Washington Post: Rep. John Shimkus says God won't allow Global Warming

[Corcaigh]

This is one area where I'd like a further expansion of the Federal Government.

A new security agency called the Stupidity Police should be established who would wander the halls of Congress and detain people like this idiot without trial in the FEMA camps, along with the gun owners and people who resist the inexorable movement to a Marxist State with Sharia law.

[PeterMP]

People make fun of this guy, but I guarantee you that if you ran a poll with a question related to not having to worry about global warming because of God, you'd get at least 25% of Republicans saying that was true.

Between the people that think like this and those that believe we are in end times and the world isn't going to be around long enough for it to be an issue or it is even part of God's end times plan, there are no shortage of people that think there is nothing we can/should do about climate change because of God.

[aREDSKIN]

Kinda ironic to thank God sarcastically in a thread like this. Feel free to milk your own paranoia.

Must have hit a nerve.

[Burgold]

Nope just forgot the smiley...

I do think your paranoia about the media has reached unhealthy obsessive levels though, although that may just be your online persona and not you.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Thank "god" the WaPO put the party affiliation in the first paragraph. Whew.

Why would you rather them keep the fact that it was a Republican secret? Yeah, I feel your pain, if I were part of a party I'd be embarrassed when a representative from that party said something that was really embarrassing.

BTW, it's standard practice in the media to put party affiliation and the state that they are from after the name of the politician, but I could see where that could be embarrassing in some instances.

[Burgold]

Why would you rather them keep the fact that it was a Republican secret? Yeah, I feel your pain, if I were part of a party I'd be embarrassed when a representative from that party said something that was really embarrassing.

BTW, it's standard practice in the media to put party affiliation and the state that they are from after the name of the politician, but I could see where that could be embarrassing in some instances.

We've had this ongoing debate... aREDSKIN believes that only Republicans are ever named by party when they do or say something controversial and that's doubly true for the Washington Post. So, every time he sees that letter R it convinces him that this is proof a media wide conspiracy.

[aREDSKIN]

We've had this ongoing debate... aREDSKIN believes that only Republicans are ever named by party when they do or say something controversial and that's doubly true for the Washington Post. So, every time he sees that letter R it convinces him that this is proof a media wide conspiracy.

Wrong again B. It's not "only republicans" because I know that not to be true, but it does happen with sufficient frequency, in the WaPo, that makes many wonder of this behavior. U see NO harm in it & I see a PREDISPOSITION towards political posturing. And pointing out that behavior I would think just bolster my view.

[Burgold]

When you get into ratios... finding boogeymen become even harder. Is 85% of the time for Republicans versus 78% for Democrats indicative of anything? What's your alpha? What makes you determine the balance is significant? Do you scan and chart every single news article the post reports on to determine the balance of R's versus D's? Did you follow this data for a day? A week? A month? A year?

The thing is people generally notice what stands out to them. You see the R's because you are looking for them... esp. now, since I've gotten on your back a little about it. What's normal or right or things you agree with people tend not to take notice of. So, I'd bet that your observations, most likely lacking proper scientific rigor, are flawed.

[Dan T.]

So, I'd bet that your observations, most likely lacking proper scientific rigor, are flawed.

What a really nice way of saying "You are full of ****."

[aREDSKIN]

When you get into ratios... finding boogeymen become even harder. Is 85% of the time for Republicans versus 78% for Democrats indicative of anything? What's your alpha? What makes you determine the balance is significant? Do you scan and chart every single news article the post reports on to determine the balance of R's versus D's? Did you follow this data for a day? A week? A month? A year?

The thing is people generally notice what stands out to them. You see the R's because you are looking for them... esp. now, since I've gotten on your back a little about it. What's normal or right or things you agree with people tend not to take notice of. So, I'd bet that your observations, most likely lacking proper scientific rigor, are flawed.

It's funny because you have backwards. When ever there is a "scandal" and I'm reading t WaPO I look for the D first. Why? it's really hard if not impossible to find. As to the rest it's my conjecture. Accept it reject it's matters not. I'll make it point to point it out when it happens though.

[Dan T.]

It's funny because you have backwards. When ever there is a "scandal" and I'm reading t WaPO I look for the D first. Why? it's really hard if not impossible to find. As to the rest it's my conjecture. Accept it reject it's matters not. I'll make it point to point it out when it happens though.

From the Washington Post in the last week or so...

The House ethics committee voted 9 to 1 in favor of censuring Rangel (D-N.Y.), who was found guilty this week

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) issued a statement blasting the ethics panel's decision.

Thursday recommended censure for longtime Rep. Charles Rangel , suggesting that the New York Democrat...

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) issued a statement blasting the ethics panel's decision....

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), who was until his...deadlocked, 4 to 4, on one count against Rangel: that...

etc.

aRedskin, you must not be looking very hard.

[PeterMP]

It's funny because you have backwards. When ever there is a "scandal" and I'm reading t WaPO I look for the D first. Why? it's really hard if not impossible to find. As to the rest it's my conjecture. Accept it reject it's matters not. I'll make it point to point it out when it happens though.

This is halirious.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301739.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021502752.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/10/AR2008031001482.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041302257.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/09/AR2010030902157.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9658-2004Aug17.html

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/678160341.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Aug+13%2C+2004&author=Michael+Powell+and+Michelle+Garcia&desc=N.J.+Governor+Resigns+Over+Gay+Affair%3B+McGreevey+Has+Been+Facing+Other+Political+Problems

These are the scandals I thought of and the Post articles I looked at. I didn't leave anything out.

They all have D or Democrat at the LATEST early in the 2nd paragraph where the 1st paragraph is very short.

[Thiebear]

He's correct if you go by the 6000 year version of earth.

incorrect if you use the billions of years old earth that had a snowball effect and when the earth was molten on more than 1 occasion (formation of moon etc.)

[Larry]

It's funny because you have backwards. When ever there is a "scandal" and I'm reading t WaPO I look for the D first. Why? it's really hard if not impossible to find. As to the rest it's my conjecture. Accept it reject it's matters not. I'll make it point to point it out when it happens though.

Translation: I've been programed with a particular conclusion, and I fully intend to point out every time I find a single case supporting it (and to ignore the ones that don't).

[JimboDaMan]

Translation: I've been programed with a particular conclusion, and I fully intend to point out every time I find a single case supporting it (and to ignore the ones that don't).

Exactly. He's not saying "I'll point out party affiliation when I find it", or "I'll point it out when it's missing". He'll let us know when he finds cases supporting his contention, other cases are not important.

In the meantime, Shimkus is a wingnut no matter what letter follows his name.

[Burgold]

I rest our cases. Thanks for the support.

On the topic, I wonder if statements like this make him more popular in his district or make those he represent unhappy.