TheEEStory.com

Limbaugh:

"What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex."

Limbaugh lied about what she said, then said "it makes her a slut.."

Unipres - so when you your kids do something bad, do you tell them that because they did something bad, it "makes them a bad kid"? Read the statement above carefully.

"So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch."

Are these the high morals you're referring to?

Limbaugh:

"Those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for and they distracted from the point I was actually trying to make,"

Is that the apology you think is appropriate?

I disagree about your general statement about conservatives having "higher bar for morals and ethics". The particular morals and ethics for which conservatives subscribe and that are important to them do not recognize that that "liberals" consider things like the killing of innocent people, state required rape of women seeking a legal medical procedure, and torture are immoral to us.

Last edited Thu, 08 Mar 2012, 3:41pm by Yazzur

Come on Lens, your grasping at straws. Wiki is only fair to good for accuracy, and doesn't get into very many details on lots of issues.

Yes, the original thieves that stole the files have not been identified - that's why I said it was an unknown, secret group with unknown interests.

Everybody knows who the climatologists are, they publish all the time. They receive lots of hate mail, so they can't be hidden.

Regarding the use of Denier:

“Denial” is the term preferred even by many deniers. “I actually like ‘denier.’ That’s closer than skeptic,” says MIT's Richard Lindzen, one of the most prominent deniers. Minnesotans for Global Warming and other major denier groups go so far as to sing, “I’m a Denier!”.

http://ncse.com/climate/denial/why-is-it-called...

So why is it so prejudicial to call somebody something they prefer to be called?

Here is a link to the Climategate II files:

http://globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/201...

I've read several hundred of them, go ahead and have fun. It includes the context file.

What are your sources that show the selected 6000 emails out of 230,000 were not cherrypicked? What was the criteria for selection? It's ridiculous to believe that this secret group didn't cherrypick - you think they just selected these files at random?

Whoever your sources are that say they were not cherrypicked must have access to all of the files to claim that. Why don't you call on them to release all of the files?

Lens:

Don't depend on Wiki for everything.

"The message then includes a sample of cherry-picked quotes selected from a small handful of the emails focusing on apparent disagreements between the scientists, the workings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and attempts to block climate sceptics from securing documents from the scientists via freedom of information requests. Many of the same issues were highlighted in the 2009 release."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/...

This was called the "context file" in the release.

If you're going release a few thousand, then all 220,000 messages should have been released. Let the public decide which "quotes" are relevant. Why not let the public do the searches? It was an electronic file. I don't want to have to depend on some secret, unknown group with undeclared interests filtering my information.

You should know by now that I can cite my sources.

Lens:

These are the facts as I understand them:

Climategate I was released in November 2009, with 1000+ private emails plus some 80 or so other documents.

Climategate II was released on 22 November 2011 with several thousand emails, plus a "context" file of cherrypicked quotes.

Both I and II covered the same time period.

Do you have contrary facts?

If this was a "data dump", as you imply, why didn't they just release all the documents the first time, without the out of context cherrypicked quotes? On what basis were the 1000 emails selected for the first release? What were they trying to imply? Since this is all done in secret and hidden from journalists, for what purpose or why were those particular emails selected for release, only 1000 emails out of the 200,000+ the hackers claimed they had, for the first release?

Since you are so well informed, I think a lot of us would like answers to the above questions.

Lens:

I have no problem with whistle blowers, but what Gleick did was wrong. At least he admitted what he did.

The Climategate participants were also wrong, and since they have not come forward, and their identities have been kept hidden and kept secret by all those involved in the hacking, editing, distribution and publishing, that seems more conspiratorial to me than the UK governmental
investigation that found:

"The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jone’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change."

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog...

If the Climategate people had just released all of the information they had, instead of parsing and doing partial releases to create impressions that have mostly been shown to be false, I might have some respect for them as whistle blowers.

As it is, I consider the Climategate releases as just another political hack job similar to what the Heartland Alliance does in many of its releases.

I suppose Gleick's resignations are appropriate given all of the remorse and resignations from the participants of the stolen "climategate" emails. <sarcasm>

I suppose if you were insane you'd buy a Leaf with the intent to drive 40,000 miles per year for 25 years in the same car. That's 110 miles per day, every day.

That is not the purpose of a Leaf, so the whole premise seems strange.

I'd think you'd want something fun to drive if you were spend 1000+ hours per year driving the same car for 25 years.

"The Hyundai Lifetime Hybrid Battery Replacement Guarantee ensures that if the 2012 Sonata Hybrid lithium polymer battery fails, Hyundai will replace the battery and cover recycling costs for the old battery pack free of charge to the original owner."

So the cost of battery replacement for a Hyundai Hybrid is:

$0.00 per mile.

$0.00 lifetime.

Unipres:

I haven't found a link to the number of state employees with recent data, so I don't know how to judge your statement. I did find between 2002 and 2007 the number of state employees increased 2.5%.

It looks like the number of local government employees has grown from substantially from the 50's;

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_...

I agree that it is hard to get a handle on the real situation. Here is an interesting view of grant spending by year:

http://www.usaspending.gov/trends?carryfilters=...

To me it doesn't seem to show what you are saying, but it is only one source.

I"m a bit older, I go back to the S/360 days. I still have some of the old 8" disks around somewhere.

Dvelasco -

Oh, I don't know how old you are, but we did have computers in 1980, in fact a job I had early in my career was programing on an IBM System 32 (Fortran for scientific work & RPG for accounting). Even small businesses ran basic accounting on computers.

d-68:

I understand that, in fact the GAO has shrunk in size, the accounting functions have become much more efficient. Administrative costs have go down. I don't see management as being that much more efficient.

Many of the jobs in Federal Government are not all that different than they were in 1980 - Defense, Veterans Services, we now have homeland security which is a whole new department,Justice - those all require "boots on the ground" employees.

Spending as a percentage of GDP hasn't changed all that much in 50 years - 20% of GDP. This, with a huge increase in medical costs.

To keep things in perspective, the Federal Government workforce is now about 1/2 Million less that the 1980-1990 time period, and the non-military Federal Workforce is essentially the same as it was during that time period.

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/Tot...

Population has increased from 226 Mil. to 307 Mil., 35%, since 1980.

The talking point that government has gotten too big doesn't hold water IMO. The fact is, it's health costs that are the problem. US spends 16% of GPD on health costs, the rest of the OECD 6-11%.

If you want to stimulate small businesses and entrepreneurs, that is the place to look. Controlling health expenses to equal the more expensive countries in the rest of the world would do more than any modifications to the tax code. (But that needs to be done, too)

After you take the insurance off the 3,625 income, with subsidies, that leaves 1260 dollars/month net for housing, food, utilities, transportation, retirement savings, and all living expenses for a family of 3. It'd be difficult to find a Section 8 unit for much less than $500, so that leaves $760. of which 676 is food stamps and lunches. That leaves $84 for everything else.

It's not impossible to live like that, but that doesn't look like a luxurious lifestyle by any stretch.

Wasmaba,

Carter is a first class person, I respect his commitment to human rights and helping the poor.

Unfortunately, the presidency is an office where being a fine person doesn't necessarily mean they are a fine president. Johnson, Nixon, were SOB's, but each in their own ways were effective leaders, I only consider Nixon effective for his first term. I know people that knew Jerry Ford and said he was, for the most part, a really nice person, but he was not a very effective leader.