On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 13:30:59 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Thursday, October 2, 2014 4:23:56 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 12:17:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 5:04:24 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 13:15:09 -0700 (PDT),

wrote:

On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 2:45:44 AM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

This is the first member of the GOP I've listened

to in a longtime that doesn't seem like a total joke.

Well sadly jon, there are no-brainers on both sides of the
aisle, yes. But repubs continue to outshine. The problem is with today's worship-stupidity orthodoxy in the GOP. Forget about the Tea Party.

Repub establishment House speaker Johnny Boehner actually said: "...carbon dioxide can't be bad for you because we breath it out" in the Global Warming fight.

That's not quite fair to Boehner, and it's not quite what he said.

That's not what this says: -- http://imincorrigible.wordpress.com/tag/daily-show/

I posted the complete quote from Politico. There is a video of the

interview of Boehner by George Stephanopoulus on ABC that is down the

page on the same site.

You've repeated a pull-quote by some moron who posts a blog called "I

Am Incorrigible."

Go look at my link again -- assuming you bothered to check it in the

first place:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politi...t_comical.html

Watch the video. It's only 22 seconds long. You'll see that what I

posted is exactly correct.

There is still no difference in the meaning of "...carbon dioxide can't be bad for you because we breath it out"
-- and --
"The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment, it is almost comical," Boehner said. "Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide."

The difference is that he was talking about "carcinogens." As I said,
the quote is "not quite what he said."

I also said that science obviously was not his best subject. g But
he was half right. Until 2007, in the Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme
Court case, CO2 wasn't considered to be a "pollutant" under the law,
because the definitions then in force involved sources that had
direct, negative effects on life, especially humans. CO2 has an
indirect effect. Many people still adhere to that distinction, whether
or not they believe that human-produced CO2 creates global warming.


None at all. Boehner is trying to make carbon dioxide look harmless in the Global Warming process. And you are taking up for this non-sense.

No, I'm doing what I always do: calling out people who misrepresent
the facts -- in this case, what Star Chief Boehner and McConnell said,
and the context in which they said it.


How can you call yourself even a moderate republican? Only the far right would defend this bull.

I'n not defending it. I'm correcting the dishonest statements that
were (mis)quoted.

If you don't start with the facts, but start twisting them to suit
your purpose, you're part of the problem.

I have no love for Star Chief or Old McConnell. But if I'm going to
argue with them, I'm going to do it honestly -- unlike several people
involved in this thread.

--
Ed Huntress

--
Ed Huntress