its all of us...no one really cares..they only care about whats within their 4 walls and how it affects them and understandably so. It's time to think about our future generations and stop thinking about britney having her ass out..
You're right. Issues are complex, and the average voter really doesn't have the interest or time to dig into them. So they end up voting for the person who strikes them as more capable and reasonable. Sometimes, like with Ronald Reagan, that works. Often, as with Clinton, we end up with a POS. With Bush, I don't think it was that people were so enthralled over him as that they considered the alternatives to be unacceptable. I know I did. Bush has been a terrible president for the most part, but I can't honestly say he has been worse than Gore or Kerry would have been. In fact, I'm reasonably confident he has been better.
"The alternatives are far worse." That's the neocon's most recent propaganda line. How many times have you heard this line from TV talk heads on Iraq? They've run out of positive things to say about themselves. The only thing they have left is to scare the sh*t out of you about the "alternatives." That's really grasping for straws. Even a dog would be a better alternative. BTW, do you still believe that the Weather Channel is liberal-biased?
Did the Weather Channel's "climate specialist" demand that TV weathermen lose their certification if they don't parrot human-caused global warming theory as fact or not? Last time we got on this you claimed not to know, but you've had time to do some research. You need to stop confusing "neo-con" with conservatives as well. If you read much Pat Buchanan, you would know that the neo-cons are bitter enemies of old school conservatives like Pat. I will concede that republicans in general have used the "we're not as bad as them" argument too much. After the Iraq debacle and the immigration battle, that argument is exhausted and they will have to start running on something positive. Being marginally not as bad will not cut it any more, but I'm afraid the party establishment will have to lose a couple more elections for that fact to sink in.
Look, you made the assertion, you prove it. I have no time to check on every gossip that is passed on the web. Besides, any "weathermen" who are blind to facts should lose their certification. Facts do have a liberal bias. Live with it! Lastly, O'Reilly called for assassination of politicians. Does that make FOX a terrorist network? Coulter advocated genocide. Does that make any newspapers that publish her words war criminals?
O'Reilly called for assasinations of which politicians? Certainly not US ones. Coulter called for genocide? That's absurd. She did advocate fighting a war like we intended to win it, and not trying to pretend that we aren't fighting islamist ideology.
Dr. Heidi Cullen, Climate Expert Capitalweather.com, a website for hard-core weather junkies in the DC area, recently published an interview with a local meteorologist that highlights the unfortunate divide that exists right now between the climate and weather communities. Yup, that divide is global warming. When asked about the science of global warming, the meteorologist responded: "The subject of global warming definitely makes headlines in the media and is a topic of much debate. I try to read up on the subject to have a better understanding, but it is complex. Often, it is so politicized and those on both sides don't always appear to have their facts straight. History has taught us that weather patterns are cyclical and although we have noticed a warming pattern in recent time, I don't know what generalizations can be made from this with the lack of long-term scientific data. That's all I will say about this." In an interesting follow-up blog on the reason for this all too common global warming contrarianism within the broadcast meteorology community, journalist Andrew Freedman suggests local TV meteorologist may want to look to the American Meteorological Society for guidance. Freedman goes on to point out that the AMS has in fact, issued a statement on climate change that reads: "There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change." I'd like to take that suggestion a step further. If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming. (One good resource if you don't have a lot of time is the Pew Center's Climate Change 101.) Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement. I agree with every meteorologist who says the topic of global warming has gotten too political. But that's why talking about the science is so important http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html Be sure to read the reader comments to her blog. For background on Heidi Cullen see http://www.weather.com/aboutus/television/ocms/cullen.html This took about two minutes to dig up.
You hyped it up as some kind of political controversy, when in fact she said that meteorologists should educate themselves about the global warming science and should take politics out of the discussion. Trying to take politics out of the discussion is "liberal bias." That's fine with me. Like I said, facts tend to have a liberal bias.
"Maybe it's time to burn down the capitol building like Hitler did with the Reichstag building." Before you claim that it's unfair to attribute posters on the official O'Reilly site to him, O'Reilly claimed on his TV show that he controls what is said on his official blog, and he agrees with everything said there. As for Coulter, you conservatives always only quote the first sentence and claim that we distorted Coulter. Read the whole paragraph and tell me that it was not calling for genocide. "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." Just in case you're as ignorant as Coulter. We did not carpet bomb German cities. Or at least we still pretend we didn't. Even with the atomic bombs on Japan, we targeted military targets. Civilians were unfortunate colateral damages that we tried to avoid. The day we start to bomb civilians intentionally, is the day this nation dies and Coulter wins.