That's a great question.  Why is it politics now?

We're talking about science.  Not politics.  

The debate should be in the scientific community and not the White House.  I don't need Jay Carney telling me I'm a dumb *** because I don't want to give him more money to pay for his fantasy of more money and bigger government to a new peasant class. 

More government paid for by the people is less freedom to the people under the new rule.  It's the new slave rule.  Screw you.  White or Black.  We control you.  You lost your freedom because we took your money.  We're all equal now.  Equal misery.  And you can't fight back.  Because you got no money.  Or anything else we decide to take from you.  It doesn't work this way.  It just doesn't work this way.  It's the other way.  We control them.  Sometimes you win from within.  Sometimes somebody else takes you down.  

I'm all in with freedom.

Well…here it is.  Your little paragraph out of a larger monologue which you choose to use as your battleground. 

And it's Michelle Obama.  About nutrition.  And it's just just aside.  And you make a debate out of it.  

Here's what I posted.  A portion of the complete monologue which you choose to try and take a guy down.

We'll post this first….then come back to you.  Goose and Gander baby.

Here it is:

The interesting thing, too, about this race -- and this is a little piece here from Forbes. "Alex Sink Rides Global Warming Alarmism to Surprise Congressional Defeat." The Democrats had this global warming talk-athon earlier this week, and they are doing that primarily to raise money, but they actually think they have a winning campaign issue. They don't yet realize that a majority of people, when everything is frozen over two and three times and the Democrats continue to talk about global warming and climate change, they just don't get it. They've got so much invested in this. It's like Obamacare, those two issues give the Democrats total control over everything.

Global warming -- I've got this later in the program -- global warming has now found its way onto nutritional labels of food. The Democrats, under the guidance of Moochelle Obama are going to now incorporate global warming facts, characteristics, what have you, in warning labels and nutritional labels on food. And the reason for this is total control over every aspect of people's lives. It's just hideous, what these people are doing.

The Forbes story on the global warming aspect. "The national media this morning are calling Democrat Alex Sink's surprise defeat in a bellwether special Congressional election yesterday a foreboding referendum on Obamacare. Perhaps this is so, but only slightly less noteworthy is Sink supporters' failed attempt to turn victorious Republican David Jolly's global warming skepticism into a political albatross."

James Taylor is the writer of this story for Forbes. He lives in the district. And he said, "Having just moved into Florida's US House District 13, I was shocked these past two weeks to discover how global warming became the central issue dominating television's political commercials. Granted, I haven't been watching much television, as moving from one house to another has been nearly a full-time job. Nevertheless, it seemed I couldn't go 15 minutes into my limited viewing schedule without seeing the same Sierra Club/League of Conservation Voters commercial excoriating Jolly for being a global warming skeptic."

The point here is the Democrats lost on two of their fundamental issues. The Democrats were rejected big time on two of the most important issues they are pushing: Obamacare and global warming. And I hope they keep it up. I'm tempted to shut up about it. Global warming is not a winning political issue. They haven't succeeded. This was my point yesterday, a guy called asking me, "Why are you optimistic?" He said, "I don't see any hope, Rush. The debt alone dooms this country."

I said, "If you were sitting where I'm sitting, you'd be optimistic. For 25 years, here, global warming was supposed to be the law of the land and we were supposed to already have laws that dictate the way we live." When Algore comes out 20 years ago and says, "We've only got 10 years or else," and Ted Danson and all these other wackos?

Global warming was supposed to have secured the Democrat Party majority 15 years ago. But it's been beaten back. I mean, there are lot of global warming skeptics, but it's like anything else. Many in the Republican Party have not made a big deal of it. There have been very few of us who've really made a big deal of it, but we pushed it back. We kept this from happening. That's the reason for being optimistic.

Now it's time to hear from the scientist.   Lets see what he gots.  

Here's the big problem I have with Rush.  He can inundate his site with sources and facts and then somehow merge from facts to conjecture to pure indefensible ridiculosity and the people who listen to and read him somehow can't see the lines.  It's in everything he says and types, including vast amounts of what you just posted, but this happened to be my favorite example.

We start with a fact (sort of) - Michelle Obama is spearheading an initiative to put information about various food products' carbon footprints and potentially other ecological information onto food labels.  That is true, an undeniable fact.  And I'm sure Rush has at least one source for this.  Then the next sentence.  "And the reason for this is total control over every aspect of people's lives."  Somehow, the people reading this don't see that the logic train just ran way off the tracks.  How do you get "control every aspect of my life" from "provide information about the environmental impact of my food?"  They're not trying to ban food that has a large carbon footprint.  They aren't going to force you to read that label, any more than they force you to look at the fat content of their Big Macs that many states now require McDonald's to post prominently.  Trust me, McDonald's is still doing fine.  And they certainly aren't going to force you to change your consumption habits as a result of what you may or may not read on a label.

One of the great hallmarks of a totalitarian government is that, almost without fail, they quickly suppress the access of the populace to information.  You yourself have referenced this repeatedly over years (Doug).  Now Rush, the same guy constantly accusing Obama and the Democratic party of trying to expand government and control our lives, is somehow criticizing them for attempting to provide more information to the people.  That's not the way governments attempt to "control every aspect of people's lives."  It is, in fact, the complete and polar opposite.  It's the antithesis of the first tool totalitarian states turn to in the campaign to minimize personal freedom and initiative and increase government influence in people's daily decision making.

And now, the final sentence.  "It's just hideous, what these people are doing."  Obviously that's not a defensible fact, but again, in this case it's not even remotely supported by the factual information.  Providing information cannot be hideous.  It can be from the perspective of big business.  Don't kid yourself - the #1 reason the Republican Party feels obligated to prove that global warming is a "myth" is because of the potential ramifications of adapting behaviors on the oil industry as well as other big businesses in this country.  Businesses that spend a lot of money supporting Republican candidates.  That's just a fact of political life in our country at this point.  And as much as they point fingers at this fact, Democrats are not even close to immune - there are plenty of special interests getting them elected as well.  But as a private citizen, you have to use that knowledge to at least try to draw some lines as to when your government is really trying to help the people and when the party is only trying to help itself.

As I've said many times in the past, the scientific community is deeply divided on the climate change issue, but almost nobody can look at the data and confidently say "there is no human impact on the global climate."  In fact, nearly anyone who has seen much of the global climate trend data and possesses the tools to interpret that information would deny that it is overwhelmingly likely that we are warming the earth.  The degree of human impact is certainly uncertain.  But it almost definitely exists.  The evidence for that is overwhelming.  Republican leaders know that, at least the guys high up in the party coming up with evidence that it doesn't exist.  They know they're lying.  But party support relies on their ability to continuously insist that global warming is a myth.  Don't buy that bullshit.  What, if anything, we need to do to combat climate change would be a far more relevant discussion.  How much of a hit to the economy can we afford to take, and how do we weigh that against the long-term environmental well-being of our planet?  These are meaningful and important questions that for the most part we aren't even discussing because ignorant people like Rush have been brainwashed into believing ridiculous things like "Giving me information about how my food was produced is a way of controlling my life."  Anybody with any discernment can see that it is a way of providing you with information to make the decisions you feel are best on a personal level.  But unfortunately millions of people will blindly listen to whatever Rush tells them, and somehow the total logical disconnect goes right over your heads.

Seriously, if you have to listen to an angry conservative talking head, listen to Bill O'Reilly.  He at least talks about things intelligently.  Sure, he presents half the information and leaves a lot out when it doesn't support his position.  Everybody does that.  But at least when he makes a statement, you can see where it's coming from, even if you don't agree with it.

Mr scientist just makes an opinion in his first paragraph:

Here's the big problem I have with Rush.  He can inundate his site with sources and facts and then somehow merge from facts to conjecture to pure indefensible ridiculosity and the people who listen to and read him somehow can't see the lines.  It's in everything he says and types, including vast amounts of what you just posted, but this happened to be my favorite example.

WELL THAT'S ALOT OF BULLSHIT RIGHT THERE.  Mr scientist just made an opinion without scientific method.  

Let's see what's in paragraph two.

It gets worse.  Here's mr scientist in verse two:

We start with a fact (sort of) - Michelle Obama is spearheading an initiative to put information about various food products' carbon footprints and potentially other ecological information onto food labels.  That is true, an undeniable fact.  And I'm sure Rush has at least one source for this.  Then the next sentence.  "And the reason for this is total control over every aspect of people's lives."  Somehow, the people reading this don't see that the logic train just ran way off the tracks.  How do you get "control every aspect of my life" from "provide information about the environmental impact of my food?"  They're not trying to ban food that has a large carbon footprint.  They aren't going to force you to read that label, any more than they force you to look at the fat content of their Big Macs that many states now require McDonald's to post prominently.  Trust me, McDonald's is still doing fine.  And they certainly aren't going to force you to change your consumption habits as a result of what you may or may not read on a label.

REALLY!  They won't force you.  For now.  Just education.  And in New York you can get a soda as big as you want.  Right?  Oh noes!  You can't.  A suggestion has turned into a law.  You can't supersize your coke there. But it was just a suggestion until it became law.  And you can't do this and you can't do that.  Because it's not good for you.  And you're stupid.  And we know better.  So we will suggest and then FORCE you to do what we want.  Sounds lovely.  

Next thing you know,  they'll take control of the healthcare and let you know what you can and can not have.

Literally nothing you have said in your massive ranting has had any logical flow whatsoever.  In fact, I'm not sure you're capable of logical thought.  You tend to just throw sentences one behind the other that really don't fit together at all.

I'm going to bow out of this debate.  You can't debate the illogical with logic and reason.  You're going to claim it's because I have no response for what you said.  That's almost true - you really didn't say anything, so what, logically, can I respond with?  You've just produced a bunch of conjecture about what you think the government will want to do in the future.  If you'd ever taken a logic class, you'd know that one of the first tenets of logical discussion is that slippery slope arguments don't work.  Their logically incorrect in almost all situations.  The only thing you've stated that approaches a real argument is that by providing information about food's environmental impact - which many people want - we are moving down a slippery slope towards mandating greener food.  Which may or may not be a good thing, but obviously not in your mind.  Not really the point here, since the slippery slope argument is invalid in the first place.  There is no logical link between mandating making information available and mandating changes in practice.  I'm sure you will attempt to provide one.  You will be wrong.  I don't care.  As I said, I've had enough of this.  Total waste of time and energy, and you're not worth it.

For somebody that spends a lot of time accusing everyone of being brainwashed, you are incredibly good at regurgitating everything Rush has told you and sticking to it in the face of overwhelming logical evidence that it's nonsense.

This could be the best one yet.  I'm just going paragraph by paragraph.  I didn't read this ****.  I can smell it a mile away.  Let's see what we got.

One of the great hallmarks of a totalitarian government is that, almost without fail, they quickly suppress the access of the populace to information.  You yourself have referenced this repeatedly over years (Doug).  Now Rush, the same guy constantly accusing Obama and the Democratic party of trying to expand government and control our lives, is somehow criticizing them for attempting to provide more information to the people.  That's not the way governments attempt to "control every aspect of people's lives."  It is, in fact, the complete and polar opposite.  It's the antithesis of the first tool totalitarian states turn to in the campaign to minimize personal freedom and initiative and increase government influence in people's daily decision making.

OH YES!  This is golden.  Let me ask you something Mr. scientist who is not a liberal democrat:  What the **** are we teaching in the schools?  Why are we paying all this money?  You go 12 years and you don't know the difference between a Big Mac and Asparagus?  You seem to have all the answers.  Is it just you and everybody else on the planet is stupid?  Can I be stupid without you getting in my way?  Maybe we should raise taxes and throw more money into an educational system that has been co-opted by the federal government. The states are too stupid to do it.  The locals are too stupid to do it.  Only the Federals can do it.  Crappy.  Crappy on ice.  More money.  Less education.  This explains you.

And it is less than humorous to know that Obama is giving over control of the internet to the United Nations.  Enjoy our little conversation while you can.

NSA anyone?

On the other hand, you may well be a scientist.  You sure as hell don't know politics.  Here's your next one:

And now, the final sentence.  "It's just hideous, what these people are doing."  Obviously that's not a defensible fact, but again, in this case it's not even remotely supported by the factual information.  Providing information cannot be hideous.  It can be from the perspective of big business.  Don't kid yourself - the #1 reason the Republican Party feels obligated to prove that global warming is a "myth" is because of the potential ramifications of adapting behaviors on the oil industry as well as other big businesses in this country.  Businesses that spend a lot of money supporting Republican candidates.  That's just a fact of political life in our country at this point.  And as much as they point fingers at this fact, Democrats are not even close to immune - there are plenty of special interests getting them elected as well.  But as a private citizen, you have to use that knowledge to at least try to draw some lines as to when your government is really trying to help the people and when the party is only trying to help itself.

THIS IS JUST FLAT OUT WRONG:  To think Rich Republicans fund big corporation. You should do a little research.  Scientific research.  

You would soon find the shoe is on the other foot.  Democrats get that money now.  And they got the Unions in their back pockets.  And now, under the new Regime, the State Department  and others have been politicized including the IRS who went after Republican donors  to suppress the vote in 2012.

You are laughable.  We in the Republican party are cleansing the rolls and throwing out the trash.  Would you like some more tea?  There is no such movement going on within the democrat ranks.  I would further suggest the entrenched establishment rinos  are siding with the dens to quash the peoples will.  There's a war going on here and you're on the wrong side of justice. 

OH MY GOD!  This is tedious.

As I've said many times in the past, the scientific community is deeply divided on the climate change issue, but almost nobody can look at the data and confidently say "there is no human impact on the global climate."  In fact, nearly anyone who has seen much of the global climate trend data and possesses the tools to interpret that information would deny that it is overwhelmingly likely that we are warming the earth.  The degree of human impact is certainly uncertain.  But it almost definitely exists.  The evidence for that is overwhelming.  Republican leaders know that, at least the guys high up in the party coming up with evidence that it doesn't exist.  They know they're lying.  But party support relies on their ability to continuously insist that global warming is a myth.  Don't buy that bullshit.  What, if anything, we need to do to combat climate change would be a far more relevant discussion.  How much of a hit to the economy can we afford to take, and how do we weigh that against the long-term environmental well-being of our planet?  These are meaningful and important questions that for the most part we aren't even discussing because ignorant people like Rush have been brainwashed into believing ridiculous things like "Giving me information about how my food was produced is a way of controlling my life."  Anybody with any discernment can see that it is a way of providing you with information to make the decisions you feel are best on a personal level.  But unfortunately millions of people will blindly listen to whatever Rush tells them, and somehow the total logical disconnect goes right over your heads.

You started off well.  You admitted you didn't have a clue.  And yes.  If I fart, I have contributed to global nonsense. 

You couldn't destroy this planet if you tried.  You can't influence the sun.  You can't change the orbits.  You're not God.  Obama thinks he is.

Thank GOD this is over.  Last one.

Seriously, if you have to listen to an angry conservative talking head, listen to Bill O'Reilly.  He at least talks about things intelligently.  Sure, he presents half the information and leaves a lot out when it doesn't support his position.  Everybody does that.  But at least when he makes a statement, you can see where it's coming from, even if you don't agree with it.

Bill O'Reilly is a dick head wannabe.  He says a lot of good stuff then wrecks it with his O'Reillyness of stupidity.  

Post a book if you want to.  I don't care.

Don't expect me to ever again respond to your ramblings.  My time is too valuable.

Next time, talk to me like a man.   In short sentences.  

JFC...do you ever just SHUT THE **** UP. Talk about an incoherent rant of pure party BABBLE...Your time is worth a flying **** in the first place because you're an ignorant and arrogant fucktard, and I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU ANYMORE, so shut the **** UP ALREADY. Nobody even READS your psychobabble. Because it's SO ******* stupid that normal humans can't get past the first sentence without losing it in laughter. So do us all a favor, STFU and STOP TALKING TO US ALREADY!!!

Next time, talk to me like a man.   In short sentences. 

So you only communicate with people who don't try to communicate intelligently?  What does that say about you?

And why is it that I get called rambling, bashed for "posting a book," and told that it's too much to read ("my time is too valuable") but you can post 2 pages of illogical bullshit that isn't even your own?  I'm just the bad guy for actually being capable of coming up with my OWN thoughts that are long enough to actually flesh out a topic?

Sorry.  I won't bother you with logical thought anymore.  I already committed to that, actually...  It goes way too far over your head.

Posted by rsp777 on 3/22/2014 12:21:00 AM (view original):
JFC...do you ever just SHUT THE **** UP. Talk about an incoherent rant of pure party BABBLE...Your time is worth a flying **** in the first place because you're an ignorant and arrogant fucktard, and I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU ANYMORE, so shut the **** UP ALREADY. Nobody even READS your psychobabble. Because it's SO ******* stupid that normal humans can't get past the first sentence without losing it in laughter. So do us all a favor, STFU and STOP TALKING TO US ALREADY!!!

I want to thank you yet again.  

All that BABBLE is from your buddy.  

I simply copied his posts and added my short comments at the end. 

Not that you would know.  

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/22/2014 1:11:00 AM (view original):

Next time, talk to me like a man.   In short sentences. 

So you only communicate with people who don't try to communicate intelligently?  What does that say about you?

And why is it that I get called rambling, bashed for "posting a book," and told that it's too much to read ("my time is too valuable") but you can post 2 pages of illogical bullshit that isn't even your own?  I'm just the bad guy for actually being capable of coming up with my OWN thoughts that are long enough to actually flesh out a topic?

Sorry.  I won't bother you with logical thought anymore.  I already committed to that, actually...  It goes way too far over your head.

I hope this doesn't mean we can't still be friends.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 3/18/2014 11:24:00 PM (view original):
Until you idiot liberals explain how we are going to get China, India, Brazil and the rest of the developing world to stop using fossil fuels, this conversation is academic.  Because if humans spewing carbon is causing global warmi.... oh, my bad, climate change, then the game is up.

PS: you idiot liberals can also go **** yourselves.

Repeat.