Couple Things

Ah yes, of course. Thank you, Commie Atheist.

"Well thank you Commie Atheist, but I'm male :)"

Sorry, Jody... anyway I won't hold it against you.

"Commie Atheist, is that anything like those liberal fascists I've been hearing so much about lately?"

Yes, as Jonah Goldberg has informed us, Fascists, Communists, and Liberals are all pretty much the same thing.

16 comments!!!! I think we've breached their defenses! Scotty, I need more shields!!!!

Well thank you Commie Atheist, but I'm male :)

Commie Atheist, is that anything like those liberal fascists I've been hearing so much about lately?

Keep up the good work Jake Tapper.

"Come on. The point of your post was not to engage in a discussion about the economic impact of anti-global warming measures. This is not an environmental policy blog, it's a political blog. The point of your post was quite clearly this:

"At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? 'Slow down our economy'?"

Anyone listening to his speech would understand that this was NOT his characterization. What is your explanation for the fact that when the speech was transcribed in your post, the comment about slowing the economy down was in quotation marks? It was quoted because it was obvious to whoever transcribed it (as it should have been to any listener) that Clinton was quoting a hypothetical straw-man argument.

I won't accuse you of making this mistake purposefully. Everybody makes mistakes. I do fault you for not quickly admitting your mistake once it was explained to you, though. Look at the headline of your post. Look at the headline on Drudge. Your post was not accurate, or your intended meaning did not come through, and that did some damage to the Clinton campaign. You really should just offer an apology and move on."

Alas, poor Top6. I knew him, Horatio. But now he's just food for worms.

I figure we might as well make them work for their money. Maybe one of them will have an attack of conscience, realize they're working for a faceless corporation that is harming America with every sloppy, untrue story they post, and let the comments stand. Probably not though.

Trapper needs to issue an apology.

Come on. The point of your post was not to engage in a discussion about the economic impact of anti-global warming measures. This is not an environmental policy blog, it's a political blog. The point of your post was quite clearly this:

"At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? 'Slow down our economy'?"

Anyone listening to his speech would understand that this was NOT his characterization. What is your explanation for the fact that when the speech was transcribed in your post, the comment about slowing the economy down was in quotation marks? It was quoted because it was obvious to whoever transcribed it (as it should have been to any listener) that Clinton was quoting a hypothetical straw-man argument.

I won't accuse you of making this mistake purposefully. Everybody makes mistakes. I do fault you for not quickly admitting your mistake once it was explained to you, though. Look at the headline of your post. Look at the headline on Drudge. Your post was not accurate, or your intended meaning did not come through, and that did some damage to the Clinton campaign. You really should just offer an apology and move on.

"I'm with Dave 6:02:44 PM.

You printed the whole speech, yet chose to understand only the part you deemed incriminating.

Then, when called on it, you've done everything but actually own up to it.

This is the crux of the problem with journalism in this country today.
"

Here's to Jody. Her comment was great, but it's gone now. Too bad.

I'm with Dave 6:02:44 PM.

You printed the whole speech, yet chose to understand only the part you deemed incriminating.

Then, when called on it, you've done everything but actually own up to it.

This is the crux of the problem with journalism in this country today.

"Congratulations, Dave. Looks like you made the cut."

I couldn't be prouder!

You can't dislike anything the Clintons say. We get it ABC. We'll just rip the Republicans and stay up for all to see. Don't feel bad, a Blog is NOT journalism. But if that is so, why have a journalist writing one???? ABC... (I won't hold my breath)

There was a time when conservatives and their buddies protecting the oligarchies said that the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act would destroy the U.S. economy. How did that work out?
Those same people are now saying the same thing about fighting global warming. I think the people that find themselves consistently getting proved wrong should have the higher burden of proof in this argument, Jake.
P.S. In between the Clean Water Act era and the global warming debate, a lot of their star thinkers and scientists fought the good fight against believing there was a hole in the ozone layer and denying the effects of secondhand smoke. Find out who Fred Singer is if you don't believe me.

Let's just cut to the chase, shall we?

Here's Clinton's remarks, as reproduced at the bottom of your original story:

"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.

"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.

And here's how you "reported" it at the TOP of the story:

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "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."

You are either a liar or an incompetent reporter.

Which is it?