Yes, National "Progressive" Radio and public broadcasting overall received taxpayer subsidies to the tune of about $500 million in 2005, which was about 15 percent of their budget. Hell, why don't we start a national newspaper, too?

I admit that I listen to NPR on occasion, but I have to set my liberal bullshit filter to maximum. Bottom line: Public broadcasting should NOT be subsidized by taxpayers.

http://caglecartoons.com/column.asp?columnID=%7BF852A8E4-3B2C-4DDD-B2F7-68B91911EF6E%7D

10/20/2006 12:15:54 AM

I guess you see what you want to see. The only seemingly liberal programs on NPR are "This American Life" and "On the Media". So can you tell me how "The People's Pharmacy", "Car Talk", and "The BBC World Service" count as teh L1ber4L media?

Sadly, I think we have digressed from your original premise.

10/20/2006 12:53:52 AM

^ I'll give you The People's Pharmacy (but check the title) and Car Talk, but the BBC broadcast? Are you shitting me ? I have heard some of the most vicious attacks on President Bush and Americans in general from the BBC that I've heard anywhere. At any rate, the program is not produced by NPR, so I'll ignore it--for now.

The following are the NPR programs that I KNOW consistently reveal liberal bias (I'm sure there are more):

All Things Considered

The Diane Rehm Show

Justice Talking

Morning Edition

National Press Club

Talk of the Nation

The Tavis Smiley Show

Weekend Edition Saturday

Weekend Edition Sunday

So, yes, we have digressed, as conversations often do. I don't necessarily think it's sad, though. Furthermore, I think my point has been made.

10/20/2006 1:19:10 AM

just because they dont pander to idiots doesn't give them a liberal bias

10/20/2006 1:25:55 AM

Quote :

"I have never had my "shit blown up" on TWW, as you put it. On the contrary, like your heroes Bill Clinton, Al Franken, and many other liberals, when YOU are confronted with strong evidence of something, you pop a stitch and call others "retards" or some such. Stop calling me names, MOTHERFUCKER! And I'll return the courtesy."

Yeah, I've sure said alot about my "heroes" on here. You got me figured out

I presented you evidence from a credible source to counter your source, which i never said was not credible. please go back and find where i said it wasnt credible. is it possible that a source is more trustworthy? of course, and i presented one that i find more trustworthy: a government department. in my first post, i even promoted evironmental advancement through tax cuts and republican senators. now here you are, fingering me as something you obviously want me to be because it makes your argument easier, because youre either mad i called you a name, mad i called you out on your age, or mad that i presented a credible counter-argument which you refuse to even address (the fact that the time to reach full production and the total output of the ANWR reserve will hardly make a big difference in energy prices, as of the 2005 study) . your arguments and tactics of painting with broad brushstrokes and taking such strong offense to internet smack talk are getting tiresome.

go ahead, post your next diatribe about you opponents. i seriously don't care what you have to say if youre going to continue to not listen to anyone but yourself and your allies and paint all your opponents w/ these broad strokes. as for the accusations of ageism, in case you haven't noticed, there really arent any people on this board close to your age. you kinda stand out, and i just find it odd that someone that old spends so much time on a college message board, thats all. i never brought it up until you started just insulting people's sources and opinions instead of just arguing. i tried arguing, and you turned this whole thing into a war over source credibility.

[Edited on October 20, 2006 at 1:53 AM. Reason : .]

10/20/2006 1:47:54 AM

^ Since you claim to be so tired--and you are tired--I'll spare you the "diatribe," as you put it. And I'll simply leave you--for now--with the following:

PS: And ^^, too.

10/20/2006 2:11:04 AM

That, sir, seems to be the Bush Administration's stance on the environment and anyone who disagrees with them on it. Congrats.

10/20/2006 2:27:22 AM

PS: I don't find it particularly "odd" for a college student to be on a "college message board," as you put it. I'm a student at the same University that you are. Perhaps your elitist tendencies cause you to want me not to share in the full N.C. State experience as a student? (Good luck with the history degree, by the way, jack.)

I can't wait until many of you twentysomething know-it-alls get 10 or 15 years behind you. And you start whinin' that things ain't the way they used to be and your traditions are dismissed and discarded as outdated and some fucking punk suggests that you’re old. Many of you are going to have great difficulty dealing with your own youth obsessions and those of our society. When that time comes, I will be "LOL," because you have two choices in this journey called life: old or dead. Take you pick, motherfuckers!

Pink Floyd said it best: "And then one day you find / Ten years have passed behind you / No one told you when to run / You missed the starting gun."

10/20/2006 3:03:09 AM

^^ Thanks. I feel really good about it.

10/20/2006 11:40:34 AM

Quote :

"Perhaps your elitist tendencies cause you to want me not to share in the full N.C. State experience as a student? (Good luck with the history degree, by the way, jack.)"

ahahaha, you used the "omg your chass degree is useless!" and the "im a real nc state student!" comeback in the same post. awesome.

dude, youre a 40 year old on a message board of 20-somethings. do you not think thats a bit odd? i seriously dont care what your political stance is. i just think youre a creepy old guy trying to act like he should be treated as a normal college student, and thats just kinda, i dont know, sad?



[Edited on October 20, 2006 at 5:05 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2006 4:59:03 PM

hey hookshaw?

was it weird when people started driving cars?

10/20/2006 5:01:04 PM

if you trace this thread back, it was the liberals who started the name-calling. until then, it had a point.

10/20/2006 5:32:55 PM

10/20/2006 7:49:16 PM

meh, i wasnt so much a fan of that phase of U2. give me the unforgettable fire over that anyday.

i hold the priveledge of being a member of amnesty international's ireland branch along with bono

10/20/2006 10:51:25 PM

^^^^^ I do not think that anybody really gives a shit what you think—I certainly do not. PinkandBlack, YOU are a fucking ageist ("old guy"). You are youth-obsessed ("message board of 20-somethings"). You are a character assassin ("creepy")--and if you knew ANYTHING about my background, you would know that I am anything BUT creepy. And you are an elitist ("i just think youre a creepy old guy trying to act like he should be treated as a normal college student"). Can you define a "normal" college student, you arrogant little fuck?

If there is anything sad here, it is you--and I think some part of you knows that. I am okay with who I am and what I do on TWW and elsewhere. Furthermore, you have crossed a line with me, and I will no longer respond to any of your insulting posts. If you had any decency at all, you would apologize--but I am not holding my breath.

[Edited on October 20, 2006 at 10:55 PM. Reason : ^]

10/20/2006 10:54:41 PM

Quote :

"I do not think that anybody really gives a shit what you think—I certainly do not. "

then why do you keep responding to me? i obviously got under your skin.you sound pretty sore about someone you dont even know making fun of you. OH NO, SOMEONE SAID NOT SO NICE THINGS ABOUT ME ON THE INTERNETS. HOW DARE YOU POINT OUT THE FACT THAT I STAND OUT AS BEING MUCH OLDER THAN MOST PEOPLE ON HERE. I AM A COOL GUY. chill out, its fucking tww. it happens.

if esgargs can get over people calling him creepy, you can




[Edited on October 20, 2006 at 11:13 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2006 11:07:18 PM

to hooksaw, tww=serious business

10/20/2006 11:20:25 PM

another character assault from the tww liberal attack squad. you people are pathetic. the source was pathetic. the insults were pathetic, you people are pathetic. show some respect to someone, you little jerks!

hooksaw: i appreciate your posts and i'm here to back you up, man.

10/20/2006 11:23:13 PM

Quote :

"another character assault from the tww liberal conservative attack squad. you people Randy are pathetic. the source was pathetic. the insults were pathetic, you people are pathetic. show some respect to someone, you little jerks!"

See how easy that was?

Quote :

"hooksaw: i appreciate your posts and i'm here to back you up, man."

Of course you do. You have demonstrated on multiple accounts or rather every single post that you are wholly incapable of independent thought. From parroting Karl Rove's talking points to just hiding behind T-dubbers you spew the same crap and then flame us "wacky liberals" for having an incapability for thinking for themselves. Let hooksaw fight his own battles. He is far better off.

10/20/2006 11:34:34 PM

i'm just trying to stand up for someone that i agree with. you attack pretty much all of us anyway.

10/20/2006 11:36:43 PM

Oooh, play the victim. That's a perfectly good strategery rather than engaging in intellectual debate. gg.

10/20/2006 11:40:47 PM

i am referring to the above incident where a liberal ASSAULTED the character of an opponent as an example of what seems all too typical of this board.

10/20/2006 11:42:38 PM

And I felt like a star
I felt the world could go far
If they listened
To what I said

10/20/2006 11:45:10 PM

28 degrees in Charlotte this morning...broke the previous record low of 31 degrees...fyi...btw thats a fact...no opinion here...just a number for yall

10/24/2006 5:08:43 PM

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, YOU DUMB MOTHERFUCKERS!

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.warming.ap/index.html

11/17/2006 6:31:02 PM

Quote :

""It was meant to startle the policymakers," said Paul J. Crutzen, of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. "If they don't take action much more strongly than they have in the past, then in the end we have to do experiments like this.""

Quote :

"The American scientist said a temporary shield would give political leaders more time to reduce human dependence on fossil fuels -- main source of greenhouse gases. "

11/17/2006 6:36:36 PM

^^ so you only agree with scientific claims some of the time

11/18/2006 11:23:24 AM

Here are some questions for you folks out there who don't want to believe that global warming is being perpetuated by human activity.
Do you believe that CFCs cause the destruction of the ozone layer? Do you believe that the destruction of the ozone layer is a bad thing? Do you believe that CFCs created by humans cause the destruction of the ozone layer? Does the change in business practices from the banning of CFCs increase the cost of doing business, and if so then how is it any different than regulating greenhouse gases? Why aren't advocates for the salvation of the ozone layer labeled as "environmentalist nutjob alarmists"?

11/18/2006 12:30:04 PM

"Do you believe that CFCs cause the destruction of the ozone layer?"
Destruction is a strong word, the ozone layer is rebuilt annually.

"Do you believe that the destruction of the ozone layer is a bad thing?"
Again, replacing "destruction" with "weakened" and yes it is a bad thing.

"Do you believe that CFCs created by humans cause the destruction of the ozone layer?"
Again, replacing "destruction" with "weakened" and yes it is human produced CFCs coupled with natural cycles.

"Does the change in business practices from the banning of CFCs increase the cost of doing business, and if so then how is it any different than regulating greenhouse gases? "
CFCs were sparingly used at the time of the ban and had readily available substitutes that were not that much more expensive (more of a health concern, but you wouldn't care about that, would you?). By comparison, greenhouse gases are produced in every human activity from Sub Sahara to Los Angeles and there are no readily available substitutes.

"Why aren't advocates for the salvation of the ozone layer labeled as "environmentalist nutjob alarmists"?"
Because they had scientific proof that CFCs were having a deleterious effect upon the ozone layer (high flying Air Force aircraft sampled the ozone layer and detected CFCs). Coupled with that, ozone depletion was undeniably a real threat to life on this planet as ultra-violet is undeniably a real threat to life. Conversely, it is not obvious that global warming is a threat. With minimal effort mankind can easily adjust to a warmer planet with far less effort than living without oil. Conversely, adjusting to an ultra-violet blanketed planet would be a real hassle for people living near the poles, far more difficult than paying $10 more for an air conditioner and 25 cents more for spray paint.

11/18/2006 2:30:37 PM

Quote :

"Conversely, it is not obvious that global warming is a threat. With minimal effort mankind can easily adjust to a warmer planet"

Well it's good to know that humans are the only creature that matters on this planet.

And yes "destruction" is a perfectly viable word considering the perpetuation of the use of CFCs catalyze the O3 breakdown. As in while it does repair itself each year if the breakdown > repair then it will lead to it's ultimate destruction and the spreading to other areas.

There have also been more studies than you can shake a stick at to validate global warming and the human link. I am just curious to know why their evidence is less believable than others'?

11/18/2006 2:59:59 PM

No, dude, they call it "depletion" for a reason. Ozone is always being created just by the present of sunlight and oxygen. So, the presence of CFCs destroys ozone, of which the planet is always making more. So no quantity of CFCs will ever eliminate the ozone layer, just make it ever thinner.

And did I anywhere state that there was any uncertainty that global warming was either not occuring or was not the result of mankind? Nope, what I said is that it is not obvious that global warming is a threat. With minimal effort (far less effort than required to learn to live without fossil fuels) we can adjust to a warmer planet AND help the other species on our planet adjust to the warmer planet.

11/18/2006 3:15:06 PM

Quote :

"There have also been more studies than you can shake a stick at to validate global warming and the human link. I am just curious to know why their evidence is less believable than others'?"

If global warming helps my agenda, then I will be able to show it is occurring with any experiment. If it hurts my agenda, then I will be able to show it isn't occurring with any experiment.

11/18/2006 4:04:51 PM

either way you shouldn't litter cause it looks whack layin on the ground like that

11/18/2006 4:45:15 PM

Quote :

"AND help the other species on our planet adjust to the warmer planet."

And how do you plan to do this? It is abundantly obvious that humankind could care less about other creatures on this planet, so why start now? It's pretty sad when it becomes more economical to just live with the consequences as opposed to taking some fucking responsibility in the first place.

11/18/2006 8:54:14 PM

11/18/2006 9:05:24 PM

i saw this movie...there was too much of al gore looking pensive

11/18/2006 9:08:13 PM

Quote :

"It's pretty sad when it becomes more economical to just live with the consequences as opposed to taking some fucking responsibility in the first place."

Hmm, I think you misunderstand the purpose of human society. It is more economical for all of us to drive Saturn compacts but you won't see it happen: people enjoy wasting money. After all, that is what it is for, spending on stuff we want. Well, you seem to want to help some fucking species, so take your money and do so! I hear the Sierra club has a plan (they've bought up thousands of acres of wilderness and are sitting on it), so give them your money so they can do more of this!

Money is what you make of it, so go use it to take responsibility.

11/18/2006 10:14:17 PM

Quote :

"If global warming helps my agenda, then I will be able to show it is occurring with any experiment. If it hurts my agenda, then I will be able to show it isn't occurring with any experiment. "

pot kettle black

11/18/2006 11:15:14 PM

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=257909&party=rep

12/4/2006 12:02:12 PM

is an article from six months ago that just rehashes the same exact thing that's been said again and again in this thread supposed to prove something? is the ".gov" supposed to give it more weight or something? this is a republican party press release. talk about biased.

12/4/2006 1:32:36 PM

I've got an inconvenient truth for you: YOU LOST THE 2000 ELECTION!

12/5/2006 12:30:29 AM

hello, welcome to the jokeworld of six months ago.

12/5/2006 12:31:49 AM

The Triangle may reach a 30-year record low tonight. Is Al Gore visiting the area?

The Gore Effect:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,20770387-5006029,00.html

12/9/2006 1:01:09 AM

Quote :

"The Triangle may reach a 30-year record low tonight. Is Al Gore visiting the area?"

Please tell me you're not serious

12/9/2006 1:08:25 AM

^ About the so-called Gore Effect? No. About continually mocking alarmists? Yes, very.

12/9/2006 1:18:30 AM

(Happy to be the Straight-man)


And what would be the Bush Effect?

12/9/2006 1:53:07 AM

Quote :

"The Triangle may reach a 30-year record low tonight. Is Al Gore visiting the area?"

And??? You rag on people who point to one storm as proof of global warming yet you turn around and do the same thing but in the opposite direction. Enjoy your complacency.

12/10/2006 6:15:28 PM

I'm not sure, but I think he was being sarcastic. As in, "some attribute significance to basic variability, so I'll show them the ultimate fruition of their beliefs."

12/11/2006 12:22:50 AM

^^can you really not see the sarcasm? Wow.

12/11/2006 12:38:49 PM

lol at how bent out of shape and defensive people are getting about the "Gore Effect"...rofl

12/11/2006 1:09:03 PM