I ask Repubicks that all the time…

he spouts off his ignorance…. looks like you found a home on MSNBC. Cenk has me wanting ED back and he’s the worst of the crew….well until this young turk filled in for him….msnbc, how low can you go?

Let’s see . The leader of the Democrat Party , the Lord Barack Obama the Most Merciful , Vacationer – in Chief and King of the Links is opposed to gay marriage . So is the Wise Duke Biden . Oh , wait . They’re evolving on the subject . … No. they are lying on the subject . If reelected , they will suddenly both be all for it .
Press them on it right now . See if either of them has an ounce of guts . They likely do not .

What you forgot to mention… is that he makes a point. What’s with the constant bias Mediaite? I didn’t know this was Fox News here..

I’m an Independent voter, but I can answer that question for this Cenk dude, whoever he is. The far left looney liberals want to surrender America’s sovereignty, but the far right and many Independents will give their blood, sweat, and tears, to remain a sovereign nation. This should be an interesting battle to watch play out, on the national stage. Perhaps this Cenk person would be happier in Venezuela. LOL. There’s no way the less than 20% fringe left, can win on this one. Dream on, loons.

T.C. – Ask Gibbs , if he’s still the press secretary next week , when Obama will come out for gay marriage . Now’s the time . Why wait ? What does Obama have to lose by doing it ?

Jack Burns said:
I ask Repubicks that all the time…

I bet you do.

Cenk . Snickering fill-in boy . Why not ask Obama why he opposes gay marriage ? Why do he dislike gay people ? Your vast viewership wants to know .

Pokerdude777 said:
he spouts off his ignorance…. looks like you found a home on MSNBC. Cenk has me wanting ED back and he’s the worst of the crew….well until this young turk filled in for him….msnbc, how low can you go?

He is just trying to fit in at MSNBC, this is no nuttier than what is said on the network everyday. How can he question a gay man, isn’t this homophobic?

http://crazyconservative.wordpress.com/

Big Eddie said:
Cenk . Snickering fill-in boy . Why not ask Obama why he opposes gay marriage ? Why do he dislike gay people ? Your vast viewership wants to know .

He does, on a daily basis. He’s shits on Obama on a daily basis more than any other commentator aside from FOX. Cenk isn’t a liberal, he’s a realist, which is why he draws such a large crowd.

I would think instead that Cenk Uygar should argue with the people from his own party.

These are attainable rights.

Why is this an issue and why is it framed in this context?

Sorry, but is Tommy Christopher supposed to be writing media criticism or is his purpose to write political commentary? It’s increasingly hard to tell.

Please, how about leaving your politics aside every now and then and just write about media coverage? Yes, I understand that political analysis is a component of some of the coverage especially when the media is reporting on political/social issues. But the political analysis should augment or be in service to the media coverage and not vice versa.

Less politics, more media analysis.

lazzzlo said:
I would think instead that Cenk Uygar should argue with the people from his own party.

These are attainable rights.

Why is this an issue and why is it framed in this context?

Once again, he does, on a daily basis… but you won’t see that on the front page of Mediaite.

Guess who he went after yesterday? GE (parent comp. of MSNBC) WHILE ON MSNBC!

Why wasn’t that featured front-page style here?

It’s not possible that gay Republicans see themselves as Republicans and Americans first and gay men or women second? That is, their sexuality is important but that other more important issues concern them? And because of that they are willing to join a party that is, yes, less embracing (for want of a better word) of their private sexual lives?

Human beings are pretty complex beings I think. To place them in a box – gays over here, straights over there, black here, whites there – is really viewing them as one-dimensional beings. This is, I think, a major problem with the identity politics of the left (see Tommy Christopher’s analysis to prove my point).

Again, sure, there’s a element in the Republic Party that hasn’t exactly been charitable to gay men and women. But those gay men and women may just see themselves as more than simply gay people.

TOMMY CHRISTOPHER SAID:

“On the other hand, the Republican Party lags far behind the rest of the country on gay rights issues,”

Would your reaction be the same if Cenk had asked a Black Dem why he would be a Dem b/c Blacks overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage?

You are equating honest opposition to what would be a major overturning of historically what marriage is for homophobia, From my point of view you and Cenk are the ones who need to justify that position.

Steve, thank you for making my point so much better than I did.

I am so tired of being branded and reviled with impunity b/c my deeply held and thought out positions don’t march in lockstep with the prevailing liberal line.

I find it particularly reprehensible b/c these same people are oh so exquisitely sensitive to every point of view except those that don’t jibe point by point with their own.

Uygur is an absolute idiot.
He’s calling the guest a gay “Uncle Tom” and had to close the segment because his absolute blinding leftist views simply can’t understand the fact that an actual “minority” could possibly disagree with his position.
I’d love to get Cenk and the Colonel into the gym with me sometime.
No fighting, but I assure you both of them would stroke out from doing actual work rather than carrying Barry’s water. What a couple of sad fellows.

Grammie they “posit” a theory with no real “time” or discourse to debate diverse opinions.

And it can become media fodder.

It self perpetuates.

There is no social conservative boycott of CPAC. Most social conservative groups that were invited are attending, including the John Birch Society. Only a few butthurt organizations are boycotting, and their motivation is entirely self-centered: they want publicity.

SteveMG said:
It’s not possible that gay Republicans see themselves as Republicans and Americans first and gay men or women second? That is, their sexuality is important but that other more important issues concern them? And because of that they are willing to join a party that is, yes, less embracing (for want of a better word) of their private sexual lives?

Human beings are pretty complex beings I think. To place them in a box – gays over here, straights over there, black here, whites there – is really viewing them as one-dimensional beings. This is, I think, a major problem with the identity politics of the left (see Tommy Christopher’s analysis to prove my point).

Again, sure, there’s a element in the Republic Party that hasn’t exactly been charitable to gay men and women. But those gay men and women may just see themselves as more than simply gay people.

There’s a unstoppable movement away from an anti-gay agenda within many GOP circles. This is one battle the culture warriors on the left have won. Democrats are petrified over the potential loss of a committed voting block essential to their required coalition. This explains why they continue to demonize gay conservatives.

The boycotting groups are stupid and petty.

That said , remember the ONE NATION rally , the Socialist Party and Communist Party were embraced with open arms ..

lazzzlo said:
“posit”

That made me giggle! LOL

LeviCoult said:
He does, on a daily basis. He’s shits on Obama on a daily basis more than any other commentator aside from FOX. Cenk isn’t a liberal, he’s a realist, which is why he draws such a large crowd.

I’ll play the role of Sarah P. here: You’re a dumb fuck so go play with your Olby blow up doll

Chris Ar said:
There’s a unstoppable movement away from an anti-gay agenda within many GOP circles. This is one battle the culture warriors on the left have won. Democrats are petrified over the potential loss of a committed voting block essential to their required coalition. This explains why they continue to demonize gay conservatives.

Yes I see it too, i.e., a movement if not towards the, broadly defined, full gay agenda but certainly one away from the anti-gay agenda.

It is interesting that the right wing bigots see gay people and only gay people. Not the human being – flesh and blood – beneath it. The real person. They only see the gay part. And so they place them in a box over there and want them to stay. Or disappear. Or worse.

And on the leftwing identity element, all they see is a gay person too. Not a real life flesh and blood complex person; but only a gay person. They too want to put gay people in a box over there and make them say only what they want them to say. Uygur is a classic example of this.

Both sides don’t see real human beings. They see a gay person and nothing else.

Hopefully one day we’ll all move away from this. But it’s a long way off.

Pokerdude777 said:
I’ll play the role of Sarah P. here: You’re a dumb fuck so go play with your Olby blow up doll

U mad?

The real question for Cenk is .. Why the hell are African Americans democrats ?

For over 40 years the democrats have had a strangle hold on the black community.. And what are the results ?.. Govt handouts , unlimited entitlements , poor schools, high highschool dropout rate, sky rocketing abortions, high prison population..

murf said:
The real question for Cenk is .. Why the hell are African Americans democrats ?

For over 40 years the democrats have had a strangle hold on the black community.. And what are the results ?.. Govt handouts , unlimited entitlements , poor schools, high highschool dropout rate, sky rocketing abortions, high prison population..

What’s their alternative? Repubs who want to reinstate slavery? Yes, democrats are pretty crappy, but republicans want to hang you.. literally.

LeviCoult said:
What’s their alternative? Repubs who want to reinstate slavery? Yes, democrats are pretty crappy, but republicans want to hang you.. literally.

Sorry, Robert Byrd is dead..

Why would you say Republicans would want to reinstate slavery? You need to discard what the libs taught you in school and skip the Bill Maher, etc. bs. Look it up: the Republican Party was founded mostly to STOP slavery.

Remember Lincoln?

And gee, what did Ruth Bader Ginsberg say a couple of years ago about Roe v Wade: Answer: “Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”? Who was she referring to?

The biggest racists are liberals – especially when you consider what they have done to the inner cities for 50+ years.

Someone correct me please.

As of right now or soon, the only the in the country gays cannot do is marry in 45 or 46 states.

What else can’t they do?
I’m just curiousand want to know.

Thanks

Is Cerk’s homophobia really that surprising?

Cenk seems to have decided that his path to fame is to emulate Keith Olbermann.
Good luck with that !!

Arkansas Steve said:
Cenk seems to have decided that his path to fame is to emulate Keith Olbermann.
Good luck with that !!

Cenk makes his own path and it is working out well for him.

He has one of the most watched news channels on You Tube where the REAL viewers of the future are.

Fox News’ website is dead and its videos on You Tube get less views than his.

The future for Cenk and the left is bright.

The future for cons not so much.

Old white people are dying.

Demographics of America are changing.

The youth and minority vote ALL TRENDS LEFT

We are all just waiting for you sad sick greedy GOP assholes to die.

Then America can move forward.

shootfromthehip said:
he future for Cenk and the left is bright.

The future for cons not so much.

Old white people are dying.

Demographics of America are changing.

The youth and minority vote ALL TRENDS LEFT

We are all just waiting for you sad sick greedy GOP assholes to die.

Then America can move forward.

Liberalism always fails look at Social Security , Medicare ..nearly bankrupt.

George Bush was socially conservative , not domestically.. i.e NCLB, Medicaid D, Tarp, etc

Put a true conservative in power , who is fiscally conservative both domestically and abroad , and the future of the liberal -wing of the democratic agenda is toast..

Hispanics and African Americans are socially conservative , and once this country becomes bankrupt and entitlement spending becomes no more , you really think the People are going to elect progressives ?

The more older you become the more conservative you are…. unless you’re a rich fantasy world Hollywood unrealist.

shootfromthehip said:
We are all just waiting for you sad sick greedy GOP assholes to die.

With that kind Commie Lib love washing over me I just might, with another mil or more of Medicare, hang around for a long long time.

You do realize that you are quite repulsive, don’t you. I wouldn’t be surprised if your Mama and Daddy moved out – No Forwarding Address – the first time you spent the night away from home. If you were mine I know I would have.

BTW, how is your job app for the BHO Death Panels coming? It sounds like you would be GUNG HO and a natural. Finally, you have found something you would love doing – Ridding the world of “Old white people” and speeding along “sad sick greedy GOP assholes” to their oh so well deserved end.

Murf, the ultimate revenge of every older generation is the certain knowledge that young ignorant arrogant fools like him are going to die young or become what they so disdain.

Karmas a bitch, ain’t it?

shootfromthehip said:
Cenk makes his own path and it is working out well for him. He has one of the most watched news channels on You Tube where the REAL viewers of the future are. Fox News’ website is dead and its videos on You Tube get less views than his. The future for Cenk and the left is bright. The future for cons not so much. Old white people are dying. Demographics of America are changing. The youth and minority vote ALL TRENDS LEFT We are all just waiting for you sad sick greedy GOP assholes to die. Then America can move forward.

Hey shooter, thanks for your wisdom & enlightenment.
I’m sure your “chain of logic” has changed the minds of thousands of conservatives.
You might like to know:
The first time I saw Cenk, I actually liked him. The second time I started to like him, but then saw a sharp edge and one illogical comment. But now, he’s just a hard case, right off the bat acting like Olbermann at maximum glibness.

The game’s not over yet, but after the last election, you might want to re-think that leftward trend yak.

Grammie said:
Murf, the ultimate revenge of every older generation is the certain knowledge that young ignorant arrogant fools like him are going to die young or become what they so disdain.

Karmas a bitch, ain’t it?

It just proves ‘ Wastin away again in Magaritaville ‘ is not just a song by Jimmy Buffet ..

Grammie said:
Murf, the ultimate revenge of every older generation is the certain knowledge that young ignorant arrogant fools like him are going to die young or become what they so disdain.

“If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

Winston Churchill

newzmaker said:
I’m an Independent voter,.

Of course you are.

What a moron. I guess you can be gay and a dumbass. That guy has had far too many cocks slamming his left cheek. Its out of proportion.

Frank Gaffney Superpatriot! said:
Gay Republicans hahahahaha.

I know! Those guys kill me! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

murf said:
The real question for Cenk is .. Why the hell are African Americans democrats ?

For over 40 years the democrats have had a strangle hold on the black community.. And what are the results ?.. Govt handouts , unlimited entitlements , poor schools, high highschool dropout rate, sky rocketing abortions, high prison population..

Um, government handouts is how the GOP operates. Unlimited entitlements? Who the hell has those, other than Exxon/Mobile and Goldman Sachs? Poor schools/high school dropouts = conservative starve government and anti-teacher education policies. Abortions, teen pregnancy, out-of-wedlock births, and drug abuse are spiking in the suburban and rural white communities in red states faster than any other demographic in America.

So THAT’S why blacks are Democrats, because Republicans have been trying to kill them since the Civil Rights Act. I hope that clears things up for you. ;-)

Oh, and Robert Byrd to you, too! If you think a bigot can never change his tune, then you’ve already doomed yourself. Dig it!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Looks like Junk found a home at MessNBC.
When he replaces Matthews, what do your think would be a good name for his show?
I go with a take-off of “You Turks”. How about “Fat Jurks”?

What’s up with the headline? Does it get any more misleading? That’s lame even for blog “standards”.

Grammie said:

BTW, how is your job app for the BHO Death Panels coming? /blockquote>

There are no death panels. I see Palin’s lies and Fox “news” has worked its propaganda disinfo magic on your senile brain.

I know it must be hard for you, but we can’t turn the clock back to when blacks were at the back of the bus, even though i’m sure that’s the America you want back.

That said, happy New Year hope you live a long life.

Yay musinformation!

There are no “death panels.”

So sad how Fox works its magic on the elderly.

Palin + lies = misinformation and panic.

Why is this MSNBC guy making assessments on whether one should be a member of one political party or another? Maybe there are some Turkish Muslims wondering why Cenk Uygur is an American Citizen…and then laugh.

See Cenk this can work both ways.

And If Cenk isn’t gay can he really say one way or another which ideology is most fitting for a gay individual any more than I can tell a Turk what to do?

The intolerant left strikes again. As to why this guy is a Republican when Republicans aren’t as advanced (or something) on gay rights, let me ask the following:

1. Which party enacted DADT? Answer: The Democrats, and only the Democrats — President Clinton and Congress, which at the time was controlled by Democrats in both houses.

2. What is the name of that president of ours who opposes gay marriage? Oh yes, Barack Obama. Following the logic of your article, why is he a Democrat?

3. Which party was the party of segregation? The Democrats. Obviously, mainstream Democrats no longer support segregation (nor do Republicans), but does this mean that black voters are stupid or ignorant for voting Democrat?

“Most improved” isn’t so bad. It reflects a party with a bigger tent that tolerates a diversity of views and is willing to change. Witness what happened at CPAC last year. Leftists in general are far less tolerant. If you deviate from their PC orthodoxy, you are branded a racist (or whatever) and purged.

MSNBC is in such sad shape. The guy can barely make it through the opening dialog. The transitions are awkward and blunt. So, lacking style, he moves on to the substance. Which Mr Robbins proceeds to hand him his ass on.

No style. No substance. No ratings.

Classic MSNBC.

Rescuedog said:
The intolerant left strikes again. As to why this guy is a Republican when Republicans aren’t as advanced (or something) on gay rights, let me ask the following:

1. Which party enacted DADT? Answer: The Democrats, and only the Democrats — President Clinton and Congress, which at the time was controlled by Democrats in both houses.

2. What is the name of that president of ours who opposes gay marriage? Oh yes, Barack Obama. Following the logic of your article, why is he a Democrat?

3. Which party was the party of segregation? The Democrats. Obviously, mainstream Democrats no longer support segregation (nor do Republicans), but does this mean that black voters are stupid or ignorant for voting Democrat?

“Most improved” isn’t so bad. It reflects a party with a bigger tent that tolerates a diversity of views and is willing to change. Witness what happened at CPAC last year. Leftists in general are far less tolerant. If you deviate from their PC orthodoxy, you are branded a racist (or whatever) and purged.

It’s pretty slimy what the Democrats are doing with the DADT politics. But, that is small potatoes compares to the past.

The Republican party was formed to uphold the principles of our Founding Republic. All the incoming black candidates to congress were Republicans. Which is why the Democrats started the Klu klux klan to intimidate and “discourage” those individuals challenging their power. Hell, in the south, you voted democrat or you suffered the consequences. Is there a lower bottom to the lows that Democrats have proven they are willing to stoop to? Lie, cheat, deceive? How do you get lower than murder?

A little history from Wiki:

“In the 1870s, white Democrats gradually returned to power in southern states, sometimes as a result of elections in which paramilitary groups intimidated opponents, attacking blacks or preventing them from voting. Gubernatorial elections were close and disputed in Louisiana for years, with extreme violence unleashed during the campaign. In 1877, a national compromise to gain southern support in the presidential election resulted in the last of the federal troops being withdrawn from the South. White Democrats had regained power in every Southern state.[4] The white, Democratic Party Redeemer government that followed the troop withdrawal legislated Jim Crow laws segregating black people from the state’s white population.

Blacks were still elected to local offices in the 1880s, but the establishment Democrats were passing laws to make voter registration and elections more restrictive, with the result that participation by most blacks and many poor whites began to decrease.”

So, anybody surprised that they would use homosexuals as a political tool?

shootfromthehip said:
Old white people are dying.

shootfromthehip said:
We are all just waiting for you sad sick greedy GOP assholes to die.

shootfromthehip said:
Grammie said:

BTW, how is your job app for the BHO Death Panels coming? /blockquote>

There are no death panels. I see Palin’s lies and Fox “news” has worked its propaganda disinfo magic on your senile brain.

I know it must be hard for you, but we can’t turn the clock back to when blacks were at the back of the bus, even though i’m sure that’s the America you want back.

That said, happy New Year hope you live a long life.

shootfromthehip said:
Yay musinformation!

There are no “death panels.”

So sad how Fox works its magic on the elderly.

Palin + lies = misinformation and pani

Oh, you were under the mistaken impression that you were making serious points in a serious way and we were having a serious conversation?. Not with that twaddle, young man.

If you wish to be part of a big boy conversation with the grown ups try to lose the juvenile snark.

No doubt George Bernard Shaw had you in mind when he said “youth is wasted on the young”

Shooting Blanks – George bernard Shaw’s Poster Boy!

Tommy Christopher: “.. and the party has made some progress on gay rights, they’re still way behind the rest of the class.”

And this is an opinion piece. And a stupid one at that. Tell me, Tommy, what rights normal people enjoy that are denied to homosexuals. Name one.

I guess Cenk would feel more comfortable with Mr. Barron if he were wearing a burqua or maybe stoned to death.

Grammie said:
No doubt George Bernard Shaw had you in mind when he said “youth is wasted on the young”
Shooting Blanks – George bernard Shaw’s Poster Boy!

Shaw was big on eugenics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQvsf2MUKRQ

Calvin said:
Shaw was big on eugenics.

I didn’t know that but vaguely thought he was a Communist sympathizer.

That was a real eye opener! How inadvertently apropos my comment was in a strange way.

I did a little searching and reading in what has turned out to be a treasure trove of info on pertinent issues of the day. Along the way I came across this essay by the late Michael Crichton:

Why Politicized Science is Dangerous
(Excerpted from State of Fear)

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html

Thanks for the link!

Grammie said:
I did a little searching and reading in what has turned out to be a treasure trove of info on pertinent issues of the day. Along the way I came across this essay by the late Michael Crichton:

Why Politicized Science is Dangerous
(Excerpted from State of Fear)

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html

The story of eugenics is important and underlines the dangers of using political rhetoric in scientific debates. But the comparisons between the eugenics movement and climate change science fall flat. In the eugenics movement, there were no peer-reviewed studies that were accessible to the general public showing methodology and allowing those with training to do the calculations themselves. That does exist today. The web is covered with individual websites devoted to doing the math on climate science. And of those, the ones that are the most “political” are all the ones in denial. And when it comes to money, government grants are nothing compared to corporate grants. The pseudo-scientists who get paid by Exxon/Mobil to debunk climate change get paid a LOT more money than anyone on the IPCC. If there’s a rogues gallery of opportunists cashing in on fear out there, it’s the economic doomsayers in thew denial camp, not the climate change proponents who say it can be solved with minimal disruption to the economy. Which one of those two camps seems more alarmist, the optimists or the doomsayers? It’s good to be critical of the entire process. Maybe it’s your turn to look at the deniers with a somewhat more skeptical eye. No?

As a proud tea partier I would like to say that I fully support gay marriage, and social cons should as well. Why? Because marriage among gays would help ferment monogamous relationships, decrease promiscuity and std’s, and create strong family units that are essential for personal economic prosperity. More importantly, gays adopting would save more children from our horrid state system and provide them loving homes while straight couples with their Asian imports refuse to bother.

Paul Westlake said:
Maybe it’s your turn to look at the deniers with a somewhat more skeptical eye. No?

If you had read the essay Crichton raises the same points that are not similar as you do. However, he stresses the points that I also feel that negates much of what you say:

“I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions of the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.

One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are not longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms. ”

Perhaps I find this more compelling b/c my Dad was involved in government funded research as an Auditor for the DoD. He originally was involved in military preparedness, about which he never spoke for obvious reasons, and later on was the chief for a region involved in government funded research, Scientists are every bit as venal, greedy, grasping and vain glorious as any other segment of society if not more so.

They know what side of their bread is buttered on by whom as any highly intelligent person would. As I said here on another thread one doesn’t have to be a world class scientist to realize that the science of global climate involves complexities within complexities interacting in many multiples of cause and effect.

Computer modeling is really in its infancy and I think a huge dose of skepticism is well in order. Couple that with this from Crichton:

“But as Alston Chase put it, “when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.”

That is the danger we now face. And this is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest. ”

I’ve done many hours reading about this and trying to understand it as best I can and my opinion is that we don’t know if AGW is correct, we can’t know it at this point and I am frankly very skeptical of it. Crichton is so eloquent compared to me but I suspect your take on it b/c your one paragraph is laden with such political/emotional words and phrases such as:

“political” are all the ones in denial

government grants are nothing compared to corporate grants – I would like to see some citations on that

The pseudo-scientists who get paid by Exxon/Mobil to debunk climate change get paid a LOT more money than anyone on the IPCC. – Citations here would be nice

rogues gallery of opportunists cashing in on fear out there, it’s the economic doomsayers in thew denial camp, not the climate change proponents who say it can be solved with minimal disruption to the economy – Rogues gallery against proponents of minimal disruption…

Which one of those two camps seems more alarmist, the optimists or the doomsayers? – I’d say say the Algores of this debate. Who do you say?

I have thought about it FOR YEARS. Actually, I’ve been through several cycles of it in my lifetime alone:

“Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.” Time Magazine, Jan. 2, 1939

“America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise” The New York Times, March 27, 1933

“Permafrost in Russia is receding northward up to 100 yards per year.” Time Magazine, 1951

“Winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing.” U.S. News and World Report, Jan. 8, 1954
Global Cooling…. Again?

“Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable” The New York Times, May 21, 1975

“Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another Ice Age.” Time Magazine, June 24, 1974

“North Atlantic sea temperatures declined, and shipping routes were cluttered with ice. Furthermore, the permafrost in Russia and Canada was advancing southward.” The New York Times, December 29, 1974

“There is very important climatic change going on right now… It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth—- like a billion people starving. Fortune Magazine, from Reid Bryson, February 1974
Back to Global Warming…..Confused Yet??

“About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of sustenance because of the rising sea level, due to global warming, in the next few decades.” Al Gore, from ‘Earth in Balance” 1992″

Of course I’m a little too young to have actually been here for this one:

Global Cooling:

“The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age.” Time Magazine, September 10, 1924.

“MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age” The New York Times, September 18, 1923

“The possibility of another Ice age already having started… is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specifically qualified to speak.” The Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923″

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30713

Shall we rspectfully agree to disagree?

He should laugh at him. It’s idiotic, like being a mouse who roots for the cat.

Big Eddie said:
The leader of the Democrat Party , the Lord Barack Obama the Most Merciful , Vacationer – in Chief and King of the Links is opposed to gay marriage . So is the Wise Duke Biden

Lets not forget that Lord Obama has been silent on DADT for two years. He could care less if gays served or not…the only reason he’s jumping in front of it now is so he looks like he’s leading

T.C. said, “and he also points to a coordinated effort to get out the Republican vote in 2004 using anti-gay ballot initiatives.”

The MAJORITY of the voters in those states voted for those PRO-MARRIAGE initiatives. Poor Tommy, that lib gene is working overtime. You are so far left, even for this site. You are not going to be a happy camper for the next two years.

Grammie said:
Shall we rspectfully agree to disagree?

I suppose we’ll have to, but one thing you should consider – there’s a huge gulf of a difference between the technology being used today and the tech in use when all those quotes were made. Science was in its infancy through most of the twentieth century, before powerful satellites came into existence. Let’s just look at archaeology. Until we had satellites to take measurements, we had no idea that whole Mayan cities lay buried under the jungle, whole causeways crisscrossing Mayan territory were only discovered by satellite. Archaeology took a massive leap forward with satellite imagery. And that’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg (ba-dum). The advancements made in science over the past thirty years alone have been mind-boggling – from the Apple IIc and Commodore 64 to iPhone and iPad, from topping out at 640k ram to running graphics apps on a handheld PDA, from treating cancer with surgery to epi-genetics, all in a few short decades. While the dynamic Chrichton describes (and I did read the entire essay) is important and should be considered in all circumstances, I really don’t see any equivalence between the obviously self-serving eugenics movement (and remember, it was a “movement,” not just an argument) and the climate change proponents. Research scientists can get grants for almost anything they want to research and can show has some semblance of relevance. Why would any scientist stick to his guns on a flawed theory for the money when they can get the same money in a myriad of other ways? It just doesn’t compute.

As for citations, corporations don’t disclose their payments to scientists, but we know they’re getting paid. We also know that corporations have much deeper pockets than the government when it comes to funding research. For Uncle Sam, it’s a matter of bureaucracy. For corporations, it’s advertising and PR. Corporations never skimp on advertising and PR – they layoff workers to afford more PR, not the other way around. So while I can’t give you a citation due to corporate secrecy, I can say that government grants are far less profitable and beneficial to its recipients than corporate salaries are for those who toe the corporate line. To think that a research scientist makes more money than a corporate shill is really very naive. On an institutional level, your argument has more purchase, but I’d have to see evidence that universities and research orgs are actively submitting erroneous data for the purposes of securing grants before I decide that they have ulterior motives.

I don’t know why people are so quick to assign ulterior motives to people who have devoted their lives to science while simultaneously absolving people who have devoted their lives to profit of the same. If anyone has a vested interest on economic terms, it is the polluting corporations and their allies who stand the most to lose by moving beyond fossil fuels… or so they think. If they were just a tad less myopic, they would see how there is this massive gold mine staring them in the face… but that’s another discussion. ;-)

Scott_in_MI said:
Lets not forget that Lord Obama has been silent on DADT for two years. He could care less if gays served or not…the only reason he’s jumping in front of it now is so he looks like he’s leading

No, he’s been infuriating his base by insisting that it had to be done in Congress all along, from day one. Is there any lie you people are uncomfortable uttering?

Good grief.

Grammie said:
I have thought about it FOR YEARS. Actually, I’ve been through several cycles of it in my lifetime alone:

You nailed the Super Informed Westlake good with that post. He has no idea what time of day it is let alone the temp.

gordonbloyershow said:
You nailed the Super Informed Westlake good with that post. He has no idea what time of day it is let alone the temp.

Gordo the Magnificent has spoken! Don’t forget to flush.

Where to start?

Oerhaps with what seem to be some very fundamental differences between us.

Yes, it goes without saying that science, in fact every human endeavor, increases exponentially b/c we add to what proves to be valid. I well understand that, perhaps even more deeply than you. My grandfather was born before the Civil War and died in 1962 when I was a young woman. My Mama died at 100 a few years ago. I have a very good sense of the breathtaking advances we’ve made. But I also know that each generation, at least since the Renaissance feels that they are almost at the pinnacle.

I put much more credence in the immutable laws of human nature than in science that will by its very nature grow, expand, improve and also discard closely held scientific fact that just doesn’t live up to its billing.

You are convinced that we have beat Rumsfeld at his game of knowing what is perhaps unknowable at this time. I don’t. The day the scientific community comes forward with broad agreement from those on both sides of the issue and declares that their are computer models that can predict global temps and weather patterns for the LAST fifty years I’ll change my mind. Heck, if they could have predicted the global climate effects of the Kuwaiti oil field fires I would be leaning their way. They can’t and they didn’t.

I don’t see how they could until we can, for starters, accurately predict things such as volcanoes, their frequency and severity with any confidence, How do we do on accurately predicting activity of the sun, the slight wobble in the earth’s axis and a million other things that we don’t know that we don’t know.

Another fundamental difference between us. You fear corporations above all and I fear politicians and governments above all. The confluence of governments/political ideologies and good and/or junk science is exactly what started this conversation.

Your last paragraph again highlights for me that you seem to be the one using politically charged language in your argument.

“I don’t know why people are so quick to assign ulterior motives to people who have devoted their lives to science while simultaneously absolving people who have devoted their lives to profit of the same”

I didn’t do that. I ascribed to them the same motives that characteristics that all humanity shares. They are drawn from humanity and they are no better or worse than all of us. Dittos for those in the business world and their corporate allies. I love and revere our Founding Fathers b/c that remarkable group of men had such a deep understanding of human nature, which is a constant through the ages.

I can’t understand the details of all the science but I have done a lot of reading and have reached my conclusion on the totality as I see it.

In closing, do you really believe that government, which is made up at the higher levels of ideologues, don’t control vast sums of monies and use that power to advance their own beliefs? Again, we definitely have different world views.

Hopefully, one or the other will either be proven by science or the Global Climate. I would like to know the final answer but I,m not counting on it.

This has been a fun discussion. It does a body, especially mine, good to have to think and marshall arguments when their daily life no longer requires such efforts.

Happy New year!

shootfromthehip said:
Cenk makes his own path and it is working out well for him. He has one of the most watched news channels on You Tube where the REAL viewers of the future are. Fox News’ website is dead and its videos on You Tube get less views than his. The future for Cenk and the left is bright. The future for cons not so much. Old white people are dying. Demographics of America are changing. The youth and minority vote ALL TRENDS LEFT We are all just waiting for you sad sick greedy GOP assholes to die. Then America can move forward.

Been a sociopath long?

All the Mary’s in heaven, sometimes I think you’re a conservative plant.

Grammie said:
Another fundamental difference between us. You fear corporations above all and I fear politicians and governments above all. The confluence of governments/political ideologies and good and/or junk science is exactly what started this conversation.

You found the crux of our difference perfectly. Yes, I fear the unchecked power of private, unaccountable interests in a democracy MUCH more than I do the changeable political trade winds of government. If we created our processes to reflect outcomes, your point would have more merit. But since our government system is designed as a process with accountability – elections – while corporate structures are designed to obfuscate accountability, it seems clear that government control gives us the best chance for any form of accountability at all. The Founders knew full well that governance will happen irrespective of law. Without law, governance is wielded by the most violent. The most violent actors in the world are faceless corporations. The U.S. military is in more than 100 nations as I type, protecting the global corporate empire as it has been constructed over the past several decades. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were direct results of commercial policies endorsed and protected by American military might. Corporate officers are legally bound to maximize profit, and many take that mandate to an extreme level, bypassing other responsibilities (the public good used to be the core of every corporate charter) to focus on the singular goal of profit. No corporate officer announces that he or she wants to improve the national dialog or help rebuild America’s infrastructure or bring about prosperity in poor neighborhoods. They say one thing – show me the money. When you can find an altruistic corporation on your side of the climate change debate, I’ll salute. But I don’t think you’ll find one. Seriously, not one.

And speaking of altruism, yes, there are altruistic people in the world. I think this statement reveals a level of cynicism I don’t share…

Grammie said:
I ascribed to them the same motives that characteristics that all humanity shares. They are drawn from humanity and they are no better or worse than all of us.

No, I don’t believe we’re all capable of doing the same things. Some people are capable of extreme cruelty that others would be literally sickened by. Some people are capable of acts of kindness that other people would find foolish and naive. The human condition is not so pat. Yes, we are all capable of better and worse than we imagine, but not all fall within the same range of possibilities. People who look at the salaries of various jobs in life and choose their careers accordingly have a very different set of priorities than those who follow a passion despite knowing the riches will never come, like art history or teaching or biology. If you want to make money, be a banker or a financial planner, if you want to make the world a better place, those aren’t the degrees you need.

I think most of humanity is capable of being selfish and self-less in turns. But many people lean one way or the other. Politicians are a mixed bag – some are obviously in it for themselves, others actually believe in something. But when it comes to corporate executives and incestuous boards of directors, you’ll be hard-pressed to find an altruist in the bunch. And that’s why I don’t put any faith in corporations. Not only are they generally incompetent (the instant a company can survive after making one bad decision, it becomes incompetent), they are not accountable to anyone (since the majority of shareholders are executives, directors, and the institutional fund mangers that love them), and they have only one goal in mind – profit. The fallacy of the free market is that it isn’t a free market any more – hasn’t been since we started rigging various sectors with price fixing, subsidies, abatements, loopholes, off-shore havens, out-sourced labor, and on and on and on. And anyone who still believes in supply-side economics is ignoring the first lesson of economics 101 – demand drives supply. Period. But when an economy is structured to allow supply to dictate demand (telecommunications, energy, factory food production and health care monopolies), the market forces we expect to correct for poor decisions isn’t there. I’m sure there are plenty on the right who agree in total with that point with regard to GM and Chrysler.

The long and short of it is this: neither corporations nor government can be trusted, but I don’t have a vote when it comes to corporations. I do in my government. So, since I still have, ostensibly, an avenue for expressing my will in the electoral process, government is where I’d rather see these issues play out, not the private sector. And here’s a just a little example of why:

“In January 2000, just months after it took over control of the water system of Bolivia’s third largest city, Cochabamba, a Bechtel Corporation subsidiary hit water users with enormous price increases. These increases forced some of the poorest families in South America to literally choose between food and water.

- http://www.democracyctr.org/bolivia/investigations/water/

“At 10am, President Hugo Banzer places Bolivia under martial law. This drastic move concludes a week of protests, general strikes and transportation blockages that have jerked the country to a virtual standstill, and follows the surprise announcement of government concession to protesters’ demands to break a $200 million contract selling Cochabamba’s public water system to foreign investors.”

- http://thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Bolivia_WaterWarVictory.html

“Bechtel got the contract as a result of the World Bank’s aggressive pressure campaign on Bolivia to privatize state enterprises.”

- http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6670

The people at the heart of these corporations really are not like you and me. They aren’t. We are the “little people” to them, just more numbers on a graph. Actual people’s lives are meaningless to these people. They are willing to starve an entire culture for a few extra bucks of profit. And if you think Bechtel is alone, you should look up all the horror stories around Halliburton and KBR, Cargill and Monsanto, GE, Goldman Sachs, etc, etc. No government wold be able to get away with rigging the California energy sector to self-immolate the way Enron did. No government would be able to get away with selling bad loans the way Goldman and Lehman did (Fannie and Freddie never issued sub-prime loans because, as a government agency, they were prohibited from doing so, but that didn’t stop Goldman from packaging the sub-prime right in the same bundle, causing Fannie and Freddie to have to cover much more liability than they were ever on the hook for with their own portfolio).

Goldman literally engineered the housing bubble and bust, intentionally, like a well-oiled machine. That was not a mistake, it was the plan. And it worked like a charm. The reason so many people seem to have faith in corporations, in my opinion, is because we haven’t thrown any of the corrupt officers in jail. Blankfein is a criminal on a massive scale and should be hung for treason as far as I’m concerned (after conviction, of course) – because intentionally harming the American economy constitutes waging war on the American people in my book. And I honestly don’t think all of us are capable of that. I know I’m not. It takes a special kind of disconnect from humanity to make decisions like that. And even though there are certainly people in government just like Blankfein, at least we have the opportunity to vote those people out, and if the Tea Party proved nothing else this election cycle, they proved that the grass roots can still sway elections. Could the Tea Party ever have the same impact on Goldman Sachs? Not a chance.

That’s why I believe government is still important and the only place we can put any faith in the future, because ultimately it is us, or at least it’s supposed to be. Corporations are not us, and they are not run by people like us. Even the self-made are not like us, because the nouveau riche are even more classist than their old-money counterparts. And having traveled in a few of these circles and seen some of these people up close myself, with my own eyes, I can tell you that they hate us. Really. They hate humanity. Exactly the opposite of those cretin liberals who love humanity but hate people, corporate wonks love people but hate humanity. They’re all assholes as far as I’m concerned, but I feel more comfortable with assholes I can vote out than assholes who can stomp on my economy and get away with it scott free.

But I completely agree with your last statement – good and worthy discussion.

Happy New Year!

Paul, I’m running out steam for serious stuff at this point.

Plus, I can’t find my glasses and am using my sunglasses. Now that I don’t have the sunlight at my back I can barely see the keyboard. My not quite ready to go cataracts aren’t helping either.

I’m going to bookmark this page and come back to it.

I hope to see you here again. A worthwhile debate can be worth picking through the gutter dwellers that seem to swarm the site at times.

Ciao.

ha ha whats the equivalent “uncle tom” for republican gays

ha ha this guy is something else

The ReaI Royal King said:
Been a sociopath long?

All the Mary’s in heaven, sometimes I think you’re a conservative plant.

Nope not a plant.

No more thumbs up for you, asshole. I’ve been a supporter of yours all year long, btw. Way to have my back.

Happy New Year!

I just have a different way of expressing myself.

Some beat around the bush, I say what is on my mind and what others are thinking but are afraid to say.

That said, happy New Year to all.

Grammie said:
Paul, I’m running out steam for serious stuff at this point.

Plus, I can’t find my glasses and am using my sunglasses. Now that I don’t have the sunlight at my back I can barely see the keyboard. My not quite ready to go cataracts aren’t helping either.

I’m going to bookmark this page and come back to it.

I hope to see you here again. A worthwhile debate can be worth picking through the gutter dwellers that seem to swarm the site at times.

Ciao.

Agreed. Bookmarked. I’ll check in from time to time. Hope you have nice evening.

Happy New Year to all!

Cenk Uygur’s bigotry, and Tommy Christopher’s spreading of this bigotry shows how hateful Progressives really are towards gay people. They only like them if they KNOW THEIR PLACE: take marching orders from Progressives.