The Rush Limbaugh Thread

[Super_Ludacris]

*throws a bunch of painkillers at Limbaugh's face feeling sorry for him*

 

[lazur]

how would it?
since I have accused both sides of doing it.
you're the one that seems to think one side blameless.
I wonder if the blameless side happens to also be your side.

Umm both sides are doing it? Where have you been getting your news? This is a leftist agenda ONLY. Do *some* republicans talk about it? Yes, but only because the Democrats are turning into a political warhorse, and have been for years.

This is not a 'left versus right' issue - this is a purely left issue that now faces a serious scientific roadblock.

"Oops, we were wrong! Here are your billions of dollars back that we spent on ... research. Yeah, research, nudge, nudge, wink, wink."

Just look at the history of this topic on this very board - LEFT issue with the left calling the right idiots for being in 'denial'.

The fact remains that we have been on this planet but for the blink of an eye. No one alive or dead or yet to be born will ever acquire enough knowledge about this planet and our universe to ever be able to make any kind of statement that's even close to 'fact'. Everything is completely out of our hands to control or even understand.

Next week, it'll be something else we all focus on as the 'next big potential natural disaster'. I wonder which side will turn it into a political issue. Oh wait, no I don't, I already know which side it'll be because it's the same side every time...

 

[Mr Sparkle]

yes Lazur, both sides politicized the issue.
and even though so far Human involvement in global warming has far from been ruled out people inexplicably act as if it was.

but yeah.
evil Democrats....sure.

ooooh...evil democrats coming to take your money!!!! only republicans love jesusland.
hahaha! sure.

 

[Paradoxium]

hmm.
I disagree.
"doom and gloom" group or not, the majority of actual environmentalists pretty much talk the talk and walk the walk.

No one is saying you can't articulate problems, but purely articulating problems and maybe being green yourself on the side is not really productive. ESPECIALLY if base your entire life and resource to a particular problem. You still need people with the ethics, assets, technical skills to solve problems in wide scale, practical and innovative ways. Its always easy to find some problem to whine about in general. But the man who solves a problem will be long remembered than the one who whines about it.

I don't think the idea of everyone concerned with the environment becoming an engineer will "solve" much of anything, nor is it really feasible is it?
calling attention to issues that are far beyond the scope of many, and often times are only the domain of world governments.

I don't care what you think, especially if you think only the government can solve problems.

 

[lazur]

yes Lazur, both sides politicized the issue.
and even though so far Human involvement in global warming has far from been ruled out people inexplicably act as if it was.

but yeah.
evil Democrats....sure.

ooooh...evil democrats coming to take your money!!!! only republicans love jesusland.
hahaha! sure.

Both parties are evil. I'm just tired of each side trying to minimize the blame in politicizing issues by whitewashing the historical facts on who started what. Sorry, pal, but the Dems started this one, and they RAN with it. Who cares if a few Republicans got on board. Can you blame them for giving into the tide of relentless BS and badgering?

 

[Mr Sparkle]

No one is saying you can't articulate problems, but purely articulating problems and maybe being green yourself on the side is not really productive. ESPECIALLY if base your entire life and resource to a particular problem. You still need people with the ethics, assets, technical skills to solve problems in wide scale, practical and innovative ways. Its always easy to find some problem to whine about in general. But the man who solves a problem will be long remembered than the one who whines about it.

that's really neat, but it completely ignores reality.
it's extreme and extremely wrong.
as long as you file " protest" away with " whine" then you're pretty much stuck.

I don't care what you think, especially if you think only the government can solve problems.

nor do I care what you think.
but these aren't the " caring " forums.
however, why do you have to ascribe me positions I have never taken?
I think that saying some problems can ONLY be solved by governments is pretty realistic, unlike thinking ALL problems can be solved by individuals.

I never said anything about ALL problems, that was you though.

 

[Paradoxium]

that's really neat, but it completely ignores reality.
it's extreme and extremely wrong.
as long as you file " protest" away with " whine" then you're pretty much stuck....
....I think that saying some problems can ONLY be solved by governments is pretty realistic, unlike thinking ALL problems can be solved by individuals.

I never said anything about ALL problems, that was you though.

One, I never said all problems ought to be solved by individuals strictly speaking.

Two, I am more irked with your use by "domain of world governments", not the idea governments can solve problems. This whole global warming "crisis" is providing the perfect excuse and antecedent towards a world state. And "domain of world governments" sure as hell sounds world state'ish. That I have a big problem with.

Three, I think what you trying to imply here is how people articulate problems (research data etc..), and problem solvers take note of these problems and integrate it into their solutions right? In that they do not have to fall into the same group (to which I imply they ought to), correct? Kind of like environmentalists point out some X-Energy source is being depleted – and engineers or business people ought to find alternatives. Something like that, correct? If not, ignore what I have to say below.

To me, there is nothing wrong with that. I just have a problem when environmentalists start playing the economic and public policy game. To be honest, I should have been more specific towards this. If they have to be involved in that process, they better damn well be more well rounded in terms business and engineering backgrounds. On top of that, done the talk and walk with experience. Otherwise, stay the **** out of it; I sure as hell don’t like situations like the whole ethanol thing repeating itself. That is my problem.

 

[Genesis 1.0]

how would it?
since I have accused both sides of doing it.
you're the one that seems to think one side blameless.
I wonder if the blameless side happens to also be your side.

As it's already been stated, the left took this issue and ran with it, period. It's simply amusing to watch you attempt to assign blame elsewhere when it's clearly irresponsible.

Evil Republicans, OoOoOoOoooo.

Right.

 

[Carcharodon]

Uh...so what if they took the issue and ran with it? That somehow negates anything the right has done as well? Jesus, what is it with you guys and your, "holier-than-thou," disposition? It's childish; you just can't do any wrong, can you?

The right had been automatically opposed to the idea of global warming from the start. They made it pretty obvious that they deliberately opposed the theory for two reasons:

1) The right is traditionally opposed to change.
2) The lefties supported it.

Of course they had a hand in the politicization. Nobody's saying they have sole blame by a long shot, but to say they have none is completely naive. You can't have a polarized political climate without both sides contributing.

 

[Carcharodon]

Warming IS occurring but the cause is unknown. It is patently false to say that it is definitely man made especially in light of the fact that Mars has experienced a temperature rise that parallels our own. He is right though about it being more about political science that real science. Back in the 70's, which I am old enough to remember, the liberals gave a go at global cooling. When that fell through, they switched to this. Whatever it takes to create some false issue that needs a big expensive program supported by tax increases.

Yeah...soooo the fact that Mars' atmosphere is 98% carbon dioxide has nothing to do with its warming? Mars almost always increases slowly and steadily in temperature, with the obvious cycle pertaining to its distance from the sun, etc.

It it weren't for the influence of a greenhouse effect on Mars, it would be significantly colder than it actually is.

 

[Genesis 1.0]

Uh...so what if they took the issue and ran with it? That somehow negates anything the right has done as well? Jesus, what is it with you guys and your, "holier-than-thou," disposition? It's childish; you just can't do any wrong, can you?

It's actually amusing, this post I mean. Alright so flip this post and let's try this one with a few words switched, shall we?

Republicans and the Iraq War? Uh...so what if they took the issue and ran with it? That somehow negates anything the left has done as well? Jesus, what is it with you guys and your, "holier-than-thou," disposition? It's childish; you just can't do any wrong, can you?

The Republicans spear headed the Iraq War, a large section of the Democrats joined in and laid out support for it and ramped it up as well. But as things have changed over the years, it's completely at the feet of the Republicans, regardless of the fact that there was involvment from both parties but to hear most Democrats talk, it's all the Republican's fault. That 'Holier Than Thou' attitude is rampant and you've been party to it as well.

If you're going to blame one party for having the major hand in one issue, don't jump ship when the next issue comes along. It's called hypocrisy.

So basically as long as it serves you, it's all good, right?

The right had been automatically opposed to the idea of global warming from the start. They made it pretty obvious that they deliberately opposed the theory for two reasons:

1) The right is traditionally opposed to change.
2) The lefties supported it.

Again, your blanket generalization in an attempt to validate your point of view is staggering. Overlooking that and moving on, #1 is extremely ignorant. It's the only real word that fits, I mean I could use others but it's pointless. You really have no idea what the Republican Party is founded on, nor do you know what it's done 'traditionally'. So I'm not even going to bother.

Change is this year's buzzword the fact remains that there's ALOT of different kinds of change. People oppose certain changes based on their ideals, the moral fiber that their character is built on. It's no different with the Republican or Democratic Party. Your attempt to marginalize it like this is, what was your word? Ah yes, childish.

Of course they had a hand in the politicization. Nobody's saying they have sole blame by a long shot, but to say they have none is completely naive. You can't have a polarized political climate without both sides contributing.

To say there has to be two influences for a polarization is a given. HOWEVER, things can be polarized within a society with one side by far being the greater influence.

I'm not going to bother pointing out the obvious, either you get it or you won't.

 

[Carcharodon]

It's actually amusing, this post I mean. Alright so flip this post and let's try this one with a few words switched, shall we?



The Republicans spear headed the Iraq War, a large section of the Democrats joined in and laid out support for it and ramped it up as well. But as things have changed over the years, it's completely at the feet of the Republicans, regardless of the fact that there was involvment from both parties but to hear most Democrats talk, it's all the Republican's fault. That 'Holier Than Thou' attitude is rampant and you've been party to it as well.

If you're going to blame one party for having the major hand in one issue, don't jump ship when the next issue comes along. It's called hypocrisy.

So basically as long as it serves you, it's all good, right?



Again, your blanket generalization in an attempt to validate your point of view is staggering. Overlooking that and moving on, #1 is extremely ignorant. It's the only real word that fits, I mean I could use others but it's pointless. You really have no idea what the Republican Party is founded on, nor do you know what it's done 'traditionally'. So I'm not even going to bother.

Change is this year's buzzword the fact remains that there's ALOT of different kinds of change. People oppose certain changes based on their ideals, the moral fiber that their character is built on. It's no different with the Republican or Democratic Party. Your attempt to marginalize it like this is, what was your word? Ah yes, childish.



To say there has to be two influences for a polarization is a given. HOWEVER, things can be polarized within a society with one side by far being the greater influence.

I'm not going to bother pointing out the obvious, either you get it or you won't.

I get it, I just completely disagree.

With respect to the, "ignorant," comment: take a class on politics or political philosophy one day. Conservatism is characterized by an inherent resistance to change. Liberalism has traditionally been for inciting change, for better or worse. In the general sense, this is primarily how left and right differ (though that certainly isn't the ONLY way).

You can argue against that until you're blue in the face, I don't care. That's what I take away from it all.

"If you're going to blame one party for having the major hand in one issue, don't jump ship when the next issue comes along. It's called hypocrisy.

So basically as long as it serves you, it's all good, right?"

Now who's making assumptions and generalizations? I never made that argument, or that point. Swing and a miss there, bud.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

As it's already been stated, the left took this issue and ran with it, period. It's simply amusing to watch you attempt to assign blame elsewhere when it's clearly irresponsible.

Evil Republicans, OoOoOoOoooo.

Right.

I like how you ignored the article posted in this thread.
along with reality.
but yeah, I can see how you would be unable to see fault in both sides of the spectrum.


it's not " amusing " it's sad, specially given the fact that you should know better.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

One, I never said all problems ought to be solved by individuals strictly speaking.

you simply implied that people should ONLY solve problems and that people that pointed out a problem or situation merely " whined " about it.
right?

Two, I am more irked with your use by "domain of world governments", not the idea governments can solve problems. This whole global warming "crisis" is providing the perfect excuse and antecedent towards a world state. And "domain of world governments" sure as hell sounds world state'ish. That I have a big problem with.

hate to break it to you, but that is already in progress.
if you don't think so, well, you're welcome to your fantasy, I'll be living here in reality were industrial interests controls the vast majority of power and influence in the world.

Three, I think what you trying to imply here is how people articulate problems (research data etc..), and problem solvers take note of these problems and integrate it into their solutions right? In that they do not have to fall into the same group (to which I imply they ought to), correct? Kind of like environmentalists point out some X-Energy source is being depleted – and engineers or business people ought to find alternatives. Something like that, correct? If not, ignore what I have to say below.

To me, there is nothing wrong with that. I just have a problem when environmentalists start playing the economic and public policy game. To be honest, I should have been more specific towards this. If they have to be involved in that process, they better damn well be more well rounded in terms business and engineering backgrounds. On top of that, done the talk and walk with experience. Otherwise, stay the **** out of it; I sure as hell don’t like situations like the whole ethanol thing repeating itself. That is my problem.

well, you're right to be concerned, but, aren't there tons of politicians out there that are not qualified to be in office?
sure, there are a lot of them, but we don't give up on politics do we? nor do we judge one by the actions of another, it's about who you are and who you associate with.
I agree with the ,eat of your post, I just can't be as cynical, or maybe I am too cynical and can't see another way to go about it.

 

[C.F. Kane]

(Coming in late to the thread)

I'm not buying this whole, "cold winter subtracts from hot summers" theory that Rush is purporting.

Remember, the ocean recedes before a tsunami arrives.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

more importantly?
scientists aren't buying it.
all the while, idiots around the world high five themselves " global warming is a hoax dude!"

 

[Carcharodon]

(Coming in late to the thread)

I'm not buying this whole, "cold winter subtracts from hot summers" theory that Rush is purporting.

Remember, the ocean recedes before a tsunami arrives.

Exactly.

 

[Genesis 1.0]

I get it, I just completely disagree.

With respect to the, "ignorant," comment: take a class on politics or political philosophy one day. Conservatism is characterized by an inherent resistance to change. Liberalism has traditionally been for inciting change, for better or worse. In the general sense, this is primarily how left and right differ (though that certainly isn't the ONLY way).

Take a class? Way ahead of ya there, partner, but you couldn't have known that so it's forgiven. You ill concieved assumption, that is.

We were talking about Republicans and Democrats, you made the leap to Conservatives and I hate to break it to you, but that's a portion of the Party, not the entire Party as the whole of the Republican Party is not conservative.

However, let's take on your thoughts for the subject. Your brand of conservatism is from the 19th century! That brand of political conservatism was born because certain values and beliefs were being lost and trampled upon and therefore early conservative members of the right stood to maintain some sort of tradition.

Conservatism lost its predominantly agrarian and semifeudal bias, and accepted democratic splicing, advocated economic laissez faire, and opposed extension of the welfare state, sp,ething prominently seen in YOUR Democratic Party. This form of conservatism, which is best seen in the most highly industrialized nations, was put on the map by President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher in the UK. TODAY'S conservatism has been flexible and receptive to moderate change, favors the maintenance of order on social issues, and actively supports deregulation and privatization in the economic sphere. WE became the Party of Change and model for any other successful bid in government.

But enough of the history lesson, it doesn't really matter because it's not what YOU took away from it, right?

You've got a total disregard for the facts, something you accuse me of ironically enough.

Now who's making assumptions and generalizations? I never made that argument, or that point. Swing and a miss there, bud.

You're right, you've done everything BUT come out and state it plainly.

 

[bell110]

It's going to be so funny when coastal cities become flooded, and people are going to be look around saying, "Man, I wish someone would have warned us".

 

[SuBe]

It's going to be so funny when coastal cities become flooded, and people are going to be look around saying, "Man, I wish someone would have warned us".

They've been warning that for years, yet it still isn't coming. It's more of Wealth Envy than Scientific Theory.

"Them rich white folk live in hi-rise 'partments. Pah! Wait'll it drowns'm out."

It's the same thing again and again. Evil Rich hurting on the Saintly Poor.

 

[Carcharodon]

They've been warning that for years, yet it still isn't coming. It's more of Wealth Envy than Scientific Theory.

"Them rich white folk live in hi-rise 'partments. Pah! Wait'll it drowns'm out."

It's the same thing again and again. Evil Rich hurting on the Saintly Poor.

Yeah, the estimates for flooding are all over the place.

 

[Carcharodon]

You've got a total disregard for the facts, something you accuse me of ironically enough.

Hey, I was wrong. I'm man enough to admit it, dude. My information was obviously outdated.

If you want to really talk about a disregard for the facts, however, I'll direct you to your very first post...the original post of this thread.

"According to all four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) that have released updated data the last year saw an entire degree drop in global temp that effectively erases 100 Years of warming."

Your apparent, "disregard for the facts," something that was based simply on faulty information, by the way, is at least equal to my own, buddy.

Swing away.

 

[That'ssuper!]

The motivations for most politicians for advocating better protection of global warming are a hoax in a large scale. However, the idea that mankind is the direct cause is for yet to be decided.

 

[UltimateJustin]

The motivations for most politicians for advocating better protection of global warming are a hoax in a large scale. However, the idea that mankind is the direct cause is for yet to be decided.

Um, actually it was hot as hell yesterday and I'm pretty sure I dont remember it being that hot this time last year. 95% of scientists agree that global warming is man-made the only reason republicans deny it is because of no reason. They are just weird.

 

[Genesis 1.0]

Hey, I was wrong. I'm man enough to admit it, dude. My information was obviously outdated.

If you want to really talk about a disregard for the facts, however, I'll direct you to your very first post...the original post of this thread.

"According to all four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) that have released updated data the last year saw an entire degree drop in global temp that effectively erases 100 Years of warming."

Your apparent, "disregard for the facts," something that was based simply on faulty information, by the way, is at least equal to my own, buddy.

Swing away.

Kudos on the first portion.

I don't see how my opening post shows a disregard for fact seeing as I actually researched and pulled that line from the article itself. It wasn't some contrived notion I pulled out of the air for my own benefit, it's what it said in black and white.

Now as I said several pages ago, I have yet to see a transcipt of the actual report so I can't say if that terminology is used in that context, so it's open to discussion in my view.

HOWEVER, until I rread otherwise in the report itself that it's not the case, then I'll stick to it.

I have no ill intent for you on this subject, I'm simply defending what I feel is a valid point of view. At no point in time have I said it was false, I simply suggested that it has been exaggerated and utitlized as a tool to politically bludgeon any opposition, reasonable or otherwise.