All that liberal leaning leftist bias and manipulating, regardless of it's truth is not close to a tenth as scary as the [censored] the other side has pulled in the last 10 plus years. I'll take the left cuz the right scares the [censored] [censored] out of me, it really does.<br><br>What is to be hurt by trying to make humans consume less and conserve more; even if it turned out it had nothing to do with climate change?<br><br>What is to be helped by not doing anything?<br><br>I read in a work my Asimov (years and years ago, so don't ask me where or for an exact quote) that finding new energy sources, however clean, is not anywhere near the only answer. He did some calculations and figured that even if scientists found a perfectly clean way to turn any kind of matter into energy, at current rates of increasing consumption, the entire earth would be used up in centuries.<br><br>We are STILL what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>P.S. Why in the Sam Hill is this topic in the political soapbox forum?<p><hr></blockquote><p>See the post from GaryW. Global warming is being pushed upon us by Algore (ManPigBear, etc.) and so it is political. That it is not political, at least not in any other first world country is a fact of life.<br><br>We live in a country where scientific fact, evolution, global warming, among other facts becomes a point of controversy. The stupidity boggles the mind. I think I'll go soak my head and watch a Pat Condell video.<br><br><br><br>

As usual with the right wing nuts, Matt attacks by making it seem that the "left" is obsessed with a laundry list of individuals:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>spin the wheel and [sic] to see what the liberal boogeyman of the day will be: Wal*mart? Rupert Murdoch? Evangelical Christians? Haliburton? Karl Rove? Fox News? Darth Cheney? <p><hr></blockquote><p><br>To be sure there's some truth to that, but that sort of concern is just a mirror image of the right wing obsession with an equally focused laundry list of individuals:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The DNC Nightly News, Today Show, their "in bed" partners at Newsweek, CNBC, Sunday Night Football (who could forget the moronic "turning off the lights" during the pre-game as NBC pushed "going green" week), MSDNC, where Olberblather might as well be hosting a show for Daily Kos or Moveon.org, into their primetime shows where they regularly attack anything not left-wing.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>The trick is to presume that the right wing nut's list can be reified into a substantial "threat," usually presented as the MSM, which is monolithically concerned with advancing a left-wing agenda. As has been rehearsed over and over again, that perspective ignores the actual facts on the ground, for instance that there was not a single MSM outlet that challenged the imperative to go to war, or that much of the propaganda that led to the war was purveyed by the MSM.<br><br>More significantly, at least to me, is the right wing nut's bone-headed refusal to understand that the function of reporters is, or ought to be always to challenge the people in power. So, the right wing nut forgets that during the Clinton years, the media went after Clinton much as it has decided it needs to go after Bush.<br><br>But all of it has gotten so tiresome that it has no traction any more. Only a fool would defend the policies of the current president, and only a fool would think that a reporter who points out the constant, repeated failures of the current administration is somehow a left wing conspirator.<br><br>So sure, Newsweek attacks the president. My question: what's wrong with that?<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>

"global warming / sky is falling / polar bears are dying / going green" agenda"<br><br> The really disgusting, sickeningly ignorant, unforgivable part of that is how you include polar bears as part of your mockery. IT IS ALREADY OBVIOUS that that species is in BIG trouble. Where the hell is your brain, anyway? Do you have any? <br> <br> How the right wing makes tools of foolish, gullible people like you, and you ally with them to RUIN this country, and despoil the very earth we need to survive.<br><br>

On the other hand, liberals have seen their long standing agenda driven monopoly in the MSM challenged over the last 10 or so years and it they've thrown a nearly decade long fit over it. It's not enough that liberal - socialist advocate journalism is spewed over the airwaves of NBC, CBS and ABC .. across the pages of The New York Times, LA Times, Boston Globe .. distributed by AP and redistributed by thousands of newspapers .. let a Fox News rise in the ratings and liberals collectively act like a the [sic - just for you, Al] frightened townspeople in The Crucible, screaming WITCH! at every turn. They get all pissy-pants about ONE (pay to watch) cable news channel that can't garner the ratings of the lowest rated, widely and freely distributed evening newscast. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>for instance that there was not a single MSM outlet that challenged the imperative to go to war, or that much of the propaganda that led to the war was purveyed by the MSM.<p><hr></blockquote><p>This is a growing myth perpetuated by the extreme left (or as Democrats like to call them – Democrats) bloggers. Down in the fever swamps. It's vogue to say the MSM played kissy-poo with the President during the lead-up to Iraq. To them, while "Bush the Monkey" was announcing plans to invade and occupy Iraq in an illegal war, the MSM was asking where he bought his shoes or who gave him that tie. <br><br><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A20RagPirNo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A20RagPirNo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br><br>Then there's the myth, perpetuated by the "always under attack" Bill Clinton, that the media was just as hard on him in the 90s as they have been to George Bush today. That's as credible the "I did not have sex with that woman .." denial. <br><br>***************<br><br>nuttin'

Lovely. You think one ought not to trust people like the one you quote in support of your own argument, except presumably when they support your argument. Lovely.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Lovely. You think one ought not to trust people like the one you quote in support of your own argument, except presumably when they support your argument. Lovely.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I remember the MSM hammering the President over going to Iraq, contrary to what's now being posted in far-left bloggy land. Gregory confirms. <br><br>***************<br><br>nuttin'

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I remember the MSM hammering the President over going to Iraq, contrary to what's now being posted in far-left bloggy land. Gregory confirms.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Wow... that's impressive. What else do you remember?<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Wow... that's impressive. What else do you remember?<p><hr></blockquote><p>That ... sarcastic pettiness is never in short supply 'round here. <br><br>***************<br><br>nuttin'

Taking etiquette lectures from you is like getting lessons in democracy from Robert Mugabe.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U