Also, dear proprietors, it looks like the anti-spam ain’t workin’.

It’s driving me nuts that someone here keeps editing away comments that dissent. Right out of the BUSH PLAYBOOK. That someone would write an article this biased, say “correct me if I’m wrong”,, and then remove all dissenting viewpoints is filthy ridiculous. Even FOX news doesn’t do this. Someone said “The sinister thing here to me is the editing or deleting of dissent from readers” and I too agree. Now ABC is right in line with FOX in my mind, congratulations Tapper. Really makes me wonder how many of the comments in support of the article are being written by the bitter author to drum up a façade of support. It’s Media Control.

Here’s the solution – from the amount of people who I’ve seen had their comments removed I have to believe theres gotta be more of us than of whoever is editing. I’m calling for a SHOELESS REVOLTION!!!! Copy these links and help me keep re-posting them up as they’re deleted here so other people see it and we can document how many have actually been censored. SAVE THE COMMENT YOU JUST WROTE TOO – if you don’t agree with him it’ll probably be gone in a few minuntes.

- a list of other peoples experiences trying to post to Mr Tappers column, who were deleted (keeps growing):

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/abc-news-editing-away-dissent.php

http://mainstreammediamurderer.blogspot.com/2008/07/abc-news-editing-away-dissent.html

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200804080001 – nice article on why Tapper is out to get Obama

Welcome to the main stream media: making Journalistic Integrity an oxymoron, one story at a time.

Should read: “Welcome to the main stream media: making Journalistic Integrity a story, one moron at a time.

I’d cleverly embed this if I knew how…
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/coulter-i-will.html?cid=99600450#comment-99600450

‘This is the much more important issue here. Any serious effort to reduce greenhouses gases will have an impact on the economy and, initially, that impact could be negative.

There are ways to work towards having the impact in the long-term be neutral or perhaps even positive. But any serious effort will cost a lot of money and slow the economy, whether the world is in it together or the U.S. and industrialized nations go it alone. (I stand accused of saying that former President Clinton spoke honestly about that.)’

Dear Mr. Tapper,

Now I’m not a journamalist or someone who eats cocktail weenies, but I think what you’re doing here is expressing _your_ opinion and claiming that it’s Bill Clinton’s opinion. In fact, let’s look at what Bill Clinton said in his speech:

“And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada — the rich counties — would say, ‘OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.’ We could do that.”

You, by bringing up the issue of slowing down the economy, obviously believe this is the only way to slow global warming. You spend several sentences pointing out that that’s your belief. Thankfully the man who actually was President is a fair bit more optimistic:

‘“But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world’s fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.’

Now you and Bill Clinton disagree on this point; you think Global Warming can only be addressed by slowing down the economy (or that fixing it will require at least a short-term slowdown), and Bill Clinton does not. Sort of like how I can get a job closer to my house (so I can ride a bike or walk) and still get paid more money. That is better for my economy, it is better for the company I work for (because I don’t have to skip a day if I have car trouble), and is generally a much more effective and environmentally friendly way to work. See? It can be done, without negative impacts on the economy. Just because Bill Clinton pointed out your worldview in the part of his speech that you quote doesn’t mean he agrees with you — when you say “I stand accused of saying that former President Clinton spoke honestly about that” you are stating that Bill Clinton believes what you believe. He does not. Please find more suitable employment and stop littering the tubes with your ideological trash. Thanks!

Because they’re not liberal enough. That’s all there is to it.

“We don’t like the Clintons because they’re Trotskist.”

I hope that’s a joke, Stanist.

Scientific literacy is not a national priority in the United States.

But …

Booooooooobies !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I’d accuse him of being dumber than a fifth grader, but I think that show’s on another network.