Thanks for posting this...I heard him speak about this on his radio show as well and believe his message is right on the money.

 And all this time I thought MMFA only posted things they thought were lies and distortions.  

Thas right, Goodfella.  Now be a good fella and go burn a rainforest.  Go on.  You know you wanna.  It'll feel sooooooo good. 

And enlarge your house.  Make it big.  Real big.  That way, you can drive your Hummer from your easy chair to your potty and back. 

Remember: Oil will never end.  The oceans will never rise.  The ice will never melt. 

There are no consequences.  Ever.  And the party goes on and on. 

"Thas right, Goodfella.  Now be a good fella and go burn a rainforest.  Go on.  You know you wanna.  It'll feel sooooooo good. 

And enlarge your house.  Make it big.  Real big.  That way, you can drive your Hummer from your easy chair to your potty and back. 

Remember: Oil will never end.  The oceans will never rise.  The ice will never melt. 

There are no consequences.  Ever.  And the party goes on and on".- holly / Tuesday May 1, 2007 02:03:23 PM EST

 

This illustrates the point exactly...Please follow this because it is important: Just because we question the blatant left-wing agenda behind the current global warming hype, it does NOT mean we aren't concerned about clean air, clean water and environmental responsibility.

 

OK, but please follow this: what you call "the blatant left-wing agenda behind the current global warming hype," the rest of the world calls science.

"the rest of the world calls science"

And therefore there can be no debate left on the issue since it's a 100% fact. Is that correct? Or is it all right for someone to study the issue and actually dare to come up with a different conclusion? Or would that person be called "anti-science?"

And therefore there can be no debate left on the issue since it's a 100% fact. Is that correct?

No. 

Oh, by all means - come up with a differing conclusion.  But be sure to base it on all the scientific evidence you can come up with.  Publish your hypothesis along with it's supporting data for review by the experts, colleagues and other professionals in the same or similar fields.  Verify your conclusion by exposing it to rigorous testing.  And when you're done, if 90% of your peers agree with your conclusion, I'll accept it as fact.

Just like they did with Intelligent Design...

This is why you conservatives have no credibility on environmental issues: http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fs%2Fap%2F20070501%2Fap_on_go_ca_st_pe%2Finterior_resignation

i guess rino missed the report today that arctic sea ice is melting three times more quickly than before.  those dastardly global warming fanatics.  there they go relying on the facts again.

Hun, you took a long time to parry.  I'd long since sheathed my sword and now I'm down at the malt shop, sipping on a soda.

Still, the horns of battle sound and my hair prickles and it's...

...BATTLE again!

Talk is cheap.  What do you do that manifests your caring for the environment?  And what does your party do? 

And why do you distrust the same scientists and processes who developed the microwave?  The cellular phone?  Do you avoid such technologies, which were developed by the same folks and the same processes who warned us of global warming? 

And what's the hidden issue here?  Are you more afraid of changing your lifestyle than a changing Earth? 

I shave my head with flint.

It's a dry shave.

And I like it.

 

- holly / Tuesday May 1, 2007 02:20:45 PM EST

Still, the horns of battle sound and my hair prickles and it's...

- holly / Tuesday May 1, 2007 04:20:24 PM EST

I am so disillusioned right now that I feel nauseous.  Holly, why did you lie?  Was it out of some nefarious need to break my heart and spirit, or was it just a lark, unwitting of the pain your deception would cause?  Sure, we liberals have been known to lie to promote our agenda.  But THIS....this is beyond the pale.  This is like....like.....Hitler.  Geobbels would be proud of your follicle fallacies.  Is this the end, or just the sprouts of the follicaust yet to come in your quest for tonsorial domination?

I'm just sick.  I have nothing left to say.

Neon, I adore you.

But despair no more.  Sure, I shave my head, but that isn't my only hair.  It was my chest hair that prickled for battle.  It would seem a nice mechanism, for it makes me seem larger, but alas, the cons see me and want to hug me, for I seem all foofy and fluffy.   

No!

No! I won't let you do it again. This is absolutely the last time. You will not charm your way out of this one. I try to hate you, but you just won't let me. I end up hating myself for that.

Well I'm tired of hating myself, do you hear me?

...er...read me?

I'm tired of it. All this hate. All these lies. And for what? A couple laughs, some taunting of conservatives, making SavageRocks cry... But we haven't even managed to take away their guns yet. Oh sure, we got Imus. So when will ALL dissenting voices finally be silenced? When will I see religion outlawed? When will we finally have confiscatory carbon taxes on the rich? When will we finally be able to turn this country over to the Mexicans? I'm tired of waiting! I am tired of it!

So.........tired....

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to snap at you like that. It's probably just the patchouli talking. I can't blame it on you. I know deep down, you're not bad. You just write that way in our struggle toward socialism. And know that sometimes, being so close, I feel the heat from your flamethrowing keyboard against freedom. I promise I'll try to distance myself from now on, to allow you all the elbow room you need to operate and to hug trees.

I'm sorry. Forgive me?

Now, Neon, I double adore you.

"It's probably just the patchouli talking."

With you, it's always the patchouli talking.  Always and forever. 

"I can't blame it on you. I know deep down, you're not bad."

Bugs Bunny would turn to the camera at this point and quip, "He doesn't know me very well, does he?"

I wish I could write more, Neon, but like all card-carrying A.C.L.U. liberals, I have to head south, find some American-flag burning, Muslim Mexicans, bring them across the border, and enroll them in the White Folks R Us Academy of Old Tyme Christian Decency.

I just shaved my cat in anger! (My hair is already very short) Glenn Beck, you re a total doodoohead! There, I said it.

Crazymonkeylady said "doodoohead."

I'm tellin'.

Just because we question the blatant left-wing agenda behind the current global warming hype, it...

Goodfella, I hope you don't mind my asking, but what is our left-wing agenda behind the hype, again?  Like usual, they didn't tell me about the meeting, so I didn't hear what the agenda was.  I'd appreciate if they would not treat me so disrespectfully.  I could help them.  I'm smart.  I'm not dumb like everybody says.  I'm smart!  And I want respect!

Anyway, I could help them out with this global warming project, if I knew the agenda.  If you could provde that information, it would be much appreciated, since OUR guys don't seem to care that much (snark).

Me too.  I got the smarts real good.

Ok, well I herewith question the United States' right to exist as a nation.

Are you gonna pull some Hitlerian tactics on me now, like maybe branding me a traitor?

You have every right to be skeptical. Just remember that the original Skeptics were philosophers, and philosophy requires knowledge.

So? What if protecting the environment is part a "blatant left-wing agenda?" Do you know what an "agenda" even is? It literally means "a list of things to do." What is so awful about that? Is it that wretched of the left to include trying to save our planet among their top priorities?

I think your problem is that your view of politics is always an agenda-driven view because of the more trivial right-wing agenda. Let's compare agendas, shall we:

The Left's Agenda:

• The environment (you know, making sure our planet is still here tomorrow)
• Health care (making sure people can afford to stay alive)
• Civil Rights (ensuring that "all men created equal" isn't just a catchy slogan)
• Making government useful and accountable

The Right's Agenda:

• Win elections
• Blur the line between church and state
• Guns for everyone
• Corporate welfare
• Gratuitous sabre-rattling
• Keep America scared
• Suppress science

I don't know, but when you really look at it, it almost seems like the right-wing agenda is more trivial and more evil than the left-wing agenda. In fact, nearly everything the right does can be seen as serving #1 on the list, winning elections. It's nice to know that the Republican congress spent it's last days trying to get flag-burning measures and gay marriage bans passed. A lot of good that did you in November. Maybe their time could have been better spent, I don't know, passing laws, creating policy, conducting oversight. I'm not saying the left doesn't have it's own agenda. I'm just saying that an agenda isn't always a bad thing when the goals are noble, worthwhile goals.

Do you remember what the right's agenda was during the last two years of Clinton's presidency? It was this:

• Force Clinton out of office

That was it. Just the one bullet point. And they couldn't even get that done.

This is how it should have been posted MMFA style goes both ways....doesn’t it?!? Sorry I forgot, it doesn’t 

The Liberal's Agenda:

• The environment (you know, making sure our planet is still here tomorrow and Gore's pockets are even fatter than Gates!)
• Health care (making sure people can afford to stay alive)Despite that socialist health care RUINS EVERYONES health care.  Would YOU go to Cuba for open heart surgery
• Civil Rights (ensuring that "all men created equal" isn't just a catchy slogan) But some are MORE equal than others.
• Making government useful and accountable.  HAHA that’s funny, no really you were serious?!?

The Conservative's Agenda:

• Win elections Uhh no crap. Can’t do anything if you’re not in power.
• Blur the line between church and state. Why is it ok for leftists to appease Muslims but not any other religion?
• Guns for everyone...that legally applies and qualifies for though current laws.
• Corporate welfare...if you mean free trade then yes.
• Gratuitous sabre-rattling...ok now that’s just dumb.
• Keep America scared...just because you have rose-colored glasses on doesn’t mean everything looks pretty.
• Suppress science...suppress science that is politicised.

And as far as what the right's last two years of Clinton's term.

• Force Clinton out of office...funny thing, left has spent last 6 years trying to do the same to Bush (I must admit he’s a blunder)

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

"Force Clinton out of office...funny thing, left has spent last 6 years trying to do the same to Bush (I must admit he’s a blunder)"

While much of your reply is debatable, your last point certainly is not. You're just wrong. Democrats have only been in power for a few months, not six years. Even before that, the best the left could do was Russ Feingold's proposed censure of the President, which got absolutely no support. Now that Dems are in power, they have publicly stated that impeachment is off the table. Quite a different scenario than Clinton's actual impeachment in 1999 by the Republican-led House. And while Clinton's impeachment was brought about exclusively for political ends, Bush could be impeached for any number of issues of grave importance to the nation and world as a whole. But hey, the Clinton impeachment did help better define what "sexual relations" meant, so it wasn't all bad.

funny you say that, every time i read an artcle about the Iraq war on MMFA i just hear a bunch of cries for the impeachment of Bush or Cheney.  Yes Clinton was impeached because he commited pergory, a criminal offense.  while the war in Iraq has been debated as illegal, it hasnt been proven.  

 

BTW just because democrats werent in power the whole time, Many cried for Bush and Cheney's impeachment...well they did wait a while after 9/11 because they knew it'd hurt themselves to try it then. 

Neither has Clintons perjury in fact he didnt commit perjury. To be perjury any lie he told would have to be material to the case, the judge said it wasnt. This is a lie wingnuts like to keep telling even though it has been shown to be wrong many, MANY times.

Sorry, I gave up reading your screed before I was half way finished.

You can say what you will about Cuba, but they do have the best health care system in Latin America.

You can say what you will about Cuba, but they do have the best health care system in Latin America.

  And is that supposed to make them feel better? Money says YOU wouldn't let Cuban doctors do an apendectomy on yourself! And how would you compare cuban doctors to north american doctors? Why didn't you use that comparison? Because then you'd show everyone that you have no point!

  Saying Cuba has the "best health care system in Latin America" is the kind of mentallity that creates the environment for disharmony between seekers of truth and those who claim to possess it all.

   I am finally able to listen to Glenn Beck while at work, and I heard this show. Mmfa is supporting exactly what Beck says they would and it shows that mmfa and loony-liberals that someone has the balls to speak up against the tactic the left is using to force al gore's false version of global warming into acceptable realms. al gore does NOT know the truth about global warming and neither do ANY of you who constantly claim to have all the truth. You are all closed minded people who have accepted a lie for whatever reason and you now refuse to listen to debate on a subject there is NO absolute knowledge on! When you closed minded people start allowing debate perhaps something can be done to save the planet. Until then you will remain people with mental deficiencies.

Please, Autopsychic, bring to light the peer-reviewed facts that are being denied.  Can your rhetoric, your name-calling, and your histrionic outbursts.

Your outrage is clear; please use the Beck-outlined analogy to its fullest.

Where are the following items:

• Peer-reviewed scientific data that states we are not in a process of global warning
• Peer-reviewed scientific data that proves that being more environmentally conscious will not maintain our ecosystem comfortably
• Photographs or even Google Map links to the "respect camps" being built
• News articles where scientists of note are being fired and black-listed for their views on global warming
• News articles detailing where schools are forcing children to watch An Inconvenient Truth, and further where it is not being used to enhance core curriculum, but as an indoctrination tool.
• The horrible, horrible consequences of scaling back carbon emissions and attempting to create and maintain cleaner industries
• Evidence of the UN's dastardly plan to take over the planet through Al Gore and Environmentalism

For extra credit, please provide photographs of Al's "brownshirts" and the symbol they all wear and rally around.

Otherwise, keep carrying around with your comedic outbursts.  I'm sure that hilarious outrage will not only convince everyone here that they're wrong and Beck's right, and that you're not just someone who likes to spout random invective.

"loony (sp)-liberals"

Ahh, he alliterated.  Ain't that cute?  If autopsychic were before me, I'd pinch his cheeks.

Regarding looniness, here's what every progressive can proclaim, now and forever: "I didn't vote for W."

Did you, autopsychic?  If so, perhaps you should wonder about your looniness quotient.

Now, I'll rebut for you: "He's better than Kerry!  He's better than Kerry!"

No, W is not better than anyone.  I wonder if W is even bright enough to realize that he's not bright enough to undo the damage he's done.  And I wonder how many Bush-voters comprehend the damage they've done.  I don't just blame W.  I blame those who voted for him.  I know that's harsh, but with citizenship comes responsibility and accountability.

An addendum to my Bush diatribe:

Here's another possible defense for the sheer looniness of voting for Bush: "But he had an R by his name.  I vote for the R-guys.  Always and forever."

Did you, autopsychic?  If so, perhaps you should wonder about your looniness quotient.

   Yes. And I got what I voted for....2 new Surpeme Court Justices. AND they decided that a never needed abortion procedure was illegal! Much to the dismay of liberals throughout the land! And, if given the chance again, I'd vote for him for the same reason.

And once again we are graced with the insane rantings of Autopsychotic, moron in residence. A liar and a fool of epic proportions. Calling the position the vast majority of climate scientists have a lie, and pushing the proposition that OPINIONS by industry subsidized scientists should be given the same weight as STUDIES published in peer reviewed journals. leading with his strong suit, ABJECT STUPIDITY, Autopsychotic once again demostrates his inability to tell the difference between logic and a mental deficiency. It is clear that unless he somehow reaches the level of RECOGNIZING higher brain function even though it will remain far beyond his capacity to achieve, his prattle will continue to be completely without merit.

so good they even botched their president's surgery only to have it corrected where?!? oh in Miami.

beanzrus71 forgot to add, "Smear the queers."

And, "Win elections by smearing the queers."

And, "Distract from conservative disasters by smearing the queers."

And, "Smear the queers and like it.  Really, really like it." 

Funny, onlyone bringin up gay bashing was you.  Apparently you have the same predjudice and hatred for conservative that you THINK they have for the gay community.

 I do not agree with the gay lifestyle nor do i think it is right for anyone to have their civil rights violated because they are gay.  With that said, I do not beleive that any minority has a right to FORCE their lifestyle upon those who do not aggree.  people do have a right to be gay, they do not have a right to force others to think that gay is better, or deserves special treatment (need examples?  why are gays only group to have ''pride'' parades where they get to ignore laws (indecent exposure!?!) or that their ''morality'' is the only one allowed to be taught in schools.  I do not want my children to think that they are bad people unless they TRY to be gay, because that is the message the children are getting.

 "The environment (you know, making sure our planet is still here tomorrow and Gore's pockets are even fatter than Gates!)"Even if people like Al Gore might have vested interests in film rentals, seminar fees, etc., what about the vested interests of big energy and thier ilk in the argument? Who really has more of a "fattening of pockets" over the longest stretch of time at heart in the issue of global warming?http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/exxonmobil-smoke-mirrors-hot.html(Also check this link out for a debunking of a particular WSJ article concerning global warming):http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=167"Health care (making sure people can afford to stay alive)Despite that socialist health care RUINS EVERYONES health care.  Would YOU go to Cuba for open heart surgery "Interesting how Cuba was used as an example of atrocious social healthcare (probably thinking it an extreme example that would better bulwark a position for privatized healtcare) and yet the World Health Organization ranks the Cuban system only two notches below the American system. Also funny how all the major western countries with social healthcare are at the top of the list well above the U.S.http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.htmlhttp://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf"Civil Rights (ensuring that "all men created equal" isn't just a catchy slogan) But some are MORE equal than others."What are you trying to refer to in regards to the Animal Farm quote here? Affirmative action? No offense, but be more specific."Making government useful and accountable.  HAHA that’s funny, no really you were serious?!?"A skeptical response here has some merit. I think it's become pretty clear that nearly all politicians, regardless of party, seem to have trouble with accountability. I think what the original comment was trying to suggest was that the Democratic party has more of a leaning to using government money for social programs and domestic issues, as opposed to slashing social domestic spending and then borrowing money from other countries to fund dubious military ventures, as recent Republican leaders seem wont to do."Win elections Uhh no crap. Can’t do anything if you’re not in power."I think the original comment needs a bit more explanation, so (to reference Animal Farm as has been done earlier) let me climb up the ladder with my paint brush for a moment (as you have already done with your reply). The original comment might have better read "win elections at any cost", or, perhaps, "subvert standards of ethics in government to win elections". Or maybe, if in reference to the current administartion, it should have just been changed to read"rig elections"."Blur the line between church and state. Why is it ok for leftists to appease Muslims but not any other religion?"I'm not quite sure how "leftists appease Muslims" in your eyes. Is the questioning and denouncing of unfounded attacks and generalizations in regards to Islam by certain people in the media (for instance, Glenn Beck, as in his "question to Keith Ellison" among other examples)  to be considered an "appeasement" towards Muslims? Also, the original comment is in reference to the fact that many Republican politicians cater to the interests of fundamentalist-leaning Christian organizations and allow the beliefs of these oraganizations to hold influence on certain policy decisions that should be determined by the discourse of more secular ideas and information. The Democratic party does not have this type of religious lobbying going on in regards to the faith of Islam, so I'm not sure how making a statement that "leftists" "appease" Muslims is a relevant argument agaisnst a statement that the Republican party might be blurring the lines between church and state.

End of part 1

"Guns for everyone...that legally applies and qualifies for though current laws"

 

The point of the "guns for everyone" comment is that many politicians in the Republican party receive a lot of money from the N.R.A., an organization that wishes to (basically) abolish most or all gun control measures. Because of this funding, Republican politicians use their power  to help relax gun control measures that dictate that people should, to paraphrase your statement, "legally apply and qualify for" firearms ownership. Those politicians who support the N.R.A. also work to make sure that the "current laws" concerning gun control can be circumvented, ie. their opposition towards stricter regulations on gun shows.

 

"Corporate welfare...if you mean free trade then yes."

 

I think the original comment may have been more in reference to subsidy's that are given to corporations by the Republican party. The use of the term "welfare" may also have been used to suggest a juxtaposition between the Republican party's tendency to approve of goverment assistance in regards to corporations while insisting on cuts to funding in regards to social welfare.

 

"Gratuitous sabre-rattling...ok now that’s just dumb.""Keep America scared...just because you have rose-colored glasses on doesn’t mean everything looks pretty."

 

These two go together, as the latter enables the former to be condoned and even applauded by many Americans. Note, for instance, the Bush administration's tactic of idly making reference to "9/11" or "terrorism" whenever they are backed into a corner by a hard question in regards to the failures of the Iraq war or what the American military is up to in Iran at the moment. One brief and somewhat current example: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/10/911-perino-iraq/This is the same tactic they used to convince the American public that the Iraq war was necessary in the first place. By bringing up the image of a bitterly despised enemy while discussing an objective/decision, it allows you to imply that the objective/decision that is being discussed is directly related to the activities or intentions of the enemy you have brought up. This is certainly an example of a "scare" tactic, and just because one questions the genuineness of the tactic does not mean that they have a view of the world through "rose-colored glasses". Since Animal Farm has been referenced previously, a more overt example of this scare tactic would be found here:  "If a window was broken or a drain was blocked up, someone was certain to say that Snowball had come in the night and done it, and when the key of the store-shed was lost, the whole farm was convinced that Snowball had thrown it down the well. Curiously enough, they went on believing this even after the mislaid key was found under a sack of meal." Chapter 7, pg. 66The animals, if you remember, came to blame the character Snowball the pig for everything that went wrong on Animal Farm only after Napolean (their leader) had used Snowball as a scapegoat in explaining the first collapse of the windmill the animals had toiled over for so long. Of course, if referencing Orwell, 1984 would have far better quotations with which to compare the Bush administration's tactics to...

 

End of part 2 (I know, pretty long) 

Sorry about the last post - my font sizes are all jacked-up

"Guns for everyone...that legally applies and qualifies for though current laws"The point of the "guns for everyone" comment is that many politicians in the Republican party receive a lot of money from the N.R.A., an organization that wishes to (basically) abolish most or all gun control measures. Because of this funding, Republican politicians use their power  to help relax gun control measures that dictate that people should, to paraphrase your statement, "legally apply and qualify for" firearms ownership. Those politicians who support the N.R.A. also work to make sure that the "current laws" concerning gun control can be circumvented, ie. their opposition towards stricter regulations on gun shows."Corporate welfare...if you mean free trade then yes."I think the original comment may have been more in reference to subsidy's that are given to corporations by the Republican party. The use of the term "welfare" may also have been used to suggest a juxtaposition between the Republican party's tendency to approve of goverment assistance in regards to corporations while insisting on cuts to funding in regards to social welfare."Gratuitous sabre-rattling...ok now that’s just dumb.""Keep America scared...just because you have rose-colored glasses on doesn’t mean everything looks pretty."These two go together, as the latter enables the former to be condoned and even applauded by many Americans. Note, for instance, the Bush administration's tactic of idly making reference to "9/11" or "terrorism" whenever they are backed into a corner by a hard question in regards to the failures of the Iraq war or what the American military is up to in Iran at the moment. One brief and somewhat current example: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/10/911-perino-iraq/This is the same tactic they used to convince the American public that the Iraq war was necessary in the first place. By bringing up the image of a bitterly despised enemy while discussing an objective/decision, it allows you to imply that the objective/decision that is being discussed is directly related to the activities or intentions of the enemy you have brought up. This is certainly an example of a "scare" tactic, and just because one questions the genuineness of the tactic does not mean that they have a view of the world through "rose-colored glasses". Since Animal Farm has been referenced previously, a more overt example of this scare tactic would be found here:  "If a window was broken or a drain was blocked up, someone was certain to say that Snowball had come in the night and done it, and when the key of the store-shed was lost, the whole farm was convinced that Snowball had thrown it down the well. Curiously enough, they went on believing this even after the mislaid key was found under a sack of meal." Chapter 7, pg. 66

The animals, if you remember, came to blame the character Snowball the pig for everything that went wrong on Animal Farm only after Napolean (their leader) had used Snowball as a scapegoat in explaining the first collapse of the windmill the animals had toiled over for so long. Of course, if referencing Orwell, 1984 would have far better quotations with which to compare the Bush administration's tactics to...

End of part 2 (i know too lon, and the font size is probably wrong, by the computer I'm on sucks)

Damn - this sucks. All that furious typing and for nothing, lol - I had saved the original stuff I typed on my computer, because my original post was too long, but it doesn't look as though I'm going to be able to post the rest of my laundry list because of font size issues. Oh well - please only consider my first post then. ;)

Im sorry, apparently you didnt read my post carefully.  I said CONSERVATIVE adjenda not republican. I understand your points, but my point of this post was to show that they were being drastically exaggerated hence the sarcasm in my response.  BOTH sides in their extremes are not good for this country.

You cannot design a society to benefit ONLY the minorities and forget about the Majority. It is so rare to see people able to look beyond what ''their party'' wants, they forget that life is about compromise...BOTH WAYS.

Okay. Good post, and good point. I would agree with your reply(although, just as an afterthought, I think in this case I was using the terms "conservative" and "Republican" synonymously as the Republican party seems to be more inclined to support conservative positions). I think I just got a little too wrapped up in writing the whole thing anyways, lol. I was just trying to write a couple counterpoints to your counterpoints and got carried away. (Thanks for not making fun of my font size issues, btw:)

"Just because we question the blatant left wing agenda behind the current global warming hype, it does NOT mean we aren't concerned about clean air, clean water and environmental responsibility." _ Goodfella57

Actually, it does.

If you haven't yet been able to figure out that the opposition to the overwhelming scientific consensus of Global Warming is conceived, funded, & promoted by the fossil fuel industry, then ideology is far more important to you than a clean environment. You care less about the very elements that you are forced to exist within than the lame comforts to be found in huddling with the confused, paranoid 'rebels' of the far right. Better to be part of that sneering wad then to accept truths that demand changes within your own lifestyle.

Global Warming is real. The sad fact the Big Oil's money can buy off a few fringe scientists (who rigorously refrain from publishing any peer-reviewed studies on the subject) should not be enough to convince thinking people of giving up their own vital interests, or... more importantly... the vital interests of future generations. To do so is to be a complete & self-deluding sap.

Like most things in life, if you want to know the truth, just follow the money.

No they also post basic stupidity parading as commentary. This qualifies. I wonder where the Global Warming concentration camps are?

And which message is that?

That there are no consequences from mankind's desecration of the environment?

Or that Al Gore is the next Hitler?

If Beck wants to raise reasoned, researched and civil arguments to counter what Gore and a vast majority of the climate science community asserts, I have no problem with him doing so.  I'm sure he'll make big oil and big coal proud.

But why does he, like many reichwingers, feel the need to constantly invoke Hitler?  The man is simply drawing parallels that exist in his feeble, recovering-addict mind. 

yes, why are the republics constantly evoking Hitler recently?

Delay, Beck, that clown from the Imus broadcast debacle come to mind of late.

Why? because they like Hitler!

Reason 1.  Because there is a man in Iran that would LOVE to repeat the holocost.

Reason 2.  Because Gore is using similar propaganda techniques to early ''supremicy''  tactics that Hitler used to convince his nation that they had to ''save the world from destruction''...i.e. green is the supreme race!!

 

Dont get me wrong I care about the environment. But seriously, how come nobody that pushes Global Warming takes in consideration Natural Occurances.  As much crap we do to ruin the earth, we are still gnats upon its back.

Gnats? Nah. We're more like straw, and the globe like a camel.

Wow, that's like nazi comparison #87 for the right now, right?

"Brings to mind a certain individual who rose to power through hate mongering and blatantly lying. Adolf Hitler was one of the most successful individuals in history before the tide turned in the war. Can you make the same claim that Hitler was not actually insane because he was smart enough, resourceful enough, popular enough, and influential enough to become the supreme leader of an actual attemp to take over the world"

Poster RSTYBEACH266: Talking about O'Reilly in recent O'Reilly thread.

And you guys say that it's only conservatives that invoke Hitler comparisons? Give me a break. You guys do it all the time! You often compare Bush, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and other conservatives to Hitler. I don't think that it's right for Beck to compare Gore to Hitler, but to say that only the right engages in this is ludicrous. The left has gone crazy with Bush-Hitler comparisons in the past six years.

I'm willing to entertain your position, Rino, but let's be fair and compare apples to apples instead of a nationally syndicated radio and television host to a poster in a website forum.  Can you find an example of a cable news host comparing a Republican politician on the order of a former Vice President or party presidential nominee to Hitler?

You just hit the nail on the head. All of the banter here seems to be focusing on the word 'hitler' and not on the TOPIC. Beck is referring to the scare tactics of Hitler to those of Gore. He is NOT saying that Gore IS Hitler, or that he is going to round up all of the Jews. If you read the whole article you can see that. 

Once again, emotional tirades are set off by people seeing just a few words they don't like instead of actually understanding the article and intent.

Beck is right... Gore is using fear and scare tactics to fund green businesses and make money. 

Cannonba11, you're thinking like Charles Manson.  And you're reasoning like Jeffrey Dahmer.  And your values are congruent with Goebbels.

Now, I'm not saying that you're one third Manson, one third Dahmer, and one third Goebbels.  I'm just talking about cognition, reasoning, and values.

Okay?

Love and kisses,

Holly

Ah, now I understand.  So if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... then it's just less interested in the environment than in funding green businesses?

Holly -- sigh. You are my hero.

Thanks, Babe!  I'll accept that as long only as long as you get to be my hero right back.

Fair enough.  I agree with you that Beck is drawing a comparison between the tactics of Gore and Hitler, not the men themselves nor their particular goals.  But please don't assume that I didn't read the article or that I don't recognize that distinction.  I was just replying to Rino's post, which dealt with comparisons to Hitler by posters on this site in general.

But yes, you're right -- global warming and responses to it have nothing to do with Hitler or Nazism or genocide.  Beck is talking about the use of scare tactics, which have existed long before Nazism, and for which there are much better and more interesting historical comparisons.  Beck is just trying to be as provocative as possible by invoking Hitler.

My point is simply that if Beck wanted to say that Gore is using scare tactics, he could have said just that.  Instead, he chose to invoke Hitler, and went on at length about the supposed similarity of their tactics.  If there's really so much merit to Beck's message, one wonders why he had to resort to such a rhetorical cheap shot.

So then he isnt saying Gore IS Hitler he is just saying Gore is doing things that compare with rounding up millions of people starving working and gassing them to DEATH causing the deaths of several million people? Yeah, thats all the difference in the world.

Tactics, my anal area. Beck is making a huge loopy, convoluted argument so that he can compare Gore, who is supported in his ideas and conclusions by thousands of scientists and world leaders, and Hitler, who was supported by other crazed psycopaths. Hitler used lies and deception, Gore uses scientific research and power point. There is no honest, legitimate comparison to be made. Anyone who compares the two is obviously making a sneak on Gore the human being, not the scientific evidence, not the ideas, and certainly not contributing to the debates surrounding global climate change.

"Beck is right... Gore is using fear and scare tactics to fund green businesses and make money."

The republicans have been using fear and scare tactics to try to stay in office for the past six years.  Can't remember any instances of cable news network hosts making a direct comparison between a Republican and Hitler, yet their campaign of fear and terror-mongering was far more pervasive and successful than anything Al Gore has done or has tried to do.

Rino, I agree with you.  It happens on both sides and it shouldn't.  I'm actually doing a book right now about one of Dr. Mengele's subjects and so I'm deep into the details of SS doctors amputating the limbs of children and filling them with diseases. 

As Jon Stewart noted, the Nazis attacking north, east, south, and west and executing the Holocaust doesn't produce facile comparisons. 

Whenever a Nazi analogy is made, decent people should respond with disdain and disgust. 

I am very interested in reading that book, Holly.  When do you imagine it will be completed?

Rhino,

I seldom see or hear liberals actually compare conservatives to Hitler.  We just point out the fact that the Bush Toadies often behave like fascists. 

Liberals on this site and others often compare Hitler's mass murdering in WWII to Bush's "killing of Iraqis." As sick as that comparison is, it happens all the time.

Does it, really?  

Did someone say ONLY conservatives did that? I didnt see any such assertion. I saw the self evident assertion that conservatives DO do it. Strawman alert. Once again arguing what NO ONE SAID because its easier than arguing what actually WAS said.

Well, that's because of all the eerie similarities.

On Hitler. Sandro Bocolo felt that his superego had taken over his personality.I don't like to engage in wheelchair psychoanalisis, But I beleive thats the part of you were everything is bright and floaty. Wagnerian music for the soul. Its just occasionally life bites. Folks like this have a hard time with bad news. I don't think its believable till it actually touches me kind of out look.

What's frightening is where you see people who act a bit like this, and where you find them. 

Good call, PETE592. The question of why the likes of Glenn, Rush, and co. spend most of their time "refuting" the hard science of global warming by merely going off on juvenile namecalling bouts on people like Al Gore underscores the fact that they have no factual basis on which to disagree with anthropogenic climate change. My coworkers have both Glenn and Rush tuned in on the radio everyday, and I haven't yet heard any empirical evidence on either program that seriously challenges the science of global warming.

I remember one call in particular that Rush received from a lady who was looking for information on how to debunk An Inconvenient Truth. Rush's advice on the matter ran the gamut from trying to discredit a photo that didn't even appear in the film (the oft-referenced "stranded polar bear" picture) to simply not watching the film at all. And isn't it funny how every now and then Glenn Beck will come out and make a little disclaimer somewhere along the lines of "...now I am not a journalist..." or "There is no balance to the special. I want you to know right up front. I am not saying that this is the end all truth."  Isn't that the sort of thing people typically say when they're getting ready to B.S. you? Also, "Exposed: Climate of Fear" would seem a more apt title for Beck's former special in which he passionately excoriates the Muslim world. (Come to think of it, the "Exposed: Climate of Fear" line could just be used as a subtitle for his programs in general)

Oh, and as an additional thought, since I did mention I listen to both Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh everyday - I haven't seen one instance in which MMFA took them out of context or twisted their words.

Come one, reichwingers?!?  Liberals are the ones trying to turn America into a SOCIALIST STATE.  BTW...Hitler was a socialist.

Hi Beanz,

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Equating Hitler's socialism with American liberal politics makes about as much sense as equating neoliberalism, libertarianism, and liberalism because they share an etymological root.  Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, but the term "National Socialist" referred to a oneness between the nation-state, society, and the German people.  Hitler didn't even like that title; he wanted the party to be called the "Social Revolutionary Party".  The Nazis hated Bolshevism, Marxism, and most other forms of socialism because they deemed them to be the product of Jewish thinkers.  The Nazis were adamantly anti-communist; they were against economic and political liberalism; and they rose to power in opposition to German socialists. 

Peace. 

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

If you are listening to this diatribe from our poor Mr. Beck and your head is nodding in approval, or you had an epiphany as you heard these perverse conflagrations, please take your electronic devises out of the home, and contact your state mental health services for the next available lobotomy!

I believe that if your faith, if your intellect, if your moral beliefs lead you down the same paths as Mr. Beck, than your mental health, and most certainly the rest of mankind's sense of security would be pleased to help you in taking the only civil steps feasable for you!

In the spirit of bi-partisanship, American Patriotism, and concern for the billions of us that will never appeal to your sensibilities, I hereby propose: FREE LABOTOMIES FOR ALL BECK, O’RIELLY, OR LIMBAUGH LISTENERS INSPITE OR DISPITE YOUR RACE, COLOR, CREED OR SEXUAL PREFERANCE (IN OR OUT)!!!Happy Thoughts;Dan Grady

 

Ummm . . o-kay. I can definitely see how the institutionalized killing of  6 million babies, women, men -- even the handicapped -- is analogous to the effort to stem global warming.

Pardon my asking, but are you nucking futs? 

 

 

..'It's, like, 800 billion pages long...'- WOW! With sentiments such as that, I'm all for listening to Beck talk about science!! And, really... 'What does An Inconvienent Truth have to do with math.....??????' Is he off his rocker?

There is no global warming.  Oil will last forever.  American torture is good torture. 

Party on, Dudes!

Yep. Beck is the leader of beligerent, dumbguy cheerleading. The fact that the guy above publicly supports him says volumes.

Oh. My. God.

This is why debate and rhetoric courses need to be mandatory in school. Then, maybe, people would hear this kind of vomitous drivel and recognize it for what it is.

I need to dust off some old books myself so I am using the right terminology. How many examples of false reasoning do we have here? Circular logic? Straw man? Etc. Help me out here.

I'm pushing for a course in critical thinking to be added to the high school curiculum in our district.  Currently, the districts approach is to teach critical thinking only through application in other subjects, e.g., history.  I doubt the efficacy of such an approach when the student lacks any foundation in formal and informal logic.  That seems to make as much sense as teaching reading and math only through other subjects.

Unfortunately, I have yet to locate studies that support my hypothesis.  There's alot written around the subject, including some that show U.S. students' weak ability, to but nothing that offers statistical support for a solution.  Perhaps some contacts with some university professors will yield something.  If that fails, maybe one of them will be interested in such a study.

I really think it would do wonders for civil discourse in this country.  Keep pushing it. Please.

TEACH:

How many of the following arguments have been forwarded by the ANTI-Global Warming forces? These are the mainstays of rightwing debate, and yet each, in its own way, is a LOGICAL FALLACY ... meaning ... they are not arguments at all:

"Ad Hominem" -- Al Gore is a socialist, and wishes to become rich by getting funding for "green" projects. Therefore, his environmental claims are false.

"Ad Hominem Tu Quoque" -- Al Gore drives cars and flies in jets, therefore his information about the environment must be false.

"Appeal to Authority" -- Expert on the Constitution Ann Coulter says Global Warming is a myth.

"Appeal to Belief" -- America is a good and just nation, therefore America cannot be harming the environment.

"Appeal to Common Practice" -- The rest of the world will not adopt environmental practices that harm their profit taking, so the United States should not, either.

"Appeal to Consequences of a Belief" -- If you believe mere man can harm God's creation, earth, then you cannot believe in God.

"Appeal to Emotion" -- Advocates of Global warming are just jealous of success; they don't want you enjoying big houses and big cars.

"Appeal to Fear" -- The Global Warming myth is just the vehicle for world domination by the UN.

"Appeal to Flattery" -- You are the people who made America great, and now Al Gore wants to make you feel guilty.

"Appeal to Novelty" -- Trees NEED Carbon Dioxide, how can man's production of this compound be "pollution" or harmful?

"Appeal to Pity" -- Global Warming advocates wish to destroy America's industry and economy.

"Appeal to Popularity" -- Environmentalists want to change everyone's lifestyle, and no American will willingly give in to such arrogant demands.

"Appeal to Ridicule" -- If Al Gore is worried about hot air, he should just shut up.

"Appeal to Spite" -- Al Gore has a big house and spends a fortune on energy; he just wants YOU to cut back.

"Appeal to Tradition" -- Climates change; always have, always will.

"Bandwagon" -- Since environmental restrictions would fall most heavily on those with the most money, Global Warming advocacy is a form of Class Warfare.

"Begging the Question" -- Man cannot destroy the earth, because, after all, the earth still exists.

"Biased Sample" -- Adapting to climate change, rather than restrictions on business, is the only feasible strategy, according to a panel of scientists funded by EXXON.

"Burden of Proof" -- Global Warming alarmism is just "theory" ... none of the catastrophic events they predict have occured.

"Circumstantial Ad Hominem" -- Democrats are Socialists who hate businesses, so of course they embrace environmental restrictions in the name of "Saving the Planet".

"Composition" -- A volcano, a natural occurance, spews far more pollutants than an automobile. Therefore, preventing automobile pollution is useless.

"Confusing Cause and Effect" -- Of COURSE Americans are using more energy for heating and air conditioning; after all, the weather has been more severe lately.

"Division" -- North Korea has an envoy to the UN, and the UN supports Global Warming prevention measures. North Korea opposes the USA, therefore the UN wishes to destroy America.

PART II:

"False Dilemma" -- If we fall for this Global Warming nonsense, America can no longer enjoy prosperity."Gambler's Fallacy" -- America has thrived for 200 years without worrying about environmental calamity."Genetic Fallacy" -- It's no coincidence that all the Global Warming alarmism is being promoted by the Liberal Media."Guilt By Association" -- Of course PETA endorses Al Gore's Global Warming claims; they're the people who blow up labs with animals inside."Hasty Generalization" -- Global Warming advocates predicted a record number of hurricanes last season, but there were fewer than usual. Therefore, these people don't know what they're talking about."Ignoring A Common Cause" -- A Global Warming rally was cancelled due to an unseasonable and severe ice storm; the irony was hilarious."Middle Ground" -- Toxic levels of mercury cause many health problems, but clean-up is expensive. A compromise allows polluters to sell "mercury pollution credits" to other states."Misleading Vividness" -- In the USSR, industry and their economy was DESTROYED by government control. Therefore, the government should not regulate OUR industry."Personal Attack" -- This whole "Earth in the Balance" nonsense is all about Al Gore's ego and need for attention."Poisoning the Well" -- Al Gore is a "Sore Loserman", so whatever he promotes must be a loser as well."Post Hoc" -- Bush wins the election, THEN this Global Warming controversy explodes. Clearly, this is only an attempt to undermine Bush."Questionable Cause" -- Bovine flatulence emits more methane than humans produce; why wouldn't THAT be the cause of the hole in the ozone layer?"Red Herring" -- When America is weakened by Global Warming prevention measures, the terrorists will be cheering."Relativist Fallacy" -- Nobody I know has been harmed by any environmental hazards."Slippery Slope" -- If the Kyoto Treaty is signed, then America forfeits any claim to sovereignty."Special Pleading" -- Driving an SUV is a symbol of success; these environmentalists only wish to PUNISH the successful."Spotlight" -- Rightwing radio hosts have the largest audiences, therefore opposition of Al Gore must be the popular and correct stance."Straw Man" -- We are told that ONLY Government Action can solve a crisis."Two Wrongs Make A Right" -- These radical environmentals will put spikes in trees, to injure loggers. These environmentalist wackos are all terrorists, and we cannot listen to them.-------The above are not "arguments", they are logic fallacies masquerading as "debate", but which are intellectually dishonest and make no valid point. This is the rightwing's stock-in-trade. 

Tex - you are the man! Thank you.

Wow. I don't know why that happened, sorry.

Yes! Gore is Hitler! Just like the Jews, Gore wants to eliminate the pollution! He wants to eliminate the excess, inorganic carbon which is working so hard to liberate the oppressed water from the ice shelves. His efforts are sending the wrong message and is only emboldening the earth. If we stop polluting now, the ice will grow back and follow us to our shores where the ice once stood!

Yikes!  The ice is alive?  It's sentient?  Malicious?  Death to the ice!  Exxon and Hummer, save us! 

Bush, the next time you need to drive, take 46 Suburbans!  No, 112!  Everyone else do the same. 

First they came for Bernard McGuirk. Now they are coming for Exxon and Haliburton. Will right wing suffering ever end?

Wookie, weep with me for Halliburton.  Let's weep and wail and gnash our teeth.

My new slogan: Heck, Beck, no more dreck.

How about "Beck and the righties, sitting in a tree, f-e-a-r-i-n-g!"

Just when you think this guy can't stoop any lower....  Comparing climate science to eugenics?  Give me a break.  I guess in his world view it's impossible to conceive that there are people who might actually just be motivated by trying to save the world.  No, there must be some ulterior motive of greed and power.  

I realize Mr. L already mentioned this line, but I think it is very important;

"What does An Inconvenient Truth have to do with math?"

This question may reveal an "inconvenient truth" for Beck and his like-minded fans.Is this the same thinking that thinks every cold day refutes Climate Change?

Right... The bottom line is, Beck is appealing to morons who look up to a guy like Beck as a 'smart guy'.  I am no 'intellectual elitist'... but, if you examine Beck's so-called 'credentials'... 1) he never attended college, 2) he is a 'reformed' alcohol and drug abuser, 3) he is a converted Mormon...

Now, I may be no genius... but, none of those three credentials (literally, the top three) seem to qualify Beck for anything... let alone adequate commentary on matters of science, politics or economics.  The guy is a sham.  A snake-oil salesman.   

"You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power."

Classic NeoClown projection.  Isn't this exactly what the Bush toadies have been doing with their "War on Turr"?

Beck is just doing the bidding of his corporate sugardaddies.  I guess I can't blame him.  If they handed me millions of dollars, I'd probably spout nonsense, too.

The big difference is, Bush had the support of the world and he squandered it.  

Beck forgets just one little tiny important thing.

The studies on global warming that state that it is indeed real, and being increased by the output of different pollutants from manmade sources have been scientifically vetted many times over by different groups. You know, peer review. What real scientists actually do. This is in total opposition to whatever it is Beck is going to do, as I'm certain that whomever he has on his show will offer nothing but opinion based on studies that they completed that have indeed not been vetted by the scientific community at large. From what I have seen and read about the so called global warming debunkers is that the information and methods in which they culled it all have not been peer reviewed, and have not been verified, and that most of the so called debunkers don't want it to be reviewed and or analyzed, and of course, they are in the vast minority.

Why I still don't understand, and some right wingers help me out here, is why is it bad to want to decrease pollution on the Earth? How did this become a right wing / left wing issue? This is an Earth issue, and we all should be concerned about what happens to the planet that we live on. Right?

Ofcourse it is a good thing to save the planet for future generations.  

Beck believes in global warming and has said so many times.  He though believes that we have to be careful what we do because peoples jobs are at stake here.  If companies in China are given a pass on co2 production and American companies have to pay billions to convert their factories to release less co2 they will simply move to China - putting Americans out of work and doing nothing to reduce co2.  The co2 will just move from the usa to china.  

I'm for saving the planet but lets do it in a fair way. All countries must participate and rich people should not get a free pass.  They should not be able to fly around in private jets while everybody else has to drive a hybrid.  If environmentalists paid more attention to these issues and argued for nuclear power to reduce co2, I swear to god I would join them in a protest or two.  I may look out of place showing up in my bmw and short hair and a suit but darn it I would be there !

Skettle, both sides tried to work out a compromise on the developing nations. Their argument is that the West built its economy on dirty power and now that we are wealthy we want everyone else to be green. The U.S./Australia argument is pretty much what you said. Oddly, Europe, which also stands to lose by cleaning up their (absolutley filthy) heavy industry, is going even further beyond Kyoto.

If you can come up with a better way out of the developing vs. developed nations bind than Kyoto, you should let people know. My opinion is that a flawed treaty is better than nothing, which is what we have now.