The first clue that you've been lied to is the fact that those whom you take your intellectual cues from insist on 'debate' instead of research. Could a skillful debater convince you that the concept of gravity is a lie? Or that the Earth is flat and orbited by the sun? In science, research is how things are debated. Doesn't it give you any pause that those whom you've put your trust in want to keep this scientific 'debate' outside of the realm of science?

One of your biggest problems is that you seem to believe that you know what you are talking about; that the random hodge-podge of political buzzwords and slogans you've been trained to recite are a legitimate and coherent point of view. Not only do you believe you know what you are talking about, but you also believe you've arrived at these conclusions through a process of thought and reason, rather than just mindlessly lapping up propaganda you've been fed by politicians, corporate think tanks and industrial PR firms.

There is no legitimacy to your arguments on this subject. You are completely, provably ignorant when it comes to climate science. It's a farce that we are even having this conversation. Not all points of view are equally valid. In the debate between 2+2=4 and 2+2=5, only one side is correct. You are squarely in the wrong. I don't say this to hurt your feelings, but rather as a service to enlighten you. Rather than getting angry at me for being honest, why not instead turn your anger upon those who have armored you in ignorance and sent you off to battle ill equipped, or better yet, why not turn your anger inward for your own gullibility and lack of independent thought.

Individual freedom starts in the mind.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I wouldn't accuse anyone else of lacking credibility when my avatar is wearing an Obama campaign button.
My political agenda is individual rights, freedom and property rights, all three hated--in varying degrees--by leftists. That damned Constitution, always in the way of free gifts to the people like Obamacare!
Why are you SHEEP are so quick to surrender the last tattered remnants of your freedom for a few faked graphs and a consensus of concerned-about-grants government scientists? You have no hard evidence to tie global warming to man-made activity, only consensus aka a bunch of labcoats in a room agreeing on something without proof. And I'm not jumping on that merry-go-around again. These proud scientitians refuse to debate so-called deniers. WHY? Instead they announced "All debate is over?" BS. BS. BS.
Global warming Climate change ain't about global warming climate change and never was, it's about socialists trying to seize more power and destroy individual and property rights.
Oh, and posting videos isn't 'borrowing' other people's ideas? Please keep your cute little comments stolen from south park out of my comment box.
Global warming BS serves at least one purpose, you libs get a taste of what it feel like to have your religion insulted.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Instead of copying and pasting other peoples ideas, why not try thinking for yourself? If you feel that business shouldn't be hindered for any reason, then say so, but to actually fool yourself into believing that politicians and industry PR agents know more about science than actual scientists is just plain dumb. I've seen other conservatives on this site begin to distance themselves from this brand of ignorance. Why not give it a shot yourself? It would certainly help you to garner more respect and credibility - two categories in which you are sorely lacking.>> ^quantumushroom:
Herp Derp

Man, if Cenk Uyger wholesale signed on with MSNBC, I'd lose what shred of respect I have left for the guy. NPR, fine, at least they show some independent thought, but really... MSNBC? He's gonna join the proud ranks of Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann? Weak sauce Cenk, weak sauce.

It might be just the local tea baggers here.
To be fair they haven't used the Jesus is coming soon as an excuse to do as they will, but it is something the locals seem to believe. After the election of Obama they actually thought that perhaps that will make Jesus come back sooner...I didn't realize god was so weak that his planned time for sending his son back could be altered by the actions of man, then again they seem to think god is to weak to do his job of convicting people of sins and punishing them for them, so they have to do that work for him... Anyhow, Jesus coming back soon seems to be a common thought, so I extended that to them as an excuse for using fossil fuels.
Very few of the tea baggers I know will acknowledge that global warming has anything to do with human activity. Those that do seem to think it is a very small nearly unmeasurable part of it, with cow farts having far more effect.
None of the tea baggers I know acknowledge the scientific origins of the universe, they may not be young Earth creationist, but they all are of the "design speaks of a designer" mentality. Of the old Earth creationist locally, some go with the gap theory, but most go with a day to god is as a thousand years or more to us. I personally don't know anyone who is a geocentrist.
None of the tea baggers here, home to people have a "MASTERS DEGREE IN COMMUNICATION" run for Stark County Treasurer would seem to believe that the movement is funded by any big companies, and that it is purely a grass roots movement.
Nothing I've seen of the tea baggers on the sift or news makes sense though. I just can't work out their thought process without resorting to religious dogma, and the firm belief that the far right Republican's are the only true Christians and the only ones who should be elected.
I was never a tea bagger, but I used to drink deep of the same sort of kool-aid and glad I am out of that movement now. So it may be indeed a cultural issue... We may just have more idiots incapable of independent thought here. I have been a sad panda for them for some time.

>> ^peggedbea:

yeah yeah ok... sure
but the oil and natural gas barons who fund this tea bagging nonsense publicly acknowledge science and the fossil origins of fossil fuels.
example: i live in on top of a previously impossible to tap natural gas shale. they just discovered how to tap the shit out of that gas. the shale is a huge deal here and has brought a lot development and growth to my adorable little cowtown in the last 3 years or so. so much so in fact, that the natural gas companies funded massive renovations to our science museum. so a room in the museum is now dedicated to the science of natural gas. one of the attractions is a 10 minute long 4D movie about how natural gas got underneath fort worth, and how these genius's are getting it out. the movie takes you back in time all the way to the big bang and fast forwards to different periods, clearly acknowledging that the earth is far far far far older than 6,000 years and that god didn't necessarily have anything to do with it.
soooo, i understand that shaping and funding a movement that denies climate change is good for them, but a wonderful justification for denying the science is the godly origins of the earth... but at the same time they're spending thousands to educate an entire city on the ancientness and godlessness of fossil fuels.....
so nothing about this fits. i've never met a teabagger (and i'm probably more inclined to meet more teabaggers than most of the sift because of my geography) that 1. didn't deny the scientific origins of the universe 2. didn't deny climate change and when hard pressed with facts, didn't resort to "jesus is coming back" and 3. didn't looooooove the shit out of some fossil fuels ...... are they really really just too stupid to notice that the circle doesn't close? this makes me sad.
or is it just a cultural thing?? like, texas has been an oil rich state for over a century now. oil is just kind of embedded in our culture and is just accepted as something positive and a point of pride. and the discussion doesn't go much further than that. i grew up in a city who's football mascot was a fucking oil rig. when i think of symbols that mean texas to me, i see an oil rig. oil=texas. texas=home. home=good. done. thought circle complete. i hope that's it. and it's not just outrageous stupidity and a short few years of brain washing alone. i'm sad.
>> ^RFlagg:
Because Jesus is coming again soon to rapture them away so they don't care what they do to the earth, besides god gave them dominion over the Earth to rape and pillage it as they please. They don't believe in anthropological global warming anyhow since they don't believe in science, though some of them believe in peak oil which is why they think we need to drill "our own oil" by international companies selling it on the international market... Also he put the oil in the earth already made along with fossils, and accelerated light so that a galaxy 12 billion light years away can be seen now even though the universe is only 6,500 years old, and all that other prof that he had nothing to do with the creation of the universe. It is that whole god chose the foolish things to confound the wise... and he hid things from the wise and learned and revealed them to children... and all the other excuses they have for explaining such things.
>> ^peggedbea:
i'm super fascinated with how evolution denying teabaggers justify their raging boner for fossil fuels.

Actually, in that case you asked for my opinion on a proposal. You lied about what it was, and even edited out the parts that were actually evil, and then tried to act as if my response was an endorsement of evil.

What that implies is that you're so ideologically bent that you'll use any dirty trick to try to smear people you disagree with -- even one that considers you a friend. It does not imply that I'm crazy for saying your accusations aren't supported by what you've presented.

The original post sounds to me like an indictment of well-meaning idiots, not an attempt to expose an insidious plot by "collectivists" to brainwash children.

I'd even go so far as to say that your implication is a big straw man argument against left-wing people of all stripes. We're not looking to quash independent thought at all, and your belief that we are is based more on your own prejudice than anything real.

>> ^blankfist:
The guy who is making the claim about the cartoon is actually the writer of the cartoon. He claims (with undeniable first hand knowledge being that he's the writer of the cartoon) that he was forced by special interests groups to write pro-social messages where the group is always right and the complainer was wrong.

Right, your evidence is one person's say so.

If he had said something like "special interest groups told me that they want to curtail individual thought", then we'd at least be able to say he was a witness of some unknown credibility. But he didn't say that, he just made an accusation.

Now, if the article you were linking was written by someone who was part of the supposed special interest group(s), and had a stack of internal memos about a secret plot to destroy independent thought, then you might have a pretty good case.

It's not that I think the guy isn't who he says he is, and it's not even that I necessarily think he's being intentionally dishonest, it's that he's speculating, and speculation isn't the same as proof.

The videos might be evidence of the existence of some scenes that might be interpreted as being "pro-social" in the cartoon this guy wrote for, but that's evidence that he did in fact put those messages in the cartoon, but not evidence that parental groups put him under some sort of duress to do it, and certainly not evidence that the parental groups wanted to indoctrinate children to never use their own judgment.

For that matter, the whole moral of this guy's story is that he too made the decision to bow to powers greater than him, rather than stand up for what he thought was right. If we needled him about why he didn't quit in protest, he probably would've talked about the damage to his career and livelihood, and that ultimately he didn't care that much about the effect his actions were having on kids relative to his own self-interest.

He's whining about it now, and trying to blame other people for what he himself did, and say "I couldn't stand up to the group, I mean they might have asked me politely to leave!" But that just seems like he's still trying to process the guilt, and wishes he could blame some scapegoat rather than face the (alleged) consequences of his actions.

You know some marketeer, or some evil Cooperation CEO just gagged on a muffin watching this kid demonstrate independent thought and is scheming of a way to dumb kids down even further.

Quick Hal, Change the Sugar content to 200%
Burt, Tell the networks we need faster edits and brighter colors!
Woozan, Invent a new lustier Tween Popstar!
Chochak!, Implement a "Science and thinking is Laaaaaame to the Exxtreme campaign"


Get that shit out there to these kids, before I rip my comb-over out.

Hal, Burt, Woozan, Chochak: <<< YES SIR ! >>>

>> ^ReverendTed:
Was this the episode where they all blink in unison?
I love that sound.


No that's the episode with the Mad Magazine, Bart gets the T-shirt "Down With Homework" and subsequently the school gets Uniforms. So they all start losing their will to live or something and blink in unison as well. Simpsons is the best show ever.

>> ^shagen454:
I'm not even a vege; matter of fact I ate a whole freakin' chicken today.


Did it stop freakin' before you ate it? If not, you should try killing it first next time.

Your video, The Simpsons - Independent Thought Alarm, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^doremifa:
We all liked pathetic pop songs when we were in our pre-teens.


We did? I listened to the Moody Blues, Simon and Garfunkel and other other fantastical shit(Switched-On-Bach for example) in my pre-teens and teens. I'm in my 30's, I lived outside my generation because I had original and independent thought about what I liked.

>> ^quantumushroom:
An innocent party is being punished, forced to pay for someone else's irresponsibility.
So why are these two outraged?
Isn't this a core belief of leftist doctrine?


I'm not familiar with what you're describing as "leftist doctrine" but it is my belief that people have their own set of moral beliefs. They will tend to side with the political party that aligns closest to these beliefs even if they're not a perfect match.

Obviously there are other aspects to party support, particularly economical rather than ethical, but the political party or religion that you support does not (or should not) define all your beliefs.

A person should try and retain some independent thought to be able to question proposals by both politicians and religious texts/leaders.

Yeah, independent thought is trouble for governments fearful of evolution and correction. And Farhad, you're on to something with your consumerist zombie angle. I think I've spent/lost like $500 dollars gambling while drunk, whereas I think I've spent at most $4.95 on a burrito while high -- reduces consumption by 2 orders of magnitude.

Well, at least you tried to answer me. D+ for effort?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
So stop calling all of us Obama zombies, like we're so enthusiastic that we don't have independent thought.
I look at the comments on Obama, the slavish cheerleading, the instant knee-jerk rejection of ANYTHING that criticizes him - no matter how legitimate - and can come to no other conclusion. For example on this 'transparency' thing. Bull! He's already started off secretive and opaque. Obama's past records are still sealed up, his role as a 'community organizer' is still shrouded. And he chews out any journalist who dares to ask him a REAL question about like why he put a lobbyist on his cabinet when he said he wouldn't allow lobbyists. Or like putting a tax-dodger in charge of the treasury. Bush would (rightfully) be excoriated for such stupidity, but Obama zombies give his a total pass. Obamaniacs actually do seem to have abandoned all rational thought.
Hypocrisy. Pure hypocrisy. Democrats howled and whined and opposed reflexively anything Bush did for 8 years and now that thier guy is in they want everyone to shut up. Cram it, Obama Zombies. You know who you are. I never swallowed the Flavor-Aid on Bush. I hated his spending and a ton of his moronic policies. Bush was a lousy fiscal President. I said so all during his Presidency. Grow a pair Obama-zombies and criticize Obama for being a jackass hypocrite on 'transparency' when his administration is anything but.

So stop calling all of us Obama zombies, like we're so enthusiastic that we don't have independent thought.

I look at the comments on Obama, the slavish cheerleading, the instant knee-jerk rejection of ANYTHING that criticizes him - no matter how legitimate - and can come to no other conclusion. For example on this 'transparency' thing. Bull! He's already started off secretive and opaque. Obama's past records are still sealed up, his role as a 'community organizer' is still shrouded. And he chews out any journalist who dares to ask him a REAL question about like why he put a lobbyist on his cabinet when he said he wouldn't allow lobbyists. Or like putting a tax-dodger in charge of the treasury. Bush would (rightfully) be excoriated for such stupidity, but Obama zombies give his a total pass. Obamaniacs actually do seem to have abandoned all rational thought.

Hypocrisy. Pure hypocrisy. Democrats howled and whined and opposed reflexively anything Bush did for 8 years and now that thier guy is in they want everyone to shut up. Cram it, Obama Zombies. You know who you are. I never swallowed the Flavor-Aid on Bush. I hated his spending and a ton of his moronic policies. Bush was a lousy fiscal President. I said so all during his Presidency. Grow a pair Obama-zombies and criticize Obama for being a jackass hypocrite on 'transparency' when his administration is anything but.

I'm so tired of hearing people say that agreeing with something Obama says makes them the "kool-aid drinkers" or "Obamaniacs," or whatever else you wish to call them.

I am a cynical bastard, but that doesn't preclude me from having hope that someday a politician will be truthful in what he says.

True cynicism is hopeful, but skeptical and wary. And if Obama does anything that goes against his word, I will be the first to decry him for that.

So stop calling all of us Obama zombies, like we're so enthusiastic that we don't have independent thought.