Nothing personal Joe, but anyone that thinks W didn't lie wasn't listening to him talk. I'm a conservative (mostly) too and can't believe we re-elected that moron.
It is no worse than 'o-bomb-us' telling everyone he is going to pull the troops out as soon as he is elected. They are politicians, they lie. The simple fact that you started a thread about it boggles the mind. Now send me some good beer!
Well OK then it should not be to very hard let's hear this lie you all speak of. So far I'm not hearing any lie at all. Oh so very brainwashed.
You're not refuting anything. I have this mental image of you plugging your ears with your fingers while shouting: "I hear no lies!". All you do is repeat the same thing over and over again.
Obama administration and supporters lying about Global Warming Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009 If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That) When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern scienceâ€. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest: Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting: “In an odd way this is cheering news.†But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause. Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as: Manipulation of evidence: I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up: The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate. Suppression of evidence: Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists: Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted. Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP): ……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain†the putative “MWPâ€, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…. And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority. “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literatureâ€. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research†as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?†“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.â€â€œIt results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !†Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie†– Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked†data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC. I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane. The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical†view is now also the majority view. Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight. But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.
Obama lying about KSM being tried in a military court http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq9btZg1Rbw Now that he lied we have this: Sept. 11 Defendant Seeks a Trial, and a Platform By SCOTT SHANE Published: November 21, 2009 The five men the Justice Department has said will be charged in the attacks of Sept. 11 intend to plead not guilty so they can express their political and religious views during a trial, the lawyer for one of the men said on Saturday. The lawyer, Scott L. Fenstermaker, said that during a meeting at the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, prison on Tuesday, his client, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, expressed the desire for a trial despite his intention to admit his role in the attacks and seek “martyrdom†through execution. “He acknowledges that he helped plan the 9/11 attacks, and he says he’s looking forward to dying,†Mr. Fenstermaker said of Mr. Ali. But he said he expected Mr. Ali and his co-defendants to plead not guilty “so they can have a trial and try to get their message out.†Mr. Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the chief organizer of the 2001 plot. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced on Nov. 13 that Mr. Mohammed, Mr. Ali and three other alleged 9/11 plotters would be tried in federal criminal court. Mr. Fenstermaker said Mr. Ali told him all five men would seek a trial. The report of Mr. Ali’s comments may add to complaints from critics of Mr. Holder’s decision who favored military trials in Cuba and have said a criminal trial will provide terrorists with a propaganda platform. Defenders of the move say military commissions, too, would have given the defendants a public showcase for their views. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment. Mr. Fenstermaker, who represents Mr. Ali in a civil case challenging his detention and visited him for three days last week, gave The New York Times a translation from Arabic of a two-page letter written by Mr. Mohammed, Mr. Ali, and a third 9/11 defendant, Walid Muhammad Salih bin Attash to the military court at Guantánamo in September. The letter was written to say that the men had no objection to a 60-day continuance in military commission proceedings. But the three men used it to condemn the United States’ military presence in Muslim countries and its support for Israel, a preview of the kind of thing they might be expected to say in court. “We were arrested in 2003 and we spent three years moving around between the black sites in the ‘Dark Ages’ of Bush, then we were transferred to the island of oppression, torture and terror, Guantánamo, in 2006,†the letter said. The phrase ‘Dark Ages’ was in English in the original, the translator noted. The letter goes on to excoriate President Obama, describing the current era as “the black ages of Barack†and calling him “a liar.†The three men offer greetings to Osama bin Laden; his deputy in Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri; and the head of the Afghan Taliban, Mullah Mohammed Omar. Since their first appearances in military court at Guantánamo, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 defendants have indicated that they would admit their role in the terrorist plot and seek to be executed. But when they are indicted and brought to New York City for arraignment, as expected sometime in the next two months, they will have the option afforded any criminal defendant of pleading not guilty and standing trial. Mr. Fenstermaker, a criminal defense lawyer practicing in Manhattan and Brooklyn who represents Mr. Ali pro bono, is an outspoken critic of the campaign against terrorism and has had a contentious relationship with the government. His 2005 lawsuit challenging the military commissions was dismissed, but it prompted several Guantánamo prisoners to seek his representation, he said. In June a federal judge rejected his request to represent a prisoner held in the 1998 Tanzania embassy bombing.
Here we have something much different. We have a real, valid, legitimate lie. Not "But he said something that had the implication of making one feel as if the possibility may arise that one could construe a difference of opinion that may as a result be arguable by a moron." lie. This is a REAL lie. Big difference.
