Limbaugh: Teenager's testimony about global warming "reminded" him of 1970s ad of "Crying Indian"
During the November 5 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, after airing an audio clip of part of the testimony of Cheryl Charlee Lockwood, who said that she is a recent high school graduate and works in the Alaska Youth for Environmental Action program, before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Rush Limbaugh stated: "So, once again, it's the Democrats exploiting a young child, ladies and gentleman, for the advancement of a political issue that will grow the size of government and increase their control over -- I really want to puke. I just want to throw up." On November 5, Lockwood went before Congress to talk about the impact of global warming on her community. Later in the broadcast, Limbaugh said of Lockwood's testimony -- during which she said, "I've seen so many changes in our community that it just hurts to not be able to have our -- it's really scary to ... lose our tradition, our culture ... and it's not just that we're losing our food, it's losing our homes" -- that "I'm just reminded here" of the 1970s public service announcement featuring a representation of a Native American. Limbaugh said:
LIMBAUGH: A lot of communities in trouble over a lot of things. Go to New Orleans. How about losing homes? Wah, wah -- sorry. I'm just reminded here of the old -- remember the old television PSA that used to run back in the old days when we were kids? Iron Eyes Cody, the Indian -- the Native American, sorry -- standing by the roadside as, you know, worthless Americans drive by on the way to their trailer parks and so forth, and throwing trash out of the window of the car -- and they zero-in on Iron Eyes Cody, a founder of the country, a true founder -- a Native American.
Turns out he wasn't -- he was an actor, made up. But, doesn't matter. A little tear starts rolling down his cheek over what the white Europeans have done to his country. This stuff is -- it's oppressive. It's always been around.
In a November 6 article, the Anchorage Daily News identified Lockwood as an "18-year-old Yup'ik Eskimo." During his show, Limbaugh described her as "an Inuit from Alaska."
Limbaugh later said: "If the children are crying, and if the children are upset -- it's no different than showing adults pictures of crying children than showing children pictures of so-called stranded polar bears." He added: "The children say, 'Mommy, mommy, the polar bears are dying, and we're causing it. What are you going to do? What are you going to do?' In this case, you got all these adults, 'Aw, that poor child. Oh, that poor' -- it's just Democrats exploiting -- you want to hear this with me again, [caller]? I know it drives you nuts, but people haven't heard it in a while." After Limbaugh re-aired the audio clip of part of Lockwood's testimony, he adopted a tone of voice that made it sound like he was crying and said: "The Republicans are going to cut my school lunch money, too." He later added: "Nobody wants a child to cry. It's just an attempt here to tug at people's heartstrings. And, you know, to do whatever we can to make sure the child stops crying. And what do we gotta do? Well, we gotta stop global warming so the child's spiritual connection to her homeland and her communities and so forth doesn't melt away into the Arctic."
From the November 5 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Let's move to the final sound bite in this roster. This is this morning at the House Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee hearing with [chairman] Ed Markey [D] of Massachusetts. Student [Cheryl] Charlee Lockwood of the Alaska Youth for Environmental Action testified, and here is a portion of her remarks. This is this morning, at -- before a House committee:
LOCKWOOD [audio clip]: Just through my lifetime, I have seen so many changes in our community that it just hurts to not be able to have our -- it's really scary to live -- lose our tradition, our culture, and we've been living here for thousands of years, and it's not just that we're losing our food --
LIMBAUGH: Oh, God! God!
LOCKWOOD [audio clip]: -- it's losing our homes. And -- 'cause we are spiritually connected, and emotionally and physically connected to our homes, and there are so many, so many communities that are in trouble.
LIMBAUGH: So, once again, it's the Democrats exploiting a young child, ladies and gentlemen, for the advancement of a political issue that will grow the size of government and increase their control over -- I really want to puke. I just want to throw up.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: And here -- you gotta hear this 13-year-old [sic] girl -- let me find her name here. I get the -- I put it at the bottom of the stack. I thought we were through with it, but I'm getting requests to hear this again. And I know what -- the requests really aren't to hear this. The requests are for my reaction to this. This is Cheryl Charlee Lockwood crying in House testimony -- Ed Markey's committee today, the House Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee.
LOCKWOOD [audio clip]: Just through my lifetime, I've seen so many changes in our community that it just hurts to not be able to have our -- it's really scary to live -- lose our tradition, our culture, and we've been living here for thousands of years, and it's not just that we're losing our food, it's losing our homes. And -- 'cause we are spiritually connected, and emotionally and physically connected to our homes, and there are so many, so many communities that are in trouble.
LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, that's true. A lot of communities in trouble over a lot of things. Go to New Orleans. How about losing homes? Wah, wah -- sorry. I'm just reminded here of the old -- remember the old television PSA that used to run back in the old days when we were kids? Iron Eyes Cody, the Indian -- the Native American, sorry -- standing by the roadside as, you know, worthless Americans drive by on the way to their trailer parks and so forth, and throwing trash out of the window of the car -- and they zero-in on Iron Eyes Cody, a founder of the country, a true founder -- a Native American.
Turns out he wasn't -- he was an actor, made up. But, doesn't matter. A little tear starts rolling down his cheek over what the white Europeans have done to his country. This stuff is -- it's oppressive. It's always been around.
Shreveport, Louisiana -- this is Chad. Chad, you're up first today on the EIB Network. Sir, hello.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: Here's Madeline now in Melbourne, Florida. Thank you for waiting, Madeline.
MADELINE: Pleasure to talk to you Rush on my day off, while I've got three lights on in my house, the air blasting, got the oven, the TV on, and using as much toilet paper as I want.
LIMBAUGH: Atta way, babe!
MADELINE: My comment is: This is just getting so nauseating already with this global warming hypocrisy, and I want to know why they keep putting these whiney, "wah wah wah" rugrats on Capitol Hill to be testifying, you know, for whatever matter. It's just getting ridiculous already.
LIMBAUGH: Why don't you try to take a stab at answering your own question?
MADELINE: Hmm. For the sympathy?
LIMBAUGH: Exactly right. If the children are crying, and if the children are upset -- it's no different than showing adults pictures of crying children than showing children pictures of so-called stranded polar bears.
MADELINE: True.
LIMBAUGH: The children say, "Mommy, mommy, the polar bears are dying, and we're causing it. What are you going to do? What are you going to do?" In this case, you got all these adults, "Aw, that poor child. Oh, that poor" -- it's just Democrats exploiting -- you want to hear this with me again, Madeline? I know it drives you nuts, but people haven't heard it in a while.
MADELINE: Love to.
LIMBAUGH: Haven't played it since the first hour. This is from an actual House hearing this morning, chaired by Ed Markey, from Massachusetts, and the child is Cheryl Charlee Lockwood, and she's an Inuit [sic] from Alaska.
LOCKWOOD [audio clip]: Just through my lifetime, I've seen so many changes in our community that it just hurts to not be able to have our -- it's really scary to live -- lose our tradition, our culture, and we've been living here for thousands of years, and it's not just that we're losing our food, it's losing our homes. And -- 'cause we are spiritually connected, and emotionally and physically connected to our homes, and there are so many, so many communities that are in trouble.
LIMBAUGH: "The Republicans are going to cut my school lunch money, too. I don't know what to do, Congressman Markey. Wah, wah, wah, wah." That's the last time they tried that, that I remember the Republicans out there -- they got all these kids to go up there, they were going to cut the school lunch program. The kids said they were going to starve. Are your parents going to let you stave, or are they going to feed you before you go to school?
It was absurd, but it's -- this stuff is -- you're right, Madeline. This is to tug at the heartstrings of people, because nobody wants a child to cry, not even in Congress where everybody should cry over what happens.
Nobody wants a child to cry. It's just an attempt here to tug at people's heartstrings. And, you know, to do whatever we can to make sure the child stops crying. And what do we gotta do? Well, we gotta stop global warming so the child's spiritual connection to her homeland and her communities and so forth doesn't melt away into the Arctic. But we've all had to move for a host of reasons.
I heard part of Rush's rant today during my lunch break. I think the guy is having OxyContin flashbacks.
(And Rush - if you or any of your people are still monitoring MMFA, I'm STILL waiting for you to tell the truth about your arrest in the company of that male prostitute in Pittsburgh back in the '70s when you were working under the pseudonym "Jeff Christie".)
Oh yeah. True dat. Trolling for gay sex in da Burgh. 1974, I believe?
He is just such an absolute hypocritical whiny scumbag. Zero conscience whatsoever.
Is it okay to make fun of everyone that's had a drug problem or is it okay just to make fun of those we disagree with? I just want to be clear on this.
"Is it okay to make fun of everyone that's had a drug problem or is it okay just to make fun of those we disagree with? I just want to be clear on this."--JJmilano
It's okay to make fun of someone who has preached against people with drug problems while under the influence of drugs.
Hope that clears it up.
Hummm? Maybe I 'm not making it clear!?!
The anti-drug preacher (hypocrite) is on drugs, not those who made fun of the him.
Hope that clears it up.
It is fine and dandy in this writer's opinion to mock, smear, and trash hypocrites. That good enough for ya?
Wzwriter - Sean's boyfriend Rush will never talk about his arrest in the mid-70s with a male prostitute.
Junkie Rush's arrest is public record and anyone can access it. Journalists do it all the time. Visit this site: http://www.statearchives.us/public/index.htm
Anyone who lives in the Pittsburgh area can go down to the courthouse to access archives of public records. The court will not allow you to take the documents home, but you can make copies of them and post them on Media Matters.
not an oxycontin flashback. Lets all remember what the drug addict said when he got busted ... "I had a choice ... an operation for my back or medication ..." Well Rush has not had a back operation so we can only surmise that he is still on medication ... therefor he is on drugs. p.s. unless he had an operation in Costa Rico and was not hiring under-aged children for sex with his handy bottle of Viagra.
Why lie about Rush when this site is supposed to expose the truth
You mind telling us what those 'lies' are?
saying rush had a gay lover in pitt, if U read what "elliot" said, he states rush was not kept on at the radio station that he worked durring high school, station KFBK, im wondering how rush worked at KFBK in pitt in his teans when KFBT is a radio station in sacramento, since then early 30's,
Go ahead and puke, Rush. Go right ahead. Hope you choke on it.
Typical selfish chawbacon trash straight from Rush and his miserable 'clones'. They think they are above everyone and everything else. Yeah, that's right. I'll say it. I hope the next Florida hurricane eats his 'palace' so he can beg for help in the flooded streets.
That is a very intolerant thing for you to say.
You wingnuts are so predictable.
Let's see... you have Savage, Coulter, Limbaugh, Levin, Beck, Ingraham, etc. all shilling for Bush/Cheney and spewing hateful trash all day every day and... not a peep out of you.
Yet Rabbitluvr comes here and makes a caustic post about Rush and you're 'offended'? ONE POST. Yeah, that's right. I AM intolerant! I am intolerant of stupidity and hypocrisy - two things the aforementioned bunch are guilty of constantly. At least I don't try to hide who I am unlike your 'heroes' on the hypocritical side.
Guess what? YOU are guilty of it too!
Now get over yourself.
Well, at least you admit you full of hatred.
Intolerant and hatred are two different things.
Well, not when it comes to so-called "hate speech"
Haha - nice try.
I hate Hitler! I'm glad he's dead.
Are you going to assail me for 'hate speech'?
No? OK, well then I accept your apology.
There have been pastors jailed for saying that homosexuality is a sin.
I'd like to see you prove that.
here, in America, in today's day and age? I'd like to see some proof of that.
Your credibility is at stake here, Dog.
Time to cough up a link.
Your credibility is at stake here, Dog.
Time to cough up a link.
I think I may have found the story Dogrun was referring to. But it's not a recent story, and it didn't happen here in America It happened in 2004. In Sweden. Here's a link to CBN's coverage of the story - they're not the most credible source out there, but they're better than the other source I found - World Nut Daily.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/CWN/091004sweden.aspx
Yeah, I don't think Sweden counts, unless you're from there, or reside there. That being said, I wouldn't mind living there myself, at least for a short time. Nice country. Great infrastructure. Nice people. Nice towns and cities. I loved it when I was there.
And Volvos are nice cars....
Not the one that my fiancee drives. That thing has more quirks than, well, I don't know. Constantly in the shop that thing.
Ikea is nice furniture though. Electrolux is a nice vaccuum cleaner. And they do make some darn nice vodkas.
And they have ABBA.
oops, just showed my age again, didn't I?
Don't forget A'Ha from the 80's.
i thought a,ha were norwegian
Same dif'.
; )
Ikea is crappy furniture that looks nice in the store and falls apart in about a year and is uncomfortable, Absolut can't hold a candle to Stoly or Grey Goose but I supppose Electrolux is still making a good vacuum cleaner even if they have probably outsourced its manufacture to China.
In the interest of full disclosure, I believe that case was eventually overturned on appeal, and it is not completely clear how much jail time was served (possibly none, although it was ordered).
But the point is that there have been numerous cases where people have been prosecuted/fined for not complying with the pro-homosexual ideology.
You post under an appropriate name. The ground under any DogRun I've seen was beaten lifeless, and littered with your rhetoric.
Do you post elsewhere under the name Bull Pasture?
POST A LINK!!!
As far as we're concerned, it never happened if you can't PROVE IT!
I suppose we're all just expected to believe that if Dogrun sez it, it is so. Well, I'm not going along with that.
Either prove your statements about pastors being arrested for anti-gay statements, Dogrun, or go back to Free RepubliKKK.
But the point is that there have been numerous cases where people have been prosecuted/fined for not complying with the pro-homosexual ideology.
If there have been "numerous cases" of this, Dogrun, you'd be able to post links. Since I see none, then I believe that you're making this up.
But the point is that there have been numerous cases where people have been prosecuted/fined for not complying with the pro-homosexual ideology.
So, in other words, you were caught making up complete BS and when confronted to prove your Limbaugesque bull, you make up further garbage hoping that will end the matter. This is how rightwingers operate. They make up outrageous lies (Saddam is in cahoots will Al Queda, Saddam has nukes pointed at the US, there are "many scientists" who disagree with global warming, Kerry was working with the Viet Cong, etc.,) then when pressed to admit you're a lying sack of crap just using talking point lies to further an agenda, you just keep lying. You, like Bush and Limbaugh and all rightwingers are too cowardly to say, "Sorry. You got me. I'm lying".
This behaviour has got the US embroiled in a quaqmire based on complete lies, cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and instead of learning what insideous lies lead to, you just keep lying and lying and lying! The rightwing is nothing but putrid scum!
With your lack of conscience and ethics I'm going to out on a limb and guess you're not only a rightwinger, but also a proud and devout "christian", AND you're also "born again".
You scumbags have no consicence!
More fantasy. Cough up some evidence in the US. We simply are not responsible for other countries.
There's that 'H' word again...
Yep, anything that doesn't neatly align itself with YOUR beliefs is automatically deemed as 'H' or being 'H'-ful... brilliant... you really are worthless from an intellectual standpoint... get your brain checked please... all three cells of it... assuming you even have one.
Well, at least you admit you full of hatred.
And we all know what YOU are full of....
wit? compassion? genius?
Dogruns? [oops, that's an 8 not an S at the end]
wit? compassion? genius?
0 for 3, Dogrun. I was thinking about the substance that's lying around most dog runs - poop.
With discernment
Yeah, that's right. I AM intolerant!
Intolerance of intolerants will not be tolerated.
(I've wanted to say that for years)
At least Charlee Lockwood has a lot more integrity and class than Limbaugh ever will:
Lockwood didn't let Limbaugh's comments faze her. Her upbringing in the community of St. Michael included learning "about respect and treating people the way you want to be treated..."
You don't sound like a very fair-minded person. You sound very angry and hateful. I guess you are the type that only wishes well for those who agree with you. If someone ever disagrees with your thinking, you wish them harm and even death. How sad.
JJ are you related to Sueeld?
JJ Milano,
And you sound like the kind of sleazy moral relativist that Limbaugh Republicans love to hate. What we have with this item is more than a mere disagreement of opinion. Limbaugh's position (and yours by extension of your defense of him) is a despicable personal attack, nothing more.
I love the idiot woman who calls in and is proud of being wasteful. Running the air. Running all her lights, the oven, and using up toilet paper, and of course Rush loves this. Reminds me of the Ann Coulter "rape the Earth" quote (I don't remember what it was exactly).
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Global warming, or just conservation in general shouldn't be a partisan issue. We should all want to do what is best for our home called the Earth, and at least make a little effort. If we all made small efforts, it would add up to saving and conserving a lot of resources, and really, that's what it's about. Let's not even talk global warming. An analogy if I could. If your house was looking run down, and had cracks in the dry wall, and the roof was leaking, and the paint was chipped and ugly and not providing protection, you'd want to fix it wouldn't you? The Earth should be the same way.
I truly believe in efforts to conserve and integrate, rather than use and destroy. However, I think the point of this discussion is whether this testimony was legitimate expert analysis or partisan heart-string pulling, and I would argue it was the latter.
Expert anaylsis? Most likely not.
Personal experience with what is happening environmentally in her neck of the woods? Absolutely.
I think her grief, and the frustration she is feeling is indeed real, and not just tugging on heart strings. I think that it does make for good politics when you have someone so invested in what they are talking about, and who has a passion for what they are testifying about, and has experiences as such.
Is it dramatic? You bet. It's supposed to be I think, and she did a decent job of it.
This testimony is at least as legitimate as the comments on FOX and El Rush0, when it rains in AZ, and then they get to say with a big smirk, where's global warming now?
I saw this previously on crooks and liars, their segment has this idiot who called in talking about how there used to be a land bridge between russia and alaska (where he says the innuits came from) and that since it is gone there must have been global warming back then. And Rush said you can't believe anything you learned in college. Totally ignorant!
Rush is real good at making fun of girls, little boys who were in wrecks, cerebal palsey victims and anyone else smaller than him, but sure lacks balls when it comes to going toe to toe with a real man. He needs to pop his pimple and join the army.
My question is, why was she using so much toilet paper?
I think the Dittoheads are in a constant "pressure relief" mode, having so much shyt forced into them on a daily basis.Something's gotta give.
Sometimes people who call in use sarcasim to make a point. How much toilet paper she's using sounded like a joke. I suggest you lighten up.
Who the hell are you to suggest anything?
I suggest you shine your brass and start following Liberal views.
JJ, I suggest you check your understanding of the words "sarcasim"(sic), and "joke" , and smarten up.
It's amusing how JJ here and John of the many numbers both misspell sarcasm the same way.
Rush is an obnoxious, pompous jerk, but I would wager this Cheryl Lockwood is indeed a partisan player in this game, and was there for show and sympathy more than anything. Even Rush is right sometimes.
I don't think it is appropriate to use children to further a cause like this. I won't go so far as to say Rush is right about this, because he is handling it so crassly - the way his audience likes it.
I don't think the child should be attacked directly like this, but the adults who put this child up to testify should be criticized pretty heavily IMO.
Kids really don't have the intellectual tools to analyze these kinds of complex subjects adequately. At that age, knowingly or not, they usually just parrot what they are told - probably just as much as fully-grown limbaugh listeners do.
Actually, I take that back. It is not so much a child, but a "recent high-school graduate". I assumed Limbaugh was describing the young lady adequately when he called her a "child". That was my first mistake.
If someone is old enough to vote, then obviously they are fair game for criticism and engagement in the process. It can be pretty rough, but not out of bounds.
She is apparently already a member of a lobbying PAC as well. I didn't see the testimony she gave so I can't speak to whether she was there to pull heartstrings.
I disagree. I think it's important for kids to get involved in politics to attempt to make a change. They're going to have to live with the ramifications of our choices so why shouldn't they have a voice? What's wrong with them drawing attention to an issue or speaking before congress? We know that law makers will do their best to ignore an issue or not take action unless they're forced to do so.
I think the people attacking this girl are cynical about our political process and are underestimating the intelligence and determination of young people. This girl has been involved in Alaska Youth for Environmental Action since 2003. She apparently got 5,000 teenagers to sign a petition to present to Congress which is pretty amazing considering what most young people spend their time doing.. Your making the assumption that she cannot think through these issues, discuss them in an intelligent manner or must be brainwashed because she is young.
It's not like were talking about 4 years olds holding aborted baby and god hates fa#gs signs at an AIDS walk or abortion clinic.
If someone is old enough to vote, then obviously they are fair game for criticism and engagement in the process.
By that same argument, i.e., they can be treated as adult enough to withstand criticism, it is not fair to claim they are being "used" and "exploited" for "sympathy" via their status of "child."
Either way, Rush is once again employing thoroughly bogus and ad hominem arguments.
If you enter the political process, you are opening yourself up to the political fray. I don't care how old you are. It isn't fair to have people testify in front of congress and then say you can't comment on their testimony because they are ___________. That's the way it works. If an actor goes to Washington and testifies that apples have chemicals on them, then that testimony is fair game. Right or wrong. That's what a free country is.
This is ridiculous. This woman is an eskimo who is witnessing first hand what is happening to our planet. It is most evident in the arctic, where the eskimos have lived for millenia. Their way of life is being altered because the ice is melting up there. The warmer weather is altering the environment up there in ways that we can't even fathom.
And you want to sit here and judge her to be fair game for partisan attacks??? Please find your heart and your soul.
Please compare present day native Alaskans to those who lived a 1000 years ago. The impression is that until a few years ago their culture had not changed. I would guess that their life style has about as much in common with me in Louisiana today as their ancestors of a millenia ago.
Limbaugh isn't commenting on her testimony, he's making fun of her and dismissing her for being a crybaby.
Exactly. When I said they were "fair game" I meant their argument. Limbaugh goes straight to the ad hominem attack every time - presumably because he doesn't want to discuss substance.
Hearing personal stories directly from the people who are affected is, in my opinion, important.
Right wingers like Rush apparently don't believe that firsthand knowledge is important when it comes to bringing an issue before Congress, so he'll look for any way that he can to discredit Lockwood.
But I'm sure Rush would be more than willing to listen to a weatherman from the AEI letting us know that what's happening in remote villages of Alaska is just a figment of Lockwood's imagination. Rush would even commend that weatherman for his bravery and patriotism in the face of questions from congressional Democrats.
"Rush is an obnoxious, pompous jerk, but I would wager this Cheryl Lockwood is indeed a partisan player in this game, and was there for show and sympathy more than anything. Even Rush is right sometimes."
She's a political activist participating in the political process. That's the American thing to do, to get involved for change. She and 5,500 other young Americans came from all across the country , on their own dime and on their own initiative, to testify before congress on behalf of the environment.
Yet along comes Rush the smear thug debasing the American experiment and demeaning politically engaged people because he fears grassroots activism unless it is somehow connected to hating and/or deconstructing liberal policy.
He's smearing Cheryl Charlee Lockwood because he, just like every other rightwing authoritarian, doesn't have faith in democracy, he disdains citizen activism. His worldview says America works from the top down, that only the elite few deserve to make decisions for all the rest of us.
Screw that and screw the cynics who think he has a point.
Rush just continues to deny Global Warming.
JUSTICE AND TRUTH IN THE USA - FACT CHECK:
Limbaugh is correct - Iron Eyes Cody is not an injun.
Wikipedia
He appeared in more than 200 films including The Big Trail (1930) with John Wayne, A Man Called Horse (1970) with Richard Harris, and Ernest Goes to Camp in 1987 with Jim Varney. However, he is most famous for his "Crying Indian" role in the Keep America Beautiful public service announcement in the early 1970's, an ecology commercial in which he sheds a tear after some trash is thrown from a speeding car and lands at his feet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to call this one FOR Rush Limbaugh.
That is just a minor detail... certainly not the broader point. Look at the bigger picture next time.
TRAINS,PLANES AND U-BOATS
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®
CHECK PLEASE !!!
It looks like JusTru has taken such a beating the last few days that he/she is reduced to awarding victory to his master for making statements that nobody is arguing against.
Brilliant work!
HBL,
You know when you read something and your mind puts a voice to whatever it is you are reading? Do you happen to hear the voice of Goofy when you read this TRUTH person's posts? For some reason that is the voice I put to his postings. How about you?
I hear the voice of that 'Melvin' dude in WarGames... what an irritating little snot.
Yeah, or what about the big abominable snowman on the Bugs Bunny cartoons. You know, the one who captures Bugs and names him George.
achris, I actually visualize certain posters, put a whole physical appearance to them, but they do seem to follow cartoon and sit-com characters. That's how one of the conservative posters here came to be Barney Fife, for his relentless swagger in the face of constant humiliation.
JustyTruthy hasn't quite taken on an alter ego for me yet, but yours are all good. Maybe a strange love-child of Cliff Clavin and George Costanza?
Does this give you any ideas?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Laurelandhardychumpatoxford.jpg
Heh heh. Good one, snoopy...
But I adore Laurel & Hardy, so don't wish to associate them with someone as snarky as untruth&justice.
I thought it was Silvester, I hear the voice saying,"But I can't say Silvester George."
It actually works better is you use the voice of Jacob Bronowski.
Just trying to help!
Heh. Funny how different the voice you hear is from what everybody else hears, no?
I have to call you an idiot. It was a commercial. I don't recall anyone ever saying "this commercial was made with real indians".
I have to call you an idiot. It was a commercial. I don't recall anyone ever saying "this commercial was made with real indians".
And here are a few more facts for our resident imbecile, Justicetruthus:
1. None of the actors who played "Charlie Chan" in the movies were Chinese.
2. The two men who played "Amos & Andy" on radio were white.
3. Bela Lugosi played Dracula in the movies, though he was not a vampire.
The difference is my facts are actual facts, where Justicetruthus's "facts" are merely simplistic opinions formed in his underdeveloped mind.
I don't remember Iron Eyes Cody testifying before Congress either.
>>3. Bela Lugosi played Dracula in the movies, though he was not a vampire.
Oh, sh**T, oh sh***T, oh damn sh**T! You've got to be kidding me! You so ruined my night. Oh, man!
WZWRITER - FACT CHECK!
Justicetruthus8276 is still a brain-dead idiot, and continues to prove it with each moronic post he makes here.
You're 'calling it' for Rush b/c he compared the front on global warming to the guy in the 70's commercial? Okay. Good work.
I have to hand it to Limbaugh. He won an argument that no one was refuting. Bravo. How does he do that? Lol.
I actually don't care if he was really an Indian or not. The point was to encourage people to act like adults and not throw their garbage out the car window. I fish a lot, and it amazing the amount of trash that presumably grown, mature people leave everywhere.
He was Italian.
I'll bet he wasn't really crying either. Hell, he probably liked people throwing trash out their window. [My god, you guys really are nutz]
Limbaugh is correct - Iron Eyes Cody is not an injun
Justice, the term is Native American, only mentally challenged people or just plain stupid use the term "injun"
Justice, the term is Native American, only mentally challenged people or just plain stupid use the term "injun"
We're still trying to determine whether JusticeTroll is mentally challenged or just plain stupid.
hahahaa...teh term isnt mentally challenged its feebleminded. lol...j/k
i think it doesnt matter wether he was an indian or not but that he was proving that we need to be aware that were goiong to ruin the planet if were not carful. rush limbaugh is full of hot air and needs to give himself some carbon offsets. lol
So Rush is comparing a Yup'ik teenager who was actually crying a few days ago to a white actor who was pretending to cry 30-some years ago.
I fail to see the victory of logic here.
Even the idea of Rush getting a fact right is amazing, historical event, though, so in that regard I would award him a point for realizing that Cody is caucasian.
Well, Rush is right.
How exactly is a man stating his opinion considered "conservative misinformation?"
MMFA has posted this story why? Not because it's "misinformation" but because they don't like Rush or his opinions.
At least be honest about it.
How about the part where Rush makes the statement over and over again that there is some sort of grand conspiracy to create a fear of global warming in order to take control over people's lives and radically alter the culture of this country just because "the libruls" are secretly power mad control freaks?
No misinformation there?
The truth is not misinformation.
Truth? Come on, that sort of bizarre conspiracy theory is more in the realm of comic book villainry or street corner lunatic ravings than anything to do with facts. Do you honestly believe that some secret cabal of "libruls" got together and fabricated some scheme to create a myth of global warming so that they could use it to get power? If so, you are no more intelligent or credible than a 911 Truther and deserve the same sort of dismissal.
Lies, delusions, and outright lunacy is not TRUTH just because you hiveminders have been told to believe it by the Oxymoron
Liberals aren't the thought police, telling everyone what to say, how to feel and what to do in their every day lives because they are so much smarter, enlightened and better educated than the rest of the country made up of religous, bigotted, rednecks in order to create a perfect society of mindless politically correct robots?
Is that a trick question?
Is that even a question?
I think I see some smoke coming out of your ears.
Step away from the mirror, and take your mouth off the bong.
I think if I looked into one of your ears I would see the opposite wall.
Glad you got that off your chest. You didnt really think you made a point did you?
No Ripper Rush is WRONG as usual. He states “this child” when she is an 18 year old adult not the 13 year old child as Rush said. How is it misinformation, he lied, that’s misinformation. As for not liking Rush, personally I think he‘s a pill popping, draft dogging. fat lazy hypocrite but I don’t dislike him and as for his caller, dear Madeline, who uses as much toilet paper as she wants’, it’s to staunch the flow of crap from her mouth I'm sure, but I don’t dislike her either.
Ok lets BE honest. Rush is a shameless blowhard without an ounce of decency. This site has always considered outrageous statements and behavior part of its mission. We dont CARE if you like it or not. MMFA WILL keep exposing such churlish behavior. Keep telling us how you dont think this is conservative misinformation. WE DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT IT. It can be seen as a distortion of what is legitmate public dialogue, you can disagree if you want WE DONT CARE.
Limbaugh is right. Make your case on an issue without resorting to cheap emotional tactics and exploitation of individuals, children or otherwise, who are not in an official capacity, but rather only to stir tears and veer the debate from substance to feelings.
Ummm .... a recent high school graduate .... Tommy, do you mind if she votes for the next President? That ok w/ you?
So, being of voting age is the criteria for testifying before Congress? Well, that settles it then.
Being of voting age means that her concerns are valid and relevant. It also means she has the power to potentially change policy. Very little power, truth be told, but nonetheless...
I suppose you are now going to use 'age' as a litmus test to determine if a person's opinions have any merit, huh?
I agree. If someone is old enough to vote, then the meat of Limbaugh's criticism is invalidated. The idea the "child" is being used. It very well may be, but an adult of voting age should be given the benefit of the doubt that they are speaking with their own mind.
Yup, we shouldn't bring in people to testify who live in an area that has visually proven changes occuring over a short span of time to testify, unless they can be countered with someone who lives in an area where temperatures are now a constant 75 degrees, it rains once a week and is otherwise sunny, there is no sickness, food shortages, flooding, hurricanes or tornadoes so we can have an alternative point of view I guess.
Snoop,
Have you any evidence that man made global warming has had any effect on Alaska?
Do you realize the girl claimed she knew nothing of global warming two years ago and only learned of it in the boarding school she attended.
Do you realize this girl never stated she personally knew of any global warming changes to her hometown in Alaska prior to learning about it in school.
Did you hear the girl's testimony where she was crying while saying her family's way of life and her culture that has subsisted on fishing and hunting for thousands of years is now changed because of global warming?
I did hear her tape, and as to your question I wonder if you have any evidence that it isn't occuring in Alaska?
Sorry Snoop AA asked you first.
Yours truly,
jeter2 aka MMFA referee
;-)
You silly boy! I was beginning to think you were mad at me or something? ;)
Mad at you?
Never!
You're a good doggie :-)
But I'm still ruling in AA's favor ;-)
OK then!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9527485/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060914-arctic-ice.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/earth/02arct.html
This should keep AA busy. I liked the note about sinkholes appearing all over northern alaska.
Snoop,
I asked if there was any evidence of man made global warming. Just showing me articles of global warming does not quite cut it.
The best I could find is the NYT article where scientists are claiming it is man made but none of them give any evidence that it is so.
On a related note, you didn't answer my other questions.
My whole point is that this young lady is an activist and although her intentions undoubtedly are pure, she is really engaging in politics of victimization.
AA-
There's a good wikipedia article on anthropogenic global warming here. There's no question about warming, there's little question about human causes for part of it. The real questions are: how much have humans caused and how much can humans do about it?
As for the young lady, she seems to have studied global warming to some extent, so is likely to know more of the subject than Limbaugh. I doubt that he or any of his people have actually studied the subject beyond its political implications.
Now: if we believe the GW alarmists and try to do something about it and we're wrong, all we've done is to spend some time and money; but if we believe the deniers and do nothing about it and we're wrong, we're in deep ... stuff ... mostly water, I guess.
So there is no reason to comment on the person herself, because you need to prove that she is what you say she is up front. Post a link proving your assertions.
But it's kinda sad you think those articles are not worth your time. They are derived from peer reviewed studies. But if you want a solid example of man affecting the environment may I suggest you read up on the dust bowl, or black monday in London. Two perfect examples of manmade environmental impacts.
Snoop,
This may be a little late but here goes.
I am not judging the intentions of the young lady. Just her credentials as an expert and/or eyewitness. There is no argument from me that she has the right to testify. My question is why her? I know you can say that about anyone, but why not someone who lives there who can speak with more authority on the issues.
I think it is evident the young lady was chosen because she made a good photo op and put a very sympathetic face on the issue. That is fine with me. Everyone does it.
However I recognize that this is another rather blatant attempt at using the politics of victimization by the Democrats.
As for global warming, I did not mean to imply that your links were not worth my time. Nor that global warming is not occuring. I found them interesting. My comment simply expressed that those linked articles did not prove that global warming in Alaska was man-made. The best I saw were some opinions that suggested it.
This all leads back to my original questioning of your comment, which I thought was emotional and well meaning, but did not recognize what I believe was another very obvious attempt at political grandstanding by the man-made global warming crowd. That political show using a young lady, (who looked to me younger than her age,) prompted Rush's rather pointed commentary.
Dem's and Republicans are free to use whomever they want to illustrate their political points. They simply shouldn't be surprised when the other side calls it out for what it is.
Hey Jeter. If you're going to volunteer as Wingnut referee, the correct phrasing is now "I'm going to have to call this one for..."
BTW, do you think TroothyJusty could be Col. Roy Campbell?
Hmmmm, Col Roy--the phoney soldier. I doubt it, Roy could...Roy had a...Roy was smarter than... BY GOD, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT!
Hey Jeter. If you're going to volunteer as Wingnut referee, the correct phrasing is now "I'm going to have to call this one for..."
Actually Beach I'm not sure whether I want the title of Wingnut referee, umpire, judge, jury or...
I've got it! I'll be the Wingnut Decider ;-)
BTW, do you think TroothyJusty could be Col. Roy Campbell?
Could be. But my expertise is being able to detect the return of the evil "SUE" eveytime she shows up here [she might have been before your time], but she's been back as NotThatGeorge & a variety of other monikers. I'm not as perceptive when it comes to picking out some of this sites other colorful characters.
You could be correct, HBL.
I gave up my job as the resident Roy spotter after I claimed that TweakertheTroll was the newest version of the Colonel.
If JuTru is our boy he seems to have figured a few things out. It was always easy to spot Gameboy because he usually resorted to bragging about his virtual battlefield victories on his Atari System.
So far JuTru hasn't given away any personal information.
We'll have to keep an eye on him.
AA, "Have you any evidence that man made global warming has had any effect on Alaska? "
I'm glad to see that you now accept that there is man made global warming, and since Alaska is part of the globe, it is by default impacted. But enough making fun of your attempts to frame the issue in way that you can defend. Do a quick search on frozen methane deposits, melting permafrost and ginormous reductions in summer sea ice. All affect AL.
I think being an American personally affected by the issue in question should be the criteria.
No. Being a citizen of the US is the criteria for being able to testify before Congress. Doesn't matter what your age is. You know, by the people, for the people.
Don't underestimate people who are young. Why is it when young adults DON'T get involved in politics, and or what is happening in their own country, we talk about how they need to get involved. And when they do get involved, obviously it can't be because they care about the issue that they're talking about, and might actually have a passion, and or a wish to see something be done about what they're talking about, or in this case, testifying about. God forbid they take an active role in their own government, regardless of their age.
Yup. Perhaps Sen. Stevens will blast Rush for mocking one of his constituents. She travels from Alaska to DC to voice her concerns and participate in the democratic process and gets blasted on nationally syndicated radio. What say you, Senator?
Its a criteria of whether or not she is a CHILD.
Tommy -
You're making a lot of sense, as usual.
Have you noticed how the libs and lefties often sound like Maude Flanders (on the Simpsons) crying about the "chillllldrreeeeennnn" instead of making serious arguments?
Justice, do you listen to Michael Savage? He says that alot. Is that where you are getting your talking points from?
Is that where you are getting your talking points from?
Justice gets his talking points where all good conservatives get theirs - out of their butts.
Justice, Some sound like Marge, and then others sound like Homer, with their prophetic prose....thanks for your compliment.
And you're acting like a blithering idiot - as usual.
I think it's in MMfA's best interest if you guys refute arguments that you disagree with in a polite, sincere way instead of smearing people and calling them names like a 4th grader.
Actually, I was rather polite when I called him a blithering idiot. While I was typing, I had my pinkies extended.....
:-)
Pinko! :-)
I think it's in MMfA's best interest if you guys refute arguments that you disagree with in a polite, sincere way instead of smearing people and calling them names like a 4th grader.
I think it's a hoot when these indignant righties come here and tell us liberals how we're supposed to respond, yet they have no problem whatever with all the hatred and venom being spewed by Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Coulter, O'reilly, etc......
I notice you like to address us liberals when WE go ad hominem but you failed to take justus to task for saying we sound like Maude Flanders. So are you just trolling to slap us liberals or are you going to go after the conservatives when they attack us?
Tommy, you may want to use some listerine on your butt once JustUs is done kissing it.
HBL ______________
________________
FACT CHECK !!!!
That's Helen (Mrs. Reverend) Lovejoy !
I'm going to have to call this one for ME!
I will give you one point; "The Libs" seem to think about the children after they're actual children,at that point right after the nine months of pregnancy when Cons stop thinking about them. Except for the Republican men who start thinking about them again when they become yummy teenage boys.
HBL,
Is this typical liberal humor? Just curious.
It's reality.
Reality can be funny at times. Just look at Larry Craig.
Is this another example of liberal humor?
What, Craig?
Nope... he's a fine example of Republican hypocrisy and his squirming and whining make for some good comedy. Humour at his expense. We just exploit it for our personal amusement.
nah, its irony.
Still hilarious though...
I don't know if it was "typical", but I always find HBL to be hilarious. I don't know why you obsess over that word "typical" so much. Liberals don't really mind being atypical individuals. I suppose that may be difficult for a hiveminder to grok. No offense intended.
; )
Is this typical liberal humor? - anotheramerican
Absolutely not, it's exceptional liberal humor.Typical liberal humor would be somewhere between it and subpar liberal humor, which is about even with outstanding conservative humor.I may need to draw a chart.
Oh yeah, ;0)
And, AA, your "Pinko" response was pretty funny!
We definitely need a chart.
You're long overdue.
I find it rather ironic that so many liberals here use derogatory homosexual references and or the use of explicatives here in their attempts at humor.
For a group that is supposed to be so accepting, it looks to me like these attempts are thinly veiled bigotry toward gays.
I also find it rather puzzling that so many liberals here feel they are on higher moral ground, preaching acceptance, but think nothing of berating, ridiculing and reverting to outright hate speech toward a group of people, simply because those people have a different political philosophy. It doesn't sound too liberal to me, yet it is typical of what I read.
Hence the use of the word typical.
Boy, just substitute right wing christians for liberal and you will be dead on with your description!
Barney, I think you're veering into that same foggy territory you got into recently when you were so confused about use of the "N" word.You seemed really upset that you couldn't use it while Black people could.
Many tried to explain it to you, but I think it might be that abstract thinking that Conservatives have so much trouble with.Factors involved include a posters history, facts already covered, and some critical thinking on the part of the reader.
I think what you see as hate towards those with different opinions is only criticism of those people's words or actions, although in this setting the background may not be put down in elaborate detail every single time.There's an assumption that the other posters understand a certain underlying and established reality.
"Tolerance" is a word that has really been abused. I've never personally liked the word in relation to acceptance of others, as it implies they should only be "tolerated", not treated the same as those who are just like you (this goes to all of that "Do unto others" liberal gobbledygook).
I guess "tolerance" started to be used only as the opposite of "intolerance", meaning mind your own business and quit hating people who have nothing to do with your life.Most of the insults you see here are directed at those in politics and the media who do affect the lives of Americans.
I also think you've been fed a bastardized version of the word "tolerance" by the conservative media; the idea that liberals make no moral judgments about others and approve of everyone, regardless of their actions.I'm sure you've seen the other conservative posters who come here spewing insults and lies, are called on it, then whine "where's the liberal tolerance?".
The reality is quite the opposite, most liberals judge individuals mostly on their own behavior as it affects others, and not on what church they go to, what their title is or what tax bracket they're in.
Sorry, I went on longer than planned, I would just add that if you don't understand the subtleties that seem to be in play, better to sit it out. And they're "expletives", not "explicatives".
Hope I've helped. ;0)
HBL,
'Touche. Thanks for the correction regarding my using the wrong term for "expletive". I had to laugh when you pointed that out. I guess it is because I so seldom use them that I used the wrong term. ;-)
However, you lost me completely with your attempt at mischaracterizing my comments regarding the use of that epithet. (Did I get that right?) Really, that was uncalled for. Nowhere did I say anyone should use the word. For you to imply otherwise is simply not true. I simply don't get why you resort to ad hominum attacks.
You can make good points without resorting to distorting my comments. I want to engage in a constructive dialog, but you make it difficult when you keep lowering the discourse with condescending comments.
I find your argument regarding intolerance pretty disjointed and your attempt to foist the derogatory comments back on conservatives in a "you too" argument really says nothing.
Getting back to your comments about "tolerance", it seems to me that you are saying that liberals here do not have to be very tolerant and can be judgemental. The irony is rich.
I ask that you stick with the arguments at hand and try to make your points. I will do the same.
I think that HBL's comments were very clear and to the point. You seem to be the one who cannot "hear" them.
Perhaps that's deliberate, but I think it's because in your mind, you must be right; therefore, he must be wrong.
That would apparantly be because you dont have the intellectual capacity to understand the difference between slapping GOP HYPOCRISY and ridiculing someone for being gay. What a shock.
ask to borrow billos arrow diagram it makes it all so clear
I make more serious arguments before lunch than you are likely to for the rest of your life. So far all we have gotten from you are lies and stupidity. Heavy on the STUPIDITY.
OK, next time we see bush sign "no child left behind" surrounded by a bunch of kids, or see Tancredo talking about illegal immigration while he shows pictures of fence jumpers you'll be 1st in line denouncing those vile tactics, right?
Hauling people up as emotional tools before Congress to tug on citizens heartstrings in order to push an issue is what this topic is about.
Your other examples will be evaluated if they are a topic here, I would imagine.
So Michael J Fox was just an emotional heart tug too, eh? Limbaugh said he was.
Huh? Bush being surrounded by kids while signing a bill is directly related to this topic and your own comments as well.
The White House doesn't count, the halls of Congress do. ;-)
I don't think anybody is arguing that you can't have people, even young people at photo-ops and/or testify before Congress.
The simple point being made is that in this case, this young girl is being used (and a willing participant,) to push a political agenda.
Rush is simply calling it as it is. Once again, the Dems use a 'victim' to try to push their agenda, when the victim is not really a victim.
The simple point being made is that in this case, this young girl is being used (and a willing participant,) to push a political agenda.
She is a woman and this is democracy.
Are you nitpicking about an 18 year old being called a girl rather than a woman? *sigh* Ok. Go ahead.
I don't know at what level you are referring to when you say "this is a democracy"?
You are simply wrong to call her a young girl. Forget the fact that you're politically incorrect, you're just wrong. And since it's central to your point, it's not nitpicking. This is a government by the people. That level of democracy.
Was Hillary being politically incorrect when she declared:
I'M YOUR GIRL!
Oh my....
My point is on topic and valid. Yours is neither.
You brought up that calling a woman a girl wasn't being politically correct.
I simply busted your claim.
It may be a tad off topic...BUT it's valid.
Should read:
Politically Incorrect not politically correct
It is simply incorrect – factually wrong – to refer to an 18-year-old woman as a "young girl". Therefore, Anotheramerica's "simple point being made" that being that a "young girl is being used" falls flat due to that completely false assertion.
"Busted his claim"? You're becoming as logic-free as Tommy. Just because Hillary called herself a "girl" once, that doesn't mean that it's suddenly acceptable for everyone to call women girls.
Jeter,
Limbaugh called the 18 year old a "child" and not just a girl.
Well yeah "child" is pushing it. But I don't think "girl" is. I mean 18 is still kind of young to be called a woman. Young lady would probably be the most appropriate.
BTW, I caught the first few minutes of Keith Olbermann tonight & he referred to her as a "girl".
I don't think it's politically incorrect as the Gov claimed.
I put political correctness aside (3 times now). She is simply not a "young girl" or a "child", nor is she 13 as Rush states. It is plainly and simply misinformation and it is being used plainly and simply to dismiss her as some kind of tool. It is wrong. That's all.
Hey Gov,
I guess you'll admit you are wrong about this being a democracy. Since it is not.
Our form of government is really a representative democracy and not as you stated, a democracy. If it were, you and I would vote on the issues directly. As we all know, we elect representatives to vote on those issues.
The term young girl is relative and you know it. You are simply being obstinate over a minor point and arguing what is simply your opinion regarding my phrasing and stating your opinion as fact.
It looks to me that you missed on both of your points. Better luck next time old man. :-)
AA: young girl is being used
Rush: exploiting a young child
You and Rush are both wrong.
English lesson for the day...
Representative;an adjective. Democracy;a noun. An adjective describes a noun. For example, a "widescreen television" is a television with a wide screen. It's still a television.
Therefore, a "representative democracy" is a democracy. A pure democracy would be where everyone voted on issues directly. That would also be a noun modified by an adjective. All you're doing is dropping the adjective and claiming it to be the only definition of the word.
Political science lesson for the day...
Democracy:government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Hope that clears things up.
Didnt we spank one of the Jason incarnations on this very subject just a month or so ago?
Two, I believe. Jason said it, and then BushLies said it a few weeks later, if I remember correctly.
Lockwood: “We have also been having decreasing in subsistence food, like our moose, our fishing, our seals and whales, all the native foods that we eat off the land. The berry picking spots that we go every single year are not there anymore. The hunters are more in danger in the wintertime because they go out on the ice and a lot of them have fallen through….just through my lifetime I’ve seen so many changes in our communities that it just hurts, it’s really scary to lose our tradition, our culture. We’ve been living here for thousands of years and it’s not just that we’re losing our food, it’s losing our homes because we are spiritually connected and emotionally and physically connected to our homes. There are so many communities that are in trouble. It’s an emergency, we need to take action now.”
They are loosing their food source and homes...how is that not being a victim?
No, they are using a concerned citizen to put a personal face onto the issue, no different from when bush has kids around when he signed the no child left behind bill, or when he poses with soldiers in Iraq holding a plastic turkey, or when Tancredo talks about the dangers of illegal immigration with a film in the background showing fence jumpers looped over and over to make it look like a surge if illegals is coming. But I don't recall ever hearing you denounce them.
"to push a political agenda"
Letting Congress know that her people are losing their homes and food sources may have something to do with it, too.
--"Once again, the Dems use a 'victim' to try to push their agenda"--
The bottom line here is that the hatemongering right-wingers (Limbaugh, Coulter, & Co.) find it extremely frustrating and infuriating that --with children, 9/11 widows, paraplegics, Parkinson's victims-- it is much more difficult and perilous when they unleash their patented barrage of hate.
The right-wing cretins know that there are, after all, SOME limits to the hate they can dish-out. They can only get away with so much, after all, being the spokespeople for the Republican Party that they, in a de facto sense, are.
But they do, in any case, find a way to lash-out, as evidenced by the morally-bankrupt Limbaugh.
Hauling people up as emotional tools before Congress to tug on citizens heartstrings in order to push an issue is what this topic is about.
The reason why you and Rush would insult and dismiss Cheryl Charlee Lockwood's testimony is indeed what this about. I know Rush's reason. What yours?
"who are not in an official capacity"
Seeing your village disappear into the sea and the food sources that you and your ancestors have depended on for thousands of years dwindle is official enough for me.
Who would be official enough to convince you that Lockwood's people are being affected?
Can you cite any village in Alaska that has recently slipped into the sea?
As far as hunting and fishing goes, gosh darn it, my family was forced out of that lifestyle a while back. So was yours.
I imagine she doesn't complain about going to school or flying to Washington DC or living in a warm house now does she?
It's a cruel world out there. Sometimes one has to adapt.
"Can you cite any village in Alaska that has recently slipped into the sea?"
Not completely, which was not what I meant.
It is happening, slowly. Many are adapting by desperately securing grants enabling them to relocate. It doesn't help your cause when your congressman instead spends his time securing funds for airports and bridges to nowhere.
"As far as hunting and fishing goes, gosh darn it, my family was forced out of that lifestyle a while back. So was yours."
Yes, and we had other industries to turn to for survival. Do they?
Besides, we're not talking about a lifestyle, we're talking about subsistence and livelihood. Eskimos don't fish and hunt for fun.
Thanks for the clarification. I see the point you were trying to make with that comment. Thanks for the links.
There may be more than this one...
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/human-shishmaref.shtml
I think many of you are being extremely cynical... Are you getting jaded in your old age?
Why would you automatically assume that because she is young that she cannot think through these issues, discuss them in an intelligent manner or that she must be brainwashed?
Both you and Limbo are wrong. People who testify before Congress are requesting a change in policy or funding which will affect not only their lives but potentially the lives many. Michael J Fox and Christopher Reeves for embryonic stem cell research, Justine Berry, the young man who testified about the dangers children face on the Internet, George Clooney to urge intervention on the genocide in Darfur, just to name a few. Just because some are uncomfortable in dealing with the person presenting their case does not mean they should not be allowed to present them. I suppose if you and Rush were to have your way Michael J Fox should stop his trembling cause I'm sure it makes some uncomfortable. Oh and Justine should not discuss Internet child porn cause who wants to have a picture of child porn painted by a child who was a victim, right. Clooney should stick to acting , who wants to see and hear stories of thousands of children dying and starving, right.
What the hell does Rush know about the needs and concerns of children... he sure as hell doesn't have any and probably never will.
I remember those ads with the Indian. Hey they got me to stop littering...well no not really. I think it was those signs posted everywhere telling me I'd be fined for tossing trash out of my window ;-)
Of course I still see litter everywhere, so I guess it didn't work for everybody...
I doubt a weeping child talking about global warming will move me. Or too many others.
You either believe global warming is a problem or you don't.
I'd also like to raise the point of... uh, littering is still bad! I guy like Rush seems to think that it's his god-given right to pollute and litter and those liberals be damned... This all smacks of a bigger point...which is, waste, litter and be selfish with impunity... right? So, they used an actor in the 70's? So they used some little kid to raise awareness for the (likely) very real threat of global warming... So what? This is fat Rush babbling to further confuse the point here. That's the way I see it.
I agree, GREEK. I think Rush's little tirade went a little further though with his insinuation that the commercials were nothing more than an attempt to portray white Europeans as villians. Sneaky, but it was there. Just another attempt from those on the far right to make victims out of themselves. Astonishing, don't ya think?
Yes. Obfuscation to the extreme.
So what?
Mega-dittos, Greek. :grin:
When Rush complains about Bush wrapping his arms around black children, when he spouts off about corporations routinely exploiting children in their ads to sell some useless product, he might have an argument. And not before.
In the meantime, I think what really ticks off Rush and his echo chamber here is the same thing that provokes Shrub and corporations to go for the same method: It works. And nothing but nothing drives them battier than anyone to the left of center doing some effective PR.
Of course I still see litter everywhere, so I guess it didn't work for everybody
True there is still litter - but compared to what there was at that time, I think the improvement has been significant.
I remember another anti-litter commercial from that time; it said that a pack of matches (this was from a time when a lot of people still smoked in public) weighs something like a half-counce - "so why is it too heavy to carry to the litter basket?"
http://www.iq.harvard.edu/NewsEvents/Seminars-WShops/PPE/papers/Tim%20Groseclose%20Media%20Bias%20Paper.pdf
Democrats/Liberals are generaly favored by the major media outlets. MM has a few anecdotes against Democrats. Actual studies show the bias is against Republicans/conservatives.
"Democrats/Liberals are generally favored by the major media outlets."
Maybe that's because the majority of people in this country have liberal views. You see a lot of stories on Christianity in the major media outlets, too. That doesn't mean that the media is biased, they just play to the majority.
First of all, the majority of Americans are not liberal. But even if that were true, if the media "plays to the majority" that still constitutes bias in reporting.
Yep. And here in Denver, the weather is CLEARLY biased towards Sunny. It's disgusting, really
:)
It's HARVARD saying this, not me. Joke all you want, but reporting should ideally be unbiased, no matter who the audience is.
Have you made your opinions on this matter known to FOX News? Good for the goose good for the gander, right?
It's a four year old report too. Just because right wing groups claim that it is the 1st attempt to accurately measure bias doesn't make it so.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=101
I never claimed this is the 1st attempt. Are you disputing the claims of the study?
I didn't say you, did I? I decided to take it a step farther and used google to look up the report, out of the 30 links I clicked, all were exclusively right wing blogs shouting "lookey here!" like they found a gem of gold. So I will just say this makes me question the authenticity of the data, which is why I posted the link to fair. I believe it to be unbiased, you can judge for yourself.
Would you expect a liberal site to advertise that report?
This study is flawed it that was shown on this site. They claim the LA Times has a liberal bias and yet they FIRED their only openly liberal columnist Robert Sheer. The NYTimes CBS and USA Today were all major cheerleaders for the war in Iraq and all of them ignored the Downing Street memo for a month while it was the biggest story in Europe. This study proves nothing except liberal thinktanks are cited more often. Perhaps that is because they have more credibility.
Sometime soon, an idiot will post that Rush is right, and that any and all spokespersons are being used. This sounds absurd to anyone with half a brain or more, but there are people who think it would be better to use a politician than ask a member of the community in question to raise the awareness.
No. Really! Someone on this board will say that you cannot use the people being affected to convey the truth. Who would know better than the people living in the conditions every day?
Weird. Stunning. How does one begin to understand this "logic"?
So, you would be fine with hauling a woman who just had an abortion,and adamantly regrets it, up before Congress if and when this issue is addressed by them?
Or you would be OK with Congress bringing up an 18 year old Iraqi girl whose parents were wiped out by Saddam years before and how she welcomes the U.S. soldiers with open arms?
Fine.
Regretting that you did something, and wanting to make something illegal, are two very, very different things.
I regret taking Mathematics 590 my senior year of college. That doesn't mean I want to make it illegal for other college students to take the course.
Your Iraqi example holds no water, because the people who have died due to the Iraq war can't be used to pull heartstrings. Now they're just statistics, as Stalin predicted.
I wonder if Tommy remembers Hill & Knowlton, Nurse Nasriyah, and the run-up to 'Desert Storm'. I wonder what his thoughts are on that piece of 'heartstring-tugging'.
I'm pretty disgusted by your support for the Iraq war, too. If you can find one example of a person or family in Iraq that BENEFITTED from the U.S. invasion, I can find 50 examples of people or families that were destroyed.
It would be like me finding someone who was injured because they were wearing a seat belt, and then using that person as a poster child to outlaw seat belts.
I'd wager there are at least 25 million Iraqi's are better off with Saddam gone.
Okay by my math you now need to find 1.25 billion people and families who were destroyed.
AA, Iraq population as of July 2007 was 27,499,638 with at least 4.4 million displaced in refugee camps, at least 5 million fleeing to other countries and at least 1.2 million dead. You might want to ask an actual Iraqi if he/she is happy, not make assumptions.
Pearlene,
This may be too late. Where did you get your statistics?
Thanks
Ps. Pearlene,
If one is making assumptions, I think it starts with Kyle and his claim he can provide a 50 to 1 ratio.
That being said, you changed the argument to "being happy". I only claimed those 25 million as being better off.
So your good intentions to provide the numbers and your mild rebuke I'm afraid did not cut it.
Perhaps its YOU making assumptions the UN claims 4.2 million forced from their homes which is basically the definition of a refugee. So my easily found citation is not far from hers its quite probable she got her number from just as reputable a source.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2640418.ece
Across Iraq, millions of people are looking for safer places to live, and not finding them. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) reported last week that 4.2 million Iraqis have been forced out of their homes.
Got crow? You can claim the sky is green if you want it wont make it so. Your simplemindedness has you assuming that just because a good thing was done that means it made things better. That doesnt logically follow in every case and its not convincing that it is the case for the Iraqis. IF they think they are so much better off why do more than 80% of them want us gone? Many good things come at way too high a cost. By that logic since getting rid of Saddam was such a good thing the Iraqis would have been better off had we just nuked Baghdad and killed him.
And I would wager you couldnt. Certainly those who are DEAD are not better off. What about the households where a family member has been killed are THEY better off? How about those tortured at Abu Ghraib I am betting they dont think THEY are better off. What about the million or so who left the country, are THEY better off? Wishful thinking. Again with your simplistic Manichean thinking Saddam being gone is a good thing but that doesnt mean HOW it was done is a good thing. It would be a good thing if I had a few thousand extra dollars that doesnt mean robbing a bank is a good thing. Ya got nothin
Even better:
There are many people who are only alive today because of a botched abortion attempt. They would be dead if their mother's had gotten what they want. No one on the left wants to acknowledge them.
Or...there are many ex-gays that are demonized because of the danger they represent to the pro-homosexual agenda.
And you assh*les on the Right have issues with acknowledging the kids who 'survived' abortion so, once again, get over yourself.
I don't know what your point is.
The Christian right is pretty much the only group to acknowledge those who survive abortion attempts.
Let me rustle up those three brain cells of yours...
SCHIP.
"ex-gays that are demonized because of the danger they represent to the pro-homosexual agenda"
Dun, dun dun - it's the scary pro-homo agenda again. What exactly is that again?
If your worried about the children I would keep your eyes on anyone in Government with an R after their name.
As we are beginning to see... some of those 'Rs' ARE gay. True, some 'Ds' are gay too - the difference being that the 'Ds' don't hide it. Think 'Barney Frank'. On the other hand... the 'Rs' will do just about anything, save killing their mommies, to hide their 'gayness'. Think 'Larry Craig'.
And THIS is why the 'Rs' are HYPOCRITES.
AND... Rush still needs to come clean about his 'Jeff Christie' days at KQV...
My comment was about many of them having a sick fascination with children, not being gay.
Oh give me a break...
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
Wow... impressive list.
Care to comment, MHK?
Haha - good point, Dog Run! In fact, why don't you guys run Fred Phelps out in front of Congress, so he can show everyone first-hand how the pro-homosexual agenda has harmed this nation. He would make a good poster child for you guys. It's hard not to feel sympathy for a guy like that.
Phelps has a little church full of crazies. He's nuts.
There are a lot of ex-gay ministries (such as Exodus International). They are kind of an AA for homosexuals.
**as an aside: why does the left think people are born gay and need to be accepted, but pedophiles are imprisoned.
(and before you jump at me, I am not saying we need to start jailing gays)
"**as an aside: why does the left think people are born gay and need to be accepted, but pedophiles are imprisoned."--Dogrun
Where do I start. Are you implying that pedohiles are born that way? You have me worried.
"(and before you jump at me, I am not saying we need to start jailing gays)"--Dogrun
Then you are saying the alternative: that we need to legalize pedophilia. If you continue to post here, I think it's time to change your name.
Are you kidding?
How about GAYS DO NO HARM, for a start.
My God, you REALLY are dumb!
Being gay isn't a crime. Being a pedophile is a crime.
Got it or shall I repeat?
2 words kyle (what a 'gay' name) et al:
Jeff Gannon
ooops that comment was directed at dogrun
Then why doesn't Rush have a problem with the administration doing the same thing. The one that comes to mind right away is the Iraqi guy who Bush met with in the Oval Office where Bush said something like "it is an honor to shake the hand of a man who had his hand cut off by Saddam". The point is that Rush cries foul when Democrats do what he absolves Republicans of doing. I don't find what happenned here with the young girl to be appropriate, but for Rush to denounce it leaves him void of credibility. I don't think he ever really had any credibility in the first place, starting with his draft dodging, but that is my opinion. Just an aside. The fact remains his actions here stink of hypocrisy.
So, you would be fine withWhat happened to the notion of other people addressing other issues being an inappropriate matter for this thread, Tommy?
[ref. your comment Tuesday November 6, 2007 03:50:15 PM EST]
You are comparing testimony by the 18 year old which was completely voluntary with "hauling" somebody up to testify presumably under force. Your analogy is too strained to be credible. If a woman has an abortion (or an Iraqi has a story to tell) and wants to testify on her own volition, I can't see where anyone would disagree with that.
Where did I say under force? You should talk about strained credibility.
If the two examples I gave were to push a political agenda by public testifying before Congress by anti-abortion or pro-Iraq war legislators, would your answer be the same? That nobody would disagree with that? Ya, right..........
Someone else (or maybe the same person) will say that Rush was correct on one point, never mind that the point had anything to do with the issue. At this point, when the ditto heads are left alone, there are real discussions. Once they receive responses, the thread turns into a circus where the real issue is missed.
MJ Fox can inform me about Parkinsons and research. Rush's opinion is of little value. Cheryl Charlee Lockwood has relevant information on her environment, but Rush has nothing to offer.
So tell me -- why does the right do exactly the logical opposite of anything "educated" or "informed" when it comes to issues? Why does intelligence, education or experience get pushed aside if it involves politics? Since when is Rush an expert on anything?
I really do not get it. And many of these clowns are part of this Christian neo-con crap that would make Jesus shed a tear (an actor, of course.)
I'm pretty sure your last paragraph was about the most offensive thing I've read today; leave Christians out of this, you bigot.
Then start acting like a Christian.
First off, it's not about me, it's about Scooter lumping in "Christian" with frigging "Neocon", which is no better than Savage calling every liberal in SanFran a "transexual illegal immigrant."
2nd, you and Scooter are not in any position to judge who is and isn't acting like a Christian; that's a debate only legitimate within the religion.
It wasn't Scooter who lumped all Christians in with the Neo-con crap.
The way I read the post is that he was referring to the Neo-cons who've been wrapping themselves in the dual banners of God and Patriotism to the detriment of true Christians and real Patriots.
many of these clowns are part of this Christian neo-con crap that would make Jesus shed a tear (an actor, of course.)
he was referring to the Neo-cons who've been wrapping themselves in the dual banners of God and Patriotism to the detriment of true Christians and real Patriots.
WorrierKing, while the latter you mention exist, Scooter did not say what you said. Unless I'm taking him "out of context", a la Bill OReilly, or Gibson, who weren't making racist, bigoted comments either in recent MMfA posts, right?
Why are you so personally offended by this? Obviously, this has struck a bitter chord with you.
For two serious reasons.
1) I disdain the neocon movement, they are the reason I have foresaken the repub party, and I take offense at anyone who would lump someone who practices my religion with them in such a general statement as Scooter's.
2) I believe that Democrats could win a large section of Christian voters if they hit the right chords, especially by exposing the contradictions in Neocon philosophy and the tenets of Christianity, and it won't help if someone like Scooter (who could just be a non-affiliated nut but is being heard on a liberal web site) uses "Christian" as some sort of derogatory adjective to enhance the evil noun "Neocon".
Dex,
Anti-Christian bigotry is fairly typical here amongst many liberals.
They think they get a free pass as long as they include conservative or neocon in the same sentence.
No, Anti-Hypocritical Christian philosophy is the issue.
Well, when you have a significant amount of christians acting like this you have to wonder if the right wing is as christian as they claim.
Great Link, Snoop.
I loved the comments especially this one from a DMSmith.
"50 years ago Pat Boob might have been of interest. We've moved on, folks. The Republicans no longer tap their toes to Pat's music... they just do it in bathroom stalls."
Oh great. Another gay bashing slur. Good thing you included Republican in your sentence because otherwise you'd be castigated by the liberals here as a homophobic bigot .
The Republicans no longer tap their toes to Pat's music... they just do it in bathroom stalls." King
Oh great. Another gay bashing slur AA
Hey AA, I thought Larry Craig swore he wasn’t gay. How can it be a gay bashing slur?
I wasn't gay bashing, because as Pearlene said, Senator Craig IS NOT GAY.
I was bashing Pat Boone. I feel I have the right.
I lived through the times when all you heard on the radio were Pat Boone singing, "Ain't That A Shame" instead of hearing the original version by Fats Domino.
The same goes for "Long Tall Sally" and "Tutti Fruiti". The radio played the Pat versions instead of the Little Richard versions.
It's been more than fifty years but I still bear the scars.
Pat Boone always sounded like someone whose soul had withered. I'm convinced it has after hearing about his recent homophobic attempt to scare the voters of Kentucky.
And, the incumbent governor who Pat campaigned for, lost by almost 18 points. The Democratic candidate had 58.7 % and the defeated Republican incumbant had 41.3 % of the vote.
You are scarred by Pat Boone?
Might I suggest you update your 45 collection?
;-)
Did Larry Craig sponser anti gay legislation? Why yes he did. So again you fail to understand the pretty simple difference between ridiculing HYPOCRISY and homosexuality. If his example had been Liberace you would have a point. It wasnt. You dont.
Dexteritas - are you EQUALLY offended when someone charactizes all Muslims as terrorists?
I am not personally equally offended because I am not a Muslim and cannot put myself in their place, but I am very understanding of their feelings and don't joke them or disregard it in any way.
Kyle,
Name me one public person who describes all muslims as terrorists. (Oh and show a relevant quote too please.)
C'mon... you should be able to come up with a better argument than that.
Dex, I have to agree with Worrier; I didn't read the sentence as referring to "Christians and neocons" but rather to "Christian neocons," i.e., neocons who claim to be upholding true Christianity.
I also have to disagree with you that only Christians can debate what is or isn't Christian behavior; certainly enough non-Christians are sufficiently aware of what the religion's self-advanced values are to join in the discussion.
First, I think neocons tend not to wear their Christianity on their sleeves, but rather summon it when convenient.
Second, a religion is understood by its followers, not by its detractors or non-believers...I would not tell a Muslim he is being more or less a Muslim when I am not a part of the religion. You can certainly have your opinion on whether you like how someone of a particular religion is acting, but that's not the same thing.
How do you know who here is, or is not, a Christian?
And my understanding is not that followers of a religion "understand" their religion, but that they have faith and believe that which cannot be understood.
Oh Jesus will you learn some elementary logic? Because someone says Christian NeoCon crap that does not equate all Christians with NeoCons any more than saying a brown cow is saying all cows are brown.
Most of the time I think you guys are just enjoying yourselves throwing rhetorical mudballs at us damn liberals, but sometimes I think that you're just too stupid to engage in an argument.
I grew up inthe William F. Buckley era of conservatism,and I never missed an episodeof Firing Line because, even if I disagreed with his position, he always engaged his opponents and Larger Questions got brought into play.
But now we haveRush Limbaugh, who just rund on and on for hour every day, making factual ereoes, personal attacks, and some of the stupidest arguments it's ever been my pleasure to hear. But why not? Henever engages anybody, never wrassles with the liberals. He just yaks on.
andtheglobal warming thing is killing the Right. This is not 'nature versus nurture', or whether laiisez-faire capitalism is beter than a mixed form--this is scientifoc investigation. Vast amounts of data, argued over andtested by thousands of men and women dedicated to the truth.
And the Right will not engagethe science, partly because they're not equipped--but also because y'all have gotten out of practice with that whole Buckley thing. You're using Limbaugh techniques: simply asserting and asserting--and you don't engage because Rush doesn'tt engage. And it doesn't matter that you couldn't solve a partial differential equation if you were given a week and a library--or that you coulddn't discuss biochemistry on even an undergradusate level, let alone complexity theory.
You don't do it because you don't feel you have to. Because none of the leaders feel they have to.
Internet jabber is perfect for you guys: somebody makes a point against you,you just don't answer. Then you come bsck and say the same thing over again. You never haveto take the hit--Just as Rush or Hannity or Coulter never have to grapple wsith their opponents--they just pronounce and withdraw.
It isn't that you're wrong, people, it's that you're no longer worried about being right.
The day I stop worrying about being right, I hope somebody is there to handcuff me and lead me to a cell.
Pbg - Your claim that the right is not scientific is uh.. not very scientific.
The right simply points out the limits of science. They are not locked into believing that everything that has come out of science is the ultimate truth. It has not been proven that global warming is man-made. Maybe it is, but it hasn't been proven. Science still has its limits.
On a related note, many liberals ignore science if it doesn't jive with their political views. Take abortion for instance. It is a proven fact that a new person is created at conception but liberals will fight to kill viable babies who only need their heads to be pulled from the birth canal to have live on their own.
Liberals also disregard science when it is proven that nuclear power can lessen reliance on oil. They do the same with windmills in Nantucket Bay.
Liberals will also not hear of the gaps in evolution or what created the big bang.
So lets get off the non-scientific right canard shall we? Both sides of the political aisle have their naysayers and believers.
"Liberals will also not hear of the gaps in evolution or what created the big bang."
Liberals understand that science is limited. They know that nothing is set in stone. Science evolves. Science uses the best information available at the time.
Every scientist believes that there are holes in the fossil record. This does not disprove evolution. Some of the holes might never be filled.
If you have information about the creation of the Big Bang, please tell us. Science has said that at this point in time they might never know what caused or proceeded the Big Bang.
And by the way, not all Christians are believers in the biblical story of creation.
I'm sure that Notre Dame, Villanova and Georgetown Universities teach Evolutionary Biology and Cosmology.
This reminds me of my job. Only the nitpickers think they have to have 100% of the data to make a change in a process. Good engineers can work around the holes and make the same change with less effort.
Proof is a big word in Science but you USE that gap hypocritically. It isnt PROVEN how gravity works. We cant find the exchange particle. Be my guest and jump off a ladder to see if gravity is real or not. You are FLAT OUT WRONG that it has been proven a new person is created at conception. That is a flat out fabrication no such thing has been proven. In fact not all fertalized cells BECOME babies sometimes they become a virulent tumor called a molar pregnancy. You have veered off the rails recently and are acting like a hiveminder. Just because you SAY something doesnt make it true. We dont even know what life IS. We dont know enought to do the basic research to even find out. We know things are alive at the cellular level but not at the molecular level, we dont know why. We also dont know WHEN a fertailized egg becomes a seperate life despite you CLAIMING we do.
Oh yes, history is just chock full of stories where the native americans oppressed the invading europeans. Another example of rush0 just making it up as he goes along. "A little tear starts rolling down his cheek over what the white Europeans have done to his country. This stuff is -- it's oppressive. It's always been around."
I think those who think Rush has a point are missing the larger point themselves. They call this young woman a child, even though it clearly says that she's a recent high school graduate, who gets to the see effects of global warming first hand. If you were loosing your food source, your homes, your very way of life, wouldn't you speak up as well? This young lady and the others like them that were in DC represent the future of America. Damn right they have a say in our current policies, because it's going to affect them directly.
She's entitled to her opinion and sharing it. However she is no expert.
Frankly I'm surprised all the liberals aren't up in arms over her people continuing the barbaric ritual of slaughtering seals and protected arctic wildlife simply to eat them and skin them. Now if a corporation were to do the same thing, why most people here would be denouncing them.
No one called her an "expert". She only just lives there and has first-hand personal experience. Rationale for right-wing dismissal.
Why would anyone be upset about killing animals for food? Do you really imagine that liberals would expect people to starve for the sake of animals? Do corporations kill animals for sustenance or for profit? I've never worked in a place that had whale blubber on the cafeteria menu, maybe it's different for you.
Neither is Rush.
Here's the deal: if Rush wants an 18 y/o 'non-expert' on GW to shut up about it then Rush needs to shut up as well. What's fair is fair.
ps. Of course young hunter/gatherers who go to a boarding school and live North of the Arctic Circle do represent the future of America. :-)
This comment encapsulates the right-wing's "some are more equal than others" credo.
Oh and please note that Lockwood's home is below -not "above"- the Arctic Circle.
Not that a small detail like that matters to the right-wing. They just hope that Limbaugh's mockery and intimidation will keep Lockwood at home - quiet and uninvolved.
As long as you rightwing hate lovers dont represent the future of America its a step in the right direction.
What? He wasn't a real Native American? In a commercial? An actor?
Just going to pile on here...
Rush is a scumbag. Why do hate childeren Rush?
You know, seeing as how the 'Pub's run every dirty trick in the book why can't they get some kids to sing they're praises? Oh yeah: EVEN CHILDREN CAN SEE THROUGH THEIR BULLSH#T! The only kids who will support republican causes have parents who are running for office, or parents who brainwashed them, filling thier heads with hateful right-wing religious dogma. (The TRULY exploited chidren, politcally speaking.)
Apparently childeren (and even High school grad's!) should be seen and not heard, unless they are parroting Rush/Bill/Sean/Ann/Glen/etc... God forbind they think for themselves, and form an opinion. It's really distgusting.
Why do some, who are posting on this topic, keep saying that this young woman was being "used" by the democrats? She wasn't being used. Being used would indicate, at least to me, that she didn't know why she was there, and that maybe she didn't have an agenda, but someone else propped her up to make their point for them without her knowing.
To me, being used indicates unawareness by the use-ee (I think I made that word up there). This young woman completely knows what she is doing, and if she plays to a democratic agenda, it's no wonder with republicans like Rush and his good listeners talking about how they love to use up as many resources that might be available just because, well, they can, and global warming is a myth, and things like that.
I'm starting to see this global warming "debate" go the way of evolution, where we have people propping up their faith in the face of science.
The ultimate thing here is that Rush Limbaugh screwed up on her age. Notice how he discounts her age by 5 years, almost full third of her life (13). Rush screwed up by calling an 18-year-old graduate a "child" who was being used by the democrats to push an agenda.
And if she is 13, like Rush Limbaugh says, then honestly, she's probably a lot smarter than most of us here to be able to graduate from high school 5 years early.
If it wasn't her age, then Rush would find another reason to disallow her words. Being a democratic/progressive/liberal has always been a good enough reason for Rush. He can't be afraid of repeating himself. Its all good to a dittohead.
Is this piece of human feces really this mean? I'm not particularly religious, but I know one thing......if there is a God and anything waiting for us (ie: afterlife), limbaugh is going to Hell. He's done this so many times to so many people about so many things that the only thing I can surmise is that this rat has a rotten soul.
St Michael Alaska, population 368, approx the same number as in any men's room at a Jets game at half time, has no blacks, as apperently they are not allowed. Nice diversity there. If your food source is going away, I have two words for you, Winn Dixie. And a bit of advice, stop crying while trying to present your point, it doesn't help your case. Act like the 18 year old that you are.
"St Michael Alaska, ... has no blacks, as apperently they are not allowed."--Dave
Probably has no Asians, Mexicans, or anyone other than Eskimo's.
"If your food source is going away, I have two words for you, Winn Dixie."--Dave
Nice. The lives of these people will change forever, and you think it appropriate to joke about it.
"And a bit of advice, stop crying while trying to present your point, it doesn't help your case. Act like the 18 year old that you are."--Dave
Gee Dave, I'll bet nobody accuses you of being a nice guy. This young lady is 18 years old, appearantly grew up in a town of less than 400 people in the middle of nowhere.
Now she finds herself in front of CONGRESS, TV camera's, microphones, and reporters, pleading for Congress to do something about global warming that she believes is taking away her way of life.
You criticize that she weeps while doing what may be the bravest thing she's ever felt the need to do. BUT SHE DID IT !!! She pushed the obsticles aside, and pled her case.
Now, we can discuss the merits of global warming any time. But, it's obvious that you'd prefer to attack her and her delivery. Shame on you.
Thankfully, your hurtful words can't diminish the victory she achieved by bravely delivering her message. This young lady is my hero today.
St Michael Alaska, population 368, approx the same number as in any men's room at a Jets game at half time, has no blacks, as apperently they are not allowed.
Dave any reason you choose to highlight the lack of Blacks? How many Latinos or Asians. Any Native Americans?
I'm still trying to figure out what 'diversity' has to do with the issue at hand...
---"St. Michael ... has no blacks, as apperently they are not allowed."---
Dave dispenses advice. Maybe he can advise us as to why there are no black Republicans in Congress.
And what is it about right-wingers and their fixations with "men's washrooms"?
Boy are you stupid, Dave. Really. I'm sure Rush would be proud.
What is it with Republicans and picking on kids?
Hmmm? I wonder why nobody has ripped you for refering to these teenagers as kids? Haven't you been reading the thread? Not very pc but thanks for blowing away an earlier argument.
AA:
this young girl is being used.
So say you and Rush. I disagree.
Kids?? They'll beat-up on 9/11 widows or a guy with Parkinson's Disease. They don't care. They're cruel and soulless.
What a nice looking girl, with a great story to tell. I could see in her eyes the thousand year old founders crossing the ice bridge from Asia, not knowing what was ahead.
"What is it with Republicans and picking on kids?"
Principle tenant of the neo-con philosophy; Blame the Victim.
Rush Limpballs is a fascist tyrant. He is assured a spot on the PUBLIC airwaves because he spews the crap the ruling elite want him to.
Fats Limbaugh is a walking hate crime. The good news; preliminary results seem to show that the ditto heads that used Fats' hate message in campaigns got routed. A vocal insane hate minority= GOP crackers.
Some very disgusting posts on this thread by people who think they follow Christ. The first and continual step for a Christian is to have an open heart and mind. To hear the testimony of this young woman and then try to diminish her is not what Christ would do.
Back in the day, their were a number of people who studied the scripture, but only to prove some point of their own. Jesus called them out on it. This young eskimo woman IS your neighbor. Her village is not that far removed from your own city that you can dismiss what she is saying.
I wonder if Rush is just disappointed he didn't run into the kid on his "Viagra vacation" down there in the islands. Rush is an idiot....but he's a useful idiot in that he keeps the last group of knuckle-draggers on the Bush ranch drinking the Kool-aid. Once he becomes baggage he'll get tossed under the bus for possession with intent to distribute.
this guy is right on the money... i cant believe how people fall for this crying child stuff
She is not a child she is 18. What I cant believe is how you hiveminders take anything the Oxymoron says seriously
This guy (Limbaugh) is only "right" to make money.
He can't "buy" a crying "child" because he has no understanding.
so dave, how many of the 368 guys in the mens room did you proposition? and does kicking people when they're down help you quell your closet desires the way it helps limbaugh? bowel movement conservatives like you seem to get a thrill out of being as nasty and ugly as you can be. so dave, who whipped your ass as a kid, leaving you to be this hatefull?
That picture of Limbaugh with the cigar sticking outa his face reminds me of one of those pigs with an apple shoved in it's mouth.
this guy's really got some bad karma coming his way! i don't care if he agrees with the global warming stance or not, you shouldn't mock people who are this emotional about some real devastation they see going on in their communities. why do people still listen to this guy's show?
Because they have the same emotional disorder. They do not understand the difference between genuine feeling and self-absorbed emotion.
Rush and his dittoheads go after those without power and influence, time and time again, rather than those who wield power. It's a sickness of soul.
Why do U smear a True American
why do U think Rush is a good person for smearing a real woman who wants to help her village?
He is not more of a True American than I am. He also isnt being smeared. Posting in context exactly what he said only constitutes a smear to you hiveminders. I especially love the ones like you PROUD of being assimilated into the Limborg. Feel free to let him do all YOUR thinking when he acts like a jerk, like he did here, we will criticise him for it, as is our right as TRUE AMERICANS. You should find out if there is some kind of gene therapy that can scrape away whatever mutation caused your allegience to a drug addicted, lying, bloviating screechmonkey like the Oxymoron. Perhaps it isnt too late for you.
I just couldn't believe my ears the other day when I saw this on TV. First off, I am proud 12yr Marine Corps Veteran. I am Koyukon Athabascan, Alaskan Native. I am also a registered Republican. I was extremely upset and disheartened about the rude and hurtful comments Rush made on his show this day. I have never been so offended in all my life. Hurtful comments like these help build a huge wall between our two cultures. For him to completely miss the whole point of what this young girl was saying in the first place just blows my mind and to attack her, (A child mind you) is just unspeakable and just goes to show you how small minded and delusional he truly has become. I just don’t understand why this man still has a job, after seeing all the other incentive things that spew out of his mouth, I don’t understand why he continues to get sponsors for his show, in fact it’s the sponsors that we really need to talk to, Rush is set in his ways, and is going to die an old lonely bitter hearted old drug addicted man.
a bit off topic, but:
one of our family's favorite books is "Shadows on the Koyukuk: An Alaskan Native's Life Along the River" by Sidney Huntington,
an absolutely amazing life story that gives a real feeling for the people who live in Alaska's wild and harsh interior.
This is really retarded. I think that Charlee should be able to speak her mind without you white people acting so negative to her. If I was her I would have slapped you a long time ago. I would not want to be treated like that. Even if I am only half native. I am proud to be Alaska Native. You try living our lives and see if you would maybe do the same thing. If you have anything to say to me then e-mail me and then I will e-mail you right back!
I KNOW CHARLEE LOCKWOOD!! SHE WAS A SENIOR WHEN I WAS A FRESHMAN!!! so i dont like what you said about her and us ak natives... I LOVE CHARLEE AND I LOVE ALASKA!!!!!!!!!!! so dont talk like that!!!!!!!! please! thank you!