We begin!
Let’s talk about the biggest hoax ever pulled on the American public.
That Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Orsen Welles’ broadcast of War of the Worlds?
No, not Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster or The Abominable Snowman, it’s an inconvenient truth, but it’s global warming.
Small correction here, but, um, there’s this science thing and unfortunately it would still rank Bigfoot at the top of this list. After all, Loch Ness and the yeti are not traditionally found in America. All we’re asking is that you use culturally relevant fictional characters, like Jesus.
Space prevents me from listing all the proof, but here’s the condensed version.
Like, absolutely nothing takes up no space, and thus it would be impossible to use space to list all the actual proof you have.
Al Gore won a Nobel Prize for his work on global warming, yet he has never accepted an invitation to debate.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore, in that order. Now, if I’m going to look for people to debate on the matter, I’d go with the former rather than the later. Al Gore is a passionate speaker on the subject, but scientists are scientists. Scientists are the ones who should be the focal point of the debate. There’s the small problem that nearly all the credible scientific experts on the subject happen to agree that global warming is a reality. Tough blow to your cause, but irrationality really hasn’t been a weak point on your side of the cause.
Surely a Nobel laureate is capable of defending his facts on global warming. Well, unless his facts are inconvenient lies.
Or he has better things to do than put up with ignorant nay-sayers with an over-bearing political ideology that doesn’t allow them to view empirical evidence rationally, if they choose to look at the evidence at all.
Nuclear power emits the least amount of carbon dioxide during its life cycle than any other form of energy, including wind. Ever heard of a global warming alarmist begging for a new nuclear plant to be built?
Yes, quite often. Funny thing, not all people are the Democrat Party.
And it’s safe, more people died in Ted Kennedy’s car than at the Three Mile Island power plant accident.
And more people have died mining fossil fuels than have died in Ted Kennedy’s car. So using that as the standard of measurement we really are going to have to cut out quite a lot of things from society. Looks like we’re going to have to cut out all that invading other countries business. It’ll be sad to see it go, but by your own standards it’s got to be cut.
Differing rainfall amounts, cloud formations, changes in sea ice to water to vapor, ocean currents, land mass changes, wind, and a thousand other variables, make it impossible for any computer to accurately forecast years into the future.
Just how many years are we talking here? Land mass movements? So you’re picking on millimeters a year? I don’t know if you know absolutely jack shit about carbon dioxide, but none of the above matters for shit at a certain point.
Why are politicians proposing plans that exempt some countries from the so-called “solution?”
Because they’re politicians? They like getting elected? Because other countries don’t actually have to give a shit and could completely ignore any and all attempts? There’s a host of reasons for the exemption, some of them better, some of them pretty shitty. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem.
Remember the Kyoto treaty? It would have exempted China, India, Mexico and third world countries from the treaty. Why? Are their greenhouse gas emissions from their coal burning power plants different than ours?
Geo-politics. Welcome to the world, I would have thought you to be one better equated to deal with irrationality. Though, do you think they should take anything we say seriously if we refuse to lead by example? Plus, might you suppose that if the wealthier developed nations of the world come up with a solution to the problem of power generation that the developing nations won’t begin to switch over to meet their power demands? Though, there’s still this massive problem of the fact that you haven’t provided any proof as to why global warming is false yet.
Now think real hard on this one. (Liberals – have a friend explain it to you.) If you limit emissions in our country, and exempt Mexico, how long do you think it will take before manufacturers in the U.S. shut down plants and move to Mexico? And the same amount of emissions will still be generated; they’ll just be coming from Mexico instead of the U.S. Where is the gain? Job losses would be catastrophic.
Now, think hard on this one as well. What you have here is a grammatical problem. We have parenthesis outside of an actual sentence. This is quite unacceptable, even for an irrational right-wing idiot who can’t seem to understand that economics is not a defense to deny that global warming isn’t happening. On top of that, this is just a slippery-slope logical fallacy.
Instead of global warming, we should be calling it the “global redistribution of wealth,” in honor of its liberal creators.
How about we just call it reality, so we can just lump all the thing right-wing ideologues have a problem dealing with into one simple and easy to use category?
Let me be clear, most greenhouse gases are derived from energy use.
Holy fucking shit, he actually got something right.
Nations that limit or reduce (Cap and Trade) their energy emissions are almost certain to reduce their economic growth and lose jobs, and thus, wealth.
Not actually true. It just limits energy created through the burning of fossil fuels. There is nothing that says that we are lowering energy output. I’m sorry, but you’ve unfortunately failed at your tautology here. I suggest taking some discrete mathematics.
Companies will bolt the U.S. and relocate to countries that have no restrictions. Thus developed nations like ours are devastated, and Bolivia becomes an economic powerhouse.
So, when are we going to get to the hoax part? You’ve been going on about this shit for sentences now.
General Electric is the largest producer of wind turbines in the U.S. GE owns NBC. The chairman of GE is an advisor to President Obama. Now we know why Obama gets that great news coverage from NBC.
I thought it was because they’ve the most liberally slanted network and thus, by slanting to the left they are making inroads in the market of left-leaning viewers. Sort of like how Fox is earning huge tracts of land by being the voice of the conservatives. Their network bias isn’t determined by some secret party allegiance, but by market forces. Trust me, if Murdoch could make millions more by turning Fox into a liberal rag, he’d do it without hesitation. And if he could set up a completely separate liberal rag network, you’d be he’d do that too. And let’s be honest here, making a shit ton of money is a lot more likely than your logic, which borders on conspiracy.
The largest producer of solar panels is BP Oil Company. The oil companies are still going to make their billions. They’re just going to do it with the global warming crowds blessing. Who knew?
Interesting, but if your concern is global warming and not corporate capitalism, the fact that BP is transferring into solar energy away from oil is the win, not some ancillary social justice concerns. You seem to think that every issue can only be dealt with in unison with every other view held by your theoretical Limbaugh Liberal.
And what White Male Round Up wouldn’t be complete without a rant on gay marriage?
Iowa? How cool.
Been there, not so much. Well, unless you have a corn fetish. And I’m a little jaded about certain colleges and certain financial aid packages, but that’s neither here nor there.
That’s how state Sen. Joan Bray, D-St. Louis, described the Iowa judicial decree recognizing gay marriage without a vote of the people. More than 75 percent of Iowans opposed gay marriage.
Well, dumber things have certainly been said by Missouri Congressmen, well, women in the case of Cynthia Davis. See, there’s this thing were, your facts are probably –well, not so much ‘probably’ as they are, ‘completely‘– wrong and certainly in need of a citation.
Unlike California, Iowa voters will likely never get a chance to undo this ruling. Amendments to the Iowa constitution require passage in two consecutive legislative sessions before they can appear on a ballot.
Well gee, there’s a good concept, not being able to change the constitution willy-nilly. I mean, it’s nice to see that they make it hard for the constitution to include bigotry on the whim of the voters. At least this allows for some measure of debate. Also, aren’t the conservatives the ones who are always clamoring to tell us that this is a ‘republic’ for some reason?
It’s no secret that gay- rights legal groups targeted Iowa because of the huge procedural hurdles that make it almost impossible to change the state constitution. It’s part of a larger strategy to force gay marriage upon the country outside of the democratic process.
By pointing out that the Constitution requires that all citizens be afforded equal protection under the law? Funny that, using the Constitution to secure rights in face of a majority. Just imagine how many rights we could have gotten rid of if it wasn’t for that pesky Bill of Rights thing?
Of the 30 states that put the issue to a vote, all 30 have voted to define marriage as one man, one woman. Some states, like California and Nevada, have voted twice in favor of traditional marriage.
That’s nice. Courts tend not to agree with them, nor does the majority of the New England area, or a very large minority of this country. Sure, it’s nice to see civil rights be granted through the democratic process, but when bigotry is the majority, sometimes the only way to secure constitutionally guaranteed rights is through the courts.
These votes are meaningless as long as state Supreme Court judges continue to overstep their constitutional authority by acting as a super legislative body.
Or they’re doing their job of interpreting the constitutionality of laws. See, there’s this separation of powers. I don’t know if you’re heard of it, but there’s these three branches of government.
There’s nothing cool about judicial tyranny.
Or failing civics.
Left unchecked, judicial tyranny will be the end of our republic. There’s no point in electing lawmakers if their actions can be overturned by a simple majority of unelected judges.
Actually, the tea-baggers seem to be a lot closer to that than any judicial branch which has been in place since the beginning of our republic. Besides, it’s only judicial tyranny when they don’t rule in your favor. Would you be calling it judicial tyranny if they overturned Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, Loving v. Virginia? Though, in terms of ending our republic, it would seem to me that you’re the one advocating the elimination of the court system.
People don’t like rigged elections, even in brutal dictatorships like Iran. What’s the difference between the supreme leader declaring a presidential winner who lost and a state Supreme Court declaring the losing side of a ballot issue the winner?
The fact that in Iran, they did not follow the constitution. They rigged an election. SCOTUS is not declaring the losing side of a ballot issue a winner. They’re declaring that it is unconstitutional to enforce the winning side of the ballot issue. For example, even if separate but equal wins, segregation is unconstitutional and thus not allowed per the U.S. Constitution. Again, the civics thing.
That’s exactly what Bray and other far-left Democratic leaders were hoping would happen in California. They wanted to deny Californians the right to overturn the edict of a runaway judiciary.
Because hoping for civil rights for all citizens is just a horrible thing.
When the California State Supreme Court ruled 6-1 in favor of the democratic process, Bray said, “to hell with California.” It’s ironic that Bray belongs to the Democratic Party when her views are very undemocratic.
Is ironic that you belong to the Republican Party when your own views are very unrepublican. But hey, why not engage in ad hominem attacks?
As much as I support traditional marriage, I don’t hate Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire, which passed laws this year recognizing gay marriage. I fully support each state using the democratic process to allow gay marriage.
Mainly because it’s kind of hard to not seem like a total tyrannical douchebag to not support a completely republican process to allow gay marriage. Remember, the conservatives are very keen on semantics here.
Democracy works both ways. If liberal New England legislatures are allowed to recognize gay marriage without interference from the judiciary, Midwest legislatures like Iowa should be given the same privilege.
No, no states should be given the privilege to ignore their own or the U.S. Constitution.
Gay rights groups want you to believe that gay marriage is inevitable, so there’s no use wasting time with the democratic process.
No, there’s no wasting time because it’s a civil right that they should be granted. Sure, if they can get it in thirteen years by democratic majority, that’s all fine and dandy, but it would be a travesty to have to wait that long to be granted a civil right.
The same was said about Prohibition, which took one year to ratify and 13 years to repeal.
I think you fail to notice that Prohibition took away rights, not granted them. There’s a bit of a comparison problem here.
Gay marriage also brings gay divorce, which gets complicated when splitting children between three people (two spouses and a surrogate).
So, why do heterosexuals who use a surrogate not have to worry about the surrogate? Could it be a problem of bigotry based adoption laws? Or the lack of civil rights do to a problem in not granting full civil rights to gays? At large this seems to be an adoption rights issue and not a gay marriage issue.
The first official gay married couple, wed five years ago in Massachusetts, spent three years getting a divorce.
Right, like heterosexual, Christian ideologized marriage is fairing so much better. This still fails to provide any evidence to any bit of your argument other than that you think we shouldn’t have gay marriage because it’s “hard.”
As much as lawyers need more money during the recession, there’s no reason for judges to change every marriage law without allowing citizens to see the full consequences of their actions.
Actually, we really only need to change one: the fact that two people of the same sex can marry. Everything else pretty much stays the same.
Democracy is far more important than the latest cool political fad.
Read: Institutionalized bigotry is far more important than civil rights.
