What is going on with Rush Limbaugh?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Did he really trash US soldiers? OR was he trashing some fraud who faked his military credentials?

I am sort of coming on this after the fact. Can someone who has been following this get me up to speed?

[Scott R. Brown]

I was actually listening on the days he made his comments.

It was VERY clear he was talking about one particular soldier and others LIKE him who PRETEND to be in the military and make FALSE claims about atrocities that DID NOT happen in the war and NOT the claims made by his detractors that he was denigrating REAL soldiers who differ in opinion from him.

Rush has been given many honors by soldiers including an award from a Marine/Law Enforcement foundation upon whose board he has served.

Soldiers who actually LISTEN to his show have no problem with his comments because it was VERY CLEAR what he meant at the time.

One must be either dishonest or mentally deficient to characterize his comments differently.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I am not the biggest Limbaugh fan (I'm not the biggest fan of anyone really), but the accusations I was hearing on TV just do not sound right to me.

I heard his explanation, but I wanted to hear some opinions form those who actually heard him. My thought is maybe there were other comments made that he is not admitting to, to spin his way out of trouble.

Since I don't listen to him all that much, I figured I'd ask to see if someone else had.

Assuming his defense is true, what does that say about the news media today? They appear to be going on a which hunt and truth is totally out the window.

Makes me wonder if there are any places where the government and media has not gone insane? Maybe my idea to move to Costa Rica is not as far fetched as I think?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

One thing I noticed, his attackers are NOT playing the sound bites of his actual words...highly suspect to me.

[Scott R. Brown]

You can go to his website and read and listen to what he said directly. You don't have to take anyone's words for him.

His comments were a culmination of a few days of comments about one particular guy who claimed to be a war vet Army Ranger, purple heart winner who came back from Iraq and told stories about the atrocities committed by American troops ala John Kerry. This guy was paraded around by liberal groups and lauded by Democrat politicians. His comments were broadcast in Arab countries to demonstrate how horrible American and our soldiers are only to find out he washed out of boot camp after only 44 days. He never served in the Army or went to Iraq. There are a number of these PHONY soldiers and there are numerous websites available to find out about them. This guy and others like him are the PHONY soldiers to which Rush was referring.

Anyone who thinks differently is reading into his comments what they want to hear and their opinion says more about them and how they think rather than Rush. Rush is well liked and respected by most men in uniform.

[Scott R. Brown]

Rush was commenting about how this guy was just sentenced to 5 months in jail for falsifying his military record. He was also commenting that those who supported him and enabled his FALSE claims to be broadcast around the world have NOT corrected the record or apologized for their not doing proper homework. They broadcast his comments because they wanted to believe in what he said and therefore did not do due diligence in verifying even such a simple matter as his military record.

This PHONY soldier damaged America through his comments and the media that broadcast his comments without substantiation participated in this. This is the heart of his comments.

[Scott R. Brown]

This was a smear campaign originated by Media Matters a Hillary Clinton front group. Some are thinking it is a response to the disastrous "General Betray Us" ad that was placed in the New York Times at half the going rate. This ad was meant to discredit General Patreaus's report on how the surge is going. It became an embarrassment for the Left so they are attempting the Logical Fallacy of "You're Another". Unfortunately, they have to lie in the the attempt and it is failing miserably as well.

All this is happening because of the political season and it will get worse before it gets better.

[Scott R. Brown]

Here is a comment Rush made today concerning the soldier:


I kind of glossed over this, but the phony soldier being discussed on this program since last Wednesday, Jesse MacBeth, was born as Jesse Al-Zaid in 1984. Now, he did something interesting in January of 2006. After he told all of these lies, after he lied about his Purple Heart -- the guy never got out of boot camp. He washed out after 44 days. He was never a Green Beret, Special Ops, never anything, never went to Iraq. The whole thing was manufactured. Obviously, he had to do this on purpose with the intent of discrediting the US military. Now, these are the people, before they learn the truth, the Democrat Party embraces, sad to say. So he tells all these lies about all these soldiers that he saw hanging innocent civilians from the rafters of mosques and all this.

His words were spread all over the world on the Internet, they were translated into Arabic, and I'm assuming here that Al-Zaid is an Arabic name. So what we have here in the case of Jesse MacBeth, who, by the way, was originally embraced, he was like a hero to the anti-war left. They loved spreading the lies. Are there any retractions coming from them now? No. And there won't be. The truth is inconvenient. It is fiction that propels the anti-war movement, ladies and gentlemen. But in January of 2006, he joined Iraq Veterans Against the War, and he was welcomed into this group. It should raise questions about the mission. The Jesse Al-Zaids of the world do not represent most vets and those serving now. So he joins this group, and they welcome him. I don't know that he will ever be denounced by these guys.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

He said that today? I saw the news trashing him this evening, AFTER he said that!

What gaul!!

They actually expect to get elected with a high school rummer mill like that going on?

My God how stupid are they?

[Scott R. Brown]

People usually believe what they want to believe and ignore facts that get in the way of their fantasies/preconceived notions. We each filter our perception of the world according to our preconceived ideas about it. Our ego tends to ignore, reinterpret or redefine what comes into conflict with our preconceived notions. This makes it easier to believe what supports our preconceived views, otherwise we have to change ideas about ourselves and the world that form the foundation of our identity. It is easier to pretend a false-hood is true than to change the way we think about things.

We want the world to be the way we want it to be and not the way it IS!

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Yeah, I do that all the time....of course I have KFM to beat me relentlessly untill I accept the truth, so I am a step above the rest of the world.

[1bad65]

The fact that certain people paraded this guy around without even bothering to check out his credentials is mind-boggling.

[Scott R. Brown]

Well, we all do it. The thing is to recognize we do it so we can hopefully try to be fair or reasonable when presented with information that conflicts with our world view.

The thing about Rush is that he takes some getting used to in order to understand him. He is a practical joker at heart; his pompous persona is schtick. He also behaves in certain ways to illustrate the true pompousness of others. If people do not listen to him on a regular basis they will not understand his humor.

One time he said he was going to buy his mom a new can opener so it would be easier for her to eat cat food. A Democratic congresswoman actually believed him and commented on it on the congressional floor, LOL!! He was commenting about how Democrats always say that increasing a government fund by say, 5% instead of increasing it by 7%, is the same thing as cutting funds. He was making fun of the Democrats and some of them took him literally. If you don't listen to him regularly you won't get the joke.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Last time I actually paid attention to him, he was making some sort of silly comment that there are MORE trees today, than ever before.

That made me go :rolleyes: and go back to FM for music.

He may be right about a number of things, but the environment ain't one of them.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

A Democratic congresswoman actually believed him and commented on it on the congressional floor,

Reply]
He actually is listened too enough for CONGRESS to comment on him?

I didn't know he was taken that seriously!

[Scott R. Brown]

Last time I actually paid attention to him, he was making some sort of silly comment that there are MORE trees today, than ever before.

That made me go :rolleyes: and go back to FM for music.

He may be right about a number of things, but the environment ain't one of them.

Well actually he was citing scientific fact. One of the reasons there are more trees in "America" than there were when the nation was founded is because we have fire control now. In the past fires burned until they burned themselves out.


A Democratic congresswoman actually believed him and commented on it on the congressional floor,

Reply]
He actually is listened too enough for CONGRESS to comment on him?

I didn't know he was taken that seriously!

Remember that politics is war. There is so much underhanded, foolish, illegal and ridiculous things going it would stun most people. Of course it is as old as politics. The Greeks and the Romans smeared each other too. Just read Cicero. They smeared Julius Caesar by intimating he was gay and that his wife slept around. That is just an example. The Roman forum was notorious for their smearing, they also used gangs to wage political pogroms and tried to buy support by donating to the poor and providing public entertainments, etc.

When people complain about politics today it is mostly from ignorance of history. It has always been this way and it is not better or worse than it ever was. Even during the Revolutionary War only 33% supported the war, 33% supported the British and 33% just wanted to wait and see.

Humans have not changed in millenia. The only difference is our toys.

[Scott R. Brown]

If you want more information about the "otherside" of global warming you will learn a lot from the links he supplies citing the number of scientists that were misquoted, and those that disagree with the the popular myth about climate change.

The number one thought to keep in mind is that the climate has never been stagnate. It has ALWAYS been changing and man has had to adapt to this change. One very good example of man NOT adapting is France in the 1700's. There was what is called a "mini ice age" occurring. Most European farmers converted to growing potatoes from grain. Potatoes grow in much colder environments than wheat. The growing season of wheat was so reduced that people in France began to starve because the French farmers refused to grow potatoes.

The famous words of Marie Antoinette are a bit mis-characterized....perhaps for some political reason???? The King of France began to eat potatoes once a week in an effort to convince the French that potatoes were okay to eat. The French farmers in their stubbornness continued to refuse to grow potatoes so in frustration Marie stated, "Let them eat cake!" Cake to them was not a holiday confection, but any wheat product similar to bread. The farmers preferred to starve rather than convert to potato cultivation. the starvation that resulted contributed to occurrance of the French revolution

[Scott R. Brown]

Ooops!! Oh Yeah!! The point....

Sudden "GLOBAL COOLING" created an environment that required humans to adapt. Those who didn't adapt suffered, those that did may have suffered the discomfort of change, but also enjoyed the benefits of change!

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Well actually he was citing scientific fact. One of the reasons there are more trees in "America" than there were when the nation was founded is because we have fire control now. In the past fires burned until they burned themselves out.

Reply]
It does not make sense. Think about it VAST geographical areas have been cut down, and an uncountable number of buildings have been put where the trees *Used* to be. That is not even counting millions of miles of roads that paved over where the trees sed to be, and we have not mentioend sidewalks, driveways, parking lots Malls or even more, all the areas where we now have grass and finly kept lawn that are now either totally devoid of trees, or there is one tree on a plot that was once all trees.

Just about the entire Chicaho area was all forest at one time....now it is the city, and more so the suburbs that stretch out for miles and miles, as far as the eye can see.

There is just no frik'n way preventing some forest fires can compensate for the kind of forest detestation that cities and suburbia have created.

No one thinks of it that way because they have the perception that forests are supposed to be a half day drive to be out in the wilderness....when in fact they live right where it *Used* to be.

Now Granted, Chicago itself had the area once known as Mud lake that was more treeless, but once you get past that, it was all forest.

I think the scientists who are saying we have more trees now may very well be politically motivated. The vast geographical areas that have been paved over are just too astronomical for that to be true....and we have not even discussed logging, and strip mining or the way they now blow off mountain tops to find coal.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Also, on global warming, Cars alone dump Millions of TONS of C02 into the air every year....that doesn't effect the atmosphere, how?

[1bad65]

He actually is listened too enough for CONGRESS to comment on him?


Bill Clinton used to mention him by name too.

[1bad65]

I remember when Rush had his TV show. He had one show where all these people were whining about 'global warming' in the 1990s. Then he showed the EXACT SAME PEOPLE in the 1970s lecturing about the coming 'ice age'. Most of the leaders of the environmentalist groups are socialists, they just use the environment as an excuse to attack 'big business'.

[MasterKiller]

Well actually he was citing scientific fact. One of the reasons there are more trees in "America" than there were when the nation was founded is because we have fire control now. In the past fires burned until they burned themselves out.

Well...I would argue that paper farms are the real reason for the rise in tree cultivation, not fires. Most paper comes from trees that were planted in paper farms, not the rain forest. So, using paper actually encourages tree planting.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I remember when Rush had his TV show. He had one show where all these people were whining about 'global warming' in the 1990s. Then he showed the EXACT SAME PEOPLE in the 1970s lecturing about the coming 'ice age'. Most of the leaders of the environmentalist groups are socialists, they just use the environment as an excuse to attack 'big business'..

Reply]
They may be socialists, but that does not mean they are wrong. All anyone needs to do is look around them and see the catastrophic damage that humans have done to this planet. For example, where you are standing right now, do you see a lush natural eco system? Or one that was totally annihilated and replaced with a man man made environment designed to suit Human purposes? If you really think about it, even the few trees you see are placed there by man for decorative purposes and are often not even from the original eco system that was destroyed to make way for our whims.

Rush is right about one thing though. He once commented the the answer to all this is not less technology, it is *More* technology.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Well...I would argue that paper farms are the real reason for the rise in tree cultivation, not fires. Most paper comes from trees that were planted in paper farms, not the rain forest. So, using paper actually encourages tree planting.

Reply]
No, we are just re growing the same trees over, and over again. Which is better than cutting them down to make paper and not replanting, but that does not mean we have more of them.

Of course the land those farms are on used to be rich, diverse eco systems, now only the trees are left, so you still have environmental damage...it's just less than destroying vast geographical areas to build hug cities like NY or Chicago.

To say we have not really fu(ked this planet up because some conservative scientists (with an agenda and motivation to be deceptive) say we didn't, to try and counter democratic liberal ones that say we do is silly. Especially when the monumental evidence is all around and out in the open for ANYONE to see.

[MasterKiller]

Well...I would argue that paper farms are the real reason for the rise in tree cultivation, not fires. Most paper comes from trees that were planted in paper farms, not the rain forest. So, using paper actually encourages tree planting.

Reply]
No, we are just re growing the same trees over, and over again. Which is better than cutting them down to make paper and not replanting, but that does not mean we have more of them.

Of course the land those farms are on used to be rich, diverse eco systems, now only the trees are left, so you still have environmental damage...it's just less than destroying vast geographical areas to build hug cities like NY or Chicago.

To say we have not really fu(ked this planet up because some conservative scientists (with an agenda and motivation to be deceptive) say we didn't, to try and counter democratic liberal ones that say we do is silly. Especially when the monumental evidence is all around and out in the open for ANYONE to see.
I'm not saying we haven't drastically altered the environment. I'm pretty far left on these issues. What I'm saying is we have MORE trees because of tree farms. These farms plant tens of thousands of trees every year, and because of them we have more trees than we used to. Of course, they aren't native foliage and create other problems, but nevertheless...

[1bad65]

They may be socialists, but that does not mean they are wrong.


That's exactly what it means. Either they were wrong on the 'ice age' or they are wrong on 'global warming', or they are wrong on both. PERIOD. It's like me saying the earth is flat today, then tomorrow saying it's square. I'm wrong on one theory, or both theories, no matter how you slice it. You can't be right on both.

Show me one country where socialism/communism has worked....:rolleyes:

Remember: Free countries build fences to keep people out, socialist/communist countries build them to keep people in.

[MasterKiller]

I'd say the 5,000 years of uninterupted Chinese history qualifies...

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I'm pretty far left on these issues. What I'm saying is we have MORE trees because of tree farms. These farms plant tens of thousands of trees every year, and because of them we have more trees than we used to.

Reply]
Not if they are just planting, and replanting them on the same ground they cut them all down from before.

Now, if you take some naturally empty space, like a desert and plant trees there, I'll say you are right.....but we are not. We are just planting, and replanting trees in the same spots they grew originally AND we have pretty much clear cut VAST and numerous geographic areas to make way for cities, and farms, roads and garbage dumps etc...

There is just no frik'n way continuously replanting tress on tree farms after we cut down the ones that were already there is going to give us more trees. Even if we DOUBLED the acreage for these farms, we are still so far behind the 8 ball due to the forests that got gradually destroyed to make room for the farms, cities, and suburbs it isn't even funny.

Now, IF you totally obliterated EVERY major city and suburb there is in the US, Pluss all the farms and replanted all the trees that naturally grew there, AND had your tree farms, *AND* found a way to get trees to grow in the desert, THEN you might actually be right if you said we have more trees today than at the foundation of the nation....

Oh, on the fire controll thing, forest fires to day rage as they do because we try and fight them. Instead of many small fires that just burn the low ground and clear it of excess brush and fallen branches, that stuff builds up, and up now so when we DO have a fire, it devastates all the trees around becasue the fire is so huge it consumes them.

Before we mettled, fires were smaller, and never got big enough to actually consume the trees due to happening more frequently and preventing the build up of brush and fallen branches that act as fuel. In fact the heat from them was vital to making new ones grow.

Take pine cones, they burst from the heat like pop corn and spread thier seeds. But now because we don't allow the natural burns, so much excess bush and tree branches and such build up that when we DO have a fire, we have megga fires, which not only take out trees that it never used to, it also burns the pine cones to a crisp and destroys them....preventing new trees form growing.


There is no way we have more trees now than before, there is just no frik'n way.

[Scott R. Brown]

Also, on global warming, Cars alone dump Millions of TONS of C02 into the air every year....that doesn't effect the atmosphere, how?

One volcano dumps more into the atmosphere than all of the exhaust of all of the cars in history and the planet has done fine. Volcano's erupt all the time and have done so for millions of years and the planet is doing just fine.

One large asteroid does more damage than all of the exhaust from all of the cars in history and the planet and the life on it has continued to survive.

I don't blame you for not accepting the story about more trees. It was a number of years ago. I will see if I can find the evidence. If I find it I will post if for you.

To attribute to the scientists political motivation argues that neither can we believe the contradicting evidence as well due potential political motivations of opposing scientists. Herein lies a demonstration of only accepting evidence that supports our pre-existing world view. We believe who we want to believe and accept evidence based upon our pre-existing beliefs about ourselves the world and reality. It is just as much blind faith as any acceptance in a religion. The only difference is we convince ourselves it is based upon reason. We are only fooling ourselves though. A belief in the accuracy of science when it constantly contradicts itself is just as foolish.

The truth is there is rarely absolute scientific evidence to demonstrate the TRUTH of nearly all conclusions that deal with dynamic environments. Whether the topic is physiology, psychology or environmental studies. The best that can be done is an educated guessing based upon evidence colored by the pre-existing bias of the scientist and inherently flawed scientific protocol.

That is why I don't worry about it. Experience demonstrates that whatever is believed to be true today will be changed, modified and disbelieved in the future. Many of the FACTS accepted as TRUTH that were taught when I was a child are no longer accepted.

In the 70's the worry was global cooling. The latest evidence about ozone depletion has also demonstrated the fear mongering of the 90's concerning it was based on incomplete and erroneous evidence.

So worry about it if you like, but it is a waste of energy and subjects the individual to manipulation by fear mongers. The global climate change fiasco is very similar to religious fundamentalists preaching hell fire and brimstone in order to scare the congregation. This is manipulation designed to scare the congregation and make them malible enough to accept the presented solution, "Salvation through Jesus Christ"! Salvation is only necessary if one accepts the hell fire and brimstone doomsday scenario. IT is dependent upon a belief that one is doomed. Take away the hell fire and brimstone, the doom and there is no need for salvation and no longer an opportunity for manipulation.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

One volcano dumps more into the atmosphere than all of the exhaust of all of the cars in history and the planet has done fine. Volcano's erupt all the time and have done so for millions of years and the planet is doing just fine.

Now add the cars and factories and that figure doubles.

If you had 200 LBS on your chest, and someone douled that to 400 LBS what would happen to you?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I don't blame you for not accepting the story about more trees. It was a number of years ago. I will see if I can find the evidence. If I find it I will post if for you.

Reply]
Does this evidence take into account all the millions, and millions of acres destroyed to make way for cities, suburbs, farms, roads and garbage dumps? What about blowing the tops off of mountains to get the coal under them?

How can tree farms, that are planting the same ground the original trees came from mean we have more trees now, than before with all the above mentioned devastation?

Were does the extra land come from?


The whole thing does not add up at all. Maybe we have more trees than before we started farming, but to say there are more than before we were a nation....no frik'n way. There is only so much land, and such huge astronomical amounts of former forest are now covered in concrete and buildings it's just not possible to have more trees now.

A road, and a building cannot occupy the same space as the trees. If you have one, the other must be removed first to make room.

[Scott R. Brown]

One volcano dumps more into the atmosphere than all of the exhaust of all of the cars in history and the planet has done fine. Volcano's erupt all the time and have done so for millions of years and the planet is doing just fine.

Now add the cars and factories and that figure doubles.

If you had 200 LBS on your chest, and someone douled that to 400 LBS what would happen to you?

The earth handles the problem of the volcanoes and has done so for millenia and it will do the same and has done the same with car exhaust. So what if you add the output from cars and industry, I just respond by saying there are more than one volcano on the planet. Do you think they wait in line to go off or do sometimes more than one or perhaps dozens go off from time to time in the billions of years of the planet. The point is we cannot destroy the planet. We might make it hard to live in for awhile, but that is debatable. The planet will survive and so will mankind. Change is inevitable. The solutions to problems only create more problems the will require other solutions ad infinitum, so I don"t worry about it.

[Featherstone]

Unless you were actually alive at the founding of the nation you really cant say the fires werent that big! Sorry but fire is as fire does, small or big, controlled or free, it can consume everything in its path until extinguished. Underbrush has always been just that, underbrush and it is the source for all ground fires caused by a flicked butt from some idiot or from lightning that blew a tree limb off and it hit the ground, It just takes a spark. Tree population, hmmm who's to really say considering we have cut so much down for industry. When I drive through the state of Florida and look to the side I see trees in perfect row's, hey guess what, they were logged and replanted! When you go through areas of Tennessee and the Carolinas, those trees you are seeing, those were replanted, wow!

If you want to save a tree from becoming a paper product, try getting the goverment to grow hemp! It can grow anywhere, grows very fast and is easily restocked, the down side to it...well, if you dont know what hemp is you have been living under a rock!

And anywho, how did it go from Rush talking about some fake dirt bag to an enviroment discussion, see, he has worked his magic and got you thinking! hehe

[1bad65]

I'd say the 5,000 years of uninterupted Chinese history qualifies...


China has been communist for just over 50 years. Their economy is growing fast for the last 10 years. Care to take a stab at why?

Also, notice how when Hong Kong reverted to Chinese rule a few years ago, the government of China left in place the capitalistic policies there. Even hardline communists can be smart enough to not kill the Golden Goose every time.

[MasterKiller]

China has been communist for just over 50 years. yeah, but it was socialist for the 2000 years before that.

[Scott R. Brown]

What is considered a NORMAL climate for the planet is an arbitrary determination made by people with agendas. The planetary environment has always been in flux. It is the way of Tao/Nature. We cannot change it and any attempt to correct it is just as doomed to create problems as any other. I am not saying we shouldn't attempt to keep to an arbitrarily determined standard, only that that standard is arbitrary and doomed to created more problems.

[jrm]

Rush Limbaugh should be irrelevant. It shouldn't matter what he said, or what Brad Pitt sais, or Rosie O'Donnel, or on and on ..It's our entertainment obsessed culture that makes him relevant. He is an infotainer in the infotainment business, the business which long ago made the news business irrelevant and making comments like the one he made makes his business more lucrative.

Something is wrong when we stop talking about real issues and instead talk about the way in which people are talking about real issues. Politics today is more personality driven than ever and that is why we get incompetent leaders with poor judgement. For some reason voters think democracy is a friggin soap opera. This Limbaugh infotainment (i refuse to call it news) bit is the General Betrayus ad all over again. The MoveOn ad tried to bring something to the debate (albeit in a very clumsy and wrongheaded way) about how our government is trying to manipulate public opinion. Whether you agree with them or not, the opportunity was there to look at this very important issue. Instead, our 'leaders' (mostly Repubs, but the Dems to, afraid not to be outdone) seized the opportunity to turn it into a group therapy session and changed the issue to how a group could so callously throw words around that could could hurt the precious feelings of a four star general. "The horror!" The media in turn picks up on this with glee.
Our public discourse these days is "Hey, let's talk politics! Can you believe what so-n-so said?!".. anything but talking about real things that are happening to real people everyday and that suits Limbaugh and our leaders just fine.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Unless you were actually alive at the founding of the nation you really cant say the fires werent that big!

Reply]
We know fires were not that big before we started trying to manage them. there was a thing on the history channel about it.

They explained the mechanics of a forest fire, and why the forests need them. They also explained why today we have these monster megga fires that we did not have before we started trying to manage them.

They way things are now is recent. Prior to the advent of fire management, we did not have these monster fires they are new, to the last few decades or so.

Prior to that, forest fires did not kill trees because they were not big enough due to the fact that frequent fires kept the under brush from building up.



Basically there just was not enough fuel (under brush) to get monster fires. But now that we don't allow fires to burn up that underbrush, it has just collected, and collected till there is enough to actually burn down a tree, that otherwise would be just fine (and actually depended on the fires) back when the fires were small and low to the ground.

[1bad65]

yeah, but it was socialist for the 2000 years before that.


You are incorrect on that. Chiang Kai-Shek was not a socialist. ROC was a 'semi-presidential system' of government. The previous government, the Qing Dynasty(1644-1912), was a monarchy. Previous to that were a series of dynasties, all with a monarchy system of government.

[1bad65]

Rush Limbaugh should be irrelevant. It shouldn't matter what he said, or what Brad Pitt sais, or Rosie O'Donnel, or on and on ...


Rush has been a political pundit for over 20 years. He was not an entertainer first who began to enter political debate. Brain trusts like Barbra Streisand, Rosie O'Donnell, Ted Danson(who said in 1990 we only had 10 years to save the planet), Bono, etc are the ill-informed entertainers who comment on issues they really have no working knowledge of.

[AJM]

Now just stop it. You know if you speak the devils name he will appear and I really don't want any of those cretins around me.

[mkriii]

I'm not a big fan of Rush, I like Michael Savage alot better. But in this case I have to agree with Rush on this subject of this soldier faking his credentials. Its just sad that this happened and that the Democrats ran with it. As Savage says "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

[1bad65]

Another poseur used for political gain was Grey Owl. The conservationists back then(mainly the 1930s-1940s) touted him as an American Indian and expert on the environment from being raised Indian. In reality he was a 100% white man born in England, a drunk, a trapper, and served as a sniper in WWI.

[MasterKiller]

Rush has been a political pundit for over 20 years. He was not an entertainer first who began to enter political debate. Brain trusts like Barbra Streisand, Rosie O'Donnell, Ted Danson(who said in 1990 we only had 10 years to save the planet), Bono, etc are the ill-informed entertainers who comment on issues they really have no working knowledge of.

Exactly! When Rush talks about drug addicts, he has first hand knowledge!

[1bad65]

Exactly! When Rush talks about drug addicts, he has first hand knowledge!


And when Ted Kennedy talks about killing people when driving drunk, he has firsthand knowledge.

Being the first to launch personal attacks in a political discussion is usually a sign you cannot win on the facts and merits of your arguments.

[MasterKiller]

His drug addiction and subsequent legal problems are facts that should be included in the discussion.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

According to his show today, he's been clean though.

[MasterKiller]

According to his show today, he's been clean though.

I bet Mark Foley hasn't PM'd any boys lately, either.

[jrm]

Rush has been a political pundit for over 20 years. He was not an entertainer first who began to enter political debate. Brain trusts like Barbra Streisand, Rosie O'Donnell, Ted Danson(who said in 1990 we only had 10 years to save the planet), Bono, etc are the ill-informed entertainers who comment on issues they really have no working knowledge of.

It doesn't matter that he's labeled as a 'political pundit'. He is an infotainer in the infotainment business that drives what we call news today. Ann Coulter falls into the same category. They are personalities first. They are in the business to make money off of the personality that they bring to the political scene. In their business, any attention is good attention. They cash in when they can get people gasping at what they just said. That is why you often hear seemingly 'outrageous' things coming out of their mouths. The sad thing is that there are people out there who listen to Rush while thinking that that they are actually listening to the news.

[Phrost]

If I were a Democrat right now I'd be embarrassed. It's blatantly obvious they're intentionally misrepresenting what he said in order to achieve their own political ends.

It's shameful.

[Yao Sing]

The sad thing is that there are people out there who listen to Rush while thinking that that they are actually listening to the news.

What a bunch of dummies. Everyone knows the best news source the Colbert Report. :p

[1bad65]

I bet Mark Foley hasn't PM'd any boys lately, either.


Do you think Mel Reynolds has given up trying to arrange threesomes with underage girls?

[MasterKiller]

If I were a Democrat right now I'd be embarrassed. It's blatantly obvious they're intentionally misrepresenting what he said in order to achieve their own political ends.

It's shameful.

*cough* Jessica Lynch *cough* Pat Tillman *cough*

[1bad65]

JRM, if you are trying to say that Bono, Ted Danson and Rosie, etc are as knowledgable on the issues as Ann Coulter and Rush you should just stop now to avoid embarrassing yourself further. Take Phrost's advice.

[MasterKiller]

Do you think Mel Reynolds has given up trying to arrange threesomes with underage girls?

Probably not. You think Craig has tapped his foot in a men's bathroom lately?

[1bad65]

*cough* Jessica Lynch *cough* Pat Tillman *cough*


*cough* John Kerry *cough* Casey Sheehan *cough*

[1bad65]

Probably not. You think Craig has tapped his foot in a men's bathroom lately?


Who knows. Is Barney Frank's gay lover still running a male prostition ring out of Barney's house?

[1bad65]

And remember, Clinton gave Mel Reynolds a last-minute pardon too. Maybe we will see him on Dateline NBC one day! :D

[MasterKiller]

Who knows. Is Barney Frank's gay lover still running a male prostition ring out of Barney's house?

You mean the same Frank that in 1989 was involved in outing the Reagan administration's and Pentagon's role in a boyhood prostitution ring? Probably...

[1bad65]

You mean the same Frank that in 1989 was involved in outing the Reagan administration's and Pentagon's role in a boyhood prostitution ring? Probably...


Do what!? This is news to me! Links please.

[jrm]

JRM, if you are trying to say that Bono, Ted Danson and Rosie, etc are as knowledgable on the issues as Ann Coulter and Rush you should just stop now to avoid embarrassing yourself further. Take Phrost's advice.

Where in either of my posts did I say something like that? I personally don't care what Bono, Rosie, or Ted Danson say. I really don't pay much attention to them. Although I'm sure they do say some dumb ****. My auto mechanic probably has some goofy opinions as well and I don't pay any attention to him either. Why do you care what they say?

From reading his posts I don't know what Phrost's advice was. Did he direct some my way?

[MasterKiller]

Do what!? This is news to me! Links please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdmvuxrXKBM

[1bad65]

MasterKiller, you should be embarrassed to think that was in any way true. The FBI covered it up?! Dude, do you believe Frank Dux too? That's like conspiracy theory 101. Let's debate with FACTS everyone agrees at least happened. We may have a different take on them, but we all agree they happened.

That video is a liberal equivalent to the nutbars who say Clinton was running drugs through Mena, Arkansas as Governor.

[mkriii]

Clinton probably was. I wouldn't put anything past slick willy. Hell he was probably smuggling cigars as well. We all know he likes his cigars.

[MasterKiller]

MasterKiller, you should be embarrassed to think that was in any way true. The FBI covered it up?! Dude, do you believe Frank Dux too? That's like conspiracy theory 101. Let's debate with FACTS everyone agrees at least happened. We may have a different take on them, but we all agree they happened.

That video is a liberal equivalent to the nutbars who say Clinton was running drugs through Mena, Arkansas as Governor.

It was worth a try, wasn't it?

Ollie North!

[1bad65]

Ollie North! I love when liberals bring up Iran-Contra to attack Reagan. Liberals are so funny when it comes to Reagan. They aften swear 2 things about him are true:

A) He was a doddering old fool who could not even speak well. He needed advisors to set his policies because he was so stupid. He also probably had Alzheimers while President.

B) He was a criminal mastermind. He engineered Iran-Contra all by himself and he insulated himself so well no one could tie anything to him.


Do you see how ridiculous anyone is who swears BOTH of those are true?

Do you belive in the 'October Surprise' by chance?

[MasterKiller]

Or...

A) He was a doddering old fool who could not even speak well after he got shot. He needed advisors to set his policies because he was a retard after he got shot. He also probably had Alzheimers after he got shot in the head.

and

B) Ollie North was guilty.

[Phrost]

*cough* Jessica Lynch *cough* Pat Tillman *cough*

Just as shameful.

(Not a Republican.)

[1bad65]

Or...A) He was a doddering old fool who could not even speak well after he got shot. He needed advisors to set his policies because he was a retard after he got shot. He also probably had Alzheimers after he got shot in the head.


Calling an ex-President a 'retard' is classless. And FYI, he was not shot in the head, WRONG AGAIN. He was hit in the upper body. James Brady was shot in the head, and he still suffers lasting effects from the shooting.




B) Ollie North was guilty.


I THINK North pled to some charges, correct? He was not convicted or pled guilty to a felony though, because he ran for a Senate seat years later.

He actually ran against 'Chuck' Robb, who married one of LBJ's daughters, but carried on affair with an ex-Miss Virginia USA(Tai Collins). Robb also responded to allegations he attended parties where cocaine was present by saying he had no idea what cocaine looked like! A distinguished career indeed.

[The Willow Sword]

i am reminded of an old 80's Saturday Night Live Skit where William Shatner Hosted and the opening skit to the show was a musical diddy Titled "The Mute Marine"

singing " He traded arrrrrmms with Irannnnn for Hostagesssss Whata GREAT Plannnnn".

I am also reminded of a Great Song by a great band called "THE WHO" with song titled "wont get fooled again". hehehehe;)



Peace,TWS

[Shaolin Wookie]

Calling an ex-President a 'retard' is classless.

...but not unwarranted, if you include such lauded political gurus like Jerry Fallwell in your discussions on foriegn policy, involving possible scenarios on how to deal with the Apocalypse.

Besides, Reagan was an actor, and I bash actors all the time. So to me, he's just another Hollywood hom0 actor getting involved in politics---like a right wing Sean Penn or Jeanine Garafalo.

[Shaolin Wookie]

I don't see how anyone can listen to Limbaugh, or any of those solipsistic talk radio nutjobs. They say the same thing every day, address the same issues in the same ways, plug the same drugs during breaks, and then crash down hard on those same drugs during the airing sessions, and then OD on those same drugs when nobody's looking. Why don't they just all pound themselves over the head (or in the ass, if they like it that way) with a frying pan, and call it a day? There's absolutely no thought put into their arguments. They're presented de facto, a priori, and dogmatically. And the people who call in are redneck *******s, uneducated citizens with bones to pick, gun-toting John Takeshi's, newspaper-reading armchair politicians who probably don't even vote, and misguided political science majors, or dropouts.

It's not exactly a forum for intellectual discourse--and by such I mean a presentation of varying ideas, selecting the best, not just the most convenient.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I think it is funny that Rush plug Homeopathic medicines....considering the active ingredient is so thined down it's barley even there.

There is no way they can actually work....yet he swears by them in the add.

[BoulderDawg]

I don't understand why Limpy's comments have create such an uproar. Even Harry Reid said something about it.......how stupid. Limpy loved that.

I learned a long time ago that Limpy, Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity, Drudge and many others make these comments just to line their own pockets when people react to them. I could really care less what they say. I expect them to hit below the belt to people they don't like so it doesn't surprise me.

Anyway, the only thing I have to say about the troops fighting is that there is no draft. So how stupid do you have to be to fight a war manufactured by Bush/Cheney. If you are dumb enough to go over there in the first place you should probably shut up, bow to King George and go out and die for him.

[Shaolin Wookie]

My cousin is over there. He joined before the war, and they extended his enlistment, as far as I understand, without his consent. That's what he said. I don't understand how that's possible, though.

[BoulderDawg]

My cousin is over there. He joined before the war, and they extended his enlistment, as far as I understand, without his consent. That's what he said. I don't understand how that's possible, though.

Personally, if it came down to it, I would sit in a jail cell before I would go over there.

[1bad65]

Besides, Reagan was an actor, and I bash actors all the time. So to me, he's just another Hollywood hom0 actor getting involved in politics---like a right wing Sean Penn or Jeanine Garafalo.


Reagan was the president of the Screen Actors Guild(SAG) and the Governor of California before becoming President. He was not just an actor spouting off, he had actual experience.

Jesse Ventura was a city coucilman and a Mayor before he was Governor of Minnesota. Sonny Bono was a Congressman for many years before his death.

There is a difference between the people above and uninformed morons like Sean Penn and Jeanine Garafalo.

[1bad65]

My cousin is over there. He joined before the war, and they extended his enlistment, as far as I understand, without his consent. That's what he said. I don't understand how that's possible, though.


It happened to a freind of mine too. It's totally legal. When you sign up for the military they get just about everything but your soul, and they may get that too. ;)

[1bad65]

Personally, if it came down to it, I would sit in a jail cell before I would go over there.


If it was a draft situation so would I, although I would go to Canada or Israel first. But if you sign up, you gotta go. It's a chance you take when you sign up. It's a two-way street, you get training, a paycheck, free housing, etc BUT there is a chance you may have to fight in combat.

The guys who refuse to be drafted are right, but the guys already in our VOLUNTEER military who refuse to go should be shot.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Reagan was the president of the Screen Actors Guild(SAG) and the Governor of California before becoming President. He was not just an actor spouting off, he had actual experience.

Jesse Ventura was a city coucilman and a Mayor before he was Governor of Minnesota. Sonny Bono was a Congressman for many years before his death.

There is a difference between the people above and uninformed morons like Sean Penn and Jeanine Garafalo.

Hey, I'm all for Jessy Ventura, and even Arnold Schwartzenegger in office. I figure the more cast members we can get in office from the movie Predator, the better off we'd be. Carl Weathers '08? Hell mutha****inyeah!!!!!

[kwaichang]

Rush is a Joke. He knows little but has good research people. Hes a freakin Joke. What is sad is people treat him like he is a God . And Believe everything he says KC

[MasterKiller]

Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown
One volcano dumps more into the atmosphere than all of the exhaust of all of the cars in history and the planet has done fine. Volcano's erupt all the time and have done so for millions of years and the planet is doing just fine. .

Where did u get this info?

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

Also, this is from wikipedia:

The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity. This was essential for a warm and stable climate conducive to life. Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year,[6] which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities.[7]

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

This explains why there are major sections of Ice shelf breaking, why Glacier National park has no glaciers anymore (When they had large ones in the 1950's), and why we have August like weather in October.

No need to move to Costa Rica for a year round Tropical climate, if I wait long enough it will come here.

[1bad65]

Just a few years ago it snowed down here in Austin. It was the first time in like 20 years. That same winter broke a few low temp records too. Global warming is a sham. Most of the ones touting it have no credability. And their public face, Al Gore, is a known and proven pathological liar.

[MasterKiller]

Just a few years ago it snowed down here in Austin. It was the first time in like 20 years. That same winter broke a few low temp records too. Global warming is a sham. Most of the ones touting it have no credability. And their public face, Al Gore, is a known and proven pathological liar.

Well, in the face of such overwhelming evidence as a freak snow storm Austin, I'm convinced!

[1bad65]

Well, in the face of such overwhelming evidence as a freak snow storm Austin, I'm convinced!

Well it is part of the earth. And it's not the only place by far that had a colder then normal winter that year. Point is, all these Chicken Littles screaming that the sky is falling tend to dismiss any evidence that does not fit their agenda as abnormalities or 'freak' weather.

And as I said before, when Al Gore is the public face of your crusade you really have little to no credability.

[KC Elbows]

That video is a liberal equivalent to the nutbars who say Clinton was running drugs through Mena, Arkansas as Governor.

I may be remembering incorrectly, but wasn't the complaint that he knew about Iran-Contra coke coming through his state, not that he was running it?

While I have no idea whether or not Clinton was tied to Contra drugs, my impression was that the expert opinion was that there were drugs coming into the U.S. from the whole Contra mess. Like I said, I might be remembering incorrectly, but this was all gleaned from poli sci journals of some note, not right or left wing trash. The analysis, as I recall it, was that this was one way to fund the whole deal.

[KC Elbows]

Reagan was the president of the Screen Actors Guild(SAG) and the Governor of California before becoming President. He was not just an actor spouting off, he had actual experience.

Jesse Ventura was a city coucilman and a Mayor before he was Governor of Minnesota. Sonny Bono was a Congressman for many years before his death.

There is a difference between the people above and uninformed morons like Sean Penn and Jeanine Garafalo.

Rush Limbaugh's political experience matches two of the people you just named. Guess which two.:D

[KC Elbows]

Well actually he was citing scientific fact. One of the reasons there are more trees in "America" than there were when the nation was founded is because we have fire control now. In the past fires burned until they burned themselves out.

I'm curious how one determines how many trees there were in the US when the first surveys were done shortly before the Civil War in a few states, were interrupted by the Civil War, and didn't continue (or, in the case of MOST states, start) until sometime after the war's end. I'm especially curious to know who at the founding was counting trees in Nevada. Were there already strippers?

[KC Elbows]

Just a few years ago it snowed down here in Austin. It was the first time in like 20 years. That same winter broke a few low temp records too. Global warming is a sham. Most of the ones touting it have no credability. And their public face, Al Gore, is a known and proven pathological liar.

Out of curiosity, what year was that?

[1bad65]

Out of curiosity, what year was that?

2006, Late Jan-early Feb. I remember cause I missed work and stayed home and goofed off in the snow. I was 34 and the last time there was enough snow to make snowballs I was about 11 yeard old.

[1bad65]

Rush Limbaugh's political experience matches two of the people you just named. Guess which two.:D


Rush has been in the political arena for over 20 years now. Back then Garofolo was a kid and Sean Penn was playing Spicolli. There really is no comparison.

I would say James Carville and Carl Rove know political issues quite well, yet they have never been elected to office.

[KC Elbows]

Rush has been in the political arena for over 20 years now. Back then Garofolo was a kid and Sean Penn was playing Spicolli. There really is no comparison.

I would say James Carville and Carl Rove know political issues quite well, yet they have never been elected to office.

James Carville employed successful election strategies to get a guy elected. Rove applied successful party strategies to get a majority. Limbaugh is merely a pundit with no practical experience of his own, no expertise in politics of his own, and no chance or inclination of ever having any. He takes part in radio, not politics. Talking about a politician is not the same as having political experience, of which he has none, and never will. The GOP would be the last to allow him to, because he's more useful to them as a pundit.

[KC Elbows]

2006, Late Jan-early Feb. I remember cause I missed work and stayed home and goofed off in the snow. I was 34 and the last time there was enough snow to make snowballs I was about 11 yeard old.

2006 did not break the lowest temperature record that year. You're probably thinking of a daily temperature record; daily temperature records don't mean much of anything in terms of trends in temperature.

Nonetheless, I'm jealous of the music scene you have access to.

[1bad65]

James Carville employed successful election strategies to get a guy elected. Rove applied successful(if short sighted) party strategies to get a majority. Limbaugh is merely a pundit with no practical experience of his own, no expertise in politics of his own, and no chance or inclination of ever having any. He takes part in radio, not politics. Talking about a politician is not the same as having political experience, of which he has none, and never will. The GOP would be the last to allow him to, because he's more useful to them as a pundit.


That's the part I disagree with. Rush(who I have not listened too much the last 2 years or so) has always said thet when Republicans run as conservatives they win. This is correct. Hell, the last Congressional elections the Democrats ran pretty conservative in The South and picked up their Congressional gains there.

A quick prediction :), the Democrat candidate for President will not say they will raise taxes, and they may even campaign on a tax cut(like Bill Clinton did), but if they win and control Congress, there will be a tax increase.

[1bad65]

2006 did not break the lowest temperature record that year. You're probably thinking of a daily temperature record; daily temperature records don't mean much of anything in terms of trends in temperature.

Nonetheless, I'm jealous of the music scene you have access to.


Not everywhere broke records, but AGAIN you dismiss EVIDENCE like breaking records as an anomaly if they do not fit your agenda. :rolleyes:

If you ever get a chance to see The Black Angels or Ghostland Observatory live, do it.

[David Jamieson]

To deny the fact that the earth is getting warmer is truly being uninformed.
Glaciers are melting, the Arctic Ice cap has receded more in the last 15 years than in the previous 2000.

The thing is to not dump it all in a ball and blame it on "x". This is also ignorant.


Pollution from humans is bad. Greenhouse gases also bad. But, the natural warming of the climate is also going on with the last portions of warming happening at an exponential rate because of what has already been warmed.

here's the thing though, even if we all stopped driving cars and polluting and even held our ****s in for 100 years, the trend would not stop. There is nothing we can do at all to stop this thing from running it's course. So now, it is a matter of adaptation.

Only those with the ways and means will adapt the best and many will float away.

Thankfully, I am getting old and won't have to deal with it when it is at it's worst. :p

enjoy you post 1990-ers!

[KC Elbows]

Not everywhere broke records, but AGAIN you dismiss EVIDENCE like breaking records as an anomaly if they do not fit your agenda. :rolleyes:

I did not suggest they were an anomalies. Daily temperatures vary greatly, but when discussing trends, the variations do not define the trend, the overall trend does. This is basic to the discussion. It was taught to me by a practicing physical geographer and a meteorologist when I was pursuing that in my education. They were both Republicans. According to both, the only debate in the global warming discussion as it is held by SCIENTISTS, not talking heads for either side, is not whether human activity has a bearing on the issue, but the degree and the best methods for measuring it.

That said, it is possible that the average temp during the time you are talking about is cooler than previous years: since I have no intention of looking up all the monthly averages for the last fifty years and charting them for the sake of this discussion, I'll just leave it at the fact that that period's monthly averages are not lower; assuming that you are correct, and that there were a number of daily record lows, for the average to still be higher suggests that other days more than countered those lows. By only counting the coldest days, not the other days that make up the trend, it is you who are discounting evidence, but it is the internet after all, so no problems.



If you ever get a chance to see The Black Angels or Ghostland Observatory live, do it.

The second name led me to believe you were talking about weather observatories. I was doubly ****ed, knowing that you have a better music scene and the coolest sounding observatories ever.:D

[KC Elbows]

That's the part I disagree with. Rush(who I have not listened too much the last 2 years or so) has always said thet when Republicans run as conservatives they win.

Is it expertise to predict that when a party member for a popular conservative party is seen as conservative, they are more likely to win an election?

No.

[1bad65]

I did not suggest they were an anomaly. Daily temperatures vary greatly, but when discussing trends, the variations do not define the trend, the overall trend does. This is basic to the discussion.


As days vary greatly in watching the trends over the last ~200 years or so, so do decades vary greatly over the MILLIONS of years the earth has existed. Remember, in the 70s it was a cooler temp trend and many alarmists/socialists were warning of the coming Ice Age. Now many of those same people are lecturing us on global warming. :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

Is it expertise to predict that when a party member for a conservative party are seen as conservative, they are more likely to win an election? No.


I say it is expertise, considering many ELECTED Republicans have failed to figure it out. ;) And I'm speaking of general elections, not Republican primaries.

[KC Elbows]

As days vary greatly in watching the trends over the last ~200 years or so, so do decades vary greatly over the MILLIONS of years the earth has existed. Remember, in the 70s it was a cooler temp trend and many alarmists/socialists were warning of the coming Ice Age. Now many of those same people are lecturing us on global warming. :rolleyes:

Global warming, and man's impact on it, are not a new field of science, and I recall it being brought up in the seventies as well. If I recall correctly, those who supported the ice age idea believed that, as the caps melt, those cooler waters would then cool the oceans or somesuch.

Regardless, simply accepting an extreme effect before the evidence is in is as silly as suggesting that some variable, such as pollutants, have no effect whatsoever. Both lack supporting science.

[KC Elbows]

I say it is expertise, considering many ELECTED Republicans have failed to figure it out. ;) And I'm speaking of general elections, not Republican primaries.

It's my opinion that the two party set-up means that most of their members simply give lip service to the party's ideals while quietly embarking on whatever politics they feel are best. Assuming they aren't just milking the public teat.

[1bad65]

It's my opinion that the two party set-up means that most of their members simply give lip service to the party's ideals while quietly embarking on whatever politics they feel are best. Assuming they aren't just milking the public teat.


Reagan campaigned and governed as a strong conservative.

I'll vote for Alan Keyes in the primary. Then I'll vote for whichever Republican wins the nomination in the genereal election. No one the Democrats are running are better than any of the Republicans. Hell, I'd vote for Karl Marx before I voted for Hillary or Obama. At least Marx was honest about his positions.

[1bad65]

My favorite Democrat is John Edwards. You gotta admire the sheer audacity of the multi-millionaire trial lawyer who literally lives in the most expensive home in his county, yet runs as the champion of the 'common man'.

[boshea]

Well actually he was citing scientific fact. One of the reasons there are more trees in "America" than there were when the nation was founded is because we have fire control now. In the past fires burned until they burned themselves out.


I have not heard his discussion on this, so take what I am about to say with a grain of salt.

I wonder if Rush was talking about absolute numbers of trees, vs. old growth trees. There may in fact be many more trees today than there were when the nation was founded, but if they are mostly just saplings, then it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. I don't know, maybe a zillion saplings are more beneficial to the environment than a few old growth trees, but my instinct is to doubt that (old growth forests also prevent erosion and provide habitats for more species, for example). Just my thoughts.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

How can we have more trees when VAST geographic areas that used to be tree covered are now covered on concrete, buildings and lawns?

[BoulderDawg]

My favorite Democrat is John Edwards. You gotta admire the sheer audacity of the multi-millionaire trial lawyer who literally lives in the most expensive home in his county, yet runs as the champion of the 'common man'.

To be honest I could really care less who wins. However I do like to gossip and BS about the politicians.

I personally think Edwards is a decent man. President?....I don't know. But I do think his biggest mistake was quiting the senate to run for president. I never understood why he did that. I think it's the biggest thing that is hurting him.....in second place is his wife's big mouth!:D

[1bad65]

Well the stuff I said is fact. He was a trial lawyer and he made millions doing it. According to tax records, which are public, his house is the most expensive in his county.

I never said he was not decent. I just said it's audacious to be a muti-millionaire and live in a mansion and portray yourself as the champion for the 'common man'.

[boshea]

How can we have more trees when VAST geographic areas that used to be tree covered are now covered on concrete, buildings and lawns?

First, I am not claiming that Limbaugh's statement is true or false, I am only posing a possible explanation for why that figure might be true.

So to elaborate since you asked, some trees such as redwoods dominate their environments by blocking sunlight with their canopies, and covering the ground with fallen leaves and branches, blocking out sunlight for seedlings of other plants. This limits the total number of trees that can compete for sunlight in such a forest.

Limbaugh's statement may be considering trees in orchards and plantations, which contain many small trees per acre. You could clear-cut an old growth forest and turn it into apple orchards, and there might be many more individual trees per acre than the forest had, but much less total volume of living tree mass. So the figure that Limbaugh quoted is probably not an apples-to-apples comparison (no pun intended). There are certainly not as many old growth redwoods in the US as there were at the time of the founding of the nation. So in my mind, that statement is a bit misleading, and probably not relevant from a conservationist perspective.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Even if you count tree farms, you are still growing trees on the same plots of land.

How is that going to compare to all the land converted from forest to paved concrete and buildings? What about all the lawns that once were ground for trees?

Think about how huge the city and Suburbs are in just NY, Chicago and L.A.?

Now add that to EVERY major city, and little town, and everything in between? We are talking billions of acres converted to concrete.

No way a tree farm can make up for that, especially considering the tree farms are on the same ground as the original forest in the first place.

[1bad65]

It's not just the tree farms. The fact that humans can now fight forest fires rather than letting them burn out is a huge factor. It's only in the last 50 or so years we've had helicopters able to fight fires from the air. The Valley area in Southern California is notorious for those big fires. Most are not started by man. But now we have alot more tools to fight the fires and thus they burn alot less trees.

Technology has also given us ways to fight diseases that destroy trees also. We have better fertilizers to help them grow.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Wrong, fighting fires causes the excessive buildup of underbrush (Fuel for HUGE fires), that is normally kept to a controllable level by periodic forest fires.

Back before we faught fires, the underbrush did not build up so there just was not enough fuel to make these huge tree killing fires. Fires were small, and just singed the bottom of the tree, never killing them like they do now. Threy were just a treat to property and homes and such.

Fire is actually important because the heat would burst pine cone (like popcorn) spreading the seeds out.

Today because of the huge build up of underbuish due to fire fighting we are seeing mega fires that not only kill the trees, but they destroy the seeds too.

So fire fighting has actually killed MORE trees by preventing regular and periodic fires from keeping the underbrush under control.

To simplify it,

More frequent fires means less under brush becasue it is burned off before it builds to any appreciable level. This equals smaller fires that are actually helpfull to the trees because they burst the pine cones like popcorn so they spread thier seeds.

Firefighting means the normal fires are put out before they have a chance to do thier job and clean the forest floor of under brush, so it builds, and builds until there is an over abundance off underbrush to fuel super mega fires. When we do get fires now, they are astronomically huge to the point where they destroy the trees, and the pine cones so no seed gets spread.

This equals major tree destruction where in the past smaller fires actually helped trees because they were big enough to pop the pine cones, but not big enough to actually harm a living tree.

[boshea]

Even if you count tree farms, you are still growing trees on the same plots of land.


Yes, but if you had read all of what I wrote, you would see that I was suggesting that orchards might have more individual trees per acre on average than forests, which would mean that converting a forest into an orchard would result in more trees, accounting for Limbaugh's statement (but not being really all that meaningful a figure). However, 1bad65 is saying that this is not the main contributor, and that forest fire prevention is.

I have heard that periodic fires are a natural part of the lifecycle of a forest, but I don't have any figures showing how forest fire prevention has affected the total number of trees, or health of the forests in general. RD and 1bad65, can you two point us at some references for your claims?

[boshea]

Interesting discussion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#United_States

[1bad65]

Underbrush is a factor. It makes it easier for fires to start and helps them burn hotter and spread faster. The problem is that many of these knee-jerk environmentalist laws passed made it harder to get rid of underbrush. In their rush to save the environment, the environmentalits and the lawmakers who listened to them, actually passed laws DETRIMENTAL to the environment.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Agreed.

If they were to just let them burn, trees would not die because the underbrush would get cleaned out in a timely manor. There just would not be enough fuel for trees to be destroyed in the fires.

Of course rich mansions that are far less fire resistant than the trees would then go up in smoke....and God forbid we have that...:rolleyes:

[KC Elbows]

Agreed.

If they were to just let them burn, trees would not die because the underbrush would get cleaned out in a timely manor. There just would not be enough fuel for trees to be destroyed in the fires.

Not to mention that a large number of those trees' seeds require fire to open and take root.

I'm somewhat dubious on the saplings making up the difference idea, though I know Boshea is simply suggesting this as an explanation of a possible context it was brought up in. Any of the really big evergreens, especially those in more mountainous terrains, grow there because they can survive on the poor, washed out soil of a mountainside. I'm pretty sure few of the saplings we plant are the same kind of trees; once such trees are completely cleared from their habitat, there is a long cycle of other plants that must take root there and recreate good conditions for the return of the big boys. It's also important to point out that a lot of mountains cleared this way are turned into ski slopes, meaning that land is again, not available for planting.

Which is all pointless, since there was no such thing as a survey of American forests at the founding of our country, and relatively little of it done a hundred years later. Hell, the Lewis and Clarke expedition, an important early event in US natural science, was not in the least important for actually contributing hard data for scientists, botanists or otherwise, to work with, as, until a bit later, most of this work was done by amateurs who didn't really know what they were doing.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

We know what was there at the turn of the century though.

[KC Elbows]

We know what was there at the turn of the century though.

Did we? I thought reconstruction South was pretty much lost ground to such surveys for quite some time, but could be wrong about that. I know there were a lot of state surveys by the turn of the century, so it's possible you are right, minus Alaska and Hawaii. Alaska alone would really fudge the numbers in a comparison of trees at the founding and now.

Somewhat off topic, I'd love to hike around Alaska for a month or two.

[AJM]

Well the stuff I said is fact. He was a trial lawyer and he made millions doing it. According to tax records, which are public, his house is the most expensive in his county.

I never said he was not decent. I just said it's audacious to be a muti-millionaire and live in a mansion and portray yourself as the champion for the 'common man'.

:D "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

I think all these rich bastiges need to slug it out in the octagon.