Yeah I fucking knew immediately he was some bullshit joe the plumber set up.

Wow, you really can't read, can you?

From the title of the article you linked:

U.N. climate change report sees risk of 'irreversible' damage

Then, from the article itself:

In a paragraph summing up the risks, the draft says that a continued rise in world greenhouse gas emissions is "increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems."

(both emphasis mine)

Climate change is not irreversible, but if we continue down this path, it may very well be.

And even if it was irreversible as of this point, we would still need to do something to mitigate the effects. Personally, I believe this is the most likely future scenario.

And your contrarian link has zero credibility. An article in the Daily Express talking about a TV weathermans opinion? What's next? A link to the Weekly World News interviewing Joe the Plumber?

Yes, sadly it is.

>> ^Tokoki:

Is this serious?!?

This might amuse you: http://videosift.com/video/Joe-the-Plumber-Shoots-Fruit-and-Shits-on-History

http://videosift.com/video/Joe-the-Plumber-Shoots-Fruit-and-Shits-on-History

Have a laugh: http://videosift.com/video/Joe-the-Plumber-Shoots-Fruit-and-Shits-on-History

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^quantumushroom:
The average oh-so-lovable working class stiff is chock-full of wrongful assumptions about business, law and government.
Tell me about it.


Look at Joe the Plumber... oh, were you refering to QM?

I find this Jesse LaGreca guy to be very well spoken, quite intelligent and speaks more sense than most politicians. I look forward to hearing more from him

The guy she is arguing with is Joe the Plumber.

Jesus christ, Joe the Plumber... I hope this election cycle goes quickly.

That is just wild!

The point about developing stuff for poor people is fairly humorous. My parents had money so I know what it's like to feel wealthy (with none of the power) but now I'm a regular old Joe the plumber butt kinda guy probably like Westy - so what are you saying Westy, that you'd only be interested if they developed Quarter Pounder vending machines and $4 out da doe liters of Miller High Life - the champagne of beers?! That is about just as wild as watching that very neat piece of engineering.

And if anyone from Virgin is here - contact me to do more private label design stuff!!

All thats missing is a few melting owls in the background, a blender, three socks and joe the plumber.

Wait, that may be pushing the art to far. MamorTromboDiMaskArtDecor has to remain subtle.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

there is also no doubt (and Palin is just the most recent/glaring of the lot) that the Right has been the primary source of it
Completely disagree. The political left is the source of tremendous amounts of hate speech and angry rhetoric. I am not going to say that are the 'primary' source, because both sides are equally apoplectic. I consume media from a variety of sources. I don't just look at MSNBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, AP, Rueters - I also look at a cross section of sites of varying political tilt. From Brietbart on the right all the way to the KOS on the left, I see a swatch of it all. And in all honesty and candor, it is NOT the political right that is "the primary" source of angry rhetoric, and certainly not Sarah Palin. There's plenty to go around all sides in this particular smorgasboard.
Do we forget - or do some choose to ignore - the bile and venom the left has been spewing, especially during the Bush years? My memory is not selective, and I remember very clearly the left was calling for Bush assassinations, burning him in effigy, making threats, calling for violence, and otherwise vomiting out hate speech against Bush & Bush supporters for well over 10 years now.
Pictures of Bush decapitated... Images of him in a guillotine... T-shirts wanting him executed... John Kerry saying he 'could Kill Bush, no problem'... Craig Kilborn saying, "Snipers wanted" by a pic of Bush. Alan Hevesi who said he 'would put a bullet between his eyes'. Charles Karel Bouley who wants Joe the Plumber 'dead'. Fiengold who said "Republicans aren't human beings and they should be exterminated before they cause more harm". Chris Matthews who said, "Someone's going to jam a C02 pellet into Limbaugh's head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp - that day may come and we'll be there to watch." DLC blogs that use the same sort of target map Palin did... http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&sub
id=171 And I have not even begun to scratch the SURFACE of the left-wing hate that is pervasive in the media and political culture.
So please - no peddling of the liberally biased fantasy that it is "only" the right or "primarily" the right that is wallowing in this cesspool of hateful rhetoric. No. The left has been revelling in the same filth for decades. This isn't some sort of right-wing malady. It is a problem that pervades both sides in equal levels of commonality and severity.


I watch a lot of news especially during the Bush era. I've seen Bush compared to Hitler and Monkeys and stuff...I have never seen some of the shit you're talking about and you know why...because it wasn't trumpeted in the media. Hatred against Obama and racism is put on our TVs almost like it's a great thing...even defended and encouraged in some cases.

So yes the Left does have it's crazies and they do say stupid fucking things...but no, it's not Equal...not in coverage not in reaction. Any study of the media would tell you this but you're probably a bit busy.

there is also no doubt (and Palin is just the most recent/glaring of the lot) that the Right has been the primary source of it

Completely disagree. The political left is the source of tremendous amounts of hate speech and angry rhetoric. I am not going to say that are the 'primary' source, because both sides are equally apoplectic. I consume media from a variety of sources. I don't just look at MSNBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, AP, Rueters - I also look at a cross section of sites of varying political tilt. From Brietbart on the right all the way to the KOS on the left, I see a swatch of it all. And in all honesty and candor, it is NOT the political right that is "the primary" source of angry rhetoric, and certainly not Sarah Palin. There's plenty to go around all sides in this particular smorgasboard.

Do we forget - or do some choose to ignore - the bile and venom the left has been spewing, especially during the Bush years? My memory is not selective, and I remember very clearly the left was calling for Bush assassinations, burning him in effigy, making threats, calling for violence, and otherwise vomiting out hate speech against Bush & Bush supporters for well over 10 years now.

Pictures of Bush decapitated... Images of him in a guillotine... T-shirts wanting him executed... John Kerry saying he 'could Kill Bush, no problem'... Craig Kilborn saying, "Snipers wanted" by a pic of Bush. Alan Hevesi who said he 'would put a bullet between his eyes'. Charles Karel Bouley who wants Joe the Plumber 'dead'. Fiengold who said "Republicans aren't human beings and they should be exterminated before they cause more harm". Chris Matthews who said, "Someone's going to jam a C02 pellet into Limbaugh's head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp - that day may come and we'll be there to watch." DLC blogs that use the same sort of target map Palin did... http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171 And I have not even begun to scratch the SURFACE of the left-wing hate that is pervasive in the media and political culture.

So please - no peddling of the liberally biased fantasy that it is "only" the right or "primarily" the right that is wallowing in this cesspool of hateful rhetoric. No. The left has been revelling in the same filth for decades. This isn't some sort of right-wing malady. It is a problem that pervades both sides in equal levels of commonality and severity.

>> ^alien_concept:

I wasn't saying that it wouldn't be better all round if people explained why, when they have an opinion on something, I just think calling someone out on it and accusing them of being a typical internet opinion-wielder, might have been a bit strong under the circumstances...
And I wouldn't say I'm defeatist either, just perhaps less passionate


"Typical internet opinion-wielder"

Hmm, you may be right. That was WAAAAAY over the top, wasn't it? <shakes fist and screams toward the ceiling> How can I ever live this shame down? HOW??

Just havin' some fun.

I disagree with you again, of course, as I think my words were quite tame and also quite true.

Such that no one can call me a hypocrite, let me illustrate why being able to explain yourself is always a good thing: I recently watched a shitload of the Election08 channel videos and sort of re-experienced the great entertainment value that the election actually was. If you have a couple hours to kill, I highly recommend doing the same.

There are two sifts from this collection I'd like to introduce into evidence, your honors.

1) http://videosift.com/video/Joe-the-Plumber-Wont-Explain-Death-to-Israel-Remarks
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg (Sarah Palin on Russia)

Video 1 features Joe the Plumber asserting that a vote for Obama means death to Israel. Fox Host Shepard Smith tries to get Joe to explain himself a bit further but he is ultimately unsuccessful.

Video 2 is the famous "Well, it certainly does" comment. Couric presses Palin to explain exactly why Alaska's proximity to Russia has provided her with foreign policy credentials.

In both videos, one can easily recognize the flaccid attempts to justify outlandish assertions. Do you think a well-reasoned response on the part of either of them would have helped or harmed their respective cases? For Joe the Plumber, it's particularly embarrassing because he freely admits that he "knows just enough to probably be dangerous." At the very least, Palin provided some explanation, laughable and transparent (and plenty of both) though it was. Had either Joe the Plumber or Ms. Palin provided explanations, even ones that merely grazed at the periphery of sense, the GOP might have been placed in a different position, election-wise.

If you haven't yet gotten the point, let me say that the assignment of an opinion as "valid" or "invalid" is independent of agreement with the opinion. The deciding factor? Whether an opinion is backed-up in an effective way. The fact that one may not be able to (because it's "just a feeling" they get) is rather the whole point, isn't it?