• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Politics

Status
Not open for further replies.

turblom79

Paranormal Novice
Let me preface this message by saying that I am a huge fan of the Paracast and I appreciate Gene and David's approach at trying to discovering answers. My only problem lately has been the overwhelming slant against conservatives. I am not saying that Republicans are perfect, or that anyone should not speak out about what they believe, I just think that it might be time to see some alternate viewpoints. I love hearing intellectuals like Brad Steiger and Bill Birnes discussing conspiracy theories, because they present it well, unfortunately all the content comes down to conservatives ruining the world, I mean on one episode I actually heard someone defend Jimmy Carter for the country's inflation rate during his presidency! I personally feel that a discussion on the myth of global warming could be an interesting topic, if you could find someone to talk about it rationally. I know the consensus as of late, especially with the help of Al Gore, is that humans are ruining the planet, and that we are doomed. My response to this parallels something David often says, but in a different context. How can humans be arrogant enough to think that we can affect a planet that has survived for billions of years? Yes, the Earth is getting warmer in the past few decades, the Earth has also been through a few ice ages. The meteorology of the planet is so far beyond our comprehension right now because we have been around for such a small amount of time, that what we see as a warming trend, could actually just be a planetary cycle that is lasting a decades, and in the next few decades we could experience global cooling. I have also done a little research that shows the top three "greenhouse gases" that are making the earth warmer are: CO2, what we exhale; methane, caused by animal farts and decomposition; and water vapor. I know I am strongly against the consensus, but without dissidence, there is no science. So I just want to open up the discussion to maybe some issues that don't necessarily blame Bush for once. Thanks.
 
I

interestedINitall

Guest
So, how big is your SUV? I just love this sort of Any Randian, "Whatever, I'll do what I want!" tack especially when it's couched in obsequiousness like "How could we EVER affect the planet. . ." Give me a break. To paraphrase a recent expression - That kind of double-speaking sophistry is SO November 6th.

As for the show, it's Left-leaning. Either accept that or don't listen. Before I found the Paracast I used to listen to a certain radio program that was nothing but an insideous shill for Right Wing ideology (with a generous peppering of the host disavowing any political affiliation, of course). One episode even featured a remote viewer who claimed that the splashing and cries of anguish on an EVP were that of an aborted fetus. Subtle.

Gene and David don't hide their leanings nor do they "sell" them to us disguised as paranormal inquiry.
 

turblom79

Paranormal Novice
I do accept the show's left leaning, I was only offering an opinion on ways to expand, and to search for answers to many different questions, not just on how Bush "stole" the election.
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
turblom79 said:
I do accept the show's left leaning, I was only offering an opinion on ways to expand, and to search for answers to many different questions, not just on how Bush "stole" the election.
It should also be made very clear that we don't have a litmus test for our guests. I expect, based on what some have said, that they tend to be conservative in such matters. However, we are challenging the status quo, so alternative viewpoints come with the territory.
 
I

interestedINitall

Guest
turblom79 said:
I do accept the show's left leaning, I was only offering an opinion on ways to expand, and to search for answers to many different questions, not just on how Bush "stole" the election.
Kennedy's "stealing" the 1960 election has also been discussed. Perhaps not with the same frequency and passion but that's entirely understandable given that event is in an historical context and the most recent hijacking of democracy has placed us in immediate jeopardy.

Facts be damned, let's all show our crimson petticoats and cry shame - shame on a paranormal radio show for having a political view that isn't in lockstep with crowd-pleasers like FOX news. It's enough to put one off one's beer and fried cheese!

What's next - a war on Christmas??? Oh - um - right.

Teacher says that when a right winger acts persecuted a bloated (probably closeted) Deputy Chief of Staff gets his wings.
 

turblom79

Paranormal Novice
Your responses show me how bad the polarization of politics in this country has gotten. I was trying to make a simple statement that people should be open to other views on conspiracies that aren't jaded by their politics. I have listened to all of the the right-wing conspiracies, and while I may not agree with them, I am not complaining about them being expressed, I just want to expand to other areas.
 
I

interestedINitall

Guest
*sigh*

Yes yes, anyone with any sort of political conviction is just "polarizing" while a milquetoast, intellectually torpid approach is so very wise and sane.

Damn that Rosa Parks. She was such a polarizing force. Why couldn't she have just sat in the COLORED section and then intellectually masturbated with some friends at a coffee shop after.
 

CapnG

Devil's Advocate
One thing that interests me is this perception that global warming is a myth. It's almost uniquely an american conservative viewpoint. An affiliation that also debates things like evolution, the age of the earth and various other topics which are otherwise regarded as scientific fact. Why? Why this aversion to science? I'm not saying we have all the answers or that the science is always right but by and large it's a journey in a singular direction, ie towards the truth.

Now, let's take a look at global warming. Politically, I'm doggedly centrist so my reaction is "Okay, group A says it's a big deal, group B says it's nothing. Have at it science!" Now, after hundreds of studies involving thousands of scientists from every corner of the globe, two conclusions have been reached: A) global warming is real and B) Humans are in some fashion responsible. Not everyone agrees on the degree of responsibility or what (if anything) can be done about it but on those two points the jury is most definately IN.

So turblom, speak out if you feel the need but understand that while you may feel like the only sane man in the asylum, to the rest of us it looks a little more like this:

The world- Global warming is a serious problem and requires due and careful attention.

American Conservatives- (fingers in ears) LALALA! I'm not listening! LALALAAA!
 

KorMan

Skilled Investigator
Fact time, guys:

George W. Bush is NOT Satan, nor is he the fountainhead of all evil in the universe and in all other dimensions. I disagree with quite a bit of what he's doing, but I see no reason to bash him with an obsession bordering on monomania.

The GOP is NOT out to destroy everyone so that the ultrarich can prosper (although the vast majority of ultrarich folks are liberals).

The fedgov was NOT responsible for the NOLA travesty during and after Katrina. Conservatives did not loot and ravage the city and shoot at rescuers in helicopters. Conservatives did not let hundreds of school buses remain idle when they could have been used for evacuation. The evacuees who used their FEMA debit cards to buy jewelry, booze and sex were not conservatives.

The N'Awlins and Looziana governments are DemocRAT-laden. The US taxpayers are not responsible for rebuilding the city in the same place when it is known to be sinking. Millions of dollars in aid remain unspent while the DemocRATs piddle around and whine and piss and moan. And George W. Bush did NOT direct Katrina's path to hit NOLA.

Christians are NOT ignorant Bible-thumping a'holes who want to drag the world back to the Stone Age.

It's not necessary to be atheistic or liberal in order to be scientific.

And it's not necessary to be atheistic or liberal in order to be interested in the paranormal. I'm 64, I'm Christian, I'm conservative, and I've been UFOlogically oriented for almost half a century.

I've been a contactee since 1961, ergo I focus on that aspect of UFOlogy. Doing regular Google searches for contactees, UFOs, flying saucers, etcetera, brought me to this board and to the Paracast.

I have every broadcast to date stored on this box (1,886,144,675 bytes, for the curious), and I'm listening to them in order, from first to last. In doing so, I've noted, as did turblom79, that bash-mode politics is being injected into programs in places where there is no logical tie-in with the topic(s) of the day.

Gene and David are excellent in their roles on the show, but IMO the insertion of politics of ANY stripe for its own sake detracts from the program. The listeners are tuning in for the weekly updates on the wierd and the wonderful, not for lectures on the EEE-vills of George W. Bush and conservatism.

<hr>
Before I found the Paracast I used to listen to a certain radio program that was nothing but an insideous shill for Right Wing ideology ...
How terrible! So what was more annoying, that the program has a huge nationwide audience, or that Al Frankenstupid's Air America, an insidious shill for Left Wing ideology, has been an utter ratings disaster since day one?

Don't like "insideous shill(s) for Right Wing ideology"? There are alternatives: ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, LA Times, Seattle Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Time, US News, Newsweek, Daily KOS, Huffington, and on and on and on.

It's very telling when the success of talk radio is so irksome to liberals who dominate the vast majority of the US media. And it's more revealing yet when they are fixated on silencing all opposing viewpoints.

Liberalism's inability to compete in the arena of ideas does not justify censoring the conservative voices.

By the way, libs ...


And one that he missed, Kathy Ireland ...


So there!




Note: the above graphics were presented as tweaks to liberals, but at least one of them is (without justification) taking himself far too seriously.
 
I

interestedINitall

Guest
I was going to lampoon that twit KorMan but I thought that I would instead use him as an example to all of those who constantly whine about "polarization."

How can anyone opt for centrist neutrality when the country is unfortunately rife with ignorant, uninformed, delusional, marginally educated hicks like this??? He did everything but don a sheet and deny the holocaust.

Sure political extremism can kill six million people on the German countryside or three-thousand people one morning in September but on the other hand I thank heavens for the radicals (they were called extremists in their day) who sat at the lunch counters to end the policy of Separate but (Un)Equal, closed down campuses and burned their draft cards to protest an unjust war (we could use some of that now), lay down in churches when a conservative president wouldn't condescend to even mention a disease that was killing thousands weekly.

I'm a LIBERAL, damn right! I don't apologize for it and no, I don't tolerate idiots like KorMan any more than I would a Klansman or a gay basher.

I think this constant endorsement of a "sane" centrist view has been muddled into a front for self-congratulatory apathy. Change doesn't occur when we sit and say "Well, I don't believe in, for example, teaching school children a creation myth in favor of actual science BUT I'm centrist so I don't want to take sides. . .blah, blah, blah." That doesn't make you sagacious; it just makes you lazy and non-committal.

YES, it's always worth learning WHY someone holds an opinion but as valuable as greater understanding is it doesn't feed the cat when people are dying or living under persecution.

Why is it that only morons like KorMan are willing to take a stand these days?

Consider this: that waste of space KorMan probably votes. With that in mind how can anyone remain neutral in a world where knuckle dragging throwbacks like him have even a modicum of public influence???
 

Aaron LeClair

Paranormal Maven
George W. Bush is NOT Satan, nor is he the fountainhead of all evil in the universe and in all other dimensions. I disagree with quite a bit of what he's doing, but I see no reason to bash him with an obsession bordering on monomania.

The only fact I see in the paragraph quoted is one that is bore out of a straw man/exaggeration. The rest are opinions. The fact you shared a fact already known, is hardly deserving of the opening of "Fact time". Which implies that you are being more factual than others. Unless I read wrong (which is possible), you aren't.
 

KorMan

Skilled Investigator
interestedINitall, you colosally ignorant child, your verbal vomitus would be amusing on otherwise slow days. You certainly are the poster boy for leftist tolerance, kid.

You cannot engage in rational debate, thus you must rant, rave and insult. Congratulations on your dazzling display of idiocy. Does it come naturally to you, or do you practice in front of a mirror to get that supercilious sneer just right while you're popping your zits?

If not, then I'll say to you what I said to the milquetoast "It's a LEFT LEANING show, accept it or don't listen."
And I have no problem with the political leanings of its hosts and guests, moonbat. If politics is appropriate to the topic, then by all means talk politics. However, when the subject isn't political, then why inject politics?

Oh well, enjoy your fried cheese you silly, silly little man (the gender is assumed, the size is inferred).
Is the size of males of particular interest to you?

I'd love to stay and quibble with rubes but I've got theater tickets.
One can only imagine what sort of theater you'd attend, especially in view of your previously-cited comment.

 

KorMan

Skilled Investigator
The only fact I see in the paragraph quoted is one that is bore out of a straw man/exaggeration. The rest are opinions. The fact you shared a fact already known, is hardly deserving of the opening of "Fact time". Which implies that you are being more factual than others. Unless I read wrong (which is possible), you aren't.
Thanks for being almost infinitely more civil than than the low-forehead, knuckle-dragging, sputum-spraying, woman-loathing moron whose posts preceded yours.

My "facts" are based on various comments from no particular person that I've heard while playing the MP3s. If you'd like to debate them, I'll be happy to oblige. But first, I have to gritblast my monitor to get interestedINitall's cooties off of it.
 
I

interestedINitall

Guest
*sigh*

The stupid trash doesn't even pay attention to his own posts. Typical. He posts a graphic listing a bunch of "ugly" women and then calls ME "woman-loathing." Is that the misogynist calling the kettle black or what? Not only do they lack wit but those conservatives are SO psychologically damaged. I guess he's doing his best despite his painfully obvious educational and social shortcomings. Poor kid.



Incidentally, I don't think he's 64 unless we're talking about dog years. The moron can't form a complete thought without pulling stupid graphics from all over the net and actually used the word "cooties." I think if you strike the "6" and replace it with a "1" you'd get a better estimate of this oaf's intellectual development.

Oh well, this kind of thing can go on forever and I have better things to do than to fight with some angry middle American trash on a message board. You have fun in your godforsaken corner of nowhere, you ridiculous rube.

Maybe those aliens you claim to be in contact with will go 'round and 'round in circles with you but I won't be responding to anymore of your idiotic attempts at riposte. It's obvious that you're not up to it so anything more from me would just be abuse.

Ta :)
 

KorMan

Skilled Investigator
Typical conservative twit.
Child, it's recta with legs like you that have made "liberal" a cussword. Still, you are to be commended for not posting, "I'm a PROGRESSIVE, damn right!"

As for "cooties", it was aimed at your apparent age level. IAC, to show that I bear you no ill will, child, here's another graphic that's designed to be an exciting, challenging puzzle for one of your dazzling intellectual capacity. Don't thank me. I am renowned for my infinite compassion and tolerance for the neuronically-challenged.

Enjoy!


Lastly:

• I mean really, is ANYONE that stereotypically, almost theatrically stupid?
• he did everything but deny the holocaust.
• you and the rest of your slack jawed, marginally educated, sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic ilk
• Why is it that female conservative pundits are ALWAYS closeted butches
• Of course, Ann Coulter is just a trannie
• There maybe be hope for you yet, hayseed.
• Oh well, enjoy your fried cheese you silly, silly little man (the gender is assumed, the size is inferred).
• The stupid trash doesn't even pay attention to his own posts.
• Is that the misogynist calling the kettle black or what?
• those conservatives are SO psychologically damaged
• The moron
• this oaf's intellectual development.
• angry middle American trash
• you ridiculous rube.

No doubt your fellow liberals are beaming with pride over your peerless debating skills.
 

KorMan

Skilled Investigator
The world- Global warming is a serious problem and requires due and careful attention.

American Conservatives- (fingers in ears) LALALA! I'm not listening! LALALAAA!
Well, Science Guy, here's your chance to shine. I've posted this list on other boards, and to date the ecowackos have either avoided it or tried to spin it.

Outline for us what would be required to reduce the A-CO<sub>2</sub> emission level to reduce the GCC rate by a specific level. These are factors that must be considered before sinking trillions of dollars into it. The analysis must include:

• Unarguable scientific evidence that human activity is causing GCC;
• Unarguable scientific evidence of the percentage of GW attributable to human activity;
• A scientific study showing that a reduction of X% of anthropogenic CO<sub>2</sub> will result in Y% reduction of the rate of GCC;
• A scientific study showing that a Y% reduction in the rate of GCC will result in the desirable effects two or more centuries in the future;
• The necessary technologies for achieving the reduction;
• The costs of research and development to optimize them;
• The costs of manufacturing, distributing, installing, operating and maintaining the technologies;
• The negative environmental effects of the technologies;
• The economic impact of the technologies on the nations' businesses and governments;
• The impositions on the lifestyles of the people of the nations;
• The cost-benefit ratio of dollars spent vs the value of the proposed reduction in the rate of GCC;
• The cost of minimizing natural changes in the level of "greenhouse gases";
• The source of funding for bringing the technologies online and operating them;
• The total economic burden of the entire process.
• The arguments against spending far less money to prepare for inevitable eventualities than to attempt to stop an unstoppable process.


Throw out the global-warming religion and deal with the science and the economics. If you demand that we give "due and careful attention" to it, then you are obliged to tell us what "due and careful attention" is required.
 

CapnG

Devil's Advocate
KorMan said:
Well, Science Guy, here's your chance to shine. I've posted this list on other boards, and to date the ecowackos have either avoided it or tried to spin it.
And we're right out of the gate with the insults AND the assumption I'm sort sort of eco-crusader. Does the term "centrist" not penetrate far-end skulls?

KorMan said:
Throw out the global-warming religion and deal with the science and the economics. If you demand that we give "due and careful attention" to it, then you are obliged to tell us what "due and careful attention" is required.
No, I'm not obliged to jack. I'm not one of the THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS who have said this. It's their ball, so let them play with it. What I can do however is 100% guarantee that if and when such a report was published, conservatives would ignore, reject it or otherwise dismiss it. Apparently if 50 doctors say you have cancer and one says "No, it's just a cold." then you don't have cancer. I do appreciate the knee-jerk "fix it or shut up" response though, it's so ammusingly predictable.

As to the economics, here's your answer: whatever the cost, we'll have to suck it up. We in the first world have simply had it too good for too long and when the scale finally flips over it's gonna make the great depression look like a conga party (not that you'll care, you'll probably be dead by then).

The conservative versus liberal women thing always makes me laugh. Sure the liberal chicks are ugly as hell but they also look like they work for a living. The conservative women are all trophy wives and whores. All except Coulter of course... since she's a man...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Top