Monday, February 13, 2006
The Independent: Bush is "Shamed" to Act on "Global Warming"
Since running for President in 2000, George W. Bush has stood firm against the tide of liberal idiocy and anti-capitalist sludge known as "global warming," a theory which has been proved to be a natural phenomenon, and of which humans can do little but cope with until the inevitable "global freezing" comes.
However, when polar bears are impacted, the leftwing British rag known as "The Independent" (sort of calling The NY Times "very independent - of reality") says that President Bush has been "shamed" into acting.
Acting? Where? And where was he shamed? Of course, leftists can't answer this - they just hallucinate.
Starving polar bears shame Bush to act
OK - so the President is working to save bears from starving. But was he "shamed"? Or is he doing it because having polar bears starving is not the humane thing to have happen?
Why can't liberals just tell the truth for once, instead of spinning everything as bad for President Bush?
Since running for President in 2000, George W. Bush has stood firm against the tide of liberal idiocy and anti-capitalist sludge known as "global warming," a theory which has been proved to be a natural phenomenon, and of which humans can do little but cope with until the inevitable "global freezing" comes.
However, when polar bears are impacted, the leftwing British rag known as "The Independent" (sort of calling The NY Times "very independent - of reality") says that President Bush has been "shamed" into acting.
Acting? Where? And where was he shamed? Of course, leftists can't answer this - they just hallucinate.
Starving polar bears shame Bush to act
Starving polar bears are presenting an unprecedented challenge to George Bush's refusal to take action over global warming - and may succeed where environmentalists and other governments have failed in getting him to curb pollution.
Despite the President's obdurate stance on climate change, the US administration last week took the first steps towards officially listing the bear as an endangered species. The Arctic ice on which the iconic animal lives is melting away as the world heats up and, if the listing is finalised, the Bush administration will be obliged to modify its pollution policies to try to save the bear.
OK - so the President is working to save bears from starving. But was he "shamed"? Or is he doing it because having polar bears starving is not the humane thing to have happen?
Why can't liberals just tell the truth for once, instead of spinning everything as bad for President Bush?
