If you can't convince them, call them stupid.
Real Estate Investor · Belvidere, IL · Member since 2009 · 169 posts · 65 votes
I guess we'll see how that tactic works in November:
Speaking on health care Monday, Senator Diane Feinstein said, "I've gotten 90,000 emails and faxes on the health care bill and over 85,000 of them are against it. After all the debate we've had, I can't believe so many people still don't get it!"
This bill is one pile of smelly,stinky,rotten,skunk ridden garbage and the stupid demoncrats don't even see it :roll:
J Scott
You make the assumption that Glenn Beck was wrong. God forbid he was promoted for being right. We know Dan Rather was wrong, he admitted it.
Larry, Common Sense was murdered by one thing, GREED.
Sorry, Mike, but I think that Greed had several accomplices, two of them being Stupidity and Irresponsibility. I think Apathy was driving the get away car.
For all you Fox News fans, here's another example of on-air lies called out (this time by Jon Stewart) that you can try explaining to me...
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-8-2010/the-big-bang-treaty
Do they just not do their research? Do they not understand what they read during their research? Or do they purposefully lie?
It has to be one of those...
(By the way, see what I did there? I provided independent third-party data to support the claims I was making...pretty cool, huh?)
Perhaps I should have been more careful before assuming that people who got their news from The Daily Show were idiots -- according to Pew, those who watch The Daily Show know more about current events than those who get their news from any other source.
Bill O'Reilly is also high up there, but Fox News is all the way down at the bottom. I guess I should be revising my view of O'Reilly (more positive) and Fox News (even worse than I thought).
It's really sad when the most watched news network also has the most stupid audience (about politics, at least).
Larry
You are correct, Greed always has accomplices. A person's Greed always has contributing factors.
People take so many things for granted and won't miss it until it is taken away. Then, it is much more difficult to regain something than it is to hold something.
Until we get rid of Peolsi, Feinstein, Boxer, Reid and their ilk, we will continue to lose the freedoms that we hold so dear. I rue the day that this country may face if we get 8 years of the current administration.
Larry
You are correct, Greed always has accomplices. A person's Greed always has contributing factors.
People take so many things for granted and won't miss it until it is taken away. Then, it is much more difficult to regain something than it is to hold something.
Until we get rid of Peolsi, Feinstein, Boxer, Reid and their ilk, we will continue to lose the freedoms that we hold so dear. I rue the day that this country may face if we get 8 years of the current administration.
J Scott,
We'll just have to agree to disagree on some things. However, I would hope that on several issues you would at least be open to alternative views.
With respect to "climate gate" there are plenty more sources of information on that.- including the scientist at the center of the scandal, Phil "Hide The Decline" Jones himself.
Below are quotes from Mr. Jones. They are not from Rush Limbaugh, or Exxon Mobile. They are from Phil Jones:
Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.
‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
However, we have to be very careful that we are not naive. This means that conservatives have to avoid being pulled into a scientific debate that is truly more of a political and religious debate.
Proponents of global warming are a diverse bunch to be sure, and not all think the same way- but at the core of the "movement" are basically people who seek the destruction of the western capitalist economic model.
This is not in dispute, by the way- it's just fact.
The reason I hope we can agree that there's more to global warming than science, and the reason it is so critical to promoters of the theory that it be "man-made" even if they have to use the "nature trick" or "hide the decline" is that it's not their scientific careers that hang in the balance, but an entire world-wide political agenda.
To all- if you can make sense of this single issue to your lib friends- you will shatter the foundations of their belief system, and you will begin to unwind their cloudy thinking.
The key to converting liberals is to help them understand that they are the useful idiots for a handful of political elites who ultimately seek their destruction.
Well, to quote one of my favorite conservatives- the Grand Daddy of the Reagan Revolution, "I would remind you that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice; and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" (Barry Goldwater)
I happen to think that "extremism" in the sense that you ardently believe, support, and defend sound principles, rather than "cloud peoples minds" is actually a clarifying agent.
We ought not moderate in defending "The 5,000 Year Miracle"- this experiment in individual liberty and limited government that has changed the world.
We ought not return to the dark ages before the United States Consitution.
It is worthy of note that Hammurabi and George Washington essentially got around and communicated the same way, but look at us now.
Do our rights come from our Creator? Or does government define our rights?
The "Green Movement" is a watermelon. Green on the outside, but RED in the middle. It is not designed to save the planet, but to support a progressive political agenda that seeks to control our lives.
That's why the left is in a panic over the actual science. Get rid of the man-made global warming hysteria, and panic- and the progressives lose a major pretext for massive government control, taxation, and redistribution.
If that's your opinion then we likely agree more than we disagree.
This is a far cry from the ridiculous "The debate is over" and "the science is settled" nonsense we've been getting from the radical environmentalists.
To say that you're convinced one way or the other at this point in time is to put your faith in people who probably don't know what they're talking about (on both sides).
Paul,
I had an epiphany. I found the disconnect between scientific data disproving global warming and the scientific modeling "proving" it within my own previous post. Global warming scientists have abandoned the natural sciences and have gone to the applied sciences - which is why the whole argument is based on computer modeling. The applied sciences don't use the scientific method. They don't need it. They have their theoretical model in place and do nothing but R&D it until they reach the conclusion they have set out for. It's the Manhattan Project - only with weather and a lot of opportunities for legislative control and tort this time.
There is a problem....climate is itself an earth science, in other words a natural science. This is why more and more prominent meteorologists are coming out against the theory of global warming.
:roll: I dispute Newton's Theory of Gravity because it was disproven by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity
Good grief, first you botch the method for controlled experiments and now this.....and you MAJORED in an applied science? Keep telling us how much smarter and more qualified you are. :roll:
But getting back to the Rush Limbaugh opinion audit- it IS the "Sullivan Group". I don't know about all the connections between the founder and Rush- and personally don't care.
Rush is right enough of the time that he is, as he says, "On the cutting edge of societal evolution".
Nothing is more entertaining than when his jokes come true-- which with this President (Obama)-- happens quite frequently.
Case in point: Rush joked awhile back that Obama should be an American Idol judge. Lo, and behold...
http://www.observer.com/2010/daily-transom/obamas-appear-idol
Sounds like you've learned a lot from Rush...
You misunderstand. I don't care about your allegations of a conspiracy / friendship between Rush and the founder of The Sullivan Group.
You made THAT claim, and YOU claimed it compromised the data- so that would be for YOU to substantiate. I don't have to prove something you claim isn't true. That's not how it works. YOU make a claim, YOU back it up. THAT is how it works.
It's kind of like anthropogenic global warming. No one is obligated to provide any evidence that it's not happening. It is for those making the claim to substantiate. Thus far, they've been unable to do so.
For the rest of us to point that inconvenient truth out and be compared to holocaust deniers shows you the depravity of the promoters of the extreme environmental movement- and yes, I would put Al Gore out on the extreme fringe. He is well beyond the borders of rational, scientific discussion.