Republican Presidents And Political Scandals–The Five Greatest Scandals, Unmatched By ANY Democratic Presidential Administration!

As we witness the accusations of “scandal” in the Obama Administration, it is easy to forget that in historical terms, it is Republican Presidents who have presided over the most significant and numerous scandals.

Any objective historian would know that the five top scandalous Presidential administrations are all Republican Presidents!

In chronological order, they are:

Ulysses S. Grant—1869-1877–best known for the Credit Mobilier Scandal.
Warren G. Harding—1921-1923,–best known for the Teapot Dome Scandal.
Richard Nixon–1969-1974–best known for the Watergate Scandal.
Ronald Reagan–1981-1989–best known for the Iran-Contra Scandal.
George W. Bush–2001-2009–best known for the Scooter Libby Scandal.

Realize there are MULTIPLE scandals under each of these Republican Presidents, and by analysis, the “scandals” under Democratic Presidents pale by comparison, although no claim is made here that Democratic Presidential administrations are “holier than thou”!

75 comments on “Republican Presidents And Political Scandals–The Five Greatest Scandals, Unmatched By ANY Democratic Presidential Administration!

  1. Engineer Of Knowledge May 18, 2013 12:10 pm

    Hello Professor,
    I want to pass on the unique bribery incident aspect on “The Teapot Dome” scandal.

    Under President Warren G. Harding, oil company executives paid bribe monies to Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall to lease Navy petroleum reserves at Teapot Dome in Wyoming and two other locations in California to their private oil companies at low rates without competitive bidding. The citizens of this country who own these oil reserves were hoodwinked and cheated out of our market value for these natural reserves assets.

    Now here is the interesting bit…..where Fall was convicted of accepting bribes from the oil companies, but none of the oil company executives were found guilty of paying the bribes. To restate, the oil company executives were found not to have paid any bribes to gain the undervalued access this country’s oil reserves…..but Fall was found guilty in accepting the bribe money that the oil company executives supposed to never have paid.

    This is where the term, “He was the Fall Guy” came into existence.

    Now speaking of “The Fall Guy.” A very good family friend obtained his Law Degree from Johns Hopkins in the mid-1950’s. He is a life long Republican and while obtaining his Political Science Degree at Johns Hopkins, he along with some other selected students plus the head of the department, wrote many of President Eisenhower’s speeches at that time.

    Well to go fast forward, he was called into representing the CIA agent who Ollie North reported to. North was out of the country when the Iran Contra Scandal hit. When North landed at Reagan National airport, a person handed him a piece of paper with a phone number on it . Ollie went to a pay phone and called the number which was another pay phone. The two got their stories together, (worked on the lies that was to be the official response) and the deal was that if Ollie North too the “FALL” he would not have to work another day in his life. So when Ollie North was standing swearing in under oath to God looking like an honest Boy Scout in his Marine Uniform, then he sat down and testified to the Congressional Hearings…..He was Lying His Ass Off!!

    All who were involved in the Iran Contra Scandal including the Head of the CIA Cassey, were indicted except the CIA agent Ollie North reported to, he was the only one in that circle who was not indicted ….a fact my family friend takes great pride in.

    As if 6 months ago, the CIA agent is dying of lung cancer and may have passed away by now.

    Now you know a little more ACCURATE HISTORY that none of the Reactionary Conservative broadcasting propaganda will never pass on.

  2. Ronald May 18, 2013 5:17 pm

    Very fascinating, Engineer of Knowledge! Thanks for passing it on here! 🙂

  3. Engineer Of Knowledge May 19, 2013 5:20 pm

    Hello Professor,
    Here are the latest GOP Scandles that Juan swallowed, Hook, Line, and SInker. 🙂

    Three Simple Facts On The Latest GOP Fabricated Scandal Against the President:
    1. The GOP was just caught editing the Benghazi talking point e-mails to make it look like Hillary made the decision to not name specific terrorist groups.
    2. The Clinton staffer who asked for that was a former aide to Dick Cheney and married to a Romney advisor.
    3. The IRS official in Cincinnati who decided to scrutinize Tea Party Groups was a Bush appointee who used to work for Grover Norquist.

    Interesting Huh!!! Well except to Juan…

    Yes the GOP has been caught with their hands in the cookie jar trying to manufacture a scandal, but it is all falling apart.

    Findings from the Three Manufactured Scandals:
    1. Benghazi: No cover up. No W. H. manipulation.
    2. IRS: No White House involvement. No White House attempt to condone.
    3. AP: DOJ actions legal serious security leaks pursued.

    Truths Under President Obama:
    1. Lowest jobless rate since 2008.
    2. Fastest deficit reduction since World War II.

    Just blew every one of Juan’s Rants out of the water. No “Critical Thinking” even considered on his part at all. Just repeat fabricated rhetoric propaganda from the Extreme Reactionary Right.

    You know Professor,….I love it when he is wrong. 🙂 Which is QUITE OFTEN!!

  4. Ronald May 19, 2013 5:35 pm

    HAHA, again, thanks, Engineer of Knowledge! The Republicans have no program or ideas, except opposition, and yet they continue to rant and rave, as Juan, sadly, does, as well! I appreciate how you bring him down on points, as if in a boxing or wrestling match!

    Obama will go down as a successful President, who overcame adversity, similar to what Lincoln faced a century and a half ago! Those who have opposed him will look terrible in the history books for certain!

  5. Engineer Of Knowledge May 19, 2013 6:02 pm

    I think I have come up with a new term, Juan-a-nized.
    Non-tangible, nihilistic, raving rants, not based on any truth or facts, but are to be used as talking point proofs for the way Juan wants reality to be.

    I wonder what it is like to live in that fantasy head of his? Rainbows & gumdrops, Nazis & Klansmen?

  6. Maggie May 20, 2013 1:40 am

    Gee, wonder where Juan is?

  7. Princess Leia May 20, 2013 7:05 am

    The more important scandals the media should be obsessed with instead:

    As Katrina VandenHeuvel says in this article, these GOP obsessed scandals are little more than GOP weapons of mass distraction designed to shift the focus away from gun violence, jobs, and other important issues.

  8. Juan Domingo Peron May 20, 2013 9:57 am

    How big government liberalism, progressivism governs. Personally I would tell the AP, “WE TOLD YOU SO!”. Now because their First Amendment Rights are infringed they seem to care. Anyway, even thought the media doesn’t deserve it, we still must defend them, so here goes the truth.
    The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of personal and work telephone records for several reporters and editors, as well as general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery.
    “It was sweeping and broad and beyond what they needed to do, that it’s an unconstitutional act” AP President Gary Pruitt said.
    “…The government has no business having control over all, monitoring all of this news gathering information from the Associated Press,” he continued. “And if they restrict that apparatus, you’re right – the people of the United States will only know what the government wants them to know and that’s not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment.”
    He objected to the “Justice Department acting on its own being the judge, jury and executioner in secret,” saying the AP would not back down.
    “We’re not going to be intimidated by the abusive tactics of the Justice Department,” he said.

  9. Juan Domingo Peron May 20, 2013 10:16 am

    More on abuse of power..
    Big government just can’t help itself. It’s becoming more and more clear, more and more obvious that President Obama is using the full weight — has used, in fact, the full weight — and resources of the federal government to literally block the political participation of millions of American citizens. Every day we are treated to new discoveries, new evidence. The latest is: Conservative Hispanic groups were targeted by the IRS, groups that wanted to found tax-exempt organizations.( )
    It’s become clear now, more and more clear, that Obama used the full weight and resources of the federal government to block the political participation of millions of Americans. There is no media outrage over this. Again, the media is focused on, “Gee, can Obama survive this? Gee, how will the Republicans screw up investigating this?” This is the kind of stuff that happens in banana republics and totalitarian regimes.
    We now know that the primary objective of President Barack Obama and all liberals/progressives outside and within the Federal Government is the elimination of opposition. The realities of this story is conservatives have been put on notice. The federal government is after us. A signal is being sent. The federal government, this administration, has been targeting every conservative group in ways beyond what has happened at the IRS as this story proves.
    Conservatives have been treated as enemies of the state. As President Obama has said, we are the enemy. The people at the IRS thought nothing of denying us our constitutional rights, liberty, freedom, pursuit of happiness, political free speech (which is supposed to be untouchable by the US Constitution). This is no small thing. This is not just the latest, ordinary, everyday scandal. We, conservatives, are being sent a signal while the rest of the country thinks nothing of it.

  10. Juan Domingo Peron May 20, 2013 10:49 am
    CNN’s Morgan: Hey, maybe government can become tyrannical after all. In a conversation with Penn Jillette, CNN’s anti-gun zealot – who has spent the last six months deriding the suggestion that the American government can’t be trusted when it comes to gun control – has had a change of heart after watching the IRS and DOJ/APP scandals unfold. Morgan has had a revelation: Maybe, just maybe, government can become tyrannical after all.

  11. Ronald May 20, 2013 10:53 am

    Juan, I think you need psychological help, as you are obsessing on a conspiracy theory that has no validity, as conservatives had greater abuses of power when they were in office. There is no threat to us from our government, but rather from those, who, for instance, want to march into Washington DC with loaded weapons on July 4, which is a threat to public safety, and is NOT freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and it looks as if there will be a confrontation, and it is the right wing which is a threat to our freedom and security, not the government! The march is a threat to everyone, and is the true tyranny, crazy people walking around with loaded weapons in public places!

  12. Maggie May 20, 2013 11:19 am

    Can Someone Please Explain to Me Why in Hell the Koch Brothers are Allowed to Pollute Our Country for Their Profits and Conservatives Don ‘t Give a Damn?
    In six months time, Detroit, Michigan has gained an ugly, dirty black mountain that is a city block long and three stories high — much to the city’s surprise. Windsor, Ontario is none too happy about it, either, since the mess lines the riverbank and mars the view from their side of the river. The mountain is made up of petcoke, described by researcher Lorne Stockman as “the dirtiest residue from the dirtiest oil on earth.”
    Where did the residue come from? That would be Canadian tar sands. Last November, a riverside refinery owned by Marathon Petroleum began refining the oil from Canadian imports of tar sands bitumen. The initial step in the refinery process extracts the oil but leaves behind the waste byproduct known as petroleum coke, or petcoke. Petcoke is like coal, but even dirtier than the low-grade stuff. When burned, it’s too high in carbon emissions to be used in the U.S., so the byproduct is sold and distributed as fuel to other countries that aren’t so particular about air quality, like China and Mexico.
    Who buys and distributes it? That would be the notorious Charles and David Koch and their company, Koch Carbon. Dirty energy is a family affair. A third brother, William, is the CEO of the Oxbow Corporation, a company which describes itself as “the largest distributor of petroleum coke in the world.”
    So Detroit’s new black mountain is the property of the Koch brothers, who bought it from the refinery. Essentially, they’ve used Detroit as the dumping ground for their store of petcoke until it can be shipped overseas. According to the New York Times, the state representative for the area, Rashida Tlaib, said:
    “What is really, really disturbing to me is how some companies treat the city of Detroit as a dumping ground. Nobody knew this was going to happen.”
    A big black mountain of waste product appears on the riverbank and nobody knew it was going to happen? Nobody but the Koch brothers, that is.
    Other parts of the country that are pushing to transport tar sands oil ought to take a trip to Detroit and look at the very obvious consequence of the refinery business. According to a report by Lorne Stockman, there are 59 U.S. refineries that are capable of producing petcoke, nine of them near the southern terminus of the Keystone XL pipeline. Is the country ready for big black mountains of waste products to line the Gulf Coast? Is Whiting, Indiana ready? Because that’s where British Petroleum has decided to build the “second largest” coke refinery in the country, in order to take advantage of the Canadian tar sands bitumen.
    No one knows just how big an environmental problem the presence of piled-up petcoke poses. It certainly hasn’t been counted as part of the impact of tar sands because it’s a byproduct of oil production, rather than the end product. In his January report, Stockman wrote:
    “To date, the impacts of petcoke on the local and global environment have not been considered by regulatory bodies in assessing the impacts of the tar sands.”
    However, he states that, as a fuel, petcoke releases an average of 53.6 percent more carbon dioxide than coal. Fifteen to 30 percent of tar sands bitumen ends up as petcoke. Because it is priced much lower than coal, other countries are eager to buy it. U.S. refineries will be eager to produce it, and U.S. communities will become the storehouse.
    Canada already has its own stockpile of 79.8 million tons of the stuff. According to the New York Times story:
    “Some is dumped in open-pit oil sands mines and tailing ponds in Alberta. Much is just piled up there.”
    That’s the new American landscape we can look forward to unless the communities at risk wake up to the dangers. Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario are searching for solutions to the phenomenon together. Rhonda Anderson of the Sierra Club in Detroit, said:
    “Those piles kind of hit us upside to the head. But it also triggered a kind of relationship between Canada and the United States that’s allowed us to work together.”
    Surely, the combined forces of the U.S. and Canada can figure out how to deal with the Koch brothers and their “PetKoch.” Can’t they?
    Read more and see the picture:

  13. Ronald May 20, 2013 11:25 am

    Juan, do you have a comment to make about this? I am waiting to see if you will ignore this, as it does not fit your prearranged perceptions about the beauty of capitalism unregulated, and the evils of government!

  14. Juan Domingo Peron May 20, 2013 4:57 pm

    Ron: I haven’t looked into the Detroit story but I can tell you this. You misrepresent what I and the overwhelming majority of conservatives sustain and believe regarding regulation. Conservatives are not against regulations per se, but against burdensome excessive regulations and red tape. The same with government. we are not against government in itself but against bloated big government, either at the federal or state level, which ends up usually being tyrannical. But for you and those on the statist left, you never accept that there are ridiculous burdensome regulations, not one bit. You don’t consider that government is bigger and bigger and not a good thing. So whenever anyone suggest that some regulations are bad and ridiculous you immediately put us in an extreme position of not wanting any regulations at all. Same thing with big government, you immediately accuse us of being anti-government and practically anarchist, saying we want an Somali type non existence government. There is no type of moderation on your part, none whatsoever because you are always misrepresenting what I have said and posted many times. How many examples of ridiculous red tape have I posted over the last few months? A lot ! But does that mean I want no type of regulations? No type of laws, no corporate law, no money laundering law, no banking law? Of course not. But you make it seem like that is the conservative position and it is not. Never have I stated anything about the beauty of “unregulated” capitalism or about the evils of government. Yes I talk about the beauty of the free market capitalism, competition and that “excessive” regulation destroys that, like for example price fixing would. Nor do I talk about evil government but evil “Big government” which invariably leads to tyranny. The problem is that you seem to favor a hiper regulated economy and big bloated government. Like you told me once “Big government is here to stay”.Thus you cannot admit for a second that there is even a bit of over regulation and a bit of excessive big government. Not even a nail tip. So you see from my perspective there is no moderation on your side, otherwise you could not possible ask me what you did.

  15. Juan Domingo Peron May 20, 2013 5:04 pm

    We battle, again. Conservatives vs. The GOP establishment. I pretty sure I know who the Democrats and other leftist statist support.

    “The hoopla over the new George W. Bush Library in Dallas, as well as some gauzy looks back penned by former aides, shows we are in the middle of “The Great Bush Revisionism.” The former president is being lauded and congratulated. But for what?

    A new examination of Bushism may be helpful because the current scandals in Washington are the symptoms of too much power and too much arrogance.

    The Internal Revenue Service did not target the Republican Party, which is considered part of the establishment. It targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups that were viewed as a threat to the establishment.

    Americans need to be wary of revisionism at all times. They need to remember clearly how things were.

    Recall the 2004 White House Correspondents Dinner. President George W. Bush showed a slide show featuring photos of himself searching for non-existent weapons of mass destruction. The tuxedoed guests saw the president looking under sofas and other places for the missing WMDs. The Washington elite, as well as their Hollywood and Wall Street guests, laughed uproariously.

    At that point, some 500 Americans had already died in Iraq. Within a year, the death toll had doubled.

    It is one thing to be mistaken about war – all presidents are mistaken about something, at one point or another. But it is quite another to make fun of the reason for war, a reason that cost thousands of lives, tens of thousands of injuries, trillions of dollars and severely damage and divide America for years to come.

    That was the last correspondents’ dinner I attended. Probably few of the gathered elites had ever served time in the military – though some may have served time. And it could be that few had ever sent a child off to war – as I have twice. Still, they laughed raucously at Bush’s jokes about the missing WMD.

    All these years later, former First Lady Barbara Bush, with her unblinking bluntness, is the one who has it right.

    In a television interview to mark the Bush Library opening, she said that when it comes to future presidents of the United States, “We’ve had enough Bushes.” She was including her son, Jeb, the former Florida governor, who is now considered a likely GOP candidate.

    Yet aides to former President George W. Bush now desperately attempt to reinvent and revive his name and legacy – and, in doing so, revive and reinvent themselves. Their boss may have left the White House with poll numbers in the tank, but they left with their tails between their legs.

    Some, such as Ken Mehlman, the former Republican National Committee chairman who came out of the closet to lobby for gay marriage, have written thin pieces arguing for a restitution of Bushism. Mehlman conveniently forgets that it was Bush who first proposed a federal marriage amendment – a major volley in the culture war between gays and the GOP. Other Bushies have embedded themselves in various media outlets – using their perches to sing the song of Bushism.

    Jennifer Rubin, a Washington Post columnist and blogger, has urged fellow establishment Republicans to reject Reaganism, presumably supplanting it with Bushism.

    Although the neo-conservative assault on Reaganism in the name of reinventing Bushism is unending, it would be useful to review the state of the GOP after the Reagan presidency and Bush presidencies.

    The United States that Ronald Reagan inherited in 1980 had lost its standing on the world stage – confronting troubles ranging from the Iranian hostage crisis to severe domestic economic woes. The Soviets were winning the Cold War. The “shining city” looked more like dystopia.

    When Reagan left office nine years later, the situation was radically different. Household income had increased for Americans of all races. The deficit was falling rapidly and federal non-defense spending as a percentage of gross domestic product had shrunk dramatically. Gasoline prices were at historic lows, as were inflation and interest rates. Unemployment was 5.2 percent.

    Reagan’s overall approval rating was 68 percent. It was 73 percent among whites, 40 percent among African Americans and an astonishing 85 percent among voters under age 30. For the first time in many decades, more young voters were registering as Republicans than Democrats, and by a respectable margin – 40 percent to 33 percent.

    Soviet communism was on its way to the “ash heap of history,” where Reagan had consigned it. Reagan had used his eight years in the White House to demonstrate that intellectual conservatism was a viable reality.

    Reagan helped to reinvent the Republican Party as a vibrant conservative movement of cheerful ideas, organized around the president’s philosophy of less government and more freedom.

    Of course, the Reagan years were not all sweetness and light. There was a biting recession he’d inherited, the assassination attempt, the Iran-Contra scandal, the growing AIDs crisis and struggles with the Democratic left. As well as a titanic battle against Soviet communism.

    But in 1989, Reagan left his country, his party and conservatives in better shape than he found them. He rarely nationalized social issues, viewing these matters as best decided by the states. But he added a framework provided by his history of standing up to bigotry and for the private rights of citizens.

    That’s what Reagan handed off to his successor, when George H.W. Bush took the keys to the White House in 1989.

    All Bush had to do was follow the path Reagan had set for him.

    Instead, Bush followed a “kinder and gentler” route – which had troublesome implications. He turned his back on Tiananmen Square as the Chinese Communist regime sent tanks to gun down young protesters for democracy. He turned his back on social conservatives, who marched into the culture wars ignited, in part, by the National Endowment for the Arts funding artists such as Robert Mapplethorpe. And he turned his back on his pledge not to raise taxes, sparking a civil war inside the GOP.

    Conservatives said Bush Republicans had “swallowed the anchor.” They abandoned the adventurous high seas of Reaganism for the calm, unthreatening status quo port of Bushism.

    Bush’s actions led to a nervous breakdown inside the GOP. He left office with an approval rating in the low 30s after one failed term.

    For Reagan Republicans, Bush’s 1992 loss to Bill Clinton was a good thing. The backlash against Clinton’s policies enabled conservatism to stage a comeback. Led by Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America, the conservative movement swept into Congress in 1994, and the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. These off-year elections had pitted conservatism against the Clintons’ vision of big government.

    When Texas Governor George W. Bush updated “’kinder and gentler” to “compassionate conservatism” – and persuaded a minority of Americans to support him in 2000 – he did not make his father’s mistake of going to war with conservatives. In fact, Bush claimed the Reagan mantle. It was Reagan, and not George H.W. Bush, whom the younger Bush often cited. But he did not continue his strongly conservative legacy.

    Although many viewed any Bush White House initiative as some form of conservatism – even if, like “No Child Left Behind,” it violated fundamental tenants of federalism – this was not how movement conservatives saw it. For them, the Bush Brigades trampled on true Reaganism.

    By 2006, George W. Bush had pushed the conservative movement into another crack-up. He left office in 2009 with an approval rating perhaps equal to the number of Bush family members ‑ and the economy and the world in shambles.

    The conservative movement has never fully recovered from the failings of George H. W. Bush. In fact, it is only the Tea Party has revived it. Meanwhile, many weary Reagan conservatives wish the Bush Establishment GOP would just admit its failures and accept defeat.

    Now, though, with Bush Revisionism in full flower, the Republican Party and the conservative movement must again have the debate about the establishment versus intellectual conservativism.

    Once again, the movement conservatives and the Tea Party will have to slug it out with the GOP establishment.

    As Dorothy Parker observed, what fresh hell is this?

  16. Princess Leia May 20, 2013 5:05 pm

    Yet another monster tornado hit in Oklahoma this afternoon and Regressives deny climate change?!

  17. Ronald May 20, 2013 5:16 pm

    Juan, I am the last person to ask to defend George W. Bush, as he was a total disaster in my mind, a person who should never have been President in the first place!

  18. Ronald May 20, 2013 5:18 pm

    Princess Leia, the answer will be that this is an act of God, and we should all pray, instead of taking action. That is how conservatives and Republicans look at climate change, pray to God, as if that will solve the issue!

  19. Princess Leia May 20, 2013 5:45 pm


    I was thinking the same thing. They’ll blame it on God. I certainly don’t believe in their God.

  20. Juan Domingo Peron May 20, 2013 6:06 pm

    Ron: Remember the Great Tri-State Tornado of 1925? The worst tornado in U.S. history passes through eastern Missouri, southern Illinois, and southern Indiana, killing 695 people, injuring some 13,000 people, and causing $17 million (1925 dollars for the low information crowd) in property damage. Known as the “Tri-State Tornado,” the deadly twister began its northeast track in Ellington, Missouri, but southern Illinois was the hardest hit. More than 500 of the total 695 people who perished were killed in southern Illinois, including 234 in Murphrysboro and 127 in West Frankfort. The Tri-State Tornado of 1925–which traveled 219 miles, spent more than three hours on the ground, devastated 164 square miles, had a diameter of more than a mile, and traveled at speeds in excess of 70 mph–is unsurpassed in U.S. history. Was it due to man made Global Warming , Climate Change or whatever you want to call it? In other words was it caused by man made activity that changes the climate? Tornado have always happened and blaming the latest tornadoes, hurricanes or any other storm on man made climate change just makes you look like fanatic worshipers. Climate changes, climate has changed always since the creation of the planet, climate changes, so what’s new? I can’t imagine what you would say if we ever suffer another Tri-State tornado type event. Surely it would be mankind’s fault. Wait at minute what am I saying? ! It would actually be Bush’s , Republicans and conservatives fault! Oh I almost forgot the Koch Bros. fault too!

  21. Princess Leia May 20, 2013 6:35 pm


    There have always been extreme weather events. What’s different now is the increasing frequency of so many different kinds of extreme weather.

    What we’re seeing is not the end result of climate change, but the leading edge of an extreme-weather trend that will continue to worsen if we fail to act.

  22. Juan Domingo Peron May 20, 2013 7:22 pm

    Dr. Ryan Maue’s Accumulated Cyclone Energy index, shows that since 2005 the combined frequency, intensity, and duration of all tropical cyclones, hurricanes, and typhoons worldwide, expressed as a 24-month running sum, shows the least activity in the entire satellite record.

  23. Ronald May 20, 2013 9:16 pm

    I would prefer, Juan, to believe the vast majority of scientists, and prepare for global warming, than do nothing and suffer from lack of action! Anything wrong with that, other than it MIGHT affect the energy industry, which does not care about ANYTHING except massive profits? 🙁

  24. Princess Leia May 20, 2013 9:54 pm

    Me too Professor!

  25. Princess Leia May 20, 2013 10:26 pm

    When I notice that, in my neck of the woods, we’re having less and less winter each year, I know something’s odd. That’s why I believe the vast majority of scientists warning us about global warming and climate change.

  26. Engineer Of Knowledge May 20, 2013 10:44 pm

    OK Juan,
    Let’s separate the wheat from the shaft. Let’s see if you really know ANYTHING regarding “Climate Change.”

    What carbon are we talking about when scientist reports the build up of carbon in the atmosphere?

    C6, C12, C13, C14, C16, C24, C32,. C64?

    If you cannot answer this basic question on the subject….then it is proven you have no clue of what you are even talking about.

  27. Juan Domingo Peron May 20, 2013 11:06 pm

    Good grief Engineer , none of the ones you mentioned. Don’t be an a..s! It’s CO2! As matter of fact humans produce about 1kg per day of CO2 which we then exhale into the atmosphere. Thus we too contaminate and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of you environmental wackos would want to limit human breathing as much as possible! Thanks to our “enlightened” SCOTUS, in Massachusetts v. EPA, the EPA can now regulate greenhouse gases, that is CO2 , that it technically the EPA can regulate us.

  28. Engineer Of Knowledge May 21, 2013 6:30 am

    You are very incorrect!! What do you think the “C” in the CO2 comes from?

    C stands for carbon….meaning one carbon and O2 means there are two oxygen….

    So what carbon identifier are we talking about? Choose from the selection above please.

  29. Juan Domingo Peron May 21, 2013 9:14 am

    Leia: There you go again like a good liberal. Can’t you understand the difference between sound regulations and over-burdensome ridiculous regulations? Why is it that for you liberals it’s all or nothing? Why is it that one cannot criticize certain regulations without being attacked and accused of hating the EPA and wanting dirty air and water? It’s all or nothing, 100% no matter what when it comes to the EPA or any other bureaucratic agency that are the delight of a liberals heart. Seriously it’s like you people are really “in love” with these agencies and no critique is allowed. Yours is a very totalitarian mindset.

  30. Princess Leia May 21, 2013 9:46 am

    Lulz! They’re only totalitarian in your fantasy world, Juan!

  31. Juan Domingo Peron May 21, 2013 9:52 am

    You didn’t ask about the identifier. In any event it’s C12. As you know it’s atomic weight is 12 atomic mass units (12 u) composed of 6 neutrons and 6 protons. I suppose you know what neutrons and protons are. In studying the carbon cycle scientist use carbon, but the media and public use CO2 in their reporting. And I suppose you know the atomic weight of CO2, which is 44, thus 1 ton of carbon equals 3.67 tons of CO2. So which one would you use to establish a carbon tax? Would your tax rate be based on the 1 ton of carbon or the 3.67 tons of CO2 emitted?What does the Boxer/Sanders bill tax? By how much? What is the US percentage of global emissions? If the US adopted the Boxer/Sanders bill how much would worldwide emission be cut? What is ppmv of CO2 concentration today, what would it be in 10yrs, with the tax and without the tax? How many degrees Celsius would the tax abate by 2023 and how much would the tax cost the US taxpayers? How much would it cost worldwide if the world adopted the Boxer/Sanders measures to abate 1 degree Celsius? And how much would it cost the world economy to abate the 3 degrees Celsius of global warming predicted by the IPCC for this century?

  32. Juan Domingo Peron May 21, 2013 9:54 am

    Leia: You seem not to understand English. I said your mindset is totalitarian not the agencies.

  33. Ronald May 21, 2013 10:47 am

    Juan, you have a problem with the word “totalitarianism”, and constantly invoke it incorrectly. America will NEVER be Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini–and we will never be any of the tinhorn Latin American or Asian dictators either! It is, however, people like the Koch Brothers and other billionaires who threaten the future of the middle class and the poor, and do everything to undermine political, social and economic reform, and if anything, they are more of a totalitarian threat than any one in our government!

  34. Princess Leia May 21, 2013 10:53 am


    Lulz! I don’t have a totalitarian mindset. Sorry to disappoint you about that.

  35. Princess Leia May 21, 2013 10:54 am


    Lulz! I don’t have a totalitarian mindset. Sorry to disappoint you about that.

  36. Princess Leia May 21, 2013 10:56 am

    Totally agree Professor, not only about Juan, but also about these billionaires.

  37. Juan Domingo Peron May 21, 2013 11:09 am

    Oh Ron Ron, I was just pointed out Leia’s way of thinking that doesn’t admit the slightest critique of any government agency. That’s all. Furthermore I never said America would become totalitarian, I said big government tends to be tyrannical, but in the sense Tocqueville wrote about it, you know “soft” tyranny. I know you heard of the term. So please do not put words in my mouth. Finally you know as well as I do that government as an entity is responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent people throughout history, especially in the 20th century. No billionaires or multimillionaire have ever been responsible for democide. But you guys seem obsessed with economically successful people, like good little leftists.

  38. Ronald May 21, 2013 11:30 am

    I do NOT like when four Walmart heirs have more than SIXTY PERCENT of the nation! If you are not, then you need, Juan, to reconsider your values! 🙁

  39. Ronald May 21, 2013 11:32 am

    I do not like, Juan, when the Koch Brothers pollute Detroit with their energy empire, and do not care, and are not held accountable! See Maggie above for May 20 at 11:19 AM. Does that bother you? I certainly hope so!

  40. Ronald May 21, 2013 11:34 am

    And governments through unnecessary wars to promote the welfare of the wealthy special interests is indeed obscene, but the idea that there are war profits that are the result of deaths that could have been averted is even more obscene!

  41. Juan Domingo Peron May 21, 2013 12:15 pm

    Good grief Ron, you have really been contaminated by class envy and hatred. Do you really think that sticking it to the rich guy is going to improve your life or the life of the poor? You really believe that? You hate Walmart, but do you also hate Apple or Microsoft? You seem to hate profit, but do you hate that the federal government with the student loan program is projected to make a $50.6 Billion in profits over the backs of thousands of students for fiscal year 2013? But you certainly hate Exxon Mobile which makes a profit of $44 Billion. On the other hand I’m sure you don’t hate Apple which posted a profit of 41.7 billion.
    As your favorite Senator, Elizabeth Warren said,
    “The fact that the government is now expected to profit $51 billion off student loans this year—more than the annual profit of any Fortune 500 company and about five times the profit of Google—is just plain wrong. We should put an end to the practices that generate Fortune 500 profits off of our students.”
    Fortune 500 companies are created and there to make profits. But this is yet another case of the US government benefiting at the expense of the American people without the word “taxes” being mentioned.

  42. Juan Domingo Peron May 21, 2013 12:20 pm

    As for wars, do you really think the USSR invaded Afghanistan, Hungary , Poland and the rest to promote the welfare of the wealthy? Do you think Hitler unleashed WWII to promote the welfare of the wealthy? Or that North Korea and North Vietnam invaded the south to promote the welfare of the wealthy? And I could go on and on. Even the stupid Falkland war , do you think the Junta went to war to promote the wealthy? Or that the Arabs are in constant conflict and war with tiny Israel to promote the wealthy class in those countries?

  43. Ronald May 21, 2013 12:36 pm

    Juan, I am talking about American corporations making excessive war profits in our wars, and not giving a damn about veterans at all, and bribing politicians all of the time. I am not talking about other nations, but one can be sure that corporations benefited in wars of other nations.

    And actually, I am against Apple avoiding taxes, and Microsoft, etc, and agree with my hero, Elizabeth Warren, that there should not be profit on student loans. The advancement of education is a benefit to all of us, not just the students! But certainly better to have the government, meaning US, benefit, if it cannot be avoided, than private banks which rip off consumers all of the time!

  44. Princess Leia May 21, 2013 12:44 pm

    I was and still am highly critical of the Dubya’s administration, Juan! So, don’t make any more false assumptions that I am not critical of government!

  45. Juan Domingo Peron May 21, 2013 12:45 pm

    I see , the government never rips off “consumers”, I think if it were up to you , you would nationalize the entire banking system..LOL!

  46. Juan Domingo Peron May 21, 2013 1:00 pm

    Leia: I was referring to the concept of government as a “state”, as the power of the state, as the stable bureaucracy. I was not referring to government as an administration, like the Bush , Obama or whoever. Administrations come and go, while the state remains. And that is what I am referring to and that’s what you seem to defend no matter what.

  47. Princess Leia May 21, 2013 1:15 pm


    I’ve read enough of your nonsense over the past couple of months to know what you’re referring to and it’s definitely not goverment as a “state”!

  48. Juan Domingo Peron May 21, 2013 1:24 pm

    Oh Leia, you are so wrong, or you just are unable to comprehend…

  49. Princess Leia May 21, 2013 2:46 pm

    Sorry to disappoint you Juan but I am soooooo not wrong and am very, very, very able to comprehend.

  50. Juan Domingo Peron May 21, 2013 2:56 pm

    Well then demonstrate it.

  51. Juan Domingo Peron May 21, 2013 4:02 pm

    Leia: Your last post has 2 contradictory statements….

  52. Princess Leia May 21, 2013 4:29 pm

    Nope. It does not. Sorry to disappoint you Juan.

  53. Juan Domingo Peron May 21, 2013 5:40 pm

    You don’t disappoint me Leia believe it or not..

  54. Princess Leia May 21, 2013 6:27 pm

    What I’m saying is this: When Obama was elected in 2008, the same old cliche “evil liberals spend too much” whining that had occurred during the administrations of FDR, JFK, Clinton, and other Democratic presidents started up.

  55. Juan Domingo Peron May 21, 2013 6:52 pm

    Leia: Sorry but it seems you haven’t been paying attention to conservatives during the Bush years. Conservatives such as Tony Snow for example wrote:
    – Bush has “lost control of the federal budget and cannot resist the temptation to stop raiding the public fisc.” [3/17/06]
    – “George W. Bush and his colleagues have become not merely the custodians of the largest government in the history of humankind, but also exponents of its vigorous expansion.” [3/17/06]
    -“On the policy side, he has become a classical dime-store Democrat. He gladly will shovel money into programs that enjoy undeserved prestige, such as Head Start. He seems to consider it mean-spirited to shut down programs that rip-off taxpayers and mislead supposed beneficiaries.” [8/25/00]

  56. Juan Domingo Peron May 21, 2013 8:25 pm

    Leai: That’s all you got…pretty lame.

  57. Ronald May 21, 2013 8:28 pm

    Thanks, Princess Leia, evidence of how cynical, deceptive, and hypocritical conservatives are, and then, all of a sudden, the BLACK MAN is in power, and they go NUTS!

  58. Princess Leia May 21, 2013 8:43 pm


    You using Faux News as a source is what’s rather lame!

  59. Juan Domingo Peron May 21, 2013 9:08 pm

    Ronald, as always you just cannot help using the race card when you run out of arguments. Typical leftist.

  60. Princess Leia May 21, 2013 9:20 pm

    Lulz! Truth hurts, don’t it, Juan?!

  61. Juan Domingo Peron May 21, 2013 9:26 pm

    Leia: What truth? That the historically racist democrat party know wants to lecture us on race? I would never be a democrat, as I said before , it would be like being a member of a Nazi party that all of sudden was in favor of affirmative action for Jews. You really got to have a stomach to be a democrat.

  62. Ronald May 21, 2013 10:29 pm

    Juan, I am NOT using the race card, just pointing out reality!

    And it is lame to point out that in the past until the racists switched to the GOP after the Civil Rights Act, that they were Democrats. We all know that, and Hubert Humphrey fought against this, and LBJ did us all a favor by convincing the bigots to join the GOP after LBJ pushed the Civil Rights Act, himself a Southerner.

    The GOP, however, abandoned blacks after 1877, end of Reconstruction, to the racist bigots of the South, so they do not deserve credit beyond that date, as the Radical Republicans promotion of civil rights was ended by CONSERVATIVE Republicans steadily, until finally in the 1960s, some Northern Republicans voted for civil rights.

    These are the facts of history, Juan, and you show your ignorance once again on so many issues! You should be ashamed of yourself! 🙁

  63. Princess Leia May 21, 2013 10:33 pm

    Exactly right Professor!

  64. Ronald May 23, 2013 7:56 pm

    Thanks, Princess Leia! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.