EMAIL ME FOR YOUR VERY OWN BRACKET. VICTORIA@KPAM.COM
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Baghdad Time
VICTORIA TAFT
Links
- Victoria Taft Will Speak Before Your Group! Contact her at victoria@victoriataft.com
- Victoria's Favorite Shoes, Oregon Home Grown Oh!Shoes
- Victoria's Favorite Day Spa: The Waldorf Center
- Victoria's Dentist: Dr. Laura Matin
- Victoria's Jeweler: Judith Arnell
- Victoria's Environmental Air Quality, Air Conditioning and Heating Specialists! Her Guys at AAA Heating and Cooling
- Victoria's Favorite Restaurant Selection Ciao Vito's
- Oregon's Conservative Majority Project
- The Portland Motor Vehicle Alliance!
- CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS HERE
- IRAQ WAR MYTHS
- LEXIS-NEXIS
- Buy Your AWESOME NEW OREGON FLAG Paraphenalia here
- Ted Knew
- Debunking Portland
- Victoria Taft's TransFat Offset Business
- When Will Bill Bradbury Leave? The Watch has Started
- The Oregon Catalyst
- Oregon Watchdog
- Orbusmax
- Junk Science
- Multnomah County Republican Party
- Sound Politics
- Oregonians for Immigration Reform
- Numbers USA
- Daniel is Right
- Allen of Salem
- Northwest Republican
- Rob Kremer
- Rino Watch
- Drudgereport
- Michelle Malkin
- Politico
- Freedom Works Oregon
- Cascade Policy Institute A Free Market Think Tank in Portland
- Evergreen Freedom Foundation of Washington State
- War Footing: Ten Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World
- Michael Tanji
- Thomas Joscelyn
- American Congress for Truth
- US Central Command
- Blogs of War
- AMERICA SUPPORTS TROOPS
- Democracy in Iraq
- Global Terrorism Map
- US Government Spending
- Walter Reed Blog
- <$BlogPreviousItemTitle$>
15 comments:
I thought you might mention Christopher Ward, the former treasurer for the National Republican Congressional Committee, but I guess not.
I guess stealing a million dollars from the GOP and putting it into his own account is more of an achievement to be admired than anything else, by this administration's standards.
You're right, iknowhowtospell, in that theft and personal enrichment would be admired by a presidential administration. You're just about 7 years and change off... remember pardoning Marc Rich for a large campaign contribution? Seems an order of magnitude MORE unscrupulous since a Democratic president pardoned a criminal for money. But that's years ago so we can't include it in the Final Fool bracket.
I'm not going to forgive Bill Clinton for his mistakes either (he made lots). I've stated repeatedly here, for the record, that I feel Clinton was far from perfect. I have absolutely no illusion that he was the greatest guy ever.
But yes, you're correct in that we can't include it here because it was seven-plus years ago.
There's this claim of "intellectual honesty" that some, like Victoria and Sean Hannity, like to throw about, but when the shoe is on the other foot, nary a mention is made ... Ward was never mentioned ONCE on this blog, for instance.
Not that it makes whatever "Democratic" scandals more palatable, because two wrongs certainly don't make a right, but it does make the "intellectual DIShonesty" a little more obvious from time to time.
Perhaps that's true... in fact, it probably is. But my point in bringing up Marc Rich was in response to your comment that stealing money for his own enrichment is something that would be an achievement admired by the Bush administration's standards. I think that's a false statement and I brought up Marc Rich as an example of a presidential administration demonstrably taking a bribe. If you have some instance of the Bush administration stealing money (or committing any criminal adctivity) to enrich itself, please share. Otherwise, refrain.
I preface these with the caveat that I'm not an expert on the finer points of all of these, but a rough sampling of samples might include these two:
$600 Million diverted from Katrina housing to pay for ... state owned casino and resort facilities.
Audit: U.S. lost track of $9 billion in Iraq funds
These might not quite fit the bill of "personal enrichment" the way the Ward case does, but the bottom line is this: corruption results in money that belongs rightfully to Group A being transferred elsewhere to those to whom it does not belong.
It's part of the culture of corruption that I feel we have only *begun* to discover with the current administration.
And yes, I'm aware of the Democrat who had all that cash in his freezer.
The Final Fool award should go to
THE DRIVE BY LIBERAL MEDIA
For giving Barack Hussein (Liberals think he's JESUS) Obama a total pass up until recently. Even Liberal Saturday Night Live is not on the Obama bandwagon.
The New York Times and even KATU 2 should be included in this for thinking that Operation Chaos was a Joke. Its no Joke. KATU 2 your the Jokeeeee.
This "Operation Chaos" stuff is nonsense. What is this, "Fight Club"?
I totally respect you, iknowhowtospell, but your citations don't have anything to do with your point.
In the first instance, the "federal government" approved this $600 million expenditure. While the blogger ties this to the Bush administration, "the federal government" could just as easily mean some senator or congressman with enough clout to lean on HUD. The Bush administration is emphatically NOT the entirety of the federal government and there's no indication in the blog that any Bush appointee was involved in this transfer of funds. So I'm forced to be skeptical of the relevance of that particular citation, meaning no disrespect to you.
In the second instance, "inefficiencies and bad management" doesn't have anything to do with the Bush administration. The inspector general said that the provisional administration of Iraq was riddled with inefficiency and mismanagement but this doesn't even indirectly translate to Bush (or any part of his administration) being enriched in any way. The inspector-general doesn't seem to have alleged that the misspent funds were given to pro-Bush corporations or anything. Once again, meaning no disrespect, I can't see how this citation proves a culture of corruption.
If your point is that much is focused on Democratic transgressors and not Republican ones, I've already conceded that point to you previously and see no purpose in you trying to prove something that I already acknowledge as true. However, that some part of the federal government improperly transferred money from Group A to Group B or the Coalition Provisional Authority mismanaged its funding proves only that some portion of the federal government, which could have notihing to do with the Bush administration, is riddled with corruption and mismanagement.
Do you have examples that more directly tie this corruption to the Bush administration itself? Or are the rest of your examples more indirect, alleging that this or that portion of the federal government did something wrong and thus, the executive branch is to blame? I'm not trying to claim that the Bush administration is pure and clean, mind you... I just want more specific and clear evidence before I concede the point to you. I am wholly willing to concede if you find something more damning because, as I just said, I have no illusions that the current administration is immune to corruption and underhandedness.
Keith, I am not trying to insult your intelligence. What I am saying is that having taken those classses was a real eye opener for me. Therefore, yes, I am much more knowlegable on the issue. (Even though I am a terrible speller)But, since having made my case here doesn't convince you I am encouraging you to educate yourself and then draw your own conclusion based on scientific facts and evidence.
And if you like I will find find you a better citation on that. Maybe something for you to link to. But it will have to wait because its late and I'm getting up early for the Obama rally tomorrow. Cheers
...didn't the last comment in this conversation take place in a different blog entry? But nevermind.
I'm certain that you're more knowledgable than you were before you took the class (at least I would hope so) although much more knowledgable in relation to me is something for which you bear the burden of proof.
As to the rest, you seem to presuppose that I'm not already basing my conclusions on scientific facts and evidence. Such presupposition seems to reflect the opinion that if my scientific facts and evidence don't match up with what you believe, I need to be educated until my facts and evidence lead me to your conclusions. Suffice it to say, I believe this is a wholly erroneous supposition.
Give the Obama mob my best wishes! :) I might be devoutly and fanatically conservative but since the Republicans selected a nominee that I feel to be unworthy of the White House and wholly unqualified to represent the Republican party in a national election, I'm flipping a coin on election day: heads for Obama, tails for McCain. I really AM that disgusted with the nominee of my own party. Meaning no offense to Democrats but electing McCain, in my eyes, is just like electing a Democrat because I have no confidence that he's capable of standing up for what I see as morally correct positions. When I read Obama's campaign literature, his written positions impressed me to the point that I walk around campus with a "Vote Obama" sticker on one of my binders.
Sorry, I totally went off on a tangent there. But I solemnly swear that I meant every word of it.
Your right I put it in the wrong blog by accident!
Anyway I'll copy most of my response here but we can take this back over there if you want.
You want me to CITE my statements. Give me a break. I couldn't nake this stuff up and blogging to you is not the same as wrighting a research paper. The scientific evidence I have given is true. I know it because I have studied it, and written reearch papers on it.
My Professor is a leading researcher in the field. BUT alas it IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to educate yourself. Until then you don't even have enough of an idea of how the global climate functions to form a scientifically based opinion. Your statements reflect that youve heard a few things, that, sound to me like their right out of sean hannity's or rush limbaughs platbook. They are certainly not grounded in science!
But anyway I could drop sources all day and it won't change your opinion. You will continue to claim that its all one big elaborate hoax, or that you know more than the vast majority of scientists from around the world.
But here is a source for the volcano information I promised:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72
Objection: One decent-sized volcanic eruption puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than a decade of human emissions. It's ridiculous to think reducing human CO2 emissions will have any effect.
Answer: Not only is this false, it couldn't possibly be true given the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these CO2 records would be full of spikes -- one for each eruption. Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend.
I suppose next week you'll be defending holocaust denial. (Maybe not, but its just as rediculous)
However, jonny, the one making a claim bears the burden of proof. Thus, it isn't my responsibility to prove that I'm educated but your responsibility to prove that your sources say what you claim.
Oddly enough, I've not listened to Sean Hannity in over 8 months and the only comment that Rush has really made on the subject is that it's absurd to believe that we, who cannot even accurately predict the weather, can deliberately affect the climate. Since I didn't repeat this sentiment, your supposition that I derive my ideas from either of the talk show hosts you've named is, to say the least, wholly incorrect and ignorant.
Drop sources all day? You haven't bothered to drop a single one! You've referenced facts that you don't cite or source but that doesn't qualify as dropping sources or scientific evidence. I'm getting mildly tired of you blowing hot air. At least you finally semi-sourced your volcano assertion (although I had to dig through your source to find the proof which indicates an inadequate citation). Interestingly enough, your source says that carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air and tends to collect along the ground. So, Mr. Wizard... if your source's claim about CO2 is correct, how does a gas that's heavier than the surrounding air accumulate in air? Just being facetious, by the way... but it's an interesting thing to contemplate.
I'll have to ask, however, that you resciend the Holocaust denial statement. It is one of the more obscene ad hominem attacks against people who raise scientific objections to the global warming hysteria and I feel that it's quite out of bounds. Unlike the Holocaust, which is decisively documented in such a way as to be impossible to seriously question, this anthropogenic global warming is largely theory and remains scientifically in doubt. But beyond the absurdity of the claim, denying the occurance of mass murder on an unimaginable scale doesn't even come close to questioning scientific evidence. Until you have the moral fortitude to apologize for such an immature and malicious accusation, I feel no obligation whatsoever to take you seriously. Ad hominem is the last refuge of someone who lacks any legitimate arguments.
I don't need to source the information I am putting on here. I got A's in all the climate classes I took. And all of the concepts I have explained to you are not the least bit controversial in the academic community. You wan't to say that certain scientists that refute global warming have an argument against it. The problem is you don't know enough about it yourself to say what that argument is. Its funny too, because that's exactly what you said about war protesters.
If you don't have the power to refute the facts I have presented you, then you can't make make your case. End of story
But first, I will answer your question. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air. In fact if its released in large quantities it will not mix with air and form carbon sinks at low elevations. It is normally found in air in trace proportions, mixing by energy transfer- or motion. The release of excess carbon by fossil fuel burning and deforestation has caused carbon loading in the atmosphere. Because carbon is an intrical part of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, the increased carbon load increases this effect.
If you don't have the ability to source or cite the information you have presented to me, then I don't have to regard it as anything more than your opinion... and thus don't need to refute it. End of story. And I once again reiterate that you have no legitimate claim to be taken seriously by me until you resciend your Holocaust denier comparison. That, too, is the end of the story.
Incidentally, I'm proud of you for getting A's in all your climate classes (although I'm forced to take your word for it because there's no way to verify) but getting an A in every history class I've ever taken doesn't mean I can throw out any factoid or claim I want and expect it to be accepted without question. And it's worth pointing out that you're a random person posting comments in a blog so to have any authority in any matter you must prove your facts first.
Well, jonny, there's a little problem with your idiotic assumption that I don't know enough. I've been able to prove any assertion I care to make if challenged on it. You studiously refuse, claiming that anything you say is common knowledge and doesn't require you to provide evidence. It's a clever debate tactic but it simply earns you my contempt.
As to your last comment... you know what the word "facetious" means, right?
Post a Comment