You keep saying 'human CO2' as though its a different variety than 'natural' CO2. CO2 is CO2, it doesn't matter if its belched out of a volcano, out of the tail pipe of a car or the tail pipe of a cow.

When we burn carbon traps like trees, oil, and coal, we release the carbon into the air in the form of CO2. While the proportion people release is smaller than that which is naturally released, it is enough to exceed what can naturally be absorbed in combination with what is naturally released. Thus we see an increase in overall atmospheric CO2.

What do you think happens to the excess CO2? Do you think because its 'human CO2' it some how doesn't contribute to overall atmospheric CO2?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Aaaaand this is why Huntsman will not win the GOP nomination. He's an idiot who accepts the false premise that "99%" of all scientists agree that human CO2 is the cause of all climate change, and that tax & cap schemes have any prayer of doing anything about it. The real 'anti-science' camp here is not the GOP. They GOP loves science. They just hate BAD science, which is what all the AGW Flavor-Aid drinkers have on thier side.
There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what an actual scientist is talking about. "Climate change" is a generic term that only means the climate is changing. I'd say 100% of "all scientists" agree with this simple statement. The debate is NOT about whether or not Earth's climate has cycles.
But when the Warmies talk about "Climate change" they are not talking about the generic term. They pack so many other things into those two words that it becomes almost impossible to have an intelligent, reasonable, fact-based discussion with them. But you can boil their intent down.
"100% of all scientists agree that 100% of all climate change is caused by human CO2. Also, 100% of all scientists agree that the way to address climate change is by massive taxation and other big government solutions. Earth will experience catastrophic world-wide destruction which would wipe out all humanity unless we ACT NOW!"
But this is not true. Not all scientists agree that CO2 is what is driving climate change. Not even a majority agree with that position. There is no solid evidence of it. There are only theories and projections - many of which have been proven to be based on bad data and falsehoods. To say "all science" agrees with the AGW theory is total bollocks.
So it is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of "bad" science, while accepting the ACTUAL "100%" agreement in regards to overall climate changes. Climate changes. DUR. The argument is over whether (A) human CO2 has anything to do with it and (B) even IF (!!IF!!) human CO2 has anything to do with it, whether or not these massive cap & tax schemes would have any impact of value.
The GOP is not "anti-science". That is just a typical left-wing neolib pile of bologna. If anything, the GOP is more "pro-science" than any liberal is because they are less blinkered by bias and accept a variety of arguments as opposed to this lockstep groupthink neolibs try to use to shut down real analysis in the climate debate.

Aaaaand this is why Huntsman will not win the GOP nomination. He's an idiot who accepts the false premise that "99%" of all scientists agree that human CO2 is the cause of all climate change, and that tax & cap schemes have any prayer of doing anything about it. The real 'anti-science' camp here is not the GOP. They GOP loves science. They just hate BAD science, which is what all the AGW Flavor-Aid drinkers have on thier side.

There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what an actual scientist is talking about. "Climate change" is a generic term that only means the climate is changing. I'd say 100% of "all scientists" agree with this simple statement. The debate is NOT about whether or not Earth's climate has cycles.

But when the Warmies talk about "Climate change" they are not talking about the generic term. They pack so many other things into those two words that it becomes almost impossible to have an intelligent, reasonable, fact-based discussion with them. But you can boil their intent down.

"100% of all scientists agree that 100% of all climate change is caused by human CO2. Also, 100% of all scientists agree that the way to address climate change is by massive taxation and other big government solutions. Earth will experience catastrophic world-wide destruction which would wipe out all humanity unless we ACT NOW!"

But this is not true. Not all scientists agree that CO2 is what is driving climate change. Not even a majority agree with that position. There is no solid evidence of it. There are only theories and projections - many of which have been proven to be based on bad data and falsehoods. To say "all science" agrees with the AGW theory is total bollocks.

So it is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of "bad" science, while accepting the ACTUAL "100%" agreement in regards to overall climate changes. Climate changes. DUR. The argument is over whether (A) human CO2 has anything to do with it and (B) even IF (!!IF!!) human CO2 has anything to do with it, whether or not these massive cap & tax schemes would have any impact of value.

The GOP is not "anti-science". That is just a typical left-wing neolib pile of bologna. If anything, the GOP is more "pro-science" than any liberal is because they are less blinkered by bias and accept a variety of arguments as opposed to this lockstep groupthink neolibs try to use to shut down real analysis in the climate debate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

As always - the Warmies love to muddle terminilogy in order to misdirect.
There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what a scientist is talking about. However, in the news media and popular culture, the Warmies routinely equate both of them together in order to lend themselves false credibility.
"Climate change" as a generic term simply means the climate is changing. This is scientifically provable - however it is so patently obvious (and has been for millenium) that it does not require the rigor of the scientific method to verify. No one is arguing against the reality that Earth's climate has cycles, changes, alters, or otherwise permutates over long periods of time (or even short periods locally).
However, when Warmies talk about "Climate change" they do not mean this. They pack so many other things into two words that it becomes almost impossible to pin it down. But generally speaking when a Warmie says climate change they mean something along these lines...
"Human C02 emissions are the primary agent of all climate changes in the past 200 years, and all scientists in all fields are in 100% agreement that only human C02 is responsible and these scientists are also in 100% agreement that the only solution is to enact massive government taxation schemes in order to reduce C02 emissions to 1820 levels, or the Earth will experience such catastrophic world-wide destruction that all humanity will be wiped out."
That's quite a difference in meaning. It is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of the latter definition, while accepting the former.
And yet the Warmies cannot allow a rational line of discussion and debate, and so they instead turn to their time-practiced tactic of poisoning the well, insults, ad hominems, and other obfuscations of the truth in order to desperately lend their terminally unsupportable position enough credence to allow the desperate and brain-washed to continue to cling to it in the face of real evidence.
Day after day we hear repeated news of the facts behind the so-called 'proof' that the Warmies have falsified for years. East anglia, the polar bear liar, the hockey stick chart, the IPCC panels - they have all been discredited and proven to have buried evidence, censored opposing research, cooked their data, falsified evidence, and otherwise destroyed the entire credibility of the whole Warmie position. Their 'science' (all oriented around C02 being the primary agent of climate change) is bunk.
I've got an entire folder in my Hotmail with article after article after article proving that the claim that "human C02 = climate change" is politically motivated bologna. Here are some from just this WEEK...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/
100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mental-illness-ri
se-linked-to-climate-20110828-1jger.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4462
It is 100% hogwash. The climate change INDUSTRY (and it is an over 200 billion dollar industry) is panicing because people no longer buy the "Human C02 = poison" bullcrap. They are losing the debate. Governments are abandoning the green movement. And the Warmies are panicking. So they are putting out articles so insane, so ridiculous that even a child can tell they are stupid morons. Aliens are going to blow up earth over C02 emissions? Climate change is causing mental illness? What utter stupidity.
The evidence - the REAL evidence - is that human C02 is such a minor factor that it does not warrent serious attention. Do we all want to clean up messes? Sure - but the real mess-makers are not in the US or Europe. They're in South America, China, and Africa. That's where the focus should be. But the Warmie movement is nakedly political, so their primary goals have nothing to do with actual pollution. Instead they obsess over making C02 something they can 'regulate', and therefore tax and earn revenues from. It's pathetic, and yet so many people accept it because of faulty, flawed, sloppy so-called 'research', and the fact that they really WANT to believe it for some reason. Morons.


annnnnd ignore

As always - the Warmies love to muddle terminilogy in order to misdirect.

There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what a scientist is talking about. However, in the news media and popular culture, the Warmies routinely equate both of them together in order to lend themselves false credibility.

"Climate change" as a generic term simply means the climate is changing. This is scientifically provable - however it is so patently obvious (and has been for millenium) that it does not require the rigor of the scientific method to verify. No one is arguing against the reality that Earth's climate has cycles, changes, alters, or otherwise permutates over long periods of time (or even short periods locally).

However, when Warmies talk about "Climate change" they do not mean this. They pack so many other things into two words that it becomes almost impossible to pin it down. But generally speaking when a Warmie says climate change they mean something along these lines...

"Human C02 emissions are the primary agent of all climate changes in the past 200 years, and all scientists in all fields are in 100% agreement that only human C02 is responsible and these scientists are also in 100% agreement that the only solution is to enact massive government taxation schemes in order to reduce C02 emissions to 1820 levels, or the Earth will experience such catastrophic world-wide destruction that all humanity will be wiped out."

That's quite a difference in meaning. It is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of the latter definition, while accepting the former.

And yet the Warmies cannot allow a rational line of discussion and debate, and so they instead turn to their time-practiced tactic of poisoning the well, insults, ad hominems, and other obfuscations of the truth in order to desperately lend their terminally unsupportable position enough credence to allow the desperate and brain-washed to continue to cling to it in the face of real evidence.

Day after day we hear repeated news of the facts behind the so-called 'proof' that the Warmies have falsified for years. East anglia, the polar bear liar, the hockey stick chart, the IPCC panels - they have all been discredited and proven to have buried evidence, censored opposing research, cooked their data, falsified evidence, and otherwise destroyed the entire credibility of the whole Warmie position. Their 'science' (all oriented around C02 being the primary agent of climate change) is bunk.

I've got an entire folder in my Hotmail with article after article after article proving that the claim that "human C02 = climate change" is politically motivated bologna. Here are some from just this WEEK...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mental-illness-rise-linked-to-climate-20110828-1jger.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4462

It is 100% hogwash. The climate change INDUSTRY (and it is an over 200 billion dollar industry) is panicing because people no longer buy the "Human C02 = poison" bullcrap. They are losing the debate. Governments are abandoning the green movement. And the Warmies are panicking. So they are putting out articles so insane, so ridiculous that even a child can tell they are stupid morons. Aliens are going to blow up earth over C02 emissions? Climate change is causing mental illness? What utter stupidity.

The evidence - the REAL evidence - is that human C02 is such a minor factor that it does not warrent serious attention. Do we all want to clean up messes? Sure - but the real mess-makers are not in the US or Europe. They're in South America, China, and Africa. That's where the focus should be. But the Warmie movement is nakedly political, so their primary goals have nothing to do with actual pollution. Instead they obsess over making C02 something they can 'regulate', and therefore tax and earn revenues from. It's pathetic, and yet so many people accept it because of faulty, flawed, sloppy so-called 'research', and the fact that they really WANT to believe it for some reason. Morons.

In these days of indigestion it is oftentimes a question
As to what to eat and what to leave alone.
Every microbe and bacillus has a different way to kill us
And in time they all will claim us for their own.
There are germs of every kind in every food that you can find
In the market or upon the bill of fare.
Drinking water's just as risky as the so-called "deadly" whiskey
And it's often a mistake to breathe the air.

Cho: For some little bug is going to get you someday.
Some little bug will creep behind you some day.
Then he'll send for his bug friends
And all your troubles they will end,
For some little bug is gonna find you someday.

The inviting green cucumber, it's most everybody's number
While sweetcorn has a system of its own.
Now, that radish seems nutritious, but its behavior is quite vicious
And a doctor will be coming to your home.
Eating lobster, cooked or plain, is only flirting with ptomaine,
While an oyster often has a lot to say.
And those clams we eat in chowder make the angels sing the louder
For they know that they'll be with us right away.

For some little bug is going to get you someday.
Some little bug will creep behind you some day.
Eat that juicy sliced pineapple ;and the sexton dusts the chapel
Oh, yes, some little bug is gonna find you some day.

When cold storage vaults I visit, I can only say, "What is it
Makes poor mortals fill their systems with such stuff?"
Now, at breakfast prunes are dandy if a stomach pump is handy
And a doctor can be called quite soon enough.

Eat a plate of fine pig's knuckles and the headstone cutter chuckles
While the gravedigger makes a mark upon his cuff.
And eat that lovely red bologna and you'll wear a wood kimona
As your relatives start packing up your stuff.

Those crazy foods they fix, they'll float us 'cross the River Styx
Or start us climbing up the Milky Way.
And those meals they serve in courses mean a hearse and two black horses
So before meals, some people always pray.

Luscious grapes breed appendicitis, while their juice leads to gastritis
So there's only death to greet us either way.
Fried liver's nice, but mind you, friends will follow close behind you
And the papers, they will have nice things to say.

For some little bug is going to get you someday.
Some little bug will creep behind you some day.
Eat that spicy bowl of chili, on your breast they'll plant a lily .
Oh, yes, some little bug is gonna find you some day.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I love to see a person who is passionate about what they believe in. That kind of thing always gets mad props from me. Kudos guy. Golf clap.
But the sad reality is that there are precious few in the teaching profession that have this kind of passion. And even the rare teacher who DOES have the passion has a heckuva time working in a system that is more concerned about the welfare of the teacher's union than the education of students. I could go on for hours about screwed up teachers, regulations, and all the other garbage that cumbers our educational system. It’s all well and good to stick up for the good things, but it ends up ringing pretty hollow when you know there’s a mile of manure beneath the pretty green-grass rhetoric.
For example… I’m no fan of lawyers. But if I was a lawyer, you how I could respond to his last question?
“You what to know what kind of difference I make? I make drunk drivers go to jail when they kill kids, but walk away from the accident. I make teachers who have sex with their students tremble when I’m on the other end of the phone. I make laws that protect widows, the elderly, and orphans. I make companies clean up their messes, and pay the people they hurt with their negligence. I make government officials talk about the laws they try to sneak through the system. I make rapists and murderers go to the electric chair. I stare right in the face at all the scum, sleaze, and filth in society that YOU’RE too scared to even talk about. I hold the powerful accountable. I make the guilty pay. I defend the innocent guy who society never gave a chance. That’s the difference I make, pal…”
See – it isn’t too hard to list all the GOOD things done by a profession while desperately ignoring the slime, crap, and bologna. Golf-clapping his passion, but not impressed with his method.


lawyers don't make laws
defense lawyers make ALOT more than prosecution
and they are just as likely to deny someone their just dues, and protect those in the wrong... probably more likely, because thats where the money is at

trying to put law and education in the same boat has 1 major flaw
there's no money in teaching...
its much more likely to find corruption where there is money
its much more likely to find character where this isn't

At what point in this video does he do that?

End of the video. "I make a difference. What about you?" Implying the slimy lawyer doesn't make a difference, but the teacher does. The guy had a chip on his shoulder, and the hypothetical lawyer may have knocked it off but it was already there and there wasn't anything the guy said he wasn't itching to say - including the disparagment of lawyers joke. An easy target, and perhaps a valid one but nonetheless a hypocritical one.

Since that isn't happening...Pennypacker is lying

I see - so since the ENTIRE workforce isn't trying to be teachers that means that teachers don't make a decent living? This is typical neoliberal logic - which is to say - epic failure.

I didn't say teachers made so much money that everyone should be drooling over the prospect of being one. I said they made a decent living. I did say that teachers DO make a better living than quite a few professional jobs that pay less in total wages and benefits - including some attorneys. The image that teachers are penniless, unfairly compensated, toe-rags of society is the only lie here.

I am not saying teachers are not worth compensation. They have a hard job, and have to deal with a ton of crap. There are plenty of great teachers out there who really do the kind of God's Work that the guy in this vid is crowing about. But does that mean every teacher should be paid $250,000 a year plus benefits? Heck no.

The implication some of you have is "We'd get better teachers if we only PAID them more..." Bologna. Teacher pay has been increasing for years and teacher quality hasn't improved one iota because of it. If teaching was a $250K annual gig then you'd start getting worse teachers - not better ones.

I love to see a person who is passionate about what they believe in. That kind of thing always gets mad props from me. Kudos guy. Golf clap.

But the sad reality is that there are precious few in the teaching profession that have this kind of passion. And even the rare teacher who DOES have the passion has a heckuva time working in a system that is more concerned about the welfare of the teacher's union than the education of students. I could go on for hours about screwed up teachers, regulations, and all the other garbage that cumbers our educational system. It’s all well and good to stick up for the good things, but it ends up ringing pretty hollow when you know there’s a mile of manure beneath the pretty green-grass rhetoric.

For example… I’m no fan of lawyers. But if I was a lawyer, you how I could respond to his last question?

“You what to know what kind of difference I make? I make drunk drivers go to jail when they kill kids, but walk away from the accident. I make teachers who have sex with their students tremble when I’m on the other end of the phone. I make laws that protect widows, the elderly, and orphans. I make companies clean up their messes, and pay the people they hurt with their negligence. I make government officials talk about the laws they try to sneak through the system. I make rapists and murderers go to the electric chair. I stare right in the face at all the scum, sleaze, and filth in society that YOU’RE too scared to even talk about. I hold the powerful accountable. I make the guilty pay. I defend the innocent guy who society never gave a chance. That’s the difference I make, pal…”

See – it isn’t too hard to list all the GOOD things done by a profession while desperately ignoring the slime, crap, and bologna. Golf-clapping his passion, but not impressed with his method.

Boo-freaking-hoo. Voting is a priveledge - and one that a voter should be willing to put up with a little bit of inconvenience in order to legitimize. If voting required me to go to my voting office, show my birth certificate, show my bank account statement (with address), as well as a valid photo ID in order to get a ONE TIME voting card for every election then I would happily do so because if only voters with those personally approved cards could vote it would solve a ton of problems.

Anyone who gripes about having to show ID to vote is hiding something... And 99.9% of the time they are probably trying to hide the fact that they are voting illegitimately. I have not yet heard a single argument against photo voter ID that is even remotely logical.

"Roadblocks" to voting? Bologna. Oh boo hoo hoo - I have to go to a building and stand in line for a while and have the right documents... I've never HEARD of such horrible 'roadblocks'... Oh - wait - every freaking person in the USA has to jump those hurdles every freaking day they live. The bank. The grocery store. The DMV. The post office. The list goes on and on and on. If folks don't mind presenting IDs to get food stamps, unemployment, social security, medicare, and medicaid then they have NO RIGHT to whine about having to present the same ID to vote.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Mike Rowe, dirty jobs, discovery channel, bologna, bologna factory, meat, smoker, dirty' to 'Mike Rowe, dirty jobs, bologna, factory, meat, smoker, dirty, and then theres meat' - edited by calvados

http://videosift.com/video/Dirty-Jobs-Bologna-Factory

That has some good ZINGERS as well.

This pretty much showed how JS is a hypocrite so blinkered by bias that he personifies the very evil he decries.

Let’s call a tiger a tiger. Cable news channels have two completely different facets. One facet is the “news” update – which is when channels are announcing stuff that happens – the cut and dry stuff. The other facet is “commentary”: biased, agenda driven, subjective, interpretive, talking-head bologna that preaches to a specific ideological crowd. Whether you want to admit it or not – ALL news channels have both of these facets of News and Commentary.

Now, the cable news channels have a lot higher “Commentary to News” ratio because they are filling up a 24/7 schedule. Fox is not unique in that regard – but shares the same market space as MSNBC & CNN - about 20% ‘News’ and 80% ‘Commentary’. Whether you like the commentary of a particular channel depends on your own bias. To people who are leftists (the majority of the Sift and JS) commentary on Fox News is like garlic to a vampire. To someone on the right (such as myself) commentary on MSNBC is like salt on road rash.

If Stewart was really a true “satirist” (as he likes to say he is) then he would be mocking all sides because they both have plenty of targets. However, 99 times out of 100, Stewart focuses on the side he ideologically opposes while ignoring juicy targets on the other side. A real satirist doesn’t handcuff himself like that, so what Stewart is doing is less ‘satire’ and more ‘biased commentary’ because what he selects as subject material is driven by his biases.

Stewart can’t admit that or his audience of smug, self-congratulatory neolibs would lose their self esteem. So when presented with ironclad proof that he is biased by Wallace, Stewart CANNOT bring himself to admit it. Instead he desperately cringes behind his typical dodge of being “comedy informed by an ideological background”. What a load of honk. You were nailed Stewart. Your claimed beef with Fox News (that they are somehow ‘unique’ in commentary bias) is proven demonstrably false. Instead, it was made crystal clear that you simply don’t like Fox’s brand of commentary because it ideologically opposes your own. Kind of hurts when you can’t just mack at the camera when you get pegged don’t it? You got visibly irritable and defensive because the truth hurts.

So in this interview Stewart couldn’t dive into the tall grass of his standard “Hey – I’m just a comedian! No fair! My clown-nose is on!” coward defense. The commentary of many news channels is liberally biased just as bad (or worse) than any of Fox News’ conservative commentary. Wallace proves it in black and white. In fact there are many studies that have proven this point routinely. But Stewart can’t bring himself to SAY that news outlets he shares an “informed ideological background” with are biased because that would mean that he would have to admit that he HIMSELF is biased. So in the face of all evidence he says that hack organizations like MSNBC are not biased but “trend toward sensationalism and laziness”. I haven’t heard a weaker, more pathetic rhetorical dodge in a long time.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/993/who-knows-news-what-you-read-or-view-matters-but-not-your-politics

Of course Stewart doesn’t want to mention polls like this that prove that FOX patrons are about 2X as ‘informed’ as people on MSNBC, NBC, CNN, ABC, or CBC. He doesn’t want to talk about the fact that Couric’s audience is about as ‘informed’ as the average reader of the Inquirer. Of course Stewart isn’t going to admit that people who listen to LIMBAUGH are more informed than his audience. No – like Obama – Stewart only sticks to isolated, biased polls that favor his own personal world view - and ignores the evidence to the contrary. BIASED.

If you’re a fan of Stewart then bully for you. He can be entertaining sometimes, and he even has the occasional decency to admit (albeit sarcastically) his own problems – such as with the whole Weiner scandal. But those of you who are patting yourselves on the back pretending that he somehow ‘skunked’ Wallace are living in a self-insulated fanboi fantasy world.

Wallace made his point. Wallace never tried to say Fox News doesn’t have biased commentary on it. Wallace proved conclusively that other news channels – including Stewart’s own show – are primarily driven by biased commentary rather than news. To the world, Stewart proved that he cannot bring himself to simply admit that left-wing, neolib commentary is biased. Thus, proving to all that Stewart himself is an untrustworthy, intellectually hypocritical, biased tool. Game, set, and match to Wallace. Now Stewart can slink back to his show and lick his wounds by selectively re-editing reality so he doesn’t look quite as big of a tool – as is his wont.

M'eh - conspiracy theorists are what they are and some percentage of a large population is going to agree with almost any theory that gets cooked up. The 9/11 Truthers are a far better example of this than the Obama Birthers. The idiotic conspiracy theory about 9/11 being a Bush inside job so he could declare war on Iraq to 'finish what his daddy started' and all that other bologna has not gone away to this day. The whole blood for oil crowd belongs in that bucket. You really think an electronic scan of a document is going to satisfy the die-hards? Haw.

The real issue here is the neo-lib kook left's continuous and increasingly plaintive and DESPERATE attempt to try and paint anyone who opposes Obama for ANY reason as a crazy birther, or racist. Completely untrue. A lot of people say they have 'doubts', or 'aren't sure' or other fuzzy comments of that sort when asked about Obama's birth. But very few people (GOP, Tea Party, whatever) say that Obama was definitely NOT born in the US, and should be removed from office because he isn't a citizen. Those who spit that hate speech to falsely denigrate an opposing group are just as crazy and prone to wearing tin-foil hats as the radical birthers.

The fact is that when polled, MOST AMERICANS (not just GOP) have said they were 'not sure' if he was born in the US or not. This isn't because they're birthers. It's because they have seen this guy's outlandish, anti-American behavior and just plain do not see Obama as "American".

Heck, even Obama doesn't see himself as an American really. He keeps going on and on about how great China is, and how great some other country is, and how wonderful Hugo Chavez is, and how great Islamic dictators like Amadinijad & Asad are, and how fantastic it is to bow to the Saudis, and I'm just getting warmed up. The guy can't open his mouth without saying how great everywhere ELSE is, while the same time whining about how Americans are stupid, gun-totin', bible thumpin', fuel burnin' jerks every time he goes anywhere. Not to mention his downright anti-constitutional behavior domestically with his czars, and ramming laws through, and ignoring court orders, and ignoring laws Congress passes, and NOT enforcing laws that already exist because he doesn't like them... And his constant arrogance and hypocrisy when he insults people (like Ryan) while in the next breath saying how everyone else has to stop being 'mean' (I could fill pages with lists of his double-speak jerky hypocritical arrogance). Add that to his crazy-@$$ pastors, his ties to terrorists like Ayres, his fanatical secrecy in hiding his past, his criminal tie (Rezko) and ON and ON and ON and ON and ON.

Needless to say that the bulk of America has doubts about this pathetic clown not because of his birth certificate - but because of everything else. So when the radical birthers come along, they may not really beleive he was foreign born but they see Obama the man himself and think, "Well... MAYBE..." Just like there was always enough about Bush for the bulk of America to think "Well... MAYBE..." when the 9/11 Truther spouted their bilge.

That study is from 2005, and FOX has climbed quite a few steps on the crazy-ladder since then, secondly, like I said, it finds "most of the media" has a "leftist bias" thats because FOX has, as I said, moved the standard on the right into crazyville. This makes anyone left of Reagan basically into a "leftist." Secondly this was an American study. From the outside, to the rest of the world, FOX and its fans look like bewildered extremists with little or no idea what goes on outside their own, largely imaginary, world.

Your insinuations that I'm some sort of brainwashed leftist is very strange. I'm not American, I'm Norwegian, and frankly American left or right politics mean very little to me, nor, I think, to the rest of the world. To me what matters is that American politicians are reality-based and care about other countries and their history as well as their own, that they respect international laws and treaties and that they know about real problems like global warming and so on.

Which reminds me,the fact that I mention global warming probably proves to you that I'm a "leftist" but in the rest of the world GW is not a partisan issue: It's just a scientific fact. And that example alone is enough to show how screwed up the American right has become. Not only are they denying undeniable scientific fact, but they've managed to make it a partisan issue. Basically they've managed to get half the country to ignore the available data on the changing climate, as well as a few other things, like evolution.

We don't really have partisan lines like that, sure we have fiscal conservatives and progressives, left and right and so on, but we dont have the same degree of reality denial. (Alas, I fear it might be on its way to some of the populistic parties, inspired by the success in the US) Anyway we have discussions and debates and disagree on important principles and so on. But no side lies and distorts systematically, no side is fundamentally antiscientific, and no side is full of religious nuts.. Oh well, I guess what I'm saying is that theres nothing wrong about being right wing, but theres something seriously wrong with the rightwingers.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I maintain - based on personal experience and analysis - that FOX News is no more biased than any other media outlet. Your perception that it is 'insane' is more a reflection of your own left-wing bias, than towards any inherently stronger bias in FOX News. As a leftist, your sensitivity to differential opinion is very high. You are on the lookout - so to speak - for right wing bias because it more easily upsets and angers you.
As a result of this hypersensitivity, you have a false perception that there is 'more' bias at FOX. In addition, what bias you do see become more exaggerated and extreme in your mind. However, research has repeatedly proven that FOX News is no more biased 'to the right' than MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, NBC, AP, and many other news outlets are biased to the left.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA
-6664.aspx
This research was conducted by the UCLA - hardly a right wing bastion - and clearly indicates that FOX is not some sort of outlier in the spectrum of media bias.
So I dismiss as poppycock the false accusation that FOX is somehow crazed, while other outlets are not. Such an opinion is balderdash and nonsense. I've watched all news outlets - and there is no difference between Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz on the left and Hannity, Beck, O'Rielly on the right. These persons are not 'news anchors'. They are opinion based infotainers, and they are all equally guilty of voicing strong opinions that their opponents would call 'extremist' or 'crazy'. However, the accusation that FOX is somehow the sole offender in that regard is pure bologna.

I maintain - based on personal experience and analysis - that FOX News is no more biased than any other media outlet. Your perception that it is 'insane' is more a reflection of your own left-wing bias, than towards any inherently stronger bias in FOX News. As a leftist, your sensitivity to differential opinion is very high. You are on the lookout - so to speak - for right wing bias because it more easily upsets and angers you.

As a result of this hypersensitivity, you have a false perception that there is 'more' bias at FOX. In addition, what bias you do see become more exaggerated and extreme in your mind. However, research has repeatedly proven that FOX News is no more biased 'to the right' than MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, NBC, AP, and many other news outlets are biased to the left.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

This research was conducted by the UCLA - hardly a right wing bastion - and clearly indicates that FOX is not some sort of outlier in the spectrum of media bias.

So I dismiss as poppycock the false accusation that FOX is somehow crazed, while other outlets are not. Such an opinion is balderdash and nonsense. I've watched all news outlets - and there is no difference between Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz on the left and Hannity, Beck, O'Rielly on the right. These persons are not 'news anchors'. They are opinion based infotainers, and they are all equally guilty of voicing strong opinions that their opponents would call 'extremist' or 'crazy'. However, the accusation that FOX is somehow the sole offender in that regard is pure bologna.