President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 13, 2007 04:25 PM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

“How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?”

–Dwight D. Eisenhower


190 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread

  1. The brilliance of George W. Bush.  In the same talk he called Chancellor Merkel “Angela” (a verbal back rub?) and said Japan when he meant (we presume) Germany.

    WHO ELECTED THIS FOOL, ANYWAY? My God, he couldn’t debate his way out of a paper bag or 7th grade debating class.

    What an embarrassment.

                  1. as opposed to this “I know you are but what am I” kind of discourse.

                    I am willing to listen to your substantive arguments–but this kind of crap is very off puting.

                    1. And I am sorry, but I am honestly trying to find out if this is what liberals believe.  And if it is, how does a liberal avoid looking foolish in the process?

              1. Like OQD said, if it’s your opinion then yell it from the mountaintops for all I care.

                You keep asking these questions like no one will answer them with a simple “yes.”  Well here’s your YES for a second time.

                I believe a majority of Americans were duped into voting for Bush in 04 and a minority of Americans in 2000 (but in states w/ electoral votes adding up to 271) were as well.  While certainly there are people who voted for Bush out of ideological alignment w/ him, I believe that the repub campaign machine tricked enough people into voting for Bush even when it was clearly against their (and the nation’s) best interest.  I believe the majority in 04 made a foolish choice.  So yes, said majority are fools in my opinion.

                If you want to say the same about 06, be my guest.  But remember, every single one of us went to the voting booth to elect an individual candidate in 2006 in each of this country’s 435 congressional districts.  It was those candidates, spread across 435 constituencies that gave us a Dem House (and Senate obviously), not just one guy at the top of the ticket as was the case w/ Bush in 00 and 04…

                It wasnt just “Democrats” that won in 2006.  It was 233 INDIVIDUALS who won election to the House and 49 (51) to the Senate.

                1. “While certainly there are people who voted for Bush out of ideological alignment w/ him, I believe that the repub campaign machine tricked enough people into voting for Bush even when it was clearly against their (and the nation’s) best interest.”

                  So, when people vote for Democrats, is it becuase they were duped into voting for them? 

                  Further, why do you assume that people were fooled?  Could it be that they wer given two options and chose the best option, which in this case was Bush? 

                  1. “So, when people vote for Democrats, is it becuase [sic] they were duped into voting for them?”

                    Again, if that’s what you believe, good for you.  There’s no doubt in my mind that people have been tricked into voting for  the “wrong” candidate of either party.

                    And, why do I assume people were fooled?  Why wasnt it just a choice between 2 options?  Good questions Foggy.  Problem is, that when I answer questions like this, I get paid for it by the University of Colorado. So here’s the free version.

                    In 2004, the public made an irrational choice in reelecting Bush.  That doesnt mean they should have elected Kerry, but reelecting Bush didnt make sense.  Why?  Simple.  His econmic approval ratings were low.  His handling of international issues was poorly viewed by the public.  His handling of domestic issues was marginal at best, as viewed by the public.  I would give you links, but most of my polling data requires a subscription or is owned by the University, hence, not available to the public.  Sorry.  But these are things that even watching Fox News you and everyone else should have a sense of. 

                    Yet, in 2004, the public said YES to 4 more years of mediocrity.  Why?  Because I believe they were fooled into doing so.

                    And, it’s not like I think every election works this way.  1988 comes to mind.  1980 and 76 do as well.  Maybe even 92.  The point is that when I say voters were fooled, I have specific reasons for doing so.  I dont believe they are fooled every election, nor do I think they were fooled every time a Repub is elected.  But in 2004 I certainly believe they were.  Sometimes it is a choice between 2 options.  2004 was not that simple…

                    1. I see where you guys think Foggy is only trying to get your goat, but I also see where he’s asking a question that I often come up against with some of my far leftie friends.

                      I don’t believe that I give the impression that if someone disagrees with me, that I feel that they’re stupid or unaware.  I think that they just value different things, and it’s all good.

                      Seemingly, if you voted for George Bush, you simply must be gullible, dumb, or evil, according to the far left.  This isn’t acceptable to me, because I’m none of those things.

                      One of the most glaring cases of this is related to AGW.  It’s the only time in modern history where to be skeptical about a scientific possibility not only isn’t healthy, it’s heretical.  The reality is that the science is truly far from settled, and that we won’t know for probably hundreds or even thousands of years whether or not Co2 levels follow a natural uptick in temperatures, or vice versa, and yet, I’m being told daily that the only way to ‘solve’ the ‘problem’ is to pay more in taxes.  A lot more.  How can that be?

                      Is it possible to disagree without having to believe in your own mind that your opponent has to be flawed in order to disagree?

                    2. It is the speed and magnitude of its impact that has not been settled.  It is an objective fact that humans have dumped CO2 into the atmosphere at a level unprecedented since the emergence of aerobic life.  It is an objective fact that CO2 traps  warmth in a closed system.  The overwhelming evidence is that human generated greenhouse gasses are impacting the planet.

                      You may not want to believe. It may be against you economic interest to believe.  You may eve join the petroleum lobby and work to stop any moderation in CO2 pollution, but it is simply irrational not believe the science.

                    3. The first component can be proven (and has been).

                      The second can not because it involves multiple 100 year economic projections. We can not even project what is going to happen in a year.

                      35 scientists oppose the scientific consensus?  I can find more scientist that believe UFOs are abducting people.  I can even find a few politicians who are willing to push the pro UFO agenda. 😉

                    4. I thought it was based on fact. 

                      And how can the second point not be proven?  After all the pro-global warming is caused by humans crowd are using computer models to show how the weather will look 100 years from now… 

                      These 35 scientitsts may be wrong, but at least hold a debate and discuss the issue. 

                    5. that is replicable.  The projections are what the real debate is about, because they are based on models built on historical precedent and math.

                      Science is developing theories that explain facts.  A consensus means that scientists believe a theory is the best explaination of a collection of facts.

                      There has been an ongoing depate for 25 years: that is why there are only 35 flat earthers when there used to be thousands.

                    6. Look, I am willing to listen to the environmentalist’s evidence; I just want to know why the other side is not willing to listen to scientists that don’t agree that humans are causing global warming.

                      I have posted this before, but it is very timely. 


                      Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 2005 after they decided not to believe the scientific “consensus” that ulcers were caused by stress and lifestyle and found that they were actually caused by a bacteria.

                      The fact is the “consensus” can and many times has been wrong. 

                    7. and to tie back into our other conversation.  I do not “know”, the scientific community does not “know”, but we have to act decisively as if the consensus was absolute.  Since we can never “know” we must act on the best infomation available, information agreed on by 99% of scientists. 

                      There doesn’t need to be a debate.  If the people who do not believe the dominant paradigm can explain the evidence better, the coinsensus changes; you know a paradigm shift.

                      That is what happened on ulcers.

                    8. but we have to act decisively as if the consensus was absolute.

                      Why would we do that?

                      There doesn’t need to be a debate.


                      Who made you Pope of this dump?

                    9. Name another situation that involves the end of the world that “needs no debate” on what’s causing it?

                    10. science is about explaining the world.  Trying to come as close the absolutes that we can not know, but that do (may) exist.  Better to weigh the predictive value of the model than to debate them.  Objectivity vs. Subjectivity.

                    11. Science is about trying to determine hard-set laws of nature – infallible, by testing other possible theories against them.

                      That’s debate, right?

                    12. High school and some college.  I’m no scientist.  I’m also very capable of critical thought.

                      My father actually worked at NOAA and designed the software systems that predict solar flares.  He used to make fun of the cooling crowd, and would tell me often how insignificant anything we do on earth is in affecting thousand-year weather patterns. No shit.

                    13. “Science is about trying to determine hard-set laws of nature – infallible, by testing other possible theories against them.”

                      This is a definition of science I like

                      knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, as obtained and tested through scientific method.

                      The problem is infallibility can not be a measure. too much room to throw things out that have “predictive value.”

                      You are correct that testing, or for me replicability or predictive value, is the key element in science. 

                      As for Climate change we can test the key parts of the theory in a controled lab setting.  We can not however conduct planetwide expirements.  Instead we rely on mathematic modeling based on historic data and labortory relationships.  Because it is model not observation, it is less reliable, but that does not make it unreliable.

                      Personally I do not want to wait to be proven right, by then we will have climate driven conflicts in the world, I would prefer to act proactively to stop a problem before it begins.

                      The Pentagon thinks climate crisis is real and has a four star command dedicated to fighting problems steming from it.

                      If the military can plan to fight climate wars, I think it would be cheaper to plan to prevent them.

                    14. Great debating this with you today.  Way to be civil, you tree-hugging, commie pinko freak.

                      Just kidding – I appreciate your honesty.

                    15. .
                      that’s not a legit contest.

                      Real contests – like the X-prize, e.g.,
                      have a third party (KPMG, e.g.,)
                      hold the prize money,
                      hold the entry fees, and
                      engage an independent body to judge entries. 

                      This junk science website looks like the work of a dittohead trying to scam earnest researchers. 
                      Serious scientists know this is a joke. 
                      They are out to bilk Jr. High school kids. 

                      I’ll bet that, when the deadline for entries passes,
                      they let out with a big “April Fools!”

                      They will judge the entries themselves,
                      meaning that
                      all conceivable entries have already been judged prior to submission or evaluation.

                    16. If you provide the facts that prove that global warming is caused by humans, you win $125,000.00.

                      Seems simple enough to me. 

                    17. Everything you’ve just listed is a point of contention.  It’s absolutely not settled.  Galileo fought against ‘settled science’ at one point, as well.

                    18. if you can explain how the melting polar icecaps aren’t being affected by human-generated CO2, I for one am willing to hear it.

                    19. At one point, the polar ice caps were negligible, long before man was evolved.  Is it impossible that man isn’t certainly the cause of the melting this time around?

                    20. It is possible that man is not involved. it is also possible that Aliens built the sphynx.  Scientist speak in probabilities. 

                      It is highly probable, asymptotically close to absolute (that’s for you Foghorn), that humans are impacting the polar ice caps.

                      If you want to compare the speed of change in the last 15 years to anything that we know of in the geologic record: there is none.

                    21. I don’t think you can say that.  We know for sure that the earth was much warmer at the only other times in history when man wasn’t here.

                      That doesn’t approach “a near absolute” that man must be the cause, if the only other times it happened we were swimming in the ocean and (for some of us) mush less evolved than now.

                    22. There is science.  You might not agree with it, but it doesn’t mean that a plausible theory is absent.

                      This is what I meant in my post.

                      “Don’t talk to me about man not having caused global warming.  It’s settled.  There is no science on your side”.

                      Again, that simply isn’t true.

                    23. from pro-global warming groups.  And unfortunately from the taxpayers via funding to liberal universities and colleges. 

                      Al Gore stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars by scaring people to death about global warming.  How ethical is that?

                    24. or acedemic scientists who have no political agenda.  Most scientists care about science not politics. (there are exceptions).  And while universities have a liberal bias, the science disciplines do not. 

                      BTW who is pro global warming (aisde from folks in calgary)

                      The monied interests are clearly behind the petro economy and its interest in deny climate crisis.

                      Why do you bring up Al Gore?  He is not a scientist.  I thought we were talking about science.  As to the profits from An inconvenient truth, I think they go to a non profit, but I am not sure (and I don’t really care).  I am all for making a profit by being responsible.  Or are you saying that making money is bad?  Communist 😉

                    25. Just because it is supported by taxpayers, doesn’t change that fact. 

                      BTW who is pro global warming (aisde from folks in calgary).  I will clarify, pro-global warming is caused by humans groups. 

                      I am not talking about An Inconvenient Truth, I am talking about  this:


                    26. I was just kidding on the pro global warming comment.

                      I read the article and I’m not clear what you think is wrong.  Is it that he believes in investing his own money in alternative energy?  If you think that is a money making enterprise, let me introduce you to a couple of chineese energy stocks.

                    27. To tell the world that the sky is falling and the only way to fix it is to go green and then make billions in the process because people are buying stuff from your company seems unethical. 

                      As for NOAA, If their science is sound, then they shouldn’t mind having a debate with scientists who are questioning their results.

                      Here is what I am hearing from you in a nutshell:  “the ‘consensus’ of scientists on global warming is that it is caused by humans.  No debate is allowed on this issue.”

                    28. Here is what I am saying in a nutshell:  “the ‘consensus’ of scientists on global warming is that it is caused by humans.  No debate is nessary on this issue.  If you have a provable theory backed by research that posits a different conclusion, feel free to publish.  Let the strongest science win.”

                      That is not a “debate”.

                    29. If you publish you science and I publish mine, then scientist would have to debate who is right and who is wrong, correct?

                      Just like the ulcer issue I brought up before, scientists tried to debate the issue and were beat down.  the scientists then proved their theory and were published and found to be right.  If a debate would have happened and people would have listened to another point of view the solution would have likely appeared much earlier than it did.

                    30. Scientific “debate” happens in papers. 

                      I have a little experience from my time working on a Ph.D. in that pseudo science economics. I don’t like the word debate because it does not feel objetive.  In a debate you are on one side and you are opponent is on the other and you attack the others argument–there is no attempt to improve understanding of the absolute (a nod to yesterday).

                      Instead publish your paper, if you are right, eventually a weight of evidene will pile up and the paradigm will shift.  That is how human caused global warming became the consensus: it wasn’t a “liberal” plot.

                      I know from experience that when you are an outsider you are open to ridicule, but if you are right it only takes about 15 years to get your nobel prize.  I also know that most outsiders deserve the ridicule (maybe not, but I waswatching a Nova special on the Dover Intelligent Design case last night).

                      A little more rambling than I like but I was interrupted more than a few times writing this.  I appologize.

                    31. It is intellectually dishonest to say there is a real controversy in the lay media when there is not.

                      I watched this Nova special on the Dover Intelligent Design case last night that drove home alot of things about groups that attempt to promote science controversy where none actually exist.

                    32. You don’t get into a shouting contest on the playground….you publish your evidence and let other scientients look at it; challenge it; replicate it…and then scientist ACCEPT your findings, if your findings can be independently verified……it is not about belief, it is about evidence

                      With the ulcer stuff, the scientist showed the presence of the H-ploric (sp?)  in bateria in stomachs with ulcers; then they showed that the baterial infection was eliminated by antibiotics and then the ulcers were either healed or greatly improved.  That is evidence. That is the scientific method…

                    33. I am sorry that I posted before reading through the whole string…others explained the process much better than I …

                      didn’t mean to step on your posts

                    34. they tested it in 1982. they published in 1983.  They developed more studies in 1985-7.  and by 1993 their view was the new dominate paradigm.


                      Sounds like good science.  The same way human caused climate change has become the norm over the last 20 years (actually a longer period).

                      They didn’t try to muddy the watters in the popular press, they let the science do the talking.

                    35. I look at this as a case of science gone bad, after all isn’t science the pursuit of the truth?  When the scientific community refuses to look at alternate theories, until someone is “published” and proves them wrong, like you have suggested, they are doing a disservice to the cause of science. 

                    36. This comment of yours demonstrates how little you know of the scientific process. (Don’t feel too bad, most people have a cartoon version of science, but then, most people don’t pretend that they know more about science than scientists do.)

                      In short, science (and scientists) are constantly looking at alternative theories. Cautiously and carefully. They look for strong evidence before dismissing the current paradigm. They do not jump on bandwagons introduced by every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

                      Thus, back in the late 1800’s a few scientists were identifying what the role of CO2 in the atmosphere was. One or two even speculated that if industrial emissions of CO2 continued for a long period, this might induce warming.

                      It wasn’t until 80 or so years later that there was sufficient evidence to support this proposal. At that point, the scientists began to begrudgingly accept that anthropogenic CO2 could influence climate.

                      It was only this year (about 120 years after the initial propositions) that there was sufficient evidence to declare it was “unequivocal” that there was a human signature in observed global warming.

                      Thus, the current crop of nay-sayers are NOT offering a new paradigm. They are part of the horse and buggy crowd. THEY are doing a disservice to you.

                    37. You talk down to people who don’t agree with you. 

                      If you read my posts, I never said that scientist should jump onto bandwagons.  I said that they brushed these scientists aside without even a discussion.  They were not interested in looking at alternative theories. 

                      Can you give me a link about the 1880s scientists and their theories?  I would like to read up on it. 

                    38. Look, Foggy, you were the one trying to tell us how science is “supposed” to work. And you were wrong. I spelled it out nice and plainly.

                      If you want to have a productive discussion, I’d suggest avoiding anything that resembles a claim about expertise you don’t actually have.

                      As for the folks who are going to the popular media with their “alternative theories.” They are the ones failing to subject their “science” to the scrutiny of their peers. Scientists are more than willing to entertain alternative theories. But there must be a theory to begin with. If these nay-sayers “publish” in the popular press and avoid scientific journals, it’s not the responsibility of the larger scientific community to humor them.

                      As for your request, you might start with Svante Arrhenius. He had a pretty prescient scientific publication in 1896. Check out: Arrhenius, S. 1896. On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground. Philosophical Magazine 41:237-276 It’s available via

                      I don’t recall (grad school was a while ago!) whether it was Arrhenius, or a contemporary, who proposed the “greenhouse law” suggesting a mathematical relationship between CO2 and temperature.


                    39. Big Oil and Big Coal, a.k.a.  Big Hydrocarbon.  Don’t upset the $$$ applecart. 

                      As if Gore’s main interest in this is to make money.  Come on, he’s been working this topic for several decades.  After being screwed out of the presidency in 2000, Tipper suggested that he resume his work on this topic. 

                    40. Here’s a link for you.  Climate Audit .Org.  I find a pretty balanced counter-argument to the AGW theory.

                      I’m sure your next point will be some sort of ad hominem attack on the site, how someone associated with it is supported by an oil company, etc.

                      It’s a shame, because it’s just natural to try to poke holes in scientific theory.  It’s actually the nature of scientific study.  Except this one topic which is very much only a theory but is off limits to debate, lest you appear to be a ‘denier’ (an offensive term that intentionally equates someone who is skeptical about a scientific theory to an anti-semite).

                    41. Hate to do this, but it’s really creepy.  Here’s the full text of a Newsweek article from 1975.  Look at how the language and the catastrophe are the same, but from the opposite global phenomenon.

                      The Cooling World
                      Newsweek, April 28, 1975

                        There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

                        The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

                        To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

                        A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

                        To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

                        Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

                        Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

                        “The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

                        Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

                    42. In fact the most relavent quotes in this are

                      “Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.””

                      We didn’t know what was going on, science advances now we do.

                      “The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

                      “causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.”

                      Both of these quotes show how sensative we are to small changes.

                    43. LB,

                      Do you understand the difference between a popular magazine and a scientific journal?

                      BIG difference.

                      Or, do you believe everything you read in the MSM?

                    44. So am I stupid?  Do you really think I don’t know the difference?

                      What’s the difference now between the warming articles Newsweek prints and the cooling one featured?  They are both based on scientific studies and quotes from scientists.  They both predict doom and call for action about opposite catastrophes.

                    45. I would be interested in your view.

                      This also relates to why I do not think a debate is necessary when it comes to science matters

                    46. A news magazine like Newsweek compiles news, and breaks it down into small, easily digestible, unbiased (HA!) stories.

                      A scientific article is usually highly specialized theory, backed up with data from experiments performed by the author or their group, and sometimes peer reviewed.

                    47. I think Newsweek is less reliable than the local crackhead.  Remember the ‘Koran flushed down the toilet’ story?

                      But that’s a whole other box of nails.

                    48. LB,

                      Have you ever tracked down the scientific paper that was behind the Newsweek story?

                      If you did, you would know that the science behind the breathless stories in the MSM was actually quite sober and cautious.

                      For example, in the 1976 paper by JD Hays et al (Science v194 (iss. 4270) p1121) observed that:

                      “… the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate.” [emphasis added]

                      In other words, the actual science was NOT predicting imminent cooling.

                      In other words, don’t believe everything you read in the MSM.  But then, you knew that already, right?

                    49. I’ve been hearing “but scientists used to say we are on the verge of an ice age” for a while, but I had never seen the peer review papers or studies so I didn’t have as complete an answer as I would have liked.

                      I’ve gotten lazy on researching things BI (before internet).

                    50. If you take the time to read the paper by Rasool & Schneider in 1971, you would see that they assumed that pollution rates would continue to increase and they underestimated the radiative sensitivity of CO2. They acknowledged that if pollution decreased, then increasing CO2 could cause warming (of “only” 2degC!). But, since they figured industrialization, and thus pollution, would only increase, then they concluded this factor would overwhelm the CO2 effect.

                      Enact the Clean Air Act … reduce pollution … continue to spew CO2 … what would R&S predict? 2deg of warming.

                      Spot on!

                      In other words, don’t believe everything you read in the MSM!

                      In other words, when blowhards claim to know more than the world’s scientists, it would behoove the non-expert to check out the actual science, or at least withhold concluding that the vast majority of scientists are wrong.

                    51. It’s simple.  The middle class voted for a man whose agenda was against their own best interests.  That’s being fooled.  A vote for Clinton was, by and large, a vote for their own interests.  Hence, not fooled.

                      The Onion did a satire right after the 2004 election with a mythical voter in Erie, CO.  He was saying that although he had been laid off from the screen door factory, and his family didn’t have health insurance, by God, he wasn’t going to lose his guns. 

                      You see, he was fooled.

                    52. This full time caregiver job is distressing.  Although I have many snippets of my own time, I’m in effect, on call all the time.  Add we’ve had some things fail and need repair, that I’m slowing moving some stuff into the house, and figure out how to be a roommate in my folk’s territory has been pretty time consuming. 

                      Not sure what I would do on the beach anyway except look and feel deprived and old. Hard to believe I was a lifeguard there once…..

                      I am writing about being here and my growing up here.  I’m calling it “A Bayou Redemption.”  Doing some research, I found out that right outside and across the bayou, something historical took place.  Some cut and paste:

                      “In 1865 the government of what had been the Confederate States of America was no longer in existence.  The men of that government had prices on their heads for being traitors to the United States.  Judah P. Benjamin , the CSA Secretary of State, headed on horse back for the west coast of Florida pretending to be a poor farmer.  He was hoping to get a boat to the Bahamas and then to Europe.  He did get that boat, a small yawl, in Whitaker Bayou!  He dined with the Whitaker family and the next day, June 23rd, 1865,  headed out Big Pass.  He did make it to England, by the way.  Since the natural channel of the bayou, and Whitaker’s home were on the south side, I take the liberty of believing that the shore opposite our home was the scene of the escape.”

                    53. the change in tundra is measurable.  The reality is that if we don’t slow things down, we will face bigger problems.  You can argue forever on who or what caused it initially and if you choose to believe zillionaire oil execs over 90% of scientists, so be it.

                      I have yet to hear anyone say we (citizens) have to pay more taxes to fix it.  I have heard however, several democrats talk about stopping the pork this administration has given to big oil…they get tax cuts.  So let’s undo those tax cuts and the tax cuts for people like Paris Hilton and maybe we can put pressure on them to let people develop other sources of energy.

                      You can believe anything you want.  George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan were/are in the pocket of big oil.  And yes, I believe people were duped by the Rovian use of scare tactics and lies.  They are still doing it.

                    54. There are some liberals at the University of Colorado.

                      Are you on the clock, being paid by taxpayers, right now? Are you using taxpayer funding subscriptions to further your political agenda?  How is polling information paid for by the taxpayers not avalible to the public?  What about a state FOI request? 

                      I find it amazing that you say that the people made an irrational choice by voting for Bush.  Are they irrational simply because they don’t agree with your ideology?  Everything I look at shows that the economy was running strong (which is why the Democrats didn’t campaign on it in 2004) and hhis handling of foriegn (not giving into the UN or France)and domestic issues was to many people’s liking.  I think people voted for Bush, not because they were fooled by Bush, but because they were smart enough not to be fooled by Kerry. 

                      By the way, we all make spelling errors:

                      “That doesnt [sic] mean they should have elected Kerry, but reelecting Bush didnt [sic] make sense.  His econmic [sic] approval ratings were low.” 

                    55. I couldn’t care less about your or anyone else’s spelling errors.  This is just a blog after all.  I cite other people all effin’ day long (in the real world, not just here)…so, throwing in the occasional “sic” is just a natural habit.  I wasn’t being petty or snarky like you apparently feel the need to be now.  Sorry if that’s what you thought, but when you also have an English degree, a certain level of formality when quoting others becomes the norm…

                      Anyway…I couldnt help but laugh at the first part of your response.  Do you even know how much the “taxpayers” fund this supposedly “public” institution?  8.1%  A paltry 8.1%.

                      So, let’s imagine I am “on the clock.”  I’ve spent about 2 hours today screwing around on a few blogs.  Over the past month, my hourly wage averages out to about 15 bucks.  I of course dont get paid hourly, but for the sake of argument, lets just assume I do.  That means I owe the mighty “taxpayer” $2.43.  Do you only take cash or can I write you a check?

                      All kidding aside, I’m not being funded by any of your prescious tax dollars.  My paycheck says CU on it, but it’s paid by (non-government) grants and University donors.  Thanks to the oh-so-generous Bill Owens and years of Republican rule, the state certainly doesnt have enough money to fund almost any of the research that goes on here…

                      But, no.  I’m not “on the clock.”  I’m bored and you entertain me.  So unless you count the fact that I’m sitting in the basement of a University owned building that at one point decades ago may or may not have been funded by the taxpayers, you have no claim on my time or what I do with it, “on the clock” or not.

                      Also, how do you figure I’m “further[ing] my political agenda” by using private polls?  That doesnt even make sense.

                      Finally, if you manage to find any free polling info (since we’ve already been over why you’re not getting CU’s), you will see that by and large people we’re not happy with Bush when he was reelected.  They chose to vote for a guy who they didnt agree with on a number of issues they held as “important.”  That, my dear Foggy, is irrational.  I’m not talking about you here.  I’m talking about people who consistently said they disliked Bush on a myriad of issues then pulled the proverbial lever to reelect him.  This has nothing to do with “my ideology,” it has to do with rational and irrational behavior in the voting booth, which, oh-by-the-way, is one of the things I get paid to research.

                      Anything else?

                    56. Not accusing you of being snarky at all, I just found it very humorous that you pointed out my spelling error when you had a plethora of your own.  That’s all.

                      Yes, I do know how much the hard working taxpayers of Colorado support the “public institution” according to the University of Colorado System the taxpayers contribute 37% of funding.  Now, that is in addition to any funding that the university gets from the taxpayers via the federal government. 


                      “So, let’s imagine I am “on the clock.”  I’ve spent about 2 hours today screwing around on a few blogs.  Over the past month, my hourly wage averages out to about 15 bucks.  I of course dont  get paid hourly, but for the sake of argument, lets just assume I do.  That means I owe the mighty “taxpayer” $2.43.  Do you only take cash or can I write you a check?”
                      So in other words, yes you are blogging on taxpayer time.  Got it.  It is not the amount of money, it is the principle. 
                      “Thanks to the oh-so-generous Bill Owens and years of Republican rule, the state certainly doesnt have enough money to fund almost any of the research that goes on here… “
                      I guess if state taxpayers give so little, we should just tell them not to give nothing at all, shouldn’t we?  Talk about biting the hand that feed you. 
                      So unless you count the fact that I’m sitting in the basement of a University owned building that at one point decades ago may or may not have been funded by the taxpayers…
                      Yes, I do count this fact as important. 
                      Also, how do you figure I’m “further[ing] my political agenda” by using private polls?  That doesnt even make sense.
                      You are using information that was collected by a public institution and obviously has restricted access, on a blog, to advance your political ideology.  It seems self explanatory to me. 
                      Polls may say that they were not happy with Bush, but the biggest poll, Election Day, gave the victory to Bush.  Case closed.  Bush won, Kerry lost. 

                    57. It was about the foolishness of voters.  Who won wasn’t in dispute in 04.  We all know Bush won.  That wasn’t at issue.  How they arrived at their choice is the issue I thought we were talking about.

                      Second, thanks for the link.  I was talking about CU Boulder’s funding and forgot to include the link. 


                      The 8.1% is only state funding.  The 37% you cite DOES include  federal funding which is why the number is so much higher than  8.1%

                      “State appropriations represent 8 and 9 percent of the university’s total revenue in Fiscal Years 2005 and 2004, respectively, as compared to 12 percent in Fiscal Year 2003.”
                      Here you have it in plain English that the STATE funding of the University is pathetic.  As the number has not risen 30-odd percent in the last 2 years, this should clarify my point. 


                      Third, if you want to talk about principle, that’s fine.  The point was that I’m not “on the clock” (and aside from my office hours, I’m never really obliged to be “on the clock” at any specific time) at present and even if I was, given this state’s lack of commitment to higher education, anything I was costing them was negligible at best.  Further, I don’t get paid by the state so it was a moot point in the first place.

                      Fourth, who suggested the state give nothing?  I didn’t.  I can’t “bite the hand that feeds me” if said hand is only coming around at an 8.1% clip.  The reality is that high education funding in this state is pathetic.  You can’t expect a world class institution to operate if all it does is spend time fundraising.  And hey, maybe if the state took back it’s 8.1% I wouldnt have to listen to Owens and now Ritter yammer on about standards the University should have…  That would actually be nice.

                      Fifth, if you find importance in me sitting in the basement of Ketchum Hall, I’ll write you, or more likely your parents and grandparents, a check for the tax dollars they contributed to its building.  It may round up to a full nickle…but probably not…  Again, if you want to make the argument on principle, that’s fine.  Just know that the principle isn’t worth the keystrokes it takes to convey. 

                      And sixth, I’m using information that was collected with no use of public dollars and I’m not pushing any ideology.  Like I said, this is just entertaining and I couldn’t care less what you or anyone else here believes.  This all began with you questioning someone callig the voters fools.  Evidence shows that maybe they were indeed foolish by casting often irrational votes.  That’s not ideology, thats just an analysis of data…

                    58. People who do not vote the way you think they should are foolish.  If people do not arrive at the same conclusion that you do, they are foolish. 

                      As for the 37% number, that is the percent of the CU budget that taxpayers paid for.  Seems like a big chunk to me, but you seem rather ungrateful for it.  If you think state funding is pathetic, maybe the taxpayers should use their money elsewhere? 

                      As for who you get paid from, your check comes from where?  Does it come directly from the organization that gave you your grant?  No, it comes from CU, which the last time I checked was part of Colorado government, which was started by and is funded in part by taxpayers. 

                      As for the state stopping funding, if the amount is so small that you call it “pathetic” why should the taxpayers spend any money on CU?  My dad always said, that when you give money away is it better to give $10 to ten organizations or $100 to one organization?  The latter has more of an impact, so maybe we should take the money from CU and spend it on the Colorado National Guard, who could really use it.

                      Since I am a taxpayer, and my parents and grandparents don’t live in Colorado, you can give the refund to on of my favorite charities: http://medicinehorse
                      I will not make the argument on principle, it seems that you do not care about it. 

                      “I’m using information that was collected with no use of public dollars”. Are you 100% sure about this?  After all you are using a building that was built by the taxpayers. 

                      To wrap thing up, I do understand where you are coming from; you simply think that people who do not vote the way you think they should are foolish.  Maybe you have a bit of a god complex?

                    59. I recall in 2005 seeing just what the state’s contribution to funding higher education was at CU & CSU. The state claimed that about 30% or so of the funding for these universities came out of the state General Fund.

                      However, what they tried to obscure was that over half of that (or there abouts) was money that first came from researcher grants that was diverted to the General Fund and then sent back to the universities.

                      In other words, the researchers at our major institutions were responsible for as much of the funding as were state taxes. The researchers bringing in $ were more than paying for all the costs of their programs, and then some.

                      So, if someone on the faculty wants to take a few minutes to respond to a pest on a blog, we taxpayers really don’t have much to say about it.

                    60. I’m going to assume you never did well on standardized tests because  your reading comprehension and analysis skill is rather sad.

                      You STILL completely miss the point of what a “foolish” vote is.  It had nothing to to with what I think of another’s actions.  It had to entirely to do with when people cast their ballot for a candidate they don’t actually agree with. 

                      So, when I voted for John Suthers instead of Fern O’Brien last year, it was a pretty foolish vote.  It wasnt wholly rational.  Much the same, when Bob Smith of Anywhere USA who just lost his job because it was outsourced, can’t afford health insurance for his family, just lost a son in Iraq, and consistently responded to polls that he didnt approve of President Bush’s handling of the economy, yet, he still votes to reelect Bush, he too has made an IRRATIONAL and thus FOOLISH vote.  This is BASIC Rational Voter Theory.  I talk about this to Freshmen who have never taken a PoliSci class in their lives and THEY get it.  Do you?

                      And, it’s unfortunate you don’t understand the basics of how post-grad research at CU works.  I have a specific allocation from X number of organizations and grants.  Some are individual, some are joint.  In my case, they send the money to the PolSci Department who then gives the money to me.  It’s merely a transfer of funds.  So, AGAIN, I’m not being paid by your tax dollars.

                      Finally, if you’re really patting your state on the back for funding 8.1% if the University’s budget, that’s sad. “Why should the taxpayers spend any money on CU?”  Uh, Foggy…b/c that’s the way public institutions work.

                      Year after year this University has professors leaving b/c of this state’s lack of commitment to higher ed.  Conservatives like to complain about how liberal CU is.  Maybe if the state showed some leadership on funding CU, we could attract some profs of a conservative bent.

                      Anyway, I’m off to go waste your tax dollars and corrupt the minds of young Coloradans with my liberal views.  Just kidding…sort of.  😛

                      Have a good one Foggy.


                      The reality is that if voters only voted for candidates they agree with, the most votes any candidate would get is exactly one, from the candidate themselves.  The truth is that the voters look at the candidates and see which one they agree with the most and vote for that individual with the full understanding that they will not agree with the person they are voting for all the time. 

                      The only poll that really matters is Election Day.  NBC, ABC, FOX, and so on can poll till they are blue in the face, but those polls mean nothing in the voting booth.  People had a choice in 2004, Bush or Kerry.  The majority of voters thought that Bush was better than Kerry and voted for him.  It is as simple as that.  Completely rational. 

                      Your “Bob Smith” example is off on several points.  So Bob had a very bad year.  Lost his son, lost his job, can’t afford health insurance, and doesn’t like the economy, but still voted for Bush.  Maybe the reason Bob still voted for Bush is because he understands basic economics and knows that it is his responsibility to get a job and insurance and that president Bush is not responsible for getting him a job.  Maybe he understands that the reason that many companies outsource is because of the amount of regulations, taxes, and minimum wage laws the government places on businesses has hampered economic opportunity in the U.S. Maybe Bob believes that his son’s sacrifice was not made in vain and he knows that the terrorists have not attacked U.S. soil since 9/11 and it is better to fight the terrorists in Iraq than in the U.S.  Maybe Bob looked at Kerry and decided that he was a better choice.  All are rational thoughts, nothing foolish about it. 

                      Maybe the reason that college freshmen “get it” and I don’t is because they have limited experience in the real world and they are being indoctrinated by liberal professors. 
                      As for you getting paid, if you want to believe that that taxpayers don’t support you in any way, why do you care that the state of Colorado spends so little on higher education? 

                      Have fun indoctrinating the young ones with your liberal ideology on the taxpayer’s dime. 

                    62. rather than what your debate opponent says. And you wonder why no one believes you come here in good faith.

                    63. Go back and read any post to which you respond something like, “Okay, I get it, liberals think [insert absurd and ill-motivated conclusion here]. Those are all perfect examples.

                    64. How are those not valid examples?  Many liberals here feel that people who voted for Bush were foolish or irrational, correct? 

                    65. In 2004, the public made an irrational choice in reelecting Bush.

                      Says you. Obviously at the time, they didn’t believe that. Hey, in 1976, Carter probably looked like he was going to be a good idea, too.

                    66. You, LB, I have no doubt made a perfectly rational choice in voting for Bush.  But guess what?  Millions of others did not. 

                      I, and many others, cast a rational vote for Kerry.  You, and many others, cast a rational vote for Bush.  I’m not talking about us.  I’m talking about the sea of people who consistently said, “I don’t like X, Y, and Z about Bush…but I’m voting for him anyway.” 

                      And what does Carter have to do with any of this?  People hadn’t had 4 years to say, “I do/don’t like this guy” before they voted for him.  We had 4 years to come up with an opinion on Bush and a ton of voters ignored that opinion when they went to vote…

      1. Go to Square State and watch the debate between Caldera, Gardner the Minority Whip in the House)and David Sirota regarding Ritters Executive Order.  Sirota could have whipped these guys with 3/4 of his brain tied behind his back.  The hysteria from Caldera and the slick responses from Gardner are just to precious to miss.

                    1. I found some more info on Gore:


                      “Gore’s undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C’s, including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science course, and a C-plus in another. “In his sophomore year at Harvard,” the Post reported, “Gore’s grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush’s transcript from Yale.” Moreover, Gore’s graduate school record – consistently glossed over by the press – is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of “Inventing Al Gore,” he received F’s in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C’s. (Bush went on to earn an MBA from Harvard).”

                1. People were given a choice and they chose Bush.  you may not like the results, but the majority of voters in 2006 liked Bush better.  Does that make him perfect? no, but he was a better option than Kerry.

          1. Froghorn, you’re not trying to “understand” anything.

            You are trying to make snide commentary.

            If you actually wanted to understand, you would not present your conclusions (based on your self-psycho-analysis) before you got a reply to your “question.”

                1. Even physical constants have been shown to not be absolute.  (Newton)

                  Even if there are absolutes (I believe in objective truth), our ability to percieve and understand them is through a subjective filter.

                  Only G-d has the omniscience to see the objective: man must aspire to objectivity because our tools are limited.

                  1. that there are cases when molesting a child is okay? 

                    that there are cases when cold bloded murder is okay?

                    that there are cases when ethnic clensing is okay?

                    1. A 19 year old dating a 16 year old is child molestation in some states. in others a 60 year old can marry a 14 year old.

                      Cold blooded murder? That is not a term I understand.  The difference in Murder and justifiable killing is one of definition.

                      Ethnic clensing.  Do you mean genocide or relocating.

                      I have my personal views, ones that I am more than willing to push, but I am not so arrogant as to believe they are absolute objective truth.

                      Personally I find old men–young wome (girls) creepy and laws should be consistant across the states.  However historically we have felt more comfortable with child brides than we do today.

                      I personally think all physical violence is “wrong” (I was a pacifist after I sent somebody to te hospital), but letting violence happen to yourself or others is also wrong (I stopped being a pacifist after somebody sent me to the hospital).  Murder is just extreme violence.

                      Ethnic clensing is an amalgam of behaviors that I generally find wrong.  Stragely the hebrews engaged in ethnic clensing when they entered Canaan.  So our views of ethnic clensing have clearly evolved over time. 

                    2. A 30 year old man molests a 5 year old child. 

                      A man murders a random person (someone’s wife, husband, child, etc…) as a gang initiation ritual. 

                      Hitler tried to ethnically cleanse Europe by murdering millions of Jews. (the

                      If there are no absolutes, these scenarios have to be okay with you under certain circumstances.

                    3. Ones that I am willing to enforce on others.  all of those examples would qualify as things I see as wrong.

                      That does not invalidate the view that there are no known absolutes.  A majority, even unanimity, of opinion does not mean something is absolute.

                      The reality is we have to live with ambiguity, make decisions decisively as if our opinions were absolute (but not confuse the opinion with truth), but, here is the key, change our opinions based on new information.

                    4. I do believe in absolutes.  I think it is absolutely wrong to rape a woman, molest a child, murder someone, or ethnic cleanse millions of people.  No ifs ands, or buts.  I wouldn’t care if the majority is standing against me, wrong is wrong in cases like these and many more. 

                      By the way, are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?


                    5. “Either they are wrong, or on certian cases you would have to think they are okay.”

                      The point is I THINK they are wrong.  In fact I am CERTAIN they are wrong, I would also stand against the majority, but that does not make them absolutes.

                    6. the cold blooded murder of innocent Iraqi children, aka collateral damage, by your own country.  Ditto, the Japanese children in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

                      Specific examples do not make absolutes. That’s the point.

                    7. Any I never said I did, right?

                      Collateral damage, by definition, is unintended or incidental damage during a military operation.  Cold blooded murder is intentional killing someone.  Big difference. 

                      As for absolutes, specific examples like raping a woman or molesting a child are prefect examples of why there are absolutes.  It is absolutly wrong to molest a child.  Peroid. 

            1. I am trying to understand why liberals think that someone who voted for Bush is a fool. 

              If you can explain, please do so.

              I, by no means think Bush is perfect, but to this day I think he is better than what Gore or Kerry would have offered. 

      2. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

        Sadly, W. fooled the majority 2x. Ppl who voted for him, just need to owe up to it.

          1. “Talking” with you is like trying to hold mercury, it just keeps moving around.

            People voted for Clinton two times partly because he was competent and ARTICULATE.  That’s the point of my original post. 

            1. what does that mean exactly? 

              Jefferson wasn’t an articulate president.  Didn’t even give the State of the Union in person. 

              And we will have to agree to disagree about Clinton being competent. 

              By the way, how is Florida? 

            1. NAFTA, the 1996 Communications Act, welfare reform, smaller government.  Things conservatives and the business community have been clammering for. 

              I’m not entirely happy with his administration, but it sure was nice to have a selection of jobs, low inflation, and not be involved in a real war.  As to Monica, well, Big Dogs gotta roam…..

              Yeah, overall, I agree.

              1. is what created a middle class.

                Before him, there was the robber barons of the guilded age which resulted in the depression. 

                There is a saying: You can have wealth in the hands of a few or you can have democracy. You cannot have both.

                The right wing has been trying to bring back the aristotic plutocracy.  If that is what you like, that is your right.  But a lot of us prefer a country with a large middle class, where power in not in the hands of a few.

                1. Who did these “robber barons” rob?  The truth is they didn’t rob anyone, they provided a service that people wanted and were willing to pay for. 

                  Look at Vanderbilt.  He was an incredible innovator who made both shipping and travel much cheaper.  And the masses rewarded him by booking trips on his ships and shipping products with his company.  Capitalism at work, I love it. 

                  Your quote comes from Louis Brandeis, one of the most ardent liberals of the 20th century.  I am not surprised that he would say such a thing.

                  I would disagree that it is the “right wing” who is trying to bring back an plutocracy, but rather that it is the liberal elites (Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid) who are trying to set up the plutocracy with themselves as the head. 

              1. While I think that Carter should be much higher in the academian list, I am not sure that I would put him up @ #3. That is quite a bit. In fact, I would have to rate Eisenhower and JFK way ahead of him.

                But in my mind, he is the most under appreciated president while reagan is by far the most overrated of all time. Thank God that historians will almost certainly have a different view once his full records  are open (and the godship that pubs give him). Carter Solved a number of problems such as the massive inflation that Nixon and Ford saddled him with. In addition, he dealt with the Energy crisis that we were hit with for a 2’nd time (the first time, Nixon should have done a LOT more about it). Carter really pushed alternative energy, dereged the airlines as well as oil/gas. His handling of the afghanastan was dead on. Likewise the same of panama canal.

                But you also have to knock him for what he did; In my mind, his worse mistake was when he issued an EO to prevent breeder reactors to be used in commercial power plants.  Poppa Bush tried to fix that, by starting the IFR, but Clinton killed (also Clinton’s biggest mistake). Personally, I did not mind that Carter allowed the hostage situation to run its course (it would have been over sooner except that reagan’s treason of cutting a deal with Iran in the october surprise). But the problem was the rescue attempt. Carter tried to control it. He was  a sub engineer and skipper. That means that he was an elite person. But it does not mean that he has a clue about how to conduct an incursion and rescue.  That was 1 for the history books of how NOT to do things( Poppa Bush did it up right, while W. has followed the carter approach and basically botched Iraq/Afghastan; In fact, I would argue that W. was far worse). Carter was a very good pres, but #3 is far too high.

    1. Seventh grade debating class are tough…those kids know the rules and do okay….I don’t think GWBush could make it in a 7th grade debating class…..if he ever had to take a 7th debating class, we might not be in the mess we are in today….

      See, in debate, kids learn all about EVIDENCE….and each debator gets to challenge weak EVIDENCE.and has to defend its own stuff…you can’t get away with anything in a 7th grade debating class…

      I’d like to see a seventh grade debating class…any seventh grade debating class challenge Bush/Cheney to a debate.

      Resolved: The United States should attack Iran.

        1. ..but even if Bush is of higher IQ than Kerry, he never learned how to use it. A brain needs data and experience to make intelligent decisions; he has spent his life avoiding filling up his gray matter.

          Functionally, he’s a fucking moron. My deceased father-in-law with an eighth grade one room school house education had a lot more functional intelligence than the squatter in the White House.

          A lot more.  And a lot more empathy.

          1. Bush is smart, he simple is not an elequent speaker, so people tag him as stupid. 


            Bush is a moron and he was still able to beat the Democrat candidates in two different presidential elections.

            Which is it?

            1. Bush is somewhere in the middle.  He has intelligence, however, upon entering the office, not much experience, especially in foreign affairs.

              He brings in advisors that helped his father but when 9/11 occurs, Bush and the advisors make poor decisions for priorities and planning for the future – this illustrates his limited intelligence on these issues (which happen to define our country in the new millennium).

              Nobody enters the Presidency by being a blathering idiot that liberals portray Bush as.  Every President should have the wisdom and foresight to avoid what Bush has created.

              So, we have an Everyman President that appeals to certain voters because of it.  People who voted for Bush in ’04 weren’t stupid, they didn’t like Kerry. It would be interesting to see if Bush could run for a third term, what the results would be – but that is a separate issue.

              1. I do think he had significant experience in normal foreign affairs (trade issues and the like) but has come across as stubborn (likley because he is) to many allies. 

                I really don’t think he could get a third term.

  2. I mean President Bush vetoed more domestic spending, and the most callous part is he did it from Air Force One.

    Representative David R. Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, denounced Mr. Bush for rejecting the health and education bill, which embodies the values and priorities of the Democrats who now control Congress.

    “The only reason the president vetoed this bill is pure politics,” Mr. Obey said.

    “The same president who is asking us to spend another $200 billion on the misguided war in Iraq and is insisting on providing $60 billion in tax cuts next year to folks who make over a million bucks a year” is “now refusing to provide a $6 billion increase to crucial domestic investments in education, health care, medical research and worker protections that will make the country stronger,” Mr. Obey said.

    This only reinforces his complete disconnect from the American people and our values. Damn, Bush Sr. looks like a great President compared to this guy.

    1. Fiscally responsible. Tried to develop a post cold war architecture for foriegn policy.

      Made some major mistakes (Afghanistan comes quickly to mind) and there are places I have different spending priorities (education), but on the whole he did what I expect a president to do.

      He’s one of the reasons I used to be a moderate.  Bush the yonger is the reason I am a frothing at the mouth liberal. Not really, but since conservatives are so interested in “us and them”, I choose to be them.

      1. To this day, I think that Carter and Poppa Bush are about the 2 most underrated presidents. Fortunately, time will change, and their policies long term effects will be known. Somewhere down the road, they will be better appreciated. I have been amazed that reagan and W. (both total idiots, but reagan has a group that has moved him to god level and the same group TRIED hard to get others to think the same of W.) are rated higher than either of these 2. They both had to deal with the crap that other presidents heaped on them (carter had nixon/ford while Poppa had reagan’s).

  3. < a href="">Huffington Post has the story and the text of the censure motion. This is a party-level action, not a Senatorial one.

    H/T to SLOG.

    1. I love my fellow Californians…

      I just wished they realized that Feinstein wont even likely be running for reelection in 2012 and can do whatever she pleases since they just reelected her by an oh-so-close 60-37 margin.

      I love how we (Californians) get stuck in the 2003 Recall mindset wherein we think we can punish elected officials right after we reelect them.  This is just silly…

  4. “Bush is vetoing bills that would add money to health and education, claiming America just can’t afford to spend the money, but he has no problem signing bills that spend four times as much money on the Pentagon. Bush just asked for another $200 billion for his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he can’t/won’t spend another $10 billion on health and education programs for Americans since, according to him, $10 billion spent on Americans is an obscenely high figure. I just refuse to believe that this kind of thing polls well for the Republicans at all. People are sick of this war, and for Bush to outright refuse to help Americans while shoveling the money to foreigners, I mean, wow.” h/t Americablog

  5. Democratic U.S. presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich may have been ridiculed for saying he had seen a UFO, but for some former military pilots and other observers, unidentified flying objects are no laughing matter.

    An international panel of two dozen former pilots and government officials called on the U.S. government on Monday to reopen its generation-old UFO investigation as a matter of safety and security given continuing reports about flying discs, glowing spheres and other strange sightings.

    “Especially after the attacks of 9/11, it is no longer satisfactory to ignore radar returns … which cannot be associated with performances of existing aircraft and helicopters,” they said in a statement released at a news conference.

    The panelists from seven countries, including former senior military officers, said they had each seen a UFO or conducted an official investigation into UFO phenomena.

    The subject of UFOs grabbed the spotlight in the U.S. presidential race last month when Kucinich, a member of Congress from Ohio, said during a televised debate with other Democratic candidates that he had seen one.

    Former presidents Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter are both reported to have claimed UFO sightings.

    Read the rest here:

  6. “I don’t care that Rudy Giuliani is a thrice-married serial adulterer. I care that there’s one level of scrutiny for Democratic presidential candidates, and an easier one for Republicans, when it comes to personal lives.

    Greg Sargent notes that the Washington Post’s David Broder chatted with readers late last week, and there was a brief-but-interesting exchange.

    New York: Will you and the media ever apply as much scrutiny to the Giuliani marriages as you have done to the single Clinton marriage?

    David S. Broder: I plan to leave both subjects alone.

    Is that so?

    It’s odd, given that Broder has devoted quite a bit of energy to the Clintons’ marriage, during Bill Clinton’s presidency and after, while giving Giuliani’s scandalous personal life a pass. But now the Dean of the DC media establishment plans to leave both marriages alone. How big of him.”


    1. I’m not a Clinton fan by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s at least possible that they deserve some credit for keeping their marriage together.

      1. That is one of the first times I have heard a conservative say that.  My few conservative friends, who also claim to be Christians and are very active in their church, get livid because Hillary should  have left him and (QUOTE) “we could never respect a woman like her.” 

        I admit I was too stunned to say anything back.  Every Christian church I have known, including catholic which was how I was raised, always puts “preserving the marriage” first and foremost.

        I respect that you can say what you did.

        1. .
          I’m also a Catholic,
          and I have not heard my church teach “always” put “preserving the marriage” first and foremost. 
          My church said that there are some good reasons for dissolving a marriage,
          even for annulling some of them. 

          Of course, these marriages are rare, and the justification for dissolution often included extreme violent crime. 

          In a case of a single instance of sexual infidelity,
          yes, my church teaches restore and forgive and repent. 

          In some cases of serial or multiple infidelities over decades,
          conceivably including offenses by both partners,
          which may or may not be the case with the Clintons,

          my church has sometimes said –
          after investigating – that
          there was never a valid marriage in the first place.
          In some of those cases,
          the emotional abuse and disrespect can be extremely traumatizing. 

          My church did teach “hold the marriage together at all costs” in the past,
          and in rare instances,
          that teaching caused extreme suffering.

      2. .
        It is possible they have held their marriage together as a vibrant, loving synergism.

        And there are also other possibilities.

        I hope their marriage is not a sham,
        but I also hope that they aren’t subjected to the level of scrutiny needed to determine if it is. 

        Just today, I read ugly rumors on a related topic.
        What got folks so angry that they would say such things ?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

54 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!