foraker

once again: gonzales clearly lied to congress. don't you think he should be flushed? i mean, lies are lies, right? or is lying about a blow job to congress different and more heinous than lying about something else? i guess we know your answers to those questions already.

once again, you're stealing someone else's blog material without proper citation. so, which federal prosecutor's were 'turning up the heat' on clinton at the time he was inaugurated? if he fired some for political reasons, why didn't the republicans complain about it and force an investigation? could it be because clinton himself appointed a special prosecutor in 1994 and released all his papers prior to that? despite republican control of congress throughout most of the investigation, did they ever say that clinton had incorrectly replaced all of his us attorney's in order to avoid or delay prosecution? i don't recall that but maybe your neocon buddies can help me out.

obviously you're so uncomfortable with your own ethical failings and simple minded sheep-thinking, you can't answer simple questions.

apparently, you're massively confused about the nature of the us attorney's office. answer the questions about your situational ethics, noob. since it's obvious to everyone and their dog that gonzales lied to congress, he should be tossed out, right? or should he be given the medal of freedom and a promotion? how about all that illegal fbi activity? how do you feel about that? you're probably alright with that, herr seahawk.

as per the other thread, how about that quote that bush also said we shouldn't go into rwanda. is it then ok for bush to 'let rwandan's die' and not clinton? seems to me this is just another example of your glaring absence of historical knowledge as well as a prime example of your relative, rather than absolute, sense of ethics.

so can you prove that clinton removed any prosecutor from office for investigating him? or is that you just blowing hot air again? the us attorneys are also supposed to be basically immune from political influence. it's clear that bush and gonzales have been trying to rig the game for political ends. should he or should he not have done that, regardless of what you 'believe' clinton did?

same whinging neocon who can't think for himself, always complaining about Clinton, and rationalizing the behavior of the current administration. care to explain all the hundreds and thousands of hours of testimony by Clinton White House officials, at the president's behest I might add, before Congress, all with transcripts and in the open? Or is Bush just 'special' and shouldn't be held to the same standards? Why is open and transparent government only something you require of Democrats?

i guess that means no foot rub tonight, eh?

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/03/18/bush/index.html?pn=2

All evils of the current administration are forgiveable (or, at least, ignorable) as long as you work Clinton's name into your argument. It doesn't matter then that your administration promised to bring 'honor and dignity' back to the White House. I think that's the point he's trying to make.

It sounds to me like you've already made your decision based upon your political leanings and that you aren't terribly interested in 'sorting out the truth'. While Gore has overplayed the hurricane issue, he's largely gotten the science right. To say this clouds the entire issue for you is akin to ignoring 99 solid facts and focusing on one statement where Gore uses the word 'will' instead of 'probably' and saying this bit of hyperbole throws the entire issue into doubt. I'll admit, wading into the sea of data surrounding climate change (a better term than global warming) is daunting. However, if you're going to challenge the conventional wisdom apropos climate change, you ought to do so based from an educated stand point, not simply from one where you distrust what Al Gore is saying simply because he's Al Gore and carries with him some difficult political baggage that some find difficult to ignore. That said, what we should do about anthropogenic climate change, how much, and when, or even if at all are all valid policy issues to debate. Some will tend towards not accepting that a problem exists and not doing anything. Some will tend towards the opposite end of the spectrum though I've yet to hear anyone advocate we all give up cars and live in yurts (except, sarcastically and derisively, by the most fervent skeptics). Hopefully, most will tend towards recognizing the data says what is says and will look for effective solutions (in cost and in actuality). In the end, Gore is a politician and sometimes uses the language that he deems necessary to get people to realize that a problem exists and to spur often lethargic governments to action. FWIW, he's accomplished getting people's attention, which is the most important thing in any issue. If you're still confused about 'the science', there are plenty of sources available that lay it out (unless, of course, you 'believe' that all climate scientists are in on a vast global conspiracy to continue living the high life on the government dole, drinking martinis, chaining Spanish supermodels in the basement, and driving Ferraris). One source, perhaps a bit technical, is RealClimate.

citations please: http://tracking-the-rogue-yam.blogspot.com/

do it for the children! (but don't save oil for the children, use it now so the chinese children can't have it!)

I thought this was going to be about hot female teachers having sex with the teenaged boys in their class. You can't ever read enough about that. Imagine my disappointment when it turns out to be another thread about the Amish. Activist judge or enforcing the law? You decide!

That's what you get for trying to ski the K-12.

Anyone else go? All I can say is : Holy crap, Batman!

I paid my taxes, which is, ostensibly, supposed to go towards 'helping injured veterans' except your buddy Chimpy McFlightsuit Decided to cut veterans benefits and Decided that Halliburton et al needed the money more than Walter Reed Hospital. This made me so depressed, I went out and ate vast quantities of carbohydrate-laden engineered food products and cheap beer and took a ride in my enormous gas-sucking truck. Apparently, while suffering the effects of a bad drunk and insulin shock, I purchased an overpriced, though highly patriotic, car magnet made by cheap foreign labor. This lit the fire under my ass to do something more for my country...this country which has given me so much for which I have done so little. So, I went out and enlisted. There's only one problem: I used your name. The bus leaves on Friday. You'll thank me later, I know it.

For a minute there, I thought we were witnessing The Return of Sheaf_Stout....

True, but this way you are also getting more of a sweet chocolate-flavored hazelnut butter as opposed to emulsified sugar that tastes like chocolate and hazelnuts.

This recipe works really well. Just made a batch. I really wouldn't recommend trying to do this in a blender. Nutella 2 cups whole raw hazelnuts 1 cup powdered sugar 1/4 cup unsweetened cocoa powder up to 1/4 cup vegetable or nut oil 1/2 tsp vanilla Preheat oven to 350 degrees F. Place hazelnuts in a single layer on a shallow baking pan. Toast until the skins are almost black and the meat is dark brown, about 15 minutes. Stir the nuts halfway through baking so ensure an even color. Since the skin is bitter, you'll want to discard them. Wrap the cooled hazelnuts in a clean kitchen towel or paper towl, and rub until most of the skins have come off. Don't fret if you can't get off all the skins. Process nuts in a food processor, scraping down the sides of the bowl occasionally, until they have liquefied, about 5 minutes. At first, you will get coarsely chopped nuts, and then it will turn into a fine meal. After a little while, the nuts will form a ball around the blade, and it will seem like you only have a solid mass. Keep processing. The heat and friction will extract the natural oils, and you will get hazelnut butter! When the nuts are liquidized, add in the sugar, cocoa and vanilla. Slowly drizzle in enough oil to make a spreadable consistency. Since the mixture is warm, it will be more liquidy now than at room temperature. Transfer the spread to an airtight container, and store refrigerated for up to 1 month. For best results, stir the Nutella before using.

Coming to a school district near you

That's interesting. On the one hand, he seems to be making valid points about the policy implications of GW, which is all well and good. On the other, he seems to be giving a bit of a weak backhand to the data, which seems odd. I'll have to touch base with some old colleagues to see what the deal is. Not to denigrate Claude's scientific scientific credentials, but he gives some of the worst talks I've ever seen. He had this habit of going up to the podium with a box of blank overhead transparencies and a box of pens and making graphs which he'd then pepper with dots and say things, in his thick Gallic accent, like 'And zee data, she looks somezing like zees...'. On the one hand, extemporaneous speaking is a wonderful gift, if done correctly. On the other... I wonder if he's discovered PowerPoint yet?

I submit that you look at the time scales over which these proposed mechanisms occur and then consider the time scale of the current warming trend.

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml

You, too, can have one for the amazing low price of $39.95! But, wait! There's more! We also include this beautiful set of steak knives and a chafing dish! NOW how much would you pay?! Don't answer! We'll be right back with more on this amazing offer!