself as simply making "mistakes." This is absurd. Not even a half-wit like Nifong could have believed "something happened in that bathroom," as he said during his disbarment hearing last weekend. He was willing to send three innocent men to prison to improve his electoral viability in a heavily black district and to become a liberal hero in Manhattan salons.

Admittedly, Nifong studiously refused to take a peek at the evidence. On March 29, 2006, he told reporters he knew a rape had occurred based on — I quote — "my reading of the report of the emergency-room nurse." That report was not given to the police until April 5, 2006, making it the equivalent of the forged Nigerian letter Joe Wilson claims to have debunked eight months before it surfaced at the CIA.

But there were some facts even Nifong couldn't have missed.

He knew, for example, that the cab driver who picked up accused "rapist" Reade Seligmann had signed a sworn statement attesting to the fact that the accused was in his cab when the rape was allegedly taking place.

We know Nifong's office knew about the cab driver because the police soon picked him up on a 3-year-old shoplifting charge. The cabdriver claims that when the police came to arrest him, they asked "if I had anything new to say about the lacrosse case." When he said no, they arrested him. He was tried on the 3-year-old case and acquitted.

Nifong also knew that the second "exotic dancer" at the party called the rape allegation a "crock" and said she had been separated from Mangum for no more than five minutes all night. In other words, another stripper knew Mangum wasn't credible, but Nifong based his entire case on her — or rather on one version of her multiple stories.

We know Nifong knew about the second stripper's statement because his office was soon offering her favorable bail treatment for violating probation. She took the deal — and suddenly decided it was possible a rape had occurred.

Mangum had made similar accusations of gang rape 10 years earlier, but her own father denied it had happened and no charges were ever brought. We know Nifong knew about Mangum's prior false accusation because when he was asked about it, he responded: "All the facts are not yet known, and many of the so-called 'facts' that have been reported and commented on are simply wrong." As we now know, the only "wrong" facts circulating in the press were the ones Nifong had put there.

Nifong knew that Mangum made Tawana Brawley look like Billy Graham: She kept changing her story, altering the number of men who raped her, and was unable to identify her attackers.

Except one. Mangum confidently and repeatedly identified only one lacrosse player as one of her rapists: Brad Ross. Nifong knew this because Brad Ross promptly gave the police proof that he was at North Carolina State University with his girlfriend the night of the party.

This investigation wasn't a mistake — it was malice.

The media love to drone on about the explosive combination of "race and sex" — and they'll wait forever for a single non-hoax case to prove it! In fact, the truly explosive combination is "liberal" and "mediocrity."

Half-bright liberals think Hollywood fantasies are real life. And in Hollywood, conservatives like Rush Limbaugh are never fabulously rich and successful. Conservative Christians like Tom DeLay are never savvy, influential congressmen. And handsome boys from good families are never nice.

Nifong was supposed to look like Gregory Peck — not like Bob Wexler! But it's the lacrosse players who look like Gregory Peck.

Second-rate liberals who went to mediocre schools and married mediocre women are burning with jealousy from their nondescript, mediocre jobs. So they use their government jobs to attack their betters and sneer about the players' "daddies."

posted April 09, 2008 09:07 PM            

CNN commentators keep telling us how young and hip the audience was for last week's YouTube Democratic debate, apparently unaware that the camera occasionally panned across the audience, which was the same oddball collection of teachers' union shills and welfare recipients you see at all Democratic gatherings.

Noticeably, Gov. Bill Richardson got the first "woo" of the debate — the mating call of rotund liberal women — for demanding a federal mandate that would guarantee public schoolteachers a minimum salary of $40,000.

So much for the "younger, hipper" audience. Maybe CNN meant "hippier," as in, "My, she's looking a bit hippy these days."

Not counting talking snowmen, the main difference in the YouTube debate audience and the audience for the earlier CNN Democratic debate is that the YouTube debate had 173,000 fewer viewers in the 18-49 demographic. So it was provably not young and, on the basis of casual observation, definitely not hip.

As usual, the audience consisted mostly of public schoolteachers. According to CNN, the highest reading achieved on the CNN feelings-knob was for Richardson talking about public schoolteachers. (Some in the audience said they hadn't been that excited since the last time they had sex with an underage student.)

B. Hussein Obama said he was for slavery reparations in many forms, but the only one that got applause was for more "investment" in schools. In Obama's defense, the precise question was: "But is African-Americans ever going to get reparations for slavery?" So a switch to the subject of education was only natural.

Moreover, a question on reparations has got to be confusing when you're half-white and half-black. What do you do? Demand an apology for slavery and money from yourself? I guess biracial reparations would involve sending yourself money, then sending back a portion of that money to yourself, minus 50 percent in processing fees — which is the same way federal aid works.

It was fun to hear the Democratic candidates give heart-rending reasons for not sending their own kids to public schools. Except John Edwards. He got a "woo" for sending his kids to public schools from all those "young, hip" Democrats whose greatest concern is how to transfer more money to public schoolteachers while reducing their workload.

The candidates all managed to come up with good reasons for sending their kids to private schools — with extra points for reasons that involved a family tragedy or emergency — but it didn't seem to occur to any of them that ordinary families might have good reasons, too.

In her first risible lie of the debate, Hillary said Chelsea went to public schools in Arkansas. But when they moved to Washington, they were advised that "if she were to go to a public school, the press would never leave her alone, because it's a public school. So I had to make a very difficult decision."

"Unfortunately," she said, it was "good advice."

Was it really that difficult a decision not to send Chelsea to public schools in Washington, D.C.?

This is how The New York Times recently described the schools in Washington, which it called "arguably the nation's most dysfunctional school system."

"Though it is one of the country's highest-spending districts, most of the money goes to central administration, not to classrooms, according to a recent series of articles in The Washington Post. Its 55,000 mostly poor students score far worse than comparable children anywhere else in reading and math, with nearly 74 percent of the district's low-income eighth-graders lacking basic math skills, compared with the national average of 49 percent."

So Hillary was dying to send Chelsea to the D.C. public schools, but "unfortunately" did not do so only because of the press? Did she also agonize over whether to allow Chelsea to play in traffic?

She was not dying to send Chelsea to D.C. public schools. And no Democrat cares about "education" or "the poor."

Democrats care about social service bureaucrats who make their living allegedly working on behalf of the poor — the famed "public service" the Democrats always drone on about — jobs that would disappear if we ever eliminated poverty. That's why Democrats keep coming up with policies designed to create millions and millions more poor people.

Democrats fight tooth and nail against any measures that would actually help the poor, such as allowing schools to fire bad teachers. They refuse to allow parents with children in the rotten D.C. public schools to take money out of the public school system so their kids could go to Sidwell Friends like Chelsea.

Most important, Democrats resolutely refuse to tell the poor the secret to not being poor: Keep your knees together until marriage.

That's it. Not class size, not preschool, not even vouchers, though vouchers would obviously improve the education of all students. You could have lunatics running the schools — and often do — and if the kids live with married parents, they will end up at good colleges and will lead happy, productive lives 99 percent of the time.

posted April 09, 2008 10:51 PM              

well.... when are u going to answer AG's questions ???

posted April 09, 2008 11:16 PM            

This is more a recognizition of Coulter's "meritorious" service to humankind.

posted April 10, 2008 03:23 AM            

quote:

---

And no Democrat cares about "education" or "the poor."

Democrats care about social service bureaucrats who make their living allegedly working on behalf of the poor — the famed "public service" the Democrats always drone on about — jobs that would disappear if we ever eliminated poverty. That's why Democrats keep coming up with policies designed to create millions and millions more poor people.

Democrats fight tooth and nail against any measures that would actually help the poor, such as allowing schools to fire bad teachers. They refuse to allow parents with children in the rotten D.C. public schools to take money out of the public school system so their kids could go to Sidwell Friends like Chelsea.

Most important, Democrats resolutely refuse to tell the poor the secret to not being poor: Keep your knees together until marriage.

---

That should be plastered on every billboard in the US. Abstinence "Plus" programs, if any are to be offered, would be a better option than one or the other, too. That is, don't lie and tell kids that condomns prevent pregnancy ... tell them that, with proper use, they only protect you 96% of the time. Tell them that the percentage of consistent "proper use" is actually quite low. In other words, be honest.

Why don't people understand that creating more and more social services "programs" is never going to fix anything. All those programs use up so much money ... and to pay salaries not just to "help" people. We've tried and tried, and paid and paid, and still there are so many poor and dependant persons.

Reducing the size and number of programs. Offering real help to people ... not a paycheck alone ... but job training, education (even low interest student loans) ... things that will actually help people get back on their own feet instead of crawling all over the rest of our backs for the rest of their lives (which helps no one). Placing a time limit for use of benefits and for transitioning back to the working world.

Education, assuming it will still have government funding and "support" (a thought which alone is frightening for the future), needs to seriously address microeconomics and other actual, day to day, practical applications of knowledge. Parents need to take more responsibility, too. Dealing with illegal immigration is also a huge priority if we're ever going to get all (or as many as are willing) our citizens out of poverty. What? Are we seriously supposed to take in all the millions of persons living south of our borders, at no cost to them, forever? It's just not possible. Americans can't handle greater tax burdens (away with the Federal Reserve for good!) and our land/housing/industry/etc can't support everyone living in Central and South America and the Carribean on top of everyone here now. But try telling some people that those governments down south need a real talking to ...

No, keep giving people scraps to keep them dependant on the government and other tax payers for ever as though they'll never be able to do anything positive for themselves and their families because of their "natural disadvantages". Then pat yourself on the back for your compassion.

Insanity.

posted April 10, 2008 04:43 AM              

just beats me how did graphs, scales, research enter into this thread ????
i wanted everyone to have a good laugh
maybe share anecdotes i could learn from.....
though JW if we wanted to read those articles we can all try out her website archives or google on them

"""Most important, Democrats resolutely refuse to tell the poor the secret to not being poor: Keep your knees together until marriage."""