Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > October > 24 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USCDC director edited. So what?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Voters elect governors and the President on the basis of their values, pledges and agendas. In carrying out those promises and in pursuit of those agendas, they should be able to hire and fire at will — and to determine which issues their subordinates are to emphasize in public appearances and in congressional testimony.
The flap of the day is the revelation that White House officials “severely edited” proposed congressional testimony by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Julie Gerberding.
The Administration is said to have removed “specific references to potential health risks” of global warming.
She told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that it’s “anticipated to have a broad range of impacts on the health of Americans,” but confined her prepared testimony to CDC’s preparation. During questioning, she did cite specific diseases that she thought would be affected.
An unnamed CDC official who was the basis of the Associated Press account said the proposed testimony was “eviscerated” during a customary review by the White House Office of Management and Budget, with the proposed testimony reduced to six pages from 14.
A spokesman for the OMB said reviews of proposed testimony by subordinates consider “whether they…line up well with the national priorities of the administration.”
So Gerberding’s testimony has been edited to reflect the administration’s priorities. And U.S. attorneys are fired for the same reason. Where’s the offense?
Comments
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2007 8:54 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. I fear Jim unfairly ignores the pronounced intellectual defects of our leftist brethren. These people are incapable of reading a report by an authority; unless they have a television-style show trial, they are wholly incapable of absorbing their talking points. If we prohibited partisans (within the various executive agencies) from setting their own agendas in opposition to the people elected to set policy, we might wind up with an efficient business-like government, instead of the cacophony of self-interested experts. We cannot have that.
By Aquagirl
October 24, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this
Law, by definition, is a political arena. Hiring an attorney to advance your political point of view is way different than hiring a scientist to advance your political agenda.
The specific offense is that subjecting stated scientific inquiry to political approval is stupid. Ever wonder why China and Russia had millions of people starving in the last century? Just Google “Lysenko”. This should give you an idea why gutting a scientist’s opinion to conform to your political view is bad.
Science works. Unlike the empty head of Shrub.
I’m outta here for a while..just as well, I’ll miss the inevitable global-warming denalists who think Neal Boortz should be teaching science.
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this
Dear Aquagirl @ 8:55, actually if your want to know why millions starved under collectivist governments, just google “Hayek.”
By Glenn
October 24, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this
Good morning. Count me as one of Aquagirls “global-warming denalists who think Neal Boortz should be teaching science,” but only count me in under the edited version: “anthropogenic-warming denialists who think Neal Boortz would probably be a good counselor for a merit badge in science and that people should not pay an eight-dollar admission to a science lecture from Al Gore.”
Count me in.
By Anonymous
October 24, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this
This isn’t news, Wooten. The Bush administration has been trying to “edit” science for their own political ends throughout these past seven years.
Darn ol’ reality, refusing to conform to neocon requirements…..
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this
I’m mildly amused by Aquagirl’s dual and opposing affirmations, “science works” and “global warming denialists.” Of course, science tests all theories, now and forever. Even long-accepted theories change over the centuries. Seemingly only global warming is to be exempt from the traditional standard.
By Anonymous
October 24, 2007 9:16 AM | Link to this
JBM: Sadly, refuting global warming would require both competent challenges and actual evidence—something sadly lacking from the Faux News and talknazi crowd.
By Truthifier
October 24, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this
Jim knows well and good what the offense is. The Director of the CDC is charged with promoting public health, not to support the political goals of the Republican National Committee. I wonder how upset Jim would be if say, during a Democratic administration, a political appointee was to deliver a speech supporting unregulated gun ownership and had their speech either edited or eviscerated to reflect the policy of the White House. Jim is a one trick pony — he takes any given issue and twists it around so that George Bush and/or the GOP are blameless and only doing the Lord’s work. If the President (or Wooten for that matter) opposes Dr. Gerbderding’s position on the effects of climate change on public health that is his business — but didn’t the President appoint her to the position because she is the best person for the job??
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this
I hate to be hypertechnical, but is the name of the agency the Center for Public Health? That does not fit the CDC acronym. Perhaps global warming is infectious?
By Truthifier
October 24, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this
But jbmlaw, you are always super technical. To the point of not using good common sense. As you know, disease control is a part of public health. If my doctor tells me I am sick and need medication, I take it. If my accountant tells me my tax returns are accurate, I sign them. If my attorney tells me my affairs are in order, I take them at their word. If the Director of the Centers for Disease Control tells me that climate change will have an impact on diseases (let’s not say “public health” since that would cause your super technical mind to start spinning) then I want to hear what she has to say — BECAUSE SHE IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE CDC!
By No Laughing Matter
October 24, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this
Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone in this administration got their position because they were the best person for the job. Bush makes it a habit to appoint or hire the person seemingly least qualified for a particular job. On rare occasions, it works. But for the most part, (Brown, Gonzales, Bolton, etc. etc) it was an unmitigated disaster.
Jim, if it is okay with you to make everything political, I feel sorry for you. The rule of law and science should be exempted from the trend to pit one side against the other, to edit and manipulate and strain until no one listens to each other and no one knows the truth. Georgie has made it a point to try to manipulate every aspect of life to fit his world view, and the results speak for themselves. It will be years before this country recovers.
JBM, how are discussions of the potential health effects of global warming “policy”? Can Bush mandate by executive order that global warming have no health effects? This is not a policy issue, but a potential health issue that should be addressed by the professionals.
By Dusty
October 24, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw@9:30
Indeed, global warming MUST be infectious. Democrats seem to have a chronic and incurable case as evidenced by brain fever.
In any case, if government officials cut a 14 page speech to 6 pages, there should be eternal gratitude. Another cure for boredom!!
Dr. Gerberding was not making a scientific report to scientists, she was making a report to a mixed genre of educationally accomplished people. Evidently the report still said what remedial action CDC was taking. I would think that was the main object of her speech.
By Shar
October 24, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this
Good Morning to you all. If the government’s expert on the risks and treatments of disease transmission believes that there is information our representatives should have in weighing policies on public health, I think that information should be provided. Why is some reviewer in the Office of Management and Budget a better expert on the matter than Dr. Gerberding?
The public pays for the operation of the CDC in studying public health matters and preparing for a plethora of needs. The public pays for the director’s services in prioritizing such studies, administering the agency and determining appropriate actions to safeguard public health. The public is entitled to the full benefit of these services for which we pay.
Mr. Bush and his party have a sordid history of editing science to fit political expediency. It does not serve the public to lose the benefits of expanded stem cell research despite the gains that Mr. Bush gets from pandering to the extremists in his “base”. It does not serve the public to have the Surgeon General prohibited from addressing health issues that embarass big campaign contributors, forcing his resignation. It does not serve the public to have misleading information posted on official government websites linking abortion and birth control to fabricated health hazards. It does not serve the public to have our representatives denied access to facts that the public’s own expert deems necessary for consideration.
It is easier to advance a political agenda in a void of contradictory information. Apparently Mr. Bush feels that his policies are indefensible in the face of relevant information. Instead of formulating better policies, Mr. Bush prefers to undermine debate by witholding that information. And the public is left with poor policy. There’s the offense, Mr. Wooten.
By Truthifier
October 24, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this
And another thing — Doesn’t Dr. Gerberding work for the American people, not for George Bush?
By Dave the First
October 24, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this
She needs to be replaced. Hiding the reality of the staph infection problem is a good enough reason.
There is just no reason why Bush should tolerate an activist of the opposite political persuasion.
Fire her and get someone who agrees politically with Bush.
By Fletcher
October 24, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this
Barnacle Barney’s the lark of this barkentine.
How I envy his liberty.
If any mate squawks
It’s straight to the stocks,
For Bligh’s ambition is serpentine.
He slithers for honors,
For sycophant fawners
And ribbons for intrepidity.
By Glenn
October 24, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this
Or does she work for Emory?
Brother! What a mix up.
By Dennis
October 24, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten writes, “So Gerberding’s testimony has been edited to reflect the administration’s priorities. And U.S. attorneys are fired for the same reason. Where’s the offense?”
The offense, Mr. Wooten, is that what’s good for the administration and its cohorts is not what’s best for the country.
But, you know that, don’t you? Or do you?
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By The difference is ...
October 24, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this
… that this theory may not have a chance to change over the centuries in that, if it’s true, humans may not be around to come to a different point of view.
By Shar
October 24, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this
Glenn: The CDC is a unit of the Department of Health and Human Services which happens to have its headquarters adjacent to Emory. It’s mission is “to promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability.”
By Anonymous
October 24, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this
Here’s a question I bet none of the Bush-backers can answer: What CDC information is Bush afraid of letting us hear?
By GayGreyGeek
October 24, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this
Truthifier @ 9:58
Remember, necons value being a “loyal Bushie” over any possible job competence. Just remember “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job”
By TW
October 24, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this
Advocating dictatorship in the midst of a failed one? C’mon, Jim. Best just bash Hillary and hope the 97% percent of the Republicans at the back of the line really are that stupid. Might not work this time, but it’s all you got.
By Glenn
October 24, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this
Shar, thanks. Had one of your “hunches”. Hunch is that the nicely juxtaposed institutions actually have formal ties. After all, the University of California, a public institution, is contractor-operator of the Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos laboratories of the U.S. Department of Energy, and CalTech, a private school like Emory, runs NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (To say nothing of the unchaste Johns Hopkins, by now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Executive Branch.)
Turns out CDC and Emory have lots of formal arrangements. And Gerberding is a Clinical Professor at Emory.
My point: it brings academic freedom into this controversy. Whole different ballgame.
By Matt
October 24, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this
not to be a stick in the mud, but has anyone thought that 14 pages of testimony might be two much for politicians to read. I’ve had professors that limit technical reports to 10 pages, because they have to read so many. Couldn’t the same be said about politicians? Remember, this is a medical statement, and more than likely, it might have contained too much technical information. Take that conspiracy theorist!
By Dusty
October 24, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this
Shar 9:54
Your anti-Bush agenda gets plainer and plainer.
Dr. Gerberding’s speech was shortened, not removed. She got her points across. She was speaking to the public, not a scientific seminar.
Bush did not stop stem cell research. It is still going on, some at government expense and some by private enterprise.
Firing a surgeon general? Are you talking about the firing of Dr. Joycelyn Elders by President Clinton?
Or maybe you are referring to the Surgeon General who worked several years under President Bush and then left. (Fired?) After that he wanted to tell the world what should have been done when HE was surgeon general. Kinda like retired generals who know how to run things so well after they have left the post.
You said, “It is easier to promote a political agenda in a void of contradictory information.”
IN your case, there is NO void of contradictory information but you keep pushing your politcal agenda with tunnel vision. We don’t even have to guess at YOUR objectives.
By time for the brutally fair and honest truth
October 24, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this
The bulbous ultra poisonous far left hatepig heffalump E Edwards needs to die ASAP from cancer - and good fecking riddance!!
The above (purely illustrative) comments simply, and very starkly MIRROR BACK the exact sick and twisted deranged hate puked up yesterday about one of America’s finest, Tony Snow, by the gutless knuckle dragging RATturd scum godKILLyanKKKeevermin.
Funny how the execrable vainglorious imbecilic numpty aborted foreskin, the Syphilitic Lance Korporal and its alter ego inbred redneKKK turd and amateur walking poster turds for euthanasia like peeping tom and their verminous pinKKKo ilk NEVER EVER condemn this kind of unprovoked psychotic leftist hate!!
Tony Snow is one of the classiest folks in decades to grace public life on the fruited plain. E Edwards is a hate ridden feminazi desperately trying to get even the unhinged far left cut and run plebian wankers to take seriously one of the nastiest and sickest glib hypocrites to ever seek the party of hate’s nomination!! Her actual “legacy” - remember that narcissistic self absorbed pompous bollocks from this vile far left cow - will FITTINGLY be to (help) ensure that Edwards is ignominiously and abjectly defeated in its worthless, vainglorious and pointless campaign for president.
Tony Snow will hopefully much later rather sooner be remembered as easily the best WH Press Secretary of his generation.
There U have it folks - the shameful difference between the embittered irrelevant hatepigs on the left and the classy visionary patriotic folks on the centre-right who NEVER seek to systematically denigrate the American military!!
By Glenn
October 24, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this
Matt,
Knock it off with Ockham’s razor. Some of us are still nursing the controlled explosion at the WTC.
P.S. I got this pain, in the back of my…
By GayGreyGeek
October 24, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this
Hmmmm, the random-word generator seems to have awakened early today…
By anonymous
October 24, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this
Matt, having worked for a high level federal politican, I can assure you that they wouldn’t read a 14 page or 10 page report. They have staff who read it for them and then provide a one-pager with bullets. Frankly, if the public had any idea how little engagment on the part of politicans (of both parties) actually occurs they would be shocked. All of the real work is done by low-level and poorly paid staff - who are often fresh out of college.
By Anonymous
October 24, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this
The only one embittered and irrelevant is you, Andy… you and your kind are headed for history’s trashpile, where you belong.
Your liberal betters are taking over—and I, for one, plan to be smug about it.
By Mrs. RepubLady
October 24, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this
I agree with Mr. Wooten today. The American people don’t need facts, we need to know what the White House wants us to know. Period! We elected Bush and his trusted advisors to tell us what’s what. Stop fussing and get back to work… you losers who actually need to work for a living, that is.
By getalife
October 24, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this
Jim hates the truth.
Geez.
By GayGreyGeek
October 24, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this
getalife @ 11:00
Jim and Jmblaw are two peas in a pod, aren’t they, with their typical neocon attitude about “truth”?
To neocons “the truth”, “the whole truth” and “nothing but the truth” are three entirely separate things.
By getalife
October 24, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this
GGG,
“The deletions directed by the White House included details on how many people might be adversely affected because of increased warming and the scientific basis for some of the CDC’s analysis on what kinds of diseases might be spread in a warmer climate and rising sea levels, according to one official who had seen the original version.”
Only w and cheney are allowed to spread fear.
By getalife
October 24, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this
w is good at doing one thing.
Clearing brush.
He should show leadership and help out on SoCal.
By Anonymous
October 24, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this
October 24, 2007
TO: Anonymous @ 10:50
FR: Anonymous
RE: Family ties
As it appears that you and I were once in the same business, I’d like to make the following points:
Getting college muffins to do the work is a good strategy. They come cheap, are usually smarter than the member, and make good scapegoats when the member steps in it.
Please tell no one of the daily deluge of tendentious 10-14 pagers that pour into the offices along with the 2-3 pagers, glossy bound reports, free journals, envelopes containing mysterious white powders, etc.
Perhaps we worked together. What a coincidence that would be! What’re the odds of two people named Anonymous winding up in the same Devil’s Workshop?
By GayGreyGeek
October 24, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this
Mrs. RepubLady, have you ever visited the website of Betty Bowers?
By anonymous
October 24, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this
Anonymous @ 11:19am
My standard procedure was to build a stack all of the “helpful” information sent to us. When I had accumulated enough that the stack was starting to tilt to one side I new it was time to throw it all away and would push it over into a trash can.
By Anonymous
October 24, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this
That’s funny! I palmed off as much as I could onto the collegians, but whenever it floor stacks started to get in the way of ingress and egress I’d make late-night lightning runs to the dumpsters — a stack in this one, a stack in that one. Sgts. were watching on camera the whole time, of course, so they used to kid me about it. Like everybody else didn’t do the same thing.
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this
Dear GGG @ various times, do you ever argue a position, or do you simple fling epithets?
By getalife
October 24, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this
Consider the big picture here. We have a CDC, financed by taxpayers, committed to public safety. We have a CDC director, whose salary is financed by taxpayers, prepared to tell senators the truth. We have CDC research, financed by taxpayers, pointing to potential public-health consequences associated with climate change. And we have a White House that believes the truth should be muzzled, and information should be kept from the public, because it conflicts with the Bush agenda. This might be amusing if a) it weren’t so serious; and b) it didn’t happen all the damn time.
Geez.
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this
Dear NLM @ 9:39, I cannot get past the question of what global warming has to do with disease control.
By Craig
October 24, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this
Let’s face it, if the decider would go on the news tonight and say he is proposing specific solutions to the problem of global warming, the responses here would be entirely different. Wooten would praise him for his wisdom, the counselor would pontificate about how astute he is, and Dusty would swoon over how handsome and Godly he is.
I wonder when conservatives will abandon their blind Bush worship.
By getalife
October 24, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this
anonymouses,
No wonder our government is broken.
At least they have hacks like Jim covering for them.
Geez.
By Charles
October 24, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this
Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq
General David H. Petraeus Commander, Multi-National Force-Iraq 10-11 September 2007
Mr. Chairmen, Ranking Members, Members of the Committees, thank you for the opportunity to provide my assessment of the security situation in Iraq and to discuss the recommendations I recently provided to my chain of command for the way forward.
At the outset, I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress…
So it doesn’t matter if General David H. Petraeus’ testimony might have been severely influenced by his “chain of command” to reflect the administration’s priorities, nor the revelation that White House officials “severely edited” proposed congressional testimony by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Julie Gerberding. And U.S. attorneys are fired for the same reason. Where’s the offense?
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this
Dear Craig @ 11:56, if President Bush went to the public tonight and advised he would do everything necessary to destroy the economy which might have the side effect of lessening global warming by 1 degree over the next 3000 years, leftists would rejoice. That would not make it an intelligent move.
By Curious Observer
October 24, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this
As usual, Dusty proves her gross incompetence by referring to the censorship as “shortening” a presentation.
As a hired writing hack, I’ve drafted testimony on behalf of federal agency officers. And if you think there isn’t political censorship in agency testimony, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
First, the proposed testimony is sent to Washington for review and editing in OMB as well as in the federal department in which the presenting agency is based. If any part of it doesn’t conform to the prevailing political point of view in the administration, it is sent back for revision.
Next, just to ensure that the agency head doesn’t get out of line during presentation of the testimony, an official of a federal department accompanies him/her during the presentation. Next time you see a news clip of Gerberding or any other major agency head during the presentation, look to your left or right for the anonymous OMB or HHS official at the same table.
Those are the facts, folks. It happens during Democratic as well as Republican administrations. You can argue all day about whether such censorship is appropriate, but you can’t argue that it doesn’t occur, the ignorance of Dusty not withstanding. And if you doubt it, try to strike up a conversation with the former Surgeon General, who was not reappointed because he did not conform enough to administration guidelines.
Agency heads are political animals. They may be scientists or experts, but they are appointed to their positions and controlled on a political basis. And if you doubt it, look for Gerberding and all other existing major agency heads to be replaced in a Democratic administration. The same occurred upon the ascension of the Bush administration.
It’s politics first, folks, first and foremost. Stop acting like a 6-year-old who, upon discovery of a big bag of horse manure under the Christmas tree, goes around looking for the pony.
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this
Dear Craig @ 11:56, the mirror of your argument, of course, is Bush derangement syndrome. Can you name any leftists or any incident over the past six years not characterized by DBS?
By No Laughing Matter
October 24, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this
If global warming has the potential to affect the public health in any way, it is a subject that should be addressed by the CDC. I am not a doctor or an epidemiologist, but I can think of a scenario where climate change might affect the ability of a particular disease to spread amongst the populace. I also think it is a healthy (pun intended) approach to address potential problems before they occur, rather than waiting for a crisis like the state has done with the drought. If you narrowly define the CDC as a “disease control organization”, rather than a public health entity, then you are correct, they have nothing to do with each other. I think the CDC plays a role in public health and what it does should not be at the pleasure of the President, but should be in the best interest of the general public.
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this
Dear Craig @ 11:56, the mirror of your argument, of course, is Bush derangement syndrome. Can you name any leftists or any incident over the past six years not characterized by BDS?
By Shar
October 24, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this
Dusty @10:42: You are right. I firmly believe that Mr. Bush is the worst president in American history, failing spectacularly across a wide range of policy and administrative duties. Although I voted for him over Al Gore, his performance in office has put me firmly in the anti-Bush camp.
However, you are also wrong. I do not have, nor do I believe in, some nefarious “agenda”. My interest is in the wellbeing of the country as a whole. However execrable, Mr. Bush is OUR president, this government is OUR government, and each one of us has an obligation to make it the best we can for the benefit of ALL of us. Not split by party, by race, by gender, by income or any of the other dividers that advocates come up with to pit one against the other. Government is not a team sport. Blind, unquestioning partisanship for one’s preferred “side” is destructive to government and to the social fabric of the country, and it is one of the driving reasons that so many people are disgusted with politics in general. I am interested in good ideas and concerned about bad ones; I don’t care at all whether they originate with Republicans, Democrats or any other group you’d care to shove me into.
In the situation under discussion, Dr. Gerberding was not just speaking to “the public”. She was giving sworn testimony to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Her speech was cut by the OMB to center almost exclusively on the preparations that the CDC is making for the possible public health effects of global warming. What those effects are anticipated to be was the emphasis of her original speech, and was not permitted to be aired. I believe the editing deprived the Senators of necessary information that was germane to their public mission in preference to advancing the policy goals of the Administration. In overlarding their own political “agenda” on the testimony of “the government’s premier disease tracking and monitoring agency”, the Administration damaged both the CDC’s credibility and the Senate’s ability to optimize public policy. Why is that of benefit to any American?
By Dusty
October 24, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this
Craig@11:56,
I wonder when liberals will abandon their blind hate of Bush.
Your imagination runs wild. I have never “swooned” over anybody. Perhaps you “swoon” over a public figure you call “handsome”. I don’t.
I do respect the strength that President Bush has shown leading us through some of the more difficult times in USA history. Look up “respect” in the dictionary. You don’t seem to know what it means.
By Anonymous
October 24, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this
Cousin,
you must chuckle when folks here post email addresses of members and urge us to flex our influence thereby.
By Glenn
October 24, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this
For Shar:
In the fond hope of somebody honest
Who would do all the things that he promised,
By electoral Autumn
She’d defected from Rodham
And become a devout Giulianist.
By Dennis
October 24, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this
By Dusty October 24, 2007 12:11 PM “I wonder when liberals will abandon their blind hate of Bush.”
That’s actually a blind question.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Dusty
October 24, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this
Shar@12:07
Your lengthy comment sounds good. Unfortunately, you cannot see that you are so far to the left that you can see nothing at all on the right.
Bush has not damaged the credibility of CDC. Much of that has already been done with the TB fiasco, the “obesity” cheerleading as “disease”, and the loss of specific health issues of disease as opposed to dubious political favorites of the moment.
Congress is not filled with scientists and they learned all they needed to know from Dr. Gerberding. Obviously the LONG report is awailable as reporters are already making comments about its contents. Perhaps you should read both reports youtself. Oh, you are not a scientist? I didn’t think so.
Your reflections on “hearing it from both sides” is quite reasonable. You should try it.
By Shar
October 24, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this
Glenn @ 12:22 - I’m overwhelmed, honored and in awe of your limber lexography and political perception. A tiny cavil - I have always renounced Rodham, but respect Richardson. Rudy? I remain reluctant.
By Dusty trails
October 24, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this
So, Dusty, now you are a scientist as well as a cheerleader? How do you know that “Congress learned all they needed to know from Dr. Gerberding”? Only a person who believes that we only need to know what the government wants us to know would believe that line. Someone like…, wait, don’t tell me, it’s on the tip of my tongue…
By getalife
October 24, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this
“Clinton vows to oppose Bush war request, time for her to convince others to do the same :
Democratic White House front-runner Hillary Clinton Tuesday vowed to oppose President George W. Bush’s new 196 billion dollar war funding request, stiffening her party’s new assault on Iraq policy.”
Well the gop and w are blocking spending bills to cut spending, so they can cut 196 billion don’t ya think?
Declare victory and get out. Fund Children’s health care.
Geez.
By Camus
October 24, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this
“I wonder when liberals will abandon their blind hate of Bush.”
I wonder when rightwingnuts will abandon their blind hate of the Clintons.
By Shar
October 24, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this
Dusty @ 12:30 - If I could see nothing of value on the right, I would never have voted for Mr. Bush. Wrongly, true, but at least my mind was open to both sides.
Nope, I’m not a scientist. That’s why, as a taxpayer, I pay real scientists to experiment, study and discover in the scientific realm, and then report to policy makers so that the results can be deliberated within the scheme of priorities and competing interests, yielding the most advantageous outcomes. If the science is witheld, the outcome cannot be as advantageous. Mr. Bush apparently thought, like you, that the Senators “learned all they needed to know”; Dr. Gerberding obviously thought they needed to know something else besides. I trust Dr. Gerberding’s opinion on that rather than yours and the President’s.
By Analchord
October 24, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this
Wooten’s column went over everyone’s head again, and we are left with another day of chatrooming blog-rats, facebooking nick-jackers, and my-spacing cupwads….
However, to address the very real concerns that Wooten has expressed about the arrogance of power, Wooten leaves himself wide open for this sardonic admonition: “…US attorneys are fired for the same reason, and CIA agents are outed for the same reason, and traitors are consoled by their conspirators for the same reason…and revolutions are won for the same reason… …..
You know they arrested a dirtbiker for setting fires in California….a disenfranchised liberal getting even with the rich? Maybe, or is it a rightist setting fire to liberal elite homes? Much more likely. Fox News is giddy over the fact that these homes belong to liberal elitists. They are coaxing the unhinged fringe to commit arson to avenge the polls.
Arnold sure looks ridiculous in a crisis. We are still leaderless. When will that leader emerge? Even though it’s Teetler in 08, I dont see her as uniting the nation.
We are wide open, folks, for a new, unconsidered face. Like JFK, our new leader will come from a younger, more vigorous set.
The challenge for this leader: to assuage the baby boomers about social security while dismantling it. We cant afford it and never could. The fact that it exists shows how close fear came to introducing socialism and communism into our constitution. History is written by the victors, and the capitalists won and deny the contest, but the greatest generation tells us now what a damn near thing it was. Americans simply dont know fear anymore. If we ever do, then we’ll face another round of political compromise like social security.
But we are capitalits and the fact is that it’s war which will bring us peace and prosperity. War. All real americans love the sting of battle. I will be proud to lead you good folks into an endless siege, from which we will witness the most prosperous peace mankind has ever known. Vote for me!
Analchord 08. He’s younger, more vigorous uniter.
By anonymous
October 24, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw @ 11:55am - “Dear NLM @ 9:39, I cannot get past the question of what global warming has to do with disease control.”
jbmlaw are you really such a fool that you think the environment has nothing to do with the spread of disease? if you will take off your “i must defend bush at every turn” hat and really think hard for a minute you will realize that the world is interconnected and if the environment changes then the factors that control the spread of disease change. you can’t seriously be so dim that you aren’t able to see that.
By Dustbuster
October 24, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this
Dusty learns all she needs to know from Fox news.
By anonymous
October 24, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this
Yep cousin, the naivete of those who say they’re going to “call their Congressman” is always good for a laugh. Folks, your Congressman only cares about one thing, and that is whether or not you have maxed out on your contributions to his reelection campaign.
By No Laughing Matter
October 24, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this
Good point,Anonymous. To follow up on that, we are not talking about whether or not there is actually global warming. Time to move on from that dispute. Even GWB agrees it is happening. We can disagree about the effects, but I like the idea that the people in charge of public health are actually trying to prepare for possible problems well ahead of the problem occurring. Surprisingly foresighted for a member of this administration.
By getalife
October 24, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this
If you listen to Skelton, Obey, Pelosi and others hatred on protesters, you will see that they have joined the gop in crushing dissent.
The response to one attack, ME, spending, Katrina, global warming, China, etc… was screwed up so bad, they decided to stick together against the blogs and the people. Hence, their approval ratings.
Our government is broken and people need to wake up to this reality.
Our forefathers fought the same government we have today. You can argue that this experiment of democracy has failed. The rule of law, the Constitution and governing for the people is history.
By getalife
October 24, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this
Asking “fake law” to think is rich.
Rush does does his thinking.
By Analchord
October 24, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this
Hey, morons, even myspacers dont post to themselves. Let someone respond to your posting, dont reply to yourself. trust us, we’ll be fair.
It’s just so obvious when you (it’s one troll, maybe two, folks) reply to yourself.
Why? Cause there couldn’t be two 23-point clinical criteria matches for mongoloid on the same blog, the odds are simply too great.
I know cause I minored in psyche in college.
‘muff said.
By Jack is Back
October 24, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this
CDC is a joke! Prior to AIDS, it was a failed agency on the choping block to be abolished. CDC jumped on the AIDS bandwagon with both feet, and has sucked up hundreds of billions of federal tax dollars since 1979 using disease scare tactics. CDC does not treat disease, nor does it cure disease, rather it is a public relations agency that surrounds itself with all the bells and whistles of science. The nation, ney the world would be better off if CDC were abolished, and the professional staff returned to the job of treating people, and not the job of pushing paper in hopes of a big Public Relations profit. A nice wetland would be an excellant replacement use for the land currently hogged by the Kudzu Clowns.
By Mrs. Smith
October 24, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this
Analchord, why are you being so cruel? The bloggers are not replying to themselves. Yes, they’re mongoloids, but they’re our best mongoloids and they’re blogging the best they can and they’re on the blog 24/7 up front and everything. You own them an apology. Cant you be nice? You know, minoring in psyche is no doctorate. You apologize to these bloggers who try so hard. Go ahead. Apologize. now.
By Dusty
October 24, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this
Dusty Trails @12:35
I have been in the field of medical science for a long time, not instantaneously like some bloggers here. If Congress is vitally interested in Dr. Gerberding’s 6 page report, which I doubt, they only have to look at the original 14 page report like reporters did.
Shar@ 1:00
I am glad you voted for Bush. I suspect you were so disenfranchised by President Clinton’s behavior and Hillary’s ambition that you changed ships and now want back.
Ah well, of course you have no doubts about Dr. Gerberding’s shortened speech. Liberals have made it the “cause of the moment” and you have jumped right on board.
Liberals welcome your return. But your memory is very short. You have gone back to what you couldn’t stand before.
By Sal
October 24, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this
Dusty, I read your blogs. You’re a wonder of modern science!
By Shar
October 24, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this
Anonymous et al: It’s not fair to criticize jbmlaw for failing to perceive the link between the spread of disease and global warming. Had Dr. Gerberding been permitted to give her testimony in its entirety, I’m sure that the relationship between the two would be clear to all.
By Dusty trails
October 24, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this
Dusty, the question wasn’t what you do or what your expertise might be? I wanted to know how you knew that Congress got all the information it needed from Dr. Gerberding. I suspect that you have no way to back up such a clear overstatement that you want to deflect attention elsewhere. You also back it up with another indefensible statement, i.e. that you doubt Congress was vitally interested in Dr. Gerberding’s report. Must be great to be an absolute expert on everything.
By Shar
October 24, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this
Dusty: Having neither a criminal past nor questionable citizenship provenance, I have never been disenfranchised. I have been disenchanted, with Mr. Bush’s performance in office ranking far above Mr. Clinton’s tiresome peccadilloes on my list of disappointments. I voted for Mr. Bush not because of Mr. or Mrs. Clinton, but because I thought he’d be less awful than Mr. Gore. I now think that the only person Mr. Bush is less awful than is Mr. Cheney.
By GayGreyGeek
October 24, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this
Dusty trails @ 1:45
Remember, Dusty is not an independently-cognizant creature. All the DustMeister can do is parrot “Bush is great! Cheney is, too!” ad nauseum.
By Analchord
October 24, 2007 1:54 PM | Link to this
YOu’re right, Mrs. Smith, @ 1:34. I had no right to make fun. I do sincerely apologize to Dusty and Buy Danish and RW and Getalife for pointing out their specialness so crudely.
I think special people like them ought to be able to be a part of things, you know?. I didn’t mean nuthin and well, please accept my regrets.
I’m going to go soak my head now. once again, so sorry to the special bloggers here. Getting awkward. Exit stage left.
By Peter
October 24, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this
HAHAHA another Joke by King George, and Mr Whooten…….
As we all know reality is NOT part of Being WRONG……..the wrongs do know that……
HE CHANGES LIKE THE WEATHER
How President Bush’s stance on global warming has evolved over time:
Sept. 2000 — During a campaign stop in Michigan, candidate Bush says as president he’ll “require” power plants to cut carbon dioxide emissions, citing successful efforts when he was governor of Texas.
March 28, 2001 — President Bush flip-flops, expressing opposition to the 1997 Kyoto treaty on global warming because it will hurt the U.S. economy and allow developing countries such as China and India to escape binding emissions pledges.
June 11, 2001 — Bush says it remains uncertain how much of global warming is caused by humans, pledges to use science and diplomacy to fight it.
Feb. 15, 2002 — Bush presents a voluntary plan to slow the growth of heat-trapping gases and announces tax incentives to business to voluntarily reduce emissions.
June 4, 2002 — Bush distances himself from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s report to the United Nations on the negative effect of global warming, contemptuously suggesting it was bureaucratic hot air.
Oct. 8, 2004 — Bush, reiterating his stance on the Kyoto Protocol, says U.S. participation “would have cost America a lot of jobs. It’s one of these deals where to be popular in the halls of Europe you sign a treaty.”
Feb. 21, 2005 — On his first visit to Europe, Bush repeats call to use new technology to fight the effects of rising temperatures.
July 6, 2005 — In Europe for a Group of Eight (G8) summit in Scotland, Bush acknowledges for the first time that “an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem” of global warming.
Jan. 23, 2007 — Bush mentions global warming for the first time in his State of the Union speech, saying solutions lie in technology and renewable fuels such as ethanol.
May 21, 2007 — In an interview, Bush says he doubts there can be an effective approach to dealing with climate change globally without the participation of major polluters China and India.
May 31, 2007 — Bush wants 15 top emitters — including China and India — to “work together to develop a long-term global goal to reduce greenhouse gases” and agree on it by the end of 2008.
June 6, 2007 — At a summit of G8 world leaders in Germany, Bush agrees to consider a European plan to combat climate change by halving worldwide emissions by 2050.
Sept. 27-28, 2007 — Bush sponsors multination summit in Washington where he proposes technology trust fund and other voluntary measures to address climate change.
By Jack is Back
October 24, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this
So Dusty, you admit that you work at CDC, where you spend the day surfing the internet, yet claim to be working in the field of medical science? Folks, Dusty is a prime example of the waste of our tax dollars by the Kudzu Clowns at CDC. Let me guess Dusty, you are now going to claim that you are really an Emory employee, just that you are paid by a CDC grant? Same waste of taxpayer money, just slightly different path to failure.
By Analchord
October 24, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this
Dusty is a prime example of a number of things square root.
The best she can do
is proper adieux,
for it’s her own horn
that she toots…………..ew.
By Dusty
October 24, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this
Dear Shar @1:52
Spoken like a true liberal indeed. “Mr. Clinton’s tiresome peccadilloes”!!! Wow! That sounds just like Clinton stole a few lollipops from a little girl when in fact he disgraced the country and the presidency, in particular. Perhaps you approve of lying under oath if you don’t mind the behavior.
NOW Bush and Cheney have worked valiantly to keep this country safe, free Afghanistan and remove a dangerous dictator from Iraq. Liberals think that is sooooo bad. And those awful tax cuts. How could Bush stoop so low?
Continue your “unbiased” support for those who not only undermine the country, but also the troops. I guess the war is just another one of those “peccadilloes” you just can’t support, like a good liberal. (And please, none of that farce “I support the troops but not the war!”)
By getalife
October 24, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this
“With America at war in two Muslim countries, he said, attacking a third Islamic nation in the region “has extraordinary challenges and risks associated with it.” The military option, he said, should be a last resort.
I guess it’s only a matter of time before Limbaugh smears the Admiral as a “phony” soldier, but in the meantime, it’s refreshing to hear the Chairman of the JCS saying so many sensible things”
Finally, come sanity in the military.
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this
Dear Anonymous @ 1:04, I appreciate that ‘global warming” is now part of your ideology, and that causation shall only be attributed to inherently evil mankind. I do not embrace your beliefs, and resent those of you who would steal my freedoms for sake of your god.
By Peter
October 24, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this
HAHAHAHA DUSTY…….. you actually Believe what King George says…????
Hey we have some ocean front property for sale in Colorado……..want to go look at it ??????
“NOW Bush and Cheney have worked valiantly to keep this country safe, free Afghanistan and remove a dangerous dictator from Iraq. Liberals think that is sooooo bad. And those awful tax cuts. How could Bush stoop so low?”
HAHAHAHAHA…….. BUSH keeping us SAFE…… HAHAHAHA……..
Removing a dangerous dictator…….. HAHAHAHA……..
Well you did say one thing that is true…..
BUSH has stooped very low for sure……
Were are the WMD’s??????
Also the TAX CUTS….. Just how will we pay for the WAR ???????
OH I guess more borrowed money from China ….. DUHhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!!!
By Cheryl
October 24, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this
The admiral didn’t say that nor did he mean that. You are looking at bush speak when you read the admiral’s testimony. Getalife, if you’re not part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem. Learn to read candlestick charts, or the terrorists win.
Can you imagine the prosperity if we attack Iran? Paradise!
The admiral is using reverse double secret psychology on the media, that’s all.
By Dusty
October 24, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this
Jack is back @2:01
I have never said that I work for CDC and I have never worked for CDC.
I will say one thing. YOUR reading comprehension is next to zero. Keep trying, buddy.
Analchord @ 2:11
It is only fair
To clear the air
When liberals befog
The air with smog.
So cease and desist,
Or you’ll never be kissed.
You’ll be a misfit,
You liberal twit.
Now go run and play
And remember: just one ID per day.
It
By anonymous
October 24, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw - Global warming is not a part of my “ideology” — it is a scientific fact. I don’t really know which of your freedoms I support stealing. I just would prefer that we not pollute ourselves into extinction. And my “good” in this case (having a sustainable environment) is your good as well.
By Dusty Rocks!
October 24, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this
Way to swat that liberal twit, Dusty! You aint rusty! Ha Ha Analchord, no comeback?
Dusty’s not rusty,
but analchord is crusty..ew
Dusty is busty
Analchord is loser. ha ha
By Truthifier
October 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this
I’ve been reading jbmlaw’s posts today and am just curious what he thinks will happen to the public health in terms of the spread of disease when/if Lake Lanier goes dry. If one can’t bathe properly, or have clean drinking water, or have water for sewage treatment, then disease will spread. I don’t know if the current drought is the result of global warming, but I also don’t know that it is not. Personally, I would rather be safe than sorry and try to deal with the situation. If we’re wrong and there is no correlation, then so be it. We will have a better environment and everyone wins. If we’re right and do nothing, then we are in for some pretty tough times ahead.
By Risky Behavior
October 24, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this
Those on here who refuse to accept that the CDC has a role in educating the public and our elected officials on the potential hazards of climate change on the spread of disease are like those people in California who know they are living in a wildfire-prone region yet surprised when the fires come, or people who build houses on the beach in south Florida and then are shocked when a hurricane knocks it down. We are all susceptible to the whims of nature. Denying it doesn’t make it not true.
By Bill
October 24, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this
Sop what are you saying, toothdecayer, that it’s a bad thing about the drought?
By Jill
October 24, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this
Risky, have you been drinking whiskey? Try making sober sense, and leave the boozed up bromides to the pros.
Disater prone people wouldn’t build homes if they knew the future, now would they? Think before you blog, or the terrorists win, sir.
I said think!
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2007 2:57 PM | Link to this
Dear Anonymous @ 2:31, we could reduce traffic deaths 99% by cutting the maximum permissible speed to 8 mph, and imprisoning violators for 20 years. The question is less the efficacy of that solution than the reasonableness of the cost. When we get into the realm of “global warming” - which you affirm is unquestionable even thought temperatures remain below those levels of 1400 AD - exactly what is the cost of the solution you propose? Why don’t we simply take society back to where it was in 1400 AD - would that satisfy you? For now, I am persuaded that the cause for the current warming is a shift in the magnetic poles and increased sunspot activity, and I am curious what you propose to cure the problem. I also believe the current warming will greatly reduce premature deaths, in that so many fewer will freeze to death.
Dear Truthifier @ 2:38, did any of my answer to Anonymous above give you an indication of the level of my concern for disease outbreak in Lake Lanier? I am more concerned about AIDs escaping the homosexual community and infecting all heterosexuals than I am about Lake Lanier’s diminishment (and perhaps you would intelligently infer my level of concern for either is quite low.)
By Risky Behavior
October 24, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this
What are you talking about Jill? You don’t have to be able to predict the future to know that some areas are prone to disaster more than others. If you’re going to attack my post, then at least have a point to make.
And I’m more of a beer guy btw.
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this
Dear Truthifier @ 2:38, I think I am more troubled by one of your arguments - “rather be safe than sorry.” If we destroy our economies for no intelligent reason, we would all be infinitely worse off; I cannot understand how our leftist friends can be so cavalier about that likelihood.
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this
Dear Risky @ 2:43, those of us who mock the management of CDC see that bureaucracy as a collection of leftist intellectuals who see themselves as a solution in search of a problem. Thus they address every ill in society, except those that have some relationship to a real disease.
By Jack is Back
October 24, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this
Jack Here: Day 1, Hour 16: Jack has discovered that there are only three people blogging on this board: Jack, a nut called Dusty-JMBLAW-etc, and another nut called getalife-anonymous-ETC. This blog is part of the Twilight Zone, and erie place of nonsense. Jack is leaving, as Jack hates both Dusty and getalife. Jack Out for Good—————
By No Laughing Matter
October 24, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this
jbm, who is talking about destroying the economy? Dr. Gerberding was going to talk about potential health risks from global warming, not the destruction of the economy. Being safe rather than sorry does not mean that the economy will be destroyed. Rather, it means that we will be at least somewhat prepared to handle a public health crisis should one arise. Planning ahead is a good thing and helps minimize risk down the line. Sort of like planning for the occupation of Iraq after the mission is accomplished. (Sorry, bad example)
By Truthifier
October 24, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this
jbm - We don’t have to destroy our economies in order to promote good environmental policy. I know you will respond that I’m a “loony leftist” for saying this, but there are a myriad of opportunities to create jobs by developing new technologies that reduce greenhouse gases, etc. Anyway, one could argue that if the environment goes completely down the tubes then there is no way to have a sound economy, no? As usual, you’ve taken an extreme position. Being environmentally prudent does not require us to “destroy” anything. I assume you’re one of those wits who always responds, when someone brings up the need for greater auto fuel efficiency, that you are not going to be forced to ride a horse to work. It’s a standard right-wing strategy. Take your opponent’s position, tweak it so that it doesn’t resemble its original form at all, and then say that it is crazy and “bad for the economy.”
And by the way, if you were my attorney I would fire you for spending all of your time on here spewing this silly right-wing, luddite rhetoric instead of looking after my legal needs. Provided you are actually an attorney.
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this
Dear NLM @ 3:97, every thus-far discussed “solution” to global warming will destroy our world economies.
By Truthifier
October 24, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this
oh jbm, you know that AIDS is not a homosexual disease. or you should. anyone as self-avowedly intelligent as you knows that that argument is not backed up by facts. you try to promote yourself on here as an intelligent conservative, but your statements about homosexuals have just proven that you are nothing but a self-obsessed bigot.
By anonymous
October 24, 2007 3:15 PM | Link to this
“For now, I am persuaded that the cause for the current warming is a shift in the magnetic poles and increased sunspot activity…”
So now jbmlaw is a climatologist in addition to being a leading member of the bar??
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2007 3:15 PM | Link to this
Dear Truthifier @ 3:08, in your second sentence, you are correct about my response. You are one who assumes the econonmy can absorb any unfunded mandate, and any level of taxation - didn’t you learn anything from 1977-1980?
By Phil
October 24, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this
Only war can save the global economy. All out total war. Like what Heetler wanted. That’s the american way.
The Dow just popped up 200 points in ten minutes. This market is invincible. Not even my blog about the slowdown in the sales of home beef jerky machines, (which is 90 percent of most liberal’s retirement plans) could keep this market down.
Amazing.
Buy. Buy. Buy. Buy.. Buy.. Buy…Buy..buY buy buy buy buy
By Truthifier
October 24, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this
Who mentioned taxation??
By Andrew Speaker
October 24, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this
It’s all fun and games until someone loses a lung.
By getalife
October 24, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this
“I was asked to come in and give him a briefing on the war, World War IV,” said Mr. Podhoretz, a founding father of neoconservatism and leading foreign policy adviser to Mr. Giuliani. “As far as I can tell there is very little difference in how he sees the war and how I see it.”
Um, where did WWIII go?
It is absolutely insane to vote for another neocon.
Geez.
By catlady
October 24, 2007 3:43 PM | Link to this
Dusty and others: if Dr. Gerberding said “the answer to this health problem is to surgically render every male impotent”, wouldn’t you want to know WHAT THE QUESTION WAS???!!!
I swear, this place sounds more and more like 1984!
By Phil
October 24, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this
They made an arrest in the duct taped video store manager robbery. The manager died. Watch the bleeding heart conservatives let this guy go.
By Jill Benson
October 24, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this
Phil, dont you mean, “Bleeding Heart Liberals?”
By Phil
October 24, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this
What did I say?
By Jill Benson
October 24, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this
You said “bleeding heart conservatives”.
By time for the awkward harsh truth
October 24, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this
Phil
This poor young chap needlessly and pointlessly murdered in Marietta was a white sausage jockey, killed by a black thug - so its a double hate crime!!
Yet predicktably enough so far even the local limp wristed liberal drive by vermin haven’t screeched about this all-Dixie white homosexual being killed by a black scumbag!!.
I wonder why???????????????
By Phil
October 24, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this
No I didn’t.
By Jill Benson
October 24, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this
Yes you did! It’s right there, just scroll down and look, fool. You said, “Bleeding heart Conservatives”. You meant, “Bleeding heart Liberals”. Of course, right?
By Phil
October 24, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this
LIAR!
By Reece
October 24, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this
By Sal
October 24, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this
Dusty, I read your blogs. You’re a wonder of modern science
Sal,
You’re close on this. Dusty is a blunder of modern science.
By catlady
October 24, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this
I kinda like the phrase”bleeding heart conservative”. Just depends on who you are bleeding for.
By Jill Benson
October 24, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this
Okay, that’s it. I’m so reporting you to blogland security. You cant just lie and then call me a liar, that’s like so, I dont know, crazy. I tried to correct an obvious mistake that you made, but you persist in denying the obvious, when everyone can clearly see what an idiot you are. Dont reply to this, but expect an email from blogland security, Osama Phil. Ha Ha. Osama Phil, there, you support terrorism, and I support the troops, you stink and I dont.
Victory here. I think I can fairly declare that. I won. Toodles.
By Phil
October 24, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this
I like “Bleeding Heart Conservatives”, too, Catlady.
If the GOP can make third-reich comparisons to the women on the left, especially after all those obvious Bush Administration parallels to the Nazi Rise to Power that Rove took his playbook from (proven, and he admits it), then we can certainly characterize the GOP as being soft on crime, especially after all those obviously guilty people, like Rove, went scott free. Who else but bleeding heart conservatives would have sprung him? Rove is the American Rasputin.
By Peter
October 24, 2007 5:04 PM | Link to this
Here you are WRONGS…….. read the data……….who is going to pay for the war………?????????
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money, according to a study released on Wednesday.
CBO estimated that interest costs alone from 2001-2017 could total more than $700 billion.
WHO is Paying for the WAR ??????
By Peter
October 24, 2007 5:10 PM | Link to this
HAHAHAHA to all the wrongs that think King Bush is ding a good job…….all he is doing is Bankrupting the USA……
Read the data…….
All the blind lemmings get in line, off the cliff you go !!!!
By Peter
October 24, 2007 5:21 PM | Link to this
Welcome to the United States Republic of China……. Thank you George Bush…….
By BS Aplenty
October 24, 2007 5:28 PM | Link to this
In general, Jim, I agree that Dr. Gerberding is subject to editing as are most “employees.” I wouldn’t disagree with my boss in public.
HOWEVER, if the good doctor did fundamentally disagree with her edited comments, then she can nobly resign and head to the media for relief.
By MELO
October 24, 2007 5:34 PM | Link to this
Im more worried about Fred Thompson.The guy has no STAMINA in the campaign. But his wife is HOT. I wonder about the ERECTION at nite with these stamina issues!!
By Analchord
October 24, 2007 5:37 PM | Link to this
Last year’s story, Peter.
try to advance the discussion, please.
We’ve already debated this. the illegals will pay for the war, social security and the space program.
We are also going to build a super-suv. It will be as big as the short school bus, and will get only three miles per gallon, but should sell fifteen million the first year. We’ll then have the excuse we need to nuke the entire asian continent. We are going to rule, and if anyone tries to stop us by blogging old stories and just nay saying, well, then blogland security will be notified, sir.
Lead or get out of the way, sir.
‘muff said.
By Sharon Bailey
October 24, 2007 5:47 PM | Link to this
Dont you mean, “Lead, Follow, or get out of the way”, Analchord?
By Glenn
October 24, 2007 5:51 PM | Link to this
Hi getalife. You make an interesting point about Giuliani being a neocon. I hadn’t thought about it and would like to kick it around a bit, but upon brief reflection that label does seems to fit. (Irrespective of the Podhoretz connection. I’d like to park that one for the time being to consider whether Rudy’s motives are ulterior.) Anyway, I can see how from your perspective a neocon would represent the worst of both worlds. Oh, well. I’ll wear you down.
Rudy 08
By TW
October 24, 2007 6:10 PM | Link to this
It’s not so much that Giuliani used to be married to his sister that bothers me. Maybe he was the product of inbreeding himself - don’t know, don’t really care. It’s this business about him working for Hugo Chavez that I can’t seem to get through. If Chavez is cutting Giuliani a check, and Giuliani is using some of his money on his campaign, doesn’t that mean Chavez is funding the Giuliani campaign? Guy calls our President the ‘devil’ and Giuliani still takes his money?
By Craig
October 25, 2007 8:24 AM | Link to this
Counselor if you’re still around - responding to your 12:00 post - sorry it took so long - it’s awful when work interferes with blogging.
I went to a conference last year - one of the speakers was an architect who is heavily involved in the effort to build more efficient structures. He commented that something like 43% of the energy we waste is lost through poorly constructed buildings.
So, wouldn’t it be smart on a lot of levels to push for more efficient new structures, as well as retrofitting existing structures? That would significantly reduce energy loss, reduce our dependence on goofy mid east countries for our energy, and benefit us in lots of other ways.
How is that going to “destroy the economy?” On the contrary, conservation is good for the economy.
By Analchord
October 25, 2007 8:25 AM | Link to this
Freakanomics explains Chavez’s arrogance. Freakanomics explains everything. Did you know that the more money a person spends on transporation, the higher in life that person rises? fact. Buy the Ferrari. You’ll soar. Believe it. Know it. Drive it.
By Analchord
October 25, 2007 8:39 AM | Link to this
All new buildings should be energy self suffient. Freakonomcis says that every building has enough solar facing walls to supply enough energy to heat and cool and pump water and light offices and video-tape employees having sex in broom closets….hey, how’d that get in there?
It’s 1984!
By Glenn
October 25, 2007 9:01 AM | Link to this
Chordanal,
Bloggers from GA mock GA. Posters from TX rib TX. The Ferrarist Lucrecia Borgia In California would sport a new LX.
By Glenn
October 25, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this
Lawd I mussa overlep. It goes like this:
Bloggers from GA mock GA.
Posters from TX rib TX.
The Ferrarist Lucrecia BA,
In California would sport a new LX.
* Rudy 08
By Van
October 29, 2007 3:19 PM | Link to this
” We have become a nation of people who consider it a right to have every law and institution shaped to our personal preferences and situation…”
So does this mean big business execs. and lobbyists have to sign up for service too?