Climate Change for Heck

[calfoxwc]

Come on, mz the pussy. "Where's the beef" of the -legit- reasons you feel the way you do?

 

An objective appraisal of the issue?

[calfoxwc]

Once again, when you eat at the manmade global warming restaurant, you end up

 

with a bun, mustard, catsup and pickle.

 

That's all. Try to find the hamburger, and there is none.

 

We now have people worshipping an empty suit who hawks empty hamburgers.

 

"yummy".

 

(blech)

[Kosar_For_President]

Once again, when you eat at the manmade global warming restaurant, you end up

 

with a bun, mustard, catsup and pickle.

 

That's all. Try to find the hamburger, and there is none.

 

We now have people worshipping an empty suit who hawks empty hamburgers.

 

"yummy".

 

(blech)

 

Much of the evidence is pure speculation on the Green activists, agreed. But all in all (for the wrong reasons when Global warming "data" comes into play) using less energy is a good thing, even if is doesn't help the environment. And hopefully it could create a new industry for America that we are seriously needing.

 

p.s. Swenson's cheeseburgers are the best invention know to man.

[Mr. T]

Much of the evidence is pure speculation on the Green activists, agreed. But all in all (for the wrong reasons when Global warming "data" comes into play) using less energy is a good thing, even if is doesn't help the environment. And hopefully it could create a new industry for America that we are seriously needing.

 

p.s. Swenson's cheeseburgers are the best invention know to man.

 

 

I thought you were a White castle Burger man.

[calfoxwc]

both wrong. Hamburger Station has the best hamburgers in the universe.

 

sauteed' onions... oh.... my.

 

Meanwhile, I would run out and get a dozen, but I just had breakfast a while ago,

 

with pancakes, eggs and bacon. With real, Amish made maple syrup.

 

Oh, that is the best.

 

But everybody is wanting to use less energy, etc etc. That is just another issue.

 

The danger of manipulating our entire economy, drive gas prices up dramatically,

 

tax cow's farts, tax every freakin thing in the name of a made up political tool called man made

 

global warming will be to drive prices extremely high, and with the taxes on everything, people won't

 

be able to pay for necessessities. Unless you're a farmer.

 

Wood burning furnaces are already selling like hotcakes, people are saying that they think our grid

 

is going to be used as blackmail for political control. you know, the folks that know the history of Stalin and the like.

 

I really believe we are going to crash badly.

 

Meanwhile, lib's "president" thinks we are all arrogant and racist and unfairly affluent and happy.

 

He intends to resolve each one of those issues. He sucks. And all in the name of global warming and new world domination.

 

(see the UN's intention to disarm all civilians of all countries).

 

I can't wait to have our next president get us out of the UN.

[Kosar_For_President]

Cal, it's just you have to admit some of this Stalin crap is really hard to believe. Why has no other president tried this in the last century? Look at the conditions FDR had, it could of been pretty easy for him to implement. You seem to be honest in what your saying, but to speculate that our government or Obama is going to hold our services hostage seems a little wacky.

 

Just like what is going on in other debates in the forum, where is the proof? ALOT of this stuff posted has been speculate from pro conservative goons (you have to admit that). Some sources have been legit, but because a country is moving in a different direction doesn't mean we are going to be a communist state, right?

 

Just because Obama wants to take away our gun privileges (which I don't agree with) doesn't automatically mean he is going to start a brownshirt militia to keep us in check. Many presidents put restrictions on say booze (was it Wilson?) and drug usage (Nixon), could it be they really just really think that we are safer as American's rather then have this conspiracy theory popping up (mind you I don't agree with any of these as well)? Many put down the conspiracy theory that I posted about the New World Order, but they are just cooks with some pretty damn good "evidence" as well. Now that is not being fair or objective (see Fox news, lol). Maybe this is really what Obama believes in? Or maybe not?

 

Just an objective view and questions. I am here not to ruffle anyone's feathers.

[calfoxwc]

Well, it IS wacky. That is what is so alarming about Obama's appointees, about his and their statements of intentions,

 

Obama's idea to put coal companies out of business, to monitor and tax mileage driven by what kind of car, to

monitor and control thermostats in homes, to tax all home owners for man made global warming carbons theoretically exuded.

 

Obama has SAID he wants a civilian defense corps. He has VOTED to increase the gun registration fees in Illinois 500 percent.

 

Now, just those two facts alone infer he has bad, bad big ideas about keeping the power.

 

It didn't help that he said during the campaign that "problems he'll face the next 8-10 years".

 

Yeah. 52? states? 8-10 years? Freudian slips ?

 

Just worries me.

[Chicopee John]

Screw Heck.

 

The pussy left the board when he couldn't get is own way on 100% of the discussions, 100% of the time?

 

The board, IMHO, has prospered in his absence.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Sorry, Steve, for not getting back sooner. Just had a baby. I'll get to your points soon.

 

 

 

 

 

[Legacy Fan]

Sorry, Steve, for not getting back sooner. Just had a baby. I'll get to your points soon.

 

 

Congrats man!!

 

Here's what you have to look forward to:

and

[heckofajobbrownie]

Haha. Leg, I've worked for the Disney Corporation. They're not getting another dime out of me. I'm going to resist with all my might.

 

He's going to work on my uncle's farm instead.

[calfoxwc]

Heck, your uncle has a farm?

 

Congrats on the baby. But I think it was your wife that did all the work.

 

You'll be setting a great example if you'd say you're sorry about dissing my

 

alert about the "Fairness Doctrine" way back.

[Legacy Fan]

Haha. Leg, I've worked for the Disney Corporation. They're not getting another dime out of me. I'm going to resist with all my might.

 

He's going to work on my uncle's farm instead.

Ha! Well good luck, I've held strong for 4 years. Outlook not good though.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, thanks. And you're right - she did all the work. Goddamn, did she do a lot of work.

 

But I still don't know why you're worried about the Fairness Doctrine. It's not coming back. Just because you can point to a couple people who have mentioned it doesn't mean it's coming back. I'm sure I can find a Republican who wants to make "Bringing in the Sheaves" the national anthem, but that doesn't mean I'm worried about it becoming the law of the land.

 

I'll let you in on a little secret though - Democrats love it when Republicans focus on issues like that, because while you're wasting time worrying about that we can push through our plans for Socialist re-education.

 

And yes, my uncle has a farm in Illinois, mostly dairy.

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Ha! Well good luck, I've held strong for 4 years. Outlook not good though.

 

I don't know that I've seen someone pull it off yet. Seems close to impossible.

 

Hey, maybe instead I can get him to waste countless hours on The Browns Board. There's some time well spent!

[Legacy Fan]

I don't know that I've seen someone pull it off yet. Seems close to impossible.

 

Hey, maybe instead I can get him to waste countless hours on The Browns Board. There's some time well spent!

 

 

Teach him how to scout TE's for the draft.

[Westside Steve]

Sorry, Steve, for not getting back sooner. Just had a baby. I'll get to your points soon.

 

 

Congrats.

 

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Cal, thanks. And you're right - she did all the work. Goddamn, did she do a lot of work.

 

But I still don't know why you're worried about the Fairness Doctrine. It's not coming back. Just because you can point to a couple people who have mentioned it doesn't mean it's coming back. I'm sure I can find a Republican who wants to make "Bringing in the Sheaves" the national anthem, but that doesn't mean I'm worried about it becoming the law of the land.

 

I realize it's off the topic but putting the clamps on political speech by the party in power sounds pretty serious.

I'd bet there are more than a few Dems who would support it.

And just because it "probably won't actually come to pass" isn't a great reason to laugh it off.

Let's say an equal portion of Republicans wanted to bring back Jim Crow during a time when Reps had a big lead in the houses.

I'd bet there'd be some outrage, no?

Even if it weren't likely to pass....

 

WSS

[Kosar_For_President]

The two of them contribute in a very intelligent way even though both of them have completely different views they can speak with intelligence rather than the daily monkey feces throwing contest this place has become on a regular basis.

 

Pot meet kettle

[heckofajobbrownie]

I realize it's off the topic but putting the clamps on political speech by the party in power sounds pretty serious.

I'd bet there are more than a few Dems who would support it.

And just because it "probably won't actually come to pass" isn't a great reason to laugh it off.

Let's say an equal portion of Republicans wanted to bring back Jim Crow during a time when Reps had a big lead in the houses.

I'd bet there'd be some outrage, no?

Even if it weren't likely to pass....

 

WSS

 

That's a bizarre comparison, and one that doesn't make any sense. Whatever you think of it, the Fairness Doctrine isn't about stripping someone of their right to political speech. It sounds like you don't know what it is.

 

It's hardly analogous to - or anything close to - the legal segregation of the races. Come on now.

 

To me, liberal talk radio is much like conservative comedy - it just doesn't work because the premise is flawed. (The audience for liberals who want to hear nothing but other liberals talk about liberalism isn't that big; comedy doesn't defend the status quo.) But the Fairness Doctrine isn't about putting an Al Franken on the radio for every Sean Hannity, or telling Sean Hannity that he can't say what he says. I get the sense that you think it is.

 

But like you said, this is another conversation for another time. And I'll concede that, yes, Cal is right - some Democrats talk about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, or some version of the Fairness Doctrine.

 

Then add that it's not on the docket, Obama is opposed to it, and it's not going to happen. It's simply a rallying cry for conservative talk radio hosts, who sell "besieged" by the barrel.

 

Fine with me. Meanwhile, we'll concentrate on health care, education, energy, environment, foreign affairs, etc.

[smalls1129]

That's a bizarre comparison, and one that doesn't make any sense. Whatever you think of it, the Fairness Doctrine isn't about stripping someone of their right to political speech. It sounds like you don't know what it is.

 

It's hardly analogous to - or anything close to - the legal segregation of the races. Come on now.

 

To me, liberal talk radio is much like conservative comedy - it just doesn't work because the premise is flawed. (The audience for liberals who want to hear nothing but other liberals talk about liberalism isn't that big; comedy doesn't defend the status quo.) But the Fairness Doctrine isn't about putting an Al Franken on the radio for every Sean Hannity, or telling Sean Hannity that he can't say what he says. I get the sense that you think it is.

 

But like you said, this is another conversation for another time. And I'll concede that, yes, Cal is right - some Democrats talk about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, or some version of the Fairness Doctrine.

 

Then add that it's not on the docket, Obama is opposed to it, and it's not going to happen. It's simply a rallying cry for conservative talk radio hosts, who sell "besieged" by the barrel.

 

Fine with me. Meanwhile, we'll concentrate on health care, education, energy, environment, foreign affairs, etc.

 

 

That is exactly what the Fairness Doctrine is/was. It stipulates that you must put both sides of an argument forth, hence Hannity's POV would have to be balanced by the opposite side. And it goes beyond political into religious radio as well. Do you think it is a coincidence that talk radio exploded after the 'original' Fairness Doctrine was done away with. In the Fairness Doctrine days radio programmers were afraid to put anything remotely controversial on b/c of the FCC fines that would follow.

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

No, it's not. The Fairness Doctrine does not specify that a broadcast must be balanced, or that equal time must be given to the other side after a Hannity is finished, or that the station's lineup be balanced 50% conservative/50% liberal. It doesn't.

 

It simply says that opposing viewpoints must be provided on the public airwaves. And it's the vagueness of it all that makes it so problematic. It's tough to tell what that means, or how it should be interpreted.

 

Which is why it's a mostly unworkable idea.

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

One of these days I'll get back to your original points, Steve.

 

But quickly, if I didn't believe the science of man-made global warming was a serious problem with serious costs I wouldn't want to do anything about it either. I just find it hard to come to that conclusion, mostly because I find the opinions of people who aren't climate scientists (like you and me) to be less important than the conclusions of climate scientists, thousands of whom have been working on these issues for decades, and all over the world, largely coming up with data that points toward the same conclusion: man-made global warming is happening. So when you say that, in your opinion, humans can affect the climate, but not that much, that means nothing to me. Nor should it. I'd ask why it means anything to you.

 

For the most part, even the elite right wing seems to have given up on the idea that man-made global warming is hoax. Now they're where you are - acknowledging that it's real, but maintaining that the costs of a cap and trade are too great, so let's not do anything see what happens. Others maintain that the science is so complicated that it can only be so predictive, and that estimates of temperature increase aren't solid enough to act on. I tend to think these opinions are usually working backwards from the conclusion that doing nothing is the optimal solution.

 

Also, the industries that would be negatively affected by a cap and trade law are already organizing to gut the effectiveness of a law once it's passed. (They're already having some success in this regard. The Democratic bill making the rounds last week was already giving away the farm.)

 

None of this changes the science. And the science is fairly overwhelming that we're affecting the climate, and that, if anything, the projections from the latest rounds of modeling were too optimistic. The last few major studies have come in with the result that this is all happening at a faster rate than we projected only a few years ago, and we've already watched plenty of older models and predictions come true. (Models always predicted the most warming at the poles, now there is more warming at the poles.)

 

So if you want to make the case that the costs of a cap and trade system are too great and outweigh the benefits, you have to then be prepared to eat the costs of man-made global warming, which could be anywhere from substantial to catastrophic. (Not recognizing that global warming also has major costs is one of the bigger blind spots of the do-nothing crowd.)

 

Also, part of the reason for addressing global warming is to head off the admittedly small but some say real possibility of a exponential rise in CO2 levels - a multiplier effect - that we can't adjust to.

 

Missile defense works on a similar theory - the rogue launch of a nuclear missile at the United States is a slim possibility but the costs of that happening are so great that we're willing to spend tens and tens of billions working up a system that can shoot down such a missile.

 

Same thing here. The scary scenario is where the oceans become saturated and stop absorbing CO2, much like at some point a sponge stops absorbing water and it spills over, and then we're really f'cked. The melting of the arctic permafrost is another frightening scenario, where all the carbon that is currently frozen and under ice would be released, in addition to all the ice being gone, and the oceans absorbing all of the sun's rays rather than having the ice reflecting it.

 

Anyway, this is a long way of saying that if we don't agree on the premise - that global warming is a serious problem - than it's not very likely that we're going to agree on a solution. Much like if I think you have cancer and you don't, you're probably not going to agree to chemotherapy.

 

I'm just saying that I'm not qualified to determine whether you have cancer, and neither are you. But if you went to 1000 doctors, around 97% of them would agree you have cancer. They may disagree about how bad you have it, but just about all of them will agree you've got it.

 

Maybe later we can get into the foreign oil part of it, because I don't think you're right about that either. But at least we agree something should be done. (Not that it matters.)

[smalls1129]

No, it's not. The Fairness Doctrine does not specify that a broadcast must be balanced, or that equal time must be given to the other side after a Hannity is finished, or that the station's lineup be balanced 50% conservative/50% liberal. It doesn't.

 

It simply says that opposing viewpoints must be provided on the public airwaves. And it's the vagueness of it all that makes it so problematic. It's tough to tell what that means, or how it should be interpreted.

 

Which is why it's a mostly unworkable idea.

 

 

You just made my point, how can you say that it cannot be used one way but then admit that no one knows how to interpret it? Worse case scenario, IMHO, is that they interpret it in the manner in which I laid out.

[heckofajobbrownie]

You're envisioning a heavy-handed government monitoring system that never existed even when the Fairness Doctrine was in place (conservatives dominated talk radio even in the days of the Fairness Doctrine), doesn't exist today, and that no one is planning for in the future, even by those who support a return of the Fairness Doctrine.

 

Nor would such a regime pass Constitutional muster. Imagine the government saying - not that some time on your station must be afforded to issues in the public interest and debated by both sides, leaving how that works up to the individual programmers - but that individual shows, content, or speech must be changed or else programmers face government sanction. That's a world where the government dictates programming; what type and how much, in essence what can and can't be said. It's simply not going to happen because it's not Constitutional and the courts would stop something like that. (If it were ever tried, which it wouldn't be.)

 

So again, I think you guys are whooping yourself up over something someone told you to get whooped up about, when if you took a step back a bit you'd realize that these nightmare scenarios simply aren't possible. Unless you imagine Democrats to be maniacs who value the extension of their political power over all else, First Amendment be damned.

 

And that's why I think it's interesting that part of the argument for returning to the Fairness Doctrine, or some form of it, is to present both sides of the argument, rather than having an echo chamber where people only hear one side of the argument day in and day out. One need only spend a few minutes in here to see why, in theory, that might be a good thing. There's misinformation passed off as truth in here every day, and with no one to correct it or challenge it. And the same can be true of people who spend their days reading nothing but far-left blogs. It breeds a certain type of paranoia -- always attaching nefarious motivations to the other side, while imagining your side to be the defenders of freedom and liberty.

 

Which isn't to say that nefarious motivations do not exist, but rather that when you live in an ideological tunnel about two dozen other explanations for poor outcomes - imperfect people, ill-considered opinions, bad data, poor management skills, etc - are mistaken for nefarious motivations. Ex: The Bush administration didn't screw up the response to Katrina because they staffed important agencies with hacks and loyalists and were negligent/incompetent managers in general, but because George Bush doesn't care about black people.

 

Or you can even be so far gone that you even see positive steps (restructuring the military, cutting wasteful military spending) as something nefarious (Obama hates our military so he's gutting it).

 

And then there's Mr. T, and God knows how the f'ck that guy's mind works.

 

I'm just saying, fellas. The Glenn Beck wing of the Republican Party, which is certainly well represented in here, is making your party less and less relevant with each passing day. You're not even in the game. You're obsessing over boutique talk radio issues that aren't that important, and don't matter to anyone but you and the other members of your circular firing squad of irrelevance.

 

In fact, I hope Democrats in Congress will let some dipshit like Mike Pence or Michelle Bachman attach their amendment ensuring that the Fairness Doctrine continue to not be the law of the land, or that the dollar will remain our currency, to a bill about something important in order to get their votes. Then they can go on Rush and Hannity and proclaim their good works and get re-elected while the serious people in both parties address the real and enormous issues facing the country.

[Westside Steve]

You're envisioning a heavy-handed government monitoring system that never existed even when the Fairness Doctrine was in place (conservatives dominated talk radio even in the days of the Fairness Doctrine), doesn't exist today, and that no one is planning for in the future, even by those who support a return of the Fairness Doctrine.

 

Heck, sorry, I can't buy the snowjob.

First I do agree it's vague, but that means it could go any direction.

Shall we say I'm as comfortable with Emmanuel and Pelosi passing judgement on the airwaves as you'd be with Jimmy Swaggart at the helm.

Second I think it's most definately a de facto shot at free speech.

I don't believe it is so benign as that an hour devoted to "other" viewpints at 5 AM will cut it.

Hell it'd take more time than that just to cover the Bildabergs and the Tri Lateral commission, let alone the John Lyn Walker show.

Third these stations couldn't give less of a shit about ideology.

If your Springer/Rhodes/Franken laugh a thons made money they'd be on the air.

And who knows, maybe Republicans would be trying to shut THEM up.

 

Maybe you can give me a hypothetical as to how when or where these "opposing views" would be aired.

Also who pays for these money pits? Soros?

 

Nor would such a regime pass Constitutional muster.

 

Well not until Sunstein, Blogojavich and Ayers are seated.

WSS

[smalls1129]

Couple of things and then I'll let this go. I am not sure who you're arguing with here, you admitted in your earlier response that the Doctrine is 'too open to interpretation' so no one is sure how it might be brought back, if it is. Being that I inherently don't trust the government (read bureaucrats) when someone from the opposing view point admits that the "possible" language is vague I get concerned. And you can say we're making a big deal over nothing right now, but I ask you should we wait 'til it's on the verge to express our negative opinions? B/C one thing I've learned is that when the government (either party) ball gets rolling it is nearly impossible to stop. And if people let the doctrine be restored before speaking their outrage then there's almost no chance that anything could be done about it. Simply put bureaucrats don't give up power they've received.

 

One small note: the fact that you think the "Glenn Beck Right Wing Party" is making us less and less relevant is a good sign to me. Honestly you don't agree with most of the libertarian views expressed to begin with, so all that proves to me is from a libertarian viewpoint is that I am on the right track.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Glenn Beck isn't a libertarian, my friend. He's a third-rate preacher having an on-air meltdown, each week more bizarre than the next. He was running footage of Nazis marching the other day, insisting that this is where we were headed, except less violent. Anyone who finds this man's nonsense elucidating is clearly a fool.

 

At least Howard Beale made some good points. Beck is such a loon that even Shep Smith is mocking him. He's a TV clown.

 

And I hope his ratings are due to the "car crash" factor, but I tend to doubt it. The fact that people in the Republican Party are listening to this guy shows just how detached from reality they've become.

 

Can't you even admit that Glenn Beck is laughable? I'd think we could all start from that point. I'd hope, anyway.

[Westside Steve]

Can't you even admit that Glenn Beck is laughable? I'd think we could all start from that point. I'd hope, anyway.

 

Maybe he can run for senate in Minnesota......

WSS

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Um, right. Beck equals Franken. Got it.