Different Shades Of Right

Although this blog is primarily right thinking and all the authors are right of center, some further to the right then others, even the rightest of the right can still disagree on application. Thankfully most here are adults and very little “card checking” goes on, the few instances where it has happened (you know who you are) those opinions aren’t worth much anyway. But what makes a blog like this fun is how different opinions, all coming from either a conservative or libertarian perspective, all mesh with each other.

Some here have brought up Ann Coulter as a standard barer (to them) and someone who’s opinions they admire. For my own self, there are a lot of things she says I agree with, others are just nuts. But mostly what I like about Ann is her uncanny ability to cause maximum discomfort and constipation within the prog community, she has it down to a science. And in case you haven’t been paying attention Ann has come out as endorsing Mitt Romney.

Naturally, the primary season is time to slug it out, not only between the contenders but even amongst the conservatives of this blog, which candidate is more conservative, which candidate is more electable, do we even need a conservative to win, all inquiries worthy of debate, because all the other experts, pundits, and arm chair prognosticators are at it as well:

I was stunned when conservative author Ann Coulter endorsed Mitt Romney for president. I love Ann. I even named her in my tribute song honoring Conservative women, “Our Girls.”

Why would one of my conservative heroes select a liberal-lite to run against the Mike Tyson of political opponents? No, I am not suggesting that Obama would bite off the ear of our presidential candidate, but Obama is a Chicago-style, no-holds-barred politician. If your opposition brings a political stick, you bring a political gun. That’s the Chicago Way.

As chairman of the CampaignToDefeatObama.com, I have taken heat from folks on our side angry because of our ad exposing Romney’s liberal choices and tendencies.

Folks, here is the deal. Romney is not a conservative. Yes, Romney has made some conservative choices. But they seem to have come after he has been dragged kicking and screaming to the conservative side of the street.

I had never heard of Lloyd Marcus before, but I’m glad I found him. Not much I can quibble with him on, maybe this:

Intellectuals in our party such as Coulter and others are rallying around Romney because they fear that America will not elect a pedal-to-the-metal true conservative. They believe that we need a liberal-lite to defeat Obama.

That’s not it. I have zero doubt that Ann feels the same way I do, when I have mentioned here many times that in a stand up fight a true conservative would always beat a true liberal. Ann would much rather back Newt or Herman, or even Michelle if they did not have the baggage that they have. But she wants to win, she has not lost sight of the true objective, to send Obama packing.

The fact that Ann has not thrown her lot in with Cain, the more conservative of those electable, is that she feels the same way I do, he is not ready. Put him in the VP slot, within smacking distance of Romney to keep him on the straight and narrow.

I also found it interesting that in the video I posted, Ann wants Romney/Cain to govern for 8 years, then turn the reigns over to Christie in 2020, as if Cain would just stand idly by and allow that to happen. I wish Hannity would have pushed her on that scenario.

Like Bill Whittle and his cohorts over at PJTV, Ann is part of that cadre of folks, several in all, that I pay attention to for their take on things, but that does not mean that they are never wrong. And the fun part starts when 2 or more of those intellectual heavy weights disagree (sometimes vehemently) on an issue. There are several shades of right, and on most issues, the sweet spot is found in combining one or more of those shades.

Comments are closed.

  1. Poosh

    Romney, surely, has the bonus of being immune to the usual liberal attacks. The left have a very powerful method of destroying a conservative candidate by smearing them as conservative “fanatics” with various lies. You can’t do the same with Romney. He will gather moderate democrats to his cause and independents. He will keep some democrat voters at home as in their minds he’s not too different from them. And conservatives will either vote for him because they believe he’ll be kept in check, or vote for him cause they’d sooner vote for Hilary Clinton than see Obama succeed in destroying America (it’s not clear the damage he has done can be repaired, mind you, anyhow).

    Thumb up 0

  2. Mississippi Yankee

    Some here have brought up Ann Coulter as a standard barer (to them) and someone who’s opinions they admire.

    Bwaaaaaaahaaaaahaaaa

    Not sure how that particular sentence fits into the ‘point’ of your post (good post BTW) but it would appear “some” is livin’ in UR head

    Thumb up 0

  3. CM

    The left have a very powerful method of destroying a conservative candidate by smearing them as conservative “fanatics” with various lies.

    Liberal candidates don’t get smeared as liberal fanatics by the right? Come on, both sides do whatever they can to paint the opposition as being extremists. Mostly it’s untrue.

    I do think you make a good point about Romney keeping moderate Dem voters at home. If it’s between Obama and Romney, they’re probably not going to feel too strongly one way or the other.

    …. than see Obama succeed in destroying America (it’s not clear the damage he has done can be repaired, mind you, anyhow).

    Apparently from the last one onwards every President will destroy America beyond repair. If one side goes overboard screaming about how bad the President is, apparently the opposition need to outdo them when they get their turn. I wonder how long that pattern will continue before enough people realise it’s alarmist hyperbole?

    Thumb up 0

  4. richtaylor365 *

    Not sure how that particular sentence fits into the ‘point’ of your post

    I get the feeling, by your comments, that you are unsure about most things. If you kept reading, the connection is fairly clear, to most people.

    Thumb up 0

  5. Poosh

    Liberal candidates don’t get smeared as liberal fanatics by the right?

    Even if that intent was true, which it isn’t, as I am not aware of anyone receiving the smears that (Bush/Palin/all neo-conservatives/ any conservative who is a minority receive), the right do not have apparatus. They have Fox News, talk radio and that’s it. The left have 4/5 other news networks, not to mention international news networks such as the BBC which peddle exactly the same lies and smears, not to mention the bulk of the entertainment industry/hollywood. I can’t even escape watching Glee (which I love) without their bullshit.

    The apparatus to smear someone as they smeared Bush, for example (as a stupid man, for example, or a warmonger) does not exist for the right.

    As always, all sides, as with every country, engage in petty smears, but what the american liberal left can do is far more powerful. And the right cannot replicate it. Not even Fox News can do what they do (and Glee, btw, is MADE by Fox).

    Thumb up 0

  6. CM

    Look how many lies are still told about Gore. Most people don’t have the first clue about what is true and what isn’t when it comes to that guy. Why? Because they read something on a right-wing blog and it immediately becomes their truth. There is no critical analysis or thinking involved. No independent research. Sure, that happens on the left too, no doubt. But I dispute that the right is the David to the left’s Goliath in that department.

    The right also did a great job of destroying Kerry. That election was very much his to lose, and he did lose (although of course he got more votes). Much of that was to do with smearing, and misrepresenting. Sure, some of it was also to with the fact that he was an uninspiring candidate (both H Clinton and Obama would have wiped the floor with him in the primaries, but the Dem options were weak then, like the Republican options are now).

    Also, more recently more extremists have risen through the Republicans ranks than the Democratic ranks. That’s not the media’s fault. They can only really report on what is in front of them. Who on the left has the shortcomings of Palin but is elevated to the highest level and considered a folk hero?

    Did you know that research showed that of the all main UK news organisations, the BBC was the most bias in favour of the Iraq War? I’ll see if I can find it. I was in the UK during that period and the reporting was appallingly woeful. It consisted mainly of uncritical verbatim quotes of Blair’s hyperbole. There was no critical analysis at all. It was embarrassing to behold.

    Fox isn’t just about the News Channel (which somehow the right manages to claim as the most watched, but also don’t include as part of the MSM (or LSM) – how does that work exactly)? Murdoch has deeper hooks into the Western news media than anyone in the world. By some stretch. And co-incidentally during the key stage of the drum-beat for war, editorials ran in 165 out of 166 of his publications advocating for war).

    You should also be embarrassed to admit to watching Glee. I know I am. ;-(

    Thumb up 0

  7. Poosh

    As you suggested Kerry was smeared I knew I was gonna stop reading. Because I know he was never smeared and that the right simply told the truth about him, I’m not gonna bother. I followed that closely, he was not smeared. I saw your claim that a study somehow said the BBC was bias in favour of the Iraq war, I laugh in your face. What a f*cking joke! Did John Pilger conduct that study. Not worth answering back, you’re clearly on another planet.

    I did not follow any smears on Gore. I would ask the conservatives here if Gore was smeared at all? Is this true?

    Thumb up 1

  8. Poosh

    lol! If you are thick enough to think the BBC are pro-Iraq war AND believe whatever BS claimed as such you have serious issues, and have an inability to reason. It honestly is that straight forward. I have a school friend who was in Afghanistan and not only did he confirm the BBC weren’t telling the truth there, they were anti-Iraq was for the soldiers in Iraq as well. I cannot have an argument with someone so fucking thick, and I mean thick, that you think the BBC are pro-Iraq wear. Ditto with some of the other issues. Why argue with a moron? To claim the BBC were pro-Iraq was is no more retarded than claiming the Fox News channel is a non-partisan (but unlike the BBC at least Fox News constantly inform you they’re partisan and wear their “biases” on their sleave, unlike the BBC).

    Why should I listen to anything or read anything you have to say to say? You can’t even understand the arguments people make, 1/5th of the time people are ripping out their hair because YOU go off on one, arguing against a point that person never made in the first place. And when someone stops dealing with your stupidity or stops reading you all together, that translates as “they don’t wanna debate the facts” in your head.

    It’s insane.

    Thumb up 0

  9. CzarChasm

    Poosh said:
    I did not follow any smears on Gore. I would ask the conservatives here if Gore was smeared at all? Is this true?

    I have no idea what CM is referring to there, but I would have to say that, generally speaking at least, no, Gore has never been smeared from the right. Is there an example or two out there where some pundit or right-wing commentator accused him of something that was later proven to be wrong? Maybe, but the fact is, the guy is as hypocritical as they come. He will likely be the first billionaire who made his fortune off of trading the completely useless, phony commodity known as carbon credits, meanwhile globe-trotting in his private jet(s?) telling private citizens and governments alike how to live “green.”

    As far as Kerry goes, one has to wonder how on Earth the right can be blamed for his “smearing” when in his own testimony before Congress he described his own actions as that of a criminal nature. In a country that follows the rule of law, that dude would’ve been buried under Leavenworth by now, which speaks directly to how far removed from the rule of law this country has devolved.

    I imagine CM was referring to the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth organization that came out against Kerry’s candidacy, though I don’t claim to be able to follow CM’s “logic” very well at all. If that’s what he meant though, people with his mindset have to ignore that the founder of that organization was saying the same things to and about Kerry back in the ’70s that he and his org. promulgated during the campaign. He and Kerry even debated on the Dick Cavett Show where John O’Neill (SBVFT founder) confronted Kerry on live TV with his lies about American soldiers and what did or did not happen in Vietnam.

    The truth is only a smear when it goes against leftists apparently. SBVFT had many contemporaries of Kerry’s from his (few) days in Vietnam that were eye-witnesses to the accusations made against him in the ’04 campaign. But CM knows better.

    As far as the OP and whether Cain or Romney or Perry or anyone is engaging in smear tactics, I’m at a point where I couldn’t care any less. Cain could be a serial adulterer for the whole 43 years he’s been married and it wouldn’t matter much to me as long as he could be counted upon to follow the Constitution. No former Chairman of the St. Louis Fed is a follower of the Constitution though. Certainly not a follower of founding principles, when literally all of the Founding Fathers spoke out vehemently against a central banking system.

    The only difference between all but one of the Republican field and Barack Hussein Obama can be measured in terms of degree, that’s all. They will all spend more than we can ever hope to take in. They will all stay entangled both politically and militarily in other countries’ affairs. They will all keep the status quo as far as taxation. They will all support the further militarization of law enforcement. They will all stand for the Constitution when it suits their purposes, and ignore it when it doesn’t. In short, they will all hasten the death of the republic. Obama will do it faster, which I think is better. Us frogs tend to wake up when the heat comes all at once. We sit there and boil to death when it comes slowly.

    The only person in the race whose positions can be measured in substance between Obama and himself is Ron Paul. Even though he’s been in Congress for decades, he isn’t *establishment* enough to win. Americans are sheep. Another four years of Obama might actually force them to evolve into sheepdogs. I might just vote for Obama on that premise alone. I prefer a quick death.

    CC

    Thumb up 1

  10. mikedomi39

    Even if that intent was true, which it isn’t, as I am not aware of anyone receiving the smears that (Bush/Palin/all neo-conservatives/ any conservative who is a minority receive), the right do not have apparatus. They have Fox News, talk radio and that’s it.

    Utter lie. Breitbart, Coulter, appear on non-Fox programs. Super-Pacs, astroturf in the tea party. Just a couple of examples.

    Thumb up 0

  11. balthazar

    Really Mike? Please explain the “astroturf” in the Tea Party rallies.

    I like how you can name those 2 that appear on other shows but totally leave out hard core leftists that are actual NEWS ANCHORS for networks and have no qualms about stating so.

    Before you get all in a tizzy, Hannity, Beck, Shultz, etc are OPINION shows and they make no qulams about stating so. Its a bit different than lets say Martin Bashir and Al fucking Sharpton.

    Stop being so intellectually dishonest.

    Thumb up 0

  12. Kimpost

    @Poosh

    Surely you must have heard about the western media drumbeat running up to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars? It’s been discussed countless times, and there really is little dispute, even amongst conservatives. The mainstream media was pro war. Now, that didn’t stay, but they certainly were – initially.

    CM was not suggesting that BBC or CNN stayed pro war. They didn’t.

    Thumb up 0

  13. Kimpost

    @Poosh

    On the swift boat vets. Wiki without being perfect by any means, has a short story of it.

    But I would imagine that the Swift Boat veterans weren’t the only thing on CM’s mind. Gore is criticised for his views on Climate Change and much of that criticism frankly is crazy. Sure he makes political statements, but most of the science he references is sound.

    Anyway, you know where Climate Change subjects go around here… :)

    Thumb up 0

  14. CzarChasm

    @Kimpost & Poosh:

    Why Kimpost would direct you to a Wiki piece when literally hundreds of hours of John Kerry and/or John O’Neill and the SBVT members are available on video for you to scrutinize their respective credibility for yourself Poosh, cannot be much of a mystery to anyone. To say that Wikipedia is not “perfect by any means,” and then go ahead and use it as a source anyway, is indicative of how unimportant truth and accuracy is to leftists when commenting on conservatives. One of the first scrutinies of SBVT’s ads that piece “addresses” is the following:

    Regarding the medal dispute, a Los Angeles Times editorial[55] stated, “Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues in the newsroom, we can say it outright: These charges against John Kerry are false.”

    The “medal dispute” wasn’t all that involved. Kerry tried to minimize the anti-American nature of a protest he participated in, in which he and several other Nam vets “returned” their medals by throwing them over the White House (I think, it may have been another venue) fence and admitting to it on the Cavett show from 1971 that I linked to earlier, but then saying during the ’04 campaign that he had only thrown the ribbons and kept the medals. His premise, he asserted, was that the medals meant something to him as he had taken fire and injury to earn them, and somehow throwing the ribbons was just a symbolic gesture, but him keeping the medals was the substantive evidence of his patriotism and fitness to lead the country. Well, oops, SBVT countered that assertion with his own words, which Kimpost’s Wiki link didn’t bother to highlight, so which I’ll do for you right here, right now.

    I haven’t had a lot of time to read and/or post here lately, but I’ve seen at least three examples in the last few days’ worth of posts where Kimpost is clarifying what CM meant when he said something or other. While it’s kind of cute, in my mind, Kimpost can’t speak for CM, and Wiki is the last source that should be trusted to speak for the truth of conservative people and/or organizations. All three of the aforementioned people/entities are agenda-driven and untrustworthy.

    CC

    Thumb up 0

  15. Seattle Outcast

    The left has been trying to get the “astroturf” label to stick for a couple years now, but not once have they been able to show that it’s true in the slightest.

    Go tell lies someplace else…

    Thumb up 0

  16. CM

    To say that Wikipedia is not “perfect by any means,” and then go ahead and use it as a source anyway, is indicative of how unimportant truth and accuracy is to leftists when commenting on conservatives.

    Says the guy with the swiftvets.com link which looks like it could have been made by Michael Moore.

    All three of the aforementioned people/entities are agenda-driven and untrustworthy.

    What. Ever.

    There is a reason ‘swift-boating’ has become a well-known term for smearing someone. And it was about far more than medals, we all know that.

    Thumb up 0

  17. CM

    Q: I would ask the conservatives here if Gore was smeared at all? Is this true?

    A: No, don’t be ridiculous! It’s only a smear if it ain’t true. But Gore is a fat leftist arsehole who puts his money where his mouth is as the High Aspostle of the Grand Religion. That’s the truth. Bringing that truth to The People is a responsibility. So no, absolutely no smearing.

    Ye gods.

    Thumb up 0

  18. CM

    Cain could be a serial adulterer for the whole 43 years he’s been married and it wouldn’t matter much to me as long as he could be counted upon to follow the Constitution.

    Obviously Vietnam medals are equally as irrelevant then…..

    But anyway, what does sexual harrassment have to do with being a serial adulterer? Or were you using any old example (medals, faithfulness to a wife, etc etc)?

    Thumb up 0

  19. Kimpost

    *sigh*

    Why Kimpost would direct you to a Wiki piece when literally hundreds of hours of John Kerry and/or John O’Neill and the SBVT members are available on video for you to scrutinize their respective credibility for yourself Poosh, cannot be much of a mystery to anyone.

    Yeah, I directed him there because I want to keep him away from The Truth ™.

    The Wiki.article was – IMHO – good enough to follow. The claims in it were clearly referenced. Frankly, it’s not difficult to find reasonable analysis of the SBVT’s general claims regarding Kerry. Most people seem to agree on the matter, and they are not on your side.

    If he wants to read more about it, there are threads on it in the Moorewatch archives, if I remember it correctly. Google is another safe bet. If he stays away from the most ridiculous right-wing blogs, he should be just fine.

    I haven’t had a lot of time to read and/or post here lately, but I’ve seen at least three examples in the last few days’ worth of posts where Kimpost is clarifying what CM meant when he said something or other. While it’s kind of cute, in my mind, Kimpost can’t speak for CM[…]

    :)

    Thumb up 0

  20. sahrab

    Your right it was far more than that: his lies about spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia listening to President Nixon (who wasnt President) deny any involvement in the country (as an example of America illegal action), his involvement in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War plot to kill a standing US senator (stated he wasnt with VVAW any longer but FBI survellience shows he was)

    Thumb up 0

  21. sahrab

    There is a reason ‘swift-boating’ has become a well-known term for smearing someone.

    “I can see Russia from my Home”

    Doesnt make it any more true, just a catchy statement.

    The term “Swift Boating” depends on your point of view. While a conservative knows what a liberal means by the perjorative, in the conservative mind it means using history and facts as a tool against someone.

    Thumb up 0

  22. sahrab

    Gore is criticised for his views on Climate Change and much of that criticism frankly is crazy. Sure he makes political statements, but most of the science he references is sound.

    Anyway, you know where Climate Change subjects go around here… :)

    Thats the second time you’ve done that (that i’ve seen). You throw in your environmental comments, but then like a bitch, you stamp on any comments by decrying about how the Climate subjects go around here.

    Jesus what a fucking pussy. If you dont have the balls to defend your stance, dont play gotcha with the remarks.

    Thumb up 2

  23. sahrab

    and he did lose (although of course he got more votes).

    What the fuck? Kerry recieved less votes, Bush (50.73%) beat Kerry (48.27%) by over 3 million votes in the popular and 35 electorally.

    Gore (48.38%) beat Bush (47.87%) by about 550,000 votes in the popular vote, but lost electorally by 5 votes.

    Funny how there wasnt an outcry about the electoral system until he lost. Most have had issues about the all or nothing system we currently use (a candidate gets the electoral district vote, even if they lose it, if they get the state win) but not the electoral system itself. Thos who understand the system realize without the electoral system, New York, California and a few other states would decide the outcome for the remainder of the nation (no representation).

    Thumb up 0

  24. CM

    Kimpost is right…..it’s rather pointless here, as most people are unable to engage their brains on the topic. They “defend their stance” by making unfounded accusations and spewing out long-debunked garbage that anyone with the capability and desire to undertake objective independent Google-based research would avoid repeating.

    Thumb up 0

  25. CM

    What the fuck? Kerry recieved less votes, Bush (50.73%) beat Kerry (48.27%) by over 3 million votes in the popular and 35 electorally.

    Of course. No idea where I got that from.

    Those who understand the system realize without the electoral system, New York, California and a few other states would decide the outcome for the remainder of the nation (no representation).

    I understand it, and it makes sense to me.

    Thumb up 0

  26. CM

    The study conducted by Professor Justin Lewis, Dr. Rod Brookes and Kirsten Brander of the Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies department of Cardiff University finds that the BBC was in fact the least “anti-war” in its news reports—even when compared with Rupert Murdoch’s Sky.

    The study reviewed the contents of prime-time evening news bulletins of the four broadcasters. These are the BBC1 news at 6:00 p.m., the ITV Evening News at 6:30 p.m., Channel 4 News at 7:00 p.m. and Sky News at 9:00 p.m.

    Among its findings were:

    * Over the three weeks of conflict, 11 percent of the sources quoted by the BBC were of coalition government or military origin. This was the highest proportion of all the main television broadcasters. The BBC used government sources twice as much as ITN and Channel 4 News.

    * The BBC was the least likely to quote official Iraqi sources, and less likely than Sky, ITV or Channel 4 News to use independent sources of news such as the Red Cross. Channel 4 used these sources three times more often than the BBC, and Sky twice as often.

    * The BBC placed least emphasis on Iraqi casualties, which were mentioned in 22 percent of its stories about the Iraqi people. Numbers of casualties received most prominence on Channel 4 News, figuring in 40 percent of its reports about Iraqis, compared with Sky at 30 percent and ITN at 24 percent.

    * The BBC was least likely to report on the opposition of the Iraqi population to the invasion.

    * Across all four broadcasters, the bulletins were three times more likely to present the Iraqi population as pro-invasion than anti-invasion. The exception to the ratio was Channel 4, where it was just less than two to one.

    Professor Lewis pointed out that the survey was “comprehensive” on the basis that previous research had found that “people are influenced by the general weight of TV coverage rather than by particular reports” from individual journalists.

    Giving examples of the BBC’s coverage, Lewis said, “The team found, for example, that when Tony Blair accused the Iraqi regime of executing British soldiers—a story Downing Street were later forced to retract—the BBC was the only one of the early evening news bulletins that failed to examine the lack of evidence to support it, or to report the rather embarrassing government retraction the next day.

    “And when it came to the many other stories from military sources that turned out to be false—such as the Basra ‘uprising,’ or the shooting of Scud missiles into Kuwait—Channel 4 was the only channel—rightly as it turned out—to offer a note of scepticism or caution. The BBC, ITN and Sky were, on the whole, much more trusting of US and British military sources.”

    It is worth remembering that before the 2-million-strong anti-war protest on February 15 in London, the BBC deputy director of news, Mark Damazer, sent an e-mail to all newsroom staff requesting that certain categories of journalist not attend the march and rally in Hyde Park. Those instructed not to attend included anchor BBC news presenters such as Jeremy Paxman of the BBC’s flagship “Newsnight” program, newscasters Huw Edwards, Fiona Bruce and journalists including Political Editor Andrew Marr.

    As well as these broadcasters, the e-mail banned all presenters, correspondents, editors, output editors and “anyone who can be considered a ‘gatekeeper’ of our output.”

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/bbc-j10.shtml

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/nov/06/broadcasting.politicsandthemedia

    A further study (by the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) reached the same conclusion.

    Fox News channel is a non-partisan (but unlike the BBC at least Fox News constantly inform you they’re partisan and wear their “biases” on their sleave

    No they don’t. They consider themselves to be fair and balanced.

    Thumb up 0

  27. sahrab

    Kimpost is a fucking pussy. He wanted to get his Environmental dig in, but hides behind the “There’s no reason to disuss it” excuse

    Thumb up 2

  28. CM

    His comment was entirely in context and entirely relevant. The ball-less pussies as those who want to get their constant anti-science anti-AWG digs in, but run away at the first sign of detail or when they are asked for anything whatsoever to back up what they say. No balls there. But that’s because they are emotional, ideological, evidence-free responses. There IS no reason to discuss climate change with people who are willfully ignorant. Not just willfully ignorant, but proudly ignorant. So not only was Kimpost’s response relevant to what he was responding to, his additional comment about futility was entirely accurate.

    Thumb up 0

  29. Kimpost

    Thats the second time you’ve done that (that i’ve seen). You throw in your environmental comments, but then like a bitch, you stamp on any comments by decrying about how the Climate subjects go around here.

    Jesus what a fucking pussy. If you dont have the balls to defend your stance, dont play gotcha with the remarks.

    Geez, someone’s in a mood. well, I enjoy pussy anyway, so I guess being called one isn’t bad. ;)

    Question: Do I believe that many Climate Change skeptic’s are anti-science? While I think that Gore mostly has gotten his references to science right?

    Answer: I do, but that’s not possible to elaborate upon without providing examples. Given how previous attempts of having such discussions around here have failed miserably, I didn’t bother. And frankly, this thread/topic was (and isn’t) the place for it. We’ll have to wait for the next time someone (Hal?) decides to write on the topic (and then we’ll have to be quick about it, if we wish to make our voices heard before the inevitable JimK shut down…).

    Thumb up 0

  30. sahrab

    So not only was Kimpost’s response relevant to what he was responding to, his additional comment about futility was entirely accurate.

    Once again it was the tactic of a pussy, he wanted to get in his slant or take on environmental matters without having to support it. And your hanging on his labia like a diseased wart.

    But now that you’ve condoned the Hit and Run tactic as a valid disucssion tactic, guess we can expect and edit from you, when you took issue with Posh doing the same* above.

    *Note There is a difference between what Posh did and KimPosts comment. Posh directed his, and the futility of discussion, directly to you. KimPost directed his to the entire board as if there is not dissenting opinion about Global Warming and Man-Mad Global Warming.

    Thumb up 0

  31. sahrab

    Hypocrit much ¿
    <blockquote. The ball-less pussies as those who want to get their constant anti-science anti-AWG digs in, but run away at the first sign of detail…
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    So not only was Kimpost’s response relevant to what he was responding to, his additional comment about futility was entirely accurate.
    So its ball-less pussies when someone disputes the Man-Made Global Warming, but its “entirely in context and relevent” when Kimpost does it?

    Thumb up 0

  32. Kimpost

    I know, Gore used some footage (not facts) from the Hollywood blockbuster, but that’s a minor detail, isn’t it?

    I never said that An Inconvenient Truth was flawless, though. It was however, much more factual than many (bloggers) suggested it was.

    Thumb up 0

  33. CM

    Once again it was the tactic of a pussy, he wanted to get in his slant or take on environmental matters without having to support it.

    He’s supported it many times before. I’ve never once seen Kimpost run away from a climate change discussion, here or at MW forums.

    But now that you’ve condoned the Hit and Run tactic as a valid disucssion tactic

    I’ve already explained why I don’t see it as such.

    Thumb up 0

  34. CM

    So its ball-less pussies when someone disputes the Man-Made Global Warming, but its “entirely in context and relevent” when Kimpost does it?

    They certainly are if they’re never able to substantiate their claims, and run away (or lamely claim ‘conspiracy’ and ‘fraud’) whenever they are challenged on their opinion. As far as I’m aware Kimpost has always been able to back up his opinions on the topic, and he doesn’t rely on a whole lot of nonsense.

    Thumb up 0