I remember seeing a fellow discussing his role in investigating Global warming. He explained that he had been told that the Administration completely rewrote his report before allowing it to cross Bush's desk. By the time they had "cleaned up" the scientist's report, they had reversed the entire thrust and meaning of the document.
What frightens me most is the level of apathy even I have developed due to the abundance of so many of these stories and how little comes of them. I think it will take Bush, himself, injecting WHITE orphans with the AIDS virus, caught on tape while laughing about his solution to another "poverty program" he's resolved by lowering the lifespan of those who are a "d...

I remember seeing a fellow discussing his role in investigating Global warming. He explained that he had been told that the Administration completely rewrote his report before allowing it to cross Bush's desk. By the time they had "cleaned up" the scientist's report, they had reversed the entire thrust and meaning of the document.
What frightens me most is the level of apathy even I have developed due to the abundance of so many of these stories and how little comes of them. I think it will take Bush, himself, injecting WHITE orphans with the AIDS virus, caught on tape while laughing about his solution to another "poverty program" he's resolved by lowering the lifespan of those who are a "drag on the welfare system".

If this keeps up, we're going to accept soylent green with out so much as a shot fired.
Purp

Your right Will, people shouldn't get pertinent information before an election, it might INFLUENCE voters... OMG! Perish the thought (big sarcasm)

Do you have anything useful to add, like maybe a counter point or proof the article may be (or is) wrong, false or otherwise? Or are you just going to put it down because you really have nothing to say?

Calling people naive or or accusing papers (and clippers) for posting "regurgitated" info is rather pathetic, and adds nothing by vile and ill feelings.

I would have no issue if you actually said something useful, maybe clip an article in response, or tell us about something you read that counters what the article says. But you don't'......

Your right Will, people shouldn't get pertinent information before an election, it might INFLUENCE voters... OMG! Perish the thought (big sarcasm)

Do you have anything useful to add, like maybe a counter point or proof the article may be (or is) wrong, false or otherwise? Or are you just going to put it down because you really have nothing to say?

Calling people naive or or accusing papers (and clippers) for posting "regurgitated" info is rather pathetic, and adds nothing by vile and ill feelings.

I would have no issue if you actually said something useful, maybe clip an article in response, or tell us about something you read that counters what the article says. But you don't'... makes one wonder why?

Personally, I have seen a number of articles in the past year or so that support this clip. From numerous newspapers (I'm sure all of them are "liberal rags" though right?). There's actually a good number of articles about Sr. Bush staff members and government officials re-writing entire articles so more conform to the president's point of view and policies. What's the point of having scientists if you ignore them & their research. I mean, these guys aren't funded by Exxon, etc.. so there should be little question as tho their validity.. what gain do they have to reporting global warming? It's not like they make all that much money.. the best they can hope for is an interview or two & maybe another research grant.. but if they are shown to have lied, nobody will give them money or listen to them again... that's the way science works.. you lie, you get ignored... very counter to politics (on both sides) i know..