Posted on 11/26/2010 10:51:11 PM PST by Minn
Defeat came for Republican Rep. Bob Inglis because he slid to "Satan's side."
That's how South Carolina voters perceive Inglis' newfound belief in climate change, says the outgoing lawmaker, who lost his primary bid in June to tea party candidate, and now representative-elect, Trey Gowdy.
Inglis reflected on several blasphemies he committed in the eyes of voters in a departing interview last week, held in his congressional office. They ranged from opposing President George W. Bush's troop surge in Iraq to supporting his Troubled Asset Relief Program. But none of those, Inglis said, had as strong an impact as his assertions that atmospheric warming is a scientific certainty.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Looks like Inglis is still on his Whining Tour. My estimation is that he lost weight on Thanksgiving because he can never shutup and quit whining long enough to eat anything.
That’s what leftists do - remove meaning from words (”jungle”, “swamp”, “bum”) in order to deceive.
They learned it from their ideological “father” (John 8:44).
Inglis is old news, a washed-up has-been. Depend on the NYT to try to bring him back to life while taking a poke at South Carolina voters.
Or, as the self-described "fact based community" would put it, "The Earth has a fever!"
Notice, by the way, the seamless transition to "Climate Change" from "Global Warming", with the elision of any unnecessary and tedious reasoning or arguments. The naked casuistry of the high priests of warmism would make a Jesuit blush.
I would venture to guess that most people in positions of influence who believe in “global warming” are not kooks at all. Behind every such person there is always a “clean energy” industry group that provides funding to keep these people bleating their nonsense. I would count Lindsey Graham, Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson among these folks.
Well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by "scientific" and "certainty".
21 000 years ago my land was under two miles of ice.
It melted, and left these rocks:
.
Now "scientific" (the adjective) describes a method of investigation. I suppose you could say, "The ice was here, H2O changes phase at 32F, now the ice is gone. I hypothesize that the atmosphere (locally) is warmer now than 21 000 years ago. Therefore, since I don't know of another mechanism to remove the ice, atmospheric warming is a certainty, arrived at by collecting and analyzing data".
Is that what this genius Inglis means?
In the context of the Bible in general as well as Revelations that's 100% correct. Man made climate change is an affront to Biblical beliefs-so ya gotta problem with that? LOL!
The Bipartisan Policy Center released a report this week on how to slash the deficit that suggested a carbon tax beginning at $23 a ton would "increase economic efficiency."
Tell us more fairy tales about how policy based around AGW isn't simply a tax with a phony rationale.
It IS remarkable - but I guess not really all that surprising - that, having been millimeters away from total economic control and world socialism, with (more or less) popular consent, that the AGW forces have decided to try and brazen it out.
I'm still trying to understand whether any of these politicians are actually stupid enough to believe in AGW, or if they are just tyrants in embryo who recognize a good thing when they see it.
Let’s get this right, New York Slimes. Feel the love.
Barrett booed at Greenville Tea Party:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QsY2r7HbTM
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.