Beck said Gore using "same tactic" in fight against global warming as Hitler did against Jews
SUMMARY: On his radio program, Glenn Beck stated that Al
Gore is using "the same tactic" in his efforts to fight global warming that
Adolf Hitler used to vilify Jews in Nazi Germany, but Beck said that Gore's "goal is different. The goal is
globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The
goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal."
On the April 30 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Glenn Beck likened former Vice President Al Gore's fight against global warming to Adolf Hitler's use of eugenics as justification for exterminating 6 million European Jews. Beck stated: "Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government." He continued: "You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler's plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming." Beck added: "Then you get the scientists -- eugenics. You get the scientists -- global warming. Then you have to discredit the scientists who say, 'That's not right.' And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did."
Later in the broadcast, Beck plugged his upcoming CNN Headline News special criticizing those who urge action on global warming, titled "Exposed: Climate of Fear." Beck said of the program: "There is no balance to the special. I want you to know right up front. I am not saying that this is the end all truth. I am saying that this is the credible other side. ... It's what scientists used to hold up and say, 'This is what we do.' It's what colleges and universities used to hold up and say, 'Diversity of thought.' But it doesn't happen anymore. And before it's completely shut down, and before we're all sent to respect camps, make sure you watch it on Wednesday."
Beck further claimed that Gore is using misinformation to mobilize support for action on global warming, stating: "[T]hey're telling us things in Al Gore's global warming special that are not true, that the seas will rise 20 feet. Even the U.N. says that's not true. So you got to have the fear, we're all going to die." In fact, as Media Matters for America documented, a report released in February by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of the United Nations, supported an assertion regarding sea levels in Gore's book An Inconvenient Truth (Rodale Books, May 2006). In the book, Gore wrote that if the West Antarctic ice shelf "melted or slipped off its island mooring into the sea, it would raise sea levels worldwide by 20 feet." He added that "the West Antarctic ice shelf is virtually identical in size and mass to the Greenland ice dome, which also would raise sea levels worldwide by 20 feet if it melted or broke up and slipped into the sea" (Page 190). The IPCC noted that "[c]ontraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100" and that "[i]f a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m," which is equivalent to approximately 23 feet.
From the April 30 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
BECK: I go on vacation for three days, and I decide to take my family away. And I'm there at the beach, and we're reading. And I take -- my wife takes some magazines and stuff, and we take the books for the kids, and I take The Years of Extermination [HarperCollins, March 2007]. It's a new book. And I just -- 'cause it's, like, 800 billion pages thick. I'm just not going to have the time to read it. And I'm doing some research right now for some other thoughts that I have that are probably six months away from percolating.
And I'm reading this book trying to do some research. And what this book is, is how do you get people to kill people? How do you get -- not just Germany -- all of Europe to kill the Jews. To round them up and kill them. How do you do that? That's what this book is about. And it is a phenomenal -- it is scarier than Mein Kampf. I read Mein Kampf because -- that was my first foray into evil. And I read Mein Kampf, and I read it because I wanted to know -- did the Germans know?
Now, here's a book that outsold the Bible in World War II. Did they know? They clearly did. Why this book, The Years of Extermination, is more frightening is the whole world knew. And when you see what was in the papers at the time -- I kept reading it going, "Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. I have read these things in some places about the Jews, in some places about what's coming in other places on global warming. I have seen these things happening right now." And I understand World War II much, much better because we're here again, gang. We are here again.
And I read this one part on global warming about how they got -- what was the first thing they did to get people to exterminate the Jews. Now, I'm not saying that anybody's going to -- you know Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government.
You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler's plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming.
So, I read this paragraph -- and I must have read it, like, five times because I just kept going, "Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh." And I think I'm in a unique situation because I've heard from so many people, you've heard from so many people calling in and saying these things on the show.
Here's how they did it. First thing they did was they found a group of scientists that believed in eugenics, which basically is, "Breed your way to better people! Eugenics! Get rid of the defects, get rid of the races that aren't so strong. Breed a master race." For as insane, as insidious, and as out-and-out evil as it sounds today, believe it or not, in the 1920s and 1930s, that was cutting-edge science. And they said, "That is the answer. We can breed a master race." That's were the master race comes from: science and scientists. It was called eugenics.
So, Hitler took the master-race idea and eugenics -- an accepted, mainstream scientific belief -- and he got all the biggest scientists to come out and say, "This is it. This is the answer. It's the damn Jews. We get rid of the Jew bloodline, and we're fixed."
Now, how did you convince all of Europe to do it? You needed to have fear. You needed to have the fear of starvation. You needed to have the fear of the whole place going to hell in a handbasket. Which -- do we have that fear now with global warming? I mean, they're telling us things in Al Gore's global warming special that are not true, that the seas will rise 20 feet. Even the U.N. says that's not true. So you got to have the fear, we're all going to die.
Then you get the scientists -- eugenics. You get the scientists -- global warming. Then you have to discredit the scientists that say, "That's not right." And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did. That's what Al Gore, the U.N., and everybody on this global warming bandwagon -- all the way to RFK Junior, who has called me a fascist for doing it -- all the way over to the global warming special that happened over in London a couple of weeks ago that is fantastic.
They are now trying to -- are they suing or have they moved up to the arrest part yet, Stu [executive producer and head writer Steve Burguiere]? Where they are trying to punish the people for putting another view point out there -- on global warming. Then, the last step was to bring it into the schools. But here's the part that I read over and over again -- they didn't bring eugenics into the science classes. They brought it into the science class, but then they also brought it into the math class. They brought it into the literature class. They brought it into the history class. They brought it into P.E. They brought it into every single class. "This dirty Jew is trying to overcharge these Germans. How much of a profit will the Jew make by swindling money out of the Germans?" That -- those were actual problems that were introduced in math class.
What set the alarm bells off for me was, how many calls have I received in the last month from people saying, "My daughter was in art class. She's watching an Inconvenient Truth"? I just had a call last week, a guy says, "My son was in math, and he's watching Inconvenient Truth. What does An Inconvenient Truth have to do with math?"
My daughter is getting it as well. If you don't get on this train, the train is going to pull out of the station, and it's going to be moving at such a high rate of speed, you will not even be able to see the train. It has been foretold forever that that good will not understand bad, and bad will not understand good.
We are getting to a place where the average American is being fed so many lies at such a high rate of speed on so many different topics from immigration to our own government to even race relations to political correctness on Islamic extremism to global warming, that it is going to become an avalanche, and you're not going to be able to get way from it.
On Wednesday, the special that could end all specials -- the global warming special. There is no balance to the special. I want you to know right up front. I am not saying that this is the end-all truth. I am saying this is the credible other side. This is the other side of the argument. You want to hear about global warming -- great. Go watch the Al Gore special. It's the one your kids are being forced to watch. On Wednesday, force your kids to watch the other side of the debate.
It's what scientists used to hold up and say, "This is what we do." It's what colleges and universities used to hold up and say, "Diversity of thought." But it doesn't happen anymore. And before it's completely shut down, and before we're all sent to respect camps, make sure you watch it on Wednesday.
Oh, wait, wait, wait. I got a really good line that we can use. It's almost like it's from the Inconvenient Truth. Your very existence may depend on it.
Ah-ha. Is that good?
Thanks for posting this...I heard him speak about this on his radio show as well and believe his message is right on the money.
And all this time I thought MMFA only posted things they thought were lies and distortions.
Thas right, Goodfella. Now be a good fella and go burn a rainforest. Go on. You know you wanna. It'll feel sooooooo good.
And enlarge your house. Make it big. Real big. That way, you can drive your Hummer from your easy chair to your potty and back.
Remember: Oil will never end. The oceans will never rise. The ice will never melt.
There are no consequences. Ever. And the party goes on and on.
"Thas right, Goodfella. Now be a good fella and go burn a rainforest. Go on. You know you wanna. It'll feel sooooooo good.
And enlarge your house. Make it big. Real big. That way, you can drive your Hummer from your easy chair to your potty and back.
Remember: Oil will never end. The oceans will never rise. The ice will never melt.
There are no consequences. Ever. And the party goes on and on".- holly / Tuesday May 1, 2007 02:03:23 PM EST
This illustrates the point exactly...Please follow this because it is important: Just because we question the blatant left-wing agenda behind the current global warming hype, it does NOT mean we aren't concerned about clean air, clean water and environmental responsibility.
OK, but please follow this: what you call "the blatant left-wing agenda behind the current global warming hype," the rest of the world calls science.
"the rest of the world calls science"
And therefore there can be no debate left on the issue since it's a 100% fact. Is that correct? Or is it all right for someone to study the issue and actually dare to come up with a different conclusion? Or would that person be called "anti-science?"
And therefore there can be no debate left on the issue since it's a 100% fact. Is that correct?
No.
Oh, by all means - come up with a differing conclusion. But be sure to base it on all the scientific evidence you can come up with. Publish your hypothesis along with it's supporting data for review by the experts, colleagues and other professionals in the same or similar fields. Verify your conclusion by exposing it to rigorous testing. And when you're done, if 90% of your peers agree with your conclusion, I'll accept it as fact.
Just like they did with Intelligent Design...
This is why you conservatives have no credibility on environmental issues: http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fs%2Fap%2F20070501%2Fap_on_go_ca_st_pe%2Finterior_resignation
i guess rino missed the report today that arctic sea ice is melting three times more quickly than before. those dastardly global warming fanatics. there they go relying on the facts again.
Hun, you took a long time to parry. I'd long since sheathed my sword and now I'm down at the malt shop, sipping on a soda.
Still, the horns of battle sound and my hair prickles and it's...
...BATTLE again!
Talk is cheap. What do you do that manifests your caring for the environment? And what does your party do?
And why do you distrust the same scientists and processes who developed the microwave? The cellular phone? Do you avoid such technologies, which were developed by the same folks and the same processes who warned us of global warming?
And what's the hidden issue here? Are you more afraid of changing your lifestyle than a changing Earth?
I shave my head with flint.
It's a dry shave.
And I like it.
- holly / Tuesday May 1, 2007 02:20:45 PM EST
Still, the horns of battle sound and my hair prickles and it's...
- holly / Tuesday May 1, 2007 04:20:24 PM EST
I am so disillusioned right now that I feel nauseous. Holly, why did you lie? Was it out of some nefarious need to break my heart and spirit, or was it just a lark, unwitting of the pain your deception would cause? Sure, we liberals have been known to lie to promote our agenda. But THIS....this is beyond the pale. This is like....like.....Hitler. Geobbels would be proud of your follicle fallacies. Is this the end, or just the sprouts of the follicaust yet to come in your quest for tonsorial domination?
I'm just sick. I have nothing left to say.
Neon, I adore you.
But despair no more. Sure, I shave my head, but that isn't my only hair. It was my chest hair that prickled for battle. It would seem a nice mechanism, for it makes me seem larger, but alas, the cons see me and want to hug me, for I seem all foofy and fluffy.
No!
No! I won't let you do it again. This is absolutely the last time. You will not charm your way out of this one. I try to hate you, but you just won't let me. I end up hating myself for that.
Well I'm tired of hating myself, do you hear me?
...er...read me?
I'm tired of it. All this hate. All these lies. And for what? A couple laughs, some taunting of conservatives, making SavageRocks cry... But we haven't even managed to take away their guns yet. Oh sure, we got Imus. So when will ALL dissenting voices finally be silenced? When will I see religion outlawed? When will we finally have confiscatory carbon taxes on the rich? When will we finally be able to turn this country over to the Mexicans? I'm tired of waiting! I am tired of it!
So.........tired....
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to snap at you like that. It's probably just the patchouli talking. I can't blame it on you. I know deep down, you're not bad. You just write that way in our struggle toward socialism. And know that sometimes, being so close, I feel the heat from your flamethrowing keyboard against freedom. I promise I'll try to distance myself from now on, to allow you all the elbow room you need to operate and to hug trees.
I'm sorry. Forgive me?
Now, Neon, I double adore you.
"It's probably just the patchouli talking."
With you, it's always the patchouli talking. Always and forever.
"I can't blame it on you. I know deep down, you're not bad."
Bugs Bunny would turn to the camera at this point and quip, "He doesn't know me very well, does he?"
I wish I could write more, Neon, but like all card-carrying A.C.L.U. liberals, I have to head south, find some American-flag burning, Muslim Mexicans, bring them across the border, and enroll them in the White Folks R Us Academy of Old Tyme Christian Decency.
I just shaved my cat in anger! (My hair is already very short) Glenn Beck, you re a total doodoohead! There, I said it.
Crazymonkeylady said "doodoohead."
I'm tellin'.
Just because we question the blatant left-wing agenda behind the current global warming hype, it...
Goodfella, I hope you don't mind my asking, but what is our left-wing agenda behind the hype, again? Like usual, they didn't tell me about the meeting, so I didn't hear what the agenda was. I'd appreciate if they would not treat me so disrespectfully. I could help them. I'm smart. I'm not dumb like everybody says. I'm smart! And I want respect!
Anyway, I could help them out with this global warming project, if I knew the agenda. If you could provde that information, it would be much appreciated, since OUR guys don't seem to care that much (snark).
Me too. I got the smarts real good.
Ok, well I herewith question the United States' right to exist as a nation.
Are you gonna pull some Hitlerian tactics on me now, like maybe branding me a traitor?
You have every right to be skeptical. Just remember that the original Skeptics were philosophers, and philosophy requires knowledge.
So? What if protecting the environment is part a "blatant left-wing agenda?" Do you know what an "agenda" even is? It literally means "a list of things to do." What is so awful about that? Is it that wretched of the left to include trying to save our planet among their top priorities?
I think your problem is that your view of politics is always an agenda-driven view because of the more trivial right-wing agenda. Let's compare agendas, shall we:
The Left's Agenda:
The Right's Agenda:
I don't know, but when you really look at it, it almost seems like the right-wing agenda is more trivial and more evil than the left-wing agenda. In fact, nearly everything the right does can be seen as serving #1 on the list, winning elections. It's nice to know that the Republican congress spent it's last days trying to get flag-burning measures and gay marriage bans passed. A lot of good that did you in November. Maybe their time could have been better spent, I don't know, passing laws, creating policy, conducting oversight. I'm not saying the left doesn't have it's own agenda. I'm just saying that an agenda isn't always a bad thing when the goals are noble, worthwhile goals.
Do you remember what the right's agenda was during the last two years of Clinton's presidency? It was this:
That was it. Just the one bullet point. And they couldn't even get that done.
This is how it should have been posted MMFA style goes both ways....doesn’t it?!? Sorry I forgot, it doesn’t
The Liberal's Agenda:
The Conservative's Agenda:
And as far as what the right's last two years of Clinton's term.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
"Force Clinton out of office...funny thing, left has spent last 6 years trying to do the same to Bush (I must admit he’s a blunder)"
While much of your reply is debatable, your last point certainly is not. You're just wrong. Democrats have only been in power for a few months, not six years. Even before that, the best the left could do was Russ Feingold's proposed censure of the President, which got absolutely no support. Now that Dems are in power, they have publicly stated that impeachment is off the table. Quite a different scenario than Clinton's actual impeachment in 1999 by the Republican-led House. And while Clinton's impeachment was brought about exclusively for political ends, Bush could be impeached for any number of issues of grave importance to the nation and world as a whole. But hey, the Clinton impeachment did help better define what "sexual relations" meant, so it wasn't all bad.
funny you say that, every time i read an artcle about the Iraq war on MMFA i just hear a bunch of cries for the impeachment of Bush or Cheney. Yes Clinton was impeached because he commited pergory, a criminal offense. while the war in Iraq has been debated as illegal, it hasnt been proven.
BTW just because democrats werent in power the whole time, Many cried for Bush and Cheney's impeachment...well they did wait a while after 9/11 because they knew it'd hurt themselves to try it then.
Neither has Clintons perjury in fact he didnt commit perjury. To be perjury any lie he told would have to be material to the case, the judge said it wasnt. This is a lie wingnuts like to keep telling even though it has been shown to be wrong many, MANY times.
Sorry, I gave up reading your screed before I was half way finished.
You can say what you will about Cuba, but they do have the best health care system in Latin America.
You can say what you will about Cuba, but they do have the best health care system in Latin America.
And is that supposed to make them feel better? Money says YOU wouldn't let Cuban doctors do an apendectomy on yourself! And how would you compare cuban doctors to north american doctors? Why didn't you use that comparison? Because then you'd show everyone that you have no point!
Saying Cuba has the "best health care system in Latin America" is the kind of mentallity that creates the environment for disharmony between seekers of truth and those who claim to possess it all.
I am finally able to listen to Glenn Beck while at work, and I heard this show. Mmfa is supporting exactly what Beck says they would and it shows that mmfa and loony-liberals that someone has the balls to speak up against the tactic the left is using to force al gore's false version of global warming into acceptable realms. al gore does NOT know the truth about global warming and neither do ANY of you who constantly claim to have all the truth. You are all closed minded people who have accepted a lie for whatever reason and you now refuse to listen to debate on a subject there is NO absolute knowledge on! When you closed minded people start allowing debate perhaps something can be done to save the planet. Until then you will remain people with mental deficiencies.
Please, Autopsychic, bring to light the peer-reviewed facts that are being denied. Can your rhetoric, your name-calling, and your histrionic outbursts.
Your outrage is clear; please use the Beck-outlined analogy to its fullest.
Where are the following items:
For extra credit, please provide photographs of Al's "brownshirts" and the symbol they all wear and rally around.
Otherwise, keep carrying around with your comedic outbursts. I'm sure that hilarious outrage will not only convince everyone here that they're wrong and Beck's right, and that you're not just someone who likes to spout random invective.
"loony (sp)-liberals"
Ahh, he alliterated. Ain't that cute? If autopsychic were before me, I'd pinch his cheeks.
Regarding looniness, here's what every progressive can proclaim, now and forever: "I didn't vote for W."
Did you, autopsychic? If so, perhaps you should wonder about your looniness quotient.
Now, I'll rebut for you: "He's better than Kerry! He's better than Kerry!"
No, W is not better than anyone. I wonder if W is even bright enough to realize that he's not bright enough to undo the damage he's done. And I wonder how many Bush-voters comprehend the damage they've done. I don't just blame W. I blame those who voted for him. I know that's harsh, but with citizenship comes responsibility and accountability.
An addendum to my Bush diatribe:
Here's another possible defense for the sheer looniness of voting for Bush: "But he had an R by his name. I vote for the R-guys. Always and forever."
Did you, autopsychic? If so, perhaps you should wonder about your looniness quotient.
Yes. And I got what I voted for....2 new Surpeme Court Justices. AND they decided that a never needed abortion procedure was illegal! Much to the dismay of liberals throughout the land! And, if given the chance again, I'd vote for him for the same reason.
And once again we are graced with the insane rantings of Autopsychotic, moron in residence. A liar and a fool of epic proportions. Calling the position the vast majority of climate scientists have a lie, and pushing the proposition that OPINIONS by industry subsidized scientists should be given the same weight as STUDIES published in peer reviewed journals. leading with his strong suit, ABJECT STUPIDITY, Autopsychotic once again demostrates his inability to tell the difference between logic and a mental deficiency. It is clear that unless he somehow reaches the level of RECOGNIZING higher brain function even though it will remain far beyond his capacity to achieve, his prattle will continue to be completely without merit.
so good they even botched their president's surgery only to have it corrected where?!? oh in Miami.
beanzrus71 forgot to add, "Smear the queers."
And, "Win elections by smearing the queers."
And, "Distract from conservative disasters by smearing the queers."
And, "Smear the queers and like it. Really, really like it."
Funny, onlyone bringin up gay bashing was you. Apparently you have the same predjudice and hatred for conservative that you THINK they have for the gay community.
I do not agree with the gay lifestyle nor do i think it is right for anyone to have their civil rights violated because they are gay. With that said, I do not beleive that any minority has a right to FORCE their lifestyle upon those who do not aggree. people do have a right to be gay, they do not have a right to force others to think that gay is better, or deserves special treatment (need examples? why are gays only group to have ''pride'' parades where they get to ignore laws (indecent exposure!?!) or that their ''morality'' is the only one allowed to be taught in schools. I do not want my children to think that they are bad people unless they TRY to be gay, because that is the message the children are getting.
"The environment (you know, making sure our planet is still here tomorrow and Gore's pockets are even fatter than Gates!)"Even if people like Al Gore might have vested interests in film rentals, seminar fees, etc., what about the vested interests of big energy and thier ilk in the argument? Who really has more of a "fattening of pockets" over the longest stretch of time at heart in the issue of global warming?http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/exxonmobil-smoke-mirrors-hot.html(Also check this link out for a debunking of a particular WSJ article concerning global warming):http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=167"Health care (making sure people can afford to stay alive)Despite that socialist health care RUINS EVERYONES health care. Would YOU go to Cuba for open heart surgery "Interesting how Cuba was used as an example of atrocious social healthcare (probably thinking it an extreme example that would better bulwark a position for privatized healtcare) and yet the World Health Organization ranks the Cuban system only two notches below the American system. Also funny how all the major western countries with social healthcare are at the top of the list well above the U.S.http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.htmlhttp://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf"Civil Rights (ensuring that "all men created equal" isn't just a catchy slogan) But some are MORE equal than others."What are you trying to refer to in regards to the Animal Farm quote here? Affirmative action? No offense, but be more specific."Making government useful and accountable. HAHA that’s funny, no really you were serious?!?"A skeptical response here has some merit. I think it's become pretty clear that nearly all politicians, regardless of party, seem to have trouble with accountability. I think what the original comment was trying to suggest was that the Democratic party has more of a leaning to using government money for social programs and domestic issues, as opposed to slashing social domestic spending and then borrowing money from other countries to fund dubious military ventures, as recent Republican leaders seem wont to do."Win elections Uhh no crap. Can’t do anything if you’re not in power."I think the original comment needs a bit more explanation, so (to reference Animal Farm as has been done earlier) let me climb up the ladder with my paint brush for a moment (as you have already done with your reply). The original comment might have better read "win elections at any cost", or, perhaps, "subvert standards of ethics in government to win elections". Or maybe, if in reference to the current administartion, it should have just been changed to read"rig elections"."Blur the line between church and state. Why is it ok for leftists to appease Muslims but not any other religion?"I'm not quite sure how "leftists appease Muslims" in your eyes. Is the questioning and denouncing of unfounded attacks and generalizations in regards to Islam by certain people in the media (for instance, Glenn Beck, as in his "question to Keith Ellison" among other examples) to be considered an "appeasement" towards Muslims? Also, the original comment is in reference to the fact that many Republican politicians cater to the interests of fundamentalist-leaning Christian organizations and allow the beliefs of these oraganizations to hold influence on certain policy decisions that should be determined by the discourse of more secular ideas and information. The Democratic party does not have this type of religious lobbying going on in regards to the faith of Islam, so I'm not sure how making a statement that "leftists" "appease" Muslims is a relevant argument agaisnst a statement that the Republican party might be blurring the lines between church and state.
End of part 1
"Guns for everyone...that legally applies and qualifies for though current laws"
The point of the "guns for everyone" comment is that many politicians in the Republican party receive a lot of money from the N.R.A., an organization that wishes to (basically) abolish most or all gun control measures. Because of this funding, Republican politicians use their power to help relax gun control measures that dictate that people should, to paraphrase your statement, "legally apply and qualify for" firearms ownership. Those politicians who support the N.R.A. also work to make sure that the "current laws" concerning gun control can be circumvented, ie. their opposition towards stricter regulations on gun shows.
"Corporate welfare...if you mean free trade then yes."
I think the original comment may have been more in reference to subsidy's that are given to corporations by the Republican party. The use of the term "welfare" may also have been used to suggest a juxtaposition between the Republican party's tendency to approve of goverment assistance in regards to corporations while insisting on cuts to funding in regards to social welfare.
"Gratuitous sabre-rattling...ok now that’s just dumb.""Keep America scared...just because you have rose-colored glasses on doesn’t mean everything looks pretty."
These two go together, as the latter enables the former to be condoned and even applauded by many Americans. Note, for instance, the Bush administration's tactic of idly making reference to "9/11" or "terrorism" whenever they are backed into a corner by a hard question in regards to the failures of the Iraq war or what the American military is up to in Iran at the moment. One brief and somewhat current example: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/10/911-perino-iraq/This is the same tactic they used to convince the American public that the Iraq war was necessary in the first place. By bringing up the image of a bitterly despised enemy while discussing an objective/decision, it allows you to imply that the objective/decision that is being discussed is directly related to the activities or intentions of the enemy you have brought up. This is certainly an example of a "scare" tactic, and just because one questions the genuineness of the tactic does not mean that they have a view of the world through "rose-colored glasses". Since Animal Farm has been referenced previously, a more overt example of this scare tactic would be found here: "If a window was broken or a drain was blocked up, someone was certain to say that Snowball had come in the night and done it, and when the key of the store-shed was lost, the whole farm was convinced that Snowball had thrown it down the well. Curiously enough, they went on believing this even after the mislaid key was found under a sack of meal." Chapter 7, pg. 66The animals, if you remember, came to blame the character Snowball the pig for everything that went wrong on Animal Farm only after Napolean (their leader) had used Snowball as a scapegoat in explaining the first collapse of the windmill the animals had toiled over for so long. Of course, if referencing Orwell, 1984 would have far better quotations with which to compare the Bush administration's tactics to...
End of part 2 (I know, pretty long)Sorry about the last post - my font sizes are all jacked-up
"Guns for everyone...that legally applies and qualifies for though current laws"The point of the "guns for everyone" comment is that many politicians in the Republican party receive a lot of money from the N.R.A., an organization that wishes to (basically) abolish most or all gun control measures. Because of this funding, Republican politicians use their power to help relax gun control measures that dictate that people should, to paraphrase your statement, "legally apply and qualify for" firearms ownership. Those politicians who support the N.R.A. also work to make sure that the "current laws" concerning gun control can be circumvented, ie. their opposition towards stricter regulations on gun shows."Corporate welfare...if you mean free trade then yes."I think the original comment may have been more in reference to subsidy's that are given to corporations by the Republican party. The use of the term "welfare" may also have been used to suggest a juxtaposition between the Republican party's tendency to approve of goverment assistance in regards to corporations while insisting on cuts to funding in regards to social welfare."Gratuitous sabre-rattling...ok now that’s just dumb.""Keep America scared...just because you have rose-colored glasses on doesn’t mean everything looks pretty."These two go together, as the latter enables the former to be condoned and even applauded by many Americans. Note, for instance, the Bush administration's tactic of idly making reference to "9/11" or "terrorism" whenever they are backed into a corner by a hard question in regards to the failures of the Iraq war or what the American military is up to in Iran at the moment. One brief and somewhat current example: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/10/911-perino-iraq/This is the same tactic they used to convince the American public that the Iraq war was necessary in the first place. By bringing up the image of a bitterly despised enemy while discussing an objective/decision, it allows you to imply that the objective/decision that is being discussed is directly related to the activities or intentions of the enemy you have brought up. This is certainly an example of a "scare" tactic, and just because one questions the genuineness of the tactic does not mean that they have a view of the world through "rose-colored glasses". Since Animal Farm has been referenced previously, a more overt example of this scare tactic would be found here: "If a window was broken or a drain was blocked up, someone was certain to say that Snowball had come in the night and done it, and when the key of the store-shed was lost, the whole farm was convinced that Snowball had thrown it down the well. Curiously enough, they went on believing this even after the mislaid key was found under a sack of meal." Chapter 7, pg. 66The animals, if you remember, came to blame the character Snowball the pig for everything that went wrong on Animal Farm only after Napolean (their leader) had used Snowball as a scapegoat in explaining the first collapse of the windmill the animals had toiled over for so long. Of course, if referencing Orwell, 1984 would have far better quotations with which to compare the Bush administration's tactics to...
End of part 2 (i know too lon, and the font size is probably wrong, by the computer I'm on sucks)
Damn - this sucks. All that furious typing and for nothing, lol - I had saved the original stuff I typed on my computer, because my original post was too long, but it doesn't look as though I'm going to be able to post the rest of my laundry list because of font size issues. Oh well - please only consider my first post then. ;)
Im sorry, apparently you didnt read my post carefully. I said CONSERVATIVE adjenda not republican. I understand your points, but my point of this post was to show that they were being drastically exaggerated hence the sarcasm in my response. BOTH sides in their extremes are not good for this country.
You cannot design a society to benefit ONLY the minorities and forget about the Majority. It is so rare to see people able to look beyond what ''their party'' wants, they forget that life is about compromise...BOTH WAYS.
Okay. Good post, and good point. I would agree with your reply(although, just as an afterthought, I think in this case I was using the terms "conservative" and "Republican" synonymously as the Republican party seems to be more inclined to support conservative positions). I think I just got a little too wrapped up in writing the whole thing anyways, lol. I was just trying to write a couple counterpoints to your counterpoints and got carried away. (Thanks for not making fun of my font size issues, btw:)
"Just because we question the blatant left wing agenda behind the current global warming hype, it does NOT mean we aren't concerned about clean air, clean water and environmental responsibility." _ Goodfella57
Actually, it does.
If you haven't yet been able to figure out that the opposition to the overwhelming scientific consensus of Global Warming is conceived, funded, & promoted by the fossil fuel industry, then ideology is far more important to you than a clean environment. You care less about the very elements that you are forced to exist within than the lame comforts to be found in huddling with the confused, paranoid 'rebels' of the far right. Better to be part of that sneering wad then to accept truths that demand changes within your own lifestyle.
Global Warming is real. The sad fact the Big Oil's money can buy off a few fringe scientists (who rigorously refrain from publishing any peer-reviewed studies on the subject) should not be enough to convince thinking people of giving up their own vital interests, or... more importantly... the vital interests of future generations. To do so is to be a complete & self-deluding sap.
Like most things in life, if you want to know the truth, just follow the money.
No they also post basic stupidity parading as commentary. This qualifies. I wonder where the Global Warming concentration camps are?
And which message is that?
That there are no consequences from mankind's desecration of the environment?
Or that Al Gore is the next Hitler?
If Beck wants to raise reasoned, researched and civil arguments to counter what Gore and a vast majority of the climate science community asserts, I have no problem with him doing so. I'm sure he'll make big oil and big coal proud.
But why does he, like many reichwingers, feel the need to constantly invoke Hitler? The man is simply drawing parallels that exist in his feeble, recovering-addict mind.
yes, why are the republics constantly evoking Hitler recently?
Delay, Beck, that clown from the Imus broadcast debacle come to mind of late.
Why? because they like Hitler!
Reason 1. Because there is a man in Iran that would LOVE to repeat the holocost.
Reason 2. Because Gore is using similar propaganda techniques to early ''supremicy'' tactics that Hitler used to convince his nation that they had to ''save the world from destruction''...i.e. green is the supreme race!!
Dont get me wrong I care about the environment. But seriously, how come nobody that pushes Global Warming takes in consideration Natural Occurances. As much crap we do to ruin the earth, we are still gnats upon its back.
Gnats? Nah. We're more like straw, and the globe like a camel.
Wow, that's like nazi comparison #87 for the right now, right?
"Brings to mind a certain individual who rose to power through hate mongering and blatantly lying. Adolf Hitler was one of the most successful individuals in history before the tide turned in the war. Can you make the same claim that Hitler was not actually insane because he was smart enough, resourceful enough, popular enough, and influential enough to become the supreme leader of an actual attemp to take over the world"
Poster RSTYBEACH266: Talking about O'Reilly in recent O'Reilly thread.
And you guys say that it's only conservatives that invoke Hitler comparisons? Give me a break. You guys do it all the time! You often compare Bush, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and other conservatives to Hitler. I don't think that it's right for Beck to compare Gore to Hitler, but to say that only the right engages in this is ludicrous. The left has gone crazy with Bush-Hitler comparisons in the past six years.
I'm willing to entertain your position, Rino, but let's be fair and compare apples to apples instead of a nationally syndicated radio and television host to a poster in a website forum. Can you find an example of a cable news host comparing a Republican politician on the order of a former Vice President or party presidential nominee to Hitler?
You just hit the nail on the head. All of the banter here seems to be focusing on the word 'hitler' and not on the TOPIC. Beck is referring to the scare tactics of Hitler to those of Gore. He is NOT saying that Gore IS Hitler, or that he is going to round up all of the Jews. If you read the whole article you can see that.
Once again, emotional tirades are set off by people seeing just a few words they don't like instead of actually understanding the article and intent.
Beck is right... Gore is using fear and scare tactics to fund green businesses and make money.
Cannonba11, you're thinking like Charles Manson. And you're reasoning like Jeffrey Dahmer. And your values are congruent with Goebbels.
Now, I'm not saying that you're one third Manson, one third Dahmer, and one third Goebbels. I'm just talking about cognition, reasoning, and values.
Okay?
Love and kisses,
Holly
Ah, now I understand. So if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... then it's just less interested in the environment than in funding green businesses?
Holly -- sigh. You are my hero.
Thanks, Babe! I'll accept that as long only as long as you get to be my hero right back.
Fair enough. I agree with you that Beck is drawing a comparison between the tactics of Gore and Hitler, not the men themselves nor their particular goals. But please don't assume that I didn't read the article or that I don't recognize that distinction. I was just replying to Rino's post, which dealt with comparisons to Hitler by posters on this site in general.
But yes, you're right -- global warming and responses to it have nothing to do with Hitler or Nazism or genocide. Beck is talking about the use of scare tactics, which have existed long before Nazism, and for which there are much better and more interesting historical comparisons. Beck is just trying to be as provocative as possible by invoking Hitler.
My point is simply that if Beck wanted to say that Gore is using scare tactics, he could have said just that. Instead, he chose to invoke Hitler, and went on at length about the supposed similarity of their tactics. If there's really so much merit to Beck's message, one wonders why he had to resort to such a rhetorical cheap shot.
So then he isnt saying Gore IS Hitler he is just saying Gore is doing things that compare with rounding up millions of people starving working and gassing them to DEATH causing the deaths of several million people? Yeah, thats all the difference in the world.
Tactics, my anal area. Beck is making a huge loopy, convoluted argument so that he can compare Gore, who is supported in his ideas and conclusions by thousands of scientists and world leaders, and Hitler, who was supported by other crazed psycopaths. Hitler used lies and deception, Gore uses scientific research and power point. There is no honest, legitimate comparison to be made. Anyone who compares the two is obviously making a sneak on Gore the human being, not the scientific evidence, not the ideas, and certainly not contributing to the debates surrounding global climate change.
"Beck is right... Gore is using fear and scare tactics to fund green businesses and make money."
The republicans have been using fear and scare tactics to try to stay in office for the past six years. Can't remember any instances of cable news network hosts making a direct comparison between a Republican and Hitler, yet their campaign of fear and terror-mongering was far more pervasive and successful than anything Al Gore has done or has tried to do.
Rino, I agree with you. It happens on both sides and it shouldn't. I'm actually doing a book right now about one of Dr. Mengele's subjects and so I'm deep into the details of SS doctors amputating the limbs of children and filling them with diseases.
As Jon Stewart noted, the Nazis attacking north, east, south, and west and executing the Holocaust doesn't produce facile comparisons.
Whenever a Nazi analogy is made, decent people should respond with disdain and disgust.
I am very interested in reading that book, Holly. When do you imagine it will be completed?
Rhino,
I seldom see or hear liberals actually compare conservatives to Hitler. We just point out the fact that the Bush Toadies often behave like fascists.
Liberals on this site and others often compare Hitler's mass murdering in WWII to Bush's "killing of Iraqis." As sick as that comparison is, it happens all the time.
Does it, really?
Did someone say ONLY conservatives did that? I didnt see any such assertion. I saw the self evident assertion that conservatives DO do it. Strawman alert. Once again arguing what NO ONE SAID because its easier than arguing what actually WAS said.
Well, that's because of all the eerie similarities.
On Hitler. Sandro Bocolo felt that his superego had taken over his personality.I don't like to engage in wheelchair psychoanalisis, But I beleive thats the part of you were everything is bright and floaty. Wagnerian music for the soul. Its just occasionally life bites. Folks like this have a hard time with bad news. I don't think its believable till it actually touches me kind of out look.
What's frightening is where you see people who act a bit like this, and where you find them.
Good call, PETE592. The question of why the likes of Glenn, Rush, and co. spend most of their time "refuting" the hard science of global warming by merely going off on juvenile namecalling bouts on people like Al Gore underscores the fact that they have no factual basis on which to disagree with anthropogenic climate change. My coworkers have both Glenn and Rush tuned in on the radio everyday, and I haven't yet heard any empirical evidence on either program that seriously challenges the science of global warming.
I remember one call in particular that Rush received from a lady who was looking for information on how to debunk An Inconvenient Truth. Rush's advice on the matter ran the gamut from trying to discredit a photo that didn't even appear in the film (the oft-referenced "stranded polar bear" picture) to simply not watching the film at all. And isn't it funny how every now and then Glenn Beck will come out and make a little disclaimer somewhere along the lines of "...now I am not a journalist..." or "There is no balance to the special. I want you to know right up front. I am not saying that this is the end all truth." Isn't that the sort of thing people typically say when they're getting ready to B.S. you? Also, "Exposed: Climate of Fear" would seem a more apt title for Beck's former special in which he passionately excoriates the Muslim world. (Come to think of it, the "Exposed: Climate of Fear" line could just be used as a subtitle for his programs in general)
Oh, and as an additional thought, since I did mention I listen to both Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh everyday - I haven't seen one instance in which MMFA took them out of context or twisted their words.
Come one, reichwingers?!? Liberals are the ones trying to turn America into a SOCIALIST STATE. BTW...Hitler was a socialist.
Hi Beanz,
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Equating Hitler's socialism with American liberal politics makes about as much sense as equating neoliberalism, libertarianism, and liberalism because they share an etymological root. Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, but the term "National Socialist" referred to a oneness between the nation-state, society, and the German people. Hitler didn't even like that title; he wanted the party to be called the "Social Revolutionary Party". The Nazis hated Bolshevism, Marxism, and most other forms of socialism because they deemed them to be the product of Jewish thinkers. The Nazis were adamantly anti-communist; they were against economic and political liberalism; and they rose to power in opposition to German socialists.
Peace.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
If you are listening to this diatribe from our poor Mr. Beck and your head is nodding in approval, or you had an epiphany as you heard these perverse conflagrations, please take your electronic devises out of the home, and contact your state mental health services for the next available lobotomy!I believe that if your faith, if your intellect, if your moral beliefs lead you down the same paths as Mr. Beck, than your mental health, and most certainly the rest of mankind's sense of security would be pleased to help you in taking the only civil steps feasable for you!
In the spirit of bi-partisanship, American Patriotism, and concern for the billions of us that will never appeal to your sensibilities, I hereby propose: FREE LABOTOMIES FOR ALL BECK, O’RIELLY, OR LIMBAUGH LISTENERS INSPITE OR DISPITE YOUR RACE, COLOR, CREED OR SEXUAL PREFERANCE (IN OR OUT)!!!Happy Thoughts;Dan GradyUmmm . . o-kay. I can definitely see how the institutionalized killing of 6 million babies, women, men -- even the handicapped -- is analogous to the effort to stem global warming.
Pardon my asking, but are you nucking futs?
..'It's, like, 800 billion pages long...'- WOW! With sentiments such as that, I'm all for listening to Beck talk about science!! And, really... 'What does An Inconvienent Truth have to do with math.....??????' Is he off his rocker?
There is no global warming. Oil will last forever. American torture is good torture.
Party on, Dudes!
Yep. Beck is the leader of beligerent, dumbguy cheerleading. The fact that the guy above publicly supports him says volumes.
Oh. My. God.
This is why debate and rhetoric courses need to be mandatory in school. Then, maybe, people would hear this kind of vomitous drivel and recognize it for what it is.
I need to dust off some old books myself so I am using the right terminology. How many examples of false reasoning do we have here? Circular logic? Straw man? Etc. Help me out here.
I'm pushing for a course in critical thinking to be added to the high school curiculum in our district. Currently, the districts approach is to teach critical thinking only through application in other subjects, e.g., history. I doubt the efficacy of such an approach when the student lacks any foundation in formal and informal logic. That seems to make as much sense as teaching reading and math only through other subjects.
Unfortunately, I have yet to locate studies that support my hypothesis. There's alot written around the subject, including some that show U.S. students' weak ability, to but nothing that offers statistical support for a solution. Perhaps some contacts with some university professors will yield something. If that fails, maybe one of them will be interested in such a study.
I really think it would do wonders for civil discourse in this country. Keep pushing it. Please.
TEACH:
How many of the following arguments have been forwarded by the ANTI-Global Warming forces? These are the mainstays of rightwing debate, and yet each, in its own way, is a LOGICAL FALLACY ... meaning ... they are not arguments at all:
"Ad Hominem" -- Al Gore is a socialist, and wishes to become rich by getting funding for "green" projects. Therefore, his environmental claims are false.
"Ad Hominem Tu Quoque" -- Al Gore drives cars and flies in jets, therefore his information about the environment must be false.
"Appeal to Authority" -- Expert on the Constitution Ann Coulter says Global Warming is a myth.
"Appeal to Belief" -- America is a good and just nation, therefore America cannot be harming the environment.
"Appeal to Common Practice" -- The rest of the world will not adopt environmental practices that harm their profit taking, so the United States should not, either.
"Appeal to Consequences of a Belief" -- If you believe mere man can harm God's creation, earth, then you cannot believe in God.
"Appeal to Emotion" -- Advocates of Global warming are just jealous of success; they don't want you enjoying big houses and big cars.
"Appeal to Fear" -- The Global Warming myth is just the vehicle for world domination by the UN.
"Appeal to Flattery" -- You are the people who made America great, and now Al Gore wants to make you feel guilty.
"Appeal to Novelty" -- Trees NEED Carbon Dioxide, how can man's production of this compound be "pollution" or harmful?
"Appeal to Pity" -- Global Warming advocates wish to destroy America's industry and economy.
"Appeal to Popularity" -- Environmentalists want to change everyone's lifestyle, and no American will willingly give in to such arrogant demands.
"Appeal to Ridicule" -- If Al Gore is worried about hot air, he should just shut up.
"Appeal to Spite" -- Al Gore has a big house and spends a fortune on energy; he just wants YOU to cut back.
"Appeal to Tradition" -- Climates change; always have, always will.
"Bandwagon" -- Since environmental restrictions would fall most heavily on those with the most money, Global Warming advocacy is a form of Class Warfare.
"Begging the Question" -- Man cannot destroy the earth, because, after all, the earth still exists.
"Biased Sample" -- Adapting to climate change, rather than restrictions on business, is the only feasible strategy, according to a panel of scientists funded by EXXON.
"Burden of Proof" -- Global Warming alarmism is just "theory" ... none of the catastrophic events they predict have occured.
"Circumstantial Ad Hominem" -- Democrats are Socialists who hate businesses, so of course they embrace environmental restrictions in the name of "Saving the Planet".
"Composition" -- A volcano, a natural occurance, spews far more pollutants than an automobile. Therefore, preventing automobile pollution is useless.
"Confusing Cause and Effect" -- Of COURSE Americans are using more energy for heating and air conditioning; after all, the weather has been more severe lately.
"Division" -- North Korea has an envoy to the UN, and the UN supports Global Warming prevention measures. North Korea opposes the USA, therefore the UN wishes to destroy America.
PART II:
"False Dilemma" -- If we fall for this Global Warming nonsense, America can no longer enjoy prosperity."Gambler's Fallacy" -- America has thrived for 200 years without worrying about environmental calamity."Genetic Fallacy" -- It's no coincidence that all the Global Warming alarmism is being promoted by the Liberal Media."Guilt By Association" -- Of course PETA endorses Al Gore's Global Warming claims; they're the people who blow up labs with animals inside."Hasty Generalization" -- Global Warming advocates predicted a record number of hurricanes last season, but there were fewer than usual. Therefore, these people don't know what they're talking about."Ignoring A Common Cause" -- A Global Warming rally was cancelled due to an unseasonable and severe ice storm; the irony was hilarious."Middle Ground" -- Toxic levels of mercury cause many health problems, but clean-up is expensive. A compromise allows polluters to sell "mercury pollution credits" to other states."Misleading Vividness" -- In the USSR, industry and their economy was DESTROYED by government control. Therefore, the government should not regulate OUR industry."Personal Attack" -- This whole "Earth in the Balance" nonsense is all about Al Gore's ego and need for attention."Poisoning the Well" -- Al Gore is a "Sore Loserman", so whatever he promotes must be a loser as well."Post Hoc" -- Bush wins the election, THEN this Global Warming controversy explodes. Clearly, this is only an attempt to undermine Bush."Questionable Cause" -- Bovine flatulence emits more methane than humans produce; why wouldn't THAT be the cause of the hole in the ozone layer?"Red Herring" -- When America is weakened by Global Warming prevention measures, the terrorists will be cheering."Relativist Fallacy" -- Nobody I know has been harmed by any environmental hazards."Slippery Slope" -- If the Kyoto Treaty is signed, then America forfeits any claim to sovereignty."Special Pleading" -- Driving an SUV is a symbol of success; these environmentalists only wish to PUNISH the successful."Spotlight" -- Rightwing radio hosts have the largest audiences, therefore opposition of Al Gore must be the popular and correct stance."Straw Man" -- We are told that ONLY Government Action can solve a crisis."Two Wrongs Make A Right" -- These radical environmentals will put spikes in trees, to injure loggers. These environmentalist wackos are all terrorists, and we cannot listen to them.-------The above are not "arguments", they are logic fallacies masquerading as "debate", but which are intellectually dishonest and make no valid point. This is the rightwing's stock-in-trade.
Tex - you are the man! Thank you.
Wow. I don't know why that happened, sorry.
Yes! Gore is Hitler! Just like the Jews, Gore wants to eliminate the pollution! He wants to eliminate the excess, inorganic carbon which is working so hard to liberate the oppressed water from the ice shelves. His efforts are sending the wrong message and is only emboldening the earth. If we stop polluting now, the ice will grow back and follow us to our shores where the ice once stood!
Yikes! The ice is alive? It's sentient? Malicious? Death to the ice! Exxon and Hummer, save us!
Bush, the next time you need to drive, take 46 Suburbans! No, 112! Everyone else do the same.
First they came for Bernard McGuirk. Now they are coming for Exxon and Haliburton. Will right wing suffering ever end?
Wookie, weep with me for Halliburton. Let's weep and wail and gnash our teeth.
My new slogan: Heck, Beck, no more dreck.
How about "Beck and the righties, sitting in a tree, f-e-a-r-i-n-g!"
Just when you think this guy can't stoop any lower.... Comparing climate science to eugenics? Give me a break. I guess in his world view it's impossible to conceive that there are people who might actually just be motivated by trying to save the world. No, there must be some ulterior motive of greed and power.
I realize Mr. L already mentioned this line, but I think it is very important;
"What does An Inconvenient Truth have to do with math?"
This question may reveal an "inconvenient truth" for Beck and his like-minded fans.Is this the same thinking that thinks every cold day refutes Climate Change?
Right... The bottom line is, Beck is appealing to morons who look up to a guy like Beck as a 'smart guy'. I am no 'intellectual elitist'... but, if you examine Beck's so-called 'credentials'... 1) he never attended college, 2) he is a 'reformed' alcohol and drug abuser, 3) he is a converted Mormon...
Now, I may be no genius... but, none of those three credentials (literally, the top three) seem to qualify Beck for anything... let alone adequate commentary on matters of science, politics or economics. The guy is a sham. A snake-oil salesman.
"You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power."
Classic NeoClown projection. Isn't this exactly what the Bush toadies have been doing with their "War on Turr"?
Beck is just doing the bidding of his corporate sugardaddies. I guess I can't blame him. If they handed me millions of dollars, I'd probably spout nonsense, too.
The big difference is, Bush had the support of the world and he squandered it.
Beck forgets just one little tiny important thing.
The studies on global warming that state that it is indeed real, and being increased by the output of different pollutants from manmade sources have been scientifically vetted many times over by different groups. You know, peer review. What real scientists actually do. This is in total opposition to whatever it is Beck is going to do, as I'm certain that whomever he has on his show will offer nothing but opinion based on studies that they completed that have indeed not been vetted by the scientific community at large. From what I have seen and read about the so called global warming debunkers is that the information and methods in which they culled it all have not been peer reviewed, and have not been verified, and that most of the so called debunkers don't want it to be reviewed and or analyzed, and of course, they are in the vast minority.
Why I still don't understand, and some right wingers help me out here, is why is it bad to want to decrease pollution on the Earth? How did this become a right wing / left wing issue? This is an Earth issue, and we all should be concerned about what happens to the planet that we live on. Right?
Ofcourse it is a good thing to save the planet for future generations.
Beck believes in global warming and has said so many times. He though believes that we have to be careful what we do because peoples jobs are at stake here. If companies in China are given a pass on co2 production and American companies have to pay billions to convert their factories to release less co2 they will simply move to China - putting Americans out of work and doing nothing to reduce co2. The co2 will just move from the usa to china.
I'm for saving the planet but lets do it in a fair way. All countries must participate and rich people should not get a free pass. They should not be able to fly around in private jets while everybody else has to drive a hybrid. If environmentalists paid more attention to these issues and argued for nuclear power to reduce co2, I swear to god I would join them in a protest or two. I may look out of place showing up in my bmw and short hair and a suit but darn it I would be there !
Skettle, both sides tried to work out a compromise on the developing nations. Their argument is that the West built its economy on dirty power and now that we are wealthy we want everyone else to be green. The U.S./Australia argument is pretty much what you said. Oddly, Europe, which also stands to lose by cleaning up their (absolutley filthy) heavy industry, is going even further beyond Kyoto.
If you can come up with a better way out of the developing vs. developed nations bind than Kyoto, you should let people know. My opinion is that a flawed treaty is better than nothing, which is what we have now.
I do see your point that a flawed treaty is better than no treaty. We though must put pressure on the other countries to reduce co2. And we all have to set examples - which means not flying around in private jets - no matter who you are. This includes Beck, Gore, Hollywood, Bill Gates and whoever else. And no bogus carbon offset credits. Also I would like to see congress have to set the thermostats to minimum 74 degrees in the summer to set example for everyone. If these things happen I'm there with you brother and sisters - I will go to the rallies !
I understand what you are getting at, but I don't accept the frame that this is primarily an issue of personal abstemiousness, like Jimmy Carter with the sweaters. The solution needs to be global, and it needs to be systematic. You and I riding our bikes to work might be a nice gesture, but I don't think it really does anything to solve the problem.
I recommend you take a look at carbon offset before dismissing it out of hand. Again, let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
I feel it is downright insane that people fly around in private jets while others have to cut back.
Envy isn't a good basis for a counter-argument. If something is right, I would think you would do it regardless of others' views on it. Could others be doing more, whether Al Gore of your neighbor three houses down? Possibly. Should that reflect on your behavior? No.
If you believe in the cause, you should act on it, rather than point at others and complain that they're as bad or worse.
Edison didn't b!tch about darkness, so they say.
while everybody else has to drive a hybrid.
Try and get yourself a Hybrid. They can barely keep the things in stock, even though they're more expensive than conventional cars. It's a perfect demonstration on how something can be done, can be done fairly, and can spur product development in new areas that can create new jobs.
It is unreal that CNN keeps this moron around.... oh, wait- CNN is prepping for the right in the '08 elections...
At my son's wedding last summer, I met someone who works in the business side of CNN management. She said that Christiana Amanpour was irate that Beck was hired as an on-air personality. I guess her opinion as managing editor was overruled by the money peeps. All the "news" that's fit to sell.
Okay...I was being flippant in my last posting. But really, the point he is making is this: When was it decided that there was no further debate, scientific or otherwise, on the issue of man-made global warming? It's like there is a movement to silence any further debate on the subject. Beck is saying that there is danger in disagreement...
If one even questions the global warming evidence or points out inconsistencies, you risk being branded a fascist (as Robert Kennedy did to Glenn Beck over this very issue).
Look, one can't deny that climate change is happening (almost 1 whole degree in the last 100 years!), furthermore, one can't deny that human activity may be a factor - but the whole "carbon tax" is nothing more than wealth distribution and will cost billions and may not have an effect.
Let's do something real with that money - like provide clean water for third world countries, or wipe out malaria in Africa.
I don't think that anyone would say that debate on the issue isn't a good thing, but the hitch to it is this; Beck, and his ilk, can't seem to bring anyone to the table that actually has any facts at hand that say global warming isn't happening due to manmade emmissions. If he could actually find a credible source about this, that would be one thing, but I'm willing to bet his sources don't have the facts to back their assertions.
"Beck, and his ilk, can't seem to bring anyone to the table that actually has any facts at hand that say global warming isn't happening due to manmade emmissions"
If you watch the special on Wednesday I'm sure you'll see some of that.
Again, I guarantee that the folks he brings on his show have not had their facts backed by peer review, like the latest and greatest global warming studies have been done.
My beef is people like Beck can't see how the World would benefit from Less pollution. People like Beck want people to keep Driving hummers and sucking up gas like there is no tomorrow. Not only are they denying Man made Global warming in many cases they advocate Gas guzzlers, air pollution, oil dependency and bad stewarship of the earth in general.
What's wrong with saving a few forrests?
What's wrong with clean air?
Whats wrong with smaller cars or just more effiecient larger cars for that matter?
What's wrong with conserving energy?
I haven't come across one person on Beck's side of the issue that is willing to ansewr anything of these questions honestly. It's true that some of the climate change on the planet is natural, but man is and has been making it worse and that is pretty obvious. People like Beck are simply trying to cover for big business and prtect profits and you guys know it.
There is nothing wrong with your analysis but all countries have to participate - or the co2 will simply move to china, along with the jobs. And people like Al Gore and the hollywood stars should not get a free pass to fly around in private jets which do the damage of hundreds of hummers.
At the end of the day you can put the laws in place and make the case that it would be best for everyone to follow suit as far as other countries are concerned.
We should also put in place laws that make it practical for companies to keep jobs in the country. Jobs are leaving the country regardless. Put a penaltie in place for outsourcing and put tax benefits in place for keeping you workforce state side with legal residents.
I am not convinced that all of these companies will be driven out of business due to cost of operation. Most of the choices to outsource jobs are driven by greed. Many companies seem not to be having a hard time laying off people without going green.
The environmental movement and the scientific community have nothing to do with Hollywood. Please don't confuse the two because they happen to agree on global warming.
I agree that it's hard to take, hearing Oprah talk about how green she is, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse to ignore the scientific consensus.
While I can certainly understand your frustration with the American elite and their often willy-nilly use of energy out of ignorance or arrogance, it's no excuse for any person who recognizes the problem to not contribute to a solution.
I think of the global governments as children - they behave enough like them, so I think the initial analogy is apt. If you have a group of seven-year-olds playing with a single puppy and some of them are learning from each other that punching the puppy in the face is a really good time, you'd certainly want to stop ALL of them from doing so because it's wrong and very harmful.
In this case, if you could only reach one seven-year-old, would it be ethical to say, "Well, if I stop this one seven-year-old from punching the puppy, the other kids are still going to continue, and the puppy's going to die anyhow, so I might as well let this kid have his fun while it lasts"? In the long run, the kid has already done some damage and it's true that if the others don't stop, the puppy is dead. Ethically, however, the very issue of punching the puppy is one that most would agree is wrong at its core so most people would still stop that one kid from puppy-punching even if the dog is going to eventually die from others anyhow.
That's how I approach our government and even my personal role in environmental responsibility. The sad thing is that I'm still guilty of puppy-kicking on a day to day basis, but it's a function of my finances: I kick that puppy every day when I drive my 25 MPG Rav4 to work, but I do try to offset that by driving as little as possible on the weekends. We don't buy green power, but I do shut of lights in the house in rooms we're not using, and glower at those in the house that leave them on. I personally can't stop this planet from bucking and kicking us off of it, but I can make my voice heard and try to improve my habits and hope all the rest of the puppy-kickers do the same.
Hi Goodfella,
There is? Where? Nobody has decided that there shall be no further debate. No one is stopping Beck from hosting a week of serious, honest debate on the subject on his radio show or his television show. He, and other hosts and pundits who rail against proponents of the theory that human activity contributes to global warming, simply choose not to. Beck and company spend much more time claiming that debate is being squelched than they do actually engaging in genuine debate.
Robert Kennedy called Beck a name, you say? Oh the horror! I can see that Beck's career has been ruined. I mean, the guy only has a radio show and a gig on CNN, the supposedly left-leaning cable news outlet.
I'm sorry if I sound dismissive, but come on: I could care less what names Beck is called. If Beck had genuine, substantive information to offer, or if he hosted fair dialog on the subject, I would listen regardless of what names he is called. Unfortunately, I've found him to be much more interested in whoring himself out to his employers for ratings. He's interested in making controversial statements (i.e. telling an elected American Muslim politician that he would like to ask him if he is "working with our enemies", or, say, claiming that Al Gore is using the same tactics Hitler used...).
If Beck's credibility is less than golden, it isn't because he's raising interesting questions about climatology; it's because Beck isn't credible. Take this as a prime example: Beck has an opportunity to have a real discussion about the science of climate studies, and instead, he spends time comparing Al Gore to Hitler. If Beck is angry that he can't be taken seriously, he has no one to blame but himself.
According to Rush Limbaugh, one CAN deny that human activity may be a factor. And Glenn Beck is implying that even the most "cutting edge" science can't be trusted, since after all, some scientists were misguided enough to go along with eugenics programs. Why are you saying that "one can't deny" these things? You sound like you're trying to silence debate...
Seriously, though, now you're talking about something totally different. Suddenly you're saying that it is undeniable that human activities may be contributing to global warming... but you think that carbon taxes are a bad plan for dealing with the problem. Fine. Wonderful. Exactly what happened to your claim that anyone who disagrees with the scientific consensus on the subject will be unfairly branded a fascist, or that debate is being censored?
And, most importantly, what has any of this to do with Glenn Beck claiming that Al Gore is using the same tactics that Hitler used to vilify Jews?
"And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did. That's what Al Gore, the U.N., and everybody on this global warming bandwagon -- all the way to RFK Junior, who has called me a fascist for doing it..."
So Beck is saying that RFK Junior is like Hitler because he called Beck a fascist?
For the record, Kennedy called him, "CNN's chief corporate fascism advocate Glenn Beck"
Sounds pretty accurate to me.
And another thing, fascists like Gore want us to just accept gravity and a round Earth without alternative views!
I won't do it. You believe in a round Earth and you relax. Next thing you know, you're driving off the edge. Hey, let's dig up Galileo and imprison that heretic again.
---"When was it decided that there was no further debate"---
Beck has a national radio and tv forum to debate global warming all he wants to. Al Gore has a forum, too. But I don't recall Gore saying anything to or about Glenn Beck's right to debate. Gore, however, by contrast, being a decent human being, certainly hasn't tried to stifle Beck by comparing him to Hitler.
CNN
When will CNN do the right thing and fire Mr. Beck?
CNN will fire Beck when hell freezes ov... Wait a second... So THAT'S why Beck is so adamant that nothing be done to reverse global warming!
I'm guaranteeing Beck is Worst Person in the World on Olbermann for this comment. It's a lock. Tonight or tomorrow night.
I also know who will win the Kentiucky Derby Saturday.
Who is going to win the Derby? I know my husband loves to play the horses for that race.
Curlin is the horse. Street Sense will be gaining but Curlin is a future superstar. If I'm wrong you can chalk it up to right wing misinformation!
There once was a cretin named Glenny
Who had such a love of the penny
That he'd proffer a lie
Sentence many to die
'cause he has not a conscience, not any
Classic and very appropriate.
Merci, mon ami.
Git yer Limerick on, JJ!
Sorry, Beck is astonishing stupid. Who the hell ever thought it would be a good idea to put him in front of a mike?
Plus, what's with the right (e.g. Beck, Delay, et al) making these sad, self-serving comparisons these days between their poor, persecuted opinions, and the mass genocide of millions in WWII?
Personally, I think the same people who created Rush Limbaugh are grooming Beck to be the next water carrier for the GOP. Rush is getting old, and Sean Hannity is just too irritating. They must think that Beck's phony "aw shucks" demeanor will endear him to their knuckledragging base.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." -- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945
Now, who sounds more like this...Al Gore on Global Warming, or the Bush toadies on the War on Turr? Has Al Gore arrested anyone, or killed anyone? Which is the more abhorrent proposition...invading a country or cutting back on vehicle emissions? Hmmmm...that's a hard one.
Which is the more abhorrent proposition...invading a country or cutting back on vehicle emissions?
Um, you mean in the opinions of big oil? Isn't that answer so obvious it's a "slam dunk"?
Well, you have a point, there. Reducing auto emissions will cost them money, while the Iraq War could end up making them money. Isn't that what this is all about, in the long run? Isn't that what has driven every decision made by the Bush Toadies...Corporate Profits?
What many are missing here are the code words. "Global tax" and the UN running the world spiel is right from the Left Behind/Hal Lindsey playbook. I think in both books the anti-christ runs the world through the UN. He is speaking directly to the 25% of the population that the second coming of Christ is imminent. Never mind the beautitudes my God is coming down to smite all you sinners and I'm going to heaven. Oh how they relish the idea of Christ laying waste (or is it cleansing)to entire areas with flame and lash. Now the trick is to hasten his coming by increasing chaos, starting wars in the ME and hell I dont know what. But the bottom line is doesnt matter bc the more things collapse (such as climate) the faster he will come.
Isn't it nice when Christian fundies wish so hard for the world to go downhill, and human suffering to increase just so they can get their karmic reward?
And they accuse Liberals of wishing bad things on America...sheeesh.
It's either a longing for the End Time, or some sort of adolescent fantasy about playing action hero in a ravaged post-apocalyptic world.
Like, y'know, Thunderdome: "only one comes out!"
Ack! Bad image of Condolencia Rice dressed up like Tina Turner! Bad!!!
"You think I don't know the law? Wasn't it me who wrote it? And I say that this man has broken the law. Right or wrong, we had a deal. And the law says: bust a deal and face the wheel!"
Yes, sir.
By it s very nature, large corporations will squeal against anything that will impact their bottom-line, regardless of its benefit to the general public (e.g. Congress requiring seat belts to be included in all US-made cars).
I don't have anything against people making an honest buck. But when" conservatives" recoil from any calls for "conservation" (funny how those two words spring from the same root, isn't it?) like a vampire from garlic it's just pathetic.
To say that it's only corporations that will be hurt from government actions to combat global warming is absurd. If the government makes laws mandating that every vehicle get a certain level of gas mileage, and that every vehicle can only release a certain amount of CO2, the average price of vehicles will go up several thousand dollars for each consumer. These kind of policies will hurt consumers and not just corporations. Nobody is fooled that it's only corporations that will be hurt by these new regulations.
And also factories in the USA that have to abide by the regulations will move to china or another country where there are no regulations. Co2 keeps going up and up.
If the government makes laws mandating that every vehicle get a certain level of gas mileage, and that every vehicle can only release a certain amount of CO2, the average price of vehicles will go up several thousand dollars for each consumer.- RINO Hunter
"As is documented here...." (Image of RINO Hunter, rear view,lower section)
But they are already doing this in droves because labor in those countries (like China) is far cheaper. Manufacturing in the US is draining away because of this. Working in the automotive industry, and in manufacturing for years now has shown me a severe decline, and it's not because of tightening environmental controls, no, it's because labor is cheaper in those developing countries.
I remember reading an article recently that stated that there are many large corporations in the US that WANT to implement better environmental controls.
"I remember reading an article recently that stated that there are many large corporations in the US that WANT to implement better environmental controls"
Then let's have the government provide incentives for these companies to voluntarily reduce their emissions, since many already want to anyway. We don't need the government to make more regulations and mandate new controls. Incentives will entice the corporations to act while at the same time saving them from bearing a large amount of costs that they will pass on to consumers.
We don't need the government to make more regulations and mandate new controls.
How's that working out, so far?
---"let's have the government provide incentives for these companies"---
I like the incentive idea. And here it is:
Do it or you're out of business.
Socialism here we come.
Socialism, right. Because if the government ever starts ordering you to do something like, say, pay taxes, have a passport, or not pour asbestos onto your neighbor's lawn, it's socialism here we come.
Here's an idea, Rhino. Let's provide universal healthcare in this country, and the savings on American made cars will offset the costs of improved emissions standards.
And taxes will go up for everybody and the economy will go downhill. If you want the government to run your life and spend your money for you, then I guess that's your choice. But I want America to keep the qualities that has made it a great country-Free enterprise and opportunity for all.
I'm sorry, I don't see people being bankrupted because they have a medical crisis and can't afford health insurance as what made America great.
If you think that health insurance is something that everybody "deserves," then you want a far different country than what we have right now. This country was founded on self reliance and discipline, not an attitude that the government owes it's citizens everything.
If I accept your frame, then I must also accept that interstate highways are something that people "deserve," and that we "deserve" free compulsory education, the National Institutes of Health, and a guy in a truck coming to take our trash away every weel.
My point is that there are lots of things that we, as a society, look to the government to provide, and in a world where every other industrialised country has universal coverage, it's not such a fringe, crazy, communistic idea to think we might have it too.
"If I accept your frame, then I must also accept that interstate highways are something that people "deserve," and that we "deserve" free compulsory education, the National Institutes of Health, and a guy in a truck coming to take our trash away every weel"
These are things that all Americans benefit from. Everybody pays into the system to get these benefits. Univeral health care would be a huge entitlement program that would redistribute a large amount of income. It's not a valid comparison.
Isn't universal health care something everyone benefits from?
And how did income redistribution come into the discussion? Is every government program "income redistribution," in your estimation?
Universal healthcare would probably cost less than the Iraq War, and the Billionaires haven't suffered because of the war, have they? Didn't they get to keep their tax cuts?
I think we've been down this road before. Rhino's "American values" sound a lot like feudalism. If you can't afford it, then you're S.O.L.
Wouldn't ALL Americans benefit from universal health care? If I don't own a car, the highways do nothing for ME, shouldn't that mean, by your flawed reasoning, that we shouldn't have federally-funded highways? What's that you say? What about the goods and services that are possible because of them?
What about the people who won't have to miss work because they're healthy, and the people who perform better without having to worry about what they'll have to forgo in order to remain in marginally good health?
Shucks, I guess all Americans would benefit from universal health care.
EVERYONE NOTE:
RINO here now claims "Socialism" is just a matter of DEGREE. He's OK with government doing things for citizens, at the citizen's behest (as expressed by their elected representatives). He's OK with roads, OK with armies, OK with lots of things ... but he draws the line! So, he can imagine himself a staunch "libertarian" full of self-determiniation and rugged individualism, but fire up that bureaucracy for the things RINO personally approves!
As to health care, how about asperin for the needy? Is THAT OK, or does it go over your arbitrary LINE of "Socialism"? Are interstates OK for government to build, but not Farm Roads? Are Farm Roads "Socialist"? LOL
Wow, RINO. You'll be busy FOREVER with your hybrid of Socialism and Libertarianism, tempered by your own determiniations of what is OK at any given moment.
[I'd love to give these so-called "Libertarians" a line-item veto on their tax form. They could slash away at every program they disapprove. But, all OTHER Americans would get the same consideration. I wonder if RINO would like the nation created by such a formulation?]
Than let's stop subsidizing Oil companies and farms. Let aso stop paying into social security and medicare while we're at it. I also don't want to see the government bail out another Corporation and apparentlyThe Iraqis don't deserve our military patroling there streets.
"I also don't want to see the government bail out another Corporation"
I agree. The government should leave corporations alone and end all corporate welfare. Agricultural subsidies should only go to small family farmers as well and not all these big corporate farmers. We need a much smaller government than what we have now.
And I don't want carbon dumped into my air unless a fair price has been paid.
---"This country was founded on self reliance and discipline, not an attitude that the government owes it's citizens everything."---
Right. Next thing you know they'll be building roads, establishing food guidelines, and assiting veterans.
And the interwebs! What was the name of that guy who built the intertubes in his garage? Darpa something, something Darpa...?
So YOU say. I think the idea we are all in this together played a big part of what made this country what it is. Every industrial country in the world except us and South Africa have universal health care. I dont see any doomsday scenarios happening in Canada, or Britian. We get that you worship at the alter of Eveneezer Scrooge. Most people dont buy that selfishness and lack of compassion are the end all of social responsibility.
---"This country was founded on self reliance and discipline"---
Right. You poor people that plan on getting sick, you're just going to have to heal yourselves and have the discipline to never get ill again.
You're correct. This country was founded on "self reliance and discipline".
Things changed with the industrial revolution. The Robber Barons looked at the country's resources as a great feast. With the help of our government, those resources were divided up by the wealthy.
Again, with the collusion of our government, these "Captains of Industry" used their wealth and power to control the lives of working Americans. They control the system today as well.
We've come a long way. We no longer have children working in factories, Christ we barely have factories. We have shorter work weeks and some people have insurance and vacations.
But to suggest that there is a level playing field, where everyone has a chance at the American dream is just that, a dream.
There are two sides in a free market, capitalist society: capital and labor.
Which side are you on?
The last year I saw the statistics if we had Canadas health care system it would have cost us 14 billion LESS dollars that year. Your prediction skills suck and it must make your ass sore to pull so much out of it.
---"the average price of vehicles will go up several thousand dollars for each consumer."---
Imagine that... vehicle price increases. Of course, auto manufacturers couldn't and wouldn't ever raise prices thousands of dollars otherwise.
Funny, one of the most fuel efficient cars on the road today (the Toyota Yaris) is also on of the cheapest cars. You can get almost 50 miles to the gallon of gas, and you pay less than $13000 for a brand new car. Hmm... How or why are car companies going to raise their prices? The technology is there to make fuel efficient cars, it's just that the US automakers, who have for years relied on high cost SUVs and pick-up trucks to turn a profit, refuse to make their passenger cars profitable. Also, they have severe legacy costs going back to pensions, health care, and things like that.
--"By it s very nature, large corporations will squeal against anything that will impact their bottom-line"--
Seat belts, CAFE standards, air bags, nutrition labels, pet food additives. You're absolutely right. It's always the bottom line first, safety second.
I don't buy this scarecrow.
If US automakers respond to increases in govt. fuel efficiency standards by jacking up prices, it will only drive customers to foreign competitors who are able to meet such standards with minimum impact on sticker prices.
You do have a point but where do those foreign cars come from ? Do the factories that make those foreign cars have to abide by co2 regulation ? Do those foreign workers that get richer by making new cars - drive efficient cars themselves ? We have to really think about these things.
I absolutely agree. We have to think about these things, and this is where the debate should be taking place, not whether polar bears are drowning or working on their backstroke.
I absolutely agree. We have to think about these things, and this is where the debate should be taking place, not whether polar bears are drowning or working on their backstroke.
But it's all part of climate change. Be it fuel efficiency standards, CO2, or polar bears, it's all mixed in the same overall problem.
And childish retorts by the likes of Karl Rove that "If China doesn't curb their CO2 emissions, then the U.S. won't either!" are bafflingly short-sighted and stupid.
China's fuel effiency standards surpass ours...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2004-10-08-china-fuel-efficiency_x.htm
Bear this in mind. Lots of so-called "foreign" cars are now being made in the USA. Yes, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Subaru (Fuji Heavy), and other foreign car companies are now opening assembly plants in the US in almost record numbers, while at the same time, US automakers (the former big 3 DCX, GM, and Ford) are closing down their US factories and assembly plants at an astonishing rate, and moving their manufacture of vehicles into lower cost countries. Mexico, China, and Latin America mostly. The so called foreign car companies now actually employ more auto line assembly workers and vendors, within the US than the former big 3.
So what is happening is that the US makers are moving things offshore, and out of the country, while the foreign automakers are opening plants throughout the US.
"So what is happening is that the US makers are moving things offshore, and out of the country, while the foreign automakers are opening plants throughout the US. "
Go figure!
And the plants poping up in the US don't seem to have a huge problem adjusting to emission standards.
No indeed. As a fact, the new Toyota plants popping up in the US do have the benefit of being new brick and mortar type constructions, but even though they are not required to do so, Toyota is making a huge effort to make these plants as efficient, and as "green" as possible, because they know that down the road, they will reap the benefit of this greatly, even if it does cost them a little on the bottom line at first. The rate of return for them is increasingly better because they are doing these green constructions.
Excellent point. The CEOs of the big three are running there comapanies into the ground and they've been doing it for years. They didn't care when all the other manufacturing jobs were leaving the country. They also were too arrogant to make adjustment to their internal structure that would have helped them out today while they were raking in the profits.
CNN, Fox, Washington Post, LA Times....
These are all NEOCON outlets now. Turncoats. Corporate entities.
It's why I don't watch TV news, or buy newspapers anymore. I read lefty web sites now to find out what's going on.
"It's a new book. And I just -- 'cause it's, like, 800 billion pages thick. I'm just not going to have the time to read it. "
The guy has a Reader's Digest mentality...read the first and last paragraphs, and then use it in your 'research'.
Beck: "...some other thoughts that I have that are probably six months away from percolating."
The burner's on low, that's for sure.
We are getting to a place where the average American is being fed so many lies at such a high rate of speed on so many different topics from immigration to our own government to even race relations to political correctness on Islamic extremism to global warming, that it is going to become an avalanche, and you're not going to be able to get way from it. - The Beaver (aka Glenn Beck)
And no one is feeding us more crap on a daily basis than the Beaver (and he's getting paid for doing it...Golly!!). Two words the Beav has never heard of 1) Hypocrisy and 2) Credibility.
And no one is feeding us more crap on a daily basis than the Beaver (and he's getting paid for doing it...Golly!!). Two words the Beav has never heard of 1) Hypocrisy and 2) Credibility.
As long as his paychecks from CNN keep clearing, why should he care?
Al Gore is similar to Hitler in this aspect. He wants to impose a restrictive set of rules on ordinary working stiffs like me while he continues to live in 20 room mansions, ride in limousines and fly around in private jets. Al Gore is the worst kind of sanctimonious scumbag...a moral hypocrite.
---"Al Gore is similar to Hitler in this aspect. He wants to impose a restrictive set of rules"---
Yeah, how about it?! That Adolph in his private jet with his "restrictive set of rules"...
"Al Gore is similar to Hitler in this aspect. He wants to impose a restrictive set of rules on ordinary working stiffs like me..."
As a good conservative I'm sure your not going to begrudge him his 20 room mansion are you.
And what exactly are the set of rules he wants to impose on you working stiffs...like Hitler did? Can you name one?
Neither can the Beaver.
Beck says the goal of the United Nation is running the world. Did anyone clue Beck in on the fact that we are a member of that organziation that is trying to run the world.
And has anyone ever mention to Beck that the United States has been trying to run the world for a very long time. We Americans do have a goal and that is to get everyone to be just like us. Wasn't that the whole plan for Iraq? Didn't we imagine a Wallmart on every street corner in Iraq. Didn't we imagine giant size billboards of Bush staring out into space with a big Thank You for bringing Iraq privitization where every foreign country gets the lions share of the Iraqi oil? Didn't we imagine every Iraqi will be a Christian and send in five dollars each week to their favorite Jesus screamer show on television.
Yeah, Harley. Ya gots to have the right brand of God.
And I read Mein Kampf, and I read it because I wanted to know -- did the Germans know?Now, here's a book that outsold the Bible in World War II.
So Beck is going off worldwide sales stats? I'm thinking the stats from the "Border's" in Berlin circa 1939 might have had a slightly inflated set of figures on Dolf's sales, not to mention that maybe one or two people already owned a bible circa 1939.It was The Great Depression, they might have spent their money on say................ FOOD OR CLOTHING instead of another copy of the bible.
""My son was in math, and he's watching Inconvenient Truth. What does An Inconvenient Truth have to do with math?"" Well, dear ignorant parent, math is the language of science. In case you had'nt heard, the very brightest computer scientists in the world are helping the very brightest climate modeling researchers use the very fastest, most bestest super computers to come up with ever more accurate weather prediction and climate predictions. Once upon a time weather was predicted by a shaman tossing some magic bones into the skull of a buffalo. Imagine their surprise when a tornado tore through the hunting camp instead of the predicted perfect golfing weather. The point is, "Inconvient Truth" is all about applied mathematics, thus showing it to the other kids may inspire them to be a scientist instead of a shill for GE, like Beck. This parent will soon be pulling their kid out of school so he will only get the "truth" by being home schooled.
Oh, here's a idea, invite Gore onto your show and discuss your vapid heart out face to face. Show me where Al Gore declines an invitation to appear on your show. You corporate blathering propagandists are disgusting cowards.
You know, I heard Glenn Beck doing his diatribe and I said ... "OH my gosh ... ohmigosh ... I've heard this before! I have heard these things in some other places about scientists! It was ... V!"
Anyone remember that old Sci-Fi show ... aliens came down to Earth, promised to solve all our problems, if we'd just give them all our control. They started out helping us ... and then ... and then they said "Oh, you see, we've figured it out! All these diseases, all these problems? They were caused by your scientists! That's right, those devious scientists were keeping us down so we'd come to depend on them.
Let me think here ... is there some kind of cold, reptillian group that wants to convince us to give up all our power and freedoms? Do they see people as simply another resource? And they want us to believe that SCIENCE and SCIENTISTS are wrong, that they are the ones who are actually keeping us down?
nnnnah, couldn't be ...
Could it?
It's interesting how the right-wing likes to make the global warming debate into a debate between competing scientific schools of thought. If that is truly the case, why then are the vast majority of remaining global warming skeptics on the right? Science is, by nature, apolitical. Hypotheses are constructed, experiments performed, data analyzed, conclusions drawn, experiments replicated, and reviewed by the scientific community.
No where in the scientific process do I see where one's view on abortion, affirmative action, immigration, gun control has any bearing on whether or not to embrace global warming as a scientific likelihood. Well, not if global warming is a truly scientific debate, as Glen Beck and the like would have us believe. If the global warming debate were purely a scientific one and both sides of the debate were equally valid, not only would at least some people on the left be among the skeptics, but we should see a pretty even mix of believers and skeptics across both parties.
Of course, this isn't the case. There have been several high-profile Right-wingers to come out in support of global warming policy (Pat Robertson, John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger), and most concede that there is likely a significant man-made element. Conversely, one would have a hard time locating a high-profile lefty who completely denies global warming.
People who don't accept the scientific consensus are missing the point. I don't know the exact figures, but for argument's sake, let's say that 85% of climate scientists believe global warming is a man-made problem, 15% do not. That is a pretty significant consensus. This doesn't mean that 15% of the population can feel pretty good about denying global warming. Scientists are never 100% in agreement when it comes to a theory. But since ordinary people aren't scientists, you think that the overwhelming majority of scientists accepting global warming would be good enough for the public to accept it also, especially since the majority is an ever-growing one. Sure, there was a time when the majority of scientists thought the world was flat. Once we had the tools to truly engage in debate, that majority quickly shifted. Today, the tools are such that the spherical earth theory is a proven FACT, as global warming may be some day.
The global warming debate is as much about science as the geocentric/heliocentric debate was in the 17th century or the evolution/creation debate was in the last century. In these cases, the entity at odds with science was religion. With the global warming debate, right-wing politics is the only thing fueling any discord. Conservatives' desire to limit government regulations, their desire to maintain the oil standard in the U.S., their fear that environmental innovation would somehow harm the world economy, and a perceived need to bash "tree-huggers" just enough to satisfy their base are essentially enough to keep global warming legislation in check and people like Glenn Beck thinking they are not alone.
Glen Beck says: "And I understand World War II much, much better because we're here again, gang. We are here again."
He understands World War II much better because of how Al Gore talks about global warming???
This is CRAZY.
Some "elitists" believe that 2+2=4 and will not acknowledge deniers. Beck will soon be airing a debunking of the 2+2 fallacy. I would like to share a beer anytime with Herr Doktor Professor Beck. He isn't awed by math elitists and does his own thing in mathematics.
Watch Beck prove that the chemistry, meterology, oceanology, & thermodynamics, used in the analysis of the heat balance of Planet Earth is phoney liberal "science". Remember, prezis'nt Bush added a signing statement to the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. To paraphrase a famous Nazi: "When I hear the word "Science" , I reach for my pistol" Herr Beck
I personally don't believe any numbers higher than 20 exist. If God had wanted us to count past 20, he would've given us more digits. In fact, other members of my religious sect (read:heretics) believe that no numbers exist outside of 10, and that our toes were only given unto us as a way of counting for the Lord should we lose our arms.
Thus, any number past 20 is many, and as we know, Satan is called Legion, for he is many. Therefore any group larger than 20 is backed by Satan.
...
Which admittedly makes about as much sense as Glenn Beck does in general, ne?
beck is exhibiting classic signs of paranoic schizophrenia, with marked cognitive deficit. He needs to get professional help ASAP. He should not be allowed on the air again until he is well.
It is clear that if anyone does anything to gather a lot of public support for any cause (i.e. fighting global warming, genocide, purifying drinking water, interning immigrants in camps, solving world hunger, putting your faith in one God, the formation of a confederate state in America) is following in Hitler's footsteps. All of these things should be judged as the same kind of madness. Clearly.
I'm going to go outside and scream now.
It's interesting that Beck would try to make some convoluted analogy between Gore and Hitler because on his show Monday he said something to the effect that he expects to get nasty emails from the left accusing him of being a Nazi after his "Climate of Fear" show! What a hypocrite!
THIS IS THE MOST IRRESPONSIBLE FORM OF JOURNALISM in our world today. It is pseudo reporters like Mr. Beck who will say or do anything just to get their name in front of the public eye. His commentary is akin to Don Imus' remarks and is the same form of sensationalism. I hope Mr. Beck's attempt at his 15 minutes of fame backfires in the same way that Mr. Imus' did because this type of rhetoric should be taken off the our airwaves.
Beck has a dark, unhealthy obsession with Al Gore (it has nothing to do with global warming).
That's just the way some insecure people react to those who are smarter, better educated & more powerful that they are.
Lastly, I guess it's CNN giving this wingnut permission to carry out his character assassination on Al Gore.
Too bad Beck is such an unhinged, ignorant nutjob; that should bode well for Al Gore in the long run.
George Bush, October 7, 2002, “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”
A limited nuclear attack, while terrible, we as a nation would survive such a thing; the human race would survive. The planet would survive. We could not wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun of a limited nuclear attack.
However, in the case of global warning, which represents a total planetary cataclysm of unimaginable magnitude, suddenly we need final proof. We need a smoking gun. Seemingly, we need a smoking planet. When absolutely everything is on the line, we stonewall; we delay; we foot-drag; we obfuscate; we obstruct; we quibble; we scuttle; we abrogate; we deny; we lie.
It’s simply about $$$$$$$$$$$$$, about making even more $$$$$$$, right now. And let me clarify, $$$$$$$$$$$ is not mere greed over $$$$$$$$$$$, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ is a surrogate marker for power. Short and sweet this is about the Will to Power, à la Friedrich Nietzsche (before you dismiss the concepts, read what Nietzsche wrote about the will to power and the manipulation of the masses by the power elite. See for yourself if it doesn’t square with what is going on right before your eyes, right here, right now. Consider very closely the vested interests of Nietzsche’s detractors and critics).For the power elite, it is screw everyone else. Screw the future. Don’t change the game. Don’t change the rules; I’m winning right now. You try to change the game while I’m winning, I’ll simply buy (or contribute to buy) influence. I’ll buy (or contribute to buy) pundits and think tanks and media outlet to sow doubt in the minds of the public. I’ll talk it up myself. I’ll scare and shame the herd to fight amongst themselves over insignificant moral-dilemma bones that I toss in their path to power, while I just go about my business of building and consolidating my power, unhindered by any consideration of morality, ethics, or conscience. Such concerns are for the weak and the powerless to try and ennoble their miserable lives; let them – it keeps them busy, and nicely distracted from the acquisition of power.
Who’s I/me/we above? Almost anyone in middle management or above, in the multi-national corporate world, but esp. oil, transportation, manufacturing, investment, and media. The very same people who promote this war in Iraq. The very same war that saps this country's power and security. Even as it spells loss for the U.S. population at-large, in terms of blood, treasure, influence, and prestige of the commonwealth, this very same war produces winners, who promote it and wrap themselves in the flag, and contemptuously laugh all the way to the Swiss bank.
Note well, too, that these power elite have never serve in the military, nor does anyone they know, certainly no one in their dynastic family’s so stupid as to become a pawn. (Remember Rupert Murdoch is Australian-born, who became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1985 to satisfy the legal requirement that only US citizens could own American television stations); Mr. Murdoch owns Fox Network and has just made a premium bid on the WSJ/Dow Jones. Mr. Murdoch is the incarnation of the Will to Power rhetorical tactics and populist manipulations that Nietzsche described - appeals to morality, fear, anger, shame, sentimentality.
We are constantly being thrown utterly inconsequential red herrings, e.g., gay marriage, flag burning, school prayer, etc., left and right (no pun intended). Abortion, illegal immigration, affirmative action, while consequential are red herrings in that the ultra-rich, simply evade any consequences to themselves, and get their abortions, hire illegals for unskilled work and hire white men, or sell-outs of other stripes as they please. All the while the winners are winning even more. Consider some interesting income stats over the last 25 years.
“Between 1979 and 2004, the richest 1 percent of Americans saw their after-tax incomes triple, while those of the middle fifth grew by only 21 percent and those of the poorest fifth barely budged, according to Congressional Budget Office data. By the late '90s, the richest 1 percent of American households held one-third of all wealth in the U.S. economy, and took in 14 percent of the national income--a greater share than at just about any point since the Great Depression.” How Rich People Control Politics. Purchasing Power by Bradford Plumer, TNR Online, Post date 01.30.07 http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070129&s=plumer013007.
The remaining minority of the population who are right-wing PAC contributors, the hangers-on and minions of the super-rich, who are thrown crumbs, keep playing in the vain hope they may get rich, too. The sadly funny part is the winners who don’t want the game changed because they’re winning so much are too good at the game.
The other sadly funny part is that if things change, not by reason and enlightened self-interest, but only by some desperate revolution as the world hurtles completely out of human control (because the winners are so invested in the game), then it will most probably be too late.
To be clear, I think global warming is real; it’s largely due human influence; and finally everything is riding on doing something effective about it to mitigate and perhaps reverse the damage in-time to save our species.
The narcissism is stunning, but this I think is how we, the species, and maybe life as we know it, will go out – deluded humans struggling over power and status and stuff that will be rendered useless and worthless by the foreseeable and avertable doom that we bring upon the planet, but are distracted from, just so that the haves can keep their stuff, which will become useless and worthless just a little while longer.What an ironic pity for us all.
This is insane and not even good journalism. Since when is scientific fact 'propaganda'?