Shady

Wal-Mart closing a unionized store in Quebec is just another example of Unions destroying the industries or businesses that provide for them. As well as destroying the members they're suppose to be helping. Where ever you find a dying industry, or dying business, you'll find a union close by.

I don't think he misled anyone. Throughout the campaign, he insisted that Afghanistan was the "good" war.

No, so-called error. For example: PALIN: Says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as Alaska governor, asking "only" for reasonably priced rooms and not "often" going for the "high-end, robe-and-slippers" hotels. THE FACTS: Although travel records indicate she usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers come standard) overlooking New York City's Central Park for a five-hour women's leadership conference in October 2007. With air fare, the cost to Alaska was well over $3,000. Event organizers said Palin asked if she could bring her daughter. The governor billed her state more than $20,000 for her children's travel, including to events where they had not been invited, and in some cases later amended expense reports to specify that they had been on official business. So the AP admits that "Although travel records indicate she usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor" So travel reports back up what she said. But because once, her and her daughter stayed at a higher end hotel, it's somehow counted as an error in her book. Ridiculous. The rest of the so-called errors are similar in manner.

What you posted doesn't refute the fact that they found very litte, 6 so-called errors in her 400 page book. It took 11 AP reporters to investigate. But it also leads back to my initial question. How many AP reporters fact-checked Obama's book? Exactly.

What I said is true. They're recommending that women in their 40's NOT get mammograms. If it displeases you to hear this, I'm sorry. But don't shoot the messenger.

You're quite misinformed. Climate change data dumped SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation Times

It's even worse than first thought. But I'm sure Michael will continue his strident defense, on behalf of the true believers. Climate change data dumped SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation Times

No it hasn't. You're lying again. Stop lying. You've already been proven wrong.

Global warming? Look at the numbers Last week, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies -- whose temperature records are a key component of the global-warming claim (and whose director, James Hansen, is a sort of godfather of global-warming alarmism) -- quietly corrected an error in its data set that had made recent temperatures seem warmer than they really were. The hottest year since 1880 becomes 1934 instead of 1998, which is now just second; 1921 is third. Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, only three in the past decade. Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel burning caused the Great Depression.

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

No, you're lying again. The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans. Got any more lies to debunk?

You're sbsolutely false. Sun's Activity Cycle Linked to Earth Climate When the sun's weather is most active, it can impact Earth’s climate in a way that is similar to El Niño and La Niña events, a new study suggests True believer, you need to allow science a place in your life.

Seems like it was the pro-global warming scientists who were afraid of inclusion in the process, and are afraid of what might come of it.

Wrong. America barely had a troop presence in Afghanistan for the previous several years. I hardly consider that trying to pacify the country. And the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan thanks to the help of their rival superpower. Then you're an idiot. The Karzai government recognizes the need for women's education. The Karzai government also refuses to give Afghanistan up as a safe-haven for Al Qaeda. Those are two huge differences. And if things go your way, they'll have complete political power as well. Well done.

I'm amazed that we still have people in this forum defending the dishonesty of the so-called scientists in question. I'm also amazed that we still have people accepting the now proven incorrect premise of man-made global warming. I guess they're the definition of true believers. If these type of emails were discovered from scientists tied to the tabacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking, instead of these so-called scientists tied to global warming, can you imagine the media firestorm? And do you think the true believers in this thread would continue to defend them as meaningless information? It's like trying to talk rationally with Jim Jones' followers.

You're exactly right. Unfortunately it doesn't suprise me that closet Taliban supporters exist, even in this forum. Mainly for a couple of reasons. First, their rabid and often illogical anti-Americanism. Second, their pacifist beliefs and moral equivalence, that all violence is wrong, no matter what side you're on, also rabid and illogical.

In my opinion, in today's terms, it's more Libertarianism vs Statism. Or to break it down further, personal freedoms vs government management and control.

It was people like you that claimed there was a 'consensus'. It was people like you that claimed there is no doubt about man-made global warming. Now you want to backtrack and pretend like you accepted a legitimate division within the scientific community, now that you've been caught up in the great global warming web of lies. Nice try. Fix what problem? There isn't a problem to fix. That's the whole point. These emails prove cover-ups, falsifying and manipulating data, to frame the debate under a false premise.

Yes, it is. Look at the statistics. Who is this so-called medical establishment you speak of? You mean the specfic people picked by the Obama administration to put together their death panel recommendations? Wouldn't you consider the American Cancer Society part of the "medical establishment?" And they're against it. So are many, many other doctors and organizations. I wonder. Can a woman sue the government if she is diagnosed with breast cancer when she turns 50, that otherwise could have been prevented with a mammogram 6 months, or a year prior to her birthday? Seems fair.

Shouldn't they be erring on the side of caution? And no offense to anyone in thie forum, but to categorize a woman who's 48 as young is ridiculous. Also, another point should be known regarding the death panel. Women 70+ are being told not to receive mammograms at all anymore.

Telling women not to get mammograms until they're 50 IS a life and death issue. The government shouldn't be so-called managing your health and welfare. It should be your business, and that of your doctor.

And that's what is wrong with getting the government involved in healthcare. If somebody wants to pay for their own mammogram at age 43, or 35, or whatever, they should have that right. They shouldn't have some government beauocrat telling them to come back in 7 or 15 years. I'd say that life and death issues are much more than just so-called nit-picking.

Another example of Bubber's "right-wing" media! Guy Benson at National Review extrapolates that at the Times, "it's unacceptable to direct readers to hacked private emails that fundamentally disrupt a lefty meme-of-the-decade, but it's totally cool to direct readers to hacked private emails of the lefty bete noire-of-the-year." Revkin's statement displays a profound double standard in the Times's reporting on leaked information. It managed, in the last sentence of the Caucus Blog post, to turn Palin's email leak into an attack. Yet in the case of the ClimateGate emails, which were obtained in a near-identical manner and contain similarly sensitive and personal communications, the Times suddenly finds ethical misgivings in publishing the information. The paper's reservations appear to be a veiled attempt to shield the left's global warming narrative from criticism Link

No. The point is, that the government shouldn't be discouraging women from getting mammorams. The consultation should be left to doctors and patients. The government should stay the f out of this subject. But like I said, government death panels are already beginning. I'm sure this is just the beginning. How many more tests for other groups will be deemed "unnecessary" by the Obama administration?

Exclusive: Angelina Jolie Not a Fan of Obama Barack Obama does not have Angelina Jolie's seal of approval. "She hates him," a source close to the U.N. goodwill ambassador, 34, tells the new issue of Us Weekly (on newsstands now). "She's into education and rehabilitation and thinks Obama is all about welfare and handouts. She thinks Obama is really a socialist in disguise," adds the source. "Angie isn't Republican, but she thinks Obama is all smoke and mirrors," the source says. Link Beautiful AND intelligent (and completely accurate). *sigh*