Politics

Palin Weighs in on Boehner’s Crying: Double Standard for Men and Women

WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — Sarah Palin says there’s a double standard when it comes to politicians who cry in public.

The former Alaska governor and possible 2012 Republican presidential candidate says she would be “knocked a little bit” if she cried while giving a speech. But Palin tells ABC’s “Good Morning America” that House speaker-in-waiting John Boehner gets a “pass” when he cries in public.

Palin says that’s OK, but that it makes women in politics work harder and “be that much tougher.“ Palin also characterized President Obama as a ”flip-flopper” for his recent tax rate compromise.

[Boehner comments begin at 3:20 below]
Palin Weighs in on Boehners Crying: Double Standard for Men and Women

Palin’s comments came in an interview at her lakefront home in Wasilla, Alaska.

She said she is giving a presidential run “prayerful consideration.” She says she discounts unfavorable poll numbers and that she if she were to run, she would “be in it to win it.”

Comments (181)

1 2 3 4
  • mikenleeds
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:55am

    I love you Sarah but your wrong on this ,,, if someone cries they are unable to control their emotions , it does mean they are weak or bad and if i seen you cry i d would nt think any less of you , it just makes you human

    Report Post » mikenleeds  
    • mdlwoods
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 5:02pm

      Sorry Mike, Sarah didn’t say “Boehner got a pass.” Sarah said, she would give Boehner a pass. You need to go back and listen to the interview. Its this misunderstanding and misinformaiton that causes, well, misinformation! Sarah didn’t say anything mean or untrue.

      As for Boehner crying, it just shows that he is a man who truely, truely loves this country and is heartbroken when he sees her in trouble. This is an emotion that the left doesn’t know and will never know because they hate this country.

      Report Post » mdlwoods  
    • Faithstepper
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 6:12pm

      I agree with mdlwoods here. Mike you need to replay the piece and listen to what she said. I really like the way Sarah Palin handled herself in this interview. She was not intimidated by Ms. Roberts and she came across strong from a solid footing. Liberals have a way of trying to demean conservatives for their beliefs and Sarah Palin did not allow Ms. Roberts to do that in this interview. Sarah Palin has ALWAYS been underestimated, as Joe Biden has even said. That may be their downfall. I believe in Divine destination and if it is God’s will for Sarah Palin to be president of this GREAT USA NATION it will happen no matter what the media predicts. Remember David and Goliath. I just want a trustworthy president, who is honest and ethical when it comes to Washington corruption. Let’s face it, if the average American behaved like some of these jaded politicians in their jobs they would be fired. I say Go Sarah, may God be with you.

      Report Post »  
  • the phathom
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:54am

    History will prove Katie Couric was the one who lost the interview.

    Report Post » the phathom  
  • half pint
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:47am

    god i wish she would go away

    Report Post » half pint  
    • neverending
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:02pm

      You and me both!!!

      Report Post »  
    • slwolfgram
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:05pm

      Sarah is not going anywhere except maybe the whitehouse should she choose to do so. So if you don’t like her then I suggest you go away. Get the point?

      Report Post »  
    • Pilgrim Bill
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:09pm

      Bradley Manning is one of the only americans that can escape hearing about Sarah. maybe you can get some kind of anti-Palin filter.

      Report Post »  
    • Ezekiel38
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:11pm

      Yeaahhh??!! How about six more years under Obama? Or how about Mitt Romney for President in 2012, after all he is the original author of O-Care? No!!?? Give a name, what‘s your solution to our country’s growing debt?

      Report Post »  
    • Diamondback
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:18pm

      Bwahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha.

      She’ll be around to drive you libturds nuts for many more years.

      Just wait until Rubio, West and a few other TP people get up and going.

      You may want to go ahead and stock up on tranquilizers and such…

      Bwahahahahhaahahahhahhaahahhahahahahahahahahahhaha.

      Report Post »  
    • half pint
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 1:37pm

      i am a conservative and find palin (and family) an insult to my intelligence

      Report Post » half pint  
    • wodiej
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 2:56pm

      I wish half wits like you would go away. What’s your point?

      Report Post »  
    • TSUNAMI-22
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 3:29pm

      @ half pint

      “i am a conservative and find palin (and family) an insult to my intelligence”.

      Can you explain why you feel this way? I’m not judging, just wondering.

      Report Post »  
  • MichiganPatriot
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:41am

    Crying is a human emotion, like none of you have cryed before…right. Why do people have to be so criticale about a man being human. I admire members of our political system that care enough to cry a little when they speak about something they are passionate about. Last thing we need are zombies or robots in office that are numb to the issues. There is a certain professionalism that political office members must hold but if they cry a little who the hell cares …those that do need to join the rest of us imperfect humans.

    Report Post » MichiganPatriot  
    • neverending
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:45am

      President Bush shed many a tear over our troops which showed the love and admiration he had and still has for them.

      Report Post »  
    • Diamondback
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:05pm

      Here, here.

      Report Post »  
  • slwolfgram
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:35am

    I feel that when a man cries he has a very soft heart (like Glenn Beck). Boehner is a true american and his tears are for this country and the upcoming generation that may never be able to see America as we all did growing up. He has said that and as a matter of fact I still cry when I think that there is a conspiacy to transform this country into something to be feared other than enjoyed. I cry when I think of kids growing up and not experiency the freedom and the education that we have had. So Sarah is right that women are called down and said to be unfit for any kind of responsibiblity if they show any form of weakness like crying or esigning from the office of Governor. I don’t, however, feel he got a pass for showing his emotion. I’ve heard alot of critism from every news agency including Fox. Let’s just hold him up in prayer and speak strength to him so that he can tackle the tough issues that are ahead.

    Report Post »  
  • JJStryder
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:31am

    DTBMB: Proof of what? That you are as biased as JZS? Congratulations you both don’t know what the hell your talking about.

    Report Post » JJStryder  
  • bookofwisdom
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:20am

    Personally I don’t care how much he cries as long as he gets the job done that We The People want him to do. May God Bless.

    Report Post » bookofwisdom  
  • neverending
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:17am

    Why does she always have to whine? Poor me, poor me is always her message and it is getting old. She basically used that same reason/excuse for quitting her governorship. Prayerful consideration? She should have been doing that about her children. In it to win it? I thought you went in to lose it? This won’t be popular but she is NOT presidential material.

    Report Post »  
    • MichiganPatriot
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:45am

      Obviously you are lost in the wilderness when it comes to Palins decision to leave her Governship. She did not quit, she left to pursue a goal that will eventually help our country. She left the State of Alaska in very good hands. Anyone who is that narrow minded and cannot see that will never understand what it is to be an American…a true American who is not afraid to be ridiculed for following their dreams…Grow up!

      Report Post » MichiganPatriot  
    • Pilgrim Bill
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:45am

      NO Neverending,she quit because liberals tried to bankrupt her with phony charges. I’m sure she prayers for her family. i know that she gives them guidance. are you angry because Bristol “was punished with a baby”?.

       
    • APatriotFirst
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 2:52pm

      Palin left her governorship to keep the people of Alaska from having to pay for all the lawsuits filed. Does anyone here ever read, listen to the truth. Do research.

      Report Post »  
  • Pilgrim Bill
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:12am

    Sorry Sarah your wrong. both Boehner and Glenn have been mocked.
    how’s that commercial go “real men cry, right Glenn‘ and here’s another
    “Our good friend, Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska, is a contributor to Fox News. Only been there a couple days. Already making friends. Today, she loaned Glenn Beck some mascara that does not run when you cry.” –David Letterman
    Now Dobby must punish self for contradicting Governor Palin

    Report Post »  
  • Capt_Spalding
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:11am

    She’s right. She also added that if it were her, she would be mocked like crazy. I agree that Boehner has caught his share of hell of being genuine and I realize alot of folks want to split hairs on this but overall she’s correct.
    Personally, Glenn is still my fave crier… because he makes fun of himself about it.

    Report Post » Capt_Spalding  
  • Pilgrim Bill
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:05am

    Sorry Sarah you are wrong.
    Speaker elect Boehner has been mocked for crying. and I’m sure Miss Nancy cried when she lost her privite wings.
    how’s that commercial go “real men cry, right Glenn‘ and here’s another
    “Our good friend, Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska, is a contributor to Fox News. Only been there a couple days. Already making friends. Today, she loaned Glenn Beck some mascara that does not run when you cry.” –David Letterman
    now Dobby must punish his self for contradicting Governor Palin

    Report Post »  
    • APatriotFirst
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 2:44pm

      Robin said Boener got a pass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Palin did not say it. Watch and listen to video again.

      Report Post »  
  • psst
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:03am

    Sarah is geting on my nerve..
    Constantly giving interviews to people who make no bones they hate her.
    When asked the ? about Husseing wanting to fundamentally change America and then isn’t her wanting to change America What is the difference.
    She said America does not need to be fundamentally changed.
    She should have answered the ? by saying when Hussein said he want to fundamentally change America he meant change America into a total marxist country and the difference between us is that I’m not a marxist.
    As for Boehner’s crying, she should have said he needs cut the crying crap out.It’s unbecoming the next Speaker. and the country needs a show of strength not tears.
    One thing you can say about Dingy and Plousy. They tell it like they want it to be.They don’t care what Non-Lemmings (that’s the majority of the country, for now )thinks about them
    Republicans and cons (they are not synonymous) seems to give a crap what Lemmings and the MSM thinks about them.

    Report Post »  
    • Diamondback
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:21pm

      Many folks consider crying by men more of a strength than a weakness.

      It takes a strong man, firmly founded in his masculinity, to cry in public – especially on National TV.

      Sometimes it can cement the resolve to actually do something effective about the particular issue.

      Report Post »  
  • jedi.kep
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:02am

    I hope Sarah does toss her hat into the presidential ring, if only for the fact that she will bring a fierce debate into the Republican party about what they truly believe. If they get another progressive hack like McCain, I think I would consider moving to Mexico

    Report Post » jedi.kep  
    • Diamondback
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:15pm

      I’d be tempted to actually vote for Obama.

      When he was first elected I was sure it was the worst thing to ever happen to America but it has turned out to be the best. The American people are waking up, revisiting our founding principles, studying our Constitution etc. etc. like NEVER before in my lifetime.

      If I could take back my vote for McCain (which I did exactly how McCain‘s mom said we’d do: hold our nose and vote for the lesser of two evils [although I do sincerely appreciate his service during the Vietnam War]), I would.

      I do not intend on voting for any RINOS or establishment types in the future.

      I’ll stay home and let Obama get reelected first.

      Sorry but that’s where I am these days.

      Let’s get all this progressive/communist bs in the open, debated and settled once and for all – however it eventually turns out.

      Report Post »  
  • RightPolitically
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:00am

    Why are we wasting time with this crap when the Democrat controlled Congress has gotten away with the 35% theft from the estates of the rich. This is pure COMMUNISM and REDISTRIBUTION of wealth. That money was earned and taxes paid on it. THIS GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT to any more of it! And let me be clear, I SAY THIS being a person of very little wealth or assets. However, I am OUTRAGED by this blatant CLUB of governmental power that is being used here!

    Report Post » RightPolitically  
    • untameable-kate
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:09am

      To hear politicians talk about how they have a right to a persons inheritance because they got a free windfall is infuriating. The taxes have already been paid on everything a person is leaving to thie beneficiaries. Double taxation is illegal, although they always seem to find or create a loophole to steal more of our property and money.

      Report Post » Untameable-kate  
    • Diamondback
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:55am

      They’re criminals and crooks. They being Congress and the courts/judges.

      The congress knowingly passes unconstitutional legislation and then the federal courts bend and twist law, history and language to back them up in the thefts and graft.

      Disgusting.

      Report Post »  
    • Clive
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:02pm

      the redistribution of wealth has gone on since income tax was started.

      Report Post »  
    • TRUTHSEEKINGAL
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 1:53pm

      The wealthy (until this generational theft can be reversed again) will just have to be creative with their estates, while still among the living. Namely distribute the bulk of said wealth to heirs,through gifts,starting trusts early and establishing new corps. before they die. I’m not an expert on estate issues, but others are. Charity also is more rewarding to all parties ,including the giver, if one is alive to see the good they have perpetuated ..

      Report Post » TRUTHSEEKINGAL  
  • RefoundAmerica
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:59am

    I do not understand why this is even a question. Who wouldn’t cry at the state of our country? Quite frankly having the question raises some concerns. Have we become so hard hearted that crying about our country is perceived as weak vs. patriotic?

    Report Post » RefoundAmerica  
    • neverending
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:28am

      I am sure our founding fathers had no problem shedding a tear or two. I am not ashamed of all the tears I and my family shed over the condition of this beautiful GOD given country.

      Report Post »  
    • Diamondback
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:51am

      Frankly, I don’t understand how any freedom loving, constitution supporting American can look at their kids or grandkids without crying. I can’t. What we’ve allowed to be done to them while we watched Dancing with Stars and CSI, is unforgivable and disgusting!

      They have been spent into indentured servitude for generations UNLESS WE GET OUR DEFECATION CONSOLIDATED POST HASTE and straighten it all out over the next few years!

      I’m embarrassed that this happened on OUR WATCH and still WE DO NOTHING.

      Report Post »  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:01pm

      I’m sorry, but I generally find tears from men in public very unmanly and unbecoming. I’ll make philosophical exceptions for funerals of loved ones, or standing before machine guns with tears in your eyes and fingers in the air, or losing your best hunting dog, but honestly men should refrain from bawling in public as much as possible. It is effeminate, unbecoming and unmanly. Rather, stand firm, resolute and tighten the jaw ready for a fight, I say.

      For the record, I know my opinion will not be received well in this post 1970′s Sharing Caring Touchy Feely Guy world. C’est la vie.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • untameable-kate
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:36pm

      Ghost, you can see he is trying not to cry. Should he retire from office because he gets over-emotional? I would rather have a John Boehner who gets emotional than a Nancy Pelosi who could not cry if you poked her eye out because she is cruel and indifferent. Although I agree that it is unmanly to cry in public.

      Report Post » Untameable-kate  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:51pm

      @Kate

      I‘m not suggesting Boehner should or shouldn’t hold any position that he’s earned. I was simply expressing, out of frustration I suppose, my disdain for “men” who cry in public. It’s a pet peeve of mine, which I’ll own right up front as being my problem alone. There are times when I think I am simply not cut out to live in this century (and half of the last). :)

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • SlimnRanger
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 3:12pm

      Aman Refound,whats going on in this nation is enough to bring tears,being from a large family myself i totally understand where Hohn Boehner comes from i truly admire him and i can assure you he is more than capable of handling the job as Speaker of the House, and as for Sarah she can beat up Nancy Pelosi anyday, wow now that would be a fight i would pay for to go see

      Report Post »  
    • half pint
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:33pm

      @diamondback excellent post

      Report Post » half pint  
    • EP46
      Posted on December 19, 2010 at 8:16am

      John 11:35 Jesus wept

      Report Post »  
  • hauschild
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:56am

    You guys have to come at this from her perspective – if she were to break down and sob, she’d get crucified.

    Boehner got the usual treatment from a National Socialistic press corps towards a traditional American, which is old hat by now. Had Palin done this, the lynch mobs would have formed at the town square and wouldn’t have disbanded until they had a head in a noose.

    The left is terrified of Palin because she‘s the exact opposite of any liberal woman that’s ever held a high office in this country – she has a vision for the future of this country somewhat like Reagan had. And, when you have this and can articulate, you’ve got tremendous potential.

    Report Post »  
  • NHABE64
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:54am

    Sarah Palin is a champion in my book. She recognizes how great of a man John Boehner is and he along with the GOP are going to start reversing some of the damage done by this cockroach administration beginning next month. Just seeing Harry Reid’s 1.1 trillon dollar pork spending bill get shot down made my day. Great job GOP and great job to Sarah Palin for all her own work with the Tea Party Movement. Sarah is an inspiration to all of us Patriots and I truly love her. In 2010 I would vote for her, I would also considering voting for Chris Christi and Mitt Romney. God, its going to be a great year ahead, Hooyah for the United States of America.

    Report Post »  
    • cindyloo
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:02am

      Thank you, your post was inspiring and gives me hope.

      Report Post » cindyloo  
    • Alky
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:57am

      Mitt Romney is a RHINO! ObamaCare is based on RomneyCare.

      Report Post » Alky  
    • Diamondback
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:07pm

      You’re right I think. Romney is not quite conservative/libertarian enough for me. BUT, pair with him a Palin, Rubio or West type and VOILA we’re talking change I can support.

      Report Post »  
    • TSUNAMI-22
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:50pm

      @ NHABE64

      Palin yes, Chris Christy yes, even Huckster (flat tax)….stay away from Romney. Romney is a white Obama. remember, Romney inspired the healthcare crap that came out of CT.

      I would wholeheartedly vote for Palin because she represents a “back to basics” mentality and a strong moral compass. Just the mere fact that the progressives and ******** can’t stand her should be obvious that she would be the best choice for the country as far as the founders envisioned.

      I live for the day when the huge sucking sound comes from the demise of the entitlement mentality. Palin would usher that in.

      Report Post »  
    • Proud American in Buffalo
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 3:28pm

      My sentiments exactly. It take guts for a man to show his emotions. I say don’t be afraid to show people who you are. Your critics will always complain and your supporters will admire you even more.

      Report Post » Proud American in Buffalo  
  • cindyloo
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:53am

    She’s right about Obama transforming America into a Socialist Distopia.

    Report Post » cindyloo  
  • ASillyman
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:53am

    She would be a President the country would be proud of.

    Report Post »  
    • manymoons768
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 7:34pm

      She, Sarah Palin is one of the best things that has happened to this country in along time. Glenn Beck too.

      Report Post »  
  • Lantern
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:48am

    Sarah, they’ll pounce on whatever you do to try to make you look stupid.

    Report Post » Lantern  
  • untameable-kate
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:48am

    I didn’t notice Jonn Boehner getting a pass, so far all I hear from the left is that he is a crybaby sissy boy for crying.
    That black chick should get rid of the purpley pinky makeup

    Report Post » Untameable-kate  
  • GeauxAlready
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:47am

    Boehner cryies cause his tighty whities are to tight…………..

    Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
  • GhostOfJefferson
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:46am

    Also, Boehner got a pass? Being raked over the coals on several rather largely watched shows and media outlets is being given a pass?

    Palin, don’t play the victim, it is unbecoming.

    Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • CatB
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:05am

      Compaired to what a woman would get I would say yes –really .. .they would be calling for her to step down … I would never cry in business (yes I am a “girl”) I would suck it up (and have) wait and go into a bathroom and punch a wall (better than punching the boss).

      Report Post »  
    • neverending
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:27am

      That is what she does best!!! – be a victim.

      Report Post »  
    • untameable-kate
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:45am

      CATB, I disagree. I cry, I get teary eyed at some things and yes, I am a business woman. We women need not fall into the same kind of rhetoric the minorities are all about, running around complaining about how unfair things are for us. I cry, I am sucessful, I also double dog dare anyone to walk up to me and condemn me for crying.

      Report Post » Untameable-kate  
    • CatB
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:52am

      I don’t run around and feel sorry for myself either (or play the “victim”) .. but I would never cry in business .. .There is no crying in business .. even if you think you are getting a pass.

      Report Post »  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:58am

      I’m sorry CATB, but watching the media go after Boehner with unrestrained glee for shedding his tears informs me that he’s not getting a “pass”. I‘ve heard contentions that he’s probably not fit to be Speaker because of the tears, which is the same as “calls to step down”.

      I’m sorry, but Sarah is playing the victim here. She should be above that, given how she herself has been treated.

      At best what could be said is that liberals get a pass on the tear duct evacuations in public, while non-liberals do not. At best.

      Even then, it’s not something to bring up, it looks petty.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • untameable-kate
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:09pm

      There is no shame in showing your humanity. I was talking to customers about an auto accident I was in with my best friend (driving), myself and our kids, when I was telling the client that although I was badly injured my son came out without a scratch, I cried. I’m pretty sure the client does not think any less of me for it.

      Report Post » Untameable-kate  
    • TERMLIMITSNOW
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 4:37pm

      Clive is right, crying is a waste of time, get tough!

      Report Post » TERMLIMITSNOW  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on December 19, 2010 at 2:09am

      Crying is like taking a dump – it’s natural, normal, healthy, everyone does it, and everyone who is not an infant knows they should do it in private in order to avoid disgusting others.

      Report Post »  
  • GhostOfJefferson
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:44am

    Bill Clinton is a woman?

    Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • CatB
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:57am

      Yes … but I don’t think that his “fake” tears count … remember the Ron Brown funeral and him laughing along and then when he saw the camera .. his lips downturned and he “fake” cried.

      YouTube search .. Ron Brown Clinton tears and you can find it.

      Report Post »  
    • snowleopard3200 {mix art}
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:07am

      Bill Clinton, like Queen Hillary is a good stage actor, able to switch roles and moods in an instant. Nothing more than that – save for being power hungry wanna be tyrants (in Hillary’s case).

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • Polwatcher
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:16am

      It would be hard for me to believe that Bill Clinton ever cared about others enough to actually cry.

      Report Post »  
  • Dustyluv
    Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:44am

    What Bohener didn’t get a pass Sarah…Sorry girl you are wrong here…

    Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:55am

      FOX viewers are most misinformed of any:

      There were, however, a number of cases where greater exposure to a particular news source increased misinformation on some issues.

      Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it

      http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=

      jzs  
    • Dustyluv
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:00am

      JZS….Numbers from the Daily Kos don’t mean sh@@…Looney tune *******!

      Report Post »  
    • Polwatcher
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:04am

      I know that Boehner can‘t help it but I won’t defend his crying in public. It really looks bad but I still support his actions in Congress if he is really tough on the screwball and criminal Dems who love to print money or steal our money and spend it on themselves or their friends. (Yes, I know some screwball criminal Repubs like to do that too. My sentiments are the same for them.)

      Report Post »  
    • dont ****** me bro
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:06am

      JZS – I always knew watching FOX made you stupid, now you gave me proof!

      Report Post »  
    • Sheepdog911
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:25am

      @JZS, BS statistics are the first bastion of liars. Manipulated numbers mean nothing – see Gore and Mann, both of whom are still praised by statistics quoters. Show me one thing in the statistics that indicate that the Stimulus Package helped anything. Oh, and using stats regarding non-existant things like how “it would have been worse” aren’t factual. That would be like claiming that if Hillary had married a plumber instead of Bill, we’d have never heard of Bill – the plumber didn’t exist, so the whole premise is a fantasy about Hillary’s influence. You should try watching Fox and put down the Huffington Post, it might be educational.

      Report Post » Sheepdog911  
    • neverending
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:26am

      No he certainly did not.

      Report Post »  
    • dlmarsh
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:37am

      JZS, here is who supports your WPO
      Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Tides Foundation. Rockefeller and Ford foundations are tied to Communist and Socialist causes admitted by their own historical records and interviews with their Presidents. Of course we all know who the Tides Foundation is associated with – Spooky Dude

      http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/about.php?nid=&id=
      is made possible by the generous support of:

      Rockefeller Foundation
      Rockefeller Brothers Fund
      Tides Foundation
      Ford Foundation
      German Marshall Fund of the United States
      Compton Foundation
      Carnegie Corporation
      Benton Foundation
      Ben and Jerry’s Foundation
      University of Maryland Foundation
      Circle Foundation
      JEHT Foundation
      Stanley Foundation
      Ploughshares Fund
      Calvert Foundation
      Secure World Foundation
      Oak Foundation
      United States Institute of Peace

      Report Post »  
    • LibertyGoddess
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:50am

      Comments like this Sarah are why you will never be president.

      Report Post » LibertyGoddess  
    • lenavid
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:52am

      JZS, statistics don’t lie, but statisticians do. Getting your information from a Liberal-biased source makes you guilty of the very accusation you’re making. Don’t be so narrow.

      Report Post » lenavid  
    • tower7femacamp
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:16pm

      Isis Illuminati Idiot.

      Report Post » tower7femacamp  
    • NeoFan
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:25pm

      JZS: More drooling nonsense from the Godless. Sarah Palin is a righteous women that speaks the truth. Its that simple. That is why the Godless minions start stabbing themselves in the eye with a sharp object at the very mention of her name.

      Report Post »  
    • Independent Tess
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:30pm

      @JZS –
      Information from Fox News has proved more accurate than “mainstream” media so many times that I no longer worry about missing out on something.
      Maybe you should start keeping score yourself rather than relying on their bogus info!

      Report Post » Independent Tess  
    • TSUNAMI-22
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:40pm

      @ jzs

      I’ll be happy when I see Harry Reid crying. Then, and only then will it be evident that the country is returning to the right path.

      Incidentally, FOX at least try’s to be balanced. I’ve always said “If you want fairly decent news with some truth to it, watch FOX. If you want to see what Fox is talking about, watch MSNBC”.

      Personally, I think FOX gives too much opinion time to the lefty types, like Rendell, Beckell, Williams, Rivera and Sharpton. Even O’Reilly is a Mr. Milktoast as of late. O’Reilly seems to play devils advocate too much.

      Just my opinion.

      Report Post »  
    • hypocrisy alert
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 1:00pm

      Did you even listen to the interview ? It was Robin (the interviewer) who said that Boehner got a pass. Sarah then said that she would give him a pass. SHE never said he got a pass by the media. She then said she would be mocked if she did cry. I see no untruths from her here.

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 1:28pm

      DRSRIGHT, that’s quite a tome. But you missed the point. FOX news viewers, for example, tend to believe most scientists believe global warming is not occurring. That’s false. The vast majority of climate scientists believe in global warming. Yet FOX viewers believe they don’t. Thanks for your view on global warming, one I’m sure you got from noted scientist Rush Limbaugh, but it’s an opinion not believed by virtually anyone whose expertice is in that area (2010 is shaping up to be the warmest year worldwide in recorded history BTW).

      Thanks for your opinions, but you are the exact kind of person the poll addresses: people who get their information on the economy from FOX pundits rather than economists, their science from Rush (who flunked out of college), and view of the Constitution of Beck (flunked of college) rather than legal experts.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 1:40pm

      @JVS

      Claiming something is “false” does not make it false. Your logic fails for lack of proof for your own objections.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • dwh320
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 2:02pm

      Bad move Sara. Now your a tool of the Progressives to pound the new Speaker with. That was a bad move and showed some poor judgement on this issue by you.

      Report Post » dwh320  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 2:09pm

      Sarah did not say that he got a pass. That was the interviewer setting up the premise

      Blaze, write your stories better.

      As far as crying being undignified? Bullcrap! Men have wept for ages before our very recent age (last 100 years) and istill in most cultures outside the West. O good study of this pointed to Frued’s sexualization of all human behavior that had made modeern western men so afraid of both their emotions and intimate male friendships because they/we now associate it as being less manly (gay). In africa men hold hands. Weeping, done plenty of times. What’s the shortest verse in the bible? Jesus wept. Was Jesus a sissy?

      Maybe if we men could feel more comfortable expressing emotions we might have less homosexuality. Emotionless fathers make masculinity seem harder than it needs to be.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • jzs
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 2:10pm

      Please GHOST. Do you know how to use google?

      “Doran and Kendall Zimmerman [worldwide poll of scientific opinion on global warming] conclude that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm

      That’s the first thing that showed up in a search. Go to it. Find one source that says the majority of scientist believe otherwise.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • NeoFan
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 2:22pm

      Oh yeah JZS Global warming is true. So show us the forecasts for the next few years from the same people. The same morons predicted that we would have stronger huricanes for the next five years after Katrina. DOH! I guess that one didn’t work out. Maybe that‘s why the only prediction they will now stand behind can’t be proven or dis-proven for the next 50 years at a minimum. Gee have you noticed that the people that say the planet is warming are not buying any land in the north. Why is that? You would think that Canada would be having a land rush. More nonsense from the Godless.

      Report Post »  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 2:44pm

      @JZS

      Sorry JZS, stating “false” does not make something false. The issue is still up in the air for real scientists about there even being a warming trend, let alone a reason for it. That you can make such statements informs me that you’re more prone to side with dogmatism than science.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • TSUNAMI-22
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 2:54pm

      @ JZS

      Which legal economist do you believe in more as to where the country is headed?

      Robert Reich
      Peter Schiff

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 3:16pm

      JZS,

      “But you missed the point. FOX news viewers, for example, tend to believe most scientists believe global warming is not occurring. That’s false. The vast majority of climate scientists believe in global warming. Yet FOX viewers believe they don’t.”

      That’s great. Global Warming is a Marxist lie, so if most scientists believe in it only means that most are wrong.

      “Thanks for your view on global warming, one I’m sure you got from noted scientist Rush Limbaugh, but it’s an opinion not believed by virtually anyone whose expertice is in that area (2010 is shaping up to be the warmest year worldwide in recorded history BTW).”

      Actually, I just went outside and it was colder after one year – again, the question that needs to be answered by the Global Warming folks is how were certain areas able to get colder if Global Warming is true.

      Also, I already said that a Global Warming trend is completely within my paradigm – but only as a function of aggregate regional data. And, like I said above, the fact that regions can get colder after a year means that a Global Warming trend is merely interesting – nothing much can be made of that information, probably least of all man-caused global warming.

      For example, if I have 3 cups, with ice in one, room-temperature water in another, and an empty cup, and I slowly add scalding hot water to the third, then I can say that the aggregate trend across all 3 cups is a rise in temperature. But since the temperature of all 3 cups are independently controlled, that is a largely meaningless piece of information.

      Now, one region‘s climate has an effect on the other since there’s no barrier between them, but you do have regions of the world getting colder after a year, and so an aggregate of regional data is only merely interesting.

      Thanks for your opinions, but you are the exact kind of person the poll addresses: people who get their information on the economy from FOX pundits rather than economists, their science from Rush (who flunked out of college), and view of the Constitution of Beck (flunked of college) rather than legal experts.

      If Fox News tells me something about the economy and then shows that the government has been wargaming economic collapse scenarios, does Fox get a pass?

      I already addressed the Global Warming “science” without referencing Limbaugh.

      Since legal experts are beholden to the Constitution, the Constitution is authoritatively prior to legal experts, and therefore they are not the final arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution

      Not only that, but American law did not exist prior to its founding, nor did the Founders appeal to legalese in the writing of the Declaration of Indepencence or the Constitution. The Constitution ESTABLISHED the American rule of law, and therefore appealed to a higher, more fundamental, law than that of legal experts.

      The interpretation of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution are matters of epistemology and language. Anyone who can read and parse sentences may enter the debate, the final arbitor being logic and not legal experts.

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 3:19pm

      GHOST – I can see one reason you believe what you do. Either you don’t read anything before forming an opinion, or your comprehension is low. It is a fact that most climate scientists agree with in global warming. That’s a fact, not a matter of opinion. Follow my link or do your own search. The poll I linked to above said people who watch FOX think most climate scientist disagree with global warming. That’s false. I gave you the basis for that statement being false. I could give you 20 more.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • Resolved
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 4:32pm

      grrr, text got deleted.

      I don’t think it was too terribly long ago when it was Global Cooling scientist were so worried about. The world was going to end, and man had caused it. Then they changed it to Global Warming (guess their thermometers were upside down) and said the same thing. World’s gonna end, man did it. Now it’s climate change.

      JZS, The scientist of whom you speak can’t even figure out which way the temperature is going. The policies suggested to overcome man-made Global Warming would do little to nothing to stop it even if it was true, and instead do more to redistribute wealth. The flagship documentary of the Green Movement, aka Inconvenient Truth, is lawfully restricted from classroom viewing in Britain unless it contains footnotes detailing the numerous factual errors it contains. And to put a cap on that, the people telling me the world‘s gonna end in 10 years if i don’t buy a hybrid can‘t even predict Monday’s weather without screwing up. The evidence against man made Global Warming, in my opinion, is far more staggering than the evidence for it. Forgive me if I’m skeptical.

      Report Post » Resolved  
    • Resolved
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 4:39pm

      scientistSSSSS, scientistSSSS. Curse my fingers which type faster than i can think!

      Report Post » Resolved  
    • Resolved
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 4:50pm

      On second thought, probably shouldn’t curse my fingers. I’ve got a gig tonight ^^*

      Report Post » Resolved  
    • jzs
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 6:06pm

      I hate to be the one to tell you, but you’re not smarter than a 5th grader, where my daughter learned the difference between weather and climate. You seemed to have those two confused. The fact that is still snows in the world is not evidence against global warming. That’s weather, and a large snowstorm may in fact represent increased moisture in the air as a result of increased evaporation from warmer oceans.

      Not sure what you mean with your “aggregate regional temperature” paradigm lingo, but global warming trends are just that: an “aggregate” rise in temperatures across the world. Your understanding is simplistic at best. The trend is not simply higher temperatures a few places. It’s based on surface ocean temperatures, deep ocean temperatures, surface air temperatures, tropospheric temperatures, square mileage of ice cover at the poles and elsewhere (which is shrinking), ocean height and other measures taken all around the globe.

      And they all point in one direction: the Earth is getting warmer decade by decade with the last 10 years the warmest in recorded history, the decade before that the second warmest. That doesn‘t mean there isn’t year to year variation, but you’d have to understand at least a little statistics to grasp that concept.

      You start with the assumption that global warming is a “Marxist lie” even though climate scientists have been studying the phenomenon for the last thirty years, before “Marxist” even entered to vocabulary of the unlearned. We‘ve know CO2 retained the Earth’s heat for the last 150 years. But “lie” is where you start, because that’s what Glenn Beck, the world renowned scientist says in order to make money off of you. If you start with that as an axiom, of course you believe it’s false and have assembled a set of ideas that may impress your friends, but not anyone knowledgeable on the subject.

      Here a link to edify you, although there are plenty of others out there. But here’s the summary, complete with links to more in-depth knowledge: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/28/global-temperatures-2010-record

      Report Post » jzs  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 8:41pm

      JZS

      “I hate to be the one to tell you, but you’re not smarter than a 5th grader, where my daughter learned the difference between weather and climate. You seemed to have those two confused. The fact that is still snows in the world is not evidence against global warming.”

      My short response is that of course it is; Snow is cold. Global Warming is hot.

      I realize that’s not a comprehensive response, but it suffices to explain the nonsense of Global Warming hysteria. If it’s colder in a particular region after a year, or if it snows more, then that’s a region in which Global Warming was not able to have an effect. More snow is not the result of Global Warming – at least not in the sense you need it to be.

      “That’s weather, and a large snowstorm may in fact represent increased moisture in the air as a result of increased evaporation from warmer oceans.”

      And increased moisture in the air makes the air colder (this is how air conditioners work). Your example only illustrates why its not logically possible for there to be Global Warming. There is SO much water on earth, and so if more of that water evaporates, more clouds will form and cool the Earth.

      “Not sure what you mean with your “aggregate regional temperature” paradigm lingo, but global warming trends are just that: an “aggregate” rise in temperatures across the world. Your understanding is simplistic at best.”

      An aggregate of regions, some of which get colder after a year. Which means that Global Warming didn’t effect those regions. The Global Warming folks need to say why that is, from their paradigm.

      Simplistic at best? Simplistic a la Occam’s Razor. Given that temperatures at the regional level can and have gotten colder after a year, it logically follows that so called Global Warming has not effected that region – and is therefore not global.

      And since you admit that Global Warming trends are aggregate rises in temperature, you have made each single component piece of that aggregate relevant by itself – and given that it has been observed that single component pieces of that aggregate (regions) have reflected colder temperatures after a year, one must ask why others cannot also.

      The evidence from the component pieces of the aggregate (global) temperature is sufficient for me to conclude that there exists no cause for concern about a supposed global warming doomsday scenario.

      “The trend is not simply higher temperatures a few places. It’s based on surface ocean temperatures, deep ocean temperatures, surface air temperatures, tropospheric temperatures, square mileage of ice cover at the poles and elsewhere (which is shrinking), ocean height and other measures taken all around the globe.”

      Again, if the oceans evaporate faster, this creates more moisture in the air, which cools it. Clouds cool the air below them, also.

      Deep ocean temperatures can’t rise too much because it gets dark the deeper it is.

      The size of the ice cover at the poles is interesting but not relevant to my life.

      If the oceans rise (or fall), then people will simply move to more hospitable places – the number of which will increase in your doomsday scenario because previously colder regions will not have as much snow covering the ground.

      Again, Global Warming is a lie created for the redistribution of wealth, Marxism.

      “And they all point in one direction: the Earth is getting warmer decade by decade with the last 10 years the warmest in recorded history, the decade before that the second warmest. That doesn‘t mean there isn’t year to year variation, but you’d have to understand at least a little statistics to grasp that concept.”

      Like I said before, a global warming trend is completely within my paradigm. My life doesn’t seem to be effected by any of the Global Warming hysterical points of interest (ice coverage, polar bears, ocean level, etc) – assuming, for argument’s sake that theyre true – but my life DOES seem to be effected by all the government regulations imposed by the Marxists who are deliberately destroying the economy.

      And yes, for Global Warming to mean what you need it to mean, it would mean that it would not be possible for there to be a year to year aggregate lowering of temperature.

      “You start with the assumption that global warming is a “Marxist lie” even though climate scientists have been studying the phenomenon for the last thirty years, before “Marxist” even entered to vocabulary of the unlearned. We‘ve know CO2 retained the Earth’s heat for the last 150 years. But “lie” is where you start, because that’s what Glenn Beck, the world renowned scientist says in order to make money off of you. If you start with that as an axiom, of course you believe it’s false and have assembled a set of ideas that may impress your friends, but not anyone knowledgeable on the subject.”

      And central planning has been imposed on mankind – to their destruction – even before Marx, so what’s your point?

      At any rate, Glenn Beck isn’t the only one making the Marxist link to the Global Warming hysteria. Glenn Beck’s assembled set of ideas seems to have affected a member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

      U.N. OFFICIAL ADMITS: WE REDISTRIBUTE WORLD’S WEALTH BY CLIMATE POLICY
      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/u-n-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-by-climate-policy/

      I’m not going to read your links unless you first argue the points yourself. I don’t expect you to read mine unless I do so, as well. Thus far, your arguments have not addressed my contentions regarding aggregate vs. regional temperatures.

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:59pm

      DOCTOR, you’re right, snow is cold and global warming is, not so much “hot” as warm. And getting warmer since the industrial revolution. And the amount of “snow” measured by the snow and ice (which reflect the light that warms the Earth back into space) is decreasing decade by decade. You don’t want to read anything that is at odds with your opinions, but the amount of snow and ice in the world is decreasing. That’s something satellites can and do measure quite accurately, and those measurements don’t depend on whether it “effects you” not. You can say those measurement are inaccurate or false, but you’d be at odds with every organization in the world who tracks those things (see previous link if you care, although you seem to want to argue in a vacuum, devoid of data, which truly is your only refuge).

      Your statement that global warming is a “Marxist lie.” Please provide some support for that. Name a climate scientist and reference some justification for saying he’s a Marxist. Can you even name a climate scientist? And the word “lie” means deliberate deception. Can you show the 99% of the world‘s climate scientists know the that global warming is false and yet are promoting the idea because they’re Marxists? Of course not. That’s the sort of politically charged nonsense that may gain traction for you here on this website, but which is laughable among anyone with a mind who can separate politics from science. Please Doctor, defend that statement with facts and references to political affiliations of any, I mean one single one, climate scientist.

      One more comment. Where is this “aggregate region” where temperatures are decreasing? You keep saying that, evidently with the idea that there is an exception to global warming. Where is that? Why do you keep saying that without referencing the place? Name it.

      I’ll repeat: The trend is not simply higher temperatures a few places. It’s based on surface ocean temperatures, deep ocean temperatures, surface air temperatures, tropospheric temperatures, square mileage of ice cover at the poles and elsewhere (which is shrinking), ocean height and other measures taken all around the globe.

      I hope you respond DOCTOR. But if you do, leave the politics out unless that’s your entire justification for your opinions. This isn’t about politics, this is science.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on December 20, 2010 at 2:27am

      JZS,

      “DOCTOR, you’re right, snow is cold and global warming is, not so much “hot” as warm.”

      “Warm” is not a doomsday scenario – the Global Warming hysteria needs the end result to be a hot Earth.

      “And getting warmer since the industrial revolution. And the amount of “snow” measured by the snow and ice (which reflect the light that warms the Earth back into space) is decreasing decade by decade. You don’t want to read anything that is at odds with your opinions, but the amount of snow and ice in the world is decreasing. That’s something satellites can and do measure quite accurately, and those measurements don’t depend on whether it “effects you” not. You can say those measurement are inaccurate or false, but you’d be at odds with every organization in the world who tracks those things (see previous link if you care, although you seem to want to argue in a vacuum, devoid of data, which truly is your only refuge).”

      I keep telling you that a global warming trend is completely within my paradigm, but only as an aggregate of regional temperatures, which regional temperatures after a year prove that Global Warming is not logically possible in the sense you need it to be.

      So, even if it’s true that the amount of snow in the world was decreasing (I‘m not arguing that it’s not this way), this isn’t a relevant point. What the Global Warming proponents need to show is how it’s possible for a region of the world to get colder after a year, if they’re right – this is what doesn’t make sense. Whatever the capacity of “greenhouse gasses” to raise temperatures, they were somehow unable to raise the temperatures of certain regions after one year – which means that so-called Global Warming is not global.

      About your measurements not depending on whether it “affects me” or not – that’s what the whole Global Warming hysteria is all about – if all it does is cause people to move north, or higher up into the mountains, then it’s hardly a doomsday scenario.

      It reminds me of that scene in Austin Powers where Austin is warning the hysterical man to get out of the way of the steam roller he’s driving, and the man is like 40 feet away, and the steam roller is going like 1 mph, and the guy is just standing there and he’s like, “Nooo!”

      At any rate, evaporated water makes clouds – the snow will be back, it’s ok.

      About arguing in a vaccuum, I am not. I have sufficient data, coupled with a sound epistemology, to come to the conclusion I do.

      Your statement that global warming is a “Marxist lie.” Please provide some support for that. Name a climate scientist and reference some justification for saying he’s a Marxist. Can you even name a climate scientist? And the word “lie” means deliberate deception. Can you show the 99% of the world‘s climate scientists know the that global warming is false and yet are promoting the idea because they’re Marxists? Of course not. That’s the sort of politically charged nonsense that may gain traction for you here on this website, but which is laughable among anyone with a mind who can separate politics from science. Please Doctor, defend that statement with facts and references to political affiliations of any, I mean one single one, climate scientist.”

      Here it is again; and keep in mind that I’m using the term “Marxist” in at least a metonymic sense, and that Marxism advocates the redistribution of wealth – I just happen to believe that most of the Obama Administration is, at the very least, willing to use Marxism to achieve the destruction of America, if they aren’t outright Marxists, themselves:

      U.N. OFFICIAL ADMITS: WE REDISTRIBUTE WORLD’S WEALTH BY CLIMATE POLICY
      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/u-n-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-by-climate-policy/

      “One more comment. Where is this “aggregate region” where temperatures are decreasing? You keep saying that, evidently with the idea that there is an exception to global warming. Where is that? Why do you keep saying that without referencing the place? Name it.”

      Snow on the ground in 49 states
      Hawaii is the holdout, but weather is still one for the record books
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35372014/ns/weather/

      “I’ll repeat: The trend is not simply higher temperatures a few places. It’s based on surface ocean temperatures, deep ocean temperatures, surface air temperatures, tropospheric temperatures, square mileage of ice cover at the poles and elsewhere (which is shrinking), ocean height and other measures taken all around the globe.”

      If the trend doesn’t occur everywhere and all at once, then it’s not global in the sense you need it to be. Again, what Global Warmists need to answer is what is keeping Global Warming from doing this?

      “I hope you respond DOCTOR. But if you do, leave the politics out unless that’s your entire justification for your opinions. This isn’t about politics, this is science.”

      That depends on what you mean by “Politics”. Proposed Climate Change legislation is certainly about Politics.

      The word “Politics” gets a bad rep. There’s nothing wrong with Politics.

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on December 20, 2010 at 2:41am

      JZS,

      I did not use the term “aggregate region”. What I mentioned was an “aggregate of regional temperatures”, meaning that there are many regions in the world, and a “global warming trend” would be an average of all the regions of the world.

      But, like I said, since it has been observed that regions of the world get colder after a year, then the Global Warmists need to answer how it is that so-called “greenhouse gasses” weren’t able to keep all regions of the world from getting colder after a year. Because all I see is the planet regulating its own regional temperatures, like it always has.

      Report Post »  
    • realindependent
      Posted on December 20, 2010 at 1:59pm

      john boehner is a crybaby girly man. I thought you Rebulicorpies always slam democrats for being weak wussies. and that democrats are making american men wimps. hell boehner and Mcconnell are criers. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/mitch-mcconnnell-chokes-up/ …
      haha crying about his rebublicorp buddy retiring from senate. Wow repubs are nothing but a bunch of sissy girls. Great to see them talking with leaders around the world crying like babies. Ha FAIL

      Report Post » realindependent  
1 2 3 4

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love