Oh they are all guilty of that one. Ever watch Hardball with Chris Matthews?
Either way it will always comes down to this in the end:
"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
12-6-2009 show
- Thread starter ikez78
- Start date
Free episodes:
Oh they are all guilty of that one. Ever watch Hardball with Chris Matthews?
Either way it will always comes down to this in the end:
"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"
Oh they are all guilty of that one. Ever watch Hardball with Chris Matthews?
Either way it will always comes down to this in the end:
"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"
Oh hell, being a military vet, I can't let that moron Chris Matthews pass. Recall this past week or so, blathering about Obama's speech at West Point Matthews (being the FUCKING MORON he is) referred to West Point being Obama's enemy camp. Yeah, right ... the Commander in Chief appearing at West Point ... the enemy camp. Made my ass very tired.
Now back to the rest of my life .......
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
P
pixelsmith
Guest
i agree.
try and find a scientist that will debate AGW. nearly impossible. if you do find one he will say "the consensus is in and the debate is over", that is the only "science" the bring to the table. this is a conspiracy.
one reason they can not debate is the lack of data. they say that they lost it. they have NO data to prove AGW. it doesnt matter because their science is a belief system anyway.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
talk about a conspiracy...
P
pixelsmith
Guest
The CRUtape Letters™, an Alternative Explanation.
Comprehensive network analysis shows Climategate likely to be a leak Watts Up With That?
Schuyler
Misanthrope
I just find it kind of odd that our fellow citizens will disbelieve the government at the drop of a hat. Everything they say is wrong. Everything is a vast conspiracy. But when you get to global warming, which the government is pushing as true, everyone says, "Oh, yeah. That must be true."
It's like a kid who now knows Santa Claus is not real. The stork isn't real. He's angry that he's been lied to all these years. So you ask him about the Easter Bunny, and THAT he still believes.
It's like a kid who now knows Santa Claus is not real. The stork isn't real. He's angry that he's been lied to all these years. So you ask him about the Easter Bunny, and THAT he still believes.
cottonzway
I was saying boo-urns
What's this nonsense about Santa not being real? Who has been eating those cookies every year then? Blasphemy!
Bill O'Reilly says he is real. Isn't that enough?What's this nonsense about Santa not being real? Who has been eating those cookies every year then? Blasphemy!
ikez78
curious skeptic
I agree. I think it is possible that the science is correct but these people need to be transparent and explain their science to the general public if they want trillions of dollars from the general public. They can't just filter their views through a sympathetic media and shout down people who want to ask some questions.
ikez78
curious skeptic
Possibly the most partisan comment I've seen on this board and a shock to see it come from you Gene who I really respect.
I really doubt you cared about who or how the information was coming out when it was negative on Bush. This is about TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars on unsubstantiated claims and we can't ask questions? Well beneath you Gene, well beneath you.
ikez78
curious skeptic
You don't find it odd that none of the other "non partisan" news outlets won't cover this?
if global warming is a hoax, or the result of misguided scientific testing, I do want to know about it. All the major countries on the planet are making key decisions about the environment as a result.
But I do not depend on Fox News to be anything but flame throwers against viewpoints that don't fit the traditional neocon point of view. That's not news. It's opinion, and if they want to be that, they should drop this fair and balanced crap.
But I do not depend on Fox News to be anything but flame throwers against viewpoints that don't fit the traditional neocon point of view. That's not news. It's opinion, and if they want to be that, they should drop this fair and balanced crap.
They do more good than bad, even though they have a specific agenda. If you look at areas where Fox News has been exposed as taking quotes out of context, using old videos as new ones to convey a misleading viewpoint, and outright misrepresentation of the news, you have to be concerned.
I go by the stories Media Matters publishes, the research they are doing. In recent cases, Fox has begun to retract, so Media Matters can't be wrong a lot of the time.
Cover what specifically? ClimateGate? Yes they are, actually.
ikez78
curious skeptic
Making allegations and telling opponents that they must prove you wrong is NOT science.
grannysmith
Skilled Investigator
Erm ... there seems to be an unfortunate mix-up of phrases here.
I think the use of Wikipedia is okay for such a basic explanation.
teabagging : Wikimedia Error
"Teabagging is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth[1] or on or around the face (including the top of the head) of another person, often in a repeated in-and-out motion as in irrumatio. The practice resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea."
Shome mishtake shurely?
Surely the phrase is 'carpetbagger' : Wikimedia Error
"In modern usage in the United States, the term is sometimes used derisively to refer to a politician who runs for public office in an area in which he or she is not originally from and/or has only lived for a very short time."
Maybe not, though
ikez78
curious skeptic
non partisan? Congratulations on being part of a very small minority who thinks the networks aren't biased and biased towards Democrats. It's like me as a conservative claiming Fox isn't biased. It's intellectually dishonest. Just because you agree with their bias doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The evidence for global warming is out there. So I ask again: If there's evidence it's all fake -- other than the opinions of a few neocon flamethrowers and their minions -- let's have it out now. As I said, many of the major world powers are going to invest trillions into saving the environment. If this is truly junk science, something has to be done.
If it's just the result of knee-jerk skepticism from people who have other agendas, such as not wanting to pay the clean up bills, we can forget about it.
I am not against testing one's assumptions. But it has to be a scientific process, not played out on the air to keep the ratings up on a 24-hour news channel.
Sorry, but I think your comments are misplaced. Most of the media is owned by a small number of corporate conglomerates that care about nothing but making money. But some, such as Clear Channel and News Corporation, have a known conservative bent.
The so-called liberal media is a myth. Over 90% of radio talk show hosts are conservatives, not liberals. Not because of the potential audiences, but because the networks they work for are owned and/or managed by conservative leaning executives.