Because Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the rest... "CO2 is good for the Earth, it helps plants" (ignoring that most plants are absorbing about as much CO2 as they can already, and ignoring the bigger problem that very little of the Earth is green, and no walls or ceilings to keep the CO2 where plants are), "compact fluorescent bulbs are stupid, they have mercury in them!" (ignoring that the mercury in them and the mercury put into the air by the power plant is less than the mercury put into the air by the power plant to power regular bulbs). And the news media paints it as a debate, having one climate change scientist debate one climate change denier (though the media still refuses to call them deniers and paints them as skeptics) and this isn't just the right wing media, almost all the media in the US presents it as a debate. They don't present the fact that a 97% consensus exists.

Then there is religion. They talk how insane it is to assume that humans, made of God could destroy God's work. That we can't damage the Earth as God made it... of course they take the idea of destruction literal, and not in the way people actually mean when they say it's destroying the Earth. They also don't care about the repercussions of future generations as "Jesus is coming soon, well before any of this will matter"... more or less an actual quote. They believe also that God has granted mankind all authority over the Earth and not that it was stewardship over the Earth, so we can and should do whatever we want.

There's also ignorance. The media, especially the right wing media, portray the idea of climate change as presented is being presented as being only 100% caused by humans, they claim that the pro climate change scientists won't acknowledge any part of it might be natural. The media is playing it as an all or nothing scenario, either humans caused it all, or caused none of it. This isn't what any scientists are saying. They are just pointing out the natural uptick vs the uptick we are seeing is explained by human burning of fossil fuels, and that's what the 97% consensus is about, the uptick we are observing vs what would be expected naturally. But not understanding, and thinking science is ignoring all possible natural causes, they deny the whole thing.

Heck, just look at the media uproar over the supposed mini ice age that is coming in 2030 or so. Of course the actual paper never mentions an ice age or climate at all, and neither did the presentation. The problem was the press release for presentation mentioned the Maunder Minimum and linked to the Wikipedia article about it, and from there the media assumed that would mean a new mini ice age, even though the mini ice age during that time was started before the Maunder Minimum. Nobody in the climate change community is really calling for a mini ice age (just like it was never widely thought in the 70s that we were heading for global cooling, it was understood even then it was warming, the cooling thing came from an article in Time if I recall correctly, not exactly a peer reviewed science journal) come the 2030's, at best we may get a very small slow down of the warming, but CO2 levels are 40% higher than during the Maunder Minimum. Anyhow the media tends to mislead the public with things that wasn't actually said. The right wing media machines especially know that their audience won't vet their sources or information and will trust them and talk about conspiracies to hide the truth. Heck most of the media never even cleared the air over climategate emails, so most of the deniers still cite the climategate emails as a valid thing, even though in context and with scientific understanding none of the climategate claims are valid, and in fact still point to global warming... (http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-hoopla-giant-failure-science-communication)

There's also the change from "global warming" to "climate change" which they don't understand to be an escalation of the term, and think instead it's toning it down.

What's the difference between God and a Democrat?

A: God knows He's not a Democrat.
------------------------------------------
You might be a liberal if…

you break out in a cold sweat at the mention of the Constitution.


you believe the Constitution is living but unborn babies aren’t.


you believe that a democrat freed the slaves and a republican created the KKK.

you abhor censorship unless it’s censoring race, religion, Conservatism, Western culture or Rush Limbaugh.

you believe 59% of whites who voted for Romney are racists but 96% of blacks who voted for Obama are not.

Throwing up a graphic (1:00) with Rachel Maddow sandwiched between Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reily creates a false equivalency.

There were no "good old days". We never were "All" in it together. It may be comforting to look back on the past with nostalgia but that's all it is.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Rush, Limbaugh, Countdown, Worst, Person, Computer, Stupid' to 'Rush Limbaugh, Countdown, Worst, Person, Computer, Stupid, keith olbermann' - edited by xxovercastxx

Ah man, get Rush Limbaugh one of these!

We ain't ever going to have a society of "high moral standard" as long as we let evil people like yourself bully us into inaction. It's very, very easy for us to save a lot of lives by implementing sensible gun regulation.

You can be a moral person too, all you have to do is turn off your Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, and return to the human race.

We ain't ever going to have a society of "high moral standard" as long as we let evil people like yourself bully us into inaction. It's very, very easy for us to save a lot of lives by implementing sensible gun regulation.

You can be a moral person too, all you have to do is turn off your Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, and return to the human race.

Newt Gingrich: “My personal guess is you are going to see a Romney landslide, 53% plus in the popular vote, 300 electoral votes plus. And we may come very close to capturing control of the Senate.”

Rush Limbaugh: ”You know, all of my thinking says Romney big…it’s not even close. Three hundred-plus Electoral Votes for Romney.”

Glenn Beck: “321 votes!! That’d be great, which would be a mandate, giant giant spankin’ — that’s huge!”

No, you don't understand. If Rush and his descendants keep eating the way he does they might evolve into something similar to Homo Sapiens in a hundred thousand years.>> ^criticalthud:

if the theory that we "ate our way" to bigger brains were true, Rush Limbaugh wouldn't be an imbecile.

if the theory that we "ate our way" to bigger brains were true, Rush Limbaugh wouldn't be an imbecile.

The shit just hasn't reached critical mass yet. Dems and Reps alike want Romney to release his returns. Dems and Reps alike called Romney out on his lies during the debate.

The amount of Republicans who are willing to call BS on their own party or fox or Rush Limbaugh are very few. it isn't going to change until they are handed a long string of defeats. Obama is probably going to win this.. But it's not going to be a landslide. It's going to be close enough that the leadership says "well we just weren't extreme enough" and they just go harder to the right. Nothing is going to change until a clear message is sent that faith-based fear mongering and trickle down economics are not wanted anymore

This is like the argument, "Well the Nazis did X, therefore X is bad."

Whoever posted this, and whoever agrees with the sentiment, you're just wrong. There's a lot about Romney to be concerned with. If he actually won, America would be in a world of hurt, but don't cloud the issue with crap like this. Hate Romney for who he is, what he believes and the things he does. Don't simply invoke the name Hitler make some vague accusations and hope it'll stick. That's what the other side does.

Think about it, do you really want to sound like Rush Limbaugh?

For the most part I agree with you. I'd say that maybe, for me at least, I haven't been enjoying the TYT as much recently specifically because of the tone; it gets an almost knee-jerk reaction from me.

>> ^messenger:

Good experiment. I did what you suggested and watched it again pretending it was Rush Limbaugh speaking, and here's what I was felt:
I noticed that their ranting tones and vocal styles are quite similar, and that I wasn't bothered by that. I noticed how I trusted that what Cenk was telling me was factual and balanced because Cenk prizes his image of being honest and fair. His arguments were so obvious that I didn't feel he was manipulating anything to fit an agenda. I also felt this because he almost never does so, and when he does, he admits it first. In this video, I felt he was genuinely worked up, and was delivering the pertinent details and venting like a person who was actually pissed off. In the last year or so that I've been watching a lot of TYT, I have rarely thought like he was telling people what to believe or speaking to his audience like sheeple (his often repeated assertion that women and gays who support the Republican party are either stupid or ignorant is the exception I'm thinking of), and I feel like if I were to talk to him, there'd be room for discussion on any topic, as long as I was bringing fact to the table.
This is mostly in contrast to how I perceive Limbaugh. The feeling I get from him is that he's a blowhard who succeeds by being loud, resolute, prejudiced, black-and-white in his opinions, spoonfeeding his audience an opinion (any opinion will do as long as they can repeat it at work), backing it up with bullshit or manipulation, and by directing his audience to grouphate an "other" that he invented. I think a better comparison for a lib Limbaugh would be Keith Olbermann. Again, I mostly agreed with Keith's views on things, but the way he went about voicing them was hateful, rude and divisive, and designed so the payoff was not of being better informed, but of enjoying a dig at the evil "other".
If you don't like Cenk, I think it's either you're picking up something else that's going over my head, or Cenk's tone is triggering associations with Limbaugh's (and Olbermann's) hateful and insulting rhetorical style.>> ^Shakesify:
I'm always conflicted when I see videos like this. I react positively since it supports my view, yet when a video comes with a view I disagree with and a tone similar to Cenk - WAKE UP SHEEPLE! - I react with disgust and disdain..how could someone believe in something so stupid?? Then I imagine a conservative me who reacts in exactly the same way, just to the opposite video.
There must be a better way to communicate my beliefs to others. When did Cenk become the liberal Rush Limbaugh? Seriously, watch the video again but imagine its Rush and not Cenk. Fits too well. Too much ranting.

Good experiment. I did what you suggested and watched it again pretending it was Rush Limbaugh speaking, and here's what I was felt:

I noticed that their ranting tones and vocal styles are quite similar, and that I wasn't bothered by that. I noticed how I trusted that what Cenk was telling me was factual and balanced because Cenk prizes his image of being honest and fair. His arguments were so obvious that I didn't feel he was manipulating anything to fit an agenda. I also felt this because he almost never does so, and when he does, he admits it first. In this video, I felt he was genuinely worked up, and was delivering the pertinent details and venting like a person who was actually pissed off. In the last year or so that I've been watching a lot of TYT, I have rarely thought like he was telling people what to believe or speaking to his audience like sheeple (his often repeated assertion that women and gays who support the Republican party are either stupid or ignorant is the exception I'm thinking of), and I feel like if I were to talk to him, there'd be room for discussion on any topic, as long as I was bringing fact to the table.

This is mostly in contrast to how I perceive Limbaugh. The feeling I get from him is that he's a blowhard who succeeds by being loud, resolute, prejudiced, black-and-white in his opinions, spoonfeeding his audience an opinion (any opinion will do as long as they can repeat it at work), backing it up with bullshit or manipulation, and by directing his audience to grouphate an "other" that he invented. I think a better comparison for a lib Limbaugh would be Keith Olbermann. Again, I mostly agreed with Keith's views on things, but the way he went about voicing them was hateful, rude and divisive, and designed so the payoff was not of being better informed, but of enjoying a dig at the evil "other".

If you don't like Cenk, I think it's either you're picking up something else that's going over my head, or Cenk's tone is triggering associations with Limbaugh's (and Olbermann's) hateful and insulting rhetorical style.>> ^Shakesify:

I'm always conflicted when I see videos like this. I react positively since it supports my view, yet when a video comes with a view I disagree with and a tone similar to Cenk - WAKE UP SHEEPLE! - I react with disgust and disdain..how could someone believe in something so stupid?? Then I imagine a conservative me who reacts in exactly the same way, just to the opposite video.
There must be a better way to communicate my beliefs to others. When did Cenk become the liberal Rush Limbaugh? Seriously, watch the video again but imagine its Rush and not Cenk. Fits too well. Too much ranting.

I'm always conflicted when I see videos like this. I react positively since it supports my view, yet when a video comes with a view I disagree with and a tone similar to Cenk - WAKE UP SHEEPLE! - I react with disgust and disdain..how could someone believe in something so stupid?? Then I imagine a conservative me who reacts in exactly the same way, just to the opposite video.

There must be a better way to communicate my beliefs to others. When did Cenk become the liberal Rush Limbaugh? Seriously, watch the video again but imagine its Rush and not Cenk. Fits too well. Too much ranting.