Posted on 06/11/2006 8:19:43 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
The dust cover of Ann Coulter's latest book sums it up. (Back cover, outside.)
Liberals ask that we believe in global warming as an article of FAITH, not of reason. Reasoned argument is beside beside the point and counterproductive. If the demorat-selected collection of liberal pontificators and quasi-religious zealots says something is TRUE, then the public should just accept it. So they think.
"I cannot get into a scientific discussion here. There will be no end to it."
Er, that's the POINT.
Ebert is no scientist.
Gore is no scientist.
For non-scientist Ebert to review a film by non-scientist Gore and his non-scientist Hollywood buddies tells us something about filmography but nothing about science.
I am sure it's a worthless film, because Gore has said irresponsible and false things that we've heard about without having to pay $7 to find out what it is.
To a representative government such as ours, which is cherished by the American people, an informed electorate is vital.
The people have every reason to expect scrupulous truth from the "Free Press", for this reason alone, though there are others.
When the "Free Press" and its "journalists" deteriorate into a propaganda machine, as ours has, providing the people not truth but propaganda, disinformation, distortions, mendacity, sensationalism, et al., the people cannot depend upon it for information.
If Global Warming should prove to be a fact and the dire predictions of those such as Al Gore come to pass, the blame for the American public's not believing them in advance shall belong to those in the "Free Press" who fed the public propaganda, destroyed the public trust in them, and made it impossible for the American people to rely upon them to speak the truth.
In other words, if Roger wants to serve the public good, he should join the voices demanding scrupulous truth and not propaganda from the newsmedia so that we will know what to believe and what not to believe.
Ebert is no more of an authority on climatic conditions that Al "I drank too much tea and had to rush to the restroom" Gore.
Old reliable Al found a horse to ride and lets hope the global warming he predicts burns him and his buddy Slick BJ Clinton.
"What a country! Ebert proves a point... you can make it being fat, ugly... AND stupid."
Yup.
That's America for ya.
Just look at Michael Moore.
"Many are supportive. More are opposed to the movie and just about everything in it, and are written by people who have not seen the movie"
Best to cut these people off at the knees which means at the root of their bias.
BigLip Roger, throws out the qualifier that those that are opposed to the movie have not seen it, but TroutFace makes no such modification for those that are "supportive".
No they do not because Gore has a political agenda and is not a scientist, and is very biased on this issue and reached a conclusion about global warming long before making this movie.
GLOBAL WARMING MAY OR MAY NOT BE OCCURING, MAY BE GOOD OR BAD FOR HUMANITY, MAY BE HAPPENING BECAUSE OF HUMANS, BUT AL GORE IS NOT THE PERSON TO MAKE THE DEFINITIVE STUDY.
"No they do not because Gore has a political agenda and is not a scientist".
Of course, many scientists also have an agenda: continuance of their research grant gravy-train.
Gonna buy me a condo,
Gonna buy me a Cuisinart...
Ummm - kay.
I haven't listened to Roger Ebert since he panned E.T. If it isn't "artsy" or have "a message" he doesn't like it.
I care about what a liberal film critc thinks about Global Panic about as much as a political hack does. If the book is as boring and cliche as his book Mind out of Balance, no thanks.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
The people have every reason to expect scrupulous truth from the "Free Press", for this reason alone, though there are others.
IMHO you have fallen for some propaganda yourself.If you read the First Amendment it says nothing about "fairness," "accuracy," "objectivity," "balance," or "truth." It says that we-the-people have the right to express our opinions. Whether you or I think any, or most, of them are wrong or right - and whether the government thinks they are wrong or right.
That does not mean that you or I have a right to be listened to, only that we have the right to speak. If every Tom, Dick, and Harry has the right to talk or to print, a lot of what they have to say will not be worth listening to or reading - and no one person could listen to, or read, it all. The inescapable conclusion is that the people - you and I, and all the rest - are responsible to ourselves to draw our own conclusions notwithstanding the fact that we will be subject to misinformation and propaganda.
It is the worst possible system, except for all the others. Without the First Amendment, the government would tell us who to listen to. That would be no good, as any journalist would tell you. But they go to the opposite extreme and try to gull us into thinking that they are the ones to tell us who to listen to. Well, it's a free country, they can try to tell me that - but I have my own opinion in that regard, and following their opinion in that regard is not part of my agenda.
If we really followed the First Amendment, broadcasting would be impossible because the censorship which creates clear channels to broadcast in would not be permitted.
The only movie critic out there who's not just a movie critic, but smart as heck, is Michael Medved.
Right you are! I just recently came across a radio station which carries his program. He's tops.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.