February 12, 2010 07:00 AM
Dylan Ratigan Responds to Glenn Beck's Attack on Him With His Own Chalkboard
DOWNLOADS: (1036)
PLAYS: (6835)
Embed
Dylan Ratigan responds to Glenn Beck's attack on him as a "global warming nut" with a chalkboard of his own. Looks like the food fight between MSNBC and ClusterFox continues. What's that saying? Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience. Engaging Glenn Beck is a complete waste of time.
yet Crooks and Liars engages him constantly
There is a difference between engaging and letting people know what nuts on the other side of reality are feeding to their viewers that just eat this rhetoric up.
There is no way you can even truly engage these people any more they live in a completly different world!
Too many people sit back and don't say enough. Hence the spineless Democrat's. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. The only argument that people at Fox and their viewers understand is mockery and puerile attacks.
Sometimes pointing a finger at an idiot, calling them and idiot, and then explaining why they are an idiot is the only way to deal with them.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
There has been way too many times where these folks are ignored when they go after someone personally, and what happens is no matter how wrong the Glenn Becks of the world are they get the upper hand because their words have been allowed to stand without opposition. For Dylan Ratigan not to respond would have made him look wrong or weak.
Just like mediamatters for America. It's important that somebody keep and eye on these assclowns. I'm sure as hell not going to
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
... from C&L and MMfA doesn't need to be heard by most of us, because we already known the clowns on the far right are liars, pimps, and hypocrites. (Even though the depth of David Niewert's look into eliminationism is fascinating ... and repulsive.)
If just ONE person looking for answers finds a measure of truth, if it helps knock the scales off someone's eyes, it's all good.
A chalkboard! :):):)
ERASER.
;D
But, but... watch Glenn's drawing of the global thermometer again. Right there...Can't you see it? Right there in front of your eyes! As he slowly draws an exaggerated representation of his own bent penis ...as it draws ever closer to his own ass. Don't you see that...that, he is trying to tell us all that in near future, without food or women...we will all end up f**king ourselves...and that this is what Obama has planned for America!
Ignorance.
I know that direct engagement scares the hell out of all rightwingers. They have to many lies to keep them all straight or even make them believable.
republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness!
but Fox and the conservative leaders have made ignorance into a bellicose, ostensibly legitimate, respectable viewpoint.
Such active ignorance is scary.
Covered the climate change thing on Wednesday night, it was hilarious. Aasif Mandvi had a chart showing it has been getting colder since August, proof there's no global warming...
And he was
rightcorrect wasn't he. It has been getting colder since August. You saw the chart.After August the days kept getting shorter too, but things seem to be improving. Hope it is not a sunlight bubble like the
housing price thingey. I won't get all hopey about it. Changey is gonna come.
"Folks, this is not your father's Republican Party."
Joe Biden
That's all
Truly priceless!!!
Al Gore is trying to scare people based on what? Science?
It is going to be fascinating to see people ten-twenty years down the road as the climate changes come into play and it becomes quite obvious what is going on. Ask the Pentagon what they think is going to happen and if climate change is real. They have to plan for probably scenarios and not some fantasy.
At the risk of derision, I believe Ratigan talked about Al Gore as being just as shrill as Beck but on the other side of the fence. In a way I agree, my take on the whole thing is; I don't know if we are causing the process, if we're contributing to it, or if it's actually happening. I do know we could be a hell of a lot cleaner in everything we do. And if we were, all the rhetoric on both sides of the issue would be rendered moot.
The evidence is undeniable, even without climate change. This event is also undeniably entirely anthropogenic in nature (human caused) due to habitat loss and other human pressures. Global temperatures are also rising. The concentration of CO2 is increasing by precisely the amount we are exhausting into the atmosphere and methane is increasing as a direct ratio of the increase in our livestock. The concentrations of CO2 and Methane in an atmosphere have a direct bearing on the temperature of that atmosphere. We can measure these things. Middle school science students are able to measure them with a high degree of accuracy. Just this winter, the Gulf Stream changed course for the first time since it was first measured and mapped. Science is not opinion Pete, no matter how many Village columnists or cable talking heads tell you otherwise.
Ratigan talked about Al Gore being shrill as an attempt at false equivalency that is so pervasive in the Village media. i.e. Dems are just as bad as Repubs, etc. This is why I don't watch Ratigan, or Tweety or Gregory, or etc.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
do you have any cites on what you claim? Specifically that climate change is undeniably entirely anthropogenic? And that the CO2 concentration is rising by precisely the amount we are exhausting into the atmosphere?
I do not deny that climate change is happening. It has in the past and it will in the future. I do dispute that it is entirely or even mainly or even more than a tiny part anthropogenic. If you look at the scientific date going back thousands and thousands and even millions of years (long before humans) it is shown that CO2 has been at levels much higher than today, also that the current global temperature is actually on the low side.
Anthropogenic in nature. Please read my comment carefully. True, CO2 has fluctuated but large increases have always before been due to an increase in volcanic activity. Then, over millions of years, the level again decreases as it is absorbed into the ocean and locked away in rock. Now please point out the flood basalt event that is currently underway. I'll wait....
As for citation, that's easy enough to find if one only googles nasa and climate change and so forth, it will take you to a veritable treasure trove of peer reviewed papers. Though, generally speaking, I don't do research for people because I feel they learn more if they do their own research, in the interest of getting you started, here is a handy chart of CO2 for the past half million years or so.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
apologies for misreading your statement. Do you have any cites for "mass extinction event" being undeniably human in nature? Also how do you define a "mass extinction event" I'll agree that quite a few of the recent extinctions can be traced to human activity. But those are localized events.
And actually from what I've read CO2 has fluctuated mainly in regards to the oceans and to a lesser degree forestation, with some sudden upsurges due to direct CO2 release by volcanic activity. But as for current events see the Yellowstone caldera for a start. Which regarding mass extinction events, when(not if) it blows it's top will be one. And we are according to geologist overdue.
Doing your research. Very well, one more: Here is a piece on the current state of biodiversity, one of the few I could find in HTML format. Here is a good explanation of what a mass extinction event is, if more evidence is needed other than the fact that several species have died off every week for the past century or so.
Now, I really must get on with my morning. Thank you for showing an interest in science.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
what YOU consider a mass extinction event. Not what wikipedia does. And I do understand biodiversity. But how many species have died off every week for the past millennium? You state several species a week for the last for the last century or so, how many for the last 1000 years or last 1 million years or 5 or 10 million? Every different DNA mutation is technically a new species, some survive and some don't. If you have cites to family or genus dying off that perhaps would be concerning.
Their has been at least 5 and depending on how you determine them, upwards of 20 or more mass extinction events in the history of the earth, the last brought upon the dominance of man. The earth changes, species either adapt or die. Do you deny that?
stop being an assklown with the blanket dismissal meme. if you refuse to believe something, say it ans stop wasting th time of someone who is trying to inform you.
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
Are you serious? Your post is the epitome of idiocy.
I do not refuse to believe anything. As long as its proven. Or at the very least proven to be most likely. Einstein, Newton, and Galileo are being questioned to this day. And being proven wrong. Perhaps not on their basic precepts but on some of their theories. Do you believe we should accept current scientific belief as fact? Or should we question it? If you believe we should accept it, you should also believe the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. That was proven science at the time and we shouldn't question it right?
you say: "Every different DNA mutation is technically a new species, some survive and some don't. If you have cites to family or genus dying off that perhaps would be concerning."
that's not true. each one of us has thousands of mutations in our somatic cells. our germ cells -- sperm and egg - also have mutations -- but that doesn't make us individual species.
the big picture theories of Einstein, Newton and Galileo are not being questioned. it's the interactions and quality of matter and space at the subatomic levels which aren't adequately addressed by quantum mechanics.
i can see i've gone beyond your level of knowledge. stick to coloring books.
No. I'm asking you to prove your statements. It's not my job to prove you false, it's your job to prove it true. Simple science now. I can state that the earth revolves around my puppies anus. Is it my job to prove its true? Or yours to prove it's false?
You've done nothing but regurgitate the standard AGW denial points.
You're also ignoring a basic tenet of science: that events are statistically separate. Cooling/warming that has happened in the past is NOT THE SAME as what is happening now, because the planet itself is different.
To ignore the possibility of a human role in a changing environment is irresponsible.
Take a look at Lake Tahoe, Nevada. It used to be crystal clear, but now - because of development and the leaching of chemicals from exhaust and fuels, it is turning murky brown. If we were to leave the area alone, doubtless it would recover over time, but it does not mean that we did not play a significant and contributory role to its current state.
Or equivalent. I don't blame Timjoebillybob for that. I happen to be a scientist, though not a climate scientist, so I understand the method. Lay people don't stand a chance out there being constantly bombarded by talking heads who are unqualified yet somehow given credence on any number of subjects. I have given Timjoebillybob a starting point. If he refuses to accept it and broaden his mind with fact, instead of unscientific opinion, then he becomes responsible for his own ignorance.
He also proceeded from the mistaken belief that I said that climate change is undeniably anthropogenic in nature when I did not. I said that the mass extinction event that is underway is entirely anthropogenic in nature. Climate is far too complex to be so affected by a single cause, (short of a gamma ray burst or equivalent), so I won't claim it is entirely man made. The evidence is overwhelming though that human activity is the primary driver of the current spike in CO2 levels, absent a natural emission source like a flood basalt event.
Ignorance isn't a crime but wanton ignorance is entirely preventable.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
the current media has taught people that opinions are science. And do you mean talking heads like Al Gore? He is eminently unqualified but is given credence on climate change.
And I did not proceed, I made a statement and you corrected me on it. I apologized and asked for clarification on your original post.
Really, Timjoebillybob? What's your point? Can you get to it soon, so that we don't have to keep skipping all these argumentative, self-serving comments?
Wikipedia
ScienceDaily
UCSUSA
NASA
Oceanworld
UCONN
NOAA
National Geographic
IPCC
UCSB
CNN
World View of Global Warming
Here is another handy chart that refutes the claim that global temperatures are cooler today than the average. It also shows a wonderful correlation between CO2 levels and antarctic temperature.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
chart that shows a wonderful correlation that rising CO2 levels follow an upswing in temperature. In other words higher temperatures cause higher CO2 not the other way around.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temp...
I was beginning to like you. John Cook was refuting the conclusion that you want me to draw. The following is from his own "about us" section of his website:
About Skeptical Science
The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.
Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science.
About the author
Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).
There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife.
You are trying to prove your skepticism is well founded by citing people who disagree with your position.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
that because there is no funding makes it a better site. If you receive funding you are obligated to parrot the views of those funding you. Where if you are self funded you can espouse the views as you see fit. Does Crooksandliars receive funding? Are they less or more obligated to report what they see as the truth?
Also I provided the first site on my check, there are many others. Do you want me to do your research for you? There are several peer reviewed studies that show CO2 is a result of rising temperatures not a cause of them. Look them up or as you put it "google it"
That was impressive!
I guess the part of this whole thing that I don't understand is, isn't it adequate that I agree we have a polution problem, regardless of the effect it has on our environment, I state that I don't know enough about the situation and you patronize me by telling me any middle schooler can measure it with a high degree of accuracy.
I find that kind of attitude expressed on this page counter productive to a solution.
As far as who you watch, well that's your perogative. Personally I watch Ratigan because he's one of the few people who come out and talk about the financial mess we're in.
My only problem with this site is, if I or anyone else has the temerity to disagree one iota with anything stated we get tarred and feathered, maybe what you said wasn't as bad as some of the things I've read, but if you read my statement and if it was followed by the powers that be, and if pollution was the cause of the problem the results would probably be the same.
I guess one question I have for you is, do you think we don't have a polution problem?
there is a pollution problem. But I disagree on the effects that it has. And honestly there are imo very few if any people who can measure it with any degree of accuracy on a world wide scale. The amount of knowledge required to even begin to understand it on a world wide scale is imo almost impossible.
Should we reduce pollution? Hell Yes! Should we reduce it according to some arbitrary standard? Well...
Margaret is being ... wait for it! ...
Condescending!
It's true! Intelligent, informed people are condescending to the dumb and ignorant.
Oh, those eeeevil smart people, always making stupid people feel stupid.
You have to love a medium where folks can say anything they want, to someone they don't know, that they truly wouldn't have the courage to say to anyone let alone a stranger.
So KWillow because someone doesn't march in lock step with your possibly narrow version of how things work, they're stupid.
Maybe I'm being thin skinned but does it make me stupid because it's easier for me to justify stopping what may very well may be the most serious problem the human race faces. There's other dangers to our survival on the planet than global warming. Quite frankly, what differance does it make, what your motives are if you both have the same outcome as a goal.
Now, as far as your concerned, KWILLOW, my parents taught me better. Quite frankly the word I had in mind when I read Margarets reply was asshole, not condescending I was just trying to be nice.
And since ur won a the smart wuns cn u gess what werd I'm thinking uv fer u.
Attractive lies: God, Free Market, Sarah Palin, Fox is "fair".
Have you read the link "Glenn Beck's attack on him"? I don't pay much attention to Beck because he is nuts but after reading what he wrote in that link the guy reassured me that he is dangerous. What should be done about Beck? Murdoch gives him his stage and the insanity he spews is dangerous. I guess we hope that most people are smarter than that ans will stay smarter than that and the people who agree with him (Tea Baggers?) should be watched. Or not?
Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience. Engaging Glenn Beck is a complete waste of time.
Oh, and you haven't, I suppose?
Does the word "hypocrisy" mean anything to you?
Heather's post archives, but I would say you should save your acccusation of hypocrisy for someone other than Heather.
Wait a minute, why defend her while ignoring her advice.
"Folks, this is not your father's Republican Party."
Joe Biden
..is matched only by your quickness to defend it.
The only way to argue with a fool is to ignore him till he goes away.
Why don't you take that advice as well?
Someone woke up on the wrong side of Glenn's chalkboard this morning.
..'Fixed Noise' is one of the top three "most watched" cable channels in the country & articles like this only fan the flames of that channel's popularity.
I posit that the percentage of people switching to Fox News as a result of reading this article on this particular website is just about zero.
..you see but you do not observe.
People like Beck use sites like these as a meter that people are paying attention to him.
And as far as they're concerned any attention is better than no attention.
Just ask the producers of "Married..with Children".
Is to impugn people's intelligence. I have no interest in it. What you know about me is exactly zero. And that it shall remain.
EOM
..are insulting my intelligence.
And your carping only serves to embolden your enemies.
I think he's pretty funny, and I feel like he's taking a more conservative approach. Someone's gotta engage him, and I guess it's probably really great for ratings?
"Engaging Glenn Beck is a complete waste of time."
Well said.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882), Self-Reliance
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NvgLkuEtkA
"Folks, this is not your father's Republican Party."
Joe Biden
Fri, 02/12/2010 - 06:34 — Handypants
http://www.franciscodegoya.net/114437/El-Suen...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
The reason $sshole Beck gets to breed on Fox 'All lies and blame the liberals' News, is because he's not called out on his lunatic BS.
The reason Limbaugh, O'Lielly, Palin, and the rest of the bigots have gotten a hold in the Conservative Media is because they are allowed to spew their lies with immunity. They need to be smacked down constantly!
If I had the money I'd start the new TV show "Whack-A-Wingnut" and air it 24/7 .
Great take down Dylan!
"Engaging Glenn Beck is a complete waste of time."
Nonsense. I know so many people in my personal life who parrot his and other Fox News lies like it was gospel. Even challenging it in a small way sometimes gives them pause. This site challenges him. The "be cool and don't talk back, because people will just see through him in time" approach never works.
Who the hell are you hanging with???? You need to reevaluate.
I know, I know. Risks of living and working in a red state I'm afraid.
Who believe in neither. It's like threatening someone spending life in prison with jail.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
But I think facts can be used effectively. Remember when Matthews crushed Kevin James over appeasement? James said "you're not going to box me in here, Chris." And that's exactly what Matthews did. I'm not crazy about Matthews, but he demonstrated a substantial degree of aplomb. Instead of dodging the long swords these right-wing ideologues are swinging, we need to get in their faces - like Roman soldiers with their short swords and fight them in close quarters.
At the end of the clip, the other guest says "they're interested in loaded words for political slander." We can play the same game. This is not necessarily mutually exclusive to facts. I would say that facts should be used for the assist. You provoke these people into standing behind their hollow rhetoric then you clobber them with hard data. Maybe it's not so much like Roman short swords as it is like Ali's rope-a-dope?
I know this is going to be more than he can understand but Beck needs to start watching How The Earth was Made. On Tue they showed Earth's Deadliest Eruption, they talked about what happened in Siberia. And how the eruption changed the climate. This might help him understand climate change.
Main Entry: 1weath·er
Pronunciation: \ˈwe-thər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English weder, from Old English; akin to Old High German wetar weather, Old Church Slavic vetrŭ wind
Date: before 12th century
1 : the state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness
2 : state or vicissitude of life or fortune
3 : disagreeable atmospheric conditions: as a : rain, storm b : cold air with dampness
4 : weathering
Main Entry: cli·mate
Pronunciation: \ˈklī-mət\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English climat, from Middle French, from Late Latin climat-, clima, from Greek klimat-, klima inclination, latitude, climate, from klinein to lean — more at lean
Date: 14th century
1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2 a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation b : the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors
3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period : atmosphere
People like Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity would fail sixth grade science and fourth grade vocabulary.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
hope that Ratigan's program does not decompose into a jab-fest with Beck.
There are so many other ways to spend an hour...a minute...a second.
I've made similar comments on C&L before. did any of you watch this clip? He has no problem attacking Gore and those on the left as over-hyping and fearmongering on this issue. He's a f**king creep and never fails to take cheap, GOP talking point, factless attacks against dems. He's a snake, watch your ankles praising this guy, I've watched his show where he's attacked Dems most of it and in the interest of equal time had the GOP guests pile on.
Or that's what Glennzilla calls it. he sooooo wants to be a real Villager and get invited to all the parties.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
Or...
Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.
http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/files/images/blo...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
"engaging Beck (and Beck-clones) is a waste of time..."
Not true if the argument is done with intelligence and wit. The idiots will pause for a few seconds, and every second counts with them.
Silence indicates consent.
Sorry Charlie! Starkist 102nd Sponsor to Dump Beck Program
Starkist Tuna Consumer Affairs tells StopBeck.com, "We have chosen to not air our commercial during Glenn Beck's program going forward given a number of alternatives that meet our advertising plan's criteria."
Starkist joins Best Western (the 101st) and Honda (the 100th) as the latest sponsors to abandon their advertising on the Fearmonger-in-Chief's tee vee show.
Surely by now the program is running as a Loss Leader for the Fox News Channel, unless the sponsors still advertising in his show are able to pay the entire freight.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201002050048
This is very encouraging - Honda, Best Western and Starkist are big
companies!
Beck's continued employment is why no one takes FOX BUSINESS seriously-would you take business advice from a network run by a loser with this kind of finance ethic?!
HELL No! It's like getting financial advice from George Bush.
Ahhh, Glenn Beck.... what a nucking futjob.
-------------------------------------------
“Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR, and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no
or at the very least, his ideas. The guy has a growing audience it would seem and unless someone finds a way to bring his house of cards down around him, things are only going to get worse in this country.
You will NEVER get an egomaniac like Beck to change his mind on anything because, well, in his mind, he's never wrong. You can, however, help someone who just seems to want to follow, follow along a better path - it's just a matter of figuring out how.
The biggest mistake liberals make is assuming facts will carry the argument. Conservatives are used to the facts not supporting their side. This is why they rely on their values and gut, why they invent so many conspiracies. Why they lie so often. Why they have this large network of conservative media to provide the lies. Because they need them to counter reality.
Liberals have to push back all the time against every point that conservatives use.
While I believe facts must remain in the equation, the right wingers are adept at dancing between the raindrops. We need more Alan Graysons who can fire back with rhetoric to really put conservatives on the defensive for a change.
The biggest obstacle is that so many of these liars hide in their ivory towers and broadcast their lies without accountability. Limbaugh claims liberals can't beat him on ideas/ideals, but the man will never ever participate in a true debate.
Not alone, but with a stinging dose of ridicule and even some entertainment, fact will be listened to by SOME people.
...is to point out the ridiculousness of people like Beck and Hannity & O'Reilly?
Doesn't this site regularly point out and applaud when Stewart & Colbert & Olbermann & Maddow & Schultz take the crooks and liars to task for their crimes and lies?
Then why is it wrong when Ratigan does it?
Never engage in false equivalency in order to appear "balanced". They will all criticize Liberals, Democrats and Progressives when criticism is deserved but they don't just say shit to make them sound non partisan.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
tha attack on Gore is gratuitous, not fact-based.
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
Mr. Ratagan didn't want viewers calling Him a Liberal- he knows they've been thoroughly indoctrinated with the fear/hate of liberals.
There's a difference between 'engaging' someone and 'utterly schooling' them. Also, there's really no reasonable prohibition against calling a liar a liar (isn't that actually the point of journalism in the first place?) And these jackasses need to be called on every one of their lies.
But there's extra gravy in these stories; by having embedded example's of Becks' lunacy in the video, those of us who don't watch him ever get to enjoy the hilarity of his specious sandbox syllogisms. I did indeed laugh out loud as he destroyed "science" with a funny thermometer; a grown, earnest man? Couldn't be...
If he has an audience, we are indeed in a world of shit.
Global Warming is causing the worms in Beck's head to grow faster, causing them to eat more of his already tiny brain.
Wait till they try to tough it out
Squealing the chalk worse and worse.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
We have scientific data from millions of years ago? Can I have cites on that?
per Weather Channel.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
must suck to be there
I think that was saying you were thinking of, Heather.
It is certainly pithier.
As someone with a right-wing relative, I can tell you from experience that facts are meaningless to them. No matter how many informational sites you list, a naysayer won't even bother to go there--it might interfere with their mindset.
how some people can keep a specious house of cards standing no matter what you throw at it. Reality has a well-know liberal bias.
with CRAZY GLUE.
I don't give a shit about news anchor scuffles, please just report the news.
If you want NEWS, go to Raw Story or Think Progress or TPM. Those are news sites. This is something different- check the C&L statement at the top of the page.
It's true you know - the Republicans are all about monologue. They shy away from dialogue - it scares them sihtless.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
if you wrestle with a pig, you both get covered in shit and the pig likes it.
Though Mr Ratigan may be falling in the pig pen by suggesting direct personal involvement, I think you all will agree that for the most part he was just pissing all over him from the outside of the fence. Well done Dylan. Glen Beck is a winney little pussy syncophant. Thank you for pointing that out so clearly.
Comments are closed on this entry