>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Gravity is a theory too, STFU.
kthanksbai.
>> ^coolhund:
It is NOWHERE near being a fact. Its a fucking theory and one that is very wobbly at that if you actually open your eyes objectively.



Yeah, a theory thats easily proven because its very simple. This one isnt, not even single climatologists know everything about the climate. Even if they could, they still wouldnt because, for example, we dont even know exactly how a huge factor of climate, clouds, form.

I wont say STFU, because things like that are there to debate about until they are straightened out. You can go hump Al Gores leg though, who said something like STFU to all the critics ("The debate is over"), proving he doesnt even know the slightest about democracy and freedom.

Oh and its spelled "kkthxbai"

kkthxbai.

If thats a try to discredit criticism on anthropogenic global warming, then its a pathetic and simple minded one. Even most critics dont like this guy, because hes like Al Gore, just in a different color. But that doesnt mean the whole movement behind him is wrong.

The only time I've ever heard of Monckton before is:

http://videosift.com/video/Copenhagen-Lord-Monckton-rap-battles-Al-Gore-Rap-News

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Enjoyed the vid, but I have to say I really stopped watching most of Maddow's stuff lately, she seems to try to perpetuate the myth that there is actually a divide between Republicans and Democrats.
I think there's a myth that it's a myth there's a divide between Democrats and Republicans.
Like, where's all the Democratic legislation that's trying to disenfranchise Republican voter demographics?
Are Democrats going out and saying that taxing the rich is "class warfare" and therefore a taboo topic for discussion?
Are Democrats trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare?
Are the Democrats saying national healthcare is a secret plot to commit genocide?
I'm all for trying to rearrange American politics so it doesn't have this huge right-wing corporatist tilt, but spreading this myth that there's no difference between the parties doesn't help.
Part of convincing more politicians to move to the left and stand up to corporations would be to reward the ones who take a stand with your support. Withdrawing it (and encouraging others to do the same) because you're disappointed with their ability to deliver doesn't help tilt things back to the left. On the contrary, it helps ensure that the tilt to the right continues.
As an aside, I haven't seen Cenk promote that bogus myth. He's a lot harder on Democrats than Maddow (or Olbermann), but I've never seen him promote the "voting is meaningless" lie. I hope what he's been saying is some form of "voting against Republicans isn't enough -- we need to pressure the Democrats to move left too!"


In terms of Democratic legislation that disenfranchises Republican voter demographics, I think that's really the point, it isn't there.

In terms of public remonstration that taxation is 'class warfare' I think they've made their public opinion clear, they think taxes on the rich should be raised (so they appear to be on the other side of the fence to the GOP), however what they say and what they do are two different things, I think this is a good example of them playing a pretty standard political game. There is plenty of public voice (even here! See QM) saying the 'taxocrats' are all about raising taxes - but in reality the complete opposite is true, the wealthy are enjoying some of the lowest tax rates in US history. So I would say no, they are not trying to stifle discussion on raising taxes, rather that their words become rather meaningless when looking at their results. Did the Dems not enjoy a filibuster-proof 60 seat senate majority after the elections, I would love to know if they achieved anything meaningful during that period, I really honestly would.

In terms of social security, I give you this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html
In terms of Medicare, the debt ceiling negotiations results in the reduction of physicians medicare reimbursements, and further reductions may happen down the road once the super committee has finished their work. But in those 'negotiations' they ended the tax break on the wealthy right? Unfortunately not.

In terms of genocide plots etc, their role is to keep a voter base so that wouldn't be smart, however once again, what matters are results.

As far as convincing politicians to move left, I really wish that were possible, but in 2010 three and a half billion dollars was spent by lobbyists alone, there's just no way you can get your voice to make a difference when you're up against that - and lobbyist money is just the tip of the iceberg, many politicians receive far more money in contributions from other sources, take a look at Harry Reid for example:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009922
There's a video that's just been posted on the sift of Dick Durbin decrying BoA's new credit/debit card fee's, however this 'voice of reason' has taken over 9 million in contributions in the past 4 years from all manner of sources (including pro-israel). What does this mean? It means he votes yes for bills like H.R. 3080 and H.R. 3079 that will ship US jobs overseas and reduce working conditions in those countries affected (Korea, Panama and Columbia), in addition to supporting a government that is involved in the active killing of journalists that try to expose the brutality of the regime in place (in Columbia).

You just.... can't compete with the influence that that amount of money brings, I'm sorry.

Cenk changed on MSNBC, that was quite clear, and he even explained why that was in his interview after he left - he was being pressured to fall in line and not go too heavy on the Democrats. in fact I think the video you posted 7 months ago is the best demonstration of that, and ironically I commented on it back then too:
http://videosift.com/video/Cenk-to-Wisconsin-Progressives-No-Compromise

Some of his quotes from the clip:
"the war that the Republicans want to start"
"they are coming after you" (referring to the GOP)
"I have a bold proposal tonight, that we fight back" (the 'we' meaning we Democrats)
"Thank god so far the Democrats aren't going to give in to his threats"
"They always reject the word compromise" (GOP again)

and the Pièce de résistance comes at 4:10,
"I have this crazy new idea, how about two can play at that game, how about WE don't compromise either" (this is clearly setup to mean the Dem's)

Did he not just try to get people to buy into the idea that it's us (the Dem's!) vs the GOP (them!).

He had the balls to reject a nice offer from MSNBC and go back to his show where he can speak his mind rather than try to persuade people it's us vs them on the mainstream media.

If you listen to him since he's left, he's gone back to his old, relatively unbiased nature, for example in his recent interview with Al Gore, when Al says that he still has hope in Obama to make 'change' Cenk goes out of his way to say that he is quite clearly 'less hopeful' than Al that Obama will bring about change, i.e. he's pretty much back to his old pre-MSNBC self.

So I think it's safe to draw the conclusion that the mainstream media (MSNBC) used Cenk to try to perpetuate the myth that it's 'us vs. them', because since leaving he has been far more candid. This is the exact same type of thing I see In Rachel unfortunately, and that's why I wish I could see her with her own independent show, she would be awesome on the RNN for example.

Anyway, you already know all this, you're the one posting some of the video's that bought me to the conclusion I did, so I would be interested to hear why you disagree with my position.

This video, like Al Gore, helped create the internet.>> ^Grimm:

After all these years still one of my favorites. quality

It wasn't 'the bank's' idea any more than the Internet was Al Gore's 'idea'. Computer records were just a natural evolution. Computers came along. Magnetic card readers came along. Banks didn't 'invent' them. They just used them like everyone else to simplify their work. Secretaries didn't invent word processors, but they use them to improve performance.

And consumer convenience via electronic records is very much something that banks want to 'do for thier customers'. They can use the convenience to attract customers and profits. Obviously such a thing is helpful to them both on the back end with their records, and on the front end in attracting potential clients. If a bank is more convenient than the other guy - it gets more business. That's making something for YOUR convenience that also helps them. Nothing wrong with that.

And so what if it is 'institutionalized'? Clothing is institutional. Should you tear them all off and go around naked because you're afraid of getting ripped off by the textile industry? Food is institutional. Should you die of starvation so you don't get ripped off by farmers and grocery stores? TV is an institution. So go throw your TV out the window so you don't get brainwashed by the 'free' TV progam ads? Money is an institution too. What's your point? That we should live in a cave and never partake of any human advance in civilization just because someone else is making a profit on it?

And everything you say you 'can't do' without a credit/debit card is bologna. You can walk to your HR department right now and demand your wages as a check, and then take that check to the bank and get cash. You can buy airline, bus, and train tickets with cash. You can buy food, clothing, utilities, and every other necessity with cash. You can pay your bills by mail. You can pay rent in cash. You can buy a house with cash. A bank account HELPS in all these transactions (IE convenience). But if you walk up to a business with with a wad of legal tender they WILL accept it - I promise you. I have never once walked into a car dealership with a pile of cash to buy a car and had them turn me away. Quite the opposite. They literally drool over me, and it gives me far more power to negotiate.

All I'm saying is that the things you SAY you can't do without a bank are easily doable if you apply a little elbow grease. If you find paying a measley $5 a month so horribly offensive and crippling to your finances, then do yourself a favor and stop whining about it. Take your money and go somewhere else.

>> ^deathcow:

evolution : )


Yeah, I liked that too.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

Whenever I listen to Al Gore, I think of this and giggle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHVxjMT1-os


For me it's: http://videosift.com/video/Al-Gore-hears-a-cry-for-help

Whenever I listen to Al Gore, I think of this and giggle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHVxjMT1-os

@dystopianfuturetoday

It really doesn't seem like you have the monopoly on legitimate sentiments that you believe you have.

All the points you accused Blankfist of apply equally to you:
-[Dystopianfuturetoday] does not like the information [from Reason].
-He cannot find any evidence to suggest that the damning information is false.
-He then tries to discredit the article [from Reason] on the basis that the site it was posted on has a political bias.

To paraphrase your words: that SourceWatch, the Huffington Post, and Reason are political media outlets isn't grounds to disqualify their arguments.

It's true that libertarians tend to become very economically successful, like Peter Thiel, who also donates to many libertarians causes, but being funded by rich philanthropists like Thiel or Al Gore doesn't disqualify arguments.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

ReasonTV isn't a news outlet, it's a corporate conservative front group. It's subscription and ad revenue are miniscule, sustaining itself almost entirely by donations from corporate benefactors - most notably war profiteer and Tea Party funder, David Koch.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation>>

>> ^quantumushroom:

On the other hand, you have some fool aristocrat with barely a high school maths certificate

I guess it's helpful for you to ignore that Saint Algore only took Environmental Classes to avoid tougher ones, and even then only got a 'C'.


>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^quantumushroom:
BTW, how do alarmists promote their claims of decade-spanning climate predictions when weather patterns can't be accurately predicted beyond one week?
You really don't know anything about this subject, do you? There is a difference between predicting a trend and predicting a specific instance. I can say with a reasonable certainty that there will be more sunshine in the 3 months of summer than in the 3 months of winter, but it's much harder to predict whether a given day will be sunny or rainy.
The problem is that climate science is actually really complicated. It's governed by chaotic equations (equations where a small variance in input leads to a large variance in output), and it has to deal with the entire planet. Despite all that, I have yet to see one climate scientist actually come out on the oil companies deniers sceptics side. On the other hand, you have some fool aristocrat with barely a high school maths certificate



And if Al Gore was the leading intellectual mind behind climate science, you might have something approaching a point. Except he isn't. Better luck next time.

So, once again in case you missed it last time: of the people who have actually studied the subject, there is an over-whelming consensus that climate change is real and man-made. Can you show me one climate scientist who supports your position?

Or do you go to a doctor when your car breaks down?

and scientists, both PUBLIC and PRIVATELY funded have come to the same conclusion... no matter WHAT country they live in... so this conspiracy can't be based on funding, can't be based on politics, etc

>>> You mean, because one country may have a dictator and another a cabal of communists running it, they can't use the same falsities and propaganda to make people surrender their rights (if they had any to begin with)? And why would you include only the findings of "Private" scientitians who agree with you? Aren't THEY in the pocket of someone? Say, investors in Al Gore's companies?

what you are saying is that it would have to be some CLANDESTINE meeting of 10s of 1000s of scientists, who don't all speak the same language mind you, and who don't have the same political views (capitalism/socialism/etc), and are geographically seperated by vast distances...

>>> I think you and others are in error on the number of 'scientitians' who believe anthropogenic global warming is both provable and a slam dunk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

and yes a consensus doesn't = fact... but if there are 10s of 1000s of people who devote their studies/life work to a topic, who submit their findings to peer review and follow the scientific method... who all agree on the subject VS a few pseudo science cracks, with no published/peer reviewed articles, who do science out of their garage and a couple 100 oil company pay roll scientists (again, with no peer reviewed/published articles) who try to debunk it...

well i'm going with the 10s of 1000s

>>> Right. And everyone who disagrees with the wonders of socialism (e.g. factual data proving socialist programs don't work as intended or promised) is obviously in the pocket of evil capitalists.

crackpot or inbed with oil companies strikes me as a MUCH more plausible misinterpreting of the facts than the GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

It's amusing to no end that the same "rationalists" who never hesitate to jump on governments for using religion to control the public, find no danger at all when the same governments use distorted SCIENCE to hide their power grabs.

Unfortunately, public opinion has had it with these alarmists.

I think John Cole at balloon-juice sums up the conservative "stance" on global warming awfully well:

You know the drill: global warming isn’t happening, if it is happening then it’s not caused by human behavior, if it is caused by human behavior then we can’t do anything about it, if it is caused by human behavior and we can do something about it, then that something is too expensive, if it is caused by human behavior and we can do something about it that is not too expensive, then that something is not what Democrats are proposing. And Al Gore is fat, he flies too much, look at his electricity bill, and sometimes when he goes somewhere it snows there, which is very ironic.

Finally, the masterpiece Al Gore envisioned all those years ago has finally been realized.

>> ^Stingray:

>> ^ant:
Was that Al Gore at the end, clapping?

Yeah, he was a senator was Bush Sr. was president.


Thank you for the confirmation. Heh, he looked so young.