JerrySeinfeld

Al Gore, where are you now? Article excerpt: Link Isn't this worth discussing? Where are the alarmists on these facts? In our ongoing blather and panic about the earth warming at an alarming rate, isn't this newsworthy? Shouldn't this be front page news EVERYWHERE ON THE PLANET?

hmm... do we have a disagreement here? We have more trees, cleaner water, cleaner air...what's the problem? The earth is 0.7C warmer? I'd say in Canada that's not such a bad thing!

Wow. That is a such perfect description of so many left wing people I come across. When I say I don't favor gay marriage - only civil unions, or if I mention my admiration for GW Bush, left wing people act disgusted, react with visciousness and venomour namecalling. "Fascism" "Bigot" "Asshole" come to mind. In fact, us right wingers wouldn't have to dig too far to find similar terms used by left wingers on this site. What you say is completely correct, WB. Left wing pols seem to have somehow claimed a monopoly on the "good guys" image - consistently tarring their opponents with eveil terminology. This demonizing has until now, mostly worked. But it's healthy to have these kinds of discussions, because what it does is shine a spotlight on a very dirty, cheap way to "win" and argument or a debate. Unfortunately for those who use such terms, they really don't understand the irony in what they're doing. Because using big, sweeping nasty words to shut down someone's opinion is EXACTLY what fascists do. SO by calling someone a fascist to shut them up, you're actually acting more like a fascist than they are. This is the "creeping fascism" we're seeing in today's society. NO discussion on climate change - accept the dogma or you are a "earth hater" and a lacky of "big oil" NO discussion on the war - you either want out or you are fascist murderer NO discussion on health care - you either wantr universal or you're a money grubbing lacky of "big pharma" NO discussion on Radical Islam - if you bring up the problems it has created you are a "racist bigot" Big, sweeping judgements designed to end the conversation and perpetuate the dogma. Fascism, really.

I don't mind the turbans, but as a matter of principle, I would ask...why? This is a very interesting question which goes to the heart of cultural confidence. Let's think about how we've been indoctrinated with sensitivity in this country. DO you realize I heard a country cong the other day about killing the asshole taliban, and my knee jerk was to stop and think about whether it was offenseive to anyone? THE TALIBAN!! A murderous regime the worst of which we haven't seen since Hitler!!! and I'm a CONSERVATIVE IN FAVOR OF THE WAR! Think about the level of brainwashing that has been done for me to react like that. Now, translate that to sensitivity generally: would you ever presume to go to India, enroll in their National Police Force, one with a known traditional uniform, and demand the right to change it? I would venture to say most Canadians, in their meagre, cultural self-hatred, wouldn't dare. Yet the opposite happens all the time in this country. Heck, the Ontario government hands out spousal support benefits for multiple wives to muslim men in this country. I mean WTF!>!>!>!?!?!?!?!? This turban, or any other, issue is about cultural confidence. OPther cultures feel entitled to demand, whereas we feel obliged to give in. Think about it.

I agree that both sides have bullies (can you say Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'reilly?) But in my experience in social situations, it seems alot easier for people to discuss their politics if it happens to be left wing-oriented. Especially when it comes to GW Bush or the war. I find that people who support GW Bush or the War or are anti gay marriage or anti abortion have to keep their mouths shut in alot of social/business situations, whereas I hear people on the other side proudly espousing their views in parades and shit all the time.

No. But let's face it, even a lot of free market thinkers can let the "saviour of government coffers" blind them from time to time. I'm not saying Bush is perfect, I'm just saying it's ludicrous to blame Bush for the economy. Meantime, there is something to be said for psychology. We are in somewhat of a "psychological" recession - in the sense that people are afraid. But if they weren't afraid, the financial markets would calm down. It's somewhat of a self-fullfilling prophecy, which is why it might not hurt to give some support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I know I'm contradicting myself, but my main point previously was that Bush (or any president) isn't solely responsible for the fortunes of an economy, for good or for bad. I mean, come on. Should we be giving credit to Bill Clinton for the tech bubble, or the ensuing tech wreck? It just happened.

This is pretty true. Plus since they usually take positions from conventional wisdom (example environmentalism or the Iraq war), they haven't done their research, which makes them a pretty easy opponent in a debate. The other thing that works against us as conservatives in social situations is that conservatives take their positions from rational thought which requires explanation, whereas lefties tend to be emotional "feel gooders", which is why the jokes on Joen Stewart and Colbert go over so well - they often aren't based upon fact or reason, but it feels good and right at the time - kind of like one night stands and mcdonalds.

What's wrong with admitting some cultures are objectively superior, on balance? Think of the British empire. The countries that evolved from that empire are by far the most successful, peaceful, free, non-violent and organized, not to mention wealthy. Meanwhile the rest of the world is characterized by thug dictatorships, murderous revolution, women's human rights abuses, midievil laws, starvation, devastation, disease and filth. And we want to import that here as if it's giong to "help make us better"? Give us a break. Why do we hate ourselves so, while the cultuires we import have such confidence, when we are clearly objectively superior!?

My $0.02: New York Times - Left Washington Post - Left Washington Times - Right CNN - Left NBC - Left ABC - Left CBS - Left New York Post - Right Fox - Right CBC - Left CTV - Left Centre BBC - Left

This topic is intended to discuss the idea that left wing people are bullies with fascist tendencies. It is also mostly a topic aimed at those of us conservative minded thinkers. Question: As a conservative, have you ever found yourself in a situation where some lefty (or usually a gruop) was blathering on and on about the "conventional wisdom" being jammed down our throats by the left wing media? And in that situation, have you ever found yourself disagreeing but somewhat afraid to voice your thoughts because of the viciousness with which people shout down your "minority" ideas? I believe in civil unions instead of gay marriage. I also support our troops and the Afghan and Iraq wars. I like GW Bush. I hate carbon taxes, and I think the Climate Change issue may be the biggest trojan horse for socialism perpetrated on human kind in our history. But to soften it, at a party I would probably just say I'm not that concerned about climate change. Have any of the other conservatives felt ostracized, attacked or bullied by those in disagreement? Isn't that fascism, if it happens alot? Think of things like political correct speech. Doesn't PC essentially imply "this is how we all talk now". That sounds like a bit of a creepingly fascist concept, doesn't it? Ben Stein put it best when he said "I used to go (to hollywood parties), and people would make cruel fun of me and bait me and want to start arguing with me, and who needs that crap?" I find this to be a fairly common thing. Thank goodness there are sites like this where we can exchange ideas, because in the real world I see alot of bullying by the left wing. I have a friend who owns a T-Shirt which says "Conservative" in big letters on the front. He mentioned that the other day he was in a 7-11 store and a girl with a "rainbow" patch on her backpack (gay symbol) snickered "that's just sickening" as she walked past - as if it's ok for her to wear her politics on her sleave but not ok for him. Yet during elections, conservatives fair very well, and in fact are in power in both Canada and the USA (for the time being). So why are we so silent when being harassed by lefties? Are they less mature? Are they more volatile? Shouldn't we all start speaking up and being more proud of OUR views the same way they are of theirs? I for one am giong out to buy a Ronald Reagan TShirt today!!! Lefties love to watch Colbert and Stewart, who do a brilliant job of ridiculing conservatives (and even sometimes the odd democrat), but shouldn't we be standing up and having some fun with them too? I mean, just look at most lefties. There is MORE than enough material to work with. Heck, just the other day I heard someone like Sheryl Crow or someone was having their house fitted with special plumbing that would allow them to recycle and drink their own poo and pee. Yuo can't make that stuff up!!! Anyway, as a conservative, have you ever experienced this bullying? Discuss.

WTF? Seriously, sometimes for a free-market person like myself, whounderstand ths american political system and the limitations on the actually economic power held by any president, it's difficult to argue with people who don't get the basic fudamental facts right. First of all, unless you're living in a centrally planned economy, no government "runs the economy". Second, Unless you're living in a parlaimentary democracy, like Canada, you don't elect dictators every 4 years, you elect a president who must deal intimately with congress to get things done. This is a very complex process - the president can't just run around chopping taxes and building hospitals in shawinigan at his whim the way our leaders can. Third, Bush is a free market thinker. Some very smart economic purists believe the worst thing to do is bail out risky lenders. After all, they took the risk in lending to poor credit risks. By bailing them out, this ruins the entire risk - reward trade off that dictates fundamental economic decision making. It may be best to let them fail and cleanse the financial system, rather than reward poor economic decision making with bailouts. All that does is encourage future poor decisions, whic is why we got into this mess in the first place. For all of these reasons and many more, it's ridiculous to hold GW Bush responsible for the "economy". Fortunately, the only people who do this tend to be contral planner-socialist types who think the government does, or should do everything.

I don't mind the opinions. WHat really bugs me is the lefties posing as objective. Doggy gets his tights into a knot about FOX, the only right-bias major network. But the rest of the networks are so bloody left wing bias they don't even realize it. Chris Matthews defended his Obama-gasm by stating that he IS cheerleading...he's a "freking american and I'm cheering for US." Simply implying that cheering for Obama IS cheering for us. How's that for objective? WHat a twit. This happens all the time. Have you noticed in your evening news how the media now talks all day long about "whacky weather"? WHat the heck are they talking about. Hurricanes, storms, tornadoes and floods have always ALWAYS happened. Sometimes alot more than they have in the past couple of decades. Sometimes less. The fact that we have an internet or satellite capable of trasnmitting the images of a house blown over in Kansas doesn't make it any more whacky. It just makes it more noticable. This is the common problem in the MSM. They all too often accept left wing dogma as a fact of life, which it is not, and report the news inside that context. An actual british news report anchor: "In the news tonight Prime minister Tony blair is back from vacation, and apparently unapologetic about YET ANOTHER carbon burning long haul desintation" This from an ANCHOR!!! Anchors usually don't editorialize. Apparently, this left wing twit (or whoever wrote his copy) felt it necessary to sprinkle amidst the "news" some sort of social commentary about the environment. Typical. Typical typical typical. This is so funny, this debate. Just look at the people who get smoke coming out of their ears when Fox dresses up as "objective" while CNN has an entire series entitled "planet in peril" during a time when our planet is in the best environmental shape it's been in decades.

Bias is difficult to prove, but to say it doesn't exist is living in some kind of academic dreamworld. When NBC's Chris Matthews says an Obama speech made him feel a "thrill going up my leg", it's a joke that he would actually present himself as "fair". A good example of bias which would not be picked up in a "scientific" (cough/laugh) study on bias, would be how a question is posed during a debate: "Mr. Bush, given the lack of success in Iraq, what would you...." "Mr. Harper given your poor record on gay rights...." Certainly most media carries with it some kind of bias. How do I know this? Because I watch the CNN, NBC, ABC, BBC, Fox, CBS, CBC, Global, CTV etc. They're not very smart people, and they all have a different take on how to tell a poltical story. To say they all tell it the same is pure DOGGYshit. I realized in about 2nd-year university that the closest thing to truth can only be found by taking in many sources and doing your best to filter out the obvious biases. People like black doggy and others who think the world is a laboratory in which we can litmus test for bias are still living in their college days when every answer was in a textbook right there in black and white - to be referred to at any moment during a heated discussion over a pitcher of beer. Bias is like carbon monoxide, just because it's not easily detectible doesn't mean it's not killing you. Come to think of it, the lefties would probably understand the anaolgy better if I mentioned global warming (mwaaa!) The earth hasn't warmed at all, in fact it has slightly cooled in the past ten years. Does this mean it doesn't exist?

This is unique among politicans, how exactly?

Yes. Technically you're correct. But out in the real world, where cargo-pants-wearing camera operators hate the world for making them poor and fat, the evil republicans already "have too much". Gay Joey CNN camera dude spent last night at a gay bar in the French quarter bitching about how much he hates the war and loves gay marriage and Barack, which is why the photo ops have Barack sitting down at a table holding court with European leaders, then cutting to a shot of a big mole on McCain's face. Pictures are powerful. And it's amazing how much power some of these liberal twits in the media are continuously allowed to wield. And to top it off, the rest of the liberal press has a fit when one network (FOX) actually has the GALL to present the other side of the story. That's how badly the media bias is: FOX is considered an outcast because it's the only right wing network. Think about that context. The only thing more powerful is the general incompetency of the Democrats to take advantage of such a huge media love in. Despite how swimmingly everything's gone for Barack Horseshoe-up-his-arse Obama, he's still only ahead by 6 points, plus or minus the 3% margin of error. Or as I once hear a commentator say "if GW Bush is so stupid, just think of how stupid you have to be to continuously lose elections to him".

Yes heard alot of talk about that, but again, regardless of the facts or the his actual "lineage" as it were, the point, as you made, is that Barack holds a unique set of cards; he can play up his "black" image for the people obsessed with race: african americans, liberals, limousine socialists, etc. And at the same time, he can pull off a good white-guy schtick and appeal to the broader un-obsessed bunch because he's not a raving lunatic as per Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or some of the other way-too-obvious african-american politicans who got rich on divisiveness.

I think Obama is the luckiest politician in some time with a combination of many things happening for him: 1. First of all, he's a big beneficiary of Identity politics: A black man who acts "white", so appeals to the white voter as well as the black voter. And before anyone jumps on me for such a "race-based" comment, remember it's the race-obsessed Dems who play the Identity politics game so well (it's about time we had a woman/black man etc. in the whitehouse/senate etc...) 2. Second, he's sooo lucky that Hillary is a female version of Al Gore: too academic, robotic, and basically unlikeable 3. Whereas the Republicans tend to use a "who's turn is it" system of nomination, the Dems seem to go for the "flavour du jour"...always look for the next big one-hit wonder. Think Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Barack Obama etc.... for example, if Ron Paul had run in the Dem camp, he probably would have given Obama a run for his money. This is again a symptom of the short-sighted thinking on the left. "What's popular today?" 4. He's benefitting from a reflex tired-of-the-war sentiment in the nation right now. 5. Oprah likes him 6. The press is in love with him 7. He's running against a guy who looks like he's fallnig apart. For exmaple, in yesterday's coverage we had OBAMA sitting at a table full of world leaders and MCCAIN having a growth removed from his face. See #6 for explanation. Elections are a "feel good" game. Right now Obama has all the "feel good" vibes emanating from him. Is he peaking too soon? Time will tell. Strange things shappen. If the Nutter-Islamists blow up a plane over the Atlantic, a lot will change. Given the Hard Core Islamist's 100-year outlook on the "war" (as opposed to our 5 year A.D.D. approach), I thnk they're too smart to pull off a major attack before the election. After all, we all know Hezbollah has endorsed Obama. Why? We should all be asking ourselves that. One thing I have noticed, however. Americans, when intereviewed, for the first time I;ve ever seen are citing how "europeans do things" as a model for how to structure their society / foreign policy. To me this is dangerous. Europe is a clusterf*ck. If Obama is popular in Europe, this is a pretty good sign he's on the wrong track policy-wise.

Indeed. One shouldn't put too much emphasis on the short term popularity of ideas. History has shown that usually the knee-jerk finger-in-the-wind types have been wrong. Look at all the enviro-loonies who pressured governments worldwide to push for bio-fuel legislation such as ethanol. It was a short-term panic solution to "save the planet". Sounds like a big, worthy cause, right? But don't all of the looney left's policies in the short run? Now people are starving all over the world because the food supply is being used as an energy source. What does this have to do with GW Bush? Well, it's just another example of people on the left who get over-excited and push hard for short term change. Popularity isn't the best gauge of what is best. Anyone who saw "Star Wars Attack of the Clones" or heard the song "Ice Ice Baby" can attest to that

Interesting. I've always compared him to Reagan, at least foreign policy-wise. It's rare to see a USA president have much influence over the economy, anyway, so that's not a great basis for judgement. People in Canada commonly make the mistake of comparing a president to a Primeminister domestically, but it's not the same. Presidents have limited domestic influence. People who jump up and down pointing blame at Bush for everything from hurricane response to a domestic recession are mislead, mostly because of the limits on domestic Presidential power, but also because of an irrational urge to blame everything on GW Bush, more commonly known as Bush Derangement Syndrome: Link to Bush Derangement Syndrome Definition But I digress. Reagan - During his term, dismissed by the left as an overly simplistic cowboy-type war monger who would ultimately lead to the destruction of the earth through his callous military policies and lack of "tolerance" for other ideas. Was firm in his approach, ignored the nervous nellies, stayed the course and brought down the Berlin wall. Bush - During his term, dismissed by the left as an overly simplistic cowboy-type war monger who would ultimately lead to the destruction of the earth through his callous military policies and lack of "tolerance" for other ideas. Is firm in his approach, ignores the nervous nellies and polls, stays the course and will most certainly be given more respect by history. FOUR MORE YEARS!!! PLEEEEASE. Obama? Can anyone say "Jimmy Carter on steroids and a healthy dose of back to the bad old days of mid-east illusions and BS" A true marxist in the white house. hoodathunkit. haha.

C'mon people! It's Bullseye "Grilled Onion & Garlic Showdown" or nuttin'.

That's true. Actually, the "Green Shift" by the Liberals is a textbook example of what Patrick Moore was talking about: a socialist agenda cloaked in the the "do gooder" disguise of environmentalism. If you look around the world, the people really pushing action are the very same people who would have been USSR apologists and anti-Reagan / USA back during the cold war; Liberal arts professors, social activists, euro-socialist elites etc. Sure, other groups, including the MSM etc. have been sold this bill of goods and bought it hook line and sinker, but the people really pushing the agenda are the same old commies of yore. Might this be ther biggest sham ever perpetrated on the public? It certainly looks to be so. I have a question about the infamous (and completely false) "hockey stick graph": If you're not misleading us, why would you see it necessary to lie?

Ok let's set the science debate aside here for a moment. This site is clogged with them. It's obvious the enviro-crowd doesn't want to discuss science, it wants to demonize and immediately discredit anyone who dares disagree with them. That's not science. That's religion. The basics of science are to question, and openly discuss. With something with a many variables and difficult to mjeasure as climate, the immediate shut down of debate is not the characteristic of any scientists I've ever know - but it sure sounds like a lot of politicians I know! So let's talk about this religious zeal for a while. The intention of THIS thread is to talk about the possibility that climate change politics is a cloaked...and massive worldwide anti-capitalism, anti-american movement. Just look at the pieces and put them together. If - as Patrick Moore (founder of Greenpeace - arguable the largest environmental organization in the world) says - you were a big time anti american poltitical activist (and EUrope and Canada have a ton of those!) in the 80's...then your party kind of, well, fizzled throughout the '90s. But yuo're hatred for capitalism and america festered on and VOILA: here comes climate change. To argue the climate change dogma, we are basically told to: -Stop or slow material consumption -Reduce economic growth -Surrender sovereign policies to one overriding global governing body Do any of these things sounds like a great way to bring down the power of the great USA? OF COURSE. And the bonus: GW Bush (most likely your biggest nemesis if you hate the USA and capitalism) is an OIL MAN. Really, if Al Gore (or any other eco-nazi) wanted to seriously bring down the USA and GW Bush, THIS is the perfect trojan horse. Thoughts?

“The shift to climate being a major focal point came about for two very distinct reasons. The first reason was because by the mid-‘80s the majority of people now agreed with all of the reasonable things we in the environmental movement were saying they should do. Now when a majority of people agree with you, it’s pretty hard to remain confrontational with them, and so the only way to remain anti-establishment was to adopt ever more extreme positions. When I left Greenpeace it was in the midst of them adopting a campaign to ban chlorine worldwide. I said “you guys, this is one of the elements in the periodic table. I’m not sure if that’s within our jurisdiction to be banning a whole element. The other reason that environmental extremism emerged was that because world communism failed, the wall came down, and a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement bringing their neo-marxism with them. They learned to use “green language” in a very clever way to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than they had to do with ecology or science” – Patrick Moore Co-Founder, Greenpeace Now play nice. Without using ad-hominem arguments (attackig the source, not the argument), discuss the above passage.

I see it way differently. The issue about his pastor of 20 years spewing racism bunk from the pulpit is a legitemate issue. Whereas, when one small evangelical pastor who had endorsed McCain (NOT his pastor of 20 years) was quooted from a decade ago mentioning something about Israel, all of a sudden this was branded in the news as a similar "transgression" by McCain. The two are barely comparible. Obama's long time church is a racist haven. That's news. An evangelical making a comment about jews (which was taken out of context and was actually PRO israel) isn't. That's the media trying to cancel out the TRUE transgression by the questionable OBAMA.

What's the point of an environmental (carbon emissions) policy, anyway, other than self congratulation and vote-getting? Statistically, even if Canada was wiped off the face of the earth and never emitted another ounce of carbon dioxide, it wouldn't have any measurable effect on the earth's climate.