Thanking Rush For The Democrat Dilemma
As we continue to enjoy the spectacle of the Democrats in the process of imploding, we need to pause in order to thank the person who made it all possible---Rush Limbaugh. Although Hillary Clinton declined to give Rush credit for her Texas win, most election observers disagree. One of those giving Rush full credit for the Democrat implosion is an election official in Texas as you can see in this Wall Street Journal BLOG titled, "The Limbaugh Effect on Clinton’s Texas Win." While you enjoy the entertainment provided by the battling Democrats over the next few months, please remember the person who made it all possible. So let us now watch the Wall Street WAllies observe the Rush Limbaugh Effect on the Democrats in Red State Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, hoping this DUFU edition earns him a Rush 24/7 membership, is in the [brackets]:
Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh led a campaign to have his Republican followers in Texas cross party lines and vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton in the state’s open primary last Tuesday. Why? Because Limbaugh thinks Republicans can defeat Clinton in a general election. Plus, watching Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama bloody each other in a nomination fight is pure sport for Limbaugh conservatives.
[The pure sport provides the Limbaugh conservatives with pure entertainment.]
According to exit polls, Clinton won a notably higher number of Republican voters than she has in past open primary contests. Of the 9% of voters who identified themselves as Republicans in the Democratic Primary, Obama still edged Clinton 53%-46%. However, that margin is significantly slimmer than earlier contests. In Wisconsin’s open primary, for instance, Republicans broke 72%-28% for Obama. Similarly, in Virginia’s open primary, Obama was favored 72%-23%.
Clinton unquestionably secured a Texas victory, but some locals are convinced it was a false win bolstered by dirty politics. Laura Jean Kreissl, an accounting professor at West Texas A&M University, served as an election official in Canyon, Texas on Tuesday. She contacted the Wall Street Journal to report the hijinks she observed at the four precincts that voted at her polling location.
[It's okay with Democrats when members of their party cross over to vote for McCain but when EVIL Republicans cross over to vote for Hillary it is "dirty politics."]
Of the 181 voters she personally dealt with, 70 offered that they were “Rush Limbaugh voters” who were there to cast ballots for Clinton. “I’m here to vote for Hillary Clinton, I want to see the Democratic Party implode,” one voter told Kreissl, she recounted in an interview. “I was just stunned,” she said. “As an election official we can’t say anything. We just jot them down and let them vote.”
[I would have LOVED to have been there to see the outraged look on Liberal Kreissl's face as she had to helplessly stand by as an army of dittoheads caused the Democrat Party implosion.]
Kreissl, an Obama supporter, said she kept rough counts, but her fellow poll worker, a Clinton supporter, both estimated that as many as two-thirds of the voters were Limbaugh Republicans turned Clinton voters. About 800 ballots were cast in total there. “I’m an accounting professor, I know numbers pretty well,” she said.
[Hee! Hee! The army of mind-numbed robots ruined an Obama supporter's day.]
Kreissl worked a 19 hour day to also help organize the caucus event later that night. Similarly, she said she personally checked in 20 Obama supporters and 17 Clinton supporters. Of Clinton’s 17, 10 identified themselves as Rush Limbaugh voters, she said.
[Elmer FUdd being fooled once again by that Wascally Wabbit, Wush.]
She’s convinced the Limbaugh voters turned the tide in favor of Clinton. “I don’t think we were an isolated case by any means,” she said. “I think it was very widespread across the state.”
[All across the fruited plain.]
The grassroots group, Republicans for Obama, agrees. “Hillary Clinton owes her political life to Rush Limbaugh,” they wrote on their web site Wednesday.
[A debt that Hillary has yet to thank Rush for.]
Rush Limbaugh is also convinced. “Don’t Doubt the Limbaugh Effect,” he boasts on his web site.
["I Don't Doubt the Limbaugh Effect," stated the humble correspondent still hoping for that Rush 24/7 membership. And now to hear from the WAllie commentors... WAllie! WAllie! WAllie!]
Tempest in a teapot. A good joke but nothing more.
[Nothing more than a major Democrat implosion. Nothing to see here. Move along.]
If the Texas Democratic Party were worried about “drive-by voters,” the party would have had a closed primary.
[Closed primaries are a good idea but as long as they are open, this is what you can expect. Only it is good when Democrats cross over but BAD when EVIL Republicans do the same thing.]
This is great. There is nothing i love more than to hear Democrats moan and cry. Hey! Your heart is bleeding!
[Cue up the Johnny Ray "Cry" song.]
As a lifelong Republican who agrees with most of John McCain’s platform, I am ashamed at Limbaugh’s attitude and strategy. I want the best candidate from each party to be nominated. I think the best Democratic nominee is Barack Obama, far and above Clinton. And I am seriously contemplating a vote for Obama (and perhaps even Clinton) if I seriously felt that Limbaugh’s influence affected the Texas primary.
["Lifelong Republican" is the strongest tell out there that you are a Democrat pretending to be a Republican.]
I am a Texas Republican who voted in the Democrat Party for Hill and left the rest of the ballot blank. If you go to the Texas Sec of State website and look, 22% of the registered voters in Texas voted in the Texas Democrat Primary, but only 17% voted in the other statewide race on the ballot, for US senator. That is such a huge difference ( the difference on the republican side is about 1% ) that I think its pretty convincing evidence that Republicans crossed over big time. Since we really only wanted to watch the mudslinging for a bit longer and cared nothing about those down ballot clowns, we made one mark on the ballot and left. Unfortunately, my voter registration card is now branded with the Scarlet letter of having voted in the Democrat Primary, but I can claim I lost my voter registration card and have a new one sent to me, if I can bear the shame.
[You need to cleanse your soul of that Big D Scarlet letter. Until then you are condemned to eating bean sprouts and driving hybrid cars.]
If the Washington Post wants to have any credibility, it shouldn’t peddle such rubbish as Rush Limbaugh had any influence.
[A fervent plea to ignore reality.]
Rush Limbaugh should be ashamed of himself as an American abusing the high privilege of a free citizen’s vote. Is this what we want to show the rest of this world where democracy is going ?
[But...but according to the previous poster, Rush Limbaugh had absolutely no effect on the Texas primary so why are you so upset?]
The Fat, Foul Mouthed Hypocritical One who swallows pain killers by the bucketful is the guru of the conservative movement? Please bring back William Buckley Jr. and the quiet intellectuals who really shape ideas and movements. You faux conservatives need to learn how to read a book again and shut off talk radio
[Shutting off talk radio is high on the Democrat agenda. I think they call it the "Fairness Doctrine."]
Clearly it was Rush who persuaded Republicans to vote that way. They never would have been smart enough to think of something like that themselves.
[We...are...mind-numbed robots...who...need...to be...told...how...to think.]
The MSM and professional Dem Pols like Ann Lewis are appalled that Rush was able to mobilize GOP conservatives and throw a monkey wrench into their stupid primary process and dumb Howard Dean rules. A little mischief will go a long way as this will be a very enjoyable spectacle culminating in an absolute debacle in Denver. I think this is hilarious. This is exactly what the lib PC elites deserve.
[Hee! Hee! Thank you, Rush!]
This all makes me so sad. Where are the adults here? Is this what our forefathers imagined when they set up our government? Did they picture a grown man urging people to vote for someone just to create problems in the election? I am going to borrow words used during this campaign…Shame on all of those who “play” with the electorial system this way, after heroes have died to give us the privilege and honor to vote. When will we just vote for those we believe in and then act like adults?
[So when will you condemn all those Democrats who voted for McCain in the primaries?]
posted by PJ-Comix at 5:24 AM
33 Comments:
The denial, hypocrisy, outrage, and utter annoyance at being punk'd are priceless!
Frankly, I have my doubts about the whole kerfuffle, because the polls were really close going in. The results coming out were not outside the realm of possibility without "The Limbaugh Effect".
Still, it can't hurt to perpetuate the "GOP as Boogeymen" meme. Remember all the fun Karl Rove generated by doing...nothing?
He was blamed for everything from dental plaque to Ozone depletion, and I, for one, loved standing by the coffee machine at work, nodding sagely and saying, "Well, he certainly has the capablity to (reverse time, cause plagues, whatever)..."
Boogity-boogity Dems! We're in yer headquarters, caucusin' yer wimmen!
"I’m an accounting professor, I know numbers pretty well"
Does that mean you also peeked at the "Limbaugh voters'" ballots and you know for sure that they voted for Clinton, or are you just trying to get attention for yourself by making statements you can't prove?
IF you WERE monitoring voters close enough that you can determine who voted for who, then I think we all know just who's "hijinks" you were observing; your own because that is ILLEGAL!
"Rush Limbaugh should be ashamed of himself as an American abusing the high privilege of a free citizen’s vote."
That's the DUmbest statement I have ever heard and I've heard a lot from the DUmmies, thanks be to PJ and the DUFU. Just HOW can Rush abuse the right to vote (and it's a right, not a privilege, ya fricken moron!) by telling people to go out and vote? They cast the votes, not Rush. He didn't try to bribe them or force them to vote for any particular candidate.
"Is this what our forefathers imagined when they set up our government? Did they picture a grown man urging people to vote for someone just to create problems in the election?"
No, because the Founding Fathers never envisioned ordinary citizens voting for the President at all. They believed that the state governments (you know, state officials) should be the ones to decide who will be President, and not the general public. Hence the Electoral College.
These DUmmies really need to learn some American history.
I honestly feel Rush is getting a little too much credit for this. I am a Republican in Texas and I have been planning to vote for the Hildebeast for weeks now for this very same reason. At least a dozen people I know did the exact same thing and none of us have the luxury of listening to the radio all day. I suppose it doesn't matter who gets the credit, just that the deed was done and the Dem race is in chaos but let's not pretend only Rush could have thought of this.
And the claim of the Dummie that voters identified themselves as "Limbaugh voters" is ludicrous. I doubt anyone would have used that term.
Several of my friends here in Houston held their noses and cast their votes for Hillary. They thought it was the most hill-arious thing ever (I'm not apologizing for the pun).
But is anyone really surprised that Democrats have a double-standard on this? Seriously? Since when do they not have a double-standard?
Darth Rove mustbelaughing in hs evil hideout. Bahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!
It's only "dirty politics" if the Republicans do it.
Most toddlers have a more sophisticated understanding of what's "fair" than Democrats.
They make me so tired.
If you don't agree with the system, DUmmies, change it.
Where is the "foul play"?
What rules were broken?
Fricken' idiots.
I never would have believed in a million years that I would welcome the headline "GOP Keeps Hillary Alive"... But under the circumstances surrounding the Obamassiah, I am woefully thankful.
McCain sits back with his "we won't get into that kind of politics" attitude, and grins from ear to ear watching the DUmmies doing it to themselves.
Someone check on Rove's whereabouts? heh
The Dems don't even need to negotiate with the Republicans to "fix" this "problem." Their party, their rules. They can change it whenever they want.
I'm gonna have to go ahead and agree with that "lifelong Republican" on this one. I'm not saying that I'm "ashamed" of Limbaugh, but I think that crossing the lines and muddying the waters for the Dems is a little underhanded and not in keeping with the whole democratic process. I noticed, PJ, that you continually brought up the fact that Democrats have been doing the same thing, but did you ever stop to think that maybe Texas Republicans didn't employ fair political tactics so much as stoop to the Democrats' level? In this case, the whole "Dems do it too" only works as an attack on media bias, not as a defense for what the Texas voters did. Sure, there's no law against it, but that doesn't make it right. We could argue all day about the ends and the means and whatever justifications you have, but personally, I'm gonna stick with the Golden Rule and say that, hey, I wouldn't want Dems crossing over and messing with our nomination process, so I don't think we should do it either.
Having said that, just because I don't find a particular act kosher doesn't mean I can't enjoy it's effect, and boy, am I loving this morale boost for Hillary. What's done is done, and I am just giddy seeing this battle rage on.
Yeah, honestly though, we're stuck with John McCain because Dems crossed over in NH and gave him the massive momentum.
So yeah, just consider it turnabout being fair play. Although I have a sneaking suspicion that the amount of crossover voters cancels out neatly, the fact is that the crossover voters have been enormously influential. The ones from Left and Right have given McCain new life and kept Clinton's head above water.
I just don't see an perfect solution here. I think the best way to handle it is only give a person one primary vote. So they can go spoil for the other party or they can vote for their guy in their own primary. So you can either do plain old voting or you can be super secret political judo Rovian dirty tricks guy, but not both at the same time.
I think we may see a lot more of this, especially if Michigan and Florida do their revote. I can see it being a battle all the way to the convention floor. Which would be great. With the Republican nominee set, I think Republicans could really influence the Dem nominee. Which is great, considering the Dems have picked our nominee for us this time.
I disagree with Rush, I think Obama will be easier to beat then Hillary. I think McCain will strip the blue collar/Reagan Democrats from an Obama campaign. Let's be honest, the unions of the rust belt might vote for a woman, but not for a black guy. Add in his totally lacking grasp of any policy beyond "hope" and "change" and I think McCain could get a crushing victory. The American people are not as stupid as some people think they are. They'll see through the bullshit, and I'm not all that worried about November.
hud said...
'...I wouldn't want Dems crossing over and messing with our nomination process, so I don't think we should do it either."
The Dems did cross over and messed with our process in the early open primaries...one of the reasons we got stuck with McCain.
I respect your principles on the matter hud, just disagree that its wrong to crossover. The parties should close their primaries.
I think McCain will do OK against either Dem. But I think he'd do a little better against Hillary. Plus if she pulls this off, the Obamaites will feel this was stolen from them, and many of his followers will stay home. Hillary has supporters, not followers; so many more of them are likely to get over it and vote for the Moonbat Messiah anyway.
"Don't forget her victory in Texas...Thanx to Rush Limbaugh." PJ
Time out.
I have to say that there was much said by britt and hud that I, troglaman, must reluctantly agree with. Though I've tried to insult them repeatedly in the past, I now admit I underestimated them.
Now back to the show...
Is there one shred of proof that Limbaugh influenced the Texas vote? One? Rush said "Vote for Hillary" on the radio but so the fuck what. Talk about your Obama messiah shit. You guys would eat your own tongue if Rush thought it was a good idea. Admit it.
Oh, I know, I keep forgeting Rush is a solid-gold pillar of American Family Values. Be honest. Would you have any misgivings about sending your kid, sister, brother, mother, father, or cousin to El Salvador with El Padre de la Rush? Be honest.
And yet PJ bows down to this monolith of morality. Do you?
Limbaugh had nothing to do with Hillary's meaningless win of the popular vote in Texas. Hillary didn't win a thing in Texas. Therefore, neither did Rush. But, what the hell, if it makes you feel good to hug the guy...
"Plus if she pulls this off, the Obamaites will feel this was stolen from them, and many of his followers will stay home." skully
Where did you hear that, skully? Or did you just come up with it yourself?
Either way, you're wrong. Most Dems like both of them. Dummie turn-out is record-breaking. If you think the DUms won't get behind their nominee, you're kidding yourself. They'd elect a carrot before electing a rebupliDUm. Everything else is pretty much your problem.
I don't think Rush influenced the vote to a great degree. In fact he more then likely jumped on a bandwagon already rolling, he was just the loudest voice calling attention to it. A lot of Texas GOP were planning on crossing over anyway, and they voted for Obama like 53-46%. Earlier open state primaries had crossover GOP voting for Obama in higher numbers. So if anything Rush's call may have sent/switched some votes for Hillary, but most crossovers still voted for Obama in Texas.
Hillary didn't win Texas technically. But that ain't going to stop her and the MSM from claiming victory there. So that will just stir up that hornets' nest of Dem primary some more. I can't wait for the Fl & MI delegate fiasco to come to a head.
"Plus if she pulls this off, the Obamaites will feel this was stolen from them, and many of his followers will stay home." skully
"Where did you hear that, skully? Or did you just come up with it yourself?" anon 3:18
Read it on posts on DU.
Don't you read your moonbat manifesto??
My fav:
Please bring back William Buckley Jr. and the quiet intellectuals who really shape ideas and movements.
You faux conservatives need to learn how to read a book again and shut off talk radio
We do.
Brave new world
1984
Lord of the flies
Rise and fall of the Roman Empire
Our enemy,The State by Albert Jay Nock
And this:"quiet intellectuals"
means: Sit down and shut-up.
I REFUSE!
Ah yes, anon above me is absolutely right. You never shut up, not if you really want your ideas to be heard. WFB never did, and I don't plan to either.
Rush is a rabble rouser, he is a polemicist. Politics has those people. You need a Jefferson, but you also need a Sam Adams. Great writings are wonderful, but someone has to throw bricks at the redcoats.
Actually, I think the main reason the Left has been unable to gain traction in the past few years is their lack of intellectuals. The Left is not interested in persuading or in making a case for their feelings. Instead they like to just assume that everyone knows their ideas are better, and thus opposing them is nothing more then evil. WFB laid out conservatism, along with his crew at NR. He laid the foundation. The modern Left has no comparable foundation. Change is the goal, and never mind the explanations.
What me and many on the Left have in common is that we have never tuned into Rush Limbaugh. The difference is I don't comment on on his show, having nothing to base my comments on.
On to the show.....
Trog, the New York Times reported on the "Limbaugh Effect" today. My own father, who is more conservative then I am, voted for Hillary in the VA primaries. This is not a made up thing. Conservatives are keeping Clinton in the race, because the longer she and Obama tear at each other, the better it is for us. Bristle all you want, but I think you are making a serious error in ignoring this trend. You may not credit Rush, but the fact is there are Republicans voting in Democratic primaries. The shoe can pinch, I guess, when it's on the other foot. Call it "Clinton Crossovers" if you can't bear hearing the word Limbaugh, but the trend described by whatever buzzword you want to use is effecting the Democratic nominee. So if I was a Democrat, I'd be thinking about it.
Personally, I think McCain is going to win this. He's been really good about not pissing off the GOP base in the last few months, and I think the longer he goes sitting on the sideline while BO and HC get mud all over each other just helps him. He gets to look like an adult, which I think is really going to resonate. I think he can pull in Reagan Democrats, I think he can pull in the independents who just vote the person they think would be best. I think national security is going to be an issue in this election, and I don't think there is a single Democrat alive today that can even come close to McCain on that issue.
Joe the Teamster and Bob the UAW member don't post on DU. They aren't going to vote for a black guy with a Muslim name. You think that's stupid and I think that's stupid, but that is the reality here. Add in the people who will vote against him because of his startling ignorance of all things, foreign and domestic, his lack of any kind of experience, and I think he'll be the next McGovern or Mondale.
John McCain on the other hand, is a war hero. You can go on YouTube and see video of him dragging his comrades out raging fire and being questioned by his captors. You can go online and see Barack Obama dressed in a robe and turban. I think that's really dumb. Kind of like showing FDR in lederhosen as an example of disloyalty. Stupid as it is, it is reality, and most people are going to see dedicated servant of the country versus smoke blowing (heh) dude with dark skin and a funny name. That's even before you get to the serious flaws in his plans, starting with how exactly he plans to pay for it.
Look, I'm just glad he and Clinton are talking about experience so much, because I know if he does finish her (which will be hard), he has to go explain to the country why the guy who ejected over enemy territory a month after he started kindergarten is less qualified then him to be President.
So yeah...some of my thoughts on the issue.
as a PS, one of the things I love discussing is the allure of the war hero in American politics, how both parties love to find people with combat experience to bear their standards.Ike, JFK, McGovern, Bush, Dole, Kerry and now McCain.
"So yeah...some of my thoughts on the issue." britt
Thanks.
But since you've thrown it out there...
"Actually, I think the main reason the Left has been unable to gain traction in the past few years is their lack of intellectuals." britt
Um...regardless of the fact that the left HAS gained traction over the last few years...took over Congress, balanced the Senate. Many an honest man would argue that the Right screwed the pooch.
"I think national security is going to be an issue in this election, and I don't think there is a single Democrat alive today that can even come close to McCain on that issue." britt
I agree with the first part. But McCain and national security has the stink of W all over it which is fine with me because it's a failed policy and everybody knows it. Like it or not, Iraq is a disaster. Stupid people made it happen and make it continue to happen, Democrat and Republican alike. We're living the consequences and McCain wants to stay the course. Think that's gonna fly?
To be honest, I think the Left hasn't made gains so much as the Right has lost itself. Particularly in the realm of spending. You have no idea how much conservatives despise George W. Bush for his incredible and flagrant increases in the budget. That's why he has a 30% approval rating. I see the Democratic control of Congress as a "throw the rascals out" thing, particularly when you consider the fact that most of the new Democratic legislators are Blue Dogs. My own Senator, Jim Webb, is someone I have common ground with on some issues, not like an Al Gore, a John Kerry, or a Nancy Pelosi. Basically, the reason the Democrats took back Congress is they ran Republicans as Democrats and the GOP had a pigs at the trough feel for a lot of conservatives.
The thing with Iraq is it was a disaster, but it is one no longer. The surge worked. A lot of people who were wrong would like to pretend it didn't work, but it did. Over the last year we have hammered AQI, brought thousands more Iraqi troops up to speed, and made real progress in creating a stable situation in Iraq. You know that list of benchmarks the Dems came up with? They've all been met. It's not about "stay the course", it's about finishing the job. It's about not throwing away the sacrifice of thousands of American soldiers for political gain. Pulling out now would be a big mistake. I'd go so far as to call it snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The best move for the Democrats is to talk about the economy, about healthcare, about hope n' change. That will get them a lot farther then National Security issues, because they are really bad at that.
Also keep in mind that Iraq is not the only national security issue. China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Africa, Israel, Venezuela, Cuba, and the Balkans are all active at this time. Maybe they'll go quiet again, maybe they won't. International terrorism is still a threat, despite Bush's successful effort to keep another 9/11 level attack on the United States. This is not the 90s. Americans don't think we can withdraw from the world anymore. You will not be able to win this election without providing a credible national security plank. Obama's constant gaffes on the issue would be laughable if they weren't so scary. Clinton is going to have problems with her Iraq war vote, although I fully understand her, considering back in 2003 everyone (http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm) agreed with Bush on Iraq. In fact, if you study the issue, Bush's Iraq policy is the logical continuation of Clinton's. The UN inspectors didn't work, airstrikes didn't work, so we go to stage three.
But yeah. I think Iraq is going to be an issue if McCain makes it one. Obama's one sized fits all talk about disaster and the need for immediate surrender is not an accurate description of the war at this time. McCain is going to call him on it, and he's going to look like an idiot. Well, he is an idiot, but that's not the point. Clinton will be hampered from the Left by the nutroots screaming about her vote. Besides, her four year plus stay for American troops is time enough, I think, to fully finish the job. So yeah if the Democrats think this time Iraq is going to pan out for them as an issue, I think they are very sadly mistaken.
WFB laid out conservatism, along with his crew at NR. He laid the foundation. The modern Left has no comparable foundation.
britt, are you forgetting about the Communist Mannifesto, Marx and Engels?
Iraq is a disaster to those who want it... need it to be a disaster. The reality is much different.
History will prove the naysayers fools.
"You have no idea how much conservatives despise George W. Bush for his incredible and flagrant increases in the budget. That's why he has a 30% approval rating." britt
Bet you didn't feel that way in '04. In fact, most you dipwads were calling for more war. You still are. You, britt, would like to bomb Iran. Another incredible and flagrant increase in the budget.
Face it. You didn't despise W enough. Neither did I.
We're all responsible for this, britt. We're all responsible. And we all have really, really fucked up.
I have a 26 year old daughter. She wants to have a baby. Sea levels are going to reach +20 ft in about 10 to 20 years. Oil will probably cost $200 a barrel by this summer. Florida's pretty much a goner as is most of the US coastline. Does any of this worry you? I hope so.
We all fucked up.
Sterling legacy, isn't it?
Sea levels are going to reach +20 ft in about 10 to 20 years.
-Anon 2:42
Oh really? Tell you what: you go ahead and buy some property in Miami Springs, and if you can market it as oceanfront within the next 20 years, I'll take it off your hands.
"Iraq is a disaster to those who want it... need it to be a disaster. The reality is much different.
History will prove the naysayers fools." son
"Iraq is a disaster to those who want it" is exactly right. You wanted it son, not me. And we'll see what history decides. Don't cross your fingers.
"go ahead and buy some property in Miami Springs, and if you can market it as oceanfront within the next 20 years, I'll take it off your hands." hud
23 foot rise in sea-level in the next 10 to 20 years, hud. It's a done deal. Greenland is going to be green again. Now I know things might be moving a little too fast for you, but the lower half of Florida is going to disappear in the next decade or two. What was it you wanted to buy?
23 foot rise in sea-level in the next 10 to 20 years, hud. It's a done deal.
I've never seen that ridiculous statistic outside of Al Gore's "documentary." You do realize that the IPCC's 2007 report gave a worst-case scenario estimate of about 10 to 23 inches in the 21st century, right? Let me reiterate: the high end of the worst-case scenario, which is based on computer models (hardly capable of predicting "done-deal" scenarios) and is projected by the IPCC, which has been criticized by many scientists (including former members) for being biased, unscientific, and alarmist, is about 1/12 of the estimate you're claiming is bound to happen.
Talk about fear-mongering.
"Talk about fear-mongering." hud
Touche, my Cloverfield friend.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/greenland_recordhigh.html
But think nothing of it. NASA's just fucking with you.
But think nothing of it. NASA's just fucking with you.
That article is a perfect example of the problem with typical AGW arguments. Sure, 2007 levels were high compared to the period of the 1980's to now. But when you compare the 1980's-2000's to the rest of the 20th century, you find that the last two decades were colder in Greenland than any of the preceding six. You need to have some context here.
Regardless, I think this is all missing the point. The environmental movement today is essentially politically motivated (against corporatism and capitalism) and is headed by elitists. I recommend watching this episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit!
"Sure, 2007 levels were high compared to the period of the 1980's to now. But when you compare the 1980's-2000's to the rest of the 20th century, you find that the last two decades were colder in Greenland than any of the preceding six. You need to have some context here." hud
Sorry. This is incomprehensible. It makes no sense.
Would you, hud, dispute the fact that Greenland is melting? Would you dispute the fact that the present rate of melt in Greenland could deplete the ice in a matter of 10 to 20 years? Would you dispute that Greenland's ice melt would raise the sea-level between 10 and 20 feet? Go ahead. I'll bury you.
I've been accused of using the politics of fear when raising this issue. It's a fair argument. It comes down to who and what you trust.
Speaking for myself, I don't trust RepubliDUms or the Church of Whatever.
I'm a Free Will guy. I think we determine our own future. Given that, the science that's shown that way too much carbon dioxide and methane is being released into the atmosphere is indisputable. If we don't do something about it, we're going to get seriously fucked up. Argue that, dumbasses. Keep telling me it's not a problem. You've proven yourselves to be so goddamn credible, so dead-on-the-money right about everything. Right? Not. But keep it up all the same.
Sorry. This is incomprehensible. It makes no sense.
Sorry. When I'm trying to make a pithy point, I end up packing too much into one sentence. What I was trying to say was that the last two decades of the twentieth century were colder for Greenland than the preceding six decades were. Your source gave an example of an isolated trend within a short period of time. I'm trying to say that if you look a little more broadly, the alarmist claims don't fit the pattern.
Would you, hud, dispute the fact that Greenland is melting? Would you dispute the fact that the present rate of melt in Greenland could deplete the ice in a matter of 10 to 20 years? Would you dispute that Greenland's ice melt would raise the sea-level between 10 and 20 feet?
No, yes, and no. Of course Greenland is melting. And of course it's ice mass is capable of raising sea levels. But if you really think that Greenland's ice is going to completely disappear in 20 years, then someone is misinterpreting (or misrepresenting) the data, because it's my understanding that at Greenland's current rate of melting, it's losing roughly a half percent of it's total mass per century.
I've been accused of using the politics of fear when raising this issue. It's a fair argument. It comes down to who and what you trust.
Yes, and if who you trust is telling you that the lower part of Florida is going to be underwater within 20 years, then they are using the politics of fear. Simple as that.
Given that, the science that's shown that way too much carbon dioxide and methane is being released into the atmosphere is indisputable. If we don't do something about it, we're going to get seriously fucked up. Argue that, dumbasses. Keep telling me it's not a problem.
There's the problem. You want us to believe that this stuff is "indisputable" and that the debate is over. You want us to believe that we're hurtling toward destruction and it's all our fault. But the fact is, the important parts of this discussion are far from settled. Yes, the planet is (or at least was) warming. Yes, there is evidence that human activities are influencing climate. But how much influence? Is that influence critically dangerous? Can reducing CO2 emissions really reverse or even mitigate climate change? How much of this is just natural trends? These questions, like it or not, have not been answered. With that in mind, do you argue in favor of government regulation of CO2 emissions or any other sort of governmental response that can have a negative effect on the economy and the American people? Because if you do, then you are playing politics, not science.
Bottom line: science does not and should not proceed by consensus. This sense of crisis and urgency is unfounded, and now is certainly not the time to make predictions of doom, let alone come up with a response to it.
"These questions, like it or not, have not been answered. With that in mind, do you argue in favor of government regulation of CO2 emissions or any other sort of governmental response that can have a negative effect on the economy and the American people? Because if you do, then you are playing politics, not science." hud
Yes I argue in favor of government regulation of C02 emissions. Why not? And tell me how this will have a negative effect on our economy. Tell me. Don't you believe America can find a way around oil? Don't you think we have the balls to do it? Obviously not, you pussy.
Fine. Let's sit around and debate the issue while the polar ice melts. That's a great strategy. Let's not employ simple solutions that reduce C02 in the mean time. Does that sound political to you? Am I Michael Moore, Al Gore or whoever because I think we can reduce C02? That's the issue. You, hud, are all about making it political. Not me.
"science does not and should not proceed by consensus." hud
This statement is complete and utter horse shit. Science proceeds with duplication, i.e., consensus. God hud, who do you think will swallow this bullshit? That's an honest question.
And tell me how this will have a negative effect on our economy.
Are you kidding me? If this government adopts a cap and trade system, we'll be looking at high energy costs and lost jobs, and a big loss of income for the average family. Even Alan Greenspan, who is no friend to the right, is skeptical of cap and trade. Anon, your naivete concerning global warming science was forgivable. But this failure to grasp basic economic principle makes me really wonder if you'll be staying up Saturday night waiting to catch a glimpse of the Easter Bunny.
Don't you believe America can find a way around oil? Don't you think we have the balls to do it? Obviously not, you pussy.
You're getting a little hostile. Did I strike a nerve?
Of course I think we can find alternatives to oil, and we should. I don't like having our energy resources at the mercy of Middle Eastern dictators and socialist nutjobs (even though we're actually getting more oil from Mexico than from OPEC or Venezuela) But we're not going to free ourselves from oil dependency with ethanol, methanol, hydrogen, solar power, wind power, or whatever other "environmentally sound" power source you put your trust in. We need to trust American ingenuity. But if the economy and industrialization are hindered by, oh, I don't know, say, cap and trade bills, that ingenuity might not come through. And whether there is hindrance or not, that ingenuity isn't going to happen all at once nor is it going to blink our oil problems away like some smoking hot genie. Therefore, we can't let this environmental hysteria damage the oil industry and drive up oil prices for the sake of uncertain science. Like it or not, oil's all we got right now.
Let's not employ simple solutions that reduce C02 in the mean time. Does that sound political to you?
Government regulation of CO2 emissions is political. If you personally want to use fluorescent lights and drive a hybrid car, fine. If you want to start an environmental group that will tell others to do the same, go ahead. But don't drag the government and the taxpayers into your scientifically unsound crusade. I don't want my family losing $10,000 a year and shelling out $5 at the pump because you think you're going to save the earth from a boogeyman that scientists are still debating over.
Science proceeds with duplication, i.e., consensus.
That's funny, because I thought science proceeded on the scientific method. Y'know, hypothesis, experiment, analysis, and conclusion. Science is, frankly, the complete opposite of consensus. Imagine if the governments of the world had proceeded on the "scientific consensus" of a flat earth. Would Columbus have ever discovered the Americas? Science is always changing, especially when it comes to climate.Thirty years ago, scientists feared global cooling. Imagine if our government had taken measures to respond to that threat that never came to fruition. There is too much debate and uncertainty going on, even among AGW believers, for us to undertake any sort of government action, especially one that would hurt the American consumers and taxpayers.
Post a Comment
<< Home