You are here

Log in or register to post comments
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
"American taxpayers are already poised to make unexpected billions from rescuing the nation
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need
JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:

Quote:
"American taxpayers are already poised to make unexpected billions from rescuing the nation
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

I would have to agree, Rand would be appalled at what conservatives have done to her philosophy. She would have disagreed with Paulson when he and Bush insisted the economy needed to be saved and then went about providing nearly $1 trillion in other people's money to do so. But, of course, none of the conservatives who voted for the TARP funding or hundreds of billions of dollars in give aways to the energy, insurance and pharmaceutical industries wanted you to think about Rand at those moments - just do so when they are working as "the party of no" to a Democratic President trying to revive an economy driven in the ditch by psuedo-ideologues. No doubt she would have objected to the unfunded Medicare Part D passed by the Republicans as a vote getting ploy. Nor do the conservatives want you to think about Rand's libertarian ideology when they are promoting anti-abortion measures or anti-gay Constitutional Amendments. Her personal history would lead you to believe she wouldn't have thought much of the entire Defense of Marriage BS. Rand certainly would have thought it best for immigrants to enter the country seeking work as a purely Capitalist statement of freedom. So she would have been against anything like the Arizona nonsense and McCain's "build the dang fence" pandering idiocy. She surely would have seen the right of the New York Muslims to build whatever they wanted wherever they wanted with money from whomever was willing to donate - without the Government investigating the donors. Undoubtedly, she would have been against the "emergency" legislation which took place in the Terri Schiavo case. As a proponent of individual rights she would have had harsh things to say about government intervening in the life and death of one individual. I can't imagine she would have been able to support the invasion of Afghanistan since they as a Nation did us no harm on 9-11 and we both know she would have been against the invasion and "regime change" imposed in Iraq. She might have been rather pissed at the Saudi's however - you know, the Nation Bush ignored because we needed their oil (not to mention he was in tight with the Saudi Royal family). Spying on Americans? Probably not to her liking. As an atheist Rand would have been strongly opposed to the conservative movement wanting to "return the Nation to God" and all that BS on the mall. Most of all, I think she would be absolutely infuriated that her philosophy can be boiled down to 140 characters or less. So, rolling in her grave? Well, why don't you ask an atheist what they think happens once you die?

Of course, what the modern conservatives have done to Rand's philosophy is no different than what they've done to everything they wish to cherry pick for out of context talking points. Thomas Jefferson and the Constitution have faired no better than Rand in this respect and the Bible has taken the biggest hit. "Take what you like and ignore the rest" speaks only to how ideologically impoverished the conservative movement has become as they seek to eliminate the middle class. That they have no real guiding philosophy and must make this crazy quilt of quotations taken out of context says the modern conservative movement is nothing more than a collection of talking heads who have managed to distort laissez faire government into government which takes away individual freedom and rights. I suspect Rand would have seen the subjectivist morality of Wall Street and the derivatives traders as taking away the rights of others and not as free market Capitalism at its best. Whatever, Objectivism as defined by Rand is simply a philosophy - or should be if you want to use Rand as a model for libertarian thinking. What it is not is a bit of this and don't bother with all that other stuff that would get in the way of using social issues as wedges for a few votes. Anyone who spends a few minutes with Rand's philosophy can see it is no more likely to become a reality than is pure Marxism.


Quote:
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive
JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

I agree with just about all your analysis of Rand's philosophy and the absurd misinterpretations and blatant evasions placed on it by conservatives - and I'm not even an objectivist.

For me though the central portion of Rand's epistemology is something worth holding fast to, even if you're a socialist (I know, that's a dirty word in the US).
Best expressed by Ronald E Merrill in 'The Ideas of Ayn Rand' (Publ' Open Court:1991)
"............Rand rejects both Platonic and Aristotelian approaches. As she describes it, the nominalist regards definitions as arbitrary; there is no 'essence' of a concept. The realist postulates the actual existence of the essence; the essence is metaphysical. For Rand, definitions are not arbitrary - there is an essence- but the essence is not metaphysical but epistemological. Though concepts are in the mind, they are not arbitrary because the reflect reality, which is objective.
Now, why should anyone bother with all this? Rand's answer would be that philosophy is practical. the nominalist view assumes that thinking is a matter of detached, abstract debate. It is a game, and the only requirement for the rules is that they be self-consistent and agreed by all players.
But for Rand, thinking is man's means of survival, and its rules are absolutely critical. If you pick the wrong way to define a concept, it may not just be, "Well, that's and interesting way to look at a subject'; it could kill you.

Oh & "Rolling in the Grave" is just a saying not to be taken literally.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need
JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

Reading through this thread and others like it I'm struck by the almost complete denial that global warming will have any significant economic effects. OK, if you imagine GW isn't real you don't need to worry but I suggest that those who do accept the reality of our situation consider that without an ecology there'll be no economy and, worst case scenario, no homo sapiens remaining on this planet to play the stock market.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

A tale of two thermometers.

I think we can all agree that the surface temperature has increased 1 degree since 1880. It is always a good idea to have some separation between the people generating the data and the people interpreting it. Nevertheless, how many times has the economy changed since 1880? Wasn't there The Great Depression 1873-1896. No coincidence that Earth started its warming trend about that same time.

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
A tale of two thermometers.

I think we can all agree that the surface temperature has increased 1 degree since 1880. It is always a good idea to have some separation between the people generating the data and the people interpreting it. Nevertheless, how many times has the economy changed since 1880? Wasn't there The Great Depression 1873-1896. No coincidence that Earth started its warming trend about that same time.


Are you trying to be funny Lamont, or are you being serious?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
Reading through this thread and others like it I'm struck by the almost complete denial that global warming will have any significant economic effects.

You're "struck by the almost complete denial"?!!! First, not mentioning a topic does not make the topic one of denial. I haven't mentioned BigFoot either but that doesn't mean I am in denial of large hairy creatures. The matter of climate change simply has not come up in the facts I've researched. Second, take a look again at the title of the thread. This isn't about stirring up discussion which will quickly devolve into partisan food fights. Most particularly this thread isn't about screaming battles filled with misinformation and propoganda. (By the way, did you hear about the 700 Muslims who did not report for work on 9-11?)

The thread is about presenting as much hard factual information as possible. I really don't care whether anyone posts in the thread or not as the typical response to facts is total denial of the truth when the facts go against what you've been told to believe. If that's what you want, there are hundreds of other forums where you can easily find such things. I'm not encouraging discussion unless it can be maintained at a civil level with facts shown to back up whatever is claimed. Take the facts I present as they are presented and do with them as you please. If you have other facts or data which dispute what has been posted, then please add them to the pile of information being made available. But do not try to stir up trouble because it will spell the death of this thread. Do not resort to opinion columns or comments which themself are not based in reality. Make the effort to restrict your sources to newspapers and magazines of record and not tabloids or partisan blogs. No partisan think tanks as their purpose is simply to produce extremely partisan BS. No CATO Institute and no moveon.org. I'm going to assume most people at least have the ability to distinguish between facts presented by Fox News and facts presented by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Jettison the former and keep the latter.

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 days ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

I haven't mentioned BigFoot either but that doesn't mean I am in denial of large hairy creatures.

mark evans
mark evans's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 5 2010 - 4:06pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

Im just waiting for a "non-partisian" organization to actually PROVE! so-called: man-made (and the key word is man-made) global warming. The Statists and Zero growth proponents want control of private business and corporations through stringent environmental laws. And six more years of Obama may give them that IF conservatives don't take over the House and Senate in November.

Mark

BillB
BillB's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 2 months ago
Joined: Aug 15 2007 - 2:04pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:

Im just waiting for a "non-partisian" organization to actually PROVE! so-called: man-made (and the key word is man-made) global warming. The Statists and Zero growth proponents want control of private business and corporations through stringent environmental laws. And six more years of Obama may give them that IF conservatives don't take over the House and Senate in November.
Mark

Oh, brother. Read through this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/

mark evans
mark evans's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 5 2010 - 4:06pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:

Quote:

Im just waiting for a "non-partisian" organization to actually PROVE! so-called: man-made (and the key word is man-made) global warming. The Statists and Zero growth proponents want control of private business and corporations through stringent environmental laws. And six more years of Obama may give them that IF conservatives don't take over the House and Senate in November.
Mark

Oh, brother. Read through this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/

I read some of it. Its random people blogging and giving their opinions.

Again, I need facts proving 'man-made' global warming... not opinions from random bloggers or college professors that promote 'man-made' global warming for the federal funds alloted to their departments if they promote it. Or the Zero-growth zero prosperity U.N. scientists as well with same motivation for going 'green'... as in "money" green

Mark Evans

BillB
BillB's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 2 months ago
Joined: Aug 15 2007 - 2:04pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

Better read more. It's simply false to claim it is "random bloggers". Maybe you just looked at the "comments" section - look at the actual articles and their scientific support.
If you don't WANT to follow the science because of your political beliefs, that's your issue, but don't try to muddy the waters. Suggest you read the section on scientific consensus.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
Better read more. It's simply false to claim it is "random bloggers". Maybe you just looked at the "comments" section - look at the actual articles and their scientific support.
If you don't WANT to follow the science because of your political beliefs, that's your issue, but don't try to muddy the waters. Suggest you read the section on scientific consensus.

Uh, huh. I can see that. Don't muddy the waters. What a joke. Let's see the overwhelming scientific proof without your interpretation.

mark evans
mark evans's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 5 2010 - 4:06pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
Suggest you read the section on scientific consensus.

The "scientific" concensus has been debunked by the leaked e-mails containing proof that the global warming statistics have been embellished over the years to support it. (Now wouldn't THAT be "muddying the waters?"). Amongst a whole litany of fraudulent global warming propaganda to the point they don't even call it 'global warming' anymore. 'Global climate change' is the new mantra.

Scientists that are not on any government payroll foreign or domestic:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

Mark

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

But they are on a payroll from someone, aren't they? Why didn't you bother to find out who writes their checks?

I'm going to remind everyone that the title of the thread is "Hard (as possible) facts". Evans, you play the same game no matter the topic, you introduce partisan opinion to dispute evidence contrary to your way of thinking.

The idea of "hard facts" is not to introduce unsupported or politically motivated opinions. It is to stay with non-partisan statistics and data which are not sullied by funding from sources with a political or monetary interest in the promotion of onesided "studies". Now, you can certainly disagree - and, Evans, I'm guessing you pulled your last link out of a search engine where The Science and Public Policy Institute was the first name that came up in favor of your opinion - however, my concern in this thread is to invesitgate rather than just post BS. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, Evans, and assume you are just not intelligent enough or interested enough in doing any investigation into "The Science and Public Policy Institute" to determine where they get their funding or who might be driving their policies. I have to assume you were either incompetent or lazy or else I must conclude you either just don't care for actual facts which disagree with your opinion or you are simply a liar to begin with. Just believing - and restating - whatever comes up on your computer screen is not going to get you anything other than more BS. That is decidely not the focus of this thread.

Now, in my estimation, you cannot rely on a clearly conservative leaning "Institute" who will not disclose their sources of funding. Let's do some leg work here to dig up the best facts we can find about this group.


Quote:
Funding
On its website SPPI does not detail the sources of its funding or outline its approach to disclosure.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute

If anyone can find the source of direct funding to this "institute", please show it. As is, this remains a very suspicious source and its use as a reliably non-partisan voice of authority on the subject of climate change must be questioned.

Let's do a deeper investigation of the links to this institute as provided by Source Watch. The first link takes me to their parent organization - and monetary benefactor - which again leads me to believe this is not a group without partisan reason to promote one agenda over another.


Quote:
Background
Ferguson
Prior to founding SPPI in approximately mid-2007, Ferguson was the Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP), a project of the corporate-funded group, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

OK, now we see the parent group of the institute is a "corporate funded" group. A quick search for Frontiers of Freedom Institute gives us this information ...


Quote:
The Frontiers of Freedom Foundation, Inc., operating "simply as" Frontiers of Freedom (FF) was founded in 1996 by ex-Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming".

Mission
According to the organization's web site, "Frontiers of Freedom is a cutting-edge, forward-looking policy group advancing center-right principles in today's fast-paced news and information age.

Our efforts earned us a seat across the table, literally, from President Bush on the day he announced our withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. In addition, we have both provided and received briefings from Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and his Deputy Paul Dundes Wolfowitz.

FoF groups its work under the banner of six "policy centers":

Center for Constitutional Government
Center for Economic Liberty and Property Rights
Center for National Security and Defense
Center for Free Market Environmentalism and Conservation
Center for Civic, Family, and Societal Progress
Center for Science and Public Policy

I would advise you to do your own leg work to find information on the other "policy centers" working under the Frontiers of Freedom banner.

Here's information regarding funding sources for the FoF ...


Quote:
Funding
Frontiers of Freedom receives money of tobacco and oil companies, including Philip Morris Cos, ExxonMobil and RJ Reynolds Tobacco.

Exxon Funding
According to a 2003 New York Times report, "Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documents. George Landrith, President of FoF told the New York Times "They've determined that we are effective at what we do" and that Exxon essentially took the attitude, "We like to make it possible to do more of that".[1]

Funding from Exxon includes:

2002: $100,000 for the "Center for Sound Science and Public Policy" (sic), $97,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach Activities", and a further $35,000 for "Global Climate Change Science Projects";[2]
2003: $95,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach" and a further $50,000 for "Project Support - Sound Science Center";[3]
2004: $50,000 for "Climate Change Efforts", $90,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach", $40,000 as "Project Support - Climate Change" and a further $70,000 for "Project Support- Science Center & Climate Change";[4]
2005: $50,000 for the "Annual Gala and General Operating Support" and a further $90,000 for "General Operating Support"[5];
2006: $90,000 for "General Operating Support" and a further $90,000 for the "Science & Policy Center"[6]; and
2007: $90,000 for "energy literacy".[7]

Foundation Funding
Media Transparency reports that FoF has also received some $580,450 in 25 grants between 1996 and 2005 from the following five conservative foundations:[8]

Earhart Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Sarah Scaife Foundation
Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation
Carthage Foundation

So, Evans, had you performed any actual thinking and followed just a few clicks of your mouse to research your source before posting this now highly dubious link, you would have seen the money which funds your "authority" ultimately comes not only from far right wing partisans and lobbyists but also from the energy company which over the last few years has claimed record breaking profits for virtually every quarter since 2006. I can only hope you might see why they would have 44 billion reasons to knock down any opposition to their profit making. I also hope you can see who they are talking to in order to influence public policy. While not at all a complete list their references do not include those people whose mind needs to be changed.

If we dig deeper, we find more funding ties to Republican/conservative groups which have interests in oil, banking and so forth which would suggest they too have a vested interest in debunking any climate change advocates.


Quote:
Foundation Funding
Media Transparency reports that FoF has also received some $580,450 in 25 grants between 1996 and 2005 from the following five conservative foundations:[8]

Earhart Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Sarah Scaife Foundation
Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation
Carthage Foundation

Again, I suggest you do some search engine time following the leads provided. The fingerprints are all over the far right wing/corporatist/financial instituional side of the page.

Finally, ...


Quote:
Frontiers of Freedom and Tobacco
In a 1996 memo, Jeff Taylor of Frontiers of Freedom writes to Alexander Spears, of the Lorillard Tobacco Company to solicit funding. Taylor describes the activities in which Frontiers of Freedom engaged to attack the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's efforts to regulate the tobacco industry. The memo also shows how Frontiers managed to generate a clamor among Congressmembers seeking the praise from Fof, a relatively new group. Wallop writes,

One sure gauge of our growth took place recently when we presented 15 members of Congress with our 'Defender of Freedom' award. When we returned to the office, we had calls from a handful of other Members asking why they had not been recognized by Frontiers.[1]
One of the "Achievements" Frontiers lists for 1996 was Wallop's guest-hosting of the Armstrong Williams talk show. Armstrong Williams was recently revealed to have accepted $240,000 in taxpayer funds from the George W. Bush administration to comment positively on his show about Bush's "No Child Left Behind" education act. A USA Today article about the scandal can be seen at http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm

Other policy topics on which Frontiers of Freedom was active include privatizing Social Security, privacy and anti-terrorism legislation (and, ironically, this was all back in 1996).

Possibly, it's the partisan in me that says this is not at all a non-partisan think tank and that Evan's link is not to be trusted to do anything other than debunk climate change without actual facts to back up their words.

Of course, I also suggest you investigate Source Watch. However, I suggest you do so by finding out not only who funds the group and who does the research but how they are thought of by their peers and to determine just who disputes their evidence. I've found that most partisans - you included Evans - will throw out the blind suggestion anyone who doesn't carry their banner and march to their tune is highly partisan and should not, therefore, be trusted. A logical fallacy to be made clear. This alone makes following sources rather difficult at times. However, the title of this thread is "Hard (as possible) facts" and that's what I expect from this thread. In this case allow me to ask, if the Frontiers of Freedom group has not disputed any of the claims made by Source Watch, what should that mean to you? If The Science and Public Policy Institute is merely a single part of a larger shell game played by far right wing groups to hide their real identity and their agenda - which, keep in mind, is apparently not disclosed on their home page - then just how suspicious should you be of their conclusions?

To go back to the original question as to why there has no mention of global warming in this thread, this is in large part why there has been no mention of global warming. The issue is so fraught with ties to partisan groups who have something to gain from whichever side "wins" the topic that is is very difficult to find a disinterested statement of fact. In that regard Bill's link seems promising IMO. If you scratch the surface of most institutes - and I would say virtually every major group who denies its existence - you will find someone who will gain either political power or monetary rewards (or both) from what is being said.

I do think it important though to point out that Evans did not care to scratch at all. Any partisan port in a storm, eh, Evans? That's not how this thread was meant to operate.

My single thought on the issue of climate change is we cannot continue to do the same thing over and over and expect any results other than what we have experienced in the past. At present our dependence on carbon based fuels is; first, funding those very groups who are killing our soldiers, and, second, risking environmental damage unimagined by previous generations as those resources become more inaccesible to conventional methods of extraction. The fact the US possesses a mere 3% of the world's petroleum resources while we consume 25% of those resources is undeniable by even the most conservative estimates. Something must change if we expect different results.

I hope this closes the issue of climate change within this thread unless someone can actually produce facts which cannot be traced backward to a vested interest. The title of the thread is "Hard (as possible) facts". I encourage anyone who participates in this thread to maintain that level of scrutiny. And I discourgare this thread from devolving into a food fight over the issue of climate change.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
Better read more. It's simply false to claim it is "random bloggers". Maybe you just looked at the "comments" section - look at the actual articles and their scientific support.

Not a bad idea to not dismiss a topic just because you disagree with the topic. Evans, did you actually read any of these titles?

Let's take "How we know the sun isn't causing global warming". Click on the link to a few of the authors mentioned (Wang, Lean and Sheeley in particular) and we get "Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC".

Had you investigated the Meehl atricle, you would have found it was from work performed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Following that lead you might have found this ...


Quote:

NCAR Mesa Lab, Boulder, ColoradoThe National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR, pronounced "EN-car"[1]) is a nongovernmental institute in the United States that conducts collaborative research in atmospheric and Earth system science. The center has multiple facilities, including the I. M. Pei-designed Mesa Laboratory headquarters in Boulder, Colorado. NCAR is managed by the nonprofit University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) and sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Studies include meteorology, climate science, atmospheric chemistry, solar-terrestrial interactions, environmental and societal impacts.

Research, services, and facilities
NCAR provides a broad array of tools and technologies to the scientific community for studying Earth

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
Let's see the overwhelming scientific proof without your interpretation.

I guessing you didn't even bother to look at the link. Take what I said to Evans and ten fold it.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

"Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- $30,000 utility bill" http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659

From the linked article ...


Quote:
"But a local free-market think tank is trying to make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental hypocrisy.

Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday ... "

The Tennessee who? Oh, I see ...

Links
Links from TCPR's website include the following right-wing and libertarian think tanks: [7]

American Enterprise Institute
Cato Institute
Center for Public Integrity
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Fraser Institute
Heartland Institute
Heritage Foundation
Independence Institute
Independent Institute
Manhattan Institute
National Center for Policy Analysis
Pacific Research Institute
Reason Foundation

Funding
The TCPR is a non-profit 501

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need
JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

Thanks Jan for the clear sighted overview. It leads me to ask what has happened to the so called right of late. Once the right were the champions of logic and detached scientific thought. What happened to The Enlightenment?
Again Ayn Rand is rolling in her grave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

It looks like this is what's happened to the right ...


Quote:
Meet Christine O'Donnell ...
The Republican Party's hopes for winning back the Senate rest on a perennial candidate with a sketchy employment history who has dissembled about her education, defaulted on her student loan and her mortgage, sued a former employer for mental anguish, railed against the evils of masturbation and questioned whether it would have been OK to lie to prevent Nazis from killing Jews during World War II.

But establishment Republicans may be doing more head-scratching than wound-licking; in a year featuring Sharron Angle and Rand Paul, O'Donnell stands out as something very different.

She first made her mark in the 1990s as the founder of the Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth. The group's aim was to lobby Congress on issues important to the religious right, but its biggest impact may have come from landing O'Donnell a spot on Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect." It was during a 1998 discussion on the show - the subject was Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky - that O'Donnell said that lies and exaggeration are always acts of "disrespect."

Asked whether it would be OK to lie if you were hiding Jews in your home and Nazis came to the door, O'Donnell dodged.

"If I were in that situation . . . God would provide a way to do the right thing," she said.

As Maher mocked her and the audience hooted, O'Donnell insisted: "I believe that! You never have to have this deception."

In one, a Fox News segment from 2008, O

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

A terrifying glimpse of US political madness but it doesn't explain why conservative thinking has been derailed by superstition and mindless extremism. From outside The Land of the Brave & The Free all this is regarded as a form of mental illness - to put it politely - a common view held by many on both the right & left here in Australia & in many other parts of the world. Me, I blame religion and that insane part of your constitution that has been misinterpreted as giving every US citizen the right to carry guns.
Another aspect of US conservative thinking we find puzzling here is the total inability to distinguish between social democracy and totalitarian communism. OK, Rand would tell us the former always led to the latter but she wasn't right about everything.
And let's not get into US foreign policy - one peculiar madness that our own government has slavishly supported.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:

But they are on a payroll from someone, aren't they? Why didn't you bother to find out who writes their checks?

I'm going to remind everyone that the title of the thread is "Hard (as possible) facts". Evans, you play the same game no matter the topic, you introduce partisan opinion to dispute evidence contrary to your way of thinking.

The idea of "hard facts" is not to introduce unsupported or politically motivated opinions. It is to stay with non-partisan statistics and data which are not sullied by funding from sources with a political or monetary interest in the promotion of onesided "studies". Now, you can certainly disagree - and, Evans, I'm guessing you pulled your last link out of a search engine where The Science and Public Policy Institute was the first name that came up in favor of your opinion - however, my concern in this thread is to invesitgate rather than just post BS. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, Evans, and assume you are just not intelligent enough or interested enough in doing any investigation into "The Science and Public Policy Institute" to determine where they get their funding or who might be driving their policies. I have to assume you were either incompetent or lazy or else I must conclude you either just don't care for actual facts which disagree with your opinion or you are simply a liar to begin with. Just believing - and restating - whatever comes up on your computer screen is not going to get you anything other than more BS. That is decidely not the focus of this thread.

Now, in my estimation, you cannot rely on a clearly conservative leaning "Institute" who will not disclose their sources of funding. Let's do some leg work here to dig up the best facts we can find about this group.


Quote:
Funding
On its website SPPI does not detail the sources of its funding or outline its approach to disclosure.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute

If anyone can find the source of direct funding to this "institute", please show it. As is, this remains a very suspicious source and its use as a reliably non-partisan voice of authority on the subject of climate change must be questioned.

Let's do a deeper investigation of the links to this institute as provided by Source Watch. The first link takes me to their parent organization - and monetary benefactor - which again leads me to believe this is not a group without partisan reason to promote one agenda over another.


Quote:
Background
Ferguson
Prior to founding SPPI in approximately mid-2007, Ferguson was the Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP), a project of the corporate-funded group, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

OK, now we see the parent group of the institute is a "corporate funded" group. A quick search for Frontiers of Freedom Institute gives us this information ...


Quote:
The Frontiers of Freedom Foundation, Inc., operating "simply as" Frontiers of Freedom (FF) was founded in 1996 by ex-Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming".

Mission
According to the organization's web site, "Frontiers of Freedom is a cutting-edge, forward-looking policy group advancing center-right principles in today's fast-paced news and information age.

Our efforts earned us a seat across the table, literally, from President Bush on the day he announced our withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. In addition, we have both provided and received briefings from Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and his Deputy Paul Dundes Wolfowitz.

FoF groups its work under the banner of six "policy centers":

Center for Constitutional Government
Center for Economic Liberty and Property Rights
Center for National Security and Defense
Center for Free Market Environmentalism and Conservation
Center for Civic, Family, and Societal Progress
Center for Science and Public Policy

I would advise you to do your own leg work to find information on the other "policy centers" working under the Frontiers of Freedom banner.

Here's information regarding funding sources for the FoF ...


Quote:
Funding
Frontiers of Freedom receives money of tobacco and oil companies, including Philip Morris Cos, ExxonMobil and RJ Reynolds Tobacco.

Exxon Funding
According to a 2003 New York Times report, "Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documents. George Landrith, President of FoF told the New York Times "They've determined that we are effective at what we do" and that Exxon essentially took the attitude, "We like to make it possible to do more of that".[1]

Funding from Exxon includes:

2002: $100,000 for the "Center for Sound Science and Public Policy" (sic), $97,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach Activities", and a further $35,000 for "Global Climate Change Science Projects";[2]
2003: $95,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach" and a further $50,000 for "Project Support - Sound Science Center";[3]
2004: $50,000 for "Climate Change Efforts", $90,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach", $40,000 as "Project Support - Climate Change" and a further $70,000 for "Project Support- Science Center & Climate Change";[4]
2005: $50,000 for the "Annual Gala and General Operating Support" and a further $90,000 for "General Operating Support"[5];
2006: $90,000 for "General Operating Support" and a further $90,000 for the "Science & Policy Center"[6]; and
2007: $90,000 for "energy literacy".[7]

Foundation Funding
Media Transparency reports that FoF has also received some $580,450 in 25 grants between 1996 and 2005 from the following five conservative foundations:[8]

Earhart Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Sarah Scaife Foundation
Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation
Carthage Foundation

So, Evans, had you performed any actual thinking and followed just a few clicks of your mouse to research your source before posting this now highly dubious link, you would have seen the money which funds your "authority" ultimately comes not only from far right wing partisans and lobbyists but also from the energy company which over the last few years has claimed record breaking profits for virtually every quarter since 2006. I can only hope you might see why they would have 44 billion reasons to knock down any opposition to their profit making. I also hope you can see who they are talking to in order to influence public policy. While not at all a complete list their references do not include those people whose mind needs to be changed.

If we dig deeper, we find more funding ties to Republican/conservative groups which have interests in oil, banking and so forth which would suggest they too have a vested interest in debunking any climate change advocates.


Quote:
Foundation Funding
Media Transparency reports that FoF has also received some $580,450 in 25 grants between 1996 and 2005 from the following five conservative foundations:[8]

Earhart Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Sarah Scaife Foundation
Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation
Carthage Foundation

Again, I suggest you do some search engine time following the leads provided. The fingerprints are all over the far right wing/corporatist/financial instituional side of the page.

Finally, ...


Quote:
Frontiers of Freedom and Tobacco
In a 1996 memo, Jeff Taylor of Frontiers of Freedom writes to Alexander Spears, of the Lorillard Tobacco Company to solicit funding. Taylor describes the activities in which Frontiers of Freedom engaged to attack the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's efforts to regulate the tobacco industry. The memo also shows how Frontiers managed to generate a clamor among Congressmembers seeking the praise from Fof, a relatively new group. Wallop writes,

One sure gauge of our growth took place recently when we presented 15 members of Congress with our 'Defender of Freedom' award. When we returned to the office, we had calls from a handful of other Members asking why they had not been recognized by Frontiers.[1]
One of the "Achievements" Frontiers lists for 1996 was Wallop's guest-hosting of the Armstrong Williams talk show. Armstrong Williams was recently revealed to have accepted $240,000 in taxpayer funds from the George W. Bush administration to comment positively on his show about Bush's "No Child Left Behind" education act. A USA Today article about the scandal can be seen at http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm

Other policy topics on which Frontiers of Freedom was active include privatizing Social Security, privacy and anti-terrorism legislation (and, ironically, this was all back in 1996).

Possibly, it's the partisan in me that says this is not at all a non-partisan think tank and that Evan's link is not to be trusted to do anything other than debunk climate change without actual facts to back up their words.

Of course, I also suggest you investigate Source Watch. However, I suggest you do so by finding out not only who funds the group and who does the research but how they are thought of by their peers and to determine just who disputes their evidence. I've found that most partisans - you included Evans - will throw out the blind suggestion anyone who doesn't carry their banner and march to their tune is highly partisan and should not, therefore, be trusted. A logical fallacy to be made clear. This alone makes following sources rather difficult at times. However, the title of this thread is "Hard (as possible) facts" and that's what I expect from this thread. In this case allow me to ask, if the Frontiers of Freedom group has not disputed any of the claims made by Source Watch, what should that mean to you? If The Science and Public Policy Institute is merely a single part of a larger shell game played by far right wing groups to hide their real identity and their agenda - which, keep in mind, is apparently not disclosed on their home page - then just how suspicious should you be of their conclusions?

To go back to the original question as to why there has no mention of global warming in this thread, this is in large part why there has been no mention of global warming. The issue is so fraught with ties to partisan groups who have something to gain from whichever side "wins" the topic that is is very difficult to find a disinterested statement of fact. In that regard Bill's link seems promising IMO. If you scratch the surface of most institutes - and I would say virtually every major group who denies its existence - you will find someone who will gain either political power or monetary rewards (or both) from what is being said.

I do think it important though to point out that Evans did not care to scratch at all. Any partisan port in a storm, eh, Evans? That's not how this thread was meant to operate.

My single thought on the issue of climate change is we cannot continue to do the same thing over and over and expect any results other than what we have experienced in the past. At present our dependence on carbon based fuels is; first, funding those very groups who are killing our soldiers, and, second, risking environmental damage unimagined by previous generations as those resources become more inaccesible to conventional methods of extraction. The fact the US possesses a mere 3% of the world's petroleum resources while we consume 25% of those resources is undeniable by even the most conservative estimates. Something must change if we expect different results.

I hope this closes the issue of climate change within this thread unless someone can actually produce facts which cannot be traced backward to a vested interest. The title of the thread is "Hard (as possible) facts". I encourage anyone who participates in this thread to maintain that level of scrutiny. And I discourgare this thread from devolving into a food fight over the issue of climate change.

So, I think you could of left out everything except the very last sentence. You went through a lot of trouble to tell us not fuck up your thread. Thanks for letting us know how to fuck up your thread.

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

Thanks Lamont for a revealing overview.
One passage caught my attention that plays to my own view of the hypocritical and suicidal nature of US foreign relations. You wrote :- "At present our dependence on carbon based fuels is; first, funding those very groups who are killing our soldiers,"
Not once in the US media have I read any comment on the moral decrepitude of kissing Saudi Arabia's arse ( excuse the language but it's apposite!). Saudi Arabia provides a major part of the financial support for Al Qaeda and similar groups. To top that off I read today that Uncle Sam has just signed a huge arms deal with the Saudi's. Where, pray tell, does the Pentagon imagine a large proportion of those toys are going to end up?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Once again we find someone with absolutely nothing to say believing if they copy my entire post it will appear as though they actually have something to contribute. Unfortunately, that has yet to be the case.


Quote:
Thanks for letting us know how to fuck up your thread.

LS, since you have nothing of value to contribute to anything, your very existence fucks up this entire forum. Take what I said to Evans and twenty fold it.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:

Once again we find someone with absolutely nothing to say believing if they copy my entire post it will appear as though they actually have something to contribute. Unfortunately, that has yet to be the case.


Quote:
Thanks for letting us know how to fuck up your thread.

LS, since you have nothing of value to contribute to anything, your very existence fucks up this entire forum. Take what I said to Evans and twenty fold it.

Well, I was thinking I would keep bringing up global warming on your thread. Over and over again. How about that? Because that post I quoted from you above makes it painfully obvious that when given enough rope you will hang yourself.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
Thanks Lamont for a revealing overview.
One passage caught my attention that plays to my own view of the hypocritical and suicidal nature of US foreign relations. You wrote :- "At present our dependence on carbon based fuels is; first, funding those very groups who are killing our soldiers,"
Not once in the US media have I read any comment on the moral decrepitude of kissing Saudi Arabia's arse ( excuse the language but it's apposite!). Saudi Arabia provides a major part of the financial support for Al Qaeda and similar groups. To top that off I read today that Uncle Sam has just signed a huge arms deal with the Saudi's. Where, pray tell, does the Pentagon imagine a large proportion of those toys are going to end up?

Would you believe it if I told you our country has a contingent plan for destroying Saudi Arabia? That Saudi Arabia is a major player in our own end game?

Anyway, your perspective is almost impossible to solve. What would you suggest? Diplomacy? Of course, diplomacy has to run its course. Destroying Saudi Arabia's economy? The diplomacy will fail. Most of you guys are scientists, physicists, and so forth. Don't you realize that for every action there will be an opposite and equal action even with all the stupid bullshit you people keep bringing up in this thread? Most of these responses on these threads are ridiculous and tired arguments that lead no where. Very rarely do you nimrods come up with a solution that benefits everyone. Why? Because you are not experts. You're fucking idiots that think they have a captured audience. We've got this compulsive thread with Jan mostly copying opinions of others that just happen to coincide with his own distorted view of the world. Taking him seriously makes you just as sick as him. Trust me on this one. Jan is no Friedrich Nietzsche. Nihilists are never wrong but Jan is always wrong. Example, Jan would never be able to come up with something original like, "Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted." He relies on others to think for him because he can't.

Please realize that the objective of the person that started this thread just wants to show off his need to prove there is no objective basis for truth. Your first hint should be the title of the thread he chose and the subsequent opinions and editorials he keeps posting. Do you not see the irony if not how stupid he started this thread? The philosophy of nihilism is not a healthy position to become obsessed. Even Nietzsche went completely mad and ended up being cared for by his mother. In the end he proved nothing. That is why Seinfeld had to spell it out for his own caputred audience. That the show was about nothing. That every character we loved were in fact a bunch of assholes that destroyed the lives of everybody they came into contact with. And we laughed all the way through. We are all assholes. But you don't have to be lead by the nose by the sick ones. Jan is going to go off the deep end and become a ward of the government in his end of days. His worst nightmare come true. Suddenly his beliefs will turn against him. He will never blame himself. He loves himself too much to be capable of blaming himself for his own foreseeable demise. Another one flies over the cuckoo's nest.

Some of you guys need to think deeper and stop treading water on the surface. You're drowning and its obvious. Painfully obvious. Watch Bob Ross, drink a little wine, learn how to paint. Stop wasting valuable time with all this bullshit. Or I'm going to bring up global warming AND Darwin's Theory of Evolution. And I'm only going to post shit that just happens to coincide with my own agenda. Over and over again. Until I become a ward of the government. My worst nightmare.


Quote:
Capt. Nately: Don't you have any principles?

Old man in whorehouse: Of course not!

Capt. Nately: No morality?

Old man in whorehouse: I'm a very moral man, and Italy is a very moral country. That's why we will certainly come out on top again if we succeed in being defeated.

Capt. Nately: You talk like a madman.

Old man in whorehouse: But I live like a sane one. I was a fascist when Mussolini was on top. Now that he has been deposed, I am anti-fascist. When the Germans were here, I was fanatically pro-German. Now I'm fanatically pro-American. You'll find no more loyal partisan in all of Italy than myself.

Capt. Nately: You're a shameful opportunist! What you don't understand is that it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

Old man in whorehouse: You have it backwards. It's better to live on your feet than to die on your knees. I know.

Capt. Nately: How do you know?

Old man in whorehouse: Because I am 107-years-old. How old are you?

Capt. Nately: I'll be 20 in January.

Old man in whorehouse: If you live.

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

Reading as best I can between the lines of your post I'm guessing you advocate some form of moral relativism. If so you're welcome to it but my perspective is a simple one. If I can quote Ayn Rand. "I'm not brave enough to be a coward"

Quote:
[Would you believe it if I told you our country has a contingent plan for destroying Saudi Arabia? That Saudi Arabia is a major player in our own end game?


As to US contingency plans for destroying Saudi Arabia nothing would surprise me when it comes to US foreign policy madness. However, if any such plan includes nuking the place the inconvenient fact of oil being inflammable should have them thinking twice.
As to the original intention of this thread - who cares. It's descending into a pointless flame war.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

We've already determined that we are going to use neutron bombs on a different thread. As for turning this thread into a flame war? What else are American barbarians for?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

Fuck off, Lamont. If I just wanted an idiotic opinion, I wouldn't have started this thread. If ever I want an opinion on your level, I'll ask my dog who is waaaaay, waaaaay smarter than you could ever hope to be. One thing about him, he can lick his own dick while you have to find another "conspiracy is everywhere" nutjob to let you do their's. Alex Jones misses you, LS, he hasn't had even a bad blow job in weeks. Word is, you use your teeth.

Ok, you've announced you're ready to lie, cheat and be a dickheaded bastard to screw up this thread. Just what I would expect from someone who has no use for facts and, therefore, just what I would expect from you. Now that you've announced your intentions, who cares? Except for you, the rest of us have evolved to the point we have opposable thumbs (though it's still an open question with Evans) and I think we know how to use a scroll wheel to bypass your crap. Ignoring you will be easy.

Fuck off! You're worse than useless.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/us/politics/16poll.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-ti...ch?ref=politics

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM156_battleground_questionnaire.html

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 days ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

My, we're in a bad mood today, aren't we?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

Yeah, five years of LS's bullshit does that to ya.

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/dosea...&fromprof=1

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
It's descending into a pointless flame war.

Only if the participants allow it to do so. Lamont does not even rise to the level of being worthless, click on his profile above and check out his past remarks. That's just a small sample of what Lamont has done to this forum over a few months. Now think about seeing that for years. You'll see how much attention should be given to LS. Ignore him and the thread moves forward without further disruption.

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

....and returning to the topic we're not supposed to mention here .....
It astonishes me that now that the reality of global warming is starting to threaten the hip-pocket nerve of big business they're finally starting to wake up :-
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/08/deutsche-climate-threat/

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
Fuck off, Lamont. If I just wanted an idiotic opinion, I wouldn't have started this thread. If ever I want an opinion on your level, I'll ask my dog who is waaaaay, waaaaay smarter than you could ever hope to be. One thing about him, he can lick his own dick while you have to find another "conspiracy is everywhere" nutjob to let you do their's. Alex Jones misses you, LS, he hasn't had even a bad blow job in weeks. Word is, you use your teeth.

Ok, you've announced you're ready to lie, cheat and be a dickheaded bastard to screw up this thread. Just what I would expect from someone who has no use for facts and, therefore, just what I would expect from you. Now that you've announced your intentions, who cares? Except for you, the rest of us have evolved to the point we have opposable thumbs (though it's still an open question with Evans) and I think we know how to use a scroll wheel to bypass your crap. Ignoring you will be easy.

Fuck off! You're worse than useless.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/us/politics/16poll.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-ti...ch?ref=politics

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM156_battleground_questionnaire.html

Uh? You're attacking me with links?

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
We've already determined that we are going to use neutron bombs on a different thread. As for turning this thread into a flame war? What else are American barbarians for?


As in previous military campaigns, such as widespread use of chemical warfare that kills off all the local population, unattended machinery, electronics etc soon start burning.
You'd have to get a large force of ground troops in very soon after a neutron bomb annihilation of that local population to prevent fires. But I'm sure the Pentagon, in one of it's ghoulish departments, has thought about this.
You tell me what American barbarians are for. I can't think of a positive use.
Buy hey, there are just as many barbarians running other military industrial complex's. The US sure doesn't have a monopoly on it.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/...s.php?ref=fpblg

Do click on the link at the bottom of the page.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

I would also suggest you spend some time with that link to the Dianne Rehm show which focusses on the Constitution and the survey taken. It's a truncated show as NPR stations are on a pledge drive week. Many facts not covered in the survey are discussed in the show's interview.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42538.html


Quote:
Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell went on Fox News Channel Tuesday night, where she blamed the national media for interfering with her campaign and swore off any further interviews with news outlets outside her state. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42526.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42510.html

http://www.politifact.com/


Quote:
Beck links clean-burning stoves to plot to "build global governance" http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201009220011

Pages

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading