Life’s Funny That Way
Tweet
A group of right-wing bloggers meeting with James Inhofe in order to get the talking points in advance of Al Gore’s congressional testimony (Inhofe is the Senate minority’s chief global warming denier) looks just like how you would imagine it would.
69 Responses to “Life’s Funny That Way”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
So exactly who are the wingnuts in the photo? It would be nice to have a key to match up the face with the blog.
Why is the thought of global warning such a threat to the wingnuts?
the thought of it throws them into a frenzy for some reason. I know whenever I feel like picking on a wingnut I just have to mention Global Warming and Bill Clinton.
My FIL flies into a rage whenever Clinton is mentioned. And then accuses me of BDS!! God, that man is funny.
Why did you pick up so quickly on the “holocaust – type” usage of “deniers,” Oliver?
Why not call us “nonbelievers” or “heretics” or, worse yet, “hippies”?
Frank, that’s a really silly complaint.
“denier” is in fact a neutral term having nothing in specific to do with the holocaust.
If Oliver called them “heretics” or “nonbelievers” people like you would be all over him for using a religious metaphor.
Hippy? Any evidence that deniers are hippies? I would suspect it’s the other way around. Hippies believe (and have long believed) in environmentalism and global warming.
Frank, that’s a really silly complaint.
“denier” is in fact a neutral term having nothing in specific to do with the holocaust.
You’re kidding, right?
Please cite for me another instance where “denier” is commonly used to express the idea that a person doesn’t believe that a certain thing is true.
Sorry about all the bolding. It should read:
Frank, that’s a really silly complaint.
“denier” is in fact a neutral term having nothing in specific to do with the holocaust.
You’re kidding, right?
Please cite for me another instance where “denier” is commonly used to express the idea that a person doesn’t believe that a certain thing is true.
You are in a state of denial thus the logical denier.
Frank, here’s your petard. Would you like some help hoisting yourself upon it?
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/02/362253.html
ps: Ollie, what’s with the minimalist make-over of your site? It looks like McCain’s site except, y’know, with an actual black person on it.
Exactly how you imagine it would?
What like clean, well dressed and intelligent?
Yea, guess so….whats the suprise?
Jimmmm: It wouldn’t open. Any other petards around?
I agree with Frank. The word “denier” along with the words “German”, “fascist” and “Konservative” are loaded words used by libs to associate conservatives with Hitler. Hitler isn’t anything like Republicans today. Hitler had nearly a 100% approval rating. The fact that most Holocaust deniers are conservatives is just a coincidence.
Using the word “denier” is hardly a case of political correctness, so stop saying that!
Well, Beans, you have outdone yourself…
That is your most idiotic comment to date.
But I’m sure if you put what passes for a mind in your case, to it, you can post a stupider comment.
Never, never, never… never give up!
Is Frank seriously taking umbrage to the use of the word “denier”? Noun, meaning “one who denies”?
The reason you hear the word used most often in conjunction with the Holocaust is because that’s the single biggest thing that people have the gall to deny. Denying the existence of global warming makes you a denier. Denying the existence of Muppets would make you a denier.
Find something of substance to argue.
Arguing the existence of global warming makes you an “arguer.”
Debating the existence of global warming makes you a “debater.”
Criticizing Globalwarmians makes you a “critic.”
I ask again, “Please cite for me another instance (besides the Holocaust — a historical event that already took place) where “denier” is commonly used to express the idea that a person doesn’t believe that a certain thing is true.”
I would like to takt this opportunity to ask that we all stop, take a deep breath and realize something. You’re trying to argue with Frank. Frank. That Frank right there. You’re trying to make him see sense, and trying to convince him that you’re not calling him a nazi-sympathizer. You’re trying to get him to concede something he’s not incluned to acknowledge. You’re trying to argue with Frank. Frank.
Frank.
I should listen to Rex, but….
Frank, they are not debating Global Warming and they are not critiquing Global Warming.
They are denying Global Warming.
Googling reveals their are HIV deniers, Turkish Armenian massacre deniers, and apparently there fabric deniers as well as clothing for deniers.
It’s pretty nifty clothing too.
Evolution deniers. 9/11 deniers. Alien Abduction deniers.
It’s all available through google.
(Use froogle for the lingerie.)
In other words, Rex has decided that there is no point to an obvious “choice of words for effect.”
Rex has.
Neither he, nor anyone else can deny that word “denier” is fraught with context, and puts one who doubts the imminent demise of planet Earth, due to global warming, in the same group with Islamofascists and Neo – Nazis who deny that the Holocaust ever took place.
All these words are available to Globalwarmians to desribe people who disagree with them:
Frank, not only are you a global warming denier, but you are a serial html abuser.
LOL!!
Go ahead, Frank. Deny it.
Frank’s right. Oliver could have called them “gainsayers” rather than deniers. “Deniers” is just a lib attempt to associate conservative Americans with Nazis.
But Rex says that the choosing of the term “denier” was coincidental, and in no way related to the Holocaust.
…if Frank says it, it can’t be true.
Yes, Rex said that.
Do you understand me? Rex said that.
Not that I disagree with either statement, and not that I imagine objective fact will stop you trolling, but I never actually said any of that Frank.
Also, what say we leave the HTML tags to people who actually understand the inter-tubes, and arent confused by codespeak like “nvm” or “lol”, mmkay?
Frank, they are not debating Global Warming
Exsqueeze me?
The problem is that only the Globalwarmians have called the debate closed, and thus classify people who consider the subject debatable, “deniers.”
Jerry finds “Evolution deniers. 9/11 deniers. Alien Abduction deniers,” and “HIV deniers, Turkish Armenian massacre deniers.” Some company for people who have taken an opposing side in a controversial issue.
So, even if there is no connection between the term “denier” and the Holocaust (and that is giving a great benefit of the doubt), it is still a derisive and condescending term.
Denier (dən-yā’)provides a scale for the heaviness (largely related to thickness) of fibers in a fabric.
I suppose this is the kind of veracity and accuracy that should convince me that you Globalwarmians are armed with the truth.
Shorter Frank: “How dare you commie-symp terror-loving liberal moonbats refer to us with derisive and condescending terms!“
Hey, Rex. What say we leave the “mmkay” to the juveniles that are still watching “South Park”, and the “nvm” and “lol” to kids who get their jollies in chat rooms.
Oh, wait… YoU aRe a kId.
ROFLMAO
Rheinhard: Did you learn to be a jerk, or does it come naturally?
So, even if there is no connection between the term “denier” and the Holocaust (and that is giving a great benefit of the doubt), it is still a derisive and condescending term.
After your performance in this thread I’m fine with just going back to “idiot.”
So, can we just put Frank down as a “denier denier” and leave it at that?
How about Global Warming Nu-uh-ers?
I, for one, can’t bring myself to feel too bad about being “derisive and condescending” towards global warming gainsayers, contradictors, repuditators, etc.
…do you know, I keep wondering if Frank insanity is actually his self-satirizing himself to try and prove a subtle point about neocon blindness to their own rhetorical hypocrasy. Then I have a glass of water, think, and realize that he probably doesnt have the time, what with working so dilligently on whatever it was that was supposed to revolutionize the world of technology I’m so very sure.
Also I was channeling Lumbergh, not Mackey. Again, not that facts have any effect on you.
In comprimise though, lets consider what the term should be. Now the “deniers” aren’t really debating the point, just trying to use random anecdotal evidence to argue all of science is wrong (Greenland wasnt always snowy! Mars is melting! Its winter now! etc.) so “debaters” or “arguers” arent appropriate, and neither is “critics” which implies reasoned judgement and analysis, which is lacking in their argument to the point where lack of proof is considered proof itself.
Theyre not “Ignorers” because they spend so much time coming up with bogus arguments.
“Refusers” works, but then Frank would tie that to Refuse as a term for garbage and would say we’re calling him smelly.
“Oppugners” works too, but the term is obscure and Frank would think we’re probably calling him gay by using such a fancy word, and since his feeling must be considered above all else, thats right out. Likewise “Gainsayers” has Gay right at the beginning and must be excluded for the same reason.
Ah, Reject works, both of its definitions too. “1: To refuse to acknowledge or consider the truth of. 2: To vomit up or spit out.” So from here on in, to make Frank feel better, lets call him a GW-Reject. That work for you Frank?
Holy cats!
Who decorated that man’s office? I’ll bet there are Tiajuana brothels with more class.
Leave it to the Democrats to invite a thoroughly discredited celebrity like the Goracle to make the case for squandering 2%~5% of our contry’s GDP on fixing a problem that can’t be fixed.
Now the “deniers” aren’t really debating the point
Gee, that sounds a lot like:The problem is that only the Globalwarmians have called the debate closed, and thus classify people who consider thesubject debatable, deniers.”
No doubt you were so busy preparing your oh – so – witty insults that you failed to read that.
I will concede that you briefly brushed up against accuracy, and then left it behind, when you said I was trying to prove a subtle point.
You, of course, were dreadfully wrong about the point I was trying to make. It was that you have all (not just you, Rex)exhibited the very condescension and derisiveness you claimed were not present in the term “denier.”
I wonder what you’ll say when the icebergs don’t melt, and the coastlines are not flooded. I’m sure I won’t be saying “I told you so.”
But a whole lot of other people will — the people you are making fun of now, as if we have either hidden our heads in the sand (we have not), or can’t read a scientific article (we can).
“Greenland wasn’t always snowy! Mars is melting! It’s winter now!” were not arguments I ever used. I only pointed out that this is one of the coldest winters in years to be funny. There are plenty of paleoclimatologists and climatologists that are not packing for higher ground.
The last time you Globalwarmians ganged up on me, I was accused of not seriously debating by, let me think now — you, Rex!
dugger provided you with six Martian – free arguments, and I provided you with six links regarding the errors in the whole Global Warming Canon, and a link to an article about “scientific consensus”.
Your response, at that time, was: None.
*sighs* This’ll be a long one. I’m about to waste the better part of my day actually refuting the nonsense posted in the thread after I said I would leave it, for which apparently it was decided that I have absolutely nothing to say.
From the link
Youre already off to a roaring start Frank. Not reading the article and dictating that it says nothing that argues against you. Pure brilliance.
As an aside, the fact of this accelleration kind of demonstrates how all the cyclical massive climate changes throughout earths history have already been accounted for by those oh-so stupid scientists, and I would hope would silence related factiod-vomiting, but I am not holding my breath.
Later you post six links.
Link 1 is what looks like a scientific report, but quotes like “you are being propagandized by frauds, The science is too clear to call it anything but fraud,” expose not simply the inporn bias of the author, but the fact that he doesnt understand that he’s trying to use science to refute the scientific consensus, as though the actual, you know, scientists themselves were shooting in the fucking dark.
Link 2 is to USAToday about how in climatology, as in All science everywhere, some data is imprecise or inaccurately measured, and some data points are outliers, and how theories have to be changed to fit incoming data to predict later data. Nothing contradicting GW, as the penultimate paragraph concedes it as real.
Link 3 says that global climate changes have occurred in the past, and as Ive said, these have been accounted for. The author of that page cites no source or exposes any awareness of that distinction, and makes the repeated “scientists are so stupid not to have seen that” argument.
Link 4 You cant possibly have even read, since it shows how resolved errors in previous global climate models actually strengthen the GW argument. Seriosuly, go read. Starts with GW-Rejects arguing that the lack of change in the troposphere disproves global warming, then better research shows it was actually heating. You actually just googled “Global Warming Error” and pasted the link without actually reading the damn thing at all didnt you? teh lulz, Frank. teh lulz all over your face.
Link 5 contains too much to be addressed specifically, which is a pity since as the blue-sky non-scrolling background clearly shows as well as the fact it hasnt been updated in a year and a half, this is a page to take with deadly seriousness. Seems like a hub for GW-Reject thinking though, and doesnt at first blush present anything new that I havent personally addressed, I see the global cycles Ive mentioned before, the Sunspot non-issue Ive talked about in other threads, and a bunch of confused looking graphs. Wont go to much further into it since you used the link itself as proof not referencing a specific one of the disparate ideas presented on it, so I’m left to assume you believe the existence of the webpage is proof enough. Its not.
Link 6 Deals with the problem of the “broken hockey stick” in a study by two people, McKitrick and McIntyre, neither of whom are scientists in any field. I dont have time to first explain the “Hockey Stick” Proxy based temperature reconstruction and compose a point by point on how the two Mc’s are, in spite of their lack of scientific field of study of any sort, wrong, I’ll point you over to RealClimate’s rebuttal to them. Since I’m fairly positive you havent read any of the previous scientific analysis, much less even the report your linked article discusses, I’m fairly certain you wont read my link either, but there it is in case any intellectually honest person is looking.
Then Dugger, who has the distinction of making you look reasonable, Frank, has seven points to make:
1. Large-scale global climate shifts have happened before (Accounted for already)
2. Large-scale global climate shifts have still happened before (Accounted for already already)
3. People who say science is a meaningless lie are told to shut up and that’s mean
4. Some people say its a potential crisis (no suggestion that such a claim is wrong, just the statement that some people say it)
5. Global Cooling! Global Cooling! Global Cooling!
6. GW-ers argue that CO2 correlates to Temperature only using a small time scale. (This is severely untrue, off by about 600,000 years)
7. GW-ers are liberal, and presumably, wrong about everything as a result.
Then after you both arguing that the consensus is important because it doesnt exist, and yet unimportant even though it does, you basically say…
Which I suppose is your way of saying that since you all said these things last that all the stuff we’ve said before that addressed it already retroactively un-exists.
…Goddamit Ive spent an hour typing this… thats free time I’ll never get back all because you refuse to ask critical questions of the info points you’re given and research bogus horseshit like “Global Cooling!” and “Snowy Greenland!” and “Maaaaaaarrrss!!” before you go and use it to prove that basically the entire scientific establishment is wrong. Godsdammit thats an hour that you lot should have spent actually looking this stuff up yourselves, its not hard to find. Google, motherfuckers! GOOGLE!
Know what? New rule Frank: If you present any argument (not just a group of unquoted out of context URLs) against Global Warming, and I do a Google Search on it, and an explanation of how its untrue is within the first 10 results, then you have to… well what would be fair Frank? What should you have to do the next time you or Dugger or DrP waste everyones time with garbage non-arguments like that?
Mmmmm, this room seriously needs a decorator!
Rex, send me a bill… In this case, since you have once again stated, “Since I’m fairly positive you haven’t read any of the previous scientific analysis, much less even the report your linked article discusses, I’m fairly certain you wont read my link either,”, we’re now even, because I’ve wasted my time, haven’t I?
[aside: Is your apostrophe broken? It's next to the right hand Enter key]
As for realclimate, I get their emailed newsletter, which is WAY, WAY more attention to your side of the argument than you pay to mine.
As for realclimate, I get their emailed newsletter, which is WAY, WAY more attention to your side of the argument than you pay to mine.
…you’re serious…
[RealClimate] RealClimate.org: New Post Inbox
Reply
Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add org to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled?
“RealClimate. org”
to realclimate
show details
Mar 20 (1 day ago)
A new entry titled ‘Has Pacific Northwest snowpack declined? Yes.’ has been posted to RealClimate.org.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=426
——————————————————
You have signed up to receive these notifications.
If you would like to unsubscribe, visit the url below:
http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/realclimate
_______________________________________________
RealClimate New Posting Notification list
contrib@realclimate.org
Well technically thats posting notification, not a newsletter. Secondly, do you actually bother to followup on the links? And if so how did you not know about the manifest problems with the McStudy you linked to before? Third, gettting a “newsletter” that you dont seem to take seriously enough to bother reading the articles is you paying more attention to my side than I pay to yours by going out of my way to research on my own times the claims and counterclaims made and putting them up for debate (for which I am called a pretentious, self-loathing, immature child moron)? Fourth, not to put too fine a point on it, but I think we’re all still waiting for that definitive empirical proof of God’s existence.
Rex, did you expect me to post the newsletter? Then you’d say that doesn’t prove I actually get it (which it wouldn’t).
Besides, as you’ve pointed out, you don’t believe I read it.
As for “going out of [your] way to research on [your] own time”, who do you suppose is paying me?
I’m sure the name calling cuts you to the quick. Want a hint on how to stop it? You’re a smart boy, you should be able to figure it out faster than I can interpret “nvm”: Stop insulting me, I stop insulting you.
As for the “definitive empirical proof of God’s existence”, I didn’t promise it to you or anyone.
I KNOW I didn’t, so don’t go hunting down some old comment that you think says that, and try to make prove to you that I didn’t mean what you say I mean.
That’s that “aggressive”, “immature” stuff I was talking about.
Rex, did you expect me to post the newsletter? Then you’d say that doesn’t prove I actually get it (which it wouldn’t).
Prove this empirically.
Besides, as you’ve pointed out, you don’t believe I read it.
Because you deny the existence of evidence that the newsletter would surely point you to. If you “read” them you cant possibly take them seriously at all.
Stop insulting me, I stop insulting you.
You consider the word “Deny” to be an insult. How exactly am I suppposed to avoid it?
As for the “definitive empirical proof of God’s existence”, I didn’t promise it to you or anyone.
I KNOW I didn’t, so don’t go hunting down some old comment…
Too late, and I concede that while you said you had the evidence, yeah, you never said you’d let us see it. Must be pretty awesome objective evidence to be so cool that you cant let anyone see it.
Golden tablets in a bucket, hidden in a cave somewhere in northern new York, no doubt.
Rex,
You haven’t accounted for jacksh*t in the all-manmade-global-warming-debate. Your debate technique amounts to “shut up, because it hurts when I try to think.”
You have the cowardly luxury of posting on a left wing site where there is knee jerk unthinking acceptance of all things left wing political – and thats precisley what the all- manmade-global-warming hucksterism is. Your chief spokesman is a lifelong rich kid son a anti-civil rights politician. He has a degree in Government. Thats right Government. Carbon offsets, my *ss!
Prove this empirically.
Besides, as you’ve pointed out, you don’t believe I read it.
You didn’t believe I read it, did you? And you said, “That’s a posting notification [of a post URL of the newsletter], not a newsletter.”
Proof enough for me.
You consider the word “Deny” to be an insult. How exactly am I supposed to avoid it?
>*BZZT*
You haven’t accounted for jacksh*t in the all-manmade-global-warming-debate. Your debate technique amounts to “shut up, because it hurts when I try to think.”
So… what then, you just skipped over all the evidential analysis I link to and argue? Also I’m not sure where Ive just said “Shut Up,” but I’m pretty sure that wherever I have it would have had to be in the context of pointing out that, for instance, saying I’m scared of debate isnt actually debating anything, and that throwing random anecdote out as self-evident proof insults the entire scientific method, and that since such things help nobody in the long run, that they should be stopped. Am I wrong? Where have I basically said “Please stop talking, those facts challenge my worldview and I refuse to provide scientific rebuttal?”
You have the cowardly luxury of posting on a left wing site where there is knee jerk unthinking acceptance of all things left wing political – and thats precisley what the all- manmade-global-warming hucksterism is. Your chief spokesman is a lifelong rich kid son a anti-civil rights politician. He has a degree in Government. Thats right Government. Carbon offsets, my *ss!
Oh, also he’s gay. You forgot to say that he’s gay. And fat. And a dozen other very very relevant things. Oh, and the “coward, kneejerk, unthinking” stuff? Yeah… how exactly is that proving that you’re the one who wants open and honest debate while I and my citations want to silence it? I’m clearly too immature to see how smart you is.
I said calling me a Global Warming denier was an insult.
…but you deny global warming. Is it not an accurate term? I mean the difference seems to me to be between “Italian American” and “American of Italian Descent” which basically describe the same characteristics without editorializing, but its like you’re somehow hearing one as saying “Wop Dago Greaseball” or something. Okay, fine then. Youre not a Denier, youre “One Who Denies.” Feel better grumpy bear?
I said if I didn’t have sufficient evidence to believe in God, then I wouldn’t believe in God.
I didn’t say the evidence was awesome, objective, or empirical.
You find unverifiable evidence to be sufficient? Oh… well then no wonder nobody can argue with you. The validity of evidence and argument is meaningless to you. What does it take to make evidence sufficient then? Seriously, I’m curious, I want to figure out how your brain works this out, what makes subjective, non-empirical evidence sufficient to you?
Rex, you magnificent bastard, you are very, very brave.
Rex,I don’t go to a barber to fix my plumbing and I don’t go to a scientist to find out about God.
When I believed in an impersonal God,who, in effect, created the Universe, and took Eternity offm I didn’t ask a priest or a scientist to prove to me that God exists.
I asked God to prove to me that He existed. One day in April of 1986, I just knew He existed. Nothing has disproved it since.
If the day ever comes that I think you people are mature enough, I’ll tell you how and why it happened.
Hey, Rex handles both Frank AND Dugger with two brain cells, and talent ON LOAN FROM GOD.
Rex, I have to say I admire your work ethic. Mopping up after these two ignorant bastards takes TIME and EFFORT!
Wellstone: Apparently you don’ nee’ no e-stinkin’ suggestions from Oliver…
I asked God to prove to me that He existed. One day in April of 1986, I just knew He existed. Nothing has disproved it since.
If the day ever comes that I think you people are mature enough, I’ll tell you how and why it happened.
I’m gonna take a stab in the dark here.
“I’m gonna take a stab in the dark here.”
ROFL. Mercy …
zython and frameone: I told I would wait until you were mature enough…
The question is, will I live to be 100?
Rex,I don’t go to a barber to fix my plumbing and I don’t go to a scientist to find out about God.
Why not? I did, and think my faith all the stronger for it as it becomes malleable and thus more reliable and doesnt rely on believing a specific ancient book be inerrant. But then thats just me, and I’m a stupid child.
Jesus Keerist, Frank. Lighten the fuck up. What a loser.
I learned a long time ago to respect people’s religious beliefs. Of course, I was about 19 — much older than you lamebrains.
frame, you’re telling me to lighten up?
You’re so intense, I can feel your hair on fire when you post.
If you act like a fucking idiot, step up and admit it. Don’t put it on me.
Like I said, I knew that there probably less than three mature lefties on this blog, and Oliver may be one of them.
And Rex, why don’t you once, just once, act like an adult, and who knows? I may treat you like one.
But as long as you continue these “frameone wannabe” keyboard tantrums, I’ll never shake that image of you spitting Zweiback out of a playpen
Let’s just lay to rest the last few stupid talking points on this insipid argument.
Global warming is a phenomenon recognized by essentially all governments across the globe. It is not a Democratic issue. Furthermore, it is acknowledged by nearly every corporation on the planet – including Shell, Chevron and BP, whose product contributes mightily to the problem. It was even prominently discussed in the President’s last State of the Union address: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070123-2.html
This is not new information to anybody, but it bears repeating because this might be a situation in which either Frank is wrong or his idol, George W. Bush is.
While I am feeling generous with my time, let me also lay to rest the last stupid argument that has been heretofore unexplored in these meandering discussions. William was the most eloquent in expressing this opinion:
“Leave it to the Democrats to invite a thoroughly discredited celebrity like the Goracle to make the case for squandering 2%~5% of our contry’s GDP on fixing a problem that can’t be fixed.”
I am not sure whether william can fully grasp this or not, but when we “squander” 2-5% of our GDP, it is not being polluted into a river or sent up a smokestack. It is redirected to an entrepreneur who makes a water purifier, a smokestack scrubber, a solar panel, or a plug-in hybrid car. That person then buys the toys and cheese doodles that the former polluter might have made.
More likely, the polluter who still has gobs of cash from his polluting days buys the new technology and makes it cheaper and more available and the wealth increases for everybody. This might explain why BP is spending $500 million on a biofuels research lab at UC Berkeley and why they are likewise acknowledging global warming. This is how the world works and why even the naysayers, the last pitiful vermin who crawl between the cracks at OW, should come into the light of day and see how we’re living these days.
And Rex, why don’t you once, just once, act like an adult, and who knows? I may treat you like one.
Ive to much self-respect to demean myself in order to earn yours.
…oops
zadura,
Bullsh*t. Predominant manmade global warming is just left wing politics pure and simple. Why else try to squash debate and ruin the careers of indepedent thinkers who doubt politican Gore’s ‘scientific’ assessments.
“Greenland”
“Mars global warming”
“sunspots”
These phrases have been officially eliminated from the progressive’s dictionary. Thinking about any of these concepts will result in loss of career!
Thinking about any of these concepts will result in loss of career!
As do the terms
“Crop Circles”
“Cattle Mutilations”
“Bermuda Triangle”
and
“Bigfoot”
Right Wing Voice of Reason
Rex Mundane*
It is a sad thing when being respected by someone is demeaning.
Especially when someone chooses to act childishly more often than not.
Didn’t I see Right Wing Voice of Reason coming out of that phone booth, right after Rex Mundane went in?
Duros62 | Mar 21, 2007 6:12:14 PM
“Rex, you magnificent bastard, you are very, very brave.”
I second Duros!! Rex, a thoroughly FUCKING entertaining and articulate thread!
Hmmm. Odd, you never see them in a picture together…
And Right Wing Voice of Reason wears glasses, but….
Ahh, never mind. Couldn’t be.
How do you get such great photos of Right Wing Voice of Reason, Rex?