Artful Dodger: ahh, the alter ego raises his head

Two Republican politicians have urged people to eat at a US fast food chain, amid a row over gay marriage.

Crowds flocked to outlets in several states after ex-presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee urged supporters of "traditional values" to eat at Chick-fil-A.

Boss Dan Cathy said in July he backed the "biblical definition of a family".

Mr Cathy also told the Baptist Press he thought those who supported gay marriage were "arrogant".

Chick-fil-A restaurants in cities across southern states of the US were reported to be bustling with customers who turned out in support of the chain.

The Houston Chronicle reported branches in Houston, Texas, were packed and another restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia, was said to be so busy two employees were needed to direct traffic in the car park.

Customers posted videos online expressing solidarity with Chick-fil-A, and social media sites including Twitter hummed with contributions to the discussion. One observer, Billy Hallowell, tweeted: "This country is so intriguing... and divided."

The effort on Wednesday was labelled "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day", in response to criticism directed at the restaurant chain in the wake of Mr Cathy's comments.

"The goal is simple: let's affirm a business that operates on Christian principles and whose executives are willing to take a stand for the godly values we espouse by simply showing up and eating at Chick-fil-A," said Mr Huckabee, a Baptist minister and former governor of the state of Arkansas.

So what's the kick back to Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee??

Iamon lyme: Like Maggie or Bush. I think Obama has more brains then to have another war at the moment. Your military acknowledge that the USA cannot afford logistically to have another war now, or in the future until it pulls out of Afghanistan.

Surely with the technology today regarding satellites, drones and other forms of spying and other 'intelligence' (I'm talking about actual intelligence, not the 'WMD' fiasco type) .....

... Those who can tell, can tell the difference between a nuclear power plant radiation signature and that of a weapon.

I'd hate to see (now that Syria is no longer really a threat) Iran being bombed and that radiation being released into the environment, causing disease, mutation and death (to men, women and children {including unborn.. which I thought were sacred to conservatives}) for years after.

... I don't think Iran has the ability quite frankly to clean up such a mess. We've seen during the later part of the 20th century thousands of children getting leukaemia through 'kids' playing with nuclear 'toys'. That's why we have an agreement not to test nukes above ground.

anyway.. with precision tech the ability to target and kill any launch system is much cleaner. Iran isn't exactly abundant with long range missiles.

By the way, if the Iranian nuclear plant was really just for supplying power, it would have been up and running by now. What they are trying to do goes well beyond simply turning turbines for generating usable power... it's like if you saw a tank in my driveway, and I told you it's just for getting to work and back.

Besides, they don't need a nuclear plant for their power needs. With all of their oil and no self imposed restrictions, they could easily build an oil burning plant for generating electricity.

So with Irans leaders making no bones about how they want to destroy us, it seems to me they are almost begging us to turn their nuclear plant into a giant crater.

And guess what? Iran has already offered itself (its nuclear facility for generating clean affordable electricity) as a target for a military strike... if Obama decides he needs something like that to bolster his numbers. The only thing that could mess up that plan is if Israel beats him to it.

At this point I don't think any amount of spin can help Obama get re-elected. His only hope is to either start a war, or make a significant military strike close to election time.

But I doubt even that would work. He's burned too many people, and not many are curious to see what he might "accomplish" as a lame duck president. Considering everything he was willing to do before a re-election bid, what would he be willing to do if there was nothing to lose in a second term?

The Col: I doubt an original thought has ever passed your lips either. Is there really such a thing as an "original" thought? If you think you've had one, share it with us so I can show you that your "original" thought is really and old idea.

Obama hasn't had an original thought either. So what? What follows from that?

As for this nonsense statement: "...I don't think anyone knows what Romney really thinks or believes, he will basically say whatever that specific audience wants, or what is politically in his best interests"

If you are suggesting that this is unique to Romney, then you are mistaken. MOST politicians are like this. Clinton was a classic example. When playing to the far left wasn't politically expedient, he played to the middle (and accomplished much as a result). Obama plays to the far left all day long. What's different?

You are a walking, talking, liberal spouting talking points machine. Nothing about what you say is original or unique. You're just a carbon copy of a liberal where common sense and critical thinking take a back seat to partisan pontifications. Now I may be a carbon copy of a conservative thinker, but in my case, I'm right. (no pun intended).

The Col: ... Living in Canada you wouldn't know.

(V): I'm sure the munchies were part of the reason for her weight gain, not that I'd know first hand

The Col: Prescribed by her physician J.R. Reynolds!!

(V): Queen Victoria smoked hash from a hookah brought from the colonies?..........I knew it!

The Col: He'd have been more interesting... Queen Victoria would have voted for him, the royal stash was always full!!

(V): I would vote for the H & K Dubya, twice!

The Col: He's nicer in "Harold and Kumar escape from Guantanamo bay"...

.... But in that film he smokes......

The Col: So would I... This concept of politicians having to be squeaky clean is stupid.... They are human...or lizards??

Is that too Douglas Adams???

Iamon lyme: Actually, Dubya was deemed to be the guy most would like to have a beer with, remember? That is a charismatic trait

(V): When you consider the microscope that is placed on politicians these days, the pool is pretty limited to egomaniacs and narcissists.Frankly I would rather vote for a flawed genius instead of an empty suit without a soul

Iamon lyme: "you forgot Ronny, oops, St Ronny, and Dubya"

The democrats thought Dubya was charismatic?

I know that can't be what you meant. Just as I really don't give a rats tail how good someone looks on the cover of GQ if he's the president. No one looks good when they are dragging the country down, no matter how handsome or well spoken. Running for president is not supposed to be a beauty contest, but I'm afraid that's what it's become.

The Col: Joseph Smith... His religion at least seems have been 'blessed' at last by US Christians... Not sure about him though.. Last I heard he was of the Anti-ChRiSt.... A messenger of the devil and all his followers were bound for hell.

Anyone of the Mormon faith was a deluded fool, a Satanist, yada, yada, yada...

... values held gospel are more flexible when it comes to politics. I just wish they'd dump the duplicity.

..... eg, the Tampa Bay lap dancing clubs are gearing up for a quadrupling in custom during the republican conference this year... even to the extent of hiring a well known exotic dancer/porn actress who looks like Sarah Palin.

.... .... mmmmmmm

Iamon lyme: you forgot Ronny, oops, St Ronny, and Dubya

The Col: "The man has charisma to burn, it's one of his main assets"

It was the same with Bill Clinton. Charismatic. What else would anyone want from their president... as well as charm, grace, eloquence, clean, well spoken, regular pedicures, no visible nose hairs, shirt tucked in, strict adherence to what is printed on the teleprompter, basketball skills, putting in long hours on the golf course...

Man, there seems to be no end to presidential attributes.

(V): Many members of the Judeo/Christian groups don't consider Mormon to be a classic "religion" , but will support Romney anyway.That either describes the depth of hate they have for Obama, or an openmindedness rarely on disply otherwise

Iamon lyme: I think Obama can rightfully be called out for a number of things, but not being robotic.The man has charisma to burn, it's one of his main assets

...abou bo bo bo bo bo 'bout Obama.

^o^

Iamon lyme: Gore... Gore.... Gore... Gore... Gore.... Gore...

Get it?

The Col: lol Yeah, there's nothing robotic about Obama.. about Obama... about Obama...

The Col: mmm... I can't say I can agree with that, ever since the UK politicians all adopted a standard code of using their hands that is deemed... less aggressive. I think it's more a case of we get what they think we'll swallow, thus the return of immoral "by the book" expenses when the people of the UK said....

"who do you think you guys are?"

"I don't think anyone knows what Romney really thinks or believes, he will basically say whatever that specific audience wants...."

It has been noted by certain commentators that is the case to a degree with all parties. One did state it would interesting to see an atheist be President, yet being from the Judeo/Christian seems to a pre condition... an instant 'appeal' to 70%+ of Americans. That the Republican message is sermoned at churches as God's message.. well.

One day... a moral atheist not bound by 'the people of the book' will get to be Pres... I doubt though in my lifetime.

(V): Has an original thought ever escaped Romney's lips? He is the manifestation of a system that has become critical of every aspect of a candidate. to the point of creating a virtual robot.I don't think anyone knows what Romney really thinks or believes, he will basically say whatever that specific audience wants, or what is politically in his best interests.I have never seen a candidate who is as pre programmed, but we get what we deserve

In his visit to Poland, Mitt Romney praised Solidarity, the Polish trade union movement which helped topple the communist state.

But Solidarity distanced itself from Mr Romney on Monday, saying he had supported attacks on unions in his own country.

Iamon lyme: It was intended as the phrase "taken as gospel" usually is, but i can understand the confusion , considering the Republican party was included in the comment.

The word gospel means good news, but I might have been wrong about the religion angle.

Bad news is good news.. ?

The Col: "...if the Democrats weren't so terrible messeging, and the Republicans weren't so good, the overwhelming scientific belief in climate change wouldn't even be an argument."


The Democrats have done a good enough job at getting their "message" across. Good enough to be able to profit from it.

If anything is an established fact, it's that the world goes through periods of global warming and global cooling. No one argues with that. But creating alarm over something that naturally happens, in order to gain some political or financial advantage, is something the Democrats have learned how to use.

If some slick shyster were able to create alarm over the changing seasons, and then push for increasing taxes to solve the problem, would you see anything wrong with that? That may sound like a silly example, and no one with a grain of sense would fall for it, but let's face it... a con man doesn't have to convince everyone. He only needs to convince enough people in order to get what he wants.

Whatever influence mans activities have had on the entire global environment is nothing compared to what nature herself has dished out. Polar bears survived the occasional period of global warming, and the spotted owl can survive without old growth forests. Is there really anything so amazing about that?

What is amazing is the distress people are willing to put themselves and others through just to gain some small transitory advantage over their fellow earthlings...

Iamon lyme: The only question I want to ask about this is, when did it become a standard practice of science that politics is able to confirm or disprove anything?

Excellent question,because if the Democrats weren't so terrible messeging, and the Republicans weren't so good, the overwhelming scientific belief in climate change wouldn't even be an argument.

The Col: "My comment of it being considered "gospel" was from the Republican perspective, not Democratic"

Yes, and I understood what you meant by "gospel". Nevertheless, I doubt either side would take the issue seriously even if it was promoted by a few Republicans.

It has only become a political issue because some politicians have made it one. It wasn't much of a scientific issue until it was mingled with politics

The only question I want to ask about this is, when did it become a standard practice of science that politics is able to confirm or disprove anything?

Iamon lyme: lol I love it! I should wear it to school.

Artful Dodger: Ah shoot! I went to go find another global warming pic, but all I got was this stupid hat<a/>

So children, what have we learned today?

*Well, for one, Professor Muller was not a total skeptic. He was 2/3's a believer in anthropogenic global warming long ago.

*Now he's gone all the way.

*His "turnaround" amounts to 33% as he was mostly there for years.

*He's written a book and likely he wants them to sell lots of them. The Left never allows the Right to get away with such a conflict of interest.

*Businesses whose livelihood is based on the need for anthropogenic global warming to be true pay Muller for his "expertise." So it's in his interest to hold to his latest view.

*This is a classic conflict of interest. Not to mention that Muller did NOT do a complete turn around as he was nearly 75% there from the start!

*---> Here’s is Prof. Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist, toward the conclusion of his 2003 paper on global warming data:

“Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.”"


OK, class dismissed!

Iamon lyme:" Nope. It would recieve the same attention Democrats give to "birthers".

But you are right about it being a political game. Too bad we will never know what the reaction would be, because that is something I would bet on... easy money."

I prefer to frame it as "I'll bet" I guess you know the future
My comment of it being considered "gospel" was from the Republican perspective, not Democratic

Artful Dodger: Hey, that's the al gore link I put up! Now I'll have to go find another one!

[]_ [[]] []_

Muller not a skeptic in 2003, either

From EthicsAlarms.com:

Here’s is Prof. Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist, toward the conclusion of his 2003 paper on global warming data:

“Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of
paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of
fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history.
It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.”

Earlier, it was pointed out that in 2006 Muller rated himself as two-thirds alarmist.

Richard Muller: Climate Profiteer

Remember Richard Muller, the Berkeley scientist who last
October declared climate skepticism to be over? Like other alarmists, he
is also a climate profiteer.<span>

In the Wall Street Journal commentary that rocketed Muller into the media spotlight, he wrote:

But now let me explain why you should not be a [global warming] skeptic, at least not any longer.

Muller’s tagline disclosed:

Mr. Muller is a professor of physics at the University of
California, Berkeley, and the author of “Physics for Future Presidents”
(W.W. Norton & Co., 2008).

But Dr. Muller is no mere Berkeley professor.

He is in fact president and chief scientist of Muller & Associates, which is:

Helping businesses make profitable investments in alternative energy

and

Helping governments build energy strategies that are right for them.

OPPS

It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical, says Berkeley physics Prof. Richard Muller, who still says that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. He has analyzed some of the most alarmist claims and his skepticism about them hasn’t changed.

What has changed is his doubt about the very existence of global warming. And he is now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause, he says.

But Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming, he notes. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.

So much for a total turnaround.  And what's so funny is how Muller was vilified, called a liar and a lunatic BEFORE his conversion but now he's a genius.  The Left wants it both ways. 


Besides, he's one guy with an opinion.  There have been climate scientists who were advocates of anthropogenic global warming but are now full on skeptics.  What about those guys?  hmmmmmmmm?    The Left loves to utilize the appeal to authority fallacy when it suits their point.  That other "experts" disagree with Muller doesn't seem to matter to their bottom line.

Iamon lyme: Are you stereotyping me?

Iamon lyme: http://www.ihudaif.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/algore.jpg

(V): Oh my goodness no, I would never want you to be muzzled in any way! I look forward to your... I know there's a word for what you do, but for the moment it escapes me.

You are the classic champion of liberal ideals...