[One of Many]

One of many, would that be a left handed solution or a right hander? Seems like a waste of beer to me.

We have a Don't ask Don't tell policy here. I was trying to keep it clean....but yes, the waste of beer always gets me choked up. Even fictional beer.

Come to think of it, using the correct definition of a sexual attitude, would this guy be cinsidered gay or bisexuall, even if he underwent a sex change?

Yer fergit'n about mono-sexual! Figured you'd already know first hand about that and have the collective winder sticker support group wanker! Heheh!

Taking it a bit further, how would you stand with shaking hands with him? Would you then also be considered gay or bisexuall?

Let's not go there.....shaking hands is a greeting sign of no evil intention, not borrowing his love interest.

All this crap about far left and middle of the road Democratic Conservatism is also a state of mind.

It just depends on which way the wind is blowing at the time.

True to some degree. It can also be a way of life, the new religion or as some books say, a mental disorder. I chose mine as a way of life. Those in the new religion or mental disorder sects, hate us for our willful disobedience to their wind blown, unspecified, ever changing doctrines.

Dufa left out one description in his rant (many of them) a couple of posts back, The American way.

The American Way:- A farmer has two bulls. After trying to milk them for two years...........I can't remember the rest, but he had a lot of bullsh!t to clear up.
Ian.

There you go bashing America one handed again....

Are you giving one of your dates the night off? LOL!

[dufas]

Nope! When you're enlightened and open minded.....only one definition exists. Dissent is not an option liberals allow unless it meets their concept of wrong. If you are not in lock step with that narrow view, expect repercussions until you do see things as they demand. Look how they treated the minority vote that helped get Dear Leader elected, then chastized them as useful idiots for supporting HR8.
DC

That is what I meant...If a liberal decides something is wrong, it is wrong period, no argument. which allows the liberal to give a pass to another liberal by deciding that the other liberal did no wrong, no matter what wrong the other liberal has done. where as a conservative is wrong just by existing and a liberal will do everything in his power to punish the conservative just for being a conservative......

[One of Many]

That is what I meant...If a liberal decides something is wrong, it is wrong period, no argument. which allows the liberal to give a pass to another liberal by deciding that the other liberal did no wrong, no matter what wrong the other liberal has done. where as a conservative is wrong just by existing and a liberal will do everything in his power to punish the conservative just for being a conservative......

That Nope, was a poor attempt to highlight the single mindedness towit that mode of thought was expounded upon. Moreso in concurrence than disagreement?

That is protecting their own, for a useful purpose later in doing its bidding. I've seen Conservatives do the same, but they also seem to the the first to throw their own overboard when dirt is exposed. I don't care who they are. If they are dirty throw the book at them. The problem is dirty politics can fabricate dirt to order and some can hide it better than others. We will see once the honeymoon is over for the incoming administration. Then again we have comentators like Mathews that thinks it is his job to make this presidency a success. So, in a nut shell, there is intentions to giving this president and his side a pass is like getting the invincibility token as payment for that thrill going up his leg. After 8 years of pitch forks and torches, we will get to witness these draconian news cherubs singing to their choir while they'll sweep the same dirt under the rug they vilified the last admin for.

DC

[handlewanker]

Too much politics for my taste.

There must be a message there somwhere, and I believe that yo'all had a record turn out for the election.

If'n this new guy don't sh!t miracles, then sombody gonna nail his hide to a door for incompetancy.

That's the trouble with politicians, they promise you the world and you end up with dirt.
Ian.

[dufas]

That Nope, was a poor attempt to highlight the single mindedness towit that mode of thought was expounded upon. Moreso in concurrence than disagreement?

That is protecting their own, for a useful purpose later in doing its bidding. I've seen Conservatives do the same, but they also seem to the the first to throw their own overboard when dirt is exposed. I don't care who they are. If they are dirty throw the book at them. The problem is dirty politics can fabricate dirt to order and some can hide it better than others. We will see once the honeymoon is over for the incoming administration. Then again we have comentators like Mathews that thinks it is his job to make this presidency a success. So, in a nut shell, there is intentions to giving this president and his side a pass is like getting the invincibility token as payment for that thrill going up his leg. After 8 years of pitch forks and torches, we will get to witness these draconian news cherubs singing to their choir while they'll sweep the same dirt under the rug they vilified the last admin for.

DC

You can add 99 percent of the mass media in behind Mathews....

[dufas]

There you go bashing America one handed again....

Are you giving one of your dates the night off? LOL!

The 'H' is a master at baiting........................

PS: Maybe I should have typed in a little "h".....

[One of Many]

You can add 99 percent of the mass media in behind Mathews....

Yes, in not so many words. It was their job to make the Bush years look like a failure. Bush didn't help that, by trying to be above the low-life's that spin anything into bad news.

Sadly they'll be the same ones to fill the history text books in the light they want youth to believe as the era's most important facts. While hiding the bigger picture. Students of McCarthyism can walk away with the knowledge he was right in his concerns, but couldn't prove it. By the time it was discovered, he was dead and his name used as a slur for those attempting another witch hunt. The ivory tower media still won and history texts avoid the larger story from start to justifiable proof in the end.

It is the little personal quirks the media latches onto that help bury the real story they don't want the public to grasp. The controversial Zogby poll and Ziegler documentary makes that very obvious. People cannot tell if they are informed or just an echo chamber for what they have been fed. Yet they are armed with this limited knowledge that forms their predisposed political choices. It don't matter if your claim is fair and balance or like the NPR stance of their information is real news, anything else is just entertainment. I'd rather claim ignorance than self adorned enlightened. That way when the truth comes forth and the enlightened are exposed just as ignorant, now that's entertainment!

DC

[dufas]

snip..................................the media latches onto that help bury the real story they don't want the public to grasp.snip
DC

I think the media goes further than just latching on to negative details, they many times create the story themselves....

My brother was in Vietnam and was assigned for a short time to protect a news crew. On one of their 'outings', they entered a medium sized village thinking there would be something news worthy to film. There wasn't. Most of the Vietnamese waved at the crew and went about their business. One of the cameramen climbed onto the roof of the truck and yelled at the villagers who then stopped working and looked toward the guy on top of the truck. He motioned the villagers to come closer and then the cameraman threw a handful of coins to the ground a few yards in front of the crowd of villagers. He filmed the crowd rushing forward towards the coins. After the villagers picked those coins up, he threw another handful closer to the truck and filmed the second stampede of villagers running towards the truck. After the villagers picked up the second group of coins, the cameraman told the driver to move out. The guy filmed the villagers chasing the truck either expecting or hoping that more coins would be tossed from the vehicle.

The film, after it was cut and spliced together made it appear as if the villagers were attacking the cameraman and chasing the Americans out of their village. That edited version is what he sent to his home office who then put it on the air stating that the villagers were attacking the cameraman and wanted the US out of their country.

Disgusted with the news people, my brother asked for and received another assignment.

This no different than the Associated Press Photoshopping a GI standing over a dead Iraqi like he had just bagged a deer or NBC blowing up a Chevy pickup to slant the news in the direction that the newspeople want or the more subtle slanting of the news that we get every day.. These people, when caught don't even think the practice is wrong as long as it supports their point of view.

What is really astonishing is that many times, this stuff will make it's way through more honest channels and the public pays no attention and just keeps on drinking the prescribed Koolaide.....

Much the same is going on with Global Warming reporting from the scientists down through the media....

[One of Many]

I think the media goes further than just latching on to negative details, they many times create the story themselves....

I like to check out NewsBusters periodically.

On the Global Warming issue. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=216v5AoQcFQ"]Media Manipulation[/ame]

I also peruse the antithesis sites like Media Matters and Smash the Mirror just to see where they stand for and against purely partisan opinion reports.

Bias is, as bias does. So I trust not one source for the full truth. It is facinating to see how one story can be wrung out, hyped or defended while reality is nowhere near as important.

DC

[handlewanker]

Re post #4549, I don't think it would by any chance be the fact that he valued his job?

Nahhhh, anyone that sits in front of a camera all day to spout media crap definately needs a job.

So what makes them tick?

It's called a script, and whatever is on the script is what you are going to spout, and you don't have to be a scientist to spout media crap whichever way it's slanted.

As a matter of interest, the aspect of GLOBAL WARMING is a misnomer in that the amount of warming that it takes to upset the Gulf Stream is so small that the average Joe Bananas wouldn't even notice it, but the climate dependent characteristics that form the seasonal changes are directly affected by it.

No matter what you might think of the topic of global climate variation, being a pseudo scientist ranks you (anyone that quotes out of context scientific data) with the most naieve news presenter, who incidently isn't even a pseudo scientist, but can at least read the script without voicing an opinion, and that's what he/she is paid for.

BTW, I didn't like the guy at the beginning of the video either, anyone who talks and waves his paws around in the air definately needs voice training.
Ian

[One of Many]

Oh, he valued his job alright. Under pressure from a pseudo scientist that threatened to sick her constituency on his presentation of the facts. Instead he was forced to publish skewed facts to please her and her thugocracy or deal with the fallout for not towing the agenda. Your bias blinds you to the point of the commentary that was highlighting the manipulation that went to print. Jo had no facts to counter the data given. Just a threat to make his life miserable and he buckled......it doesn't take much more than a shred of integrity to admit that point. Nope, instead your take is to trash the messenger that exposed this for what it is.

If you have data to counter it, then prove it, or you are just another pseudo scientist like the rest of us! Your integrity is becoming as patently questionable as Jo the activist. If you find this a valid form of reporting while ignoring the meteorology center facts because "it could open the door to doubt", so change the reporting to some activist satisfaction? That is derangement syndrome if I ever seen it!

I don't mind being proven wrong, but lied to or manipulated by the media or activists falsifications and thuggery to support their causes, proves nothing and if not moreso, opens the door to doubt.

DC

[handlewanker]

Come now one o' many, "on his presentation of the facts" says who?

The news presenter doesn't have to know the validity of the "facts" or their credibility, which for that matter, the more incredous the higher up the presenters' chain of presenting "facts" the presenter goes.

The whole world feeds on incredulous "facts", that's what makes a network so successfull, and nothing succeeds like success, except for a toothless budgerigar.

Once you've grasped your audience by the ears, ROTFLMAO, (is there no end to it), you can then, later, produce another gem of media correctivity and with just a small snippet of correctionalism explain that the "facts" are now much clearer, that they are still bullsh!t is irrelevant, the audience is still agape at the first explosion of the "facts".

I expect you've noticed that the doom watchers all prophecy that New York will, in a hundred years or so, be under 20 to 30 metres of water, due no doubt in my mind, to the melting Greenland ice fields etc etc ad nauseum etc, but if it didn't actually occur, then I expect the world as yo'all know it will breathe a sigh of relief at the "near miss", supposing in their ignorance that it just could happen.

At any rate it makes exciting watching when the science programs show their prediction of the catastrophic events, with the water pouring around the buildings and all those cars, (still using 2007 models) ending up in a twisted pile of scrap metal.

Meanwhile the news presenters are getting their presenter of the year awards and the networks are reaping huge media watch profits from the journalism of prediction and doom watch.

How can you lose? A captive audience just waiting for the axe to fall.

I would go so far as to say that if you are so naieve that you believe everything the scientists come up with, then as a pseudo scientist you are doing a right grand job of relating the "facts" as you see them, that is from whichever side of the coin appeals to you the most.

Welcome to the real world, pseudo scientist presenting second hand "facts" whether valid or not.

Anyway, with a captive audience on this forum just hanging onto your every printed word, how can you lack credibility, seeing as your credentials rate you as a pseudo scientist par excellance.

I prefer to look at the scientists as a whole and note that whilst a lot of them are probably leaning in the direction of wild assumptionism and preferr to contiue working in their chosen field by biasing the facts heavily to indicate one aspect or another, there are also a like group of scientists that just present the findings, as boring as they are, and if it reaches a news presenters ears by way of the media barons, then I can bet that it won't even get to air if there isn't a modicum of tragedy or mahem in the offing.

A typical example, "Today it rained in Kentucky, and Mr and Mrs O'Keefe had to scramble in the muddy back yard of their two bit rented shack to get the washing in before it got too wet to wear"

Wow, did the presenter say that Mr O'Keefe slipped and fell in the mud and hasn't been seen again, and Mrs O'Keefe was last seen stuck head down in the mud looking for him?
Makes the flooded and rain sodden battle field of the Somme seem like old news.

I know which version will get to air on the CNN news network or whatever.

BTW, I don't have to counter any "facts" as related second or third hand by the pseudo scientists, the present drama is still unfolding as Autumn slips into winter and the cold winds blow, with the ever present danger of floods and tornados being bigger or more deadly this year.
Ian.

[One of Many]

Come now one o' many, "on his presentation of the facts" says who?

The news presenter doesn't have to know the validity of the "facts" or their credibility, which for that matter, the more incredous the higher up the presenters' chain of presenting "facts" the presenter goes.

The whole world feeds on incredulous "facts", that's what makes a network so successfull, and nothing succeeds like success, except for a toothless budgerigar.

Once you've grasped your audience by the ears, ROTFLMAO, (is there no end to it), you can then, later, produce another gem of media correctivity and with just a small snippet of correctionalism explain that the "facts" are now much clearer, that they are still bullsh!t is irrelevant, the audience is still agape at the first explosion of the "facts".

I expect you've noticed that the doom watchers all prophecy that New York will, in a hundred years or so, be under 20 to 30 metres of water, due no doubt in my mind, to the melting Greenland ice fields etc etc ad nauseum etc, but if it didn't actually occur, then I expect the world as yo'all know it will breathe a sigh of relief at the "near miss", supposing in their ignorance that it just could happen.

At any rate it makes exciting watching when the science programs show their prediction of the catastrophic events, with the water pouring around the buildings and all those cars, (still using 2007 models) ending up in a twisted pile of scrap metal.

Meanwhile the news presenters are getting their presenter of the year awards and the networks are reaping huge media watch profits from the journalism of prediction and doom watch.

How can you lose? A captive audience just waiting for the axe to fall.

I would go so far as to say that if you are so naieve that you believe everything the scientists come up with, then as a pseudo scientist you are doing a right grand job of relating the "facts" as you see them, that is from whichever side of the coin appeals to you the most.

Welcome to the real world, pseudo scientist presenting second hand "facts" whether valid or not.

Anyway, with a captive audience on this forum just hanging onto your every printed word, how can you lack credibility, seeing as your credentials rate you as a pseudo scientist par excellance.

I prefer to look at the scientists as a whole and note that whilst a lot of them are probably leaning in the direction of wild assumptionism and preferr to contiue working in their chosen field by biasing the facts heavily to indicate one aspect or another, there are also a like group of scientists that just present the findings, as boring as they are, and if it reaches a news presenters ears by way of the media barons, then I can bet that it won't even get to air if there isn't a modicum of tragedy or mahem in the offing.

A typical example, "Today it rained in Kentucky, and Mr and Mrs O'Keefe had to scramble in the muddy back yard of their two bit rented shack to get the washing in before it got too wet to wear"

Wow, did the presenter say that Mr O'Keefe slipped and fell in the mud and hasn't been seen again, and Mrs O'Keefe was last seen stuck head down in the mud looking for him?
Makes the flooded and rain sodden battle field of the Somme seem like old news.

I know which version will get to air on the CNN news network or whatever.

BTW, I don't have to counter any "facts" as related second or third hand by the pseudo scientists, the present drama is still unfolding as Autumn slips into winter and the cold winds blow, with the ever present danger of floods and tornados being bigger or more deadly this year.
Ian.

Whatever Ian...... Lots of senseless drivel, no facts, unimpressively verbose, while ignoring historical records of far worse climate we had nothing to do with then, no proof we can control it now. It is the screaming spoiled brat mentality. Pseudo Scientist Activists want what they want. Proof is so inconvenient when training the media to do activists bidding, while lying, media manipulation or militancy justifies the means to compliance. Many in the activist circles rely on 2nd and 3rd hand as fact, which become the foundation to get officials to go along with. Appeasing them in one instance is sure fire invitation to the next irrational tantrum the spoiled brats will be screaming about. Comprehending an ever changing argument is a fools game.

DC

[Geof]

BACK ON TOPIC! (Briefly)

http://www.barrelstrength.com/2008/1...lobal-warming/

[One of Many]

BACK ON TOPIC! (Briefly)

http://www.barrelstrength.com/2008/1...lobal-warming/

We were on a similar discussion some time back about the relationship between population, prosperity and pollution. There were reports of the Kyoto protocol having the attributes to limit any growth and further oppression to 3rd world countries as emerging economies.

The current economic conditions hint at a conspiracy that could have been designed to put the brakes on all of the above. I have read that was also the real intent behind 9/11 according to conspiracy theorists, (besides an excuse for justifying war or public support to that end).... if it could be proven the attacks on our government and financial system were an inside job.

Not that I am into conspiracy, but theoretically, all need be done is get the trustworthy voices to say the right things and like the pied piper, music to the environmentalist, activist and media and all their followers to help unwittingly toward their goals. With everyone too busy filling their own agendas, the real fight is lost in who controls who and what for. Would they all work against the little guy trying to survive? Wouldn't surprise me! To some, selfishness has its ultimate satisfaction, albeit short lived in search of another.

DC

[One of Many]

More of Vaclav Klaus within this article.

How Alarmists inhibit the debate


DC

[dufas]

Whatever Ian...... Lots of senseless drivel, no facts, unimpressively verbose, while ignoring historical records of far worse climate we had nothing to do with then, no proof we can control it now. It is the screaming spoiled brat mentality. Pseudo Scientist Activists want what they want. Proof is so inconvenient when training the media to do activists bidding, while lying, media manipulation or militancy justifies the means to compliance. Many in the activist circles rely on 2nd and 3rd hand as fact, which become the foundation to get officials to go along with. Appeasing them in one instance is sure fire invitation to the next irrational tantrum the spoiled brats will be screaming about. Comprehending an ever changing argument is a fools game.

DC

Al Gore, himself, is a pseudo Scientist spouting second and third hand facts [?], ignoring historical records, and has become, for all intents and purposes, part of the lying manipulating media.

[Paulo E.]

<~~ Makes mental note: Never argue about politics....Call me naive but last time Scientist from 113 countries got in one room in 2007, 97% of them agreed that Global warming is a fact and it has worsen due to human interaction. Could 97% of them be wrong, of course but if you go to the doctor and 97 of them tell you, You have cancer and 3 of them tell you, your good as gold hehehe. I'm sorry but I'm putting my money with the 97 and getting some treatment. There are no easy answers to this problem. Right now a lot of the new technology for alternative fuels are less than ideal but sooner or later they will get to the efficiency need it to be cost productive. Lest not forget all the technological advances we've had in the past 50 years. To move forward we need to look where we have been and hopefully try to leave things in the same shape or a bit better than when we got it.

[One of Many]

<~~ Makes mental note: Never argue about politics....Call me naive but last time Scientist from 113 countries got in one room in 2007, 97% of them agreed that Global warming is a fact and it has worsen due to human interaction. Could 97% of them be wrong, of course but if you go to the doctor and 97 of them tell you, You have cancer and 3 of them tell you, your good as gold hehehe. I'm sorry but I'm putting my money with the 97 and getting some treatment. There are no easy answers to this problem. Right now a lot of the new technology for alternative fuels are less than ideal but sooner or later they will get to the efficiency need it to be cost productive. Lest not forget all the technological advances we've had in the past 50 years. To move forward we need to look where we have been and hopefully try to leave things in the same shape or a bit better than when we got it.

IMHO, it is not really about the politics or naivate. It is the difference between reality, the unknown and prophecy. The only thing we hear about are the "Worst case scenarios" sensationalized by the nattering nabobs of negativism.

Based on your percentages poll, a couple hundred million Christian's claim the return of Christ is imminent according to their teaching. Can they be proven wrong? No, but they get a single finger solute and persecution around the world over.

Kind of like the 97 Doctors say you need treatment, and 1 Insurance Company that refuses to cover the expense to save your life, but they minimalistically might cover 10 visits/yr for the cheaper alternative, holistic or generic medicines until....you beat it or lose, which ever comes first. Considering who holds the check book, they get to choose for you. I'd imagine Nation Health Care to offer less than that. Maybe a nice urn as a parting gift, with a 60 day late, form letter thanks for your participation and paying promptly (or-else)?

For an infantile science that applies guestimated results to a plethera of unknown climate driving factors, what they really agree on is still in debate. Of the STATS Survey, 97% that agreed on the GW evidence, much less lean on human influences. 75% claimed the media is an unreliable source and only 26% give Gore the Prophet(able) any credibility.

The media hyped the IPCC report as a concensus, not the scientists.

Mr Lindzen's take from 2001

When it is your freedom at stake, be careful what you wish for. I don't agree or disagree 100% on any of this stuff. Being a skeptic keeps me from commiting to either side. Speaking of the future in absolutes makes no sense when pieces of the puzzle don't even exist yet or by computer models, never will.

Earth Quakes are also a probability threat that could be exacerbated by mans influence vibrating the gound to bring on the impending disaster much sooner. Should we have a ground monitoring program and come up with cap and trade or vib-credits to cover that most certain possibility? It is a never ending dooms day party when it comes to a cash cow exploitation forced on the people.

DC

[Geof]

....the nattering nabobs of negativism....
DC

Plagiarist

Is it Spiro's ghost that will come and haunt you for using this phrase without acknowledgment.

I checked; he is credited with it but it was coined by his speech writer William Safire.