“Astroturf and manipulation of media messages” by Sharyl Attkisson: your thoughts?

Posted on by

I have just been watching a TED talk given in February 2015 by the acclaimed author and TV host Sharyl Attkisson, titled, “Astroturf and manipulation of media messages.” It’s only 10 minutes long, and I would invite readers to watch it and draw their own conclusions.

The following excerpts are some of the highlights from Sharyl Attkisson’s scintillating speech.

What is Astroturf? It’s a perversion of grass roots – as in fake grass roots. Astroturf is when political, corporate or other special interests disguise themselves, and publish blogs, Facebook and Twitter accounts, and publish ads, letters to the editor, or simply publish comments online, to try to fool you into thinking that an independent or grassroots movement is speaking. The whole point of Astroturf is to try to give the impression that there’s widespread support for or against an agenda, when there’s not. Astroturf seeks to manipulate you into changing your opinion, by making you feel as if you are an outlier, when you’re not.

One example is the Washington Redskins’ name. Without taking a position on the controversy, if you simply were looking at news media coverage over the course of the past year, or looking at social media, you’d probably have to conclude that most Americans find that name offensive and think it ought to be changed. But what if I told you 71% of Americans say the name should not be changed? That’s more than two-thirds.

Astroturfers seek to controversialize those who disagree with them. They attack news organizations that publish stories that they don’t like, whistleblowers that tell the truth, politicians that dare to ask the tough questions, and journalists who have the audacity to report on all of it. Sometimes Astroturfers simply shove, intentionally, so much confusing and conflicting information into the mix that you’re left to throw up your hands and disregard all of it, including the truth…

And then there’s Wikipedia: Astroturfers’ dream come true, billed as the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The reality can’t be more different. Anonymous Wikipedia editors control and co-opt pages on behalf of special interests. They forbid and reverse edits that go againt their agenda. They skew and delete information in blatant violation of Wikipedia’s own established with impunity, always superior to the poor schleps who actually believe anyone could edit Wikipedia, only to discover they’re barred from correcting even the simplest factual inaccuracies. Try adding a footnoted fact or correcting a fact error on one of these monitored Wikipedia pages and “Poof!” Sometimes, within a matter of seconds, you’ll find that your edit is reversed…

So now you may be thinking, “What can I do? I thought I’d done my research. What chance do I have of separating fact from fiction – especially if seasoned journalists, with years of experience, can be so easily fooled?” Well, I have a few strategies that I can tell you about, to help you recognize signs of propaganda and Astroturf. Once you start to know what to look for, you’ll begin to recognize it everywhere. First, hallmarks of Astroturf include use of inflammatory language, such as “crank,” “quack,” “nutty,” “lies,” “paranoid,” “pseudo” and “conspiracy.” Astroturfers often claim to debunk myths that aren’t myths at all. Use of the charged language tests well: people hear something’s a myth, maybe they find it on Snopes, and they instantly declare themselves too smart to fall for it. But what if the whole notion of a myth is itself a myth, and you and Snopes fell for that? Beware when interests attack an issue by controversializing or attacking the people, personalities and organizations surrounding it, rather than addressing the facts. That could be Astroturf.

And most of all: Astroturfers tend to reserve all of their public skepticism for those exposing wrongdoing, rather than the wrongdoers. In other words, instead of questioning authority, they question those who question authority.

You might start to see things a little more clearly. It’s kind of like taking off your glasses and wiping them and putting them back on, and realizing for the first time how foggy they’ve been all along. I can’t resolve these issues but hopefully, I’ve given you some information that will at least motivate you to take off your glasses and wipe them, and become a wiser consumer of information in an increasingly artificial, paid-for reality. Thank you.

Some questions for readers to ponder:

(i) can you think of any online journals or Websites, whose content is largely or entirely made up of Astroturf?

(ii) which news Websites do you place the most trust in, and why?

(iii) what are some particularly outrageous incidents of Astroturfing that you’ve witnessed during the past year or so?

Over to you.

229 thoughts on ““Astroturf and manipulation of media messages” by Sharyl Attkisson: your thoughts?”

  2. Robin: Yes. I’m well-aware of the BIG MONEY that flows around and through the energy industry. I can certainly come up some really plausible scenarios for energy industry funded conspiracies against the science of climate change. I’m just wondering why anyone believes in conspiracies to promote climate change. Clearly I’m lacking a level of imagination, but I just can’t come up with how anyone would benefit from such a conspiracy.

    Liberals hate freedom, oil is freedom, therefore liberals hate oil

  3. walto: …why would I expect that colewd would be more likely to accept MY arguments or studies than he is to accept those of the vast majority of acknowledged experts in the field?

    You’re much nicer than the experts, and as a non-expert you’re no doubt more likely to admit making a bone-headed error when you make one. (Rather than, say, putting the other party on ignore when they point it out.)

  4. Joe Felsenstein: I wish I knew what that sentence meant.

    I agree with newton, astroturfing is creating a false impression that a movement is grass-roots, when actually it is not.In the case of support for modern evolutionary biology, the issue is how many scientists disagree with it.Project Steve makes it abundantly clear which organization, the DI or the NCSE, is trying to create the false impression.

    This is a inaccurate accusation.
    First its not SCIENTISTS but only a tiny minority who study origins of biology. A minority of biologists. in fact having one disagree is rocking the boat a little.
    Its more then one.
    Its not presented in percentages of how many researchers disagree but that enough do to justify the claim LOTS disagree.
    Its not a deception or conspiracy or anything to do with real astroturfing.
    Anyways origins issues is about intelligent people, regardless of profession, putting their mind to the merits of it and then one getrs great opposition to hypothesis made in obscure small circles that affect everyone’s understanding of origins.
    Lots of informed sharp steves disagree with a unlikely hypiothesis of a fish becoming all creatures on dry land.
    Astroturfing complaints iS INDEED about suspicion of authority behind conclusions.
    Something is wrong with the message.

  5. colewd:
    GlenDavidson,

    Instead of ad homenems why don’t you make a real argument that supports anthropomorphic global warming or are you just part of the political propaganda machine.I am ready to change my mind today.

    No, you’re not. If you were, you could have easily researched the subject during the past 10 years. (Assuming you know how to use Google or how to read the “lying” mainstream media.)

    Why waste your time here? Get going on your education!.

  6. Robin: Yes. I’m well-aware of the BIG MONEY that flows around and through the energy industry. I can certainly come up some really plausible scenarios for energy industry funded conspiracies against the science of climate change. I’m just wondering why anyone believes in conspiracies to promote climate change. Clearly I’m lacking a level of imagination, but I just can’t come up with how anyone would benefit from such a conspiracy.

    Conspiracy options is options.
    they do accuse big energy of conspiracy but it teaches to accuse conspiracy.
    Its not a conspiracy but rather error plus a desire to makle a cleaner greener world. plus a fear of third world nations getting cars. like china /India.
    How can you tell there is global warming/ Tempatures a plenty! if so everyone does the same thing. The numbers is irrelevant to the actual options for investigation.
    the same simple errors are made.
    i don’t thing the world was ever warming from mans impact. too big and glorious for our puffs of smoke.
    in the future they will laugh, or say they beat by the remedy’s.

  7. walto,

    Those are all big issues among the religious right, I’m sure you know. Does your friend happen to be among that number?

    He is Catholic and conservative but not religious right. It was Spitzers book that he wanted an opinion on.

  8. Pedant,

    No, you’re not. If you were, you could have easily researched the subject during the past 10 years. (Assuming you know how to use Google or how to read the “lying” mainstream media.)

    Why waste your time here? Get going on your education!.

    Sounds like you might understand this well. Can you make an argument or is the scientific consensus enough for you too?

  10. colewd:
    Pedant,

    Sounds like you might understand this well.Can you make an argument or is the scientific consensus enough for you too?

    Here are the facts:

    1. Industrial society has been burning more and more carbon since the early 19th century as a source of energy.
    2. When you burn carbon, you get CO2, which is a greenhouse gas.
    3. Greenhouse gases in our higher atmosphere don’t dissipate fast enough to keep up with the levels of CO2 production that’s been going on for more than a century.
    4. So solar radiation keeps coming in, but the heat isn’t getting out. Consequently the temperature of our planet keeps rising.
    5. The only way to prevent the consequences of that warming is to reduce CO2 production.

    Check out every one of those statements. In particular, educate yourself on the science behind the term “greenhouse gas.”

  11. Mung,

    WALTO: …why would I expect that colewd would be more likely to accept MY arguments or studies than he is to accept those of the vast majority of acknowledged experts in the field?

    You’re much nicer than the experts, and as a non-expert you’re no doubt more likely to admit making a bone-headed error when you make one. (Rather than, say, putting the other party on ignore when they point it out.)

    So can anyone really cite the consensus opinion.

    Not is the globe warming but what is the prediction of warming over the next 50 years?

    What is the statistical confidence in that prediction?

    Have the climate models been tested and what are the results?

    Does everyone agree with Harshman that the data I provided showed a statistically significant rise in weather?

    The truth of the matter is Walto, if you would look into the detail I would be very interested in your opinion. Saying that 97% of the scientists support this when we really don’t know what this is, is meaningless.

  12. colewd:
    Mung,

    So can anyone really cite the consensus opinion.

    Not is the globe warming but what is the prediction of warming over the next 50 years?

    What is the statistical confidence in that prediction?

    Have the climate models been tested and what are the results?

    Does everyone agree with Harshman that the data I provided showed a statistically significant rise in weather?

    The truth of the matter is Walto, if you would look into the detail I would be very interested in your opinion.Saying that 97% of the scientists support this when we really don’t know what this is, is meaningless.

    What kind of fool comes to a blog to learn science, when there are so many other sources of information?

  13. Pedant: Our resident theologians might want to take the PISA test that teenagers take world-wide to test their ability to think critically:

    At least you understand that theology involves critical thinking, which sort of sets you apart from the typical ignorant rabble here at TSZ.

  14. Mung: At least you understand that theology involves critical thinking, which sort of sets you apart from the typical ignorant rabble here at TSZ.

    Not at all. I want you to take the test to learn your limitations…

  15. Pedant: Not at all. I want you to take the test to learn your limitations…

    Sadly, I was raised in the modern educational system.

  16. walto,

    A minority scientists opinion.

    In what universe does a temperature change that is too small for anyone to feel over a 50 year period become globally significant?’ – ‘Where we don’t know if the global average temperature is 58 or 59 or 60 deg. F, but we are sure that if it increases by 1 or 2 deg. F, that would be a catastrophe?’

    By: Marc Morano – Climate DepotJanuary 18, 2015 3:02 PM

    Forty years ago, “climate change” necessarily implied natural causation; now it only implies human causation.
    What changed? Not the science…our estimates of climate sensitivity are about the same as they were 40 years ago.
    What changed is the politics. And not just among the politicians. At AMS or AGU scientific conferences, political correctness and advocacy are now just as pervasive as as they have become in journalism school. Many (mostly older) scientists no longer participate and many have even resigned in protest.2014
    2014 as the Mildest Year: Why You are Being Misled on Global Temperatures

    2014 as the Mildest Year: Why You are Being Misled on Global Temperatures


    OR: Why I Should Have Been an Engineer Rather than a Climate Scientist I’ve been inundated with requests this past week to comment on the NOAA and NASA reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record. Since I was busy with a Japan space agency meeting in Tokyo, it has been difficult for me to formulate a quick response. Of course, I’ve addressed the “hottest year” claim before it ever came out, both here on October 21, and here on Dec. 4. In the three decades I’ve been in the climate research business, it’s been clear that politics have been driving the global warming movement. I knew this from the politically-savvy scientists who helped organize the U.N.’s process for determining what to do about human-caused climate change. (The IPCC wasn’t formed to determine whether it exists or whether is was even a threat, that was a given.) I will admit the science has always supported the view that slowly increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels should cause some warming, but the view that this would is any way be a bad thing for humans or for Nature has been a politically (and even religiously) driven urban legend. I am embarrassed by the scientific community’s behavior on the subject. I went into science with the misguided belief that science provides answers. Too often, it doesn’t. Some physical problems are simply too difficult. Two scientists can examine the same data and come to exactly opposite conclusions about causation. We still don’t understand what cause natural climate change to occur, so we simply assume it doesn’t exist. This despite abundant evidence that it was just as warm 1,000 and 2,000 years ago as it is today. Forty years ago, “climate change” necessarily implied natural causation; now it only implies human causation. What changed? Not the science…our estimates of climate sensitivity are about the same as they were 40 years ago. What changed is the politics. And not just among the politicians. At AMS or AGU scientific conferences, political correctness and advocacy are now just as pervasive as as they have become in journalism school. Many (mostly older) scientists no longer participate and many have even resigned in protest. Science as a methodology for getting closer to the truth has been all but abandoned. It is now just one more tool to achieve political ends. Reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record feed the insatiable appetite the public has for definitive, alarming headlines. It doesn’t matter that even in the thermometer record, 2014 wasn’t the warmest within the margin of error. Who wants to bother with “margin of error”? Journalists went into journalism so they wouldn’t have to deal with such technical mumbo-jumbo. I said this six weeks ago, as did others, but no one cares unless a mainstream news source stumbles upon it and is objective enough to report it. In what universe does a temperature change that is too small for anyone to feel over a 50 year period become globally significant? Where we don’t know if the global average temperature is 58 or 59 or 60 deg. F, but we are sure that if it increases by 1 or 2 deg. F, that would be a catastrophe? Where our only truly global temperature measurements, the satellites, are ignored because they don’t show a record warm year in 2014? In what universe do the climate models built to guide energy policy are not even adjusted to reflect reality, when they over-forecast past warming by a factor of 2 or 3? And where people have to lie about severe weather getting worse (it hasn’t)? Or where we have totally forgotten that more CO2 is actually good for life on Earth, leading to increased agricultural productivity, and global greening?: Estimated changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL). It’s the universe where political power and the desire to redistribute wealth have taken control of the public discourse. It’s a global society where people believe we can replace fossil fuels with unicorn farts and antigravity-based energy. Feelings now trump facts. At least engineers have to prove their ideas work. The widgets and cell phones and cars and jets and bridges they build either work or they don’t. In climate science, whichever side is favored by politicians and journalism graduates is the side that wins. And what about those 97% of scientists who agree? Well, what they all agree on is that if their government climate funding goes away, their careers will end.

  17. colewd A minority scientists opinion.

    Marc Morano isn’t a scientist. He has a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and a long history of being a right wing shill for the likes of Rush Limbaugh and James Inhofe. His website ClimateDepot offers nothing but AGW denier anti-science political propaganda.

    Sadly we get too many scientifically illiterate goobers like you swallowing the AGW denier bullshit by the shovelful instead of reading and researching the primary scientific literature yourself for the actual data. It’s the same approach you take to attacking evolution – puking up anti-science Creationist dog turds you can’t explain and can’t defend.

  18. Colewd, do you not see that you’re simply searching for views that are congenial to you? Are you in utter denial about that? I get that those heterodox papers exist, but they’re in the tiny minority. if you look for confirmations you will find them, no doubt, but why not settle for truth instead? Is being comfortable so important?

    Charlie only reads Goethe and Steiner followers. Patrick only reads libertarians. Do you want to be like that?

  20. colewd:
    I
    So can anyone really cite the consensus opinion.

    There is a trend of higher global temp which correlates to a trend of higher concentrations of a known greenhouse gas. A major source of this gas is human activity.

    Not is the globe warming but what is the prediction of warming over the next 50 years?

    Google ipcc six graphs

    What is the statistical confidence in that prediction?

    Google ipcc graphs error bars

    Have the climate models been tested and what are the results?

    They are being tested with climate observation, increase in trend of Co2 correlates with increase in trend of global temperatures. Human have an increasing trend of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

    Does everyone agree with Harshman that the data I provided showed a statistically significant rise in weather?

    What is your graph measuring exactly? Is it correct the baseline (0) is the year 2000, why was this chosen?

    What are the sources for these measurements ? You seem to be demanding standards in data you are not adhering to. Answer the same questions please, that way we can compare

    The truth of the matter is Walto, if you would look into the detail I would be very interested in your opinion.

    I agree, he is credit to his gender.

    Saying that 97% of the scientists support this when we really don’t know what this is, is meaningless.

    Bet you would be saying 97% of scientists support this if they agreed with you.

    Sorry for answering Walto’s questions

  21. Mung,
    It’s a shame your critical thinking facilities have not realized that theology is simply pointless navel gazing that has never and never will contribute anything of worth to human society.

  22. colewd: Saying that 97% of the scientists support this when we really don’t know what this is, is meaningless.

    I think colewd just likes being contrary. Most biologists think ID is bunk – then ID is not bunk. Most scientists think climate change is a thing, colewd thinks it’s not a thing.

    Colewd, if you have the ability to be right when almost all experts are wrong presumably you are a billionaire?

    I think it’s easier to call others wrong then think about how your own position is right (or not). Easier to tear down then create.

    Colewd, as you are such an expert as to know better then people who have spent significant time studying these matters, do you have a better model of how the earth warms then existing models?

    If so, could you share it?
    If not, will you be publishing a paper regarding current models and your replacement, better model?

    No, you won’t be doing any of that will you…

  25. vjtorley:
    However, I am heartened that some biology professors these days actually encourage their students to read books written by ID proponents. At least they’re being fair.

    If any biology professors are using IDCist materials as anything other than demonstrations of pseudoscience they are doing their students a gross disservice.

    Intelligent design creationism is a political movement with no science whatsoever backing it up. It is not “fair” to include nonsense in a class on well-supported science.

  26. newton: Liberals hate freedom, oil is freedom, therefore liberals hate oil

    That’s not far off, by what I’ve observed. I don’t think it’s the facts of anthropomorphic climate change per se that get the religious right’s hackles up, it’s the proposed solutions to the problem from the political left who never saw an increase in government power they didn’t like (until someone other than them is wielding it).

    If Al Gore is for it, they’re against it. Identity politics across the political spectrum.

  28. Patrick: That’s not far off, by what I’ve observed.I don’t think it’s the facts of anthropomorphic climate change per se that get the religious right’s hackles up, it’s the proposed solutions to the problem from the political left who never saw an increase in government power they didn’t like (until someone other than them is wielding it).

    If Al Gore is for it, they’re against it.Identity politics across the political spectrum.

    I have no doubt that the vast majority of conservatives and “wackos” who are either doubtful of AWG or outright deny it are reacting to the implication of policy enactment, which they see as curbing their perceived freedoms and limit their rights. I’ve heard that pretty consistently. What I’m curious about is how this (or at least some of this) attitude and perspective morphed into “THERE’S A BIG MONEY CONSPIRACY BEHIND THE RESEARCH OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!!!111”. I mean, I don’t expect most of the folks to be rational and I get that it’s a great rally cry and PR move to deflect attention away from the actual BIG MONEY conspiracy against climate change research. I’m just wondering why anyone with half a brain giving it more than 30-seconds of thought buys into it.

  29. Robin,

    Robin, keep in mind that if Al Gore is for it, Patrick is against it, too. He thinks he’s above this fray, but he’s not.

  30. “What I’m curious about is how this (or at least some of this) attitude and perspective morphed into “THERE’S A BIG MONEY CONSPIRACY BEHIND THE RESEARCH OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!!!111””

    Have you met many Americans?

  31. AhmedKiaan:
    “What I’m curious about is how this (or at least some of this) attitude and perspective morphed into “THERE’S A BIG MONEY CONSPIRACY BEHIND THE RESEARCH OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!!!111””

    Have you met many Americans?

    😉

  32. Robin: What I’m curious about is how this (or at least some of this) attitude and perspective morphed into “THERE’S A BIG MONEY CONSPIRACY BEHIND THE RESEARCH OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!!!111”.

    I guess it’s a bit much to blame it on the scientists’ desires for orgies and to keep the divine foot away from the door for this one. Evolution is just about hating God and any chance of living forever, you know.

    Must be all of those rich hippies behind this one, out to sell them hemp sandals to replace their cars.

    Glen Davidson

  33. walto,

    Colewd, do you not see that you’re simply searching for views that are congenial to you? Are you in utter denial about that? I get that those heterodox papers exist, but they’re in the tiny minority. if you look for confirmations you will find them, no doubt, but why not settle for truth instead? Is being comfortable so important?

    You are accusing me of something you don’t know and is not how I posted it. This was posted as an opposing view and nothing more.

    Did you read it?

    Are you really practicing critical thinking or are you hiding behind a world view that is comfortable to you.

    I have no vested interest in either view here. Do you?

    Do you believe what you do about AGW simply because it is so strongly supported by liberal thought?

    If the science is so strong why does in need a political advocacy group like the NCSE to support it with astroturf?

  34. OMagain,

    Colewd, if you have the ability to be right when almost all experts are wrong presumably you are a billionaire?

    Not quite there but I do ok 🙂

    Just by coincidence both these theories have astroturf support by the NCSE. Does that even give you pause for thought?

  35. newton,

    Bet you would be saying 97% of scientists support this if they agreed with you.

    First, thanks for answering the questions 🙂

    I would support that statement if it was not astroturf and the data supported the claim.

  36. Patrick: newton: Liberals hate freedom, oil is freedom, therefore liberals hate oil

    That’s not far off, by what I’ve observed. I don’t think it’s the facts of anthropomorphic climate change per se that get the religious right’s hackles up, it’s the proposed solutions to the problem from the political left who never saw an increase in government power they didn’t like (until someone other than them is wielding it).

    We live in a time when absurdity makes more sense than reality. In the name of liberty for some and fucking up liberals conservatives are willing the screw over future generations. Instead of the sacrifice of the greatest generation , they will be celebrated for their pettiness and greed. And they picked the perfect guy to represent them.

  37. Robin: “THERE’S A BIG MONEY CONSPIRACY BEHIND THE RESEARCH OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!!!111”. I mean, I don’t expect most of the folks to be rational and I get that it’s a great rally cry and PR move to deflect attention away from the actual BIG MONEY conspiracy against climate change research. I’m just wondering why anyone with half a brain giving it more than 30-seconds of thought buys into it.

    You need to get out more, around here people are sure there is a conspiracy against Christmas.

  38. colewd: You are accusing me of something you don’t know and is not how I posted it.

    I don’t know “how you posted it.” I know only that you posted it.

    colewd: Did you read it?

    Yeah.

    colewd: Are you really practicing critical thinking or are you hiding behind a world view that is comfortable to you.

    Neither. As I’ve explained to you several times, I don’t think I’m in a position to substitute my judgement here. And I don’t think you are either. I don’t have any axe to grind or money to be made one way or the other on this issue. Like many in New England, I have oil heat, so, if anything, I could end up paying more for my heat if there are stringent regulations. But I’m not engaging in “critical thinking”: I do that where I think it might be useful or I’m particularly interested in the subject–and when I do, I still try not imagine that I know more than the experts do.

    colewd: Do you believe what you do about AGW simply because it is so strongly supported by liberal thought?

    No. But do I think your denials may be correlated with conservative thought. Why? Because I believe that it’s more than a coincidence that you find your way to the same gang time after time.

    FWIW, my own political views don’t match terribly well with those of American liberals. I don’t believe in taxes on capital or labor for example. And I don’t believe in private ownership of things like land and spectrum. I’m more of a free trader than either Republicans or Democrats, and I don’t think Clinton should have been embarrassed to support the free movement of labor across national borders (I think she lied about this matter in the last debate.) I’m skeptical of representative government, generally, although I don’t really have a better idea for large territories. I prefer Rousseau to Locke.

    Just because I recognize (as all sane adults should) that Donald Trump is a dishonest, dangerous, stupid, narcissistic incompetent doesn’t mean I’m a “liberal.” I’m a geoist.

    So, in general, your speculation about me seems as bad as your speculations about weather and evolution.

  39. colewd: If the science is so strong why does in need a political advocacy group like the NCSE to support it with astroturf?

    To be honest, I think it’s because you and your brethren make that kind of behavior necessary.

  40. walto,

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

    FWIW, my own political views don’t match terribly well with those of American liberals. I don’t believe in taxes on capital or labor for example. And I don’t believe in private ownership of things like land and spectrum. I’m more of a free trader than either Republicans or Democrats, and I don’t think Clinton should have been embarrassed to support the free movement of labor across national borders (I think she lied about this matter in the last debate.) I’m skeptical of representative government, generally, although I don’t really have a better idea for large territories. I prefer Rousseau to Locke.

    In general I believe we have a messy political system yet I don’t know of an obvious better answer since it must be patricianly credited with generating the largest economy on the planet. I believe that having a 2 or more party system is good and both parties have there strengths and weaknesses. Although I consider myself a moderate conservative, I think Bill Clinton was our best president over the last 24 years and GWB was our worst.

    As far as Trump goes I think it will take a couple of years to have a clue how effective he will be.

    To be honest, I think it’s because you and your brethren make that kind of behavior necessary.

    So do you agree with lying as long as the end justifies the means?

  41. colewd: So do you agree with lying as long as the end justifies the means?

    Ha. Depends on the ends, I guess. I’d lie to save my family for example. Wouldn’t you?

  43. colewd:
    walto,

    You bet

    “After months of unseasonably warm temperatures, scientists have confirmed that this autumn was the hottest ever recorded in the United States.
    During the September-November period, the contiguous US was an average 4.1°F above the 20th century average, making it the second consecutive year to shatter the temperature records.
    The analysis from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is based on 122 years of data, stretching back to January 1895.”

    Coincidences just keep mounting up

  46. OMagain: …theology is simply pointless navel gazing that has never and never will contribute anything of worth to human society.

    You haven’t heard then. We’re all doomed. It’s all pointless.

  50. colewd: As far as Trump goes I think it will take a couple of years to have a clue how effective he will be.

    I think you underestimate Donald, I think we will have a clue way before that.

Leave a Reply