To argue with a partisan of any political stripe is. But in any case, you're right. People see what they want to see and will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to make things fit into their preconceived notions. It's pretty pointless to continue.

Mr. Haplo are you supportive of the (what I see as) scum Assange and wikileaks. This is kind of the same thing.

Some see it as heroic while others see is as scummy.

My point and my applause for this man, is that I feel we need our government to be kept honest, since the mainstream media, of both flavors (left leaning like MSNBC, NYTimes, and AOLs newest lapdog, the huffington post, or far right like FOX, and the Washington Post.) all fail to do that.

They simply present what their benefactors want you to see, in a way you want to believe. Instead of informing you, they are appealing to you.

I guess you can even call this story an example of such. It does have a skew about it, not exactly neutral. Even if I do applaud the man, there is not alot of neutrality about it.

I do still wonder what the men we elected to work for us have to hide from us....

You say that like you are somehow immune to it yourself. Reverse the players and you'd be doing the same thing you're accusing others of.

If you really do wonder then why not just read the EPA report yourself?

Yeah the report:har::har::har:

Our honest government wrote it all down.:DL
They truly have the interests of everyone in mind, enough to get pissy over a camera..

Easy to fake written reports. But film is immortal. Which is why this guy is the newest member of the Washington Blacklist.:arrgh!:

Go Patriots.:salute:

No, I say it because it's the truth. You're assigning that interpretation to it.

Ah, :up:

Funny.. I have publicly stated that the EPA study of fracking presents serious concerns - not exactly the "partisan" position a "right winger" would be expected to have. But I guess that proves the point - you only see what you want to see, eh? You have yelled "coverup of corruption", but you can't seem to actually explain what corruption there was to coverup - especially since the webcast and report are available.....

I have, thus my concerns over fracking. Its not a technology that should be outright thrown away, but it appears obvious that groundwater contamination is a concern. So what that tells me is not that you throw the "baby out with the bathwater", you see if you can find safeguards that protect the groundwater from contamination while still allowing the extraction of a necessary energy source.

To be "conservative" means we want to conserve more than just jobs, or energy, or marriage and the family. It doesn't mean we follow a party line without question. Something others should learn, and practice.

No soopaman2 - I don't support either action. If you read what you wrote, I am not sure you can support either - it makes no sense. Both sides broke established rules. In fact, while the "data" on the wikileaks was much more impactful and harmful, the reality is that filming this was not necessary EXCEPT for a documentary with an agenda. The actual webcast of the meeting - which had the general public in attendance - is readily available. The ONLY reason this guy wanted to film it was so he could edit it in the most effective way to spout his own agenda. Breaking the rules to put out propaganda is wrong - whether its wikileaks - or its this.

Excusing the breaking of the rules for a political agenda is nothing but steps down the road to anarchy. Some like that idea. As a conservative - I don't.

Again - for those that care about the truth - docs and the webcast of the meeting are available HERE:

http://science.house.gov/hearing/ene...uring-research

Nothing hidden, nothing twisted. Just the hearing itself in all its boring, governmental glory. The report is easy to find as well. How transparent, even when some would yell "coverup of corruption!" :roll:

But don't mind me, I'm supposed to be a partisan hack, remember....

Which is why that should have happened :


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y17...angePerson.jpg


And, just a thought:


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y17...Zuckerberg.jpg

:-? Makes you think ? It should.

why do you need a permit to film the government anyways? Unless it's some top secret meeting I can't see why american citizens should be disallowed that. But then again, the GOP would probably love anybody else filming, so long as it's Fox news