Roundup

The latest ACORN video.  But Fox definitely shouldn’t mention this in the news, right?

Breitbart to Eric Holder: Investigate ACORN, or else — As if the videos to date aren’t enough, there are more shoes to drop.  I’m with the author:

Principle over party, Attorney General.  Or your party gets hammered.  Your call.  Speaking as a Republican, I hope that you try to keep stonewalling; speaking as an American (which takes precedence), I suggest that you don’t.

Surprise!  Global warming proponents play the same as evolutionists do: “Your views aren’t science because they aren’t in peer reviewed journals and they can’t be in peer reviewed journals because they aren’t science.”  And if they if they do make it into a peer reviewed journal, then just insist that the peer reviewed journal is no longer valid.  Either that, or destroy whoever let the view in.  Voila!  How very scientific and ethical.  Heh.

More problems for Al Gore & Co., if only the media would report them and ensure that everyone who saw An Inconvenient Truth were aware of them: Global warming hysterics burned by predictions.

People are rightly outraged at fraud, but are wildly naive to think it only happens in business.  There is already a ton of fraud with the TARP funds and other government programs.  Who’d have thought that would happen?  I mean, just because a massive amount of money is thrown around with little controls, why would that attract bad guys?

Liberal media rep Norah O’Donnell tries to play “gotcha” with 17 year old — She interviewed her once, then gathered some data, then turned the cameras on.  But no media bias here, folks!  Now maybe Norah could question Obama & Co. over all their health care lies and broken promises of bi-artisanship.

Jesse Jackson: “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man” — I’d say you shouldn’t be pro-legalized abortion and call yourself a black man.

Take that, Jews. White House guts annual Hannakhah party; meanwhile, Obama wishes there were more Muslim holidays to celebrate — great commentary from my favorite gay Chicago bloggers

0 thoughts on “Roundup”

  1. Neil,

    You touched on it briefly with one of your links… but the demolishing of global warming by the leaking of those emails and internal files is really the nail in the coffin.

    When the world’s leading experts are exchanging emails about how it isn’t happening and how to rig the data anyways, and conspiring to destroy evidence, and conspiring to rig the peer review process, and on, and on, and on (the emails really are just incredibly damning)… well, the jig is up.

    Like

    1. I am a little disappointed though. I mean, extended growing seasons, maybe a little more time at the lake and a little less time huddled by the fire…some skin diving off the coast of Vancouver…ah, maybe. I’ll keep driving the crap out of my SUV here in Abu Dhabi and using coal in my Weber, just in case.

      I love how the UN’s IPCC get’s their big bad prediction off by a factor of 3 and the headline doesn’t scream “UN 300% off on AGW prediction!”

      Like

  2. I had a problem with a certain blogger who used to visit here over peer reviewed papers. Not being familiar with such things, I did some research.

    It seems that if one’s peers don’t like what you say, you get a poor review.

    One can’t select who reviews one’s paper, nor how many reviewers there might be. It varies often.

    If the premise of one’s paper contradicts the research done by the person(s) doing the review, one gets a bad review regardless of the soundness of one’s research.

    In short, peer reviews are highly political and biased and mean nothing in light of that fact. The same blogger tried a similar ploy using “citation indexes” when I referred to an opinion by Thomas Sowell. Apparently Tommy doesn’t rank with some liberal economists, but that’s another story. The point is that these indexes are also politically biased.

    BTW, what’s the plural of “index”.

    Like

  3. Hey Neil,

    Totally off-topic: I just ran your blog’s url through the “What’s Your Blog Rated?” site, and guess what the result was?

    NC-17 – “No one under 17 admitted”!! LOL!!

    My theo-geek blog got a “G”, and the eating disorders one got a PG (because I used the word “hell” once. I’m surprised it only came up once!)

    NOW I know why you get so much traffic here…you’re a regular smut-peddler. Tsk, tsk.

    Like

    1. Wow! Must be all the “adult” discussions here. And I thought this was a Christian blog! Although I suppose it might point out that the things I criticize are so evil that just mentioning them merits the NC-17 rating — you know, stuff like Liberal theology.

      Like

  4. Re. Norah O’Donnell

    Conservatives doing people on the street interviews with Obama supporters asked similar questions. If the supporters on the street are any indication of the people they support, Obama isn’t even worthy to share the same field with Palin.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s