*beg because I have one power point that will be wasted if I don't use it now.

Plus it annoys the hell out of me that I am still having this same fricking fracking conversation after FORTY YEARS. I mean, SAME EXACT CONVERSATION.

"Women call themselves girls so it is okay."

No, it is not. It is horrifying that they undercut themselves. It was horrifying 40 years ago when 80 year old women would simper and and giggle when men would call them girls. That is not empowering, it is infantilizing.

Plus, the payoff on this vid is GREAT. What the cop says. It is PERFECT.

>> ^bareboards2:

Bible. Bullshit. Same paragraph.
Snit fricking fracking fit.
He used profanity. He didn't phrase his argument in a way in which you wanted him to phrase it.
So what? The guy cusses. He used shorthand to make his point. I understood him perfectly.
You want context? Read anything he has ever written. Watch more than two minutes of any video. The guy has a potty mouth.
And?
The question becomes why can't you hear the LOGIC of his statements? Well, no question really. This is why I have chosen not to engage in any protracted argument about this. YOU AREN'T LISTENING TO HIM. There is no point in arguing when you never heard him to start with.
You heard Bullshit blah blah Bible. Ginger Ginger Ginger, my man.
If you don't know what I mean by that, read my little anecdote above about Gary Larson.
I will grant you that there are some people who can rightly claim that he attacked their faith.
They are the persons out there who stone women for not being virgins on their wedding nights, who don't mix fibers, who refuse to eat shellfish or pork.
They exist.
Super Orthodox Hassidic Jews. Extremely conservative Muslims. A tiny tiny subset of Christians.
But I guarantee you, no Christians in that room. Any Christian who follows EVERY SINGLE WORD of the Bible does not send their children to school. They lock them up and home-school them.
Anyone else who claims that Dan Savage is attacking the Christian faith of anyone in that room is as incapable of reasoning thought as Ginger Ginger Ginger.
Damn. And here I am arguing anyway. Damn it.
@dirkdeagler7. Now I am REALLY done.


TLDR: I actually agree with his overall sentiment so you are OUTRIGHT wrong in saying I did not listen to him, you in fact do not listen to other people it seems.

Now you really do sound like the people you are criticizing. You say I dont listen yet you ignored the fact that i said, in so many words, that I agree with his overall message in this segment (as I said I'm not against the gay lifestyle, rights, or marriage. I also said sexual preference is no one elses business which means I disagree with bullying or ostracizing homosexuals). I never criticized the LOGIC in his statements merely the manner in which he gave them and the context (this goes beyond his lecture topic and includes the fact that these are HS students at a lecture about bullying).

Not only did you not listen and create an argument that is apparently at someone else other than me (i actually had to double take to make sure this was directed at me...full honesty), but you go on to drop these gems:

"But I guarantee you, no Christians in that room. Any Christian who follows EVERY SINGLE WORD of the Bible does not send their children to school. They lock them up and home-school them."

"Anyone else who claims that Dan Savage is attacking the Christian faith of anyone in that room is as incapable of reasoning thought as Ginger Ginger Ginger."

At this point Im actually feeling badly for picking on you and stupid for arguing with you. It's apparent that your argument and stance are not processing anything anyone has said in this comment thread...it shouldn't be a surprise now that I realize you posted the vid to begin with.

So here you are: disregarding fact (the apologies by him and the organizers), dismissing and attacking any opinion that is counter to your own, twisting and misinterpreting (or just not listening) to what I'm saying and then disagreeing with me and using laughable attempts to belittle me and my thought process, and using wide based and unfounded arguments/beliefs (ie my quotes above) to prove your point

You sound just like the people you seem to hate on, just on the other side of the coin and you sit on your high horse unable to see this very basic possibility...that you might be wrong in this matter.

Bible. Bullshit. Same paragraph.

Snit fricking fracking fit.

He used profanity. He didn't phrase his argument in a way in which you wanted him to phrase it.

So what? The guy cusses. He used shorthand to make his point. I understood him perfectly.

You want context? Read anything he has ever written. Watch more than two minutes of any video. The guy has a potty mouth.

And?

The question becomes why can't you hear the LOGIC of his statements? Well, no question really. This is why I have chosen not to engage in any protracted argument about this. YOU AREN'T LISTENING TO HIM. There is no point in arguing when you never heard him to start with.

You heard Bullshit blah blah Bible. Ginger Ginger Ginger, my man.

If you don't know what I mean by that, read my little anecdote above about Gary Larson.

I will grant you that there are some people who can rightly claim that he attacked their faith.

They are the persons out there who stone women for not being virgins on their wedding nights, who don't mix fibers, who refuse to eat shellfish or pork.

They exist.

Super Orthodox Hassidic Jews. Extremely conservative Muslims. A tiny tiny subset of Christians.

But I guarantee you, no Christians in that room. Any Christian who follows EVERY SINGLE WORD of the Bible does not send their children to school. They lock them up and home-school them.

Anyone else who claims that Dan Savage is attacking the Christian faith of anyone in that room is as incapable of reasoning thought as Ginger Ginger Ginger.

Damn. And here I am arguing anyway. Damn it.

@dirkdeagler7. Now I am REALLY done.

I've heard Mr. T. Boone speak about this before. I think he is genuine and has offered the best plan he can work out with his expertise. It isn't perfect, but what is?

I do find it interesting how he uses the word "enemy" early on and ties in the U.S. world police/military mentality. (Made me think of Robert Newman's History of Oil.)

But I'm glad that the brief Q&A discussed the reality that Natural Gas = Fracking. I think a big problem lies in the fact that the wells being fracked now are in less and less remote areas, and populations are beginning to be affected.

Hahaha!

"Name one-fracking-paper!"

This response proves you didn't even read the page that you are using to "debunk" the video. It doesn't address this video. This page, which contains one paragraph and a broken link to a video, is the one addressing it:

http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm

Again, you present yourself as the voice of chicken little, as your perpetrate another myth upon the overpopulation myth, which is the myth of peak oil. We are not in danger of running out of oil anytime soon; in fact, because of new technology and methods, such as the fracking boom, our domestic energy production is expected to rise significantly.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-01/fracking-boom-could-finally-cap-myth-of-peak-oil-peter-orszag.html

Since 1976 our proven oil reserves are double from where they started, and new reserves are being found continuously:

http://en.mercopress.com/2010/10/25/petrobras-confirms-tupi-field-could-hold-8-billion-barrels

http://www.albawaba.com/iran-discovers-huge-oil-field-report-415465

There is also evidence that oil fields are refilling:

http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

The fact is that there is an oil boom in the western hemisphere:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/world/americas/recent-discoveries-put-americas-back-in-oil-companies-sights.html

The coal oil sands in Canada alone are estimated to hold 175 billion barrels of oil. What I find interesting hpqp, as you do another hit and run, is that you have all the faith in the world that science will solve all of our problems, except when it comes to your favorite doomsday hypothesis.

As I have already proven, we produce more than enough food to feed everyone. The problem is in the inequity of man and in the inefficient and wasteful distribution. We lose over 1/3 of the food we produce to waste. We have more than enough fuel to supply our agriculture, and the research shows that having smaller and more energy efficient farms will increase yields even further, and not significantly impact biodiversity.


>> ^hpqp:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You call one paragraph and a video that doesn't exist debunking this? Let's examine the paragraph:
"Together the world’s 6.8 billion people use land equal in size to South America to grow food and raise livestock—an astounding agricultural footprint. And demographers predict the planet will host 9.5 billion people by 2050. Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist."
http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm
Did you miss when it said in the video that we're growing more food on less land, and that there are techniques which can turn barren land fertile, such has been practiced in Brazil and Thailand? Farming is going to continue as it does today; more yield per acre, and more barren land turned fertile, and it will continue to outstrip population growth. You've debunked nothing; you have no argument at all. I doubt you even read the page.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2004/10-04/hist_tbl.xls
efficiency statistics
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02tropic.html?_r=2
Scientists Are Making Brazil’s Savannah Bloom
>> ^hpqp:
Debunking the lies, nonsense and misinformation of this video: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm
I disagree with the vhemt's core ideology (I do not want the human race to go extinct), but this page does a good job of exposing this crap.
If you want some real math, watch this series: http://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY


The first page I linked to has no video, so I don't know what you're on about with that (my 2nd link, the youtube one, definitely works), but it has much more than "one paragraph" (not that that matters) showing the manipulation and misrepresentation in your video. As for "growing more food on less land", two words: oil and biodiversity. Without going into details, most (if not all) modern agriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, a dwindling, non-renewable resource (fertilization, transport, etc.). The article you link to indirectly makes my second point: with the disappearance of fossil fuels, people are turning to biofuels (e.g. palm oil, mentioned in your article) which destroy biodiversity and cause several other issues ). Meanwhile, the soybeans and beef production (the one to feed the other btw) cause a large amount of ecological damage.
That's the last I'm answering to you (although it's more for the benefit of other readers, since I know how you are with the facts of reality).

>> ^ptrcklgrs:

TYT is a manipulative as Fox News. On 2 Counts
1: He says "Fact we are at a 8 year high for domestic energy production in this country". Ok, I believe that fact but its a stat based on domestic energy production. Not domestic oil drilling. Oil is one piece of energy. We've gone nuts in the last few years with solar, wind, fracking energy as going green. So that stat looks quite misleading.
2: When he says "Republicans" yes there is a hand full of republicans pushing this point. But by the vast majority it is held as not true. Why doesn't he name names. He is just finding any issue he can to dig deeper trenches between lines and make his money.
TYT = Fox News Opionists


http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=production

2010 was the year for the highest production since 2004. I can't find 2011 or projected 2012 numbers, but I can easily see production numbers continuing to climb.

No. I didn't miss anything. You didn't hear what Cenk said. He said that some Republicans were trying to convince voters that a) Obama has been ignoring domestic energy, and b) that's the reason gas prices are high. Cenk put paid to both of these ideas because neither is true. It's the Republicans that Cenk quotes who are saying that oil drilling in the US counts as Domestic Energy, and that it would affect gas prices.

I don't watch any American TV news except what pops up on the Sift, which is almost all Fox News, so I can't compare. I can tell you that Fox is the worst journalism that I have ever seen, so much so that it's not really journalism to me, but shoving opinions down people's throats and still calling it news. If CNN and the rest are the same way, then that's a shame.

FWIW, Fox News viewers consistently poll as among the most misinformed of news consumers, often coming in lower than people who don't watch the news at all.

Also, I've never understood when the word "liberal" became a swear word. It just means "open-mminded." I think being able to receive and process new information and change long-held ideas in the face of such information is a strength rather than a weakness. But if you enjoy believing whatever you believe just because you believe it and like having others tell you that you're right even if it's incorrect, then have at it.>> ^ptrcklgrs:

Ok, you clearly didn't understand what i said because you responded exactly how I warned.
"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"
"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"
Solar power doesn't fuel my car. We could triple our "domestic energy" production with nuclear power plants, but that wouldn't do shit for my car and gas prices. Do you not understand that? He is responding intentionally with misleading points.
I'm sorry you are such a hater of Fox News and that you don't understand that all Fox News did was match CNN, MSNBC, NY Times and every other liberal media with conservative media. You ever heard the phrase "liberal media" its been around for almost 100 years. But the first Conservative media pops up and you all start crying.
Hell there have been so many cover up of democratic representive.
Example: Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] was on a council that was awarding all military contracts to a company her husband was the primary share holder in. (Illegal) Once someone found this out, she resigned and the media refused to write on it.

>> ^messenger:
You've got to be kidding me. In his opening statement, Cenk says (1)Republicans are accusing Obama of ignoring domestic energy production, and (2)they are publicly linking this failure with increased gas prices. Cenk then responds that not only is Obama doing more domestic energy production than Bush (point 1), but there isn't even a causal relationship between the two stats (point 2). That's good journalism, as long as his opening statement is true about what Republicans are saying. If he had only said, "We're not drilling enough!! (without mentioning domestic energy) and then gone on with the domestic energy fact as a counterpoint, that would be misleading.
Even if he had fudged it like that --which he does on rare occasion, but not here-- comparing him with FOX is the news integrity equivalent of Godwin's Law. Fox are so bad, so reprehensible, so intentionally misleading, so ideologically driven that Cenk on his worst day couldn't even approach their level of deceit. [Edit: to your second point, without doing the background research, I'll just accept that you're right, and say this IS one of the times that Cenk fudges things a wee bit. But seriously, if the worst you can say about him is that he tars all Republicans with the same brush, that's not that serious.]
But if you still think you're right, if you can remember any time TYT did anything as corrupt as some of Fox's worst moments --and remember that they've been caught intentionally manipulating stories-- tell us about it here, even if you can't find the link. I bet you've got nothing. Check your hyperbole.>> ^ptrcklgrs:
TYT is a manipulative as Fox News. On 2 Counts
1: He says "Fact we are at a 8 year high for domestic energy production in this country". Ok, I believe that fact but its a stat based on domestic energy production. Not domestic oil drilling. Oil is one piece of energy. We've gone nuts in the last few years with solar, wind, fracking energy as going green. So that stat looks quite misleading.
2: When he says "Republicans" yes there is a hand full of republicans pushing this point. But by the vast majority it is held as not true. Why doesn't he name names. He is just finding any issue he can to dig deeper trenches between lines and make his money.
TYT = Fox News Opionists

Ok, you clearly didn't understand what i said because you responded exactly how I warned.

"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"
"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"

Solar power doesn't fuel my car. We could triple our "domestic energy" production with nuclear power plants, but that wouldn't do shit for my car and gas prices. Do you not understand that? He is responding intentionally with misleading points.

I'm sorry you are such a hater of Fox News and that you don't understand that all Fox News did was match CNN, MSNBC, NY Times and every other liberal media with conservative media. You ever heard the phrase "liberal media" its been around for almost 100 years. But the first Conservative media pops up and you all start crying.

Hell there have been so many cover up of democratic representive.

Example: Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] was on a council that was awarding all military contracts to a company her husband was the primary share holder in. (Illegal) Once someone found this out, she resigned and the media refused to write on it.


>> ^messenger:

You've got to be kidding me. In his opening statement, Cenk says (1)Republicans are accusing Obama of ignoring domestic energy production, and (2)they are publicly linking this failure with increased gas prices. Cenk then responds that not only is Obama doing more domestic energy production than Bush (point 1), but there isn't even a causal relationship between the two stats (point 2). That's good journalism, as long as his opening statement is true about what Republicans are saying. If he had only said, "We're not drilling enough!! (without mentioning domestic energy) and then gone on with the domestic energy fact as a counterpoint, that would be misleading.
Even if he had fudged it like that --which he does on rare occasion, but not here-- comparing him with FOX is the news integrity equivalent of Godwin's Law. Fox are so bad, so reprehensible, so intentionally misleading, so ideologically driven that Cenk on his worst day couldn't even approach their level of deceit. [Edit: to your second point, without doing the background research, I'll just accept that you're right, and say this IS one of the times that Cenk fudges things a wee bit. But seriously, if the worst you can say about him is that he tars all Republicans with the same brush, that's not that serious.]
But if you still think you're right, if you can remember any time TYT did anything as corrupt as some of Fox's worst moments --and remember that they've been caught intentionally manipulating stories-- tell us about it here, even if you can't find the link. I bet you've got nothing. Check your hyperbole.>> ^ptrcklgrs:
TYT is a manipulative as Fox News. On 2 Counts
1: He says "Fact we are at a 8 year high for domestic energy production in this country". Ok, I believe that fact but its a stat based on domestic energy production. Not domestic oil drilling. Oil is one piece of energy. We've gone nuts in the last few years with solar, wind, fracking energy as going green. So that stat looks quite misleading.
2: When he says "Republicans" yes there is a hand full of republicans pushing this point. But by the vast majority it is held as not true. Why doesn't he name names. He is just finding any issue he can to dig deeper trenches between lines and make his money.
TYT = Fox News Opionists

You've got to be kidding me. In his opening statement, Cenk says (1)Republicans are accusing Obama of ignoring domestic energy production, and (2)they are publicly linking this failure with increased gas prices. Cenk then responds that not only is Obama doing more domestic energy production than Bush (point 1), but there isn't even a causal relationship between the two stats (point 2). That's good journalism, as long as his opening statement is true about what Republicans are saying. If he had only said, "We're not drilling enough!! (without mentioning domestic energy) and then gone on with the domestic energy fact as a counterpoint, that would be misleading.

Even if he had fudged it like that --which he does on rare occasion, but not here-- comparing him with FOX is the news integrity equivalent of Godwin's Law. Fox are so bad, so reprehensible, so intentionally misleading, so ideologically driven that Cenk on his worst day couldn't even approach their level of deceit. [Edit: to your second point, without doing the background research, I'll just accept that you're right, and say this IS one of the times that Cenk fudges things a wee bit. But seriously, if the worst you can say about him is that he tars all Republicans with the same brush, that's not that serious.]

But if you still think you're right, if you can remember any time TYT did anything as corrupt as some of Fox's worst moments --and remember that they've been caught intentionally manipulating stories-- tell us about it here, even if you can't find the link. I bet you've got nothing. Check your hyperbole.>> ^ptrcklgrs:

TYT is a manipulative as Fox News. On 2 Counts
1: He says "Fact we are at a 8 year high for domestic energy production in this country". Ok, I believe that fact but its a stat based on domestic energy production. Not domestic oil drilling. Oil is one piece of energy. We've gone nuts in the last few years with solar, wind, fracking energy as going green. So that stat looks quite misleading.
2: When he says "Republicans" yes there is a hand full of republicans pushing this point. But by the vast majority it is held as not true. Why doesn't he name names. He is just finding any issue he can to dig deeper trenches between lines and make his money.
TYT = Fox News Opionists

TYT is a manipulative as Fox News. On 2 Counts

1: He says "Fact we are at a 8 year high for domestic energy production in this country". Ok, I believe that fact but its a stat based on domestic energy production. Not domestic oil drilling. Oil is one piece of energy. We've gone nuts in the last few years with solar, wind, fracking energy as going green. So that stat looks quite misleading.

2: When he says "Republicans" yes there is a hand full of republicans pushing this point. But by the vast majority it is held as not true. Why doesn't he name names. He is just finding any issue he can to dig deeper trenches between lines and make his money.

TYT = Fox News Opionists

The thing with looking at the danger of nuclear power is you have to make a more complicated comparison. It's not just nuclear power or "safe."

For fossil fuels you have to consider every:

* Oil spill, Oil Rig Fire, other fossil fuel related disasters (tanker truck fires, gas station fires, CO poisoning in houses, etc.) Recall for instance, in New Orleans during the flood the contents of refinery storage tanks were spread all over the city, and the Deep Water Horizons disaster that killed more people than Fukishima and caused fantastic amounts of ecological damage.

* The broad diffuse pollution of fossil fuel power stations and refineries (including particulates, global warming from C02, other heavy metals and nastiness released). This is released not only from power stations, but every tailpipe of the millions of cars in the world.

* The damage caused by getting fossil fuels out of the ground. Drilling, fracking, strip mining for coal, and the nastiness released from this.

* Wars. (ie. fossil fuels are running out, but we got enough fissile material to last a long, long time--not that there couldn't be wars over this too (lots of it is in unstable parts of Africa)).

In short, fossil fuels do a huge amount of damage, it's just not as acute and widely reported as when something goes wrong with nuclear, and doesn't carry the same, often irrational, fear that the media loves so much. For instance, some area of land infused with heavy metals is just as unlivable as an area of land infused with radioactive substances, but one we accept as normal pollution, and the other is worldwide, front page news.

The overall comparison is very complicated. My inclination is to think nuclear is better, but that's difficult because it involves mostly *potential* problems, not actual quantifiable problems as with fossil fuels. There will probably never be a good study comparing the two given how much irrational fear and corporate interest is involved.

Wind, solar, and geothermal are very nice and should always be part of the equation, but it's pretty well accepted that it can't actually come near to replacing fossil fuels or nuclear in terms of energy output at any cost.

"Trying to sell my Christmas"

You idiot, you are trying to BUY YOUR FRICKING FRACKING CHRISTMAS.

I can't hardly stand it.

No worries, I figured you were joking. Gotta give the kazoo it's due though

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
I was actually kinda joking, but then, who am I to snob the humble kazoo?

In reply to this comment by Zifnab:
Bravo it is now, it's hard to keep all the channels in mind when there are 105 of them...>> ^hpqp:

Why this no be in braavo channel? It's a motherlovin' kazoo, for frack's sake!

I was actually kinda joking, but then, who am I to snob the humble kazoo?

In reply to this comment by Zifnab:
Bravo it is now, it's hard to keep all the channels in mind when there are 105 of them...>> ^hpqp:

Why this no be in braavo channel? It's a motherlovin' kazoo, for frack's sake!