Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Altria Group Inc. Message Board

happygambler34 50 posts  |  Last Activity: Jun 29, 2015 1:26 PM Member since: Sep 27, 2000
  • Reply to

    Charley Daniels' Words Of Wisdom

    by happygambler34 Jun 29, 2015 1:04 PM
    happygambler34 happygambler34 Jun 29, 2015 1:26 PM Flag

    And you're still a rip roaring bigot...

  • happygambler34 by happygambler34 Jun 29, 2015 1:04 PM Flag

    The bottom line is that the flag in question represents one thing to some people and another thing to others…

    I was born in 1936, a mere 71 years after the Civil War ended, when the South was looked upon by what seemed to be a majority of the Northern States as an inbred, backward, uneducated, slow-talking and slower-thinking people, with low morals and a propensity for incest.

    This was in the days before television, and about all the folks up North knew about Southerners was what they heard. There were a lot of people who took great pleasure in proliferating the myth, and some still do it to this day.

    As you might suppose, people in the South bitterly resented this attitude of superiority, and in some quarters the words “damn” and “Yankee” became one word. And a somewhat fierce type of Southern pride came into being.

    The Confederate battle flag was a sign of defiance, a sign of pride, a declaration of a geographical area that you were proud to be from.

    That’s all it is to me and all it has ever been to me.

    I can’t speak for all, but I know in my heart that most Southerners feel the same way.

    I have no desire to reinstate the Confederacy. I oppose slavery as vehemently as any man, and I believe that every human being, regardless of the color of their skin, is just as valuable as I am and deserves the exact same rights and advantages as I do…

    Unfortunately, the Confederate battle flag has been adopted by hate groups – and individuals like Dylann Roof – to supposedly represent them and their hateful view of the races.

    Please believe me when I say that, to the overwhelming majority of Southerners, the flag represents no such thing, but is simply a banner denoting an area of the nation and one's pride in living there…

    I lived through the useless cruelty of those days and did not get my feelings out of some sensitivity class or social studies course, but made my own decisions out of experience and disgust.

    I hold no ill feelings and have no axes to grind with my brothers and sisters of any color. The same God made us; the same God will judge us; and I pray that He will intervene in the deep racial divide we have in this nation and make each person – black or white – see each other for what we truly are, human beings. No better, and no worse.

    It's time to do away with labels: Caucasian-American, African-American, Asian-American, Native American and so forth.

    How about just a simple "AMERICAN"?

  • happygambler34 happygambler34 Jun 28, 2015 4:19 PM Flag

    The U.S. Civil War was not about states' rights,
    **********************************************

    Baloney. Lincoln started, and fought, the costliest (in American blood) war of our history to prevent states from seceding from, and breaking the union the Union.

    On April 19, Lincoln issued his proclamation blockading Southern ports. It provided that "a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels" from the ports of the states in rebellion. Then, to make the proclamation official, he signed this document, authorizing "the Secretary of State to affix the Seal of the United States to a Proclamation setting on foot a Blockade of the ports of the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas." The seal was affixed to the blockade proclamation, which was announced that day. It was a de facto declaration of war by the Union against the Confederacy

  • President Barack Obama's flip-flops on gay marriage

    HOTUS puts his Johnson in the wind…

    ABC broke into its daytime lineup May 9, 2012, to announce a historic shift: the president of the United States declaring his personal support for gay marriage.

    "I've been going through an evolution on this issue," President Barack Obama told ABC News.

    Indeed.

    While the president has consistently supported civil rights for gay couples — peppering his comments with specifics such as hospital visitation, transfer of property and Social Security benefits — his discussion of marriage has differed. He’s called same-sex marriage unstrategic, against his religious beliefs, and something that should be in the hands of churches rather than government.

    Hillary Clinton's Evolution/Flip-Flop on Gay Marriage

    BILLARY puts middle finger in the wind
    Hillary Clinton announced today in a Human Rights Campaign video that she now supports gay marriage:

    Back in 2008 when Hillary ran for president, she said she believed marriage was between a man and a woman.
    Unlike Hillary, I still believe that marriage can truly be ONLY between a man and a woman, and I'll keep believing so until such time same sex couples can somehow defy nature and God's intention ... and naturally produce offspring as a man and a woman can. Until such time I will consider any "marriage" between same sex couples to be nothing less than faux 'marriage'.
    Otherwise, what's next ... 'marriage' between lawn mowers?
    By the way, why is it that Democrats' positions 'evolve' ... but when Republicans change positions it's a "flip-flop"?

  • Reply to

    Dividend increase

    by fktbaby Jun 25, 2015 6:51 PM
    happygambler34 happygambler34 Jun 26, 2015 3:00 PM Flag

    Four cents

  • Reply to

    Contards get stomped again

    by debka_file Jun 26, 2015 11:17 AM
    happygambler34 happygambler34 Jun 26, 2015 12:47 PM Flag

    Will liberals now attempt to force everybody to perform the sacrament of marriage on homosexuals, will imprisonment being penalty for refusing?

    Today's decision is judicial activism at its worst. Unelected judges have disregarded past precedent and are forcing states to recognize same-sex marriage, even after voters democratically opposed such measures.

    While this is a major setback, we are already hard at work to protect religious liberty and the rights of conscience.

    Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) have introduced the First Amendment Defense Act. This bill would ensure the federal government respects the right to act in accordance with your beliefs about marriage.

    A terrible Supreme Court ruling does not mean the fight is over. We know that President Obama and his liberal allies will never rest. They will continue their assault and their next target will be your religious liberty.

  • US military pilots complain hands tied in ‘frustrating’ fight against ISIS
    U.S. military pilots carrying out the air war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria are voicing growing discontent over what they say are heavy-handed rules of engagement hindering them from striking targets.
    They blame a bureaucracy that does not allow for quick decision-making. One Navy F-18 pilot who has flown missions against ISIS voiced his frustration to Fox News, saying: "There were times I had groups of ISIS fighters in my sights, but couldn't get clearance to engage.”
    He added, “They probably killed innocent people and spread evil because of my inability to kill them. It was frustrating."
    Sources close to the air war against ISIS told Fox News that strike missions take, on average, just under an hour, from a pilot requesting permission to strike an ISIS target to a weapon leaving the wing.
    A spokesman for the U.S. Air Force’s Central Command pushed back: “We refute the idea that close air support strikes take 'an hour on average'. Depending on the how complex the target environment is, a strike could take place in less than 10 minutes or it could take much longer.
    "As our leaders have said, this is a long-term fight, and we will not alienate civilians, the Iraqi government or our coalition partners by striking targets indiscriminately."
    A former U.S. Air Force general who led air campaigns over Iraq and Afghanistan also said today's pilots are being "micromanaged," and the process for ordering strikes is slow -- squandering valuable minutes and making it possible for the enemy to escape.
    “You're talking about hours in some cases, which by that time the particular tactical target left the area and or the aircraft has run out of fuel. These are excessive procedures that are handing our adversary an advantage,” said retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, a former director of the Combined Air Operations Center in Afghanistan in 2001.
    Deptula also contrasted the current air campaign against ISIS with past air campaigns.

    The U.S.-led airstrikes over Iraq during the first Gulf War averaged 1,125 strike sorties per day, according to Deptula. He said the Kosovo campaign averaged 135 strikes per day. In 2003, the famous “shock and awe” campaign over Iraq saw 800 strikes per day.
    According to the U.S.-led coalition to defeat ISIS, U.S. military aircraft carry out 80 percent of the strikes against ISIS and average 14 per day.
    Deptula blames the White House for the bottleneck.
    “The ultimate guidance rests in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,” he said. “We have been applying air power like a rain shower or a drizzle -- for it to be effective, it needs to be applied like a thunderstorm.”

    U.S. military pilots carrying out the air war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria are voicing growing discontent over what they say are heavy-handed rules of engagement hindering them from striking targets.
    They blame a bureaucracy that does not allow for quick decision-making. One Navy F-18 pilot who has flown missions against ISIS voiced his frustration to Fox News, saying: "There were times I had groups of ISIS fighters in my sights, but couldn't get clearance to engage.”
    He added, “They probably killed innocent people and spread evil because of my inability to kill them. It was frustrating."
    Sources close to the air war against ISIS told Fox News that strike missions take, on average, just under an hour, from a pilot requesting permission to strike an ISIS target to a weapon leaving the wing.
    A spokesman for the U.S. Air Force’s Central Command pushed back: “We refute the idea that close air support strikes take 'an hour on average'. Depending on the how complex the target environment is, a strike could take place in less than 10 minutes or it could take much longer.
    "As our leaders have said, this is a long-term fight, and we will not alienate civilians, the Iraqi government or our coalition partners by striking targets indiscriminately."
    A former U.S. Air Force general who led air campaigns over Iraq and Afghanistan also said today's pilots are being "micromanaged," and the process for ordering strikes is slow -- squandering valuable minutes and making it possible for the enemy to escape.
    “You're talking about hours in some cases, which by that time the particular tactical target left the area and or the aircraft has run out of fuel. These are excessive procedures that are handing our adversary an advantage,” said retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, a former director of the Combined Air Operations Center in Afghanistan in 2001.
    Deptula also contrasted the current air campaign against ISIS with past air campaigns.

    The U.S.-led airstrikes over Iraq during the first Gulf War averaged 1,125 strike sorties per day, according to Deptula. He said the Kosovo campaign averaged 135 strikes per day. In 2003, the famous “shock and awe” campaign over Iraq saw 800 strikes per day.
    According to the U.S.-led coalition to defeat ISIS, U.S. military aircraft carry out 80 percent of the strikes against ISIS and average 14 per day.
    Deptula blames the White House for the bottleneck.
    “The ultimate guidance rests in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,” he said. “We have been applying air power like a rain shower or a drizzle -- for it to be effective, it needs to be applied like a thunderstorm.”

  • happygambler34 happygambler34 May 26, 2015 1:46 PM Flag

    The day before the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, former President Bill Clinton told a group of businessmen in Australia that he "could have killed" the man behind those attacks, Osama bin Laden, in 1998, but he decided against launching a strike out of concern for civilian casualties.

    It's a startling and tragic bit of irony that remained hidden until Wednesday, when Michael Kroger, the former head of the Liberal Party in Australia, released the audio during an interview on Sky News. Mr. Clinton knew he was being recorded, but the audio was never released because Kroger said he'd forgotten about it until last week.

    Clinton was speaking to Kroger and about 30 other businessmen in Melbourne for a paid gig on September 10, 2001, when he was asked about international terrorism.

    "I'm just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden - he's a very smart guy, I've spent a lot of time thinking about him - and I nearly got him once," said Clinton, who'd departed the White House earlier that year. "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him…

  • Major insurers in some states are proposing up to 51 percentpremium increases for health plans sold under the Affordable Healthcare and Patient Protection Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare. Despite single digit increases for 2015, insurance companies are seeing their costs jump and are demanding to be compensated with dramatically higher rates.

    When Insurance plans proposed 2015 rates last summer, they had only a little information about the health of the new customers they expected to sign up during the fall Obamacare expansion. Big insurers tended to ask for increases of less than 10%, while some smaller insurers tried to under-cut pricing by the major’s to take market share, according to theWall Street Journal.

    Under Obamacare, insurers must file proposed premium rates with their local state regulator and the federal government by June. But some states have already started publicly disclosing the premium requests. Due to the high utilization costs from people newly enrolled under Obamacare, the 2016 insurance premiums are about to skyrocket.

    According to states that have released rate requests, New Mexico’s market leader Health Care Service Corp. is asking for an average premium spike of 51.6 percent; Tennessee’s top insurer BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee wants an average spike of 36.3%; Maryland’s market leader CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield is requesting an average spike of 30.4%; and Oregon’s top insurer, Moda Health, is seeking a 25% spike.

  • happygambler34 happygambler34 May 26, 2015 12:34 PM Flag

    "Bob Woodward: Bush Didn't Lie
    ***************************
    WE all know you have to be out of breath ranting your personal attacks....but

    Do you agree or disagree with Woodward's report?

  • Ever wonder where ISIS came from when you never heard a thing about this terrorist group until about a year ago?
    Thanks to a lawsuit by Judicial Watch, a 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency assessment has been released (in heavily redacted form) that might answer how ISIS became so strong, so fast, and managed to form their Islamic State so quickly.
    The report leaked online — ironically enough — the Sunday before Memorial Day in the United States.
    In short, the report revealed the US Government did with its foreign policy what it always does — stick its nose into other people’s business and cause maximum blowback.
    So let’s see how the Obama led US Gov helped create ISIS …
    The US Government’s Foreign Policy …
    It’s no secret (or maybe it is to most people?) that the US Gov has been involved in covert regime change operations since the late 40’s (after the US became the world’s leading superpower at the end of WWII).
    Almost immediately, they started meddling in the Middle East, which is — at least partially — to blame for that region being in complete chaos.
    This, by the way, is not at all speculation …
    Years after these events take place, the Government quietly admits to it in some form or someone leaks the story. The mainstream media ignores the revelations and the American people never look into it.
    It appears the rise of ISIS is another example of the US Government’s mistakes. Here’s the story …
    Obama wanted regime change in Syria …
    In short, Obama wanted Syria’s president Bashir al-Assad gone.
    Speculation abounds as to why, but many believe it’s because Assad refused to sign an agreement with Qatar to let an energy pipeline run north to supply much of Europe and bypass Russia. Assad’s rationale for opposing it was “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.”
    Obviously, the energy in the Middle East — gas and oil — is super valuable and the US wants to be in control of it (not Russia).
    So Obama wanted Assad gone …
    According to investigative reporter Nafeez Ahmed in Medium, the “leaked document reveals that in coordination with the Gulf states and Turkey, the West intentionally sponsored violent Islamist groups to destabilize Assad, despite anticipating that doing so could lead to the emergence of an ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
    “According to the newly declassified US document, the Pentagon foresaw the likely rise of the ‘Islamic State’ as a direct consequence of the strategy, but described this outcome as a strategic opportunity to “isolate the Syrian regime.”
    In other words, the people in Washington thought that they could play chess with the Middle East and that all the islamic world were pawns they could move around on a board to achieve their end goals.
    I guess it didn’t work out the way they planned …
    Now, they’ve gotten so strong so fast, we have ISIS attacks in Texas, and they’ve practically taken over Iraq. In short, it seems the US Gov helped create a monster (and it got very out of control).

  • happygambler34 happygambler34 May 25, 2015 6:30 PM Flag

    Your nonsensical BS baloney rants are laughable. We know you are in tune with the sound of ONE(1) hand clapping.

  • Heart tugging memorial to those who sacrificed their all for our freedom. This young lad extended a truly memorable gesture to our fallen heroes

    H**p://w*wDOTtpnnDOTcom/2015/05/22/video-d-day-2014-the-saluting-boy-on-omaha-beach/

  • happygambler34 happygambler34 May 25, 2015 2:07 PM Flag

    Bob Woodward: Bush Didn't Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

    Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

    The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors, but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.

    Though plenty of mistakes were made in the invasion of Iraq, Bush actually told CIA Director George Tenet, "Don’t let anyone stretch the case on WMD," Woodward said.

    The reason the United States went into Iraq was "momentum," he said.

    "That war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end people were saying, 'Hey, look, it'll only take a week or two.'"

    Though it can be argued the war was a mistake, Woodward told host Chris Wallace, "there was no lie in this that I could find."

    As for President Barack Obama's decision to leave no residual force behind when American troops left Iraq in December 2011, Woodward indicated it would have been better to have left 10,000-15,000 troops behind as "an insurance policy" as military commanders suggested.

    "We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still, 65 years or so after the war," Woodward said. "When you’re a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision — but clearly a factor."

  • happygambler34 by happygambler34 May 24, 2015 5:23 PM Flag

    For some
    reason, people have difficulty structuring their arguments when
    arguing against supporting the currently proposed immigration
    revisions. This lady made the argument pretty simple. NOT printed in
    the Orange County Paper ...
    Newspapers
    simply won't publish letters to the editor which they either deem
    politically incorrect (read below) or which does not agree with the
    philosophy they're pushing on the public. This woman wrote a great
    letter to the editor that should have been published; but, with your
    help, it will get published via cyberspace!

    From:
    "David LaBonte"

    My wife,
    Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register
    which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to "print" it myself
    by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so
    inclined. Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in
    the Orange County Register:

    Dear
    Editor:
    So many letter writers have based their arguments on how
    this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we
    should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in
    question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through
    Ellis Island and other ports of entry.

    Maybe we
    should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr.
    Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of
    immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all
    areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a
    ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some
    would even get
    down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground.
    They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in
    good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their
    new American households and some even changed their names to blend in
    with their new home.

    They had
    waved good-bye to their birth place to give their children a new life
    and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate
    into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no
    welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills
    and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of
    prosperity.

    Most of
    their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father
    fought alongside men whose parents had come straight over from
    Germany, Italy, France and Japan. None of these 1st generation
    Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had
    come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the
    Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as
    one people.

    When we
    liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the
    French-American or the German-American or the Irish-American. The
    people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that
    represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have
    thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to
    represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their
    parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly
    knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot
    into one red, white and blue bowl.

    And here
    we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and
    privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different
    set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee
    of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what
    being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who
    landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that
    for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future
    generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those
    legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled
    that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country
    flags.

    And for
    that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to
    mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I
    wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just
    yet.

    (signed)
    Rosemary
    LaBonte

  • happygambler34 by happygambler34 May 24, 2015 5:09 PM Flag

    Excellent!!!
    Perhaps the best e-mail seen in a long, long time. The following has been attributed to Lewis Napper, a Jackson, Mississippi computer programmer. He didn't expect his essay -- a tart 10-point list of "rights" Americans don't have -- to become an Internet legend.

    'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.'

    ARTICLE I:
    You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth.. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

    ARTICLE II:
    You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of dummies, and probably always will be.

    ARTICLE III:
    You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

    ARTICLE IV:
    You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

    ARTICLE V:
    You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

    ARTICLE VI:
    You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you get the blue juice.

    ARTICLE VII:
    You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure..

    ARTICLE VIII:
    You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

    ARTICLE IX:
    You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

    ARTICLE X:
    This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you came from, English is our language. Learn it!

    Lastly

    ARTICLE XI:
    You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, sorry if you are uncomfortable with it.

    If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States must speak out because if you do not, who will?

  • Three foreign countries may be changing their historical weather data to show warming trends, according to a scientist in the field.

    Dr. H. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute claims in a story that Australia, Paraguay, and Switzerland have altered their data in an effort to prove global warming is real.

    "Switzerland joins a growing list of countries whose temperature measurements have been adjusted to show greater warming than actually measured by its temperature instruments," Burnett writes. "In previous editions of Climate Change Weekly, I reported weather bureaus in Australia and Paraguay were caught adjusting datasets from their temperature gauges. After the adjustment, the temperatures reported were consistently higher than those actually recorded."

    Citing a report from Swiss Science journalist Markus Schär, Burnett writes that Switzerland altered its weather data and now it shows a "doubling of the temperature trend."

    "For example, in Sion and Zurich, [the Swiss Meteorological Service] adjustments resulted in a doubling of the temperature trend," Burnett writes. "Schär notes there has been an 18-year-pause in rising temperatures, even with data-tampering. As a result, Schär calls the adjustments a 'propaganda trick, and not a valid trend.'"

    In March, it was reported that U.S. government scientists often change weather data — a practice that is neither new nor a secret. Scientists say the data is changed to correct for inaccuracies in testing. Critics say it is a way to show a warming trend, which it has done.

    "[The National Climatic Data Center, or NCDC] pulls every trick in the book to turn the U.S. cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s," a science blogger said.

    "NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend. This includes cooling the past for 'time of observation bias' in filling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects."

    Global warming skeptics say it is a man-made scam, but defenders of the phenomenon point to evidence in weather data — which is apparently being changed in countries across the world.

    Bill Nye, who hosted a popular children's show in the 1990s, told Rutgers University graduates over the weekend global warming is real.

    "So, hey deniers — cut it out, and let's get to work," Nye said.

  • More bad news for Hillary!
    When the US Ambassador to Libya and three others were killed in a terrorist attack on the compound in Benghazi, the Obama administration was running weapons through Benghazi to Syria.

    The attack occurred by no coincidence on September 11, 2012,

    Fox News reported that the US was sending guns to Banias and Borj Islam, Syria before the Benghazi terrorist attack:

    US Intelligence agencies were fully aware that weapons were moving from the terrorist stronghold in Libya to Syria before the attack that killed four Americans…

    September 16, 2012 DIA Memo copied to the National Security Council, CIA, and others concluded the Benghazi terrorist attack was planned at least ten or more days in advance…

    The memo also tied the attack to 9-11… No discussion of a demonstration or anti-Mohammad video.

    US officials were aware that weapons were being shipped to Syria by the Port of Benghazi.

    Hillary Clinton denied any knowledge, something she’s claimed on many occasions, while being grilled by Senator Rand Paul on the matter. From the Transcript:

    Sen. Rand Paul: My question is, is the US involved in any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?

    Hillary Clinton: To Turkey? I’ll have to take that question for the record. That’s, nobody’s ever raised that with me.

    Sen. Rand Paul: It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons. And what I’d like to know is, that annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries? ANy countries, Turkey included?

    Hillary Clinton: Well, Senator you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. And, I will see what information was available.

    Sen. Rand Paul: You’re saying you don’t know?

    Hillary Clinton: I do not know. I don’t have any information on that.

  • happygambler34 happygambler34 May 18, 2015 5:44 PM Flag

    so Bin Laden struck on 9/11
    *******************************

    That was the 2nd strike on the WTC. The 1st one was against weak weenied B JC in 1993.....followed by strikes against the African embassies and the USS Cole.

  • happygambler34 happygambler34 May 18, 2015 5:32 PM Flag

    June 14, 2014

    Joe Biden in 2010 – Iraq Will Be ‘One Of The Greatest Achievements’ of This Administration

    his inconvenient flashback is brought to you by the Washington Free Beacon:

    Vice President Joe Biden predicted in 2010 that Iraq would be “one of the greatest achievements” of the Obama administration.

    Appearing on CNN’s Larry King Live, Biden told King “It [Iraq] could be one of the greatest achievements of this administration.” He continued, “You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”
    Paul Waldman of the Washington Post has a rather unique take on what’s happening in Iraq:

    On Iraq, let’s ignore those who got it all wrong

    We have now reached the rather ironic situation in Iraq where we find ourselves allied with Iran in an effort to save the corrupt and thuggish government of Nouri al-Maliki, while the army we spent eight years training falls apart. I’m not going to pretend to have unique insight into Iraqi politics (I’d suggest reading Marc Lynch, for starters, as a way of getting up to speed on what has led to this point).

    But there are few people who understand Iraq less than the Republican politicians and pundits who are being sought out for their comments on the current situation.

    As you watch the debate on this issue, you should remind yourself that the most prominent voices being heard are the very ones who brought us the Iraq War in the first place, who promised that everything was simple and the only question was whether we’d be “strong” and “decisive” enough — the same thing they’re saying today.

    Funny.

    I thought the only person who looked worse than Joe Biden on Iraq right now was Obama.

MO
48.99-0.11(-0.22%)Jul 2 4:00 PMEDT