Out of curiosity… can we get a study on how much time MSNBC spends talking about FOX or other networks? Man… if FNC shut its doors tomorrow, MSNBC would be forced to shut its doors the next day for lack of programming.

Of course, this might cut into Mediaite’s constant fluffing on Rachel Maddow… who only seems to get positive articles, and one’s (like this) simply highlighting something she said. What’s the relative importance of this story across the broad spectrum of news, television, or cable news? Well… none. But hey, it makes the editors happy to hear something they agree with, so there you go!

Sure it’s bias… but it’s also Mediaite… so what else is new?

On an MSNBC commercial, I just heard Rachel say she doesn’t push an agenda. Glad I’d put my coffee down, or I’d have done a Vaudeville-style spit take. As to saying that global warming has put more moisture in the air, hence more snowfall. Wouldn’t that be resulting in torrential rains on the East coast during the summer? When the air is actually much warmer than it is now? And I get it that the north pole is shrinking. But why is the ice at the south pole expanding? And if Katrina proved we’re in for cat five storms all the time, what happened to them? Just asking. But according to the far left, no asking allowed. Take their conclusions and shut up.

What Rachel does is expose the laughably false talking points of those who’s deliberately designed propaganda damages our country and the collective minds of the public.

Unfortunately, this became essential after years of the Right Wing Wurlitzer Talking Points bleeding into the main stream discourse, thereby poisoning the well of both science and politics.

There’s no sparring involved, just one side making ridiculous claims that only serve their narrow agenda, and the other side presenting factual data to minimize the damage to the public airwaves.

Only in America!

Out of curiousity… can we get a study of how much of the rampant GOP biased idiocy emanating from Fox Not News? Man … if FNNC stopped that line of broadcasting FNNC would be forced to shut its doors the next day for lack of progamming.

And the FNNC viewers’ collective IQs would increase in double digits.

The far left uses four steps to win an argument.

1. Develop intense hatred for anyone with different opinions.
2. Call the person names.
3. Make fun of the person’s appearance.
4. Point proven. Argument over.

Writer – You’ve just described Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

I was thinking more Keith, Rachel, and the left wing posters here.

“just one side making ridiculous claims that only serve their narrow agenda, and the other side presenting factual data”

The agenda is to get more money for research and destroy anyone who disagrees.

Climate-change skeptics claim some leaked e-mails suggest scientists were colluding in an attempt to bolster the theory that global warming is caused by humans. Experts, including the unit’s director Professor Phil Jones, are accused of manipulating data and withholding scientific information to prevent its disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

At one time, science had “proven” that the sun revolves around the earth. Using the left’s reasoning, we should have accepted that and shouted down anyone with questions. After all, science had ‘proven’ it.

Fox covers the news. Meanwhile MSNBC covers Fox’s coverage of the news. This is a key problem with Maddow. She prefers scoring points against other pundits rather than dealing with the pressing issues of the day. The rest of America is worried about their jobs, the imploding economy, the declining dollar, the runaway deficits, the intrusive federal government, out-of-touch politicians, etc. Meanwhile Maddow is worried about…GLENN BECK.

Perhaps I’m unfair. Maddow’s obsession with Fox News may actually represent her concern about job losses — namely her own job, which is definitely hanging in the balance given her execrable performance in the ratings.

Jim R says:
February 13, 2010 at 12:08 pm

There’s no sparring involved, just one side making ridiculous claims that only serve their narrow agenda, and the other side presenting factual data to minimize the damage to the public airwaves.

It’s neat how black and white your world is. Must be easy to make decisions when you have an “always good” versus an “always bad.” Again, that’s not the real world… but I suppose that doesn’t mean it’s not nice.

Bill Adkins says:
February 13, 2010 at 12:12 pm

You’ve got a lot of hate and anger Bill… but not a lot of common sense. That’s really a shame… no way to live your life.

PS- Your “study request” isn’t a sentence, and doesn’t make sense. Please try again. I know your responses are all pretty much “angry liberal mad-libs,” but I think this time you’ve got things a little mixed up. Or at least, more mixed up than normal… which really does say something.

I did mix up that sentence, blue -my mistake was modelling it after yours. Which really says something.

Beck must secretly be a left winger. When he puts on a jacket, pretends to smoke a pipe, and launches into an impression of those on the left, he captures the hateful, sneering arrogance so dead on it’s uncanny. It’s often said that both Beck and Olbermann are clowns. If so, here’s the difference. Beck would be Bozo (jovial, tongue in cheek) Olbermann would be John Wayne Gacy. (hateful, evil)

Bill Adkins says:
February 13, 2010 at 12:58 pm

Yes… I know that you “modeled” it after mine. But you see, mine asked a question. You were too busy frothing at the mouth to write a coherent question out of yours… let’s examine:

Mine:
Out of curiosity… can we get a study on how much time MSNBC spends talking about FOX or other networks?

Yours:
Out of curiousity [sic]… can we get a study of how much of the rampant GOP biased idiocy emanating from Fox Not News [sic]?

Strike One- You spelled “curiosity” wrong.
Strike Two- You didn’t actually ask a question. “Can we get a study” good so far… “of how much of the rampant GOP biased idiocy emanating from Fox Not News” huh? How much is what? You left off the question! What you meant to write was something like: “Can we get a study of FOX News’s (you seem confused about their name… I fixed it for you) GOP bias?” See… that’s a question. You left off the “is XYZ” at the end of your statement.

My guess is that you were too angry someone disagreed with you (ie: me… and me being Jewish threw you overboard, because we know how much you hate that) to be coherent.

Oh, and Strike Three- Even after I called you out on it, you were too angry to fix it and ask a real question.

Sorry… you’re out!

Hot Air — Video: New test of patriotism – AGW belief
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/11/video-new-test-of-patriotism-agw-belief/
—
Hot Air — Video: Frozen Wasteland
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/11/video-frozen-wasteland/

@writer… compares ‘clowns’ Beck and Olbermann. Calls Olbermann “John Wayne Gacy ( the serial gay murderer)”. Just prior to that, writer laments that the “hateful left” calls those with opposing views,names. writer, that didn’t do much for your cred. Why not have the sand to admit you are perfectly comfortable using the same tactics you condemn?

Who is this Maddow person? I thought Air America had gone out of business. Why model a cable news network on the Air America model?

“At one time, science had ‘proven’ that the sun revolves around the earth. Using the left’s reasoning, we should have accepted that and shouted down anyone with questions. After all, science had ‘proven’ it.”
-writer

Heliocentrism? That’s what you’re talking about? Which countered the previous theory of the earth’s rotation as dictated by the church? So… your point is… the rational, scientific evidence presented by scholars, and was subsequently denied by the willfully ignorant conservative right… should be accepted?

Holy hell, it’s happened. You’re so wrong that we’re right!

writer says:
“I was thinking more Keith, Rachel, and the left wing posters here.”

Wow. You’re using the exact same tactics that you are accusing others of using. Interesting double standard. Right now both sides seem to engaging an “I know you are but what am I” style of debate.

As far as global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it, National Geographic seems to be a non-partisan source:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

Interesting, James, that you singled me out for doing it, but not Ted or any others on the left. And if you’ll note, I never said Beck doesn’t do it. But when Arianna Huffington singles Beck out for name calling, then appears on Olbermann’s show, I do like pointing out the hypocrisy.

Hatehavingtodothis, the point is that the left is now practicing the same type of close-mindedness. The debate is over, and anyone raising any further questions must be ridiculed and silenced. As your snarky reply to me demonstrates. If ‘your side’ is so certain they’re right, why feel so threatened when anyone raises questions? Let the investigation continue, instead of saying “I agree with what’s been said so far, so there can be no further discussion.”

Writer-
I have to assume that “the same kind of close-mindedness” you are referring to from my post is the close-mindedness of deny-hungry conservatives. So you’re citing your own close-mindedness as a reason for me to think like you? No thank you! My mind is open to ideas that are as grounded in rational, scientifically backed studies as the what the academic world is currently working with, just like you unintentionally argued in your first post. Does this make sense to you? I honestly don’t ask that in a condescending way… I just mean… have YOU tried opening your mind before you (once again) find yourself on the wrong side of history?

I realize that my lack of editing has led to errors in that last post may make it a little tricky for you to understand, at least grammatically, the point I was trying to make, but I think you can still make out what I was trying to say.

I’ll admit I’m not a scientist or a meteorologist. Are you? And being one of the unwashed masses, yes, it does sound funny to me when someone says we’re getting more snow because it’s getting warmer. Can’t help it. But my main point is, for every scientist who says humans are causing global warming, there’s another one who says we’re not. Unlike you, I don’t pretend to know which side is correct.

For one, stop saying “global warming.” It’s too restrictive of a term to describe what we’re seeing globally which is “climate change”. Not every hiccup in a day to day or month to month weather pattern will show us, from our inherently limited perspective, increasing temperatures. But ultimately, what broader data shows, both in on a global and longitudinal sense, is a man made influence on the weather that has been disrupting local weather patterns and increasing the atmosphere’s temperatures on the whole.

Take the current storms we have. We just came off of a very hot summer. Globe is hotter. Warmer global temperatures leads to more water evaporation and a lot of other stuff that traps water in the sky and leads to heavier accumulation when it does eventually fall from the sky (i.e., now).

What upsets me is that people draw information that they take to be true from media outlets such as, for some sad reason, cable news, where certain talking heads go around spewing ignorant, false, and intentionally misleading statements to further a political point, spreading misinformation to confuse and dumb down the masses to make sure that their political party can continue to have a leg to stand on in an argument that they can’t fight any other way! And that is EXACTLY what Fox News is doing in these clips. And again, I reiterate, in spite of those facts, you’re still on their side?

I didn’t know weather had a ‘side’. That’s the problem. I have no dog in this fight. Your ‘side’ may be right. All I’m saying is, if other scientists out there have different opinions, let’s hear them out. For example, (this has nothing to do with weather) I saw a show on the History channel about the Wright brothers. They started out getting books on theories of flight and following them. They finally realized they’d have to throw most of the accepted wisdom and start from scratch. Any time you’re locked into a certain ‘side’, you could be ignoring something important.

But what if there isn’t really a debate amongst the credible scientific community as to whether or not humans were influencing the climate? Because… there really isn’t one. The disagreement is mostly myth, especially the extent and validity of the scientific challenges against global warming. The real debate is really between the scientific community and the right wing agenda who uses props like Fox News stirs the pot of doubt in the minds of people who are used to having their beliefs affirmed when they watch that channel. They inspire fear and distrust in science and it’s wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. And very dangerous. Eventually, they’ll be proven wrong, as they always are on these kinds of things, but they’ll just move on to their next failed attempt at derailing scientific progress.

If Glenn Beck can convincingly dismiss science by using a funny voice and a rubbery face, how can he be wrong?

Yeah, Fox could be wrong. But at least they present another side for people to ponder. Where else are you going to hear it? The major networks, and especially MSNBC on cable, ignore stories at will, simply because they don’t fit within their political agenda. And yes, the left will say it’s a double standard. Fox does it too. Thing is, Fox is one island in a sea of liberal bias. Where else are people going to hear about Acorn, or Van Jones, or Bill Ayers, or any of the other stories the rest won’t cover because it might make ‘their side’ look bad? And if the global warming/climate change issue is a slam dunk, time will prove ‘your side’ correct. Why get so upset if one network out of all the rest presents a different opinion?

What concerns me isn’t that Fox News is expressing a view-point that counters my own. What bothers me is their willful attempt to manipulate the information and arguments coming from the left. You say the MSM doesn’t cover issues they don’t believe? I would love if they didn’t say anything at all about global warming! They can go ahead and ignore that story that doesn’t fit in their political agenda and it would be nothing for me to fret over. But they DO cover global warming- inaccurately! Did you NOT see the Acorn covered on CNN? They reported it too. CNN didn’t deny Acorn. The difference is, and the point I’m trying to make, is that if this had all been reversed, I bet Fox News would still be rehashing conspiracy theories about how James O’Keefe is a left-wing, socialist, fascist, nazi who forged the videos himself, as opposed to CNN who may not have given it as much screen time, but at least didn’t lie about what it showed.

But MSNBC didn’t cover Acorn until every other outlet in the country was doing it. And I’m not saying Fox is always right. But they’re not always wrong, either. The left takes an all or none position on everything. For example, isn’t it possible that Acorn is corrupt, and that O’Keefe was wrong for the phone caper? Fox isn’t “lying” simply because their opinion shows feature opinions you don’t like.

“The left takes an all or none position on everything.”

No, the right takes an all or none position on everything.

Ok, maybe we both get carried away sometimes.

And fine, Fox News isn’t lying, they just pay all of their hosts to. Is that better? are “I don’t think it takes a genius to see through the more-snow-is-proof-of-global-warming-claim”, “the snow is burying his global warming theory”, “another storm could be heading this way next week! Global warming, where are ya?” opinions I don’t like? Not really. They’re an awe-inspiring display of ignorance at best, and outright lies at worst! Either way, shame on Fox News if a single person walked away from their TV screen thinking that this week’s snow fall in any way disproves the theory of global warming.

Your generalizations are too sweeping. For example, when Glenn Beck said Van Jones was a communist, then ran tapes showing Jones, in his own words, admitting it, then where was the lie? A better example of a lie would be someone who goes to a church for twenty years, listens to a racist radical pastor every Sunday, then says he has no idea the pastor felt that way.

Wait, what generalization? My three quotes as an example? And I don’t even know how to go about acknowledging your example. Ok? I guess? It’s not really tied to what I was talking about.

And see why did you counter with a Rev. Wright jab? 1) It’s pretty retro, and 2) there’s a lot more grey area in how well you and I can debate the depth of the relationship that our president had with his minister as opposed to things that are in the public sphere… like that global warming theory isn’t discredited by this snow storm… not even a little bit.

Here is the whole problem with the “science-deniers”, “flat Earth” accusations that the GW supporters use instead of discussing an issue: The whole reason there are growing numbers of people who are suspicious of the global warming hysteria is that there is a growing amount of science that contradicts the established GW “science”. Ergo, there is a defined need to investigate why there is conflicting evidence. It is not denying science, it is demanding a scientific study be made complete. Kind of a big difference.

Ironically, the very people who accuse others of denying science are the ones who refuse to even listen to contradictory information and resort to name-calling to try to silence a discussion.

Show me the number of scientific articles for and against man-made climate change. It’s really not a debate. The reason people are getting suspicious is because they are made distrustful of science. There may not be a consensus on the extent and rate of climate change, but there is not a large group of scientists anywhere who are saying that humans haven’t affected climate. The reason people think there are, is because of misinformation like Fox News spreads. America is unique in the western world for having such doubts on climate change, and, oh, let’s throw evolution in there too.

I am not not listening to contradictory information. It’s just not saying what I think you’re arguing that it’s saying.

Actually the British newspapers have been printing numerous articles the past few months detailing how much of the “settled” science has been shown to be false, faked, manipulated, or otherwise. American news outlets have been mute on the subject. The hyped Himalayan Glacier melt has been revealed not to be based on science at all but a lone magazine article. The hockey stick graphs predicting warming have been exposed as a hoax. Just yesterday the IPCC was forced to admit they gave wrong information on yet another portion of their deeply flawed 2007 report concerning sea levels in Holland. Now how exactly is FOX to blame for all this? This is not a residual fear of science, it is a fear that the people who have been collecting untold millions of dollars in grants have been lying to maintain the cash flow.

Ok. I get it. Not all scientific articles point the same direction. That’s how science has always worked. I love academic debate and it’s going to be very interesting to see how all of this data and more will be used in the future.

So on this, we’ll agree to disagree I guess. I can cite studies for climate change. You can cite studies against. So it goes. No politicizing.

Rooting arguments in studies and facts makes for a real debate. You’re doing it. Fox ain’t.

But let’s bring this back to the clip, because this is where the firmest footing in my argument is based- I wouldn’t be upset if Fox News spent equal time covering competing scientific articles. They don’t do that. They try to reach angry, confused, easily-influenced americans on a visceral level. They looked at the snow outside and told Americans that it means that global warming doesn’t exist, which is, (can we all agree?), wrong. Wrong! And this is either because they’re intentionally trying to sway people to believe global warming doesn’t exist by using points they know aren’t rooted in fact (lying) or they know so little about climate change that it would make any reporting they have ever done on the topic to be suspect (ignorance).

Well, my take on the whole D.C. snow “proof” is that they are mirroring what Al Gore has done himself in years past. He has cited record highs and elevated hurricane activity in select years as his “proof”, so many taking the opposite side are using his method to equate. Both ways it is anecdotal, and neither is conclusive.

What I have heard to formulate my opinion comes from climatologists who study the Earth’s history. They will tell you 100 years is way too short to make a reasoned measure of climate cycles as the ebb and flow of ice ages is vastly immense in time. I look at numerous land formations throughout the globe that have been formed by glacial activity that was far more advanced than current levels and they receded thousands of years before mankind came to be. I heard in Europe some ice melted off to reveal an archaelogical site, so there had to have been much less ice long ago before industrialization. To suggest that we have had such an impact is the height of ego by my reading.

I also look back to only about 50 years ago. We were hearing all the same kind of talk – man killing the planet, temperatures changing to kill us off – but we were hastening an ice age back then; now we are going to burn ourselves off the planet. Simply, they have been wrong on this sort of thing before. They also predicted we would run out of oil in the 70s, that the population explosion would stave off humanity by 1980, and that the oceans would die-off in the 90s. So I am not prone to panic about this stuff. I say study it and make sure we are correct before we make drastic decisions based on junk science.

Joe,
I noticed you failed to mention the MANY times that Glenn has stated that one storm doesn’t prove that GW exists or doesn’t exist. Not that I’m surprised about the omission. Keep it up Glenn, pretty soon you’ll drive all the libs completely batty and we won’t have to listen to them anymore.

He said that one storm proves nothing during that very episode, Maddow convemiently left left that out. The ratings of Maddow vs. Beck say it all. Deceiver vs. truth seeker.

Global warming alarmist now forced to admit there has been no warming since 1995:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

The house of cards is not only tottering, it has collapsed to the ground.

NewsBusters: Rachel Maddow Cherry-picks Glenn Beck To Call Him A Liar
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/02/13/rachel-maddow-calls-glenn-beck-liar

NewsBusters: ClimateGate’s Phil ‘Hide the Decline’ Jones Admits Manipulating Data
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/02/13/climategate-scientist-says-g-warming-debate-not-over-discusses-hide-d

to borrow a line from Barry Levinson, I think I’m Not Blue may be more in need of a bl$w job than any white man in history.

I’m not trying to cast aspersions, but my guess is that in between masturbating to interracial porn and giving handjobs to homeless guys, I’m not blue spends his time spouting talking points and attacking posters here–as opposed to debating. Which is fine–I love interracial porn. But insult isn’t debate.

And I have no dog in the fight–but it appears from a brief scan of these comments that I’m Not Blue is a poser, a troll, an ONLINE tough guy, a keyboard jockey whose daily singular event is who he’s gotten into it while on the computere.

So on a night where I decided to relax and read, this is kinda fun for me, I can see where he likes it.

But he’s not saying anything. It appears he doesn’t want to debate, he’s a bully and punk.
He’s a hater that really needs either some concentrated love, intense therapy, or brown alcohol to kill the bugs up his (her?) ass.

ps. Oh, and WRITER?
writer says:
February 13, 2010 at 12:23 pm
At one time, science had “proven” that the sun revolves around the earth. Using the left’s reasoning, we should have accepted that and shouted down anyone with questions. After all, science had ‘proven’ it.

Sorry–it was RELIGION that said the sun revolved around the earth–and science proved it wrong.

hatehavingtodothis says:
February 13, 2010 at 4:12 pm

For one, stop saying “global warming.” It’s too restrictive of a term to describe what we’re seeing globally which is “climate change”.

You don’t see this as ironic? They began the pitch saying it was “global warming,” but realized that they couldn’t market that too well… the obvious fallacy of the title made it unbelievable. So they change it to a name which means, “weather.” Too much rain = “climate change.” Too much snow = “climate change.” Too hot in the summer = “climate change.” Too cold in the winter = climate change.” See… it’s an open-ended answer to the question of, “Why is it so *weather* right now?”

As for the rest of your comment… you don’t like it when people disagree. The science isn’t easy to understand by anyone, but you’ve put your faith in it for political reasons. However, that makes debate really difficult… you can’t be “pro” something you barely understand, and only believe because you’ve been told to believe. Sure you can regurgitate some facts, and some may even be true… but on the whole, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

So, the easiest way to maintain your self-righteousness, is to shut down anyone who disagrees as being “dangerous,” or “misleading,” or “political.” The truth is, it is you who represents all those things. I’ll prove this simply. There are many scientists out there who disagree with the theory… are they all wrong too? Are they too political? Are they too unwilling to listen to “reason?” Aren’t they scientists just like the scientists you’ve put your faith in?

Come on… you’ve made up your mind, and simply want people to agree… don’t claim anything else.

ImNotBlue says: As for the rest of your comment… you don’t like it when people disagree.

INCORRECT. CHECK YOUR MIRROR.

ImNotBlue says: The science isn’t easy to understand by anyone, but you’ve put your faith in it for political reasons.

ITS EASY TO JUST SAY NO. BUT WHEN THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS CONCUR ON SOMETHING–WHERE THERE REALLY IS NO DEBATE–THEN IT WOULD APPEAR THAT YOU YOURSELF CAN CREDIT YOUR SKEPTICISM TO REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS. MAYBE HYPOCRISY IS THE NEW HOT SAUCE WHERE YOU LIVE.

ImNotBlue says: you can’t be “pro” something you barely understand, and only believe because you’ve been told to believe. Sure you can regurgitate some facts, and some may even be true… but on the whole, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

SEE ABOVE. (GET THAT MIRROR YET?)

ImNotBlue says: There are many scientists out there who disagree with the theory… are they all wrong too? Are they too political? Are they too unwilling to listen to “reason?” Aren’t they scientists just like the scientists you’ve put your faith in?

OK, FRANCIS. THERE ARE SCIENTISTS WHO DISAGREE. BUT IF YOU’RE GOING TO STAKE YOUR CLAIM WITH THE 2% OF SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVE THAT THE LATEST SNOW STORM IS EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS NO MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE, THEN YOU’RE NOT BEING OBJECTIVE–YOU HAVE MADE YOUR MIND, AND YOU SIMPLY WANT PEOPLE TO AGREE.

DON’T CLAIM ANYTHING ELSE.

In a lengthy Q&A published at BBC.com Saturday, Jones also said: the recent warming trend that began in 1975 is not at all different than two other planetary warming phases since 1850; there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, and; it is possible the Medieval Warm Period was indeed a global phenomenon thereby making the temperatures seen in the latter part of the 20th century by no means unprecedented.

The British scientist in the middle of November’s ClimateGate scandal says that contrary to what Al Gore and many in the media claim, the debate concerning manmade global warming is not over.

h/t newsbusters.

At some point the US fringe media is going to have to address this; if they don’t it will just be one more nail in their coffin.

Which side can afford to be wrong? If climate change winds up having any demonstrable evidence that even deniers can’t, uh, deny, then are they just going to say, “OK, I guess you were right, sorry, my bad.”

And if climate-change proponents are wrong, what do we get? Maybe more efficiency in energy use. Seems like a decent deal to me.

Even if it was ‘religion’, not science saying the sun revolved around the earth, the analogy is the same. You shouldn’t close your mind to other viewpoints. I’m not a scientist. Al Gore could be spot on, as the Brits say. But here’s the problem. Group A says man is causing climate change (don’t call it global warming any more). Group B says the jury is still out. You agree with Group A’s findings. Therefore, we should become angry at Group B, declare that they’re automatically wrong, and shout them down if they try to speak. Science, religion, whatever you want to call it, that’s what the left is currently doing to Group B, and they see no hypocrisy in it.

slk, where are you getting your 98% stat from?

ImNotBlue,

“It’s neat how black and white your world is. Must be easy to make decisions when you have an “always good” versus an “always bad.” Again, that’s not the real world… but I suppose that doesn’t mean it’s not nice.”

It’s not “always good” versus “always bad”, it’s almost always right versus almost always wrong. I see very little middle ground in our political discourse when empirical data is ignored so as not to discredit one’s political ideology.

The real world has a consensus of economists that empirically prove tax cuts don’t increase revenue and trickle down economics doesn’t work for anyone but the rich – the real world has 97% of actual scientists saying the misbehavior of the very few in the scientific community changes nothing about the factual basis for human-induced climate warming that will destroy the planet whether Republicans and Blue Dogs agree or not.

In example after example, some on these comment threads, empirical data proving conservatives are and have been consistently wrong and bad for the country, the economy, and our standing in the world are ignored so that no-holds-barred invective and personal insult, along with a good dose of projecting conservative hatred for others onto their opponents, can be unleashed.

My world is black and white in one regard, facts matter and you’re not entitled to your own; no matter how earth shattering it is to be consistently and regularly wrong on issue after issue.

Trickle, I don’t mind calling the left names every now and then. They do it. We do it. Yeah, two wrongs don’t make a right. But name calling is all the left has. An example: Fox news lies! Fox news lies! Lies about what? Give some specifics, then we’ve got something to debate. And I watch both Fox and MSNBC. I’ve noticed that O’Reilly frequently has on guests who disagree with him…John Stewart for example. And Bob Beckel is a regular on Hannity’s show. People don’t get farther left than that. Where does Olbermann get his guests? The Daily Kos. What’s he afraid of? Or does he simply want his own opinions parroted back at him? And here’s something that goes to the heart of the left’s credibility. Obama went to Reverend Wright’s church for twenty years, then said he had never heard his racist radical viewpoints expressed. The left sagely nodded and accepted every word. That would be akin to attending Klan rallies for twenty years, then saying you had no idea they felt the way they did. As long as the left is hearing what they want to hear, they’ll obviously accept any lie, no matter how big. Forgive us on the right if we are skeptical when they say the climate change debate is over.

Rachel Maddow Spars With Glenn Beck ? Where? Did she go on Beck’s show? Did Beck go on her show?

Well then how could they spar? Neither was there. Is this the Twilight Zone?

BTW: I would not call a comedian who decided to rip off ‘Mr Wizard’s’ act authoritative on the subject of ‘Global Climate Warming Cooling Change’. Rachel, your masters at GE would do better at this point to bring on someone better then a 3rd rate lounge act, to advance a theory.

slk says:
February 14, 2010 at 2:29 am

What an angry guy. Came here to relax, and is now shouting and name calling. (Well, he kinda started that way.) I wonder if he was ever “hinged.” Oh well.

ITS EASY TO JUST SAY NO. BUT WHEN THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS CONCUR ON SOMETHING

Let’s draw a quick comparison… the US Congress overwhelmingly agreed that Iraq had WMD’s and sent our military to fight there. Compare: Overwhelming majority of scientists and politicians. Iraq versus Global Warming. So… was it right for them to send the army to Iraq… did that make the commonly held belief correct? Did you/do you support that action?

The point is… “overwhelming majorities” are great… when they’re correct. But sometimes, they’re not… so the minority view is still important.

As for my, yet previously un-stated view on Global Warming or Climate Change or Weather… whatever you call it tomorrow… I’m somewhere in the middle. I don’t think things are as dire as they claim, and see a lot of this as exploitation for profit. It’s already been proven that things like “carbon offsets” are a scam, and we can see how these new “environmental policies” give Congress more power, and take tax dollars away from the citizens. HOWEVER, wanting to clean up the environment, and doing things to help keep things clean is a good thing! I recycle… I conserve… I’m just not willing to give up the lifestyle I want to live, to feed Al Gore’s pocketbook. As with anything, there’s a logical middle… you don’t always have to agree with either extreme.

gk33435 says:
February 14, 2010 at 8:04 am

And that’s really the brilliance of the issue… it’s a “Win-Win” for the left. They realized (after a few tweaks… see GW to CG) that even if they’re wrong, and over hype this… they’ll still be able to claim altruism and present themselves as winners.

But isn’t that dishonesty? Isn’t taxing and taking more money from people who are already struggling bad for the economy? Isn’t convincing people they need to buy things they can’t afford for the benefit of “the world,” still lying?

I don’t like this notion that the ends justify the means… they may be overboard, but it’s for a good cause, so it’s okay to distort the information. That’s still a lie… and still wrong.

Jim R says:
February 14, 2010 at 10:14 am

My world is black and white in one regard, facts matter and you’re not entitled to your own;

It’s interesting how all your “facts” and “consensus” support the left-wing ideology you support. Don’t you find that strange? Even if you believed that, wouldn’t it seem odd to you that one political party seems always right, yet has such trouble getting things done?

Yeah, the “facts” support your ideology… it’s a creative way to say, “I don’t want to debate, just do what I say.” It’s egotism, it’s arrogance… and it’s wrong. You’re not always right… and the facts support that.

writer says:
“Interesting, James, that you singled me out for doing it,”

Wow some people really don’t like when their hypocrisy is exposed.

It is a shame how badly this issue had become politicized. I’m not a scientist so I don’t try to claim that I know all the ins and outs of climate science. So I have to rely on what is being said by real scientists who are in a position to know. From the research that I’ve done, there are an overwhelming number of peer reviewed scientific studys published in scientific journals (and British taloids do not count as scientific journals) that have said that global warming is real and caused by human activities. However, there are a handful of peer reviewed studies that are in dispute, but what they mainly dispute is the rate of warming and the level impact man made activities have on warming. Frankly, I don’t care if it is going to take 50 years or 200 years or if human’s contribute 80% or 30%. We have one planet and we need to take care of it. This should not be a political issue where one side is against it simply because the other if for it. We are all in this together and we need to acting like we are.

ImNotBlue: What an angry guy. Came here to relax, and is now shouting and name calling. (Well, he kinda started that way.) I wonder if he was ever “hinged.” Oh well.

NO ONE’S SHOUTING, LOVE. THE CAPS MAKE IT EASIER TO DISTINGUISH MY LOGIC FROM YOUR…WHATEVER IT IS. I REALLY DON’T WANT YOU TO MISCONSTRUE–YOU MAKE THIS FUN FOR ME

ImNotBlue: Let’s draw a quick comparison… the US Congress overwhelmingly agreed that Iraq had WMD’s and sent our military to fight there. Compare: Overwhelming majority of scientists and politicians. Iraq versus Global Warming. So… was it right for them to send the army to Iraq… did that make the commonly held belief correct? Did you/do you support that action?

The point is… “overwhelming majorities” are great… when they’re correct. But sometimes, they’re not… so the minority view is still important.

WOW—AN ACTUAL SEMBLANCE OF REAL DEBATE. LOVELY! BUT IN YOUR EXAMPLE, YOU DRAW A FALSE EQUIVELENCE. THERE IS INTELLIGENCE AND THEN THERE IS SCIENCE. I KNOW THIS MAY BE DIFFICULT OR YOU MAY REFUSE TO FATHOM IT, BUT THEY AREN’T COOKED IN THE SAME LAB. ITS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COOKING (AN ART) AND BAKING (A SCIENCE.) YOU CAN IMPROVISE A DINNER, BUT A BAKED DESSERT HAS LITTLE WIGGLE ROOM BECAUSE ITS BASED ON PRECISION.

WHAT ARE EACH BASED ON? ONE IS BASED ON HUNCHES AND POSSIBLE OBSERVATIONS (AND WE SEE WHERE THE IRAQ WAR GOT US THERE) THE OTHER IS MEASURABLE AND BASED ON TRACKING HISTORY AND MATH—ON FORMULA AND PRECISION AND REPEATED TESTING.

WE ACTUALLY AGREE–I CONCUR THAT MINORITY VIEWS ARE IMPORTANT. BUT BASED ON THE MATH, THE SCIENCE I’VE READ, AND THE HEATED WAY THE OTHER SIDE TRIES TO DERAIL–LAUGHABLY–THE CREDIBILITY OF IT, PEOPLE ARE TAKING A STAND BASED ON INVECTIVE AS OPPOSED TO LOGIC.

THE SMALL MINORITY OF SCIENTISTS WHO DISAGREE WITH IT (AND ANYONE WHO SAYS THAT SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IS DIVIDED OVER IT IS EITHER LYING OR BLIND) REMIND ME OF THE DOCTORS HIRED BY PHILLIP MORRIS IN THE 60S TO PROVE SMOKING WASN’T BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH.

As for my, yet previously un-stated view on Global Warming or Climate Change or Weather… whatever you call it tomorrow… I’m somewhere in the middle. I don’t think things are as dire as they claim, and see a lot of this as exploitation for profit. It’s already been proven that things like “carbon offsets” are a scam, and we can see how these new “environmental policies” give Congress more power, and take tax dollars away from the citizens.

SEE, YA HAD ME THEN YA LOST ME. SO YOU ADMIT THERE IS TRUTH TO IT–YET YOU IGNORE THAT AND LAUNCH INTO THE TYPICAL BIG GOVERNMENT-BAD, TAKING-YOUR-TAX-DOLLARS SPIEL. OR AS YOU DO PREVIOUSLY, CALL ATTENTION TO WHAT THE TERM IS–YEAH. HELPFUL. WELL CALL IT A BLAZE, A FIRE, OR RED COTTON CANDY, IF YOU’RE IN THE “MIDDLE”, THERE MUST BE SOME DULL FEELING IN YOU OF NEEDING TO DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN DOUBT THE FLAMES OR QUESTION THE MOTIVES OF THE FIREMEN.

AT THAT POINT, ITS NOT ABOUT DEBATE–ITS ABOUT POLITICS AND WINNING.

HOWEVER, wanting to clean up the environment, and doing things to help keep things clean is a good thing! I recycle… I conserve… I’m just not willing to give up the lifestyle I want to live, to feed Al Gore’s pocketbook. As with anything, there’s a logical middle… you don’t always have to agree with either extreme.

“RETHUG TALKING POINT NUMBER 480: AL GORE’S POCKETBOOK.” THERE YOU GO AGAIN–AGREE AND SMEAR.

WHILE I CONCUR THAT PEOPLE SHOULD MAKE THEIR OWN MINDS, THEY SHOULDN’T MAKE UP THEIR OWN FACTS. AND IF IN THE FACE OF THOSE FACTS WHICH YOU YOURSELF ADMIT HAVE VALIDITY, YOU CHOOSE TO DO LITTLE OR NOTHING BECAUSE ‘YOU DON’T WANT TO GIVE UP YOUR LIFESTYLE”—-OR BECAUSE YOU DON’T LIKE AL GORE–WELL, THEN THAT IS YOUR RIGHT. BUT DON’T TRY TO CLAIM YOU’RE MAKING A PRINCIPLED STAND. YOU JUST DON’T LIKE THAT THE OTHER SIDE OWNS THE ISSUE–SO YOU STOMP YOUR FEET, POUT, DISTRACT AND OBSTRUCT, THEN THROW YOUR PLASTIC SIPPY CUP IN A BLUE TRASH CAN AND SAY YOU’RE DOING YOUR PART. IT’S WEAK–BECAUSE AS USUAL, IT ISN’T BASED ON WHAT YOU REALLY BELIEVE. IT’S BASED ON WHO YOU OPPOSE.

James, if you’re not a hypocrite, shouldn’t you also be pointing out hypocrisy from the left? Like when Arianna says Beck calls names, then appears on Olbermann, who is probably the worst name caller of all? I’m sure you’ll deflect and dance around your hypocrisy once again.

writer says:
“James, if you’re not a hypocrite, shouldn’t you also be pointing out hypocrisy from the left? Like when Arianna says Beck calls names, then appears on Olbermann, who is probably the worst name caller of all? I’m sure you’ll deflect and dance around your hypocrisy once again.”

As they say the best defense is a good offense. You started this with your little list above. I just pointed out that you were doing exactly what you were accusing others of doing. Rather than be an adult and admit, “Yeah, you got me”, you resort to a childish “I know you are but what am I arguement”.

Besides the weather, there’s another side to this argument that the left ignores. The cost. China is becoming the world’s leading industrialist, and they’ve given every indication that they have no intention of worrying about the enviornment to the detriment of business. And it doesn’t much matter if places like the Sudan or Guam sign on to prevent climate change. No industry there anyway. So what many on the right are concerned with is that the U.S. isn’t saddled with a bunch of costly restrictions that no one else will follow. The economy isn’t in that great a shape to begin with. No one on the right wants to foul the nest or see rivers catch fire, and if humans are causing climate change we should take steps to prevent it. We just don’t want to be bent over while China and guys like Hugo Chavez laugh at us. If all the scientists agree humans are causing climate change, fine. But why the left’s blind hatred toward anyone who ever questions anything? If your position is secure, no amount of questioning will change it. (P.S. James. I notice you completely ignored my Reverend Wright comments above. Tough defending the left all the time, isn’t it?)

And by ignoring the left, you are also doing the “I know you are but what am I. Isn’t it fun?

“Let’s draw a quick comparison… the US Congress overwhelmingly agreed that Iraq had WMD’s and sent our military to fight there.”

I want to point out that you’re talking about conservative figures misrepresenting information in order to convince enough people to believe in the wrong side of bad, politicized intel.

It’s cyclical. Again and again. Conservatives are again using bad, politicized intel in an attempt to skew public opinion by misrepresenting information. (IE- Fox News anchors claiming that snow debunks global warming).

Something that you need to get through to your head- science isn’t NEARLY as politicized as you think. Do you honestly believe that there is a conspiracy among scientists to promote a liberal agenda? That is crazy talk. You may be able to nit-pick examples of times when certain studies were debunked, and liberal academics were behind the research, but the academic community at large keeps itself in check with competing empirical studies. To scientists, more often than not, the debate is between scientists. Then suddenly, when a conservative value gets threatened (like the right to spew as much toxic waste into the environment as businesses want for as they want, politics and media stick their grubby little hands into the mess and turn the issue into a debate of smoke and mirrors where the real misinformation starts getting a foothold in the minds of the un-learned masses.

Academics aren’t politicians. They go where the data leads them. By all means, get some scientists together to academically challenge the position on global warming, just don’t wage the war on Fox News! It inherently politicizes what should be a rational discussion of data and figures. Fox News is the mouth piece of the conservative political viewpoint. They have no desire to be scientifically honest. Clearly, they don’t even understand the science. And this is an argument that should NEVER have even been labeled as “conservative” or “liberal”. It’s based on data! Data! Data that is either good or bad! Data that will be proven or disproved academically! Not by some Fox News anchor looking out the window and claiming global warming false! It cheapens the debate. It spreads false information. It’s the seed of anti-intellectualism and scientific distrust that has broader, more dangerous implications as people reject rational thought and intelligent debate when it inconveniences their world-view!

Can we take a moment to just think back at all the great science vs. religious or conservative arguments of the past… universe? I like that “writer” brought up heliocentrism earlier, that’s a great place to start. There are many. Can you, ImNotBlue, please take your own advice and reconsider opening your minds to the opinion of learned professionals and try to keep an ear in the debate going on in their community as opposed to in the political arena? A politician stakes his career in half-truths all the time. Scientists don’t. Think about it.

hatehavingtodothis says: I want to point out that you’re talking about conservative figures misrepresenting information in order to convince enough people to believe in the wrong side of bad, politicized intel.

WRONG. Bush inherited the intelligence on WMD in Iraq from the Clinton administration.

From the daily caller: The global warming movement is facing a one-two punch today, as a key figure of the Climategate scandal admitted that there is no evidence the earth has warmed recently and new research suggests existing records aren’t sufficient support for global warming claims.

Phil Jones, who stepped down from his position at the Climatic Research Unit after emails surfaced showing the unit apparently conspiring to manipulate climate data, also said global warming may not be unprecedented after all.

The transcript of the interview is posted in several places on the web.

Hate (good name for someone on the left, by the way) did you purposely ignore the above post where I mentioned the cost? For the last time, I’M NOT SAYING YOU’RE WRONG ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. But if the rest of the world expects us to toe the line while they get to duck and dodge, it’s not going to do any good. Like Danny Glover, I realize most on the left will praise Hugo Chavez and not give a damn if we get kicked in the teeth and made a laughingstock. But some of us do mind, and your repetition that we must hate the planet if we don’t automatically agree to everything rings hollow.

slk says:
February 14, 2010 at 1:49 pm

NO ONE’S SHOUTING…

You sure look like you’re shouting. You could try italics… look it up, there are online tutorials to help you.

I REALLY DON’T WANT YOU TO MISCONSTRUE–YOU MAKE THIS FUN FOR ME

Translation: I like shouting and picking silly fights! I feel like a big man on the interwebs!

Hmm… sad.

ONE IS BASED ON HUNCHES AND POSSIBLE OBSERVATIONS… THE OTHER IS MEASURABLE AND BASED ON TRACKING HISTORY AND MATH—ON FORMULA AND PRECISION AND REPEATED TESTING.

You’re assuming a whole lot about both. The facts is GW/CC has not been replicated, and the data is only so-so when it comes to reliability. There are a whole lot of unanswered questions, and data suggesting that things are cyclical. For example, people often try to say that this was the snowiest winter since XYZ year. Well, what happened that year? Doesn’t the fact that winters like this have happened before suggest that this is somewhat normal, even if abnormally so? There’s a reason why it’s called a theory, and not a fact.

SO YOU ADMIT THERE IS TRUTH TO IT

No, I said there COULD be truth to it… but I don’t know. But I also don’t believe that the scientists definitively know either.

YET YOU IGNORE THAT AND LAUNCH INTO THE TYPICAL BIG GOVERNMENT-BAD, TAKING-YOUR-TAX-DOLLARS SPIEL.

Yeah, forgive me for wanting to keep some of the money I earn.

OR AS YOU DO PREVIOUSLY, CALL ATTENTION TO WHAT THE TERM IS–YEAH. HELPFUL. WELL CALL IT A BLAZE, A FIRE, OR RED COTTON CANDY,

What in the crap are you talking about?

“RETHUG TALKING POINT NUMBER 480: AL GORE’S POCKETBOOK.” THERE YOU GO AGAIN–AGREE AND SMEAR.

And here, I thought you had no dog in the fight. Yet again, that turns out to be a lie.

And who’s agreeing with what? Gore has made a very successful living on this stuff. The most damning bit of logic around that is this: Gore makes his movie, and encourages people to buy carbon offsets (make-believe, feel-good, nothingness). Well, who happens to have a stake in a company selling these offsets? Why, it’s Al Gore! It’s call profiteering.

YOU CHOOSE TO DO LITTLE OR NOTHING BECAUSE ‘YOU DON’T WANT TO GIVE UP YOUR LIFESTYLE

Well, tell me… what more should I do? Buy a Hybrid… even though the expense is much greater, and the environmental benefit is minimal? Use more reusable shopping bags… even though they too need oil and gas to produce? Take a walk instead of drive everywhere… I already do that! What should I do? How should I model myself to be more like you… one of the environmental warriors. I mean, that’s you, right? Otherwise you’d just be arguing for the sake of arguing. Oh wait…

Ok.

Point 1) Ok, I’m wrong. But did the Clinton administration sneak into Bush’s legislative branch and convince them to go to war over it? I’m talking about the people who did the actual misrepresenting-deed with the material, not where the material came from. Thanks for making me clarify, I was vague. I hope you’ll see now that I’m RIGHT.

And to your next points: I guess… OK… again. People are using and interpreting data in new ways. I’m for that. I’m pro-science, remember? What you have to understand is that, the media, and sites like the Daily Caller (and this goes for liberal news outlets too for when these tables are turned, my complaint here is with scientific debate in the politico-media forum on the whole) like to phrase these data reinterpretations as proving or disproving as opposed to supporting one side or the other in an ongoing scientific debate. The scientist is quoted as saying something like ““The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” and the media, in their attempt to sway public opinion and garner shock and awe at their all or nothing claims in an attempt to seduce readers, will turn that phrase into something that somehow strongly discredits global warming. In scientific speak, all he said was that the data records used for this one particular study which was just temperature measurements for the last 150 years, couldn’t be used to conclusively prove or disprove the theory of global warming. That isn’t a very severe statement at all. Sure, it’s not a point in the “pro-global warming” column, but it’s certainly doesn’t throw a lot of weight behind the “anti-global warming” argument either. There are SO MANY other ways to measure climate change.

And here is where we differ. In my personal opinion, the many other ways of measuring climate change that I have read about and whose studies I have seen have done enough to convince me that global warming is real, that this quote in the Daily Caller doesn’t do enough to convince me that I’m wrong. I am not closed off to the idea that I am wrong. There is a lot of scientific debate left, and I am looking forward to seeing how it plays out, because I am in fact a scientist and a nerd. My opinion here is driven by the scientific community, not the media. I don’t have a liberal agenda here. I’m quite moderate on most things. I’m just extremely anti-anti-intellectualism, and this argument in the public simply reeks of it.

We could always do like Al Gore. Go ahead and burn up all the energy we want, but pay for a carbon footprint to make ourselves feel better. And re: an earlier comment. When Obama attends a radical racist church for twenty years, then says he had no idea what their views were,and the left buys it without question, I hope you can understand any skepticism concerning the left’s judgment in other matters.

Writer- “did you purposely ignore the above post where I mentioned the cost? For the last time, I’M NOT SAYING YOU’RE WRONG ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE.”

Sorry, I’ll address it now then. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Our differing opinions on cost and the effects of implementing change are going to be harder to debate, because it’s more based in opinion and arguments between opinions are… murky. It’s just my belief that the cost of not doing something now to change our industrial habits will be more deleterious than sprinting with china into what might be an unhealthy future for my as-of-yet unborn children. I think that we could be smart about how we approach this and can make a new approach to industry even more profitable in the long run, because what we’re doing now is simply unsustainable, in my opinion.

“When Obama attends a radical racist church for twenty years, then says he had no idea what their views were,and the left buys it without question, I hope you can understand any skepticism concerning the left’s judgment in other matters.”

No, I don’t understand. You’re being presumptuous to assume that it’s as simple as us “buying it without question”. What if I simply don’t care if Obama went to a church that had a radical minister? I certainly don’t see my own minister as a vessel for my own thoughts and ideas. I think saying that he “had no idea” is another one of those political half-truths. If it’s not 100% true, if he had, say, God forbid, sat in one of those sermons, so what? My minister doesn’t speak for me. Maybe Obama just goes to that church because it has the best community for him and his family and his neighborhood or whatever else influences what church one would go to. Saying he “had no idea” was a political maneuver, but I don’t care, you’re right. And if from that you want to question all future judgements from the left, go ahead. We’re different people.

People tend to go to church where they agree with the pastor. Twenty years is a long time to stay there if he didn’t agree. And if he did agree, wouldn’t some of Wright’s America-hating ideas be dangerous for a president to share? And even if he didn’t share them, isn’t to fair to ask “Then why did you stay there for twenty years?” If someone attended Nazi rallies, but claimed they disagreed on that Jewish thing… they were just going for the fellowship, it would sound a little fishy. Maybe that’s just me.

Writer- Augh. This is why scientists can’t win over public opinion. People like you. I’m trying to argue rationally here, stop sensationalizing.

I’m totally with you on the Nazi thing. What I’m trying to keep here is the context of the original argument. Don’t put words in my mouth. Obama and his minister and a Nazi and his rally aren’t convincing or analogous or whatever you were going for. Let’s keep it between Obama and his minister.

Twenty years is a long time to stay in a church. Really? Most families I know has only belonged to one. I don’t find it suspicious that he stayed in one church in Chicago. Again- maybe he felt it had the best community for him. And I don’t think that a quoted passage from a couple of thousands of sermons that a minister gave to his congregation would make the President of the United States un-American, no. What are you talking about dangerous? Why are you trying to scare me? I’ve disagreed with my pastor before. Who knows what opinions they share or don’t. That’s not how I’m judging Obama’s presidency, and if that’s where you have to stretch to discredit him, don’t even bother, because it’s not convincing to me! Rev. Wright and his church aren’t Obama and I don’t think Obama has a secret anti-American agenda based on clips that I’ve heard of sermons given at his church. That is what we’re talking about. That’s where we disagree.

Yes, we disagree. What you see as sensationalizing, I see as legitimate questions. And since the good reverend sells discs of his sermons, I doubt it’s that hard to draw a bead on where he’s coming from. Wouldn’t have taken twenty years, anyway. And Chicago is a pretty big city. Hard to believe that was the best black reverend Obama could find. If things like that don’t bother you, to each his own.

And to James A1102, it pains me to admit it, but you’re right. I was being hypocritical. If I ignore name calling when it comes from the right, I’m being just like you in ignoring it from the left. And name calling is wrong no matter which side it’s coming from. Just facts from now on.

“And to James A1102, it pains me to admit it, but you’re right. I was being hypocritical.”

Most honest thing you’ve said so far.

“If I ignore name calling when it comes from the right, I’m being just like you in ignoring it from the left.”

Oh there you go again with a childish, “I know you are but what am I” arguement.

“And name calling is wrong no matter which side it’s coming from. Just facts from now on.”

I’ll believe that when I see it.