Perry Keeps Treating `Em Ugly

August 18th, 2011 at 12:04 pm | 68 Comments |

| Print

First he threatened Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. Now Texas governor Rick Perry is traducing the motives of climate scientists.

At a “Politics and Eggs” event in Bedford, pilule New Hampshire, online Perry was asked by an audience member about the National Academy of Sciences’ affirmation that climate change is now primarily driven by the burning of fossil fuels. Perry responded that the evidence pointing to mankind’s role in climate alteration has been knowingly falsified.

I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized. I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly or even daily scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change. Yes our climate’s changed, they’ve been changing ever since the earth was formed. But I do not buy into a group of scientists who have in some cases found to be manipulating this information.

And the cost to the country and the world of implementing these anti-carbon programs is in the billions if not trillions of dollars at the end of the day. And I don’t think, from my perspective, that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money still on a scientific theory that has not been proven, and from my perspective, is being put more and more into question.

Perry was apparently making reference to the “Climategate” pseudo-scandal that seized the imagination of Fox News in late 2009 and early 2010. Of course, Perry omitted to add that six different investigations found that there was no evidence of data manipulation on the part of the scientists involved.

Perry apparently assumes the general population is not aware of the exoneration of the scientists involved in the “Climategate” pseudo-scandal. Maybe he assumes that Republican primary voters do not care.

As for the contention that climate science has been politicized, former Clinton energy advisor Joe Romm correctly notes:

Global warming has indeed been politicized by the fossil-fuel industry and the tea party extremists — but the degree of politicization is unique to this country, which should tell you all you need to know about its source.”

Anyone who knows actual scientists knows that they don’t do things for the money.  Indeed, it is quite safe to say very few become scientists if money is among the top things they are interested in.  In fact, virtually nothing is more important to a scientist than his or her professional reputation, which can be maintained only by doing research that can be reproduced by others. It is understandable why Perry would project onto scientists the motivations of the pro-pollution politicians and lobbyists he hangs out with.  Virtually nothing is more important to them than money and the influence of its buys, which can be maintained only by making crap up.

Mitt Romney demonstrated courage under talk-radio fire earlier this summer when he dared to acknowledge that anthropogenic climate change is real. Jon Huntsman has also faced the wrath of the Tea Party by accepting the scientific verdict on climate change. Huntsman aide John Weaver called out Perry on his ridiculous remarks, noting, “We’re not going to win a national election if we become the anti-science party…science clearly was not a mandatory course for Governor Perry.”

It’s one thing for Perry to dismiss the data documenting mankind’s role in climate alteration. It’s quite another for Perry to refuse to acknowledge that the scientists who were accused of manipulating data in “Climategate” turned out to have been falsely accused.

Recent Posts by D.R. Tucker

68 Comments so far ↓

  • YesWeDid

    So, the question for Republicans and Conservatives is “how do we convince people to listen to experts when for decades we’ve been preaching that ‘common sense’ trumps ‘elitist’ knowledge?”

    • drdredel

      you can’t breed a dog to hunt rats and be 5 pounds for 50 generations and then ask it to guard the warehouse or shepherd sheep! The damage is done. You now reep what you sow.

  • dittbub

    was there ever a criminal investigation into who illegally hacked into the computers? at the time there were numerous reported hacking attempts into other universities and climatologist computers around the world. no police or media took that seriously? no one asked who was behind it?

  • cporet

    dittbub click on any of the links highlighted in blue. There’s you answer(s).

    Perry omitted to add that six different investigations found that there was no evidence of data manipulation on the part of the scientists involved.

  • indy

    If he’s willing to put falsely accused people to death by ignoring evidence, I don’t think this is a very large stretch.

    • Frumplestiltskin

      one Republican supporter of Perry said it took guts to execute an innocent man. It is just a pity it was not that particular man because I tend to think he would not have considered it so gutsy if it happened to him.
      As to Perry, I don’t think he knowingly executed an innocent man, I think he convinced himself that he was guilty and refuses to listen to the evidence that would prove him wrong.
      As to global warming, hell we have more than enough National security reasons to move away from oil as it is, sending billions to the Middle east and having to fight in a multitude of wars to guarantee access to that oil is enough reason for me, outside of the oil lobby I don’t understand why it is not enough for Conservatives.

      • indy

        I don’t think he knowingly executed an innocent man, I think he convinced himself that he was guilty and refuses to listen to the evidence that would prove him wrong.

        I don’t think he did so either. I was being a bit glib. Stubborn, self-certain people are almost as dangerous as stupid ones, though.

        • Primrose

          Well, but isn’t that knowingly executing an innocent man if you refuse to hear evidence exonerating them? By refusing to listen to evidence you are saying it doesn’t matter if he is innocent, my principles/beliefs, or whatever are more important.

      • wileedog

        ” I don’t understand why it is not enough for Conservatives.”

        Because they have been convinced that we are actually sitting on all of the oil we need, but the evil libruls and their sinister terrorist organization the EPA won’t let us drill for it.

  • Southern Populist

    The NY Times, the BBC, CBS news, and three outlets nobody has ever heard of all recycling the same story determined that the climate data was not falsified.

    I guess that settles it.


    - DSP

    • drdredel

      ah! you’re right! if various sources of information that are otherwise trusted to be generally accurate all report the same story, that MUST mean that the truth is 180º to the contrary!

      Am I understanding you correctly? Was there some more reliable source that you can cite that was contradicting these reports? Or are you just assuming that everything that CBS and the NYTimes report is false by virtue of its very existence? How about the date on the paper? Is that a lie too?

    • Southern Populist

      Rick Perry:

      And I don’t think, from my perspective, that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money still on a scientific theory that has not been proven, and from my perspective, is being put more and more into question.

      The problem with anti-Carbon measures goes deeper than this. There is no evidence the measures being proposed will solve the alleged problem of “climate change.”

      Let’s see some evidence these anti-Carbon measures will actually produce the desired effect.

      I mean, really, how do you prove a given anti-Carbon measure will work if the entire climate of the globe is being affected??

      How do you run an experiment on that in the real world?

      The possibility exists that anti-Carbon measures costing trillions will be introduced with no effect on the climate 10, 20, or 50 years from now.

      This isn’t like a medical clinical trial where scientists can perform tests, determine if a drug works or not, and then release the drug as a solution to a problem.

      - DSP

      • DeathByIrony

        Alright, if you really feel like moving the goalposts, go for it.
        But the Burden of proof is on you now, cite your sources.

      • Frumplestiltskin

        why do you love to send your money to Saudi Salafists and Wahhabists? Do you hate America so much? Are you still so steamed that the South lost the war that you would see us become broke to finance Saudi Sheikhs who wish to kill us? Go to Iran then already.

        We are spending trillions on defense now, doesn’t it make sense to work to implement renewable forms of energy so we can save that money? But you seem to think we can cut defense and yet still access Middle eastern oil.

      • wileedog

        This is like saying “How do I know I won’t get lung cancer even if I quit smoking? Why should I quit then?”

      • Primrose

        Continuing as we are going, though we know it is having a negative effect on the climate is experimenting on a whole planet.

        You are right an anti-carbon movement may not stop it, but it might. However, doing nothing will not stop climate change for certain. If you want to come up with other ideas that’s fine but come up with alternatives.

        We know we can live with lower carbon fuel emissions, so even if it doesn’t work, we don’t risk global extinction. We don’t know we can live with the changes in the climate now, so doing nothing is not an option.

    • indy

      You can find the details of the six investigations here:

      If you really cared, that is.

    • elizajane

      The British Parliament and the U.S. Department of Commerce were among the organizations that investigated Climategate and found no wrongdoing.
      If you still think this is a conspiracy, its tentacles certainly reach broadly. It must make that 9/11 conspiracy look pretty tiny in comparison.

      • indy

        I don’t care if you are a skeptic. Your original comment: “The NY Times, the BBC, CBS news, and three outlets nobody has ever heard of all recycling the same story determined that the climate data was not falsified. ” was either a lie or pure ignorance. Which one?

        • Frumplestiltskin

          indy, DSP is a secret Muslim jihadist intent on the destruction of America, the “evidence” is plain to see, and whatever evidence he would produce in opposition would only reconfirm his guilt.

          I honestly think this is the way he thinks. The more scientists produce evidence the more he is convinced the evidence is fabricated, the more the Earth warms up and ice caps melt the more he will be convinced that they were always like it is at that moment and that the pacific islands that disappear under the water were never, in fact, there and the ones that might have been there sunk because of sun spots or Mermen.

      • Frumplestiltskin

        wow dsp, talk about a closed mind, this is from what you just cited: Less than 2% of climate scientists publishing in the scientific literature believes humans are not warming the planet, and less than 2% are unsure

        If I went to 100 Doctors and 96 said I had cancer, 2 said it was just a cold, and 2 said that they were not sure I would damn well be pro-active and treat the Cancer. I truly don’t understand why you are so dogmatic clinging to whatever scrap of supposed evidence you can find to dismiss the 96 out of 100, especially when we have more than enough National Security reasons to get away from fossil fuels. Coal is nasty and polluting apart from global warming, go to China some time and see for yourself the soot in some cities is horrendous. Oil funds Middle Eastern terrorists. And beyond this, these are limited resources, they are not magically reproduced in a short time, you are recklessly stealing from future generations…but obviously you don’t care about the future.

        • Southern Populist

          There are lots of reasons to move away from fossil fuels other than the alleged effects associated with alleged climate change. The most important one is that they’re finite. Another one is that using fossil fuels transfers money to dangerous people.

          The point is the alleged evidence for alleged anthropogenic climate change is not necessary to make the case for moving beyond fossil fuels.

          No need to conflate those issues.

          - DSP

        • JP4266

          Yes why be proactive and attempt to do something good for ourselves down the road. At the very least the reduction in pollution of our environment would be worth it.

        • Frumplestiltskin

          of course there is need to do so, it is win win for both sides, Conservationists and Conservatives. If you are for limiting fossil fuels for political and economic reasons and others for environmental ones, why the hell are you arguing for? It is positively daft.
          And don’t pretend that you are interested in the scientific argument because you are some scientist, it is dogmatism pure and simple on your part.

          To say: The point is the alleged evidence for alleged anthropogenic climate change is not necessary to make the case for moving beyond fossil fuels. And then to go onto say the case can be made for other reasons is simply and completely nuts. And it is not alleged evidence, learn basic English. The evidence is real, it is the interpretation of the evidence that is at issue. Allege means to assert without proof, but evidence is proof. Damn. Learn English please, it hurts my head.

  • indy

    He (or she) can be a skeptic. I don’t really care. I can respect an honest difference of opinion, no matter how wrongheaded I may think it is. But intentionally misleading people is another issue altogether.

    • Southern Populist

      I’m not misleading anyone. Those six stories linked above are slanted accounts based on findings produced by entities with a political agenda, like the American EPA. I’m showing the same skepticism of their treatment of this issue that many people around here show when Fox news comes out with a story on something.

      There were other noteworthy findings in the reports that were generally de-emphasized in the accounts given in the NY Times and elsewhere, such as the fact that the climate scientists at issue laughed at the death of skeptic, did not use transparent methods, and did not enlist the help of professional statisticians even though their work relied heavily on statistical analysis.

      - DSP

      • indy

        Each of the links the author referenced discussed the results of a DIFFERENT investigation.

        The first one discussed the one conducted by The House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee.

        The second one discussed the The Independent Climate Change report.

        The third one discussed the University of East Anglia investigation.

        The fourth one was the results of the Penn State investigation.

        The fifth one was The US Environment Protection Agency investigation.

        The sixth one discussed the NOAA investigaton.

        These you characterized as “The NY Times, the BBC, CBS news, and three outlets nobody has ever heard of all recycling the same story”

        No, that’s not misleading at all. I’ll go with lying instead of ignorance now. Everybody else who reads this can make up their own mind I presume.

        • indy

          Oh, and I forgot to mention, nice how you characterized Science Magazine and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as ‘outlets nobody ever heard of’. Although, of course, after this it doesn’t shock me you never heard of them.

        • Chris Balsz

          And every one of those groups has taken a position on global warming. How awesome they had the opportunity to confirm that existing opinion!

          Let’s look at the U of Penn source:

          [i]An internal investigation at Penn State University has cleared meteorology professor Michael Mann of all “climate gate” charges, in which Mann stood accused (both formally and in the blogosphere) of research fraud.
          The review cleared Mann of charges that he falsified climate change data, manipulated that data, improperly refused to share his research data and–generally behaved badly by trying to discredit other researchers’ work. The panel mildly rebuked Mann for not getting express consent from various researchers before sharing their work — but that was it.
          …The most infamous email praises Penn State’s Michael Mann of using a research “trick” to “hide the decline.” What’s that? Basically, scientists who used centuries worth of tree ring data to establish the baseline of global temps in the 20th century, could never explain why those same tree rings started showing a decline in global temps roughly after 1960.
          Tree data showing global temps going down didn’t mesh with actual recorded temperatures, so pains were taken, (most of the time disclosed, but sometimes not) to use actual temp recordings and “hide the decline” from trees. Sometimes, on the so called hockey stick charts that show global temps as a flat line and then a sharp upward spike are indeed mixing tree ring data and actual temps. Earlier this year the Penn State investigators, like most mainstream scientists, dismissed this part of the fraud charge, finding no “fraud’ in the use of actual temp data — the spiking part of the hockey stick — which on its own is not in dispute.[/i]

          Mixing original research with somebody else’s findings, without disclosing that, isn’t fraudulent? Of course it is.
          There is no such thing as “global temperature” – just an aggregate of local temperatures. That tree accurately reflects the temperature it experienced in the growing season. The fact that the aggregate of such tree experiences don’t jibe with the aggregate of other measurements is hard data to be preserved by a careful scientist, who, if honest, is always wary of the integrity of statistical models. It is definitely not something to sweep under the rug. Too bad the U doesn’t take such accuracy in reporting, seriously.
          I have absolutely no doubt what would happen to a doctoral candidate who failed to keep his own original work separate from Dr. Mann’s– such a nobody can be disappeared without embarrassment to the University, of course.

          And a few weeks ago we had “exoneration” of Phil Jones for trying to destroy a publication for publishing critical work by explaining that he actually did seriously try to destroy the publication for offering a critical view, but, it was a very aggravating critical article.

        • indy

          Man, you really are a mental midget. I was not objecting to DSP’s dislike of the contents of the reports. You and he can believe whatever conspiracy theories that float your boat. His CHARACTERIZATION of the links provided by the author as “all recycling the same story” is a flat out lie. They were six different articles on six different investigations by six different organizations and appeared in six different publications. The fact that you and he didn’t like what any of them said does not make them all recycled versions of the ‘same story’.

      • elizajane

        Excuse me, but this is just baloney. Climate scientists don’t “enlist the aid of professional statisticians?” Where on earth do you get that idea? My partner has a PhD in econometrics, knows more about statistics than you ever will, and is one of many people trained in this field who regularly works on climate science — I know quite a few others. Climate research teams include statisticians. It’s normal.

        • Frumplestiltskin

          DSP likes to do assertion without evidence. I work in a University, peer review is an absolute bitch, I have seen some Grad students reduced to tears because their research was so ripped to shreds.
          Scientists also don’t want to go along with the crowd, they do so because of the evidence, but if some scientist could prove evolution was not real or Einstein was wrong they would love to because they would achieve recognition worldwide, the fact that none try to prove Einstein wrong or evolution is because it is impossible to do so, at least based on current knowledge.

        • Southern Populist

          This statement is included in the article above.

          The panel did find it “surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians.”

          And what’s the insults? If he has Ph.D. in econometrics, he also knows more than you and probably most everyone will ever know about stats.

        • Frumplestiltskin

          The insults are based on the fact that if you believe we should get away from Fossil fuels and since you are not a scientist on a peer reviewing committee, you have no logical reason to really care. There are vigorous debates in anthropology yet I have never seen you once weigh upon any of those topics. Your argument is you don’t like the alleged politics of some climatologists but you favor their ends, which is reduction in the use of fossil fuels, so you therefore disagree with their scientific methodology because….
          I truly don’t get it. It is dogmatism on your part pure and simple. It is the dogmatism of anti-science that does not correspond to your own political viewpoint.

          And you link to a report that cleared the Scientists. You do realize that one research team that is slightly disorganized does not represent the whole of the research that is done on climate change, don’t you? You do know that the Univesity of East Anglia is not the pinnacle of scientific research, right?
          I never even heard of it until this came about. Would you raise a fuss about a sloppily researched history book done at a college at Dayton and then state that all of history is wrong because of it?

      • drdredel


        You’re scrambling all over the place to be “right” but you’re doing enough self contradiction that you should be able to just step back and say “ok, maybe I’m mistaken here”. You’re arguing with nameless internet people, your ego shouldn’t be at stake here.

        You’re right that there is no “proof” that our actions would produce results. But you yourself have already admitted that these actions would be beneficial on other fronts, even if they had no effect on the the climate. So, why keep arguing? As to the science, it’s really very simple…
        1) If anyone had conclusive, or even compelling evidence that the overwhelmingly held thesis that we’re warming the globe was wrong, they would be very famous very quickly. Scientists don’t go into the field to get rich, but everyone would like to be a Newton or an Einstein (in name recognition) and the only way to get this trophy is to discover something that turns the world on its head. The fact that there is no such contrarian evidence or person bearing same is proof in itself that such evidence doesn’t exist. You can try (but you will fail) to provide a single example of ground breaking research that was systematically prevented from surfacing by some sort of scientific conspiracy. Obviously, some theories are harder to prove than others, but again, the overwhelming evidence points to us heating the globe (it also happens to make the most sense, from a totally intuitive stand-point)

        2) the actions we need to take to reduce carbon emissions are also the ones that would help stimulate the economy MOST! Those, like Perry, who say this will be a waste of money, are knowingly (and cynically) misleading the public to protect the various private interests who would, indeed, suffer here, such as oil and coal companies. Unless you’re on the board of one of these (and are also a total selfish dick-head with no regard for your nation or the planet) you should not care too terribly much about their bottom lines. Like all corporations in a true market economy, they should be able to survive without the help of government protection against natural market forces.

        3) There is never a 100% scientific consensus on anything, and never will be. That’s how science works, and I think you know this. You’re avoiding the examples others have given you (the one about lung cancer and 96 doctors, specifically), probably because you realize that that is a perfect analogy. Nothing is 100% ever… if you’re not a fanatic, you wait until the evidence is compelling enough, and then you act on it. Sometimes you will be wrong. However, in this case, it’s a win/win/win/win for everyone (except, possibly for Exxon, but really, even THEM, if they simply adjust their business model to fit the needs of the times).

        And lastly, being a skeptic doesn’t mean denying everything until it’s proved beyond any doubt. Nothing, including your own existence, can be proved beyond ANY doubt. Being a skeptic means not accepting information without *some evidence… how MUCH evidence you demand is obviously up to you, but at some point, if everyone around you seems convinced and you’re still holding out, it may be wise to ask if perhaps you’ve set your evidence bar too high — clearly, everyone else might be fools… that happens sometimes, but if you find it happening over and over… you may have to accept that you have misidentified who the fool is.

        • Primrose

          Also, several of the former “skeptics” are no longer skeptical and see evidence both of global climate change and a human influence.

          As others have said, if there are good reason to take these actions anyway, and it might forestall this other danger, then why fight it?

  • valkayec

    Why should Perry say he’s convinced climate change is caused by or exacerbated by human activity when he’s receiving millions (over $140 million to date) in donations from the oil and gas industry?

    • wileedog

      Not to mention Texas is the #1 state in the production of greenhouse gasses. Carbon taxes or the like would hit his state the hardest. Much more convenient and profitable to pretend its all a hoax.

  • Oldskool

    Today, Perry told a kid in NH that they teach creationism and evolution in Texas public schools because that kid should be smart enough to figure out which is correct.

    Say goodnight to the Perry campaign.

    • Frumplestiltskin

      of course Creationism is correct, I mean…duh. Haven’t you ever seen the Flintstones or Jurassic park? Why do you think we call them cavemen? Because they had to live in caves to stay away from the Dinosaurs. It was only the flood that killed the Dinos, and the ones that Noah took on his boat were killed off for Dino burgers while they waited for the water to go down.

      Come on man, learn your history, I not like to learn you it meself.

      • Oldskool

        Jesus created evolution which they passed around at the last supper until it was all gone. Everybody knows that.

        • Frumplestiltskin

          now don’t go bringing religion into this purely scientific theory of creationism, which is pure and scientific, and completely supported by facts…like the book of Genesis is really science, which has nothing to do with religion.

  • sdspringy

    The issue remains open, the science is in question, and Perry provides the needed example to stop the madness. The Climategate Whitewash provided no answers to Phil Jones’s “trick”. Of course there exists no intellectual courage from the Left to the dogma of Global Warming.

    • ottovbvs

      “The issue remains open, the science is in question”

      Sure it is amongst primitives. We got rope and there’s plenty a trees if them there scientist dudes come down here a tellin us whatsa right and whatsa wrong.

    • Oldskool

      The problem with the right are scientific journals; they stick to facts. Which leaves the right with an ideology that they have to shovel through dubious media outlets.

    • Chris Balsz

      I saw a PBS program where one of the Leakeys found a hominid fossil that had been trampled by some herd animal before it fossilized. So he took out a motor-tool and “corrected” the alterations to the knee joint, which turned out to reinforce a point he was making about human populations at that period.

      Science is so much easier when you know the results in advance.

  • Graychin

    Perry doesn’t have to be right. He can spout utter nonsense if he wants to.

    His target audience are the people who vote in Republican primaries.

  • Chris Balsz

    “1) If anyone had conclusive, or even compelling evidence that the overwhelmingly held thesis that we’re warming the globe was wrong, they would be very famous very quickly. ”

    Well no, nobody got rich for finding out that each year isn’t warmer than the year before, despite the hysteria of the 1990s.

    “2) the actions we need to take to reduce carbon emissions are also the ones that would help stimulate the economy MOST!”

    Apart from Dubai, which maxxed out the credit cards, I hadn’t heard OPEC was really suffering these days.

    • Frumplestiltskin

      and the idiocy continues unabated. No one today states that every year in every place it will get warmer and warmer, therefore showing that in every place in every year it does not get warmer can be done by a 10 year old with a thermometer. This is not science, this is basic observation that anyone can do. For the likes of you I suppose it is science. You try throwing rocks at the moon, you can’t hit it so you then conclude it is not as close as you think. This is not a theory, this does not explain the moon, no one will pay you money to say you can’t hit the moon with a rock.

      You sad little man. You really think Einstein is the equivalent of a 10 year old with a thermometer.

      • Chris Balsz

        “and the idiocy continues unabated. No one today states that every year in every place it will get warmer and warmer, therefore showing that in every place in every year it does not get warmer can be done by a 10 year old with a thermometer. ”

        I refer to the global average temperature which has declined then risen.
        Which indicates that in many places it got cooler. Do write NASA and tell them to grow up, stop with the childish measuring of temperatures in many places. Let us know their response.

  • jjv


    How about the polar bear scientist? Nothing to see here:

    Moreover the very attitude of the “scientists” in the English email link demonstrates the unscientific and propaganda approach they all took:

    Finally, can we come up with a scientific test or prediction that can falsify “global warming?” If not its a ideology not science.

    If Rick Perry guarantees we can hav our light bulbs back he’s going to win.

    • JohnMcC

      If Rick Perry guarantees we can hav (sic) our light bulbs back he’s going to win — the Repub nomination. I agree.

  • Frumplestiltskin

    Finally, can we come up with a scientific test or prediction that can falsify “the big bang?”
    Cause I would just love to blow up the whole freaking Universe.

    But I am sure to you the Big bang is just you with your Palin blow up doll. Or maybe Paul Ryan (hey, it is your business)

  • Will Rick Perry’s views on climate change cost him? (The Week) | Breaking News Today

    [...] were “ridiculous” and misinformed, and they cast Romney in a more favorable light, says D.R. Tucker at Frum Forum. Romney showed real “courage under talk-radio fire earlier this summer when he dared to [...]

  • Frumplestiltskin

    “If Rick Perry guarantees we can hav our light bulbs back he’s going to win.”

    Hey Snidely, you can just pop across the border into Mexico and buy them if you want. I am sure you can find some other unique uses for them. You exhibit an almost sexual fixation on incandescents. What happened, was that flourescent too big? Are you afraid the mercury would leak if you clench?

  • medinnus

    Why are the pro-science crowd even bothering to argue with the Climate Deniers? These are the same people who screamed from the rooftops that Obama was a Kenyan.

    That he’s intent on destroying the country.

    That he’s a reparationist (that one is particularly stupid, and only espoused by the truly idiotic and bigoted), whose policies are designed to fleece the white American TeaBaggers and give it to the lazy, shiftless redneck White Trash on welfare and government programs throughout the South… or did I get that wrong? Isn’t Obama subsidizing NASCAR tickets?

    You can’t argue with people who believe a dozen stupid lies before the noonday meal.

  • links for 2011-08-18 | FavStocks

    [...] Perry Keeps Treating ‘Em Ugly – FrumForum [...]

  • » Perry: King of the Know-Nothings - Daily Beast

    [...] PostBarack Obama, Rick Perry Feeling The Heat (The Note)ABC News (blog)Forbes -FrumForumall 3,580 news [...]

  • Rob_654

    Someone should ask Perry – ok – what exactly would you do to Bernanke in Texas?

    Would you physically attack him? Or would you just flap your gums?

    Uh tough guy? What exactly would you do?

  • About the Polar Bear

    [...] #split {}#single {}#splitalign {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;}#singlealign {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;}.linkboxtext {line-height: 1.4em;}.linkboxcontainer {padding: 7px 7px 7px 7px;background-color:#eeeeee;border-color:#000000;border-width:0px; border-style:solid;}.linkboxdisplay {padding: 7px 7px 7px 7px;}.linkboxdisplay td {text-align: center;}.linkboxdisplay a:link {text-decoration: none;}.linkboxdisplay a:hover {text-decoration: underline;} function opensplitdropdown() { document.getElementById('splittablelinks').style.display = ''; document.getElementById('splitmouse').style.display = 'none'; var titleincell = document.getElementById('titleincell').value; if (titleincell == 'yes') {document.getElementById('splittitletext').style.display = 'none';} } function closesplitdropdown() { document.getElementById('splittablelinks').style.display = 'none'; document.getElementById('splitmouse').style.display = ''; var titleincell = document.getElementById('titleincell').value; if (titleincell == 'yes') {document.getElementById('splittitletext').style.display = '';} } Hudson Bay Ice Breaking Up Early-Polar Bears at Risk?TRIBE OF POLAR BEAR HUNTERPolar Bear #9Polar Bear Blog – Bear NewsBear Blog: Polar bear research focuses on noise impactsPolar bear attackEarth Hour and also the idiot Eco-cult course.Earth Hour along with the idiot Eco-cult course.Perry Keeps Treating `Em Ugly [...]