About as well-based as what one actually encounters from Lefties.
"It's just an outrageous lie. It's kind of hard to call it anything else. It's kind of like ObamaCare and the things he said in the beginning and now he's denying it."
I will say this till my dying day, I know people don't realize it now, that's going to go down in history as the greatest cover-up. And I'm talking about the Pentagon Papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate and the rest of them"
The lawsuit centers around an article published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and reprinted by the National Review that labeled Mann--co-author of the well-known hockey-stick graph--"the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet."
We cannot reach full Orwellian bloom unless guys who falsely claim to be Nobel Prize winners are treated like nobility and privileged to lord power over this pesky serf, Mark Steyn.
Long before MSNBC began defending mass surveillance or even before the Republican National Committee began denouncing it, the leftâ(TM)s favorite bogeymen saw the Patriot Act as an attack on civil liberties.
In fact, the Koch Brothers mightâ(TM)ve given more to repeal the Patriot Act than any other individual political campaign.
The way I see it O'Reilly is a right wing propaganda machine that seldom gets his facts right and shows less tolerance for people who disagree with him with each passing day. That is a compliment in comparison to most other radio & TV hosts from that part of the American political spectrum.
By comparison Colbert is (to paraphrase the actor's description) a "poorly informed idiot". More so, he's an act that parodies the conservative stance by taking their most extreme viewpoints and then - by intent or otherwise - showing how they fall apart.
Conservatives can laugh at Colbert's parody of O'Reilly, because Bill is rather a pompous ass. They can also laugh at Colbert because the character, while not entirely bereft of truthiness, doesn't really relate to actual people. Stephen Colbert is admired for his craft at playing the role, as much as for the role itself.
If you think Colbert is somehow representative, then I submit you've veered into some heavy stereotyping. And it happens. But the irony is that we have a group of people today in the media, in academia, in government that seem to be every bit as illiberal as the barbarism they decry.
And speaking of barbarism:
Slashdot only allows a user with your karma to post 25 times per day (more or less, depending on moderation). You've already shared your thoughts with us that many times. Take a breather, and come back and see us in 24 hours or so. If you think this is unfair, please email posting@slashdot.org with your username "smitty_one_each". Let us know how many comments you think you've posted in the last 24 hours.
It may be the case that
However, as a member of Academia, d_r is among the petty nobility of Obama America. Therefore, we peasants are supposed to genuflect, or something. Bwahahahahaha.
Thus, he should be burned for (what I'm sure MiniTru will agree is) an outburst of pure homophobia, straight up => http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/abcs-bachelor-juan-pablo-galavis-672100
"President Boner?" wait, had I not been assailed for "various types of childish insults" in your opening paragraph?
Boner is the closest word spell check knows to the speaker's last name. It is still far closer to his actual name than any of the long childish insults you constantly feel obliged to sling at the current presidential administration.
quite counter to the urgency of your calls for Obama to be thrown out over Benghazi (in spite of you having no evidence to support a case for such action against him for it)
There is in fact plenty of evidence for reasonable people who sanely view the facts with open eyes to conclude that grounds for impeachment exist.
That is something you take on faith, as you are clearly not of that group of people.
You put yourself in the position of defending
No. Once again, I am not defending anything.
Now, I figure that, as long as I'm paying a politician far, far too much money for him to do little more than sodomize my country's future, I should at least be allowed to call him things like "Occupy Resolute Desk", or "No-talent Rodeo Clown", or "Keystone Keynesian".
I don't even mind being chided for "various types of childish insults". This is an accurate reflection of the value of these lame little emotionally satisfying riffs.
However, what you're NOT going to see me do is defend them (why should I?), and then turn around and say I'm not defending anything. Especially when that object of the defense is a one trick pony whose sole trick is winning elections (and admittedly good trick).
This administration shall come to be viewed as almost the nadir of American History. The sad little throne sniffers wasting effort defending it are a truly sorry lot, indeed.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
