That's funny coming from a fundie who is proud to be thought of as a willing sheep dumbly following that invisible, sky-dwelling Grand Wizard of all Shepherds, Jeebus. He/she gladly admits to being a sheep when it comes to a 2000 year old book of myths, especially the Old Testament part of it, yet chastises others for being "sheep" to reality. That's rich.
Exactly, IM. Timbo is quick to accuse libs of being so emotionally attached to their ideology that they refuse to see the facts, but he is completely oblivious to how he is at least as emotionally attached to his conservative ideology as any liberal is to theirs.
When I first heard about climate change many years ago and its likely link to human activity and our burning of fossil fuels, I did not see it in any way as a political or liberal/conservative issue. I looked upon it as a purely scientific one. I really did not have any ideological persuasion or bias as to what the truth of the matter might be. I tried to listen to and weigh the facts as objectively as possible. And in order to come to a conclusion I paid the most attention to those who would be the most inclined to know what they are talking about - the climate scientists who have been studying it for years. And it was obvious that Big Oil and the off-shoot industries would have the most to lose if anthropogenic global warming were proven to be true.
Personally, I would like to think that spewing our carbon-based and otherwise toxic fumes into the atmosphere were not in any way responsible. That would allow me to have a cleaner conscience about how we have most likely ruined the planet for future generations and would absolve me or any of us from taking action to clean up - or at least TRY to clean up - this nasty mess we have made.
This should not be a political issue but rather a purely scientific one. But conservatives have become so radicalized in their unanimous suspicion and even hatred of science that they try to make the public believe that even scientists are liberal ideologues with a liberal agenda and cannot be trusted.
As has been stated before, conservatives believe that even reality has a liberal bias.
Mr. Smith, it wasn't Obama who created "the resulting vacuum (that) allowed radical Islamic fascist groups like ISIS to move in." That would be directly attributable to George W. Bush and his phony war based on phony claims of phony WMD and Hussein's phony ties to al-Qaeda. As bad as Saddam Hussein was, at least he kept the Mideast, or a large portion of it, somewhat stabilized. Now, if we want to prevent some other dictator or fascist group more ruthless than Saddam from taking control, which seems to be inevitable without a strong military presence, our only recourse is to maintain a constant, i.e. never-ending, military presence, most likely involving combat troops. And for that, you can thank, not Obama, but George Mission Accomplished Bush.
Yes, the fiasco with Clarence Thomas was a modern-day lynching alright. But it wasn't Thomas who got lynched. Anita Hill was strung up and left swinging like a sack of 'taters. Clarence Thomas reeked so much of sexual perversion you could smell it through the TV screen. But conservatives won out, convincing a gullible public that Anita Hill just wanted her "15 minutes of fame" (but what woman could possibly want THAT kind of fame?!) and liberals just hated the thought of a black conservative on the Supreme Court. Yep, you got it right, Ms. Parker - lynching indeed.
Timbo, I find it utterly fascinating how you can so easily see a financial bias among climate scientists and those who accept their findings, yet you turn a blind eye to those who have the most obvious financial interest of all - Big Oil and the many related polluting industries. The campaign against climate change that is being waged is almost identical to that which took place not too many years ago by the tobacco industry against the findings of the scientists whose research was indicating a definite link between smoking and cancer. The tobacco companies spent massive amounts of money in advertising that contradicted the findings of those scientists and massive amounts of money in hiring their own "scientists" (shills) to do their own rigged research that contradicted those findings as well. Do you honestly think that Big Oil and the many other polluting industries are standing idly by, disinterested in the outcome and not doing everything in their power to convince the public that climate change is a hoax and that burning fossil fuels is perfectly clean and harmless? The campaign against global warming is practically a carbon copy (pardon the pun) of the former tobacco industry campaigns against the dangers of tobacco. Only a complete fool would refuse to see the similarities.
Do you honestly think that EVERY climate scientist, worldwide, is involved in a massive liberal conspiracy, just so they can keep the grant money flowing or whatever?
Oh wait...I'm forgetting a very important point that you made not long ago, timbo: you said that there is no such thing as a climate scientist, that those scientists who have studied climate change are only composed of a "hodge-podge" of various middling scientists and researchers and they don't know what they are talking about. But YOU, a chemist, having conducted your own extensive research and having a much better understanding of science in general than they do, know for a FACT that human induced climate change is NOT happening.
How silly of me to have forgotten the sage words of such a brilliant mind as yours. I take back everything I said, folks. Anthropogenic global warming IS indeed a liberal hoax. Big Oil and the polluting industries have NO skin in the game whatsoever and therefore are playing fair and standing idly by while the two sides duke it out. The massive amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that we overpopulating humans and our cars and trucks and foundries and industries have belched into the atmosphere these past hundred years and more have had NO detrimental effects whatsoever. And why do I know this? Because Timmy the Chemist/Renaissance Man has said so! End of discussion. Now, everybody....go ahead and burn that oil. Burn, baby, burn! It's what made America great and exceptional, therefore it can't be wrong. Timmy the Chemist says so.
Good grief, David Cook, you're acting like you two signed an armistice between two warring countries or something. You expressed an OPINION, for cryin' out loud, and Ms. Williams was petty enough to get her undies in a wad over it. Bully for her for finally growing up and allowing you to have your opinion without her whining and threatening to go home and not play in the same sandbox with you.
But how do we all just get along when opposing opinions are more than mere opinions and have such a personal and tangible effect on so many people? We have two basic ideological camps in America, the very essence of each affecting the livelihood of those who espouse the other. We have already engaged in all the civil, as well as uncivil, discourse and debate that we can possibly engage in and still there is no seeing eye to eye, with little if any desire to compromise.
There are those whose OPINIONS become votes and blocks of support for politicians who believe that health insurance is not a right for all but a privilege for those who can afford it. And they are doing everything they possibly can to take away our first and only hope of universal health care since the inception of Medicare. Their OPINIONS will have a direct and very personal effect on the lives of millions of people, causing a multitude of deaths, even.
And there are those whose OPINIIONS are such that pregnant women should be prisoners of the government and have no say whatsoever in making their own decisions about what should be a very private and personal matter for each one of them.
And there are those whose OPINIONS dictate that we all live under the thumb of corporate fascism (euphemistically called the “free” market) and who regard any and all forms of socialistic polices for the common good as evil and “un-American.”
And there are those whose OPINIIONS are such that they deny the scientific, factual evidence of human induced global warming and are doing everything in their power to block the needed steps to save us from almost certain cataclysm in the near future, on account of their blind-deaf-and-dumb indifference.
So then, write for us an article about how we can all just meet for lunch at Wally's and smile and exchange pleasantries, knowing full well that while we smile and eat and talk about "family, jobs, God and headlines," the OPINIONS of one camp mean deprivation, loss of personhood, and certain death for the other. Write about how we can all just get along - i.e. truly live harmoniously together and not just smile and play nice - in spite of those crater-sized differences that in essence define who we are, and then you will surely have something to crow about.
Over the years I had read various articles about Cosby in which people who knew him well spoke of what a jerk he was, that he had a huge, insufferable ego. I didn't really give them much thought at the time because most celebrities probably have pretty big egos, so what's the big deal, right? But now it appears that he didn't just have a big ego but a monstrous ego. Of course, that still is not proof that he sexually abused and drugged and raped those women, but it certainly adds credibility to the likelihood of it.
I say let the Duggars express their narrow-minded, bigoted views all they want. They serve as a good example of how people ought NOT to be. But their show should be taken off the air (it should never have made it to air in the first place) because they are lunatics and as such their rabbit-breeding life-style ought not to be celebrated in any way. Any couple who has 19 kids is seriously psycho. There is NOTHING virtuous or praiseworthy about that, and to make celebrities of them is disgusting.
Here is yet another nail in the coffin of Bill Cosby's phony public image:
But I imagine that your response will be that this 90 year-old gentleman who worked closely with Cosby for a number of years and knew him well is just wanting his 15 minutes of fame, too?
I'm not really sure what to take away from this article. We will probably never know the truth of what happened but it's really hard to discredit the stories of so many women coming forward. And these are women who did not know each other and yet their stories are so similar in so many ways. And they have very little, if anything, to gain from coming forward at this late date, knowing full well that there is no way of proving their allegations. Yet so many people seem to be in love with the polished public image of Bill Cosby that they refuse to even allow for the possibility, let alone the probability, that he committed such heinous acts against young, naïve, highly vulnerable women.
It is likely that Mr. Cosby was very generous and gracious in many ways besides the instance that Mr. Cook cites here. But it is also highly probable that he was manipulative,insidious and coercive when it came to satisfying his sexual appetites. And so how are we supposed to view such a man with such a split personality? Somehow I don't think that it's right to say, "Well, yeah, he drugged, raped, and sexually abused women, but then there is Mallen's story and what a great, sensitive guy he was, so what the hell"...and then everyone join in singing "He's a jolly good fellow!"