The science is settled: US liberals really are the dumbest creatures on the planet
source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100093577/the-science-is-settled-us-libera...
-
-
- rodstradamus
- added this
“Because they’re stupid,” said a libertarian friend of mine.
“Oh come on, not all of them surely? A bit misguided, maybe but…” I protested.
“No really they’re stupid because they’re not interested in facts. They just want to construct their pretty little narrative about the world, regardless of whether or not it has any bearing on reality. And then they want to dump it on us. And ruin our lives. So not just stupid but evil too.”
Well, you know me: what a big-hearted, sensitive, caring, emollient kind of guy I am. I thought these words were harsh, really harsh. But that was before I saw this video (at link).
It features Chris Matthews, one of America’s most popular liberal talk show hosts, talking to a liberal journalist from liberal blogsite Salon called Joan Walsh and another liberal journalist from liberal Rolling Stone magazine on the liberal politics programme Hardball. And guess what these liberals believe the problem with Climate Change is? Go on: think of the most stupid, reality-denying, fact-ignoring, evidence-torturing tosh anyone involved in the media could possibly have to say on the subject. (H/T Climate Depot)
Yes, that’s right.
They think that the naughty yellow pixies who pull the special, magic Climat-O-Levers which control the weather have been paid by evil capitalists with fat cigars in their mouth and $ signs on their pinstripe suits to make the world’s climate all horrid so that poor, underprivileged and disabled people and endangered creatures suffer – and that the reason we don’t know about it is because the media is run by evil Conservatives who want to keep this truth a secret.
Well, almost. What these liberal opinion-formers actually think – and you’ve really got to hand it to them: not even a lobotomised amoeba could beat them in a competition for dumbest creature on the planet, these three are absolute champs, Matthews especially, make no mistake – is as follows.
They think the main reasons for the public’s growing scepticism on Climate Change are 1. The media has been far too balanced on the subject and is not pushing the eco-message hard enough. 2. Big business is funding Climate Denialism. 3. Evil Conservatives – led by Evil Talk Show Hosts Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck – are deliberately telling lies about Climate Change. 4. The Republican party is “anti-science”.
My favourite bit is the one where Chris Matthews, who I believe takes himself seriously as a journalist, declares: “I hate that even-handed, so-called objective journalism. You know, you can’t say something isn’t true if it’s true….”
Do you know, on that last point at least I totally agree with Chris Matthews. So let’s examine a few of the claims which he and his two guest liberal echo chambers made on Hardball.
1. The media under-reports climate change. Oh yes. That will explain, for example, the recent widely reported story Decline Of Oceans Worse Than Previously Thought – given unquestioning coverage everywhere from the Sydney Morning Herald, the New York Times and Time magazine to the BBC. Yet as research from Ben Pile at Climate Resistance shows, most of these experts offering their supposed expert views on the imminence of pelagic climate doom were in fact just an ad hoc group of activists from heavily politicised organisations like Greenpeace and Pew Environment Group. Such is the state of Environmental reporting around the world these days: it consists of little more than lovingly transcribed press releases from hardcore ecoloon pressure groups.
2 Jo Nova has estimated that the amount spent by government agencies, left-leaning charitable foundations and big business promoting “global warming” is approximately 3,500 times more than the amount spent funding climate change scepticism.
3. With notable exceptions such as Fox news, US conservative talk radio, the generally right-leaning blogosphere and one or two papers such as Canada’s National Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Daily Express (and increasingly, the Mail) there are few media outlets in the world which broadcast anything other than green propaganda. Far from being evil, the likes of Beck and Limbaugh are islands of truth in a (presumably doomed, increasingly acidified) ocean of lies. (I’d be interested if Matthews could produce some concrete examples of these “lies” that Limbaugh and Beck have told on climate change).
4. Would that be “science” in the sense used by Al Gore, as in the received wisdom of a self-selecting cabal of post-normal activist scientists who dominate organisations like the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society. If so, then the Republican party is indeed “anti-science” because – with notable exceptions such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, of whom more in a subsequent post, very likely to be entitled “Mitt Romney prefers dog poop yogurt” – bases its scientific views on old fashioned virtues like rationalism, empiricism and open-minded, honest research rather than junk science dogma.
If we’re talking about science in the more old fashioned sense of the word as it might have been understood by, say Newton or Popper, rather than James Hansen or Al Gore, then no, the Republicans are not “anti-science.”
...
Gotta love James Delingpole...can't wait for Watermelons. (Watermelon = green eco-exterior, commie red interior)
-
- groups:
- Community, News and Politics, Politics, Culture, 2 more
-
- tags:
- Science, Global Warming, Democrats, Al Gore, 7 more
-
-
cherry5000
-
I would not buy this garbage, I would just use it as toilet paper (LOL).
- 11 months ago
-
cherry5000
-
-
nardo1224
-
You have got to be kidding me.
DUMBEST CREATURES.
Try someone who spends all their money, gives all their time, totally shapes their lives and mentality around a book of fiction and a place that no-one has ever seen, can vouch for or even proves exists, and dedicates their lived to getting admitted to after they die to be with something that is not there!
- 11 months ago
-
nardo1224
-
-
gypsysailor
-
Go fuck yourself you ignorant Brit.
- 11 months ago
-
gypsysailor
-
-
TheAmbivalante
-
I think rod has spent a little too much time with "little rod." Hey, don't get me wrong -- self pleasure isn't a bad thing. In fact, in rod's case, it's a good thing. He's scientifically proven that it will make you go blind.
- 11 months ago
-
TheAmbivalante
-
-
notsure
-
Ah yes, Distraction. Nite Nite Everyone.
- 11 months ago
-
notsure
-
-
Theoldliberal
-
Who is this idiot and why would anyone want to listen to what he has to say. All I saw was name calling and denial. If I never read anything by this dope again it will be fine with me.
- 11 months ago
-
Theoldliberal
-
-
rodstradamus
-
http://www.amazon.com/Watermelons-Green-Movements-True-Colors/dp/0983347409
I'm sure you'd all love to buy Delingpole's new book "Watermelons: The Green Movement's True Colors." Here's the Amazon Review:British author James Delingpole tells the shocking story of how an unholy mix of junk science, green hype, corporate greed and political opportunism led to the biggest - and most expensive - outbreak of mass hysteria in history.
In Watermelons, Delingpole explains the Climategate scandal, the cast of characters involved, their motives and methods. He delves into the background of the organizations and individuals who have sought to push global warming to the top of the political agenda, showing that beneath their cloak of green lurks a heart of red.
Watermelons shows how the scientific method has been sacrificed on the altar of climate alarmism. Delingpole mocks the green movement's pathetic record of apocalyptic predictions, from the "population bomb" to global cooling, which failed to materialize. He reveals the fundamental misanthropy of green ideology, "rooted in hatred of the human species, hell bent on destroying almost everything man has achieved".
Delingpole gives a refreshing voice to widespread public skepticism over global warming, emphasising that the "crisis" has been engineered by people seeking to control our lives by imposing new taxes and regulations. "Your taxes will be raised, your liberties curtailed and your money squandered to deal with this 'crisis'", he writes.
At its very roots, argues Delingpole, climate change is an ideological battle, not a scientific one. Green on the outside, red on the inside, the liberty-loathing, humanity-hating "watermelons" of the modern environmental movement do not want to save the world. They want to rule it.
...can't wait for my copy.
- 11 months ago
-
rodstradamus
-
-
oppressed1
-
They think to much with their hearts, and not with their brain.
- 11 months ago
-
oppressed1
-
-
UtopianSky
-
oppressed1:
No, Liberals think with our brains, and feel with our brains.
We are all about the brains.Conservatives neither think or feel- they simply conform.
- 11 months ago
-
UtopianSky
-
-
EcoCapitalist
-
Wow...this doesn't contribute to partisanship. Way to contribute to a grid-locked Congress, you're a true American patriot.
- 11 months ago
-
EcoCapitalist
-
-
smartbunny
-
OK it was me. I lied about Global Warming to sell more of my homemade solar panels. I make them out of Triscuits! Sowwy.
- 11 months ago
-
smartbunny
-
-
Ashley_Byrd
-

-
I found this little graph a long while ago. The whole bickering between "Liberals" and "Conservatives" is childish. No one person is 100% one way or the other. I'm not saying we should hold hands and sing Kumbaya or anything, but we as a society should try to understand each other without the name-calling and pointing fingers. Then again, name-calling is fun.
- 11 months ago
-
Ashley_Byrd
-
-
Schnookums
-
Ashley_Byrd:
Interesting graphic. ^'d
- 11 months ago
-
Schnookums
-
-
2hellnwait
-
Schnookums:
I thought so to. . . and it missed the mark on both sides of the spectrum imho.
- 11 months ago
-
2hellnwait
-
-
Ashley_Byrd
-
2hellnwait:
I'm curious, how did it miss the mark? Not all graphs are 100%, but I'm wondering what was wrong with it?
- 11 months ago
-
Ashley_Byrd
-
-
2hellnwait
-
Ashley_Byrd:
Although it portrays the collective thinking of both overall perceived ideologies fairly close, however (from my perspective) starting with the premises of the [left/community/based on ethics] versus the [right/community/based on morals] that the values assume and imply inherently true absolutes. . .
Given the parameters as given on the chart, regarding ethics vis a vis morals, I (again from my perspective) see an implied assumption that the lefts ethics may be preferable to the morals of the right. . . . when in fact it is just the opposite.
The right/community is actually based on virtue, which includes not only morals, but ethics as an integral part of the whole as well, whereby ethics [as perceived by the right] are paramount to morals in the distinction of right and wrong. . . contrarily I find that the left does not, who consider both ethics and morals as only relative to the rules of conduct, regardless of how, (all for the greater good of course) the means to an end are achieved, even if it must or does subjugate others to do so. . . willful or not. - 11 months ago
-
2hellnwait
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
2hellnwait:
The right is based on virtue?
Which virtue might that be?
The virtue of denying people civil rights?
The virtue of invading people's private lives?
The Virtue of prohibiting people's freedoms?
The virtue of limiting people's liberties?
The virtue of denying people medical care?
the virtue of robbing from poor people?
The virtue of eliminating the middle class?
the virtue of giving money away to the uber-rich?
the virtue of polluting?
the virtue of killing people?
the virtue of invading other countries?
the virtue of lying to people?
the virtue of racism?
the virtue of xenophobia?
the virtue or racial profiling?
the virtue of homophobia?
The virtue of segregation?
the virtue of discrimination?
Or is it just the virtue of making money? - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
UtopianSky
-
2hellnwait:
So, what you are saying is, you have absolutely no idea WHAT liberals think at all.
You have simply been fed a bunch of brainwashing from the right-wing media.
In reality, conservatives deal with the status quo. You cling to moral guidelines based on tradition, not any kind of objective criteria.
A magical list tells you right from wrong- do not kill, do not steal, do not shave your beard, always wear a hat, sacrifice a goat to God on alternate Thursdays, whatever.
Why should we follow these rules?
Because God said so.
Because the King said so.
Because Grandma said so.
Because we have always followed these rules.No logic whatsoever.
The left has Ethics, which are derived LOGICALLY from an initial establishing premise; a foundation such as Human RIghts, Natural Law, Secular Humanism, Enlightenment philosophy, etc.
Do not kill. Why? Because people have the right to live.
Do not steal. Why? Because people have the right to own property.
Shaving your beard? That's up to you, it has no impact on anyone else.
Wearing a hat? Again, up to you, nobody's business but yours.See? Each rule has a WHY, and that WHY has a rational answer.
But, I realize you won't understand any of that.
Us Liberals are WAY smarter than you. - 11 months ago
-
UtopianSky
-
-
2hellnwait
-
UtopianSky:
Of all the tyrannies of history, the Progressive-Reactionaries are by far the dumbest. The only thing they know how to do is bribe their way to stay in power. But even the old divide and conquer politics of apportioning the spoils of government to your supporters only works for as long as you have what to give them. When the economy turns bad enough and there’s nothing to hand out anymore, then there’s nothing standing between you and the counter-revolution except the hoarse cry of racism.
The modern left just assumes that the property of rich is an infinite commodity that can be seized and will still always be there. Not enough money? Raise taxes. Still not enough money? Raise more taxes. And then get ready to move your own money to another tax shelter. Their anti-materialism is more like a hypocritical ignorance of their own material realities. Socialism for them is not a material act, but a spiritual one. To make it work, you must have faith in hope and change.
Progressives reduce all transactions to the victim-oppressor equation, not realizing that to much of the country they have become the oppressors. That the out of work coal miner, the small businessman and the working family trying to make ends meet increasingly hates them and their institutions. That their self-consciously charming coffeehouses, home wood-shops and green advocacy look like the playthings of a dilettante elite about to be swept out of power by popular anger, as thoroughly as the Bourbon kings of France.
Oh yeah, Progressive-Liberals arrogantly believe they are WAY smarter. . . when actually they are quite stupid.
They’re too stupid to even understand that their vision of a technocratic environmentally sustainable democracy in which everyone makes do with less and likes it that way makes as much sense as working toward a united world by empowering a bunch of people who kill each other over minor points of religious doctrine and ethnicity. Or that none of this can even pay for itself because every time they pass a law, jobs fly out the window like startled birds. And the only thing they ever do anymore is pass laws, and then more laws on top of that.
[excerpts from an article written by Daniel Greenfield]
- 11 months ago
-
2hellnwait
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
2hellnwait:
“Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.”
-Aristotle1.) You realize that when you use the term "progressive" as a bad word, you are villainizing ALL progress?
To be Anti-Progressive is to be against progress. ALL progress.
The opposite of Progressive is REgressive.
Or, in other words, moving backwards.“A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs
Who never learned to walk forward.”
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt2.) You also realize that the "institutions", as you call them, of Liberals and Progressives are the most overwhelmingly universally popular in all of history:
The Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments, Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, health care reform...
While the Institutions of REgressives are by far and away the most UNpopular in all of history:
The Inquisition, the reformation Genocides, the Three-Fifths "compromise", The Alien and Sedition Acts, Jim Crow, Eugenics, Prohibition, the Holocaust, "Separate But Equal", The Defense of Marriage Act, Don't Ask Don't Tell, the Patriot Act, Proposition 8...
So the next time you villainize the term "Progressive", first think about whether or not you really want to have the right (given to you by Progressive Liberals) to say whatever you want to, and then do us all a favor and carefully consider whether you want to move forward or backward.3.) BTW: For Future Reference: Tax Rates in the United States are among the lowest, if not the lowest, in the developed industrialized world, and are at their lowest point since before the Second World War (Taxes have been going down, just about every single year, ever since the 1950's).
The United States also has more millionaires, more billionaires, and more trillionaires than any country has ever had in known recorded history.
Coincidence? - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
2hellnwait
-
Ian_Judge_Lord:
. . . silly wabbit.!
Liberals mistakenly assume that to be a Conservative is to be regressive, when in fact it is actually quite the contrary.
The true Conservative knows that unfettered progress and innovation are the engines of a healthy and growing society, and understands that onerous bureaucratic regulatory policies and excessive taxation (as advocated by "progressive" liberals) do just the opposite, and stifle the very "progress" the Liberals profess they're attempting to achieve.Liberal progressives, believe that through govt expansion, with controls into every aspect of its "subjects" (the poor hapless souls that mistakenly believe themselves to be citizens and free men) lives, that it is all about and for the good of national posterity, when really it is all about power and control.
- 11 months ago
-
2hellnwait
-
-
UtopianSky
-
2hellnwait:
So, what you are saying is, you have absolutely no idea WHAT liberals think at all.
You have simply been fed a bunch of brainwashing from the right-wing media.You say:
"[excerpts from an article written by Daniel Greenfield]"At least you gave credit to your brainwasher.
- 11 months ago
-
UtopianSky
-
-
UtopianSky
-
2hellnwait:
You say:
"Liberals mistakenly assume that to be a Conservative is to be regressive, when in fact it is actually quite the contrary. "And every single thing you have said about Liberals is mistaken, and the truth is the exact oposite.
Here is the diference- Ian supported what he said with facts.
All you have is your brainwashed propaganda. - 11 months ago
-
UtopianSky
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
2hellnwait:
1.) Look in the dictionary.
PLEASE.
Guess what a synonym for the word "innovation" is?
"Progress"!
Guess what a conjugation of the word "Progress" is?
"Progressive"!
Guess what a synonym of the word "Progressive" is?
"Liberal"!
Guess what a synonym of the word "conservative" is?
"Regressive"!
This is not an opinion. It is a fact.
"Conservatives" ARE Regressives. BY DEFINITION!
Regressives ARE Conservatives. BY DEFINITION!
Progressives favor progress. BY DEFINITION!
ALL Liberals are Progressive. BY DEFINITION!
Liberals favor Progress. BY DEFINITION!2.) How can taxation in America possibly be considered "excessive" when every other developed industrialized nation in the "first" world has higher taxes than we do?
Regulation is "onerous"? Tell that to the citizens of New Orleans.
Guess when the most progress was made in the last fifty years?
During the 1990's.
The greatest time of prosperity since Eisenhower's 1950's.
Guess when taxes were EXACTLY what Democrats want them to be now?
During the 1990's.
Guess when Taxes were higher than at any other time in the 20th Century?
During the 1950's.
Guess when the greatest time of prosperity in contemporary recent American History was?
During the 1950's.Higher taxes=More Progress
Higher taxes= More prosperityGuess when the greatest growth of government in the second half of 20th century occurred?
During the 1980's.
Who was President in the 1980's?
Ronald Reagan.
Guess when taxes were cut more than at any time in American history?
2000-2008
Guess when the most government regulations were eliminated?
2001-2008
guess when the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression occurred?
2004-2009
Lower Taxes= Less Prosperity
Less Regulation= Less progress."Growing society" is not a way i would describe seeking to annihilate the sociological infrastructure of modern western civilization.
Depriving people of their civil rights is not what i call "progress".
Those things do have a name, however.
They call themselves the "Teabagging" Party. - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
2hellnwait
-
Ian_Judge_Lord:
"Growing society" is not a way I would describe seeking to annihilate the sociological infrastructure of modern western civilization."
Hah! . . and you "progressive" dimwits think that you're not doing that when advocating policies that do just that?
~ then you say: "Depriving people of their civil rights is not what I call "progress". . . & believing that you're not depriving me of mine as you plunder from my labors to disperse to those who've labored not, all in the name of equality?
Gfy.
Progressive Liberals are thieves masquerading as altruists. - 11 months ago
-
2hellnwait
-
-
2hellnwait
-
UtopianSky:
. . . silly wabbit, stop being a ideological dupe.
Liberal "progressives" i.e. socialists; the ongoing legacy of hypocrisy:
When Obama got his ObamaCare, why then, did he grant hundreds of exemptions — many to northern California liberals? Should they instead not have lined up to volunteer to implement such a wonderful, long-needed entitlement?
He said energy would rightly sky-rocket, given his determination to curb fossil fuel production (cf. “bankrupt” coal companies). Why then is Obama concerned that gas hit $4; is not such a high price a welcomed retardant to burning hot fuels? The higher the gas prices, the more that subsidized wind and solar power, and electric cars are attractive, and thus the more we enjoy “sustainable” power. Right? Am I missing something about this desire within our grasp of “living within our means”?
Obama enjoyed big majorities in both houses of Congress; and on the campaign trail he had promised a de facto amnesty under the euphemism of “comprehensive immigration reform.” So why did he not grant such exemptions, and absorb 11, 15, or 20 million new “citizens” from Oaxaca? Is not that the point of amnesty, to welcome in new constituencies who will remember a benefactor at the polls?
We have heard that taxes, more taxes, and more taxes are the cure for the massive deficits, run up by out of control spending. OK, fine. But why then does multimillionaire John Kerry go to great lengths to avoid taxes on his yacht (why a luxury yacht when so many have so little?); why are redistributive overseers like Timothy Geithner, Eric Holder, Tom Daschle, Charles Rangel, and Hilda Solis either late or delinquent in paying the federal, state, or local governments what they owe? Were not high taxes on the upper incomes like themselves the point of it all? Should not they pay all they can to ensure that their brethren receive needed entitlements? I thought Bono would lead an international effort of multimillionaire rock stars to relocate to socialist states like Ireland or Greece, so that they might gladly pay 75% of their incomes (which at “some point” they had enough of) to help others closer to home. Why instead is he fleeing to low-tax nations? Did not such socialists have enough money by now without undermining the socialist state?
This is, of course, a belabored example of why and how socialists employ statism, not as a desired outcome, but rather more a strategy for obtaining power or winning acclaim as one of the caring, by offering the narcotic of promising millions something free at the expense of others who must be seen as culpable and obligated to fund it — entitlements fueled by someone else’s money that enfeebled the state, but in the process extended power, influence, and money to a technocratic class of overseers who are exempt from the very system that they have advocated.
So what is socialism? It is a sort of modern version of Louis XV’s “Après moi, le déluge” – an unsustainable Ponzi scheme in which elite overseers, for the duration of their own lives, enjoy power, influence, and gratuities by implementing a system that destroys the sort of wealth for others that they depend upon for themselves.
Once the individual develops a dependency on food stamps, free medical care, subsidized housing, all sorts of disability or unemployment compensation, education credits, grants, and zero-interest loans — the entire American version of the European socialist breadbasket — then expectations for far more always keep rising, with a commensurate plethora of new justifications, usually in the realm of someone else having more than the recipient, always unjustly so. The endangered aid recipient is always seen as being pushed off a cliff in a wheel chair — therefore, “they” can afford to give “me” more; things are not “fair”; there is no “equality.”
For every dollar taken, two are demanded. And that creates a powerful constituency for whom the shrillest rhetoric of oppression is, well, never too shrill. Revolutions are not fueled by the very poor seeking their daily bread, but by those on entitlements that revolt at the thought of less to come.
- 11 months ago
-
2hellnwait
-
-
UtopianSky
-
2hellnwait:
Again- all you can do is spew forth your brainwashed propaganda.
Heck, half of what you wrote was just bitching about Obama, and Obama is a centrist. You morons on the right wing scream he's a Marxist, when people on the left claim he's a Republican Corporatist.
That's how you can tell he's a moderate centrist.
And the worst things one can criticize Obama about are when he goes AGAINST Liberal ideals and capitulates to Conservatives.
None of it has anything to do with the core beliefs and ideology of Liberals vs Conservatives, and that was the point of the conversation. But you can't handle that conversation, because you have NO IDEA what Liberals believe.
You just hate them blindly and ignorantly.
You do not have the ability to think for yourself- all you can do is sit like a drone, blindly believe anything the right-wing media tells you, and then regurgitate it here.
They say hate the Liberals, so you hate the Liberals.
They tell you Liberals are elitists, so you believe Liberals are elitists- ignoring the fact that Liberalism by definition, is against elitism, and Conservatism embraces it.
They tell you Liberals want to destroy the economy, so you believe it. Ignoring the fact that the economy prospers under Democratic administrations, and tanks under Republican ones.
Heck, you think socialsim is about elitists lording over the poor, when that is the EXACT OPOSITE of Socialism! The whole point of socialism is UPLIFTING the poor so that they CAN contribute to society, instead of the conservative social Darwinism that lets them rot and die in poverty. And you ignore how the Republicans are constantly destroying the middle class, leaving only filthy rich and dirt poor.
Conservatives don't even understand how Capitalism works because their every action is destructive to it.
NOTHING you said has any resemblance to truth, and your mind is so locked shut you would be unable to understand truth.
- 11 months ago
-
UtopianSky
-
-
2hellnwait
-
-
UtopianSky:
http://
You have (like most liberals) been locked into the progressive propaganda machine that anyone, ANYONE, that doesn't buy into the Liberal Utopian fantasy has been brained-washed by a anti-liberal indoctrination machine. . . clearly believing that other people (like myself) cannot actually think for themselves outside of a communal collective, and whose allegiance is only given to those we deem worthy.
. . . and bubba, you left wing progressive loons definitely are not worthy of the right time of day, much less anything else due to your incredible blunders at social engineering.So yeah, I understand plenty about Liberals. . . the minute they open their mouths and begin to spout off about their inherent goodness and moral and ethically superior intellect, I know I'm in for a dose of incredible bullshit.
- 11 months ago
-
2hellnwait
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
2hellnwait:
"your incredible blunders at social engineering."?
Like the Bill of Rights?
Like the Constitution?
Like the Emancipation Proclamation?
Like the Civil Rights Act?
Like the Fourteenth Amendment?
Like Social Security?
Like Medicare?What Blunders might you be referring to?
- 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
2hellnwait:
"So what is socialism? It is a sort of modern version of Louis XV’s “Après moi, le déluge” – an unsustainable Ponzi scheme in which elite overseers, for the duration of their own lives, enjoy power, influence, and gratuities by implementing a system that destroys the sort of wealth for others that they depend upon for themselves."
NO.
WRONG.[soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
so·cial·ism
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
1. an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
2hellnwait:
"and you "progressive" dimwits think that you're not doing that when advocating policies that do just that?"
WRONG.
SORRY.[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]
lib·er·al
–adjective
1. relating to or having social and political views that favour progress and reform
2. relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom
3. giving and generous in temperament or behaviour
4. tolerant of other people
7. of or relating to an education that aims to develop general cultural interests and intellectual ability
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.i don't see the word "elitist in there anywhere
do you? - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
2hellnwait
-
Ian_Judge_Lord:
Your points about the constitution, bill of rights and etc would be valid if they were actually followed, applied and practiced. . . but that is not the case.
Social engineering today as advocated by the left is management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society. . . and the progressive left are much to eager to rob from one sector of society to give to another, all in management of human beings in the name of fairness and equality. . . liberal enablers spinning the web of dependency upon govt care as they found a base upon societies despondent by promising equal rights on the fruits of the labor and dreams of others.
As David Mamet has so aptly stated "The great wickedness of Liberalism, I saw, was that those who devise the ever new State Utopias, whether crooks or fools, set out to bankrupt and restrict not themselves, but others."
- 11 months ago
-
2hellnwait
-
-
UtopianSky
-
2hellnwait:
Over and over you keep proving my point- doesn't that worry you that you have absolutely no knowledge of the topic you are discussing?
You are stuck believing a propaganda machine, so you pretend that everyone else is stuck believing a propaganda machine except you.
When in reality, the more educated someone is, the more liberal they are.
The more someone STUDIES a topic, the more Liberal their viewpoint becomes.
The more KNOWLEDGE they have on any subject, the more Liberal their position becomes.These are the facts- and you keep proving it, because beyond insults you can not even define the words "Liberal" and "Conservative".
You have no idea what "Socialism" is, what "Capitalism" is, what "Communism" is, and what differentiates them.
You have no idea what "Social Engineering" is, yet you toss the term around willy-nilly.
You don't even have an ideological position- all you have is blind hatred for an "other" without even knowing what the "other" is.
This alone should tell you you are being blindly manipulated.
If not, then prove it.
Define the terms I just listed- in your own words.
- 11 months ago
-
UtopianSky
-
-
UtopianSky
-
2hellnwait:
You say:
"Social engineering today as advocated by the left is management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society"FALSE, as usual.
The Left wants to provide everyone with education and opportunity to advance themselves, period.
The Right wants the rich to get richer, the poor to be enslaved, and the middle class to disappear.The simple fact that you keep spouting off stuf about the left that those of us on the left say does not describe us should tell you something- if you had the ability to learn.
You say:
"and the progressive left are much to eager to rob from one sector of society to give to another, all in management of human beings in the name of fairness and equality"Again, FALSE.
It is Conservatives who want to rob the public by denying them basic human needs, and the ability to ever obtain them.Liberals just want people to pay their membership fees, so every member of the club has the ability to use the club's facilities.
Conservatives are the elitists, wanting the rich to prosper at the expense of everyone else.
You say:
"liberal enablers spinning the web of dependency upon govt care as they found a base upon societies despondent by promising equal rights on the fruits of the labor and dreams of others."False, again, as usual.
NO ONE wants ANYONE to be dependent on government care.
The simple fact that you think that shows how completely insane you are.
That is like saying that if you believe Hospitals should be built, that means you want everyone hooked up to life suport systems.You have no grasp of logic whatsoever.
We want the government to provide basic needs to people so they can advance and live independent productive lives, and become contributing members of society.
Conservatives want them to rot, so the only way they can survive is by committing crimes, and then toss them in prison.
Conservatives are short-sighted. They want to pinch every penny like Scrooge, while not realizing that helping others helps yourself.
RISING TIDES RAISE ALL SHIPS.
Increasing the economic success of all people makes life beter for everyone- less crime, more doctors, more scientists, more skilled employees.
But instead, you just want the rich to hoard their pennies at the LOWEST tax rate in the civilized world.
Again- short-sighted ignorance of how any society functions.
Heck, you don't even understand how Capitalism works, so you destroy it as well.
Capitalism is dependent on the constant motion of currency through the system- when rich people hoard their money instead of spending it, that money does NOT flow through the system.
By ANY economic structure, what the Republicans are doing is suicide.
And you suport them because you never really gave it any thought.
- 11 months ago
-
UtopianSky
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
2hellnwait:
1.) "set out to restrict others"
Whoever does that cannot be called a Liberal
(adjective; open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression. in accord with having policies or views advocating or favorable to concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. relating to or having social and political views that favour progress and reform, as in political or religious affairs. )Anyone who refers o liberals as "restricting others" does not know what the word means.
2.) The ones violating the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are not on the left (they wrote it).
The "Conservatives" are the ones seeking to prohibit and outlaw citizens' human civil rights, and ignoring the Constitutional institutions on government power.
The Bill of Rights was written by Progressive Liberals in order to protect the citizens from the predations of those who seek to extend the power of government into the most intimate details of individuals' private lives: into their bedrooms as well as their hospital beds.
The First Amendment, written by what was perhaps one among the most Liberal, certainly the most progressive, Presidents our nation has ever had, with its guarantee of every citizen's freedom from religion, was intended to protect and defend citizens' human civil rights from being trampled upon by those attempting in institutionalize a prejudiced, discriminatory and bigoted religiously-based and motivated theistic ideology into the laws of the United States.
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified by post-civil-war progressives, was intended to prevent the government from revoking the citizenship privileges from any of the American people.
The Nineteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights act, instituted by the most progressive Liberals of the twentieth century, were meant to ensure that no citizen of the United States would be denied the right to vote for their elected leader in the American Democratic system.The "conservatives" now seek to extend the power of government not only into individuals' homes, into their bedrooms; but into their hospital rooms as well.
The right now seeks to institute their very own particular brand of bigoted religious theology into the laws of the United States.
The "Conservatives" want to deny the rights and privileges enjoyed by all of the citizens of the United States to staggering proportion of the US population.
Republican governments in states throughout the union are now pushing to severely limit the number of people in their states that can vote by making voting very nearly next to impossible for a large segment of their populations.3.) Let us just look at each sides greatest accomplishments in the past hundred and fifty years, in terms of "social engineering", and let the people themselves decide.
The two greatest achievements of Progressive Liberal Social Engineering in past century have been Social Security in the 1930's and Medicare in the 1960's, which ever since they were created, have enjoyed favorability popularity approval ratings usually reserved for statements of fact such as "The Earth is Round" or "The Sun is Warm".
The two greatest regressive conservative social engineering programs of the past two hundred years, not counting the Alien and Sedition Acts of the Adams Presidency, have been the Jim Crow "Separate But Equal" Segregation Laws in the century between the Thirteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act (both liberal and progressive); and the Patriot Act of 2001. Both of these, in the time that they were, or have been in effect, have received the kind of disdain from the population as a whole at large of the sort that most people would ordinarily hold off on for ailments such as the Malaria Parasite, Leeches, and Mosquitoes.If we are going by which side is more popular, i think that the First Amendment, Social Security, Medicare and the Civil Rights Act will win the popularity contest in the favor of Progressive Liberals every single time.
They would even if Regressive Conservatives DIDN'T have the Alien and Sedition Acts, Jim Crow, DOMA, DADT, and the Patriot Act to answer for, among many, many others. - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
2hellnwait
-
UtopianSky:
There you go again, projecting your thoughts about how I think and your perceptions of the limits of my understanding, once again claiming that only the mind of liberal progressives are meritorious to cohesive and coherent thought. . . once again your implied elitism rears its ugly sanctimonious head.
. . . but thats okay as it assures me that you're even more clueless than you profess me to be, although quite frankly I'm not sure if that is more comforting or more disquieting.What liberals were, and now profess themselves to be, and actually are, are horses of quite different color.
- 11 months ago
-
2hellnwait
-
-
UtopianSky
-
2hellnwait:
You keep proving my point.
It is YOU who keep projecting over and over what YOU believe Liberals think, even though Liberals tell you over and over that we DO NOT THINK THAT.
That is YOU.
All YOU.
BECAUSE of that fact, and the fact that you are completely incapable of addressing my points on economic and social principles, that shows that YOU are incapable of cohesive and coherent thought- not because of any ideological position.
It's about YOU.
I showed that I think about the positions I hold, and explained why I hold them.
You can't do that because you don't know why you believe what you believe.It is not elitist to say you are a moron.
One only has to be of average intelligence to spot a moron. - 11 months ago
-
UtopianSky
-
-
2hellnwait
-
Ian_Judge_Lord:
To claim that the Bill of Rights protecting citizens from the as you state:
"the predations of those who seek to extend the power of government into the most intimate details of individuals' private lives: into their bedrooms as well as their hospital beds," to be quite stunning. . . that it is exactly what the progressive liberals are seeking to do by establishing a govt controlled Utopian agenda.Now I could go through the litany of the points to bring forth counter proof of consistent violations by the progressive liberals, but obviously you'll counter and we'll not be persuaded from our respective pov's. . . however, I'll leave you with this nugget of truth as spoken by James Madison. . . Quote:
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” - 11 months ago
-
2hellnwait
-
-
2hellnwait
-
UtopianSky:
Interesting, the need to call me a moron to establish the superiority and credibility of your character, accomplishes just the opposite.
You've stated that "Capitalism is dependent on the constant motion of currency through the system - when rich people hoard their money instead of spending it, that money does NOT flow through the system."
~ let me add some food for thought in that regard;
Basic economics of supply and demand are: ~ more costs less, less costs more. . . let me put that in terms that possibly you may understand.The relation between money and prices is historically associated with the quantity theory of money. The evidence of a direct relation between long-term price inflation and money-supply growth, at least for rapid increases in the amount of money in the economy has long been established.
With the huge influx of capital injected by the FED into the money supply via TARP, the Stimulus package, QE1 and QE2. . . were all that money to be free floating in the economy today, we would be experiencing a far greater dilution on the value of the dollar than currently exists today. . . hence the hoarding by the "rich" does more to increase the value of available dollars than if they did not, as the overabundance of dollars would further dilute its value. . . which is easily evidenced by rising costs throughout the economy.Or have you not noticed?
- 11 months ago
-
2hellnwait
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
2hellnwait:
1.) Bedrooms:
->Regressive Conservatives want to mandate in a Constitutional Amendment who can and cannot enjoy the legal benefits of marriage.
Regressive Conservatives advocate for and promote legislation in other countries to make loving the wrong person a crime punishable by death.
Regressive Conservatives want to prohibit the use of contraception, condoms, and birth control as means of preventing unwanted pregnancy.-> Progressive Liberals want everyone who wants to to be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges as everyone else, regardless of who they love
Progressive Liberal Advocate for and promote the use of contraception, condoms, and birth control in countries with exponentially exploding populations spiraling out of control.2.) Hospital beds:
->Regressive Conservatives seek to force girls and women to have children that they do not want from accidental and premature pregnancies, without exception for even those women who were impregnated by rapists and those girls who became pregnant as the result of incestuous molestations by relatives.
Regressive Conservatives celebrate those individuals who brutally slay medical doctors in gruesome assassinations, even those that take place inside of churches; and feature as heroes and patriots those who bomb medical health care clinics.
Regressive Conservatives institutionalize into law arbitrary and draconian unreasonable regulations for certain specific medical health care clinics like nothing that any other health institution in the world has to follow, and then proceed to shut down those certain clinics as not meeting the new unfair and arbitrary regulations after random unannounced inspections mere hours after the mean-spirited law had been passed.
Regressive Conservative seek to eliminate not-for-profit philanthropic charitable organizations that provide desperately needed medical health care services to hundreds of millions of people, including those for cancer and HIV/AIDS; justifying such mean-spirited and malevolent acts by claiming to want to outlaw something that has for years been against a law that they themselves ratified decades ago.
Regressive Conservatives mandate into law that a woman, after driving across hundreds or thousands of miles to find even one medical clinic, sit in a room and be lectured to by religious fundamentalist ideologue zealots, on subjects of scientifically-disproved ideological claims, for hours before being sent home to wait for days, before being brought back to watch baseless right-wing extremist fanatic political propaganda, before being made to wait hours or days longer before being given medically unnecessary and involuntary invasive procedures; only after which are the women in question permitted to seek a desperately-needed surgical cure.->Progressive Liberal want anyone and everyone to be able to walk into any medical health care clinic in the country and receive the best possible medical care available, regardless of wealth, or lack thereof, of gender, of age, or of circumstances.
3.) How rights, freedoms, and liberties are invasive to one's privacy is quite beyond me.
- 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
2hellnwait
-
Ian_Judge_Lord:
I fail to see the correlation of your post in context to what James Madison said . . .
Quote:
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”i.e. Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, ARGUED for a broad >interpretation< which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other. . . so, national needs (whatever congress determines) are relevant to justify income distribution?
- 11 months ago
-
2hellnwait
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
2hellnwait:
4.) Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 1st Session, page 170 (1794-01-10). The Annals summarize speeches in the third person, with the actual text of Madison's quote as follows: "Mr. Madison wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes very different from those of charity. He acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." The expense in question was for French refugees from the Haitian Revolution.
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 1st Session
Pages 169 & 170 of 1534
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=004/llac004.db&recNum=825.) "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is the clause that gives the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. Component parts of this clause are known as the General Welfare Clause and the Uniformity Clause.
The powers to tax and spend are concurrent powers of the federal government and the individual states. These two powers have been received over time to be very broad, but have also, on occasion, been abridged by the courts. They are also currently held to be independent powers, not subject to the limitations imposed by the other enumerated powers of Congress."The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises”
This power is considered by many to be essential to the administering of government. As argued under the Articles, the lack of a power to tax renders government ineffectual. Typically, the power is used to raise revenues for the support of government. But, Congress has employed the taxing power in uses other than solely for the raising of revenue, such as: regulatory taxation — taxing to regulate commerce; prohibitive taxation — taxing to discourage, suppress, or even exterminate commerce; and finally, tariffs — taxing as a means of protectionism.License Tax Cases
72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 462 (1866)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/72/462/
McCray v. United States
No. 301
Argued December 2, 1903
Decided May 31, 1904
195 U.S. 27
http://supreme.justia.com/us/195/27/
J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Company v. United States
No. 242
Argued March 1, 1928
Decided April 9, 1928
276 U.S. 394
http://supreme.justia.com/us/276/394/
United States v. Butler
No. 401
Argued December 9, 10, 1935
Decided January 6, 1936
297 U.S. 1
http://supreme.justia.com/us/297/1/
"to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document.6.) Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.
FEDERALIST No. 32
The Same Subject Continued
(Concerning the General Power of Taxation)
From the Daily Advertiser.
Thursday, January 3, 1788.
Alexander Hamilton
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed32.htm
Document 21
Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
5 Dec. 1791Papers 10:302--4
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s21.html7.) "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). It was ratified on February 3, 1913.
8.) Article I, § 8, Clause 1 grants to the Congress the power to impose taxes, but requires excise taxes to be geographically uniform.
"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [...] but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States [...]”
U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 1
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers [...]”
U.S. Const., art. I, § 2, cl. 3
“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
U.S. Const., art. I, § 9, cl. 4
The Constitution states that all direct taxes are required to be apportioned among the states according to population. This basically refers to a tax on property, such as a tax based on the value of land, as well as a capitation.
Hylton v. United States
3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1796)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/3/171/case.html
Knowlton v. Moore{|178 U.S. 41fn1|1}
No. 387
Argued December 6-7, 1899
Decided May 14, 1900
178 U.S. 41
http://supreme.justia.com/us/178/41/case.html
Flint v. Stone Tracy Company
Nos. 407, 409-412, 415, 420, 425, 431, 432, 442-443, 446, 456-457
Argued March 17, 18, 1910
Restored to docket for reargument May 31, 1910
Reargued January 17, 18, 19, 1911
Decided March 13, 1911.
220 U.S. 107
http://supreme.justia.com/us/220/107/case.html - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
2hellnwait
-
Ian_Judge_Lord:
You're really reaching to justify entitlements for damned near any cause or reason, aren't you?
- 11 months ago
-
2hellnwait
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
2hellnwait:
Since when are Constitutionally guaranteed and legally protected rights, freedoms, and liberties considered to be "entitlements"?
Come to that, since when have entitlements been considered a bad thing?
Being entitled to rights freedoms and liberties is definitely not a bad thing.
Being entitled to EQUAL Constitutionally-protected rights and freedoms is a good thing.
Equal Rights require no cause.
Equal Freedoms require no reason.
Since when does anyone need a REASON to be entitled to equal freedoms?
Since when does anyone need CAUSE to be entitled to equal rights?
Constitutionally protected legally guaranteed human civil liberties require no justification.
Constitutional freedoms need not be justified. - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
2hellnwait:
1.) As the expense in question was for French refugees from the Haitian Revolution; it is understandable that Madison would choose to ignore and/or disregard the Taxing and Spending clause of Article One, which gives Congress the power to spend money to "ensure the general welfare" of the United States.
2.) Income distribution need not be justified. Income distribution is universal.
Income has been distributed since there has been such a thing as income (or in other words, since money was invented)
Inequity in income distribution is also universal, and those attempt to rectify the inequality in how income is distributed are called "leaders", as opposed to those who strive to INCREASE the distance between those with the most and those with the least by giving more to those with the most and taking more from those with the least (or simply giving those with the least less).
Equality need not be justified.
Making the haves and have-not more equal requires no justification.
Giving those with the most more and taking more from those with the least is unjustifiable.
Taking more from those with the most and giving more to those with the least makes the haves and have not more equal.
This need not be justified. - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
2hellnwait
-
Ian_Judge_Lord:
Legislation advocating equality as a legal right will never make us equal, the right of equal opportunity, sure. . . but beyond that I feel that my success or failures are mine, not yours.
Your right to equality are not the right to determine my fate or fortune, or to partake thereof. - 11 months ago
-
2hellnwait
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
2hellnwait:
Does everyone being able to get married take anything away from your marriage?
Does everyone be able to receive any medical care they need at any hospital or clinic take anything away from you going to a hospital?
Does anyone getting to decide whether or not to have children take anything away from your family?
Does anyone being able to retire comfortably when they reach retirement age take anything away from your retirement?
Does anyone born in the United States being a citizen of the United States take anything away from your citizenship?
Does anyone who has graduated from a college or university and/or served in the United States Military being given a path to eventually becoming a citizen take anything away from the privileges of your being a citizen? - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
UtopianSky
-
I honestly don't know if this is satire or stupidity.
If it was satire- it was not written well enough.
If it was stupidity- it is right on target.It is amazing how not a single word of this has any basis in reality.
- 11 months ago
-
UtopianSky
-
-
chew_chew
-
UtopianSky:
I was going to move on from this with no response at all. But you summed it up so nicely, UtopianSky, I wanted to leave a thumbs-up. :-)
Well said, good sir.
- 11 months ago
-
chew_chew
-
-
cwebbpt4
-
I see the poster of the article is no where to be found. Way to defend your opinion against all these stupid liberals.
- 11 months ago
-
cwebbpt4
-
-
CreditFigaro
-
Way to hijack the thread with crap no one will ever read, Ian.
On a more important note, I noticed that this whole conversation on liberals being stupid because they believe that science supports global warming and that doing something about it is a good idea, leaves out the rest of the liberal ideals.
Let's assume they are right, which they aren't.
Even IF we were wrong on climate change, how much measurable economic damage is caused by climate protection legislation? Let's say that horrible toxins in the air and water don't cause cancer and change the environment, how much damage does this "lobotomised amoeba" position really cause?
Maybe $50 billion a year in lost efficiency and market waste? I don't know, you tell me.
What I do know, is that the bush tax cuts and bubble supporting policy which resulted in the collapse of the economy caused trillions of dollars of wealth to disappear in a few months.
I do know that there is tremendous societal damage and lack of growth caused by the ridiculous bush tax cuts.
I could go on and on and on. If we are really so stupid, then why are we always on the correct side of economic prosperity?
- 11 months ago
-
CreditFigaro
-
-
dinm76
-
I don't think I have EVER read such a peice of crap on this site as the above. WOW! It sould have a large-red-warning-lable on it!
PLEASE, No more like this! - 11 months ago
-
dinm76
-
-
thedirtman
-
"2 Jo Nova has estimated that the amount spent by government agencies, left-leaning charitable foundations and big business promoting “global warming” is approximately 3,500 times more than the amount spent funding climate change scepticism."
I can assure you that there is no government agency promoting global warming. In order to make a claim as such it is clear Nova is using figures that include conservationists and scientists that mitigate problems that already exists - from Katrina to the Dust Bowl. They are not promoting global warming at all.
It's like saying military troops are to promote war.
This is all an absurd lie.
- 11 months ago
-
thedirtman
-
-
thedirtman
-
thedirtman:
I don't know who is voting me down, but don't be a coward. Defend your position.
- 11 months ago
-
thedirtman
-
-
thedirtman
-
thedirtman:
Since there was no reply to defend the position then I will continue mine. This comes straight from Joanne Nova's pdf file - the very first sentence.
"The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies *related* to
climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education
campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks."Nova has calculated all actions related to climate change. Nova has not calculated paid promotions for the idea of climate change. Actions related to climate change include actions intended to diminish the effects of global warming, and even actions to clean up damages already caused by global warming.
There is no government agency that promotes the idea of global warming. There is no Global Warming Promotion Agency. There is not any part of any single government agency nor any position within the federal government of the United States of America promotes the idea of global warming.
- 11 months ago
-
thedirtman
-
-
tverdell
-
The problem is that each side 'knows' that they are right and prefer to call each other stupid instead of engaging in a meaningful discourse.
This is the only way to the truth but it's a path very few are willing to take.
Dismissing people in this manner only shows that you are not interested in discussion and therefore must feel insecure in your own belief system..
When I try to discuss such topics with conservatives all I hear is that Al Gore invented the Internet.
What should my reply be? Should I even pursue a conversation about the future of OUR planet?
I wish this type of dialogue, which comes from both sides, would just go away.
- 11 months ago
-
tverdell
-
-
thedirtman
-
tverdell:
But Al Gore did produce meaningful legislation that led to the internet.
- 11 months ago
-
thedirtman
-
-
Schnookums
-
Let's just agree to dumb it down for everyone.... pollution is bad. It gets into the plants and animals we eat, and the air that we breathe. If techniques exist to reduce pollution, they should be implemented. Where there is room for improvement, new solutions should be developed no matter the cost.....your Grandchildren's lives are worth it.
- 11 months ago
-
Schnookums
-
-
thedirtman
-
Schnookums:
There will be others that say that CO2 is harmless. In a way they are right, as long as CO2 levels are not higher than they should be, which conservatives won't say.
Here is my analogy to help keep it simple. It involves learning just three concepts.
The Greenhouse Effect is scientifically proven. Adding CO2 will increase atmospheric heat retention. We can look at the molecular shape and identify greenhouse gases and reason why they reflect heat. The Greenhouse Effect is real in the way being poked with a sharp stick is real.
Climate change is also very real. It happens all the time, and thus it is alive in a sense. Usually, we hope climate change occurs slowly. Climate change is known to disappear civilizations in extreme cases, and will disappear many living species in great cases. Climate change is like a lion.
Global warming is a poke in the eye of the lion with a sharp stick. Global warming is not necessarily proven. Anyone needing to poke the lion in the eye with a sharp stick to figure it out there is no help for.
- 11 months ago
-
thedirtman
-
-
Schnookums
-
thedirtman:
That is wonderful, but by the time I would get to "atmospheric heat retention" in a conversation in central Missouri, the Smokey Mountains in Tennessee, or on the Iron Range in Minnesota; Trust me, 'pollution is bad' is about all the further you'd get before you lost people.
- 11 months ago
-
Schnookums
-
-
thedirtman
-
Schnookums:
Sure schnookums. I will trust you.
- 11 months ago
-
thedirtman
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
thedirtman:
1.) No. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
It is what we exhale.
Carbon dioxide is not even the most potent greenhouse gas.
The most potent greenhouse gas is water vapor.
H2O is most definitively NOT a pollutant.
A greenhouse gas dozens of times more potent than carbon dioxide is methane.
Methane comes from cows, pigs, horses...
It also comes from decomposing organic matter.
Decomposition may smell bad, and it may not be healthy to breathe, but it is not pollution.
When people refer to atmospheric "pollution" they are referring to things that are not, or rather should not be, ordinarily normally found naturally occurring in the Earth's atmosphere.
CO2, Methane, and H2O are all naturally occurring gases.
Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be an uninhabitable, desolate, lifeless frozen-solid ball of ice and snow hurtling through the void of space.
With greenhouse gases, even in concentrations dozens of times higher than today, the earth is a lush tropical rainforest jungle, "garden of eden", paradise.
Greenhouse gases are therefore definitively NOT pollution.2.) "global warming" is a misnomer
Many places throughout the world are getting colder.
Climate change has been occurring ever since there has been an atmosphere.
"global warming" is not separate from climate change.
"global warming" was what it was called before people started calling it climate change.
Which is why they now call it climate change, because "global warming" is misleading and makes too many people think that the whole planet is getting warmer all at once, which is not the case.
The overall total mean average warming trend that was the first phenomenon of climate change observed (hence the outdated terminology of "global warming") has been occurring since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the 19th Century.
At times in Earth's past, even the very recent past, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations have been dozens of times higher than they are today.
So are rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations a global worldwide armageddon apocalypse for the earth?
No. Of course not.
Humans survived a climatic shift that was one hell of a lot more dramatic, one hell of a lot more abrupt, and happened a lot quicker, during the Younger Dryas period at the end of the last great Ice Age twelve thousand years ago.
not only did human cultures and society survive through the abrupt climate shift, but had the last Ice Age not ended [technically, of course, it hasn't, as we are still in a Great Ice Age now], then human civilization as we know it would have never developed.
So is Climate change, even dramatic change in climate, a bad thing?
Not necessarily. - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
thedirtman
-
Ian_Judge_Lord:
I am familiar with the move to replace the term global warming with climate change. There are some sound reasons for making such an argument. On the other hand, the change did not come without introducing a number of problems.
The immediate problem is that it gave the appearance that the purpose of making such a change was politically motivated. Scientists, it appeared, were rushing to mask the fact that there were unpredictable cold spells and blizzard conditions in various times and various places. Not true, of course. Many people won't pick up the real reason for the changes for some time. The change requires some time, some reading, some understanding.
The second problem is that it left a gap for considering man-made climate change separately from natural climate change. The frequent technical term for the man-made variety is "anthropogenic global warming". Most people do not know the meaning of the word anthropogenic. I encountered less confusion when I dropped anthropogenic, and just called it global warming. I haven't found anyone to be confused about it, but if I do I will explain.
When I use the term global warming I intend to use it in the historical sense - that carbon dioxide emissions on the part of mankind's activities may increase the overall temperature of the planet.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations is not a problem for planet Earth and its biosphere to handle. Carbon dioxide can be absorbed into the carbon sink of the Earth. Tropical rain forests actively take up a great amount of carbon from the air during photosynthesis. This only happens if the rain forests remain intact. As the number of trees become reduced the natural carbon sink in the biosphere becomes reduced, and more carbon is stored in the atmosphere. The problem clearly, is not simply vehicle and factory emissions. The problem is better visualized as a candle burning at both ends.
Global warming is no armegeddon. What is more pertinent to consider is human suffering. Less than a century ago thousands living in the Dust Bowl were pickling russian thistles (a tumbleweed) to survive. The dust caused pneumonia and death in people of all ages. While we are managing soils more properly now, we are at this time reducing environmental incentives for better soils management.
There have been hotter days, and some of those days were likely to be the most harsh. The human body evolved in environments that were predominantly colder. A more permanent and extreme heat would not likely be favorable to mankind. In my calculations, especially for a dramatic climate change event, the oncoming climate change will more than likely be unfavorable.
- 11 months ago
-
thedirtman
-
-
GoodGodGuy
-
My god, I just spent 3 minutes here. Talk to the hand. or the wall same thing with finger pointers. I'm disgusted.
- 11 months ago
-
GoodGodGuy
-
-
thedirtman
-
What I don't get is why conservatives find it so hard to say what they know is true.
************************************************************************************
Climate Change: Public Skeptical, Scientists SureJune 21, 2011
The American public is less likely to believe in global warming than it was just five years ago. Yet, paradoxically, scientists are more confident than ever that climate change is real and caused largely by human activities.
Something a bit strange is happening with public opinion and climate change.
Anthony Leiserowitz, who directs the Yale University Project on Climate Change Communication, delved into this in a recent poll. He not only asked citizens what they thought of climate change, he also asked them to estimate how climate scientists feel about global warming.
"Only 13 percent of Americans got the correct answer, which is that in fact about 97 percent of American scientists say that climate change is happening, and about a third of Americans just simply say they don't know," he said.
Most Americans are unaware that the National Academy of Sciences, known for its cautious and even-handed reviews of the state of science, is firmly on board with climate change. It has been for years.
Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy, paraphrased its most recent report on the subject.
"The consensus statement is that climate changes are being observed, are certainly real, they seem to be increasing, and that humans are mostly likely the cause of all or most of these changes," he said.
That's not just the view of the U.S. National Academies. There's also a consensus statement from the presidents of science academies from around the world, including the academies of China, the United Kingdom, India, Japan, Russia, France, Brazil, the list goes on.
Cicerone also points to strong statements about climate change from the leading professional organizations in the United States, including from the American Chemical Society, the American Physical Society and others.
Of course, it's still possible to find a few scientists who reject the consensus. Cicerone says it is appealing to think they are right when they say there's no need to worry about complicated cap-and-trade policies or otherwise fuss about climate change.
"I think rooting for the underdog, the David against the Goliath, is something that we all do — I think it's particularly American, although it happens everywhere," he said. "And in fact, this is the way scientists work.
"Scientists don't gain respect, and attention, and fame, if you will, by going along with the mainstream, and I don't know of many scientists who try to go along with the mainstream — they're trying to go the opposite direction."
Though a few are still finding reasons for doubt, Cicerone says he and most of his colleagues find the science of climate change is stronger the harder they look. So does this public disbelief mean that Americans are becoming more anti-science?
Leiserowitz of Yale University says that's not what his polls show.
"Most Americans have overwhelming trust in the science and trust in scientists," he said.
But the public is largely unaware of the consensus because that's not what they're hearing on cable TV or reading in blogs.
(more at link)
***********************************************************************************
If liberals and conservatives could openly agree that man-caused global warming exists (clearly does at some level), then most of the conspiracy theories about anti-science would not exist. Otherwise, liberals wonder why conservatives won't say what they know to be true.
From the article: "Yet as research from Ben Pile at Climate Resistance shows, most of these experts offering their supposed expert views on the imminence of pelagic climate doom were in fact just an ad hoc group of activists from heavily politicised organisations like Greenpeace and Pew Environment Group."
I don't know who Ben Pile is. I suppose he is important to someone because he is saying what someone wants others to hear. However, Ben Pile is likely to be right about this. The most legitimate scientists produce few papers in number in comparison with the hired pseudo-scientists on either side. I do have one important message:
DON'T BLAME SCIENTISTS WHEN GREENPEACE HAPPENS TO HAVE BEEN RIGHT.
- 11 months ago
-
thedirtman
-
-
Paratus
-
This was pretty good. Thank you. (still chuckling)
- 11 months ago
-
Paratus
-
-
CreditFigaro
-
Paratus:
Yes, keep chuckling as your justification nerve gets tickled.
- 11 months ago
-
CreditFigaro
-
-
magic3400
-
God, can I take a mulligan on this one and get my 30 seconds backs?
- 11 months ago
-
magic3400
-
-
sharin
-
"How Your Brain May Be Different Than a Conservative's
A new study shows liberals have more gray matter in a part of the brain related to understanding complexity, while the conservative brain is bigger in the section linked to fear. ..."http://www.alternet.org/story/150561/how_your_brain_may_be_different_than_a_cons...'s?akid=6811.235217.AZ8jhv&rd=1&t=24
- 11 months ago
-
sharin
-
-
coxian_armada
-
wow after reading the entire thing, my only reaction *facepalm
the only thing the article does is point fingers and give out labels, nothing useful and no different from the rambling of media pundits(in case of America's 2 sided politics, all the pundits!!) - 11 months ago
-
coxian_armada
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
More proof that Glenn Beck is an idiot
April 10, 2009, 5:24PM
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/wfb812/2009/04/more-proof-that-g...More proof that Glenn Beck is an idiot
April 10, 2009, 5:24PM
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/wfb812/2009/04/more-proof-that-g... - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
Glenn Beck an Island of Truth?:
Beck aired false claim that a union only needs 30 percent support from employees to be "established"
February 13, 2009 2:47 pm ET
http://mediamatters.org/research/200902130011Beck falsely claimed average UAW worker makes $154 per hour
February 19, 2009 8:24 am ET
http://mediamatters.org/research/200902190002Beck claims 9-12 protests "largest march on Washington ever" based on "overseas" reporting
September 14, 2009 12:27 pm ET
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909140013Note to Beck: Doors repaired with stimulus funds were hangar doors and did not cost $1.4 million
July 21, 2009 8:53 am ET
http://mediamatters.org/research/200907210005Beck says Sarah Palin "is right" about the "deather part of this bill"
August 14, 2009 6:46 pm ET
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908140037After mocking a bill he doesn't understand, Glenn Beck now ridicules acronym that doesn't exist
February 02, 2009 1:51 pm ET
http://mediamatters.org/research/200902020014
Beck calls Senate-confirmed Orszag a "czar"
August 26, 2009 3:00 pm ET — 29 Comments
http://mediamatters.org/research/200908260027John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."
Glenn Beck on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 in his TV program
Glenn Beck claims science czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-..."Why do we have automatic citizenship upon birth? We're the only country in the world that has it."
Glenn Beck on Wednesday, June 10th, 2009 in his Fox News program
Glenn Beck, on anchor babies, claims U.S. is only country with automatic citizenship upon birth
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/19/glenn-beck/glenn-...John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."
Glenn Beck on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 in his TV program
Glenn Beck claims science czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-..."Why do we have automatic citizenship upon birth? We're the only country in the world that has it."
Glenn Beck on Wednesday, June 10th, 2009 in his Fox News program
Glenn Beck, on anchor babies, claims U.S. is only country with automatic citizenship upon birth
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/19/glenn-beck/glenn-... - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
Ian_Judge_Lord:
The Fed Hoards Its Profits
Beck Complains That "Nobody" Is Looking To Recover The Fed's Profits. During a January interview with Sarah Palin, Beck discussed the Federal Reserve's 2009 profits, and claimed, "Exxon had their record profit a couple of years ago. It was $45 billion. The Fed just had record profit, over $50 billion. No one's having hearings on the Fed. Nobody is looking for a windfall profit tax on the Fed. We can't even open the Fed's books." [Fox News, Glenn Beck,1/13/10, via Nexis]
REALITY: The Fed "Returns Its Profits To The Treasury." The Washington Post reported that the Federal Reserve "will return about $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury for 2009 ... the highest earnings in the 96-year history of the central bank. The Fed, unlike most government agencies, funds itself from its own operations and returns its profits to the Treasury." The Post added that these profits "are good news for the federal budget and a sign that the Fed has been successful, at least so far, in protecting taxpayers as it intervenes in the economy -- though there remains a risk of significant losses in the future if the Fed sells some of its investments or loses money on its stakes in bailed-out firms." [The Washington Post, 1/12/10]Tax Dollars Funded An Art Exhibit Actually Paid For By Private Donors
BECK: "And Then You Have The Tax Dollars Funding This Wonderful Art Display. It's Christmas At The Smithsonian." Beck said of an exhibit at the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, which is titled "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture":
Perfect storm. Eroding values. Hard work, sacrifice, thrift, honor, truth, God. As a nation born out of faith in God, how's that going today, huh? Twenty-five percent of those under 30 years of age describe their religion as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular. Now, as you get older, it goes down. Thirty to 40 years old, only 19 percent. Ages 40 to 50, 15 percent. If you're over 60, less than 10 percent say that. And then you have the tax dollars funding this wonderful art display. It's Christmas at the Smithsonian. Here's this wonderful -- oh, look, it's Jesus with ants on him. They describe it as the first major exhibition to focus on the sexual difference in the making of modern American portraiture. What? You got to be kidding me, right? What does this have to do with the birth of the baby Jesus, and why is he now covered in ants? Whose values are these? And you wonder why there's the breakdown of the family. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 11/30/10]
REALITY: Smithsonian "Receives Public Funds" But "Does Not Use That Money For Exhibitions." The Washington Post reported: The exhibition, which opened Oct. 30, was funded by the largest number of individual donors for a Portrait Gallery show. The show, which cost $750,000, was also underwritten by foundations that support gay and lesbian issues. [...] As part of the Smithsonian, the gallery receives public funds. Overall, the Smithsonian gets about 70 percent of its annual budget from the federal government, but it does not use that money for exhibitions. [The Washington Post, 11/30/10]Obama Did Not Make Oil Spill "Our Priority"
BECK: Obama Did Not Prioritize The Oil Spill. Beck falsely claimed that Obama did not prioritize ending the oil spill in the Gulf:
BECK: What are we doing now with the spill? If this were really about the spill, we would first work on, what? Stopping this! Before talking about energy and taxes and cap and trade or solar panels or saying, "Don't tell me that we can't fundamentally transform the country into solar panels and green energy." You would stop the oil spill. You would get a tourniquet. This should be our priority. But it's not. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 6/17/10]
REALITY: Obama Said "Make No Mistake: We Will Fight This Spill With Everything We've Got For As Long As It Takes." During an address from the Oval Office prior to Beck's claim, Obama stated: "But make no mistake: We will fight this spill with everything we've got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever's necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy." [Remarks By The President To The Nation On The BP Oil Spill, WhiteHouse.gov, 6/15/10]
REALITY: Obama Had Called The Spill "My Top Priority." During an earlier press conference, Obama said: "Those who think that we were either slow on our response or lacked urgency don't know the facts. This has been our highest priority since this crisis occurred." He also said, " But here's the broad point: There has never been a point during this crisis in which this administration, up and down up the line, in all these agencies, hasn't, number one, understood this was my top priority -- getting this stopped and then mitigating the damage; and number two, understanding that if BP wasn't doing what our best options were, we were fully empowered and instruct them, to tell them to do something different." [Remarks By The President On The Gulf Oil Spill, WhiteHouse.gov, 5/27/10] - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
Ian_Judge_Lord:
U.S. Sending "Another Trillion Dollars, Your Tax Dollars" Over To Europe
BECK: "Now We Find Out Through The Fed That We Are Going To Do Almost Another Trillion Dollars, Your Tax Dollars, Over To Europe." Discussing efforts by the International Monetary Fund to stabilize European economies, Beck said:
BECK: We also told you that the IMF would bail out Europe. Here we were on this program, oh, I don't know how many months ago. Watch.
BECK [video clip]: We're not only bailing ourselves out, Fannie and Freddie, but now we're trying to bail out Europe as well. The European Union, along with the IMF, is giving $1 trillion to Greece -- $1 trillion. The U.S. contributes 17 percent of the IMF funds.
BECK: OK. So, we told you that, and nobody really paid attention. Now we find out, through the Fed, that we are going to do almost another trillion dollars, your tax dollars, over to Europe. We also found out that we have sent $3.3 trillion in our bailout, a lot of it went over to Europe, went over to France, went to Germany, Spain, et cetera, et cetera. And we're sending more. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 12/2/10]
REALITY: The WSJ Reported, "The U.S. Isn't Discussing A Larger International Monetary Fund Contribution To The European Rescue Package." The Wall Street Journal reported: The U.S. isn't discussing a larger International Monetary Fund contribution to the European rescue package, a U.S. official said Wednesday. European Commission officials have been discussing whether to increase the EUR750 billion rescue package as a way to handle possible sovereign debt problems in Spain and other countries. A bigger fund would likely include a larger financial contribution from the IMF, which now is committed to spending as much as EUR250 billion on euro-zone rescue loans. (This story and related background material will be available on The Wall Street Journal Web site, WSJ.com.) U.S. Undersecretary of Treasury Lael Brainard is now in Germany discussing the Europe's plans to contain the euro zone's sovereign debt woes. A U.S. official said those talks don't now include a larger IMF contribution. [The Wall Street Journal, 12/1/10]
REALITY: AP Reported That A U.S. Official "Said That An Addition To The IMF Support Package Was Not Something That Was Being Discussed Currently." The Associated Press reported: A U.S. official, who would speak only on condition of anonymity because discussions were still ongoing, said that an addition to the IMF support package was not something that was being discussed currently. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner did dispatch Treasury Undersecretary Lael Brainard, Treasury's top official on international matters, for talks with European officials. Brainard had meetings in Madrid with economic officials on Wednesday and was scheduled to be in Berlin on Thursday and Paris on Friday. The U.S. "can't afford to let Europe implode," said David Gilmore of Foreign Exchange Analytics. But the reported statement by the U.S. official does not necessarily mean that the U.S. has already agreed to a deal allowing the IMF to contribute more money or that it will pony up more money for Europe itself. Investors were relieved by the implication that the EU and the IMF might be assembling a larger bailout fund, Gilmore said, because of the threat of there not being enough funds for Spain, should it need a rescue. A spokesman for the EU's monetary affairs chief Olli Rehn said he had not heard of talks about extending the EFSF fund. [Associated Press, 12/1/10] - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
Ian_Judge_Lord:
Beck Time Travels To 1995 To Show George Soros "Didn't Mince Words" In 2004
BECK: In 2004, Soros Called The Election "Not A Normal Election," And Said That "In Periods Of Regime Change, Normal Rules Do Not Apply." Accusing financier and philanthropist George Soros of setting up a "shadow party" to interfere in the 2004 elections, Beck cited David Horowitz and Richard Poe's The Shadow Party and said:
BECK: A shadow party is not a political party, it is a -- at least not in a tangible sense. It works outside the normal electoral system. In 2000, Soros funded one-third of the shadow conventions. Do you even remember these? They were run by Arianna Huffington, the president's favorite source of news. And one of the lead organizers next to her was Jim Wallis, one of the guys who is campaigning against this program, surprise, surprise. The idea was to parallel the Democratic and Republican conventions -- the shadow convention. Huffington said at the time, the message of the shadow conventions was, quote, "Not left or right, and the answers to these issues are not going to be found in the old ideas of the past. Clearly, the Great Society solution of top-down programs has failed." Top-down programs. "Instead, the answers could be found in the raw power," quoting, "of government appropriations." Wow. But it was the next election cycle that truly launched the shadow party. In 2004, when Soros didn't mince words, he stated, quote, "This is not a normal election. These are not normal times." And, quote, "I do not accept the rules imposed by others. If I did, I would not be alive today. And in periods of regime change, normal rules do not apply. One needs to adjust one's behavior to the changing circumstances." By the 2004 election cycle, Soros' shadow party had shaped the Democratic message. Under Soros, the guidance of the shadow-party infrastructure had assumed the coherent shape by early 2004. They were seven extensively independent nonprofit groups, which included MoveOn.org that would help the Democrats. Really? [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 11/09/10, emphasis added]
REALITY: Soros Said "I Do Not Accept The Rules Imposed By Others" And "In Periods Of Regime Change, Normal Rules Do Not Apply" In 1995 - Not 2004. Those comments are actually from the 1995 book Soros on Soros: Staying Ahead of the Curve:
KRISZTINA KOENEN (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung): You have been accused of playing by your own rules and changing the rules when it suits you.
SOROS: I plead guilty. I do not accept the rules imposed by others. If I did, I would not be alive today. I am a law-abiding citizen, but I recognize that there are regimes that need to be opposed rather than accepted. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don't apply. One needs to adjust one's behavior to the changing circumstances. Look at the tremendous changes I have gone through on a personal level. Consider my career as a philanthropist. In the beginning, I avoided any personal involvement. I sought to remain anonymous and shunned publicity. Later, when the revolution gathered momentum, I accepted the fact I was deeply involved. After 1989, I actively sought to gain a hearing for my views. That alone was a major change. At the same time, I continued to abstain from doing business in Eastern Europe. Now, I have given that up to. The reversal from my starting point, when I dissociated myself from my philanthropy, is complete. I accept everything that I do, whether as an investor or as a benefactor as an integral part of my existence. And I am very happy about it because in a sense my whole life has been one long effort to integrate various facets of my existence. There is a remarkable parallel in the evolution of my attitude toward philanthropy and my attitude toward making money. At first, I didn't want to identify myself with my business career. I felt there was more to me than making money. I kept my private life strictly separate from my business. Then I went through a rough patch in 1962, when I was practically wiped out, and it affected me deeply. I had some psychosomatic symptoms, like vertigo. It made me realize that making money is an essential part of existence. Now I am completing the process by doing away with the artificial separation between my activities as investor and as philanthropist. The internal barriers have crumbled and I am all of one piece. It gives me a great sense of fulfillment. I realize that I cut a larger-than-life figure and I feel ambivalent about that. On one hand, I find it gratifying, but on the other, the sheer magnitude of my activities, both in business and in philanthropy, makes me uneasy. I must admit that I wanted it that way and I probably could not feel all of a piece if I weren't larger than life. It makes me somewhat abnormal and that is the source of malaise. Still, it is better to have abnormal accomplishments than to harbor abnormal ambitions. For the first 50 years of my life, I felt as if I had a guilty secret now it is out in the open and I am proud of what I have accomplished. [Soros on Soros, Pages 145-146, emphasis added]"Every Single American Who Invests" Earns More Than $250,000 Per Year
BECK: President Obama Proposed To Increase The Capital Gains Tax On "Every Single American Who Invests." Beck falsely said that Obama "sought to raise the capital gains tax, which affects every single American who invests, which -- I know that sounds like the big Wall Street fat cats, but if you have a 401(k), that would be you." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 4/7/10]
REALITY: Obama Proposed Capital Gains Increase Only On "Upper-Income" Earners. The White House budget for fiscal year 2011 called for reinstating the 20 percent capital gains tax rate only on families with income greater than $250,000 and on individuals with income greater than $200,000. [Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011] - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
Ian_Judge_Lord:
Rauf Is Not A "Peaceful Muslim" Because Someone Else Said Something Nine Years Ago
BECK: "Would A Moderate Imam, A Peaceful Imam Employ Another Imam Who" Said 9-11 Attacks Were "The Jews' Fault"? Discussing Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is a member of the board of trustees at the Islamic Center of New York and who is spearheading efforts to build an Islamic community center in Manhattan, Beck claimed: Now, let me ask you this: would a moderate imam, a peaceful Muslim employ another imam who told an Arabic language Web site that, quote, "Only the Jews could have perpetrated the 9/11 attack." That kind of sounds like Jeremiah Wright, doesn't it? And if Americans only knew that it was the Jews' fault, they, quote, "would have done to Jews what Hitler did," end quote. And that Jews, quote, "disseminate corruption in the land and spread heresy, homosexuality, alcoholism and drugs." Oh, that's the kind of moderate imam I've been looking for right there at ground zero. How about you? [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 8/10/10, via Nexis]
REALITY: Comments Attributed To Muhammad Gemeaha. In October 2001, the Middle East Media Research Institute posted a translation of an October 4, 2001, interview that Muhammad Gemeaha gave to the website lailatalgadr.com:
Q: "Does this mean that the Jewish element played a role in igniting the flame of fitna (internal strife)?"
Gamei'a: "The Jewish element is as Allah described it when he said: 'They disseminate corruption in the land.' We know that they have always broken agreements, unjustly murdered the prophets, and betrayed the faith. Can they be expected to live up to their contracts with us? These people murdered the prophets; do you think they will stop spilling our blood? No." "You see these people (i.e. the Jews) all the time, everywhere, disseminating corruption, heresy, homosexuality, alcoholism, and drugs. [Because of them] there are strip clubs, homosexuals, and lesbians everywhere. They do this to impose their hegemony and colonialism on the world." "Now, they are riding on the back of the world powers. These people always seek out the superpower of the generation and develop coexistence with it. Before this, they rode on the back of England and on the back of the French empire. After that, they rode on the back of Germany. But Hitler annihilated them because they betrayed him and violated their contract with him." "We saw these Zionists, just one hour after the event, broadcasting on the BBC, the biggest media channel, that the Arabs, and particularly the Palestinians, were celebrating and rejoicing over the American deaths. [To do this] they broadcast a video from 1991, [filmed] during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. But Allah thwarted them when a professor from a Brazilian university stated that the video was a forgery, because she had a copy of it. These people have a script prepared in advance, and they have the ability to fabricate events in their favor."
[...]
Q: "What about the American president's declarations that the war that the U.S. is waging is a crusade?"
Gamei'a: "Herein lies the danger. As President Bush said, this is a crusade against Islam and against Muslims, but the American people are innocent in this matter, because the war was planned falsely." "This war will destroy everything. This is [the kind of] war that the American president tried to avoid, when he [tried] to take back what he said. He went to the Islamic center in Washington and took back his words, but he did this only after he incited the souls and revealed what happened behind the scenes of American policy." "For this reason, I advise every Arab and every Muslim leader not to offer any aid whatsoever to the oppressing superpower [to help it] attack Muslims, because this is a betrayal of Allah and his Prophet..." "On the news in the U.S. it was said that four thousand Jews did not come to work at the World Trade Center on the day of the incident, and that the police arrested a group of Jews rejoicing in the streets at the time of the incident... This news item was hushed up immediately after it was broadcast... The Jews who control the media acted to hush it up so that the American people would not know. If it became known to the American people, they would have done to the Jews what Hitler did! ..." [The Middle East Media Research Institute, 10/10/01]
REALITY: NY Times: Gemeaha Departed Islamic Cultural Center Of New York City Before Making Those Comments. The New York Times reported: Three days after the terrorist attack on the United States, Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha, leader of a prominent mosque on East 96th Street in Manhattan, delivered a sermon in English to an interfaith audience calling for peace, healing and love among people of all religions. Two weeks later, he suddenly moved his family back to Cairo, telling an Arabic-language newspaper that he left because his family had been threatened at their home on the Upper West Side. He sent a letter of resignation to the mosque. His departure from the Upper East Side mosque, the Islamic Cultural Center of New York City, which regularly draws 4,000 Muslims for Friday prayers, comes amid questions about an interview he reportedly gave to an Arabic Web site on Oct. 4 saying that Muslims in America were being persecuted, that their children were being poisoned by Jewish doctors in American hospitals, and that ''Zionists'' in command of the nation's air traffic control towers aided the suicide hijackings. [The New York Times, 10/23/01]
REALITY: Conservative Author David Horowitz: Gemeaha Left ICC Before Comments. David Horowitz wrote: Rauf is a permanent trustee of an Islamic Cultural Center (ICC) which his father founded in New York City. Until September 28, 2001 -- seventeen days after 9/11 -- the ICC employed Imam Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha, who later would say that "only the Jews" could have perpetrated the 9/11 attacks; that if Americans only knew about this Jewish culpability, "they would have done to Jews what Hitler did"; and that Jews "disseminate corruption in the land" and spread "heresy, homosexuality, alcoholism, and drugs." [DiscoverTheNetworks.org]
REALITY: NY Times: Head of Islamic Center's board was "outraged" by comments. The New York Times also reported that Mohammad Adbullah Abulhasan, "who heads the mosque's board," criticized the comments, saying they did "not represent at all the policy and the beliefs of the Islamic Cultural Center." A November 2, 2001, New York Times article further reported that Abulhasan was "outraged" by the comments, which he said "did not reflect the position of the mosque": Ambassador Abulhasan said that he was outraged by the remarks and stressed that they did not reflect the position of the mosque. He said he had expressed his displeasure to Imam Gemeaha in a call to Cairo. He said he told Sheik Gemeaha that the essence of what he said was wrong, was against Islam and was "against what you taught us." [The New York Times, 11/2/01] - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
Ian_Judge_Lord:
Soros Manipulated Congress To Introduce Energy Legislation Eight Years After Congress First Introduced It
BECK: Soros Manipulated Lawmakers To Pursue Cap And Trade. Discussing an interview with Soros that was published on November 24, 2008, Beck said:
BECK: Soros also heavily promotes green jobs and cap and trade. Also, days after Obama was elected, he called for a new energy bill. "I think this is a great opportunity to financially deal with global warming and energy independence. The U.S. needs a cap-and-trade system with the auctioning of licenses for emissions rights. I would use the revenues from these auctions to launch a new, environmentally friendly energy policy that would be yet another federal program that could help us overcome the current stagnation." Well, Congress introduced, but you stood up, and you said, "Uh, I don't think so." Hm-mmm. The audience started to resolve. Cap and trade failed. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 11/9/10]
REALITY: Cap And Trade Has Been Debated In Congress For More Than 10 Years. Contrary to Beck's claim that Soros manipulated Obama to introduce cap and trade legislation "days after" he was elected, Congress has been debating similar proposals for more than a decade. [The Washington Post, 8/19/01]
REALITY: Obama Supported A Cap And Trade Bill During The 2008 Election. In fact, then-Sen. Barack Obama supported legislation that would have created a cap-and-trade system while campaigning in 2008. [The Washington Post, 6/1/08]"Zero Warming For Over A Decade"
BECK: There Has Been "Zero Warming For Over A Decade." Beck claimed, "Cap-and-trade is the biggest socialist scam, totally discredited climate change industry and zero warming for over a decade. Zero warming for over a decade." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 4/23/10]
REALITY: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), The U.K. Met Office, And The World Meteorological Organisation Have All Stated That 2000-2009 Was The Warmest Decade On Record For The Globe.
NASA Goddard Institute For Space Studies: 2000-2009 Was "The Warmest Decade On Record." ["2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade," National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 1/21/10]
NOAA: "The 2000-2009 decade is the warmest on record." ["State of the Climate Global Analysis," National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, October 2010]
Met Office: 2000-2009 "has been, by far, the warmest decade on the instrumental record." ["'Noughties' confirmed as the warmest decade on record," Met Office, 12/7/09]
WMO: "2000-2009, The Warmest Decade." ["2000-2009, THE WARMEST DECADE, World Meteorological Organization, 12/8/09]Obama's Trip To India Would Cost "Up To $2 Billion"
BECK: Obama's Trip To India Will Cost "$2 Billion." Beck falsely claimed that Obama's November trip to India "could cost up to $2 billion to make sure he's safe." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 11/4/10]
REALITY: White House Spokesman Matt Lehrich Called That Figure "Wildly Inflated." In a statement Media Matters for America obtained and made public the day before Beck's broadcast, White House spokesman Matt Lehrich said that the figure -- which had been reported by the Press Trust of India -- had "no basis in reality." Lehrich also said, "Due to security concerns, we are unable to outline details associated with security procedures and costs, but it's safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated." [Media Matters, 11/3/10] - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
Ian_Judge_Lord:
Obama's "Fishing Ban"
BECK: Obama Wants To Ban Fishing. Beck said that a "report claims that Obama will no longer listen to the public as he tries to prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing on some of the nation's oceans, coastal areas, and great lakes, even some inland waters. No more fishing." Beck also said, "How about a fishing ban? A fishing ban that would put jobs at risk in the middle of an economic crisis, but beyond that, you and your son being told you can't go there to fish! What the hell is happening to us?" [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/10/10]
REALITY: "Fishing Ban" Falsehood Debunked As "Absurd" Before Beck Promoted It. The day before Beck promoted the "fishing ban" claim, Charlotte Fishing Examiner.com columnist Jeffrey Weeks wrote: In what may be the worst example of outdoor sports reporting in the history of America, ESPN has claimed that President Barack Obama is on the verge of banning recreational fishing. ESPNOutdoors.com writer Robert Montgomery posted an article today claiming that the administration's decision to end the public comment phase of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force means that Obama is likely preparing to issue an executive order outlawing recreational fishing in America. As a sportsman who covers fisheries management and politics I do think there are many issues surrounding the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force and its eventual recommendations that all fishermen should be aware of and concerned about. But to go from concern to suggesting that President Obama is about to ban fishing in America is the most absurd and irresponsible thing I have ever seen a major news outlet publish. There is not even a remote possibility that a standing president of the United States will outlaw fishing in America. [Charlotte Fishing Examiner, Examiner.com 3/9/10]The Brazilian Oil Conspiracy Theory
BECK: The Obama Administration Loaned Money To Brazil In A Plot To Enrich George Soros. Beck falsely claimed that the Obama administration was lending $2 billion to Brazil to benefit foreign oil interests at the expense of the U.S. economy in order to enrich George Soros:
BECK: I'm not sure if [Soros] knew that the administration would be making a $2 billion preliminary commitment for Petrobras, for Petrobras, for exploration, just days after he strengthened his investment. Isn't that weird? You see, he's got some connections here, but I'm sure he had no idea what was coming on the other side of the circle? No. It's probably just another one of those bad luck situations for Obama, because this doesn't seem to pass the smell test at all. No. Billionaire investor dumps money into a state-controlled Brazilian oil company; days later the American administration dumps $2 billion into the exact same company. What are the odds, Gilligan? Let's go here. George Soros starts the Center for American Process with John Podesta. John Podesta, Center for American Progress, selects the Obama transition team. Soros buys $900 million in gasoline powered bras. Then, in a completely unrelated story, BP has their oil spill. But wait a minute, who's this guy? John Podesta. John Podesta is the guy who does all the lobbying for BP? Certainly -- I'm sorry, Tony Podesta -- certainly no relation to John Podesta, other than they're brothers. We'll have to come back to that one later in the show. So then Center for American Progress starts to make Obama policy. This one, we'll show you, laid out by Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal. One of the policies: cap and trade, which goes right to Crime Inc. and all of the Obama friends with the Climate Exchange in Chicago. That's weird. Then Obama suspends the deepwater drilling at 1,500 meters. He says "Hey, hey, that's dangerous! Fifteen hundred meters, that's crazy." Petrobras is drilling at 2,777 meters. Obama knows it and loans $2 billion to Petrobras. Last stop, Petrobras shareholders get rich. Oh my gosh, we're back at the beginning: shareholder, Petrobras. Getting rich. You getting screwed. You see how this works? [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 6/21/10]
REALITY: Bush Appointees At Export-Import Bank -- Not Obama -- Unanimously Approved Loan To Brazil. FactCheck.org called the claim "bogus," noting that the Export-Import Bank of the United States approved a "preliminary commitment" to Brazil to finance "their purchases of U.S. equipment, products and services." At the time, "the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush." [FactCheck.org, 9/18/09]
REALITY: Loan Is "For The Purchase Of American Goods And Services." Politico's Ben Smith reported: A spokesman for the bank, Phil Cogan, noted to POLITICO that the bank does not rely on tax money and that Palin's statement ignores the bank's central function: To lend money to foreign companies for the purchase of American goods and services. "It has to be produced by U.S. workers," Cogan said. Palin's statement refers to "creat[ing] jobs and health benefits in the U.S." "That's exactly what a purchase financed by the U.S. government would do," Cogan said. In this case, Cogan said, the proposed loan would likely finance engineering services, sales of ships to service oil platforms, or drilling equipment. [Politico.com, 8/19/09]Ohio City "Hasn't Taken Any Money From The Government"
BECK: Wilmington "Hasn't Taken Any Money From The Government." Promoting his Fox News special in Wilmington, Ohio -- a city hit by significant job losses in recent years -- Beck falsely claimed, "this town hasn't taken any money from the government." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 11/22/10]
REALITY: Wilmington Had Received Millions In Stimulus Funds As of November 22, recipient reports posted at Recovery.gov showed that the city of Wilmington received at least $2.6 million in stimulus funds. [Recovery.gov, accessed 11/22/10]
REALITY: Surrounding County Received Millions In Stimulus Funds. As of November 22, 2010, recipient reports posted at Recovery.gov showed that Clinton County Ohio had received at least $4 million from the stimulus. [Recovery.gov, accessed 11/22/10]
REALITY: Wilmington Officials Asked For $63 Million In Stimulus Funds. Wilmington city officials confirmed to Media Matters that the city requested more than $63 million under the stimulus. State officials said that use of Medicaid, food stamps, cash assistance, and unemployment insurance have increased in recent years. [Media Matters, 12/15/10] - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
Ian_Judge_Lord:
Soros Was Responsible For "Taking The Property From The Jews As A Teenager"
BECK: "Soros Was Asked If He Felt Guilt At All About Taking The Property From The Jews As A Teenager. He Responded, No." From Glenn Beck:
BECK: There's a lot of meat here that I need you to do your own homework on and learn the truth yourself. But we want to find out a little bit more about him and who he is and where did he come from. His childhood is shocking, traumatic. He grew up in Nazi Europe. Fourteen years old, he had to help the government confiscate the lands of his fellow Jewish friends and neighbors. He didn't grow up in a Jewish household. His mother was a strong anti-Semite -- George Soros' words, not mine. But when he had to go over and take the lands from the people, his Jewish friends and neighbors who were being sent to the gas chambers, I can't imagine what that would do to a teenager, or anybody, an adult. Well, what did it do to George Soros? In an interview with Steve Kroft, Soros was asked if he felt guilt at all about taking the property from the Jews as a teenager. He responded, no. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 11/9/10]
REALITY: Soros Said He "Had No Role In Taking Away That Property." In an interview with Kroft, Soros explained that he felt no guilt because he "had no role in taking away that property":
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.
KROFT: I mean, that's--that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?
Mr. SOROS: Not -- not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't -- you don't see the connection. But it was--it created no--no problem at all.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
Mr. SOROS: No.
KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?
Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c -- I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was -- well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets -- that if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would -- would -- would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the--whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the -- I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt. [CBS, 60 Minutes,12/20/98, via Nexis]
REALITY: Biographer Reported Soros "Collaborated With No One." In Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire -- a book cited by Beck during the program -- Michael T. Kaufman detailed Soros' reaction during the interview, as well as Soros' actions in Nazi-occupied Hungary: While he was living with Baumbach as Sandor Kiss, an event occurred that more than a half a century later would become the basis of charges that George Soros, the international financier and billionaire, had somehow collaborated with the Nazi occupiers of his homeland and had exploited his fellow Jews. The issue was raised in a bizarre television profile and interview of Soros aired on the CBS television program 60 Minutes in December of 1998. In the segment, Steve Kroft, the interviewer, noted with prosecutorial gusto that George's father had "bribed a government official to swear that you were his godson," and added that this survival strategy "carried a heavy price tag." For, he continued, "as hundreds of thousands of Jews were being shipped off to the Nazi death camps, a thirteen-year-old George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his rounds, confiscating property from the Jews." Visibly dumbfounded by the line of questioning, Soros could only manage to say that he had no role in the seizure of property and was merely a spectator. To underscore Kroft's point, film footage showed masses of Hungarian Jews being led away at gunpoint. This is what actually happened. Shortly after George went to live with Baumbach, the man was assigned to take inventory on the vast estate of Mor Kornfeld, an extremely wealthy aristocrat of Jewish origin. The Kornfeld family had the wealth, wisdom, and connections to be able to leave some of its belongings behind in exchange for permission to make their way to Lisbon. Baumbach was ordered to go to the Kornfeld estate and inventory the artworks, furnishings, and other property. Rather than leave his "godson" behind in Budapest for three days, he took the boy with him. As Baumbach itemized the material, George walked around the grounds and spent time with Kornfeld's staff. It was his first visit to such a mansion, and the first time he rode a horse. He collaborated with no one and he paid attention to what he understood to be his primary responsibility: making sure that no one doubted that he was Sandor Kiss. Among his practical concerns was to make sure that no one saw him pee. [Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire, Page 37]Fox Will Fire Beck If He Tells Lies
BECK: "[D]o You Really Believe That I Could ... Just Make Things Up And Remain On The Air?" Beck said: What is it that we make up? I would ask you to just take a moment here -- do you really believe that I could -- or anybody here at Fox News could -- just make things up and remain on the air? No. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 11/29/10]
BECK: "If I Get Out Of Control And Start Leveling Baseless Charges ... Guess What Happens? I'm Fired." Beck claimed, "If I get out of control and start leveling baseless charges that can't be backed up, guess what happens? I'm fired. I lose my job. If Congress does the same thing, you lose your freedom." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 6/14/10]
BECK: "If I Were Making Up Lies ... Rupert Murdoch Would Fire Me." Attacking Soros on his show, Beck said: "If I were making up lies about you, I couldn't stay on the air. First of all, you wouldn't have to pressure. Rupert Murdoch wouldn't put me on the air. He would fire me." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 11/10/10]
BECK: "If I Was Inaccurate, [Fox] Would Have Fired Me Long Ago." Responding to groups putting pressure on Fox News because of Beck's rhetoric, Beck said:
I have nothing bad to say about Fox. They have left me alone. They have let me do -- they hold me responsible for what I say. They make sure that it's right and it's accurate. They do that. They - If I was inaccurate, they would have fired me long ago. Long ago. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 10/28/10]
REALITY: Despite A Litany Of False Claims, Fox News Has Not Fired Beck. See Above.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201012300001 - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
Rush Limbaugh an Island of truth?:
Limbaugh: Frequently denies that he uses his show for political activism: "I have yet to encourage you people or urge you to call anybody. I don't do it. They think I'm the one doing it. That's fine. You don't need to be told when to call. They think you are a bunch of lemmings out there" (radio, June 28, 1993).
Reality: One hour later, he urged his followers into action against Clinton's tax package: "The people in the states where these Democratic senators are up for re-election in '94 have to let their feelings be known.. . .Let's say Herb Kohl is up in '94. You people in Wisconsin who don't like this bill, who don't like the tax increases, you let Herb Kohl know somehow."
LIMBAUGH: Limbaugh constantly tells his audience that he doesn't make personal or ad hominem attacks. To a caller who had a problem with his personalized attacks, Limbaugh responded with a denial: "Give me a specific example: who, what, when, where, and what exactly did I say?" (Radio show, 2/18/94)
REALITY: One hour before that call, Limbaugh was telling his audience that a 5,000-year-old man found buried in ice--pictured on the cover of Time magazine--was really Sally Jesse Raphael: "This is just what Sally Jesse Raphael looks like without makeup!"
MORE REALITY: Columnist Molly Ivins reported (Arizona Republic 10/17/93) this incident from Limbaugh's TV show--"Here is a Limbaugh joke: Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?" And he puts up a picture of Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Clinton is 13 years old.He's a sexist:
"We're not sexists, we're chauvinists — we're male chauvinist pigs, and we're happy to be because we think that's what men were destined to be. We think that's what women want."
(April 2004)LIMBAUGH: "Women were doing quite well in this country before feminism came along." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)
REALITY: Before feminism, women couldn't even vote.
"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream." (Quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)
"Militant feminists are pro-choice because it's their ultimate avenue of power over men.... It is their attempt to impose their will on the rest of society, particularly on men." (Ought to Be, p.53)LIMBAUGH: "It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with cigarettes causing emphysema [and other diseases]." (Radio show, 4/29/94)
REALITY: Nicotine's addictiveness has been reported in medical literature since the turn of the century. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's 1988 report on nicotine addiction left no doubts on the subject; "Today the scientific base linking smoking to a number of chronic diseases is overwhelming, with a total of 50,000 studies from dozens of countries," states Encyclopedia Britannica's 1987 "Medical and Health Annual."He said he never did drugs and he was addicted to prescription meds (Abusing any medication is drug abuse)
He's a hypocrite:
"Too many whites are getting away with drug use...Too many whites are getting away with drug sales...The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too." (1995)
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1159
"You know I have always tried to be honest with you and open about my life, so I need to tell you that part of what you have heard and read is correct. I am addicted to prescription pain medication." (2003)He claimed that Michael J Fox was pretending to have a debilitating disease and
didn't take his meds to gain sympathy for a political ad he made a few years ago, for one (This requires no clarification)
On Michael J. Fox
"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act... This is really shameless of Michael J Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."He said Colin Powell's support of Obama is all about race because they're both Black. (That is the case only for Rush)
In June of 2008, Limbaugh stated that “Hamas has endorsed Obama. … Why do you think they’ve endorsed Obama? Because they want a very strong ally for Israel in the White House?” In fact, Hamas said no such thing.
calls Obama "Arab"
LIMBAUGH: "But he’s not black. Do you know he has not one shred of African-American blood? He doesn’t have any African — that’s why when they asked whether he was authentic, whether he’s down for the struggle. He’s Arab. You know, he’s from Africa. He’s from Arab parts of Africa. He’s not — his father was — he’s not African-American. The last thing that he is is African-American."January 22, after taking heat (and not ever apologizing) for saying that he wanted Obama to fail, Limbaugh said that “we are being told that we have to hope he (Obama) succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles…because his father is black.” No, decent people wish him well because they love the country and wish the best for it. Decent Democrats would be hoping the same for Pres. McCain, if he had won. Obama’s race has nothing to do with it…unless you’re a racist.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=35243He said that he is not a racist. ( LOL )
Not to mention Rush is a blatant racist.
slavery had it's merits.
"I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark." (2006)"When a gay person turns his back on you, it is anything but an insult ; it's an invitation." (Quoted in FRQ, Summer/94)
LIMBAUGH: Praising Strom Thurmond for calling a gay soldier "not normal": "He's not encumbered by being politically correct.... If you want to know what America used to be--and a lot of people wish it still were--then you listen to Strom Thurmond." (TV show, 9/1/93)
REALITY: In the America that "used to be," Strom Thurmond was one of the country's strongest voices for racism, running for president in 1948 on the slogan, "Segregation Forever."LIMBAUGH: "Anytime the illegitimacy rate in black America is raised, Rev. Jackson and other black 'leaders' immediately change the subject." (Ought to Be, p. 225)
REALITY: Jesse Jackson has been talking about and against "children having children" in speeches and interviews for decades. So have many other black leaders, especially in the clergy.LIMBAUGH: "The videotape of the Rodney King beating played absolutely no role in the conviction of two of the four officers. It was pure emotion that was responsible for the guilty verdict." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)
REALITY: "Jury Foreman Says Video Was Crucial in Convictions", read an accurate Los Angeles Times headline the day after the federal court verdict (4/20/93).Limbaugh: "So many people are either refusing to recognize or unable to recognize the difference between blacks who riot and the majority of blacks in the American middle class. According to University of Chicago sociologist William Julius Wilson, of the 29 million blacks in America, the largest percentage--35 percent--are upper middle class, both professional (lawyer, doctor) and white collar; 32 percent are middle class; and 33 percent are considered poor" (Ought to Be, p. 224).
Reality: Wilson actually says that 20 percent of blacks are in the "professional middle class," which includes teachers and nurses, and that a further 15 percent are in "nonprofessional white-collar positions," such as secretarial or sales jobs. Limbaugh deceptively calls all these "upper middle class"--a description that hardly fits teachers, let alone salesclerks. The category Limbaugh calls "middle class" Wilson refers to as "working class," who he says are "vulnerable to job loss through economic restructuring" (Los Angeles Times, May 6, 1992). - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
Ian_Judge_Lord:
Limbaugh lied about 9-11 Commission report
On his show in late April, Limbaugh quoted a friend of his (but did not say he disapproved of the message — quite the opposite, in fact) saying that “Obama is terrorist attack #2; Obama is the follow-up to 9/11.”
Limbaugh falsely claimed "Nobody ever said there was" a connection between Iraq, 9-11 attacks
LIMBAUGH: Explaining why the Democrats wanted to "sabotage" President Bush with the 1990 budget deal: "Now, here is my point. In 1990, George Bush was president and was enjoying a 90 percent plus approval rating on the strength of our victories in the Persian Gulf War and Cold War." (Told You So, p. 304)
REALITY: In October 1990, when the budget deal was concluded the Gulf War had not yet been fought.
LIMBAUGH: On the Gulf War: "Everybody in the world was aligned with the United States except who? The United States Congress." (TV show, 4/18/94)
REALITY: Both houses of Congress voted to authorize the U.S. to use force against Iraq.Limbaugh misrepresented Duelfer report on Iraqi WMDs
Limbaugh lied about AIDS
LIMBAUGH: "The worst of all of this is the lie that condoms really protect against AIDS. The condom failure rate can be as high as 20 percent. Would you get on a plane -- or put your children on a plane -- if one of five passengers would be killed on the flight? Well, the statistic holds for condoms, folks." (Ought to Be, p. 135)
REALITY: A one in five AIDS risk for condom users? Not true, according to Dr. Joseph Kelaghan, who evaluates contraceptives for the National Institutes of Health. "There is substantive evidence that condoms prevent transmission if used consistently and properly," he said. He pointed to a nearly two-year study of couples in which one partner was HIV-positive. Among the 123 couples who used condoms regularly, there wasn't a single new infection (AP, 8/29/93).Limbaugh overstated the minimum wage
LIMBAUGH: Comparing the 1950s with the present: "And I might point out that poverty and economic disparities between the lower and upper classes were greater during the former period." (Told You So, p. 84)
REALITY: Income inequality, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, fell from the 1940s to the late 1960s, and then began rising. Inequality surpassed the 1950 level in 1982 and rose steadily to all-time highs in 1992. (Census Bureau's "Money Income of Households, Families and Persons in the United States")
Limbaugh: "Don't let the liberals deceive you into believing that a decade of sustained growth without inflation in America (in the '80s) resulted in a bigger gap between the have and the have-nots. Figures compiled by the Congressional Budget Office dispel that myth" (Limbaugh, The Way Things Ought to Be, p. 70).
Reality: CBO numbers for after-tax incomes show that in 1980 the richest fifth of our country had eight times the income of the poorest fifth. By 1989, the ratio was more than 20-to-1.
LIMBAUGH: "The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93)
REALITY: Huh? The average cash income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans is $5,226; The poorest 20 percent of Americans can purchase an average of $5,433 worth of goods with their income. Meanwhile,the average cash income of four major European nations--Germany, France, United Kingdom and Italy--is $19,708. In Germany, the average person can purchase $20,610 worth of goods; in France, $19,200; in Britain, $16,730 (World Development Report 1994, published by the World Bank).
LIMBAUGH: On the poverty line: "$14,400 for a family of four. That's not so bad." (Radio show, 11/9/93, quoted in FRQ, Winter/94)
REALITY: Just a few months earlier, Limbaugh was talking about how tough it was to make 10 times that: "I know families that make $180,000 a year and they don't consider themselves rich. Why, it costs them $20,000 a year to send their kids to school." (Radio show, 8/3/93, quoted in FRQ, Winter/94)Limbaugh made false claims about the Democratic National Convention
LIMBAUGH: On how to stop riots: "Richard Daley, in 1968, in the Democratic National Convention, issued an order--where there were rumors of riots--he issued a shoot-to-kill order. And there were no riots and there was no civil disobedience and no shots were fired and nobody was hurt. And that's what ought to happen." (TV show, 6/10/93)
REALITY: Mayor Daley's shoot-to-kill order was issued not at the Democratic Convention, but following the April 4, 1968 Martin Luther King assassination. Daley wasn't reacting to "rumors of riots" since riots had already broken out. The shoot-to-kill order hardly put an end to unrest--since four months after Daley's order, protesters flocked to Chicago's Democratic Convention and engaged in riotous civil disobedience. Protesters chanted, "The whole world is watching." Except for Rush Limbaugh.Limbaugh distorted the Kyoto Protocol
Rush's book -The Way Things Ought to Be ( 155-157): "Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive corporations in history.... Mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less 4 billion years' worth of them, so how can we destroy ozone?"
Reality: "Chlorine from natural sources is soluble, and so it gets rained out of the lower atmosphere," the journal Science explained (6/11/93). "CFCs, in contrast, are insoluble and inert and thus make it to the stratosphere to release their chlorine."
Science also noted that chlorine found in the stratosphere-- where it can eat away at Earth's protective ozone layer--is always found with other byproducts of CFCs, and not with the byproducts of natural chlorine sources.
"Ozone depletion is real, as certain as Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon," Dr. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at Irvine, told Extra!. "Natural causes of ozone depletion are not significant." - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
Ian_Judge_Lord:
Limbaugh falsely accused Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Limbaugh lied to defend Swift Boat VetsLimbaugh claimed Clintons are funding Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
LIMBAUGH: On Bill Clinton: "Never trust a draft dodger." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)
REALITY: Although a supporter of the Vietnam War, Limbaugh used a minor physical impairment to avoid the draft (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/27/93).LIMBAUGH: The lead item on a page of "Stupid Quotes" in the May '94 Limbaugh Letter--subtitled, "Folks, I don't make this stuff up"--was a quote attributed to Eleanor Clift on the McLaughlin Group: "Hillary and Bill Clinton cheating on their taxes was a protest against the Reagan era tax breaks for the wealthy.... They knew... the IRS would catch up to them and tack penalties.... If more people had been as far-sighted and altruistic as the Clintons, we could retroactively erase the deficit." Limbaugh commented, "It's only May, folks, and we've got our Stupid Quote of the year."
REALITY: Rush Limbaugh, April Fool. The item came from the April Fools Day issue of a right-wing newsletter, Notable Quotables. Each item in the newsletter was dated April 1 and the issue signed off with the words "April Fools." (The Limbaugh Letter later printed a correction on this and another April Fools quote used as fact.)
LIMBAUGH: On Whitewater: "I don't think the New York Times has run a story on this yet. I mean, we haven't done a thorough search, but I--there has not been a big one, front-page story, about this one that we can recall. So this has yet to create or get up to its full speed--if it weren't for us and the Wall Street Journal and the American Spectator, this would be one of the biggest and most well kept secrets going on in American politics today." (TV show, 2/17/94)
REALITY: The New York Times broke the Whitewater story on March 8, 1992, in a front-page story by Jeff Gerth that included much of the key information known today. The investigative article ran over 1,700 words.
LIMBAUGH: "You know the Clintons send Chelsea to the Sidwell Friends private school.... A recent eighth grade class assignment required students to write a paper on 'Why I Feel Guilty Being White". '... My source for this story is CBS News. I am not making it up." (Radio show, quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times, 1/16/94.)
REALITY: When Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times called CBS, the network denied running such a story. Ellis Turner, the director of external affairs for Sidwell Friends, told Roeper: "There is no legitimacy to the story that has been circulating.... We're anxious to let people know that this story is not true." The essay topic would be particularly difficult for the 28 percent of the school's student body that is not white.Limbaugh misstated Pew report on journalists
LIMBAUGH: Assailing a journalist who had criticized Nixon: "Michael Gartner, portraying himself as a balanced, objective journalist with years and years of experience faking events, and then reporting them as news--and doing so with the express hope of destroying General Motors in one case and destroying businesses that cut down trees, the timber industry, in another." (TV show, 4/27/94)
REALITY: Gartner, the NBC News president who resigned in the wake of the GM truck explosion episode on NBC's Dateline, had no hands-on role in it--nor had he expressed a hope of destroying any company.
LIMBAUGH: Equally accurate when denouncing a fellow conservative, he said of right-wing journalist Cliff Kincaid: "He's written all kinds of pieces about how I don't go make speeches for free, for the cause.... He's just one more of these little gnats out there trying to sink a Boeing 747 that's leaving him in a cloud of dust." (Radio show, 11/19/93)
REALITY: Kincaid's only published piece on whether Limbaugh does speeches "for the cause" was in Human Events (7/27/91): "He does his bit for conservatives when the movement calls. He waived his fees, for instance, when he emceed at roasts for Oliver North and Paul Weyrich and addressed the National Right to Life convention."Limbaugh mischaracterized the federal deficit
LIMBAUGH: "Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)
REALITY: Banks take no risks in issuing student loans, which are federally insured.
LIMBAUGH: "There's no such thing as an implied contract." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93)
REALITY: Every first-year law student knows there is.Limbaugh misstated federal education spending
Remarkably, when President Obama announced a plan to phase out vouchers for D.C. area schools, Limbaugh accused Obama of being racist, then stated that “they don’t want them (the kids) escaping the underclass regardless of race.” This goes beyond lying and into some kind of Twilight Zone of illogic.LIMBAUGH: "Oh, how they relished blaming Reagan administration policies, including the mythical reductions in HUD's budget for public housing, for creating all of the homeless! Budget cuts? There were no budget cuts! The budget figures show that actual construction of public housing increased during the Reagan years." (Ought to Be, p. 242-243)
REALITY: In 1980, 20,900 low-income public housing units were under construction; in 1988, 9,700, a decline of 54 percent ;Statistical Abstracts of the U.S).In terms of 1993 dollars, the HUD budget for the construction of new public housing was slashed from $6.3 billion in 1980 to $683 million in 1988. "We're getting out of the housing business. Period," a Reagan HUD official declared in 1985.LIMBAUGH: "If you have any doubts about the status of American health care, just compare it with that in other industrialized nations." (Told You So, p. 153)
REALITY: The United States ranks 19th in life expectancy and 20th in infant mortality among 23 industrialized nations, according to the CIA's 1993 World Fact Book. The U.S. also has the lowest health care satisfaction rate (11 percent) of the 10 largest industrialized nations (Health Affairs, vol. 9, no. 2).
LIMBAUGH: "Most Canadian physicians who are themselves in need of surgery, for example, scurry across the border to get it done right: the American way. They have found, through experience, that state medical care is too expensive, too slow and inefficient, and, most important, it doesn't provide adequate care for most people." (Told You So, p. 153)
REALITY: "Mr. Limbaugh's claim simply isn't true," says Dr. Hugh Scully, chair of the Canadian Medical Association's Council on Healing and Finance. "The vast majority of Canadians, including physicians, receive their care here in Canada. Those few Canadians who receive health care in the U.S. most often do because they have winter homes in the States--like Arizona and Florida--and have emergent health problems there." Medical care in Canada is hardly "too expensive"; it's provided free and covered by taxes. - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
Ian_Judge_Lord:
Limbaugh lied about Bush's false uranium claim
Oil is our buddy
"Oil is not the enemy. We can peacefully co-exist with oil while looking for the miracle alternative fuel source that everybody wants, but we're going to have to do that while using oil. Oil is not the enemy, folks. It's our buddy."
LIMBAUGH: "Those gas lines were a direct result of the foreign oil powers playing tough with us because they didn't fear Jimmy Carter." (Told You So, p. 112)
REALITY: The first--and most serious--gas lines occurred in late 1973/early 1974, during the administration of Limbaugh hero Richard Nixon.LIMBAUGH: Denouncing Jeremy Rifkin of the Beyond Beef campaign as an "ecopest": "Rifkin is bent out of shape because he says the cattle consume enough grain to feed hundreds of millions of people. The reason the cattle are eating the grain is so they can be fattened and slaughtered, after which they will feed people, who need a high protein diet." (Ought To Be, p. 110)
REALITY: Sixteen pounds of grain and soy is required to produce one pound of edible food from beef (USDA Economic Research Service). As for needing a "high-protein diet," the World Health Organization and U.S. Department of Agriculture recommend that from 4.5 percent to 6 percent of daily calories come from protein. The amount of calories from protein in rice is 8 percent; in wheat it's 17 percent (USDA Handbook No. 456).Limbaugh: "There are more acres of forestland in America today than when Columbus discovered the continent in 1492" (Limbaugh, See, I Told You So, p. 171).
Reality: Forestland in what are now the 50 states covered about 1 billion acres before European settlement, according to U.S. Forest Service historian Douglas MacCleery. Today, there are only 737 million acres of forestland, much of which lacks the ecological diversity of old-growth forest (the American Forestry Association).
LIMBAUGH: "Do you know we have more acreage of forest land in the United States today than we did at the time the constitution was written." (Radio show, 2/18/94)
REALITY: In what are now the 50 U.S. states, there were 850 million acres of forest land in the late 1700s vs. only 730 million today (The Bum's Rush, p. 136). Limbaugh's claim also ignores the fact that much of today's forests are single-species tree farms, as opposed to natural old-growth forests which support diverse ecosystems.
LIMBAUGH: "There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of genocide?" (Told You So, p. 68)
REALITY: According to Carl Shaw of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, estimates of the pre-Columbus population of what later became the United States range from 5 million to 15 million. Native populations in the late 19th century fell to 250,000, due in part to genocidal policies. Today the U.S.'s Native American population is about 2 million.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
LIMBAUGH: On the Republicans' "Contract With America": "The New York Times never ran anything on the contract 'til after the election. The rest of the news media hardly talked about it at all." (TV, 4/6/95)
REALITY: In the 42 days between the announcement of the "Contract with America" and the Nov. 8, 1994 election, the New York Times published 45 articles that mentioned the contract--more than one a day. The Nexis computer database reports that more than 1400 pieces mentioning the contract were published before the election.Rush: On California contractor C.C. Myers completing repairs 74 days early on the earthquake-damaged Santa Monica Freeway: "There was one key element that made this happen. One key thing: The governor of California declared the [freeway] a disaster area and by so doing eliminated the need for competitive bids.... Government got the hell out of the way." (TV show, 4/13/94) "They gave this guy [Myers] the job without having to go through the rigmarole...of giving 25 percent of the job to a minority-owned business and 25 percent to a woman." (TV show, 4/15/94)
Reality: There was competitive bidding: Myers beat four other contractors for the job. Affirmative action rules applied: At least 40 percent of the subcontracts went to minority or women-owned firms. Far from getting out of the way, dozens of state employees were on the job 24 hours a day. Furthermore, the federal government picked up the tab for the whole job (L.A. Times, 5/1/94). - 11 months ago
-
Ian_Judge_Lord
-
-
COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
-
This is pure idiocy!
- 11 months ago
-
COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
-
-
littlwarrior
-
This article is more than a little ridiculous.
- 11 months ago
-
littlwarrior
