Daily Gut: Breitbart on ‘Red Eye’ Tonight!
by Greg GutfeldBonus!: Here’s a clip of me and a guest fighting over global warming:
Guests:
the delightful Barret Swatak
the delectable Jill Dobson
the determined Andrew Breitbart!
and the wonderful actor Joel David Moore
Plus – my mom!
Double Bonus!: After the jump, whatever that is!
Rep. McCotter talks Afghanistan, climate change, crasher-gate and Grammys:
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
100 Comments
Win!
McCotter should be president
1000 A.D. FACTS
English monks spent too much time attending their grape crops and not enough attending their God.
Greenland was green, wonderful, and would soon sucker Vikings into thinking they could start a new kingdom there.
There were toooooh many American Buffalo (bison) and thusly they were the evil Co2 methane evil bongers!
Nobody can ever accuse a Gut guest list of being dull. But I always find Thad McCotter to be a bright spot in the day (or night). And Andrew Breitbart's gutsy stand against ACORN and the left is a breath of fresh air for this middle class guy.
AlGore just came out of his mansion and saw his shadow, this means at least six more months of climate science fraud.
How is it that Evolution, The Big Bang and even Gravity are still listed as "Theories" yet some how in less than 30 years Global Warming is a "settled science". Neal Armstrong stood on the moon and proved Gravity with a hammer and a feather and that is still a theory.
I really think we need to go back to egging politicians like it was a vaudeville act when they talk.
That Tannenbaum guy got waxed, and buffed, and proves the saying, "facts are like kryptonite to the liberal." One can't say that Greg doesn't bring on a diverse array of guests.
Love the passion Greg,Seriously I don't know how you kept from calling this deush bag a deush bag..great show.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/1...
"Al Gore Cancels $1,200 Per Handshake Event In Copenhagen," December 3, 2009
Guess he canceled because he is feeling "under the weather."
Is there a transcript anywhere. I don't understand overtalk (hollering).
Wow! I'm surprised Tannenbaum didn't pull the ultimate reductio ad absurdum and invoke Nazi Germany or Holocaust deniers somehow. Sock it to 'em, Greg.
P.S. NBC finally ran with the "Climategate" story tonight. Maybe the fact that their days of being GE's sock puppet may be over awoke their inner journalistic integrity.
Tannenbaum is such a tool, I thought he was going to have a complete spaz-out ala Ed Bagley Jr when he realized he was getting his a$$ handed to him. I would have loved to hear Andy Levey say "Rick, you're a f___ing moron." during the half time report.
Tannenbaum ROCKS! … er … has ROCKS in his head!
Wait was that guy at the end trying to call Greg "little man" while gasping like a fish for something, anything less stupid to say than what he'd already uttered? Egads I… nope, my mistake, didn't feel sorry for him after all. Let him go spend eternity cleaning up Algore's slime trail with a toothbrush.
NASA, sir, is also part of the corrupt 'peer review' process. Dr. Horner has a FOIA request for NASA data for over 2 years and has recently sued to have it released. NASA's Hansen is one of the whackos.
Welcome to Red Eye. It's kind of like Crossfire, except that people actually watch us.
Yeah Greg! Tannenbaum got owned!
Al Gore is to be on Letterman tonight. Now there's something to create a carbon footprint for. /sarc
Here's the theory: the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is being increased by human beings. Undebatable. Next, the level of CO2 affects the amount of heat reflected out of the Earth's surface, namely, it decreases this amount reflected out and keeps more of that heat here. The more heat kept here the increase in temperature.
None of you have a scientific debunking to this. Not REMOTELY. Whether the Earth's temperature will is currently going up is one thing, but isn't it EXTRAORDINARILY CLEAR that WE SHOULD NOT BE MESSING WITH THE NATURAL GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATION IN THE ATMOSPHERE!
But keep talking, keep treating this like team sports. Let's see where America goes.
Gutfeld won, but missed the obvious knockout punch. NASA has not only already admitted they used improper data (when confronted and had no other options), but they are currently fighting a FOI request and have been for two years. Anyone who is going to blindly believe in an organization who would act like that is an certifiable moron. I get so sick of these people pointing to an institution like NASA or Penn State as proof of believability, despite the fact that they've received millions for researching Global Warming that they would stop receiving tomorrow if GW was disproved. How stupid do you have to be to not understand that?
Redeye frequently has guests that disagree with Greg but do so in a funny and constructive way. That Tannenbaum guy was a pr*ck the whole time. I don't think he'll be back soon.
Actually, the increase in CO2 levels is more related to dissolution of limestones and volcanism. Evidence is also starting to come out that CO levels tend to follow increased temperatures, not the other way around. That is increase in heat causes a rise in CO2 levels, most likely due to the fact that increased heat causes increased chemical erosion (i.e., dissolution of limestones).
As for the Greenhouse Gas "theory," there are two possible results. Increased cloud cover may cause increased heat due to locking in solar radiation, or it may cause cooling due to increased reflecting of solar radiation. A theory with two opposite outcomes is an hypothesis in science parlors. We are not sure, as yet which could occur. Either way anthropogenic Global Warming or Climate Change is a complete canard.
Next time get your facts straight before coming here acting like a jerk.
Now THAT was funny! Hopefully the medics were able to staunch the flow of blood from Tannenbaum's stumps!
You might have actually scored some points by asking, rhetorically, what would happen to NASA's funding if it was all shows to be a political hoax. I actually have another few tips that would make your arguments effective.
"But keep talking, keep treating this like team sports. Let's see where America goes. "
Stop your whimpering. Let's get to the bottom of the manipulation of some of the data and the suppression of other data that clearly did not support the AGW agenda and see where that leaves us.
Oh my, that was the BEST comeback EVER! I've got to get a DVR so I see every one of your shows. (And McCotter needs to be drafted to be President — what a speaker — AND WITHOUT A TELEPROMPTER!!!!)
The current level of CO2, at 350-380 ppm, is one of the lowest levels in Earth's history.
Hey, I thought your name was Rob…
He joined that no-show list with Hal Sparks and Jimmy Jellinek.
increased cloud cover? brother, do you know what a greenhouse gas is? it's not a damn theory, it's thermodynamics. are you a scientist yourself? do tell. i am an engineer, and my father is an expert in thermodynamics. CO2 in any environment will help it retain heat. Try pumping your car full of CO2 and leaving it out in the sun, it will be hotter than a control car. do i need to explain to you the concept of a "control"?
you are parroting some nonsense that didn't answer any of my assertions.
WE PUMP AN UNGODLY AMOUNT OF CO2 INTO THE ATMOSPHERE, AND DESPITE THE UNMISTAKEABLE FACE THAT CO2 RETAINS HEAT, LET'S KEEP ON DOING THIS. WAKE. UP.
That's so disappointing. I have ridiculous nostalgia for NASA having watched "All the Right Stuff" as a kid and being impressed with the guts of the old-school astronauts. Just goes to show that any institution can be corrupted.
FACT*
I know that YELLING AND REPEATING YOUR ARGUMENTS might make those unfortunate enough to be around you stop arguing. But it doesn't mean you're right. You might be an engineer, but that doesn't mean you know everything. I know plenty of engineers AND scientists (your daddy notwithstanding) who absolutely disagree with you. Whatever degree you happen to hold doesn't automatically grant you a win in a disagreement. This is NOT settled science. If it was, the so-called experts would not have to fudge the numbers. Get a grip.
So tell me where i'm wrong. Does CO2 not retain heat? Do these "engineers AND scientists" (both? WOW) claim that? I agree, nobody is correct because of who they are. I am correct BECAUSE OF THE LOGIC I HAVE EXPRESSED.
Mentioning engineers and scientists without presenting the logic they may have communicated to you (I am hoping you asked for it) is the same fallacy.
The CO2 effect is settled and UNDEBATABLE. The only people who claim otherwise (and they will do so fallaciously without a doubt) are those who WANT to believe the alternative. Objectively, there's one conclusion.
They don't "have" to fudge the numbers. Stronger numbers helps the point they want to propagate, wouldn't you agree? If some numbers said the Earth's temperature was going to burn us all up in 5 years, it wouldn't be true, but if convincing wouldn't it motivate people to act?
Of course no one should fudge numbers, but that is irrelevant. Claiming the greenhouse gas effect isn't settled because of fudged numbers is a fallacy.
Seriously? Settled science when the leading "experts" are caught red-handed lying about the "facts?" The fact that you use the word "objectively" is flat-out crazy. Why would anyone argue with a zealot that cares nothing for honest scientific inquiry? Your facts are in the process of being debunked. All the yelling in the world won't change that.
Stronger numbers helps the point they want to propagate, wouldn't you agree?
????
I see honest science means nothing to you.
It has been lower than 300 ppmv as far back as we can measure. Our current level is the highest ever. Where are you getting your "facts"?
Greenhouse gases are water vapor, methane, or CO2. You did know there are 3 greenhouse gases, right? The increased water vapor will increase cloud cover, which could either trap, or reflect solar radiation. By the way, any gas will retain heat. O2, H20, nitrogen all retain heat. It's called the atmosphere. There's nothing special in this concerning CO2 relative to any other atmospheric gas, except that it is also good for plants.
Your father is an 'expert' in thermodynamics, which means what in relation to what I have said previously? Does that fact grant you some form of expertise in climatology or even changes in climate through Earth history? As for you directly, given your unstable verbiage I doubt your bona fides as an engineer, or any relation to material sciences. If I am wrong then your professors have done you a great disservice, and you should demand your money back from the vocational school you graduated from.
[...] the rest here: Daily Gut: Breitbart on ‘Red Eye’ Tonight! This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
My point is that there is clear motivation to fudge numbers for even a true theory. The existence of fudged numbers does not disprove a theory, it rather just indicates shoddy ethics.
Where do you get your "facts"?
It's a fact that the Earth is cooler today than for most of its history. It's also a fact that, for much of its history, CO2 levels were more than 10 times greater than today. It's against my principles to assist a boorish sort such as yourself. Yet and still…
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_C...
"All the Right Stuff," is a great movie. I grew up around this time, and yes most of us kids looked up to the astronauts.
Thanks for the heads up warning, even though I never watch Letterman, regardless who is on.
He sure was a pr!ck!! a condescending pr!ck at that.
Tannenbaum seems to be one of those smug dicks that think if they use the name NASA they win the argument. The NASA rocket scientists got the metric and the english system of measurement mixed up and augered a Mars probe into the dirt. Bad management and science cost two shuttles and their crews (don't like to use that one in an argument but some of these a**holes have to be reminded that scientest's are human). As was mentioned before NASA been fighting for at least two years now to not release their climate change data and Hansen (the head of NASA climate group) is a very vocal proponent of human caused climate change. You have to think that they have been "smoothing", "enhancing" and "value adding" their data as well. One can but hope that unlike IPCC, NASA will remember what type of data manipulation they did.
Is Hal Sparks, one of those guys whose career consists of being on, one the VH-1 shows that look back on the sixties, seventies etc., making snarky, sarcastic comments? If so, I saw him on Red Eye once, and he behaved like a jerk, and I hope he never comes back. BTW, have you seen Sharodd (whatever his name is), on lately?
"Any gas retains heat."Wow, given that we are speaking about temperature, you really should understand the concept of degrees.
While methane is more effective at retaining heat in the atmosphere, the LEVEL of CO2 in the atmosphere is what makes it dangerous. AND YOUR EXPLANATION OF CLOUD COVER IS SO SIMPLISTIC IT MAKES MY HEAD HURT. Here's a basic article (you should read it too, since you aren't making valid points) for anyone interested in learning about what cloud cover means to this debate:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,19...
In calling CO2 a "greenhouse gas" and then saying that it is not special in terms of retaining heat…where do I even begin? Why are you making these self-contradictory statements? I'm not looking to feel better about myself by winning an argument, I want support for legislation to reduce CO2 emissions.
By the way, as an engineer, I am averse to wasting time using empty terms like "unstable verbiage." Discussions like these should be about the logic expressed and nothing but.
Tannenbaum was an asswipe . He needs to slither on over to MSNBC where his liberal ignorance and arrogance will be worshipped.
Time? Good peer review there moron. I suspect the same clowns that wrote this article are the same ones that have been stifling scientific debate and making up data out of whole cloth.
You have yet to address anything I said previously, but don't bother. Your level of recalcitrant stupidity is making my head hurt.
I love arguing climate change with Liberals. It's like arguing music with the tone deaf. Well, Mr. Engineer, with the dramatic upsurge in CO2 emissions from humanity in the last 60 years (our levels have 320 ppm to 380 ppm, which is a whopping 20%…..ohhhhhh), the temperature in the last decade is LOWER than it was in the 1930s. And your claim about it being 300ppm as far back as we can measure isn't just laughable, it's hysterical (seriously, it took me like 5 minutes to stop laughing and get off the floor). It's been at above 340 ppm 4 separate times in the last 400,000 years. Where did I get this information? From the College of Marine & Earth Studies, University of Delaware (a Lefty site that is whining about Global Warming).
Seriously, how do you possibly have the balls to come here and make up information, and expect no one to bother to check it? Dude, wearing the train hat your dad bought you doesn't actually make you an Engineer (and even if it did, I'm not sure it makes you much of a climate expert…..and your complete lack of knowledge of the facts makes you even less of one). Grow up, start talking to people who don't always agree with you, and someday you might actually know enough stuff to participate in a grown-up discussion without typing in all caps & bold. {sigh}
"The CO2 effect is settled and UNDEBATABLE."
Really? Perhaps you'd care to explain the full effect of CO2 in the atmosphere (including what levels will need to be reached to cause catastrophic global warming). That way I can quickly find a scientist to debunk your mindless 'It's all settled, stop talking about it!" argument. The last time I checked, CO2 continues to climb, while our temperatures continue to drop. We are going on 10 years of decline after the 10 really hot years that convinced everyone that GW was real, and many GW scientists are saying we could be looking at several decades of cooling before the temperatures begin to rise again.
Since your entire argument hinges on the childish, "CO2 makes it hot," can you care to explain why it's not getting hotter as the levels rise?
Did you catch Andy "accidentally" calling him Ron during the halftime report? I laughed so hard I almost fell off my chair. I'm still not sure if it was intentional or not.
I agree, SQT.
I remember bringing a 15"(?) black and white tv to grade school for the Mercury flights and was on the banks of the Indian or Banana River (closest to Kennedy Space Center) for the 1st Columbia Space Shuttle launch. Oh what pride that launch instilled especially after Reagan got elected and the Iranian hostages came home. It marked the beginning of coming out of a dumbass dem's economic and administrative disaster.
Yea Greg! Yea Rep. McCotter! And as much as I hate to admit it, I like Bill.
I like Bill too. He's a good sport, and comes up with some good lines, quite frequently.
It's funny, how most scientists have been saying the science is never settled, never ever, that is the purpose of science, to question what we know. The scientists that do say the "science is settled" are either so stupid, they need to have their degrees reevaluated (yes, a degree can be revoked) or are political rump rangers trying to ride the scam.
I think more people like Bill than will cop to it.
No, CO2 doesn't make "it" hot, that's a lame, overly-simplistic statement. CO2 makes it hotter than "it" would be without CO2 Do you understand the distinction?
X + CO2 will be hotter than X.
If by "have yet to address anything I said" you mean "pointed out exactly where you are being irrelevant and fallacious".
So that Time article is wrong in it's depiction of what "cloud cover" means to the discussion because it's Time…I see. Sound logic.
Wouldn't those fluctuations have been apparent the last half a million years? The answer is yes. Yet we are at higher levels than at any point in that time period.
When there's been a steady, consistent cycle of levels, and suddenly we are at higher levels than the entire cycle for the last 500k years… the unbiased mind does not need something so obvious spelled out.
Yes I did, thanks for the reminder. That was priceless, and I think is was intentional.
What was up with that guy's hair? What's his name? Rob… Ron… what ever it is he needs to lose the Flock of Seagulls doo.
'Settled science' is simply a nicer term for 'political dogma.'
The global warmongers have been caught red handed, although common sense told me global warming was a pile of baloney a long time ago.
My first look at Thaddeus McCotter. He looks a little deadpan when he first starts speaking, but wow!
Common sense and intelligence. Why isn't this guy the head of the RNC?
And at what point is that a bad thing? When CO2 was at it's hottest point (3500 times higher than it is today), there was still plentiful life on the planet. When temperature was at it's lowest (often also while CO2 was high), life struggled to survive. So if everything the GW alarmists said was true (which it obviously isn't), what is the "perfect" temperature and CO2 level for us to survive. Then I'd like to hear how we keep the levels there, even while we have fluctuations in volcanic activity, solar activity, and oceanic CO2.
Exactly how much money do we have to give to the UN and Al Gore for the planet to be safe?
And since we know we can't believe the people who lie to us, exactly why are we giving them millions based on their opinions of computer models they established? Especially when other scientists disagree over both the models and their results.
And again, you completely ignore points you can't dispute (because arguing is your life). CO2 levels have been infinitely higher (as much as 3500 times at one point), and life was fine. No world flooding, no starvation, just life in such a hyper-evolutionary state that 100 foot long reptiles wandered the countryside.
BTW, one of the core tenets of Al Gore's GW argument (the melting of the ice cap on Kilimanjaro) was just disproved yesterday. There have been periods of decades where no snow whatsoever was on the mountain, even when temperatures were substantially colder than they are now. It has to do with moisture, not temperature.
I guess that's another one of those inconvenient truths you'll ignore in your rush to give everyone's money to these people telling you if you don't, we'll all die.
Really
I am unfamiliar with that element on the periodic table. Perhaps you meant Xenon (Xe). If that is the case I think I disagree. I don't believe that small levels of CO2 would have any effect wahtsover in an atmosphere of only Xenon. But mind you that is only a belief as don't know any actual expiriments performed on the heat retention of Xenon gas. Course what that has to do with Climate Change on this planet eludes me.
I usually try to make my numbers go to the gym at least one a week. I find that the sevens are real layabouts. They just are so lazy they don't care how weak they are? Have to keep on them.
It's frightening how smoothly the Global Warming followers will turn the argument into an issue of who to believe – "NASA" or "Greg Gutfield". Greg, you never say you are a Global Warming / Climate Change expert. You simply ask for a debate. Instead, you get held out as if you are the expert who disagrees with the "Rocket Scientists".
And still, refusal to debate. Makes me wonder where all the "New Ice Age" alarmists are from when I was hearing that spiel in elementary school in the 70s. Did even one of them ever step forward and say, "Hey, I was wrong."? Will any of these clowns ever step forward and do the same, or maybe just wait another 30 years until the natural climate cycle reverses and they show a fraction of a degree of warming for a year or two…
How soon can I expect it to warm up, we've got snow down south and I'm cold.
x+ your logic= a sack of rocks
This guy's "scientific" arguments read like they're coming from a kid who took a science class in high school and was wowed by an ever-so-convincing experiment his teacher did. He knows words like "control" and "cycles" and now thinks he can debate something he clearly knows nothing about. Oh, and the little white lies the GW scientists told? Well, it's all in the name of a higher cause, so it must be okay. Right? And he uses Time magazine as a reference! How credible!
You can't argue with someone who disregards things like lies and junk science. I'm not sure if he's incredibly stupid or a really inept troll.
Sherrod Small, I haven't seen him on in a while
[...] [HT: Big Hollywood] [...]
Amen!
In spite of what Nobel Peace Prize fraud, Al Gore, states, anyone who does not have direct knowledge and evidence of Global Warming, should now realize there has been a rush-to-judgment!
ANY POLITICIAN WHO CONTINUES TO PUSH THE GLOBAL WARMING AGENDA IS ABSOLUTELY CORRUPT and is most likely in the pocket of those who have financial interests. In short, FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Now that some of the data has clearly been altered to promote a scam, ANY SCIENTIST (OR SO-CALLED SCIENTIST) WHO CONTINUES TO INSIST THE DEBATE IS OVER IS ALSO CORRUPT and is in the pocket of corrupt politicians, those who have financial interests or is looking to belly up to the trough of taxpayer funding. Again, FOLLOW THE MONEY!
As for the rest of radical loons who continue to bray "Global Warming" to the world and shout insults at anyone who does not instantly adopt their lunacy, they are simply showing their ignorance and shame at having been so easily duped.
Global Warming Scam Exposed!
http://usataxpayer.org/view.asp?Get=globalwarming
ACORN Scandal Exposed…
http://usataxpayer.org/view.asp?Get=obamaacorn
BTW… when hair guy talks about NASA… he must not know that Hansen of NASA's Goddard WORKS FOR AL GORE AT GIM AND IS PAID IN CARBON CREDITS!
[...] as the sensible person in this BH-pimped video points out, who are you going to believe, a bunch of movement conservatives, or literal rocket [...]
Who pays the salaries of NASA scientients? Big Government politicians? What was McCotter saying about the politicization of Politics?
"Who do I beleive about scientists, a NASA scientist or some guy who has a show that comes on after a Chuck Norris infomercial?" – Tannenbaum
First off let me say that it is always an honor to follow Chuck Norris in any venue. (I am shamelessly trying to make sure I don't piss Chuck off here for the same reason I insist that Mohawk Grenades make one look good in WOW but I digress)
Second, how about this – you actually explain to me the science and facts benind your Global Warming model, the assumptions you used and I will analyze it and determine which model provides the best description of the physical universe. I think this is called the scientific method. It is the difference between thinking for yourself and blindly following the Obamasiah.
Greg, nice job kicking Rob's a** !
I wish I was there was there…
" the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is being increased by human beings. Undebatable. "
The only study that I know of is the Antartic Ice Core Samples. Other studies such as the pores in the leaves of plants and even the greenland ice cores do not agree with the Antarctic Ice core studies.
None of these studies or articles or talking head "scientists" on Larry King have ever mentioned the fact that the South Pole is the one place on planet eeath that routinely gets so cold that CO2 condenses to a solid. They have not explained how this fact affected their ice core studies.
James not only is it debatable I do not even think the science has developed to a point that it is fully understood.
James, putting your statement all in caps doesn't make it true. Rather than reading the propoganda, read the actual science. Educate yourself. See what percentage of the C02 in the atmosphere actually is. Then see what percentage of that percentage is manmade. It is most certainly not 'an ungodly amount".
This absurd Chicken Little and Lemming behavior of repeating everything one hears without actually personally researching the facts is embarassing. At the least, it'sa sign of a very small, very weak mind.
Exactly. The next time you hear some nimrod mocking you for not believing that the "science is settled" or that the "debate is over", tell them this:
The scientific method involves developing a hypothesis, making predictions, then performing tests to see if your predictions are true and if the results support your hypothesis. I have yet to hear a global warming prediction that has come true. Whether it is the ice caps will melt in the summer, Europe will have no snow or hurricanes will be bigger and stronger, they never come true. The only thing that these people can tell you is that it will all happen "in the next 5-10-20-50 years".
That's fine. When you finally get one prediction right, feel free to start talking about "settled" science. Until then, all you have is an unproven hypothesis.
Here's the theory: the sea level is being increased by human beings spitting into the ocean. Undebatable. Next, the sea level affects the amount of livable land on the Earth's surface, namely, it decreases this amount as the sea level rises.
None of you have a scientific debunking to this. Not REMOTELY. Whether the sea level is currently going up is one thing, but isn't it EXTRAORDINARILY CLEAR that WE SHOULD NOT BE MESSING WITH THE NATURAL SEA LEVEL OF THE OCEAN!
But keep talking, keep treating this like team sports. Let's see where America goes.
Just a point, "theory" in science is different than the way the rest of the world uses the word.
Aside from NASA being part of all the "global warming" stuff, I was pretty much over my "awe" of the organization this past year. I work in a retirement home, and I requested by email a guest speaker for our Dream, Dare, Discovery theme for the year. We gave them several months' notice with the request, and we are only about a 2 hour drive from Canaveral (where one office of the Speakers Bureau is located). We received an email back with a request number. After not hearing anything for weeks, we contacted them again. Oops, we forgot, but we'll get you someone. Two weeks before the agreed upon date: still working on it. One week to go: sorry, we aren't going to send anyone. Couldn't even get it together to send a retired technician to speak to a group of senior citizens.
Ditto. Except for the snow. No snow in FL. But it is quite chilly today and I can't seem to get my feet warm.
Ken you are so right and we must get congress to act now and outlaw spitting in the wind!
WE SHOULD NOT BE MESSING WITH THE NATURAL GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATION IN THE ATMOSPHERE!
Why? If there is evidently an optimum CO2 level as you uggest why would we not widh to purposely maintian it. The libs are the ones discounting any belief in a creator and demanding that all there is, isw merely the product of random chance. So if wew have the ability to control something you now suggest we are behoilding to random chance. Why? At leat humans, flawed as they are have the ability to reason.
Taking argument tips from you is like taking driving lessons from Ted Kennedy.
If all of the science is based on faulty science, then how can you hold up all the science?
Tannenbaum was just way off track with the lame attempt at insulting Greg. I'm glad Greg let him have it. Of course today Tannenbaum is a minor hero in MSNBC circles, where he belongs. If you don't at least have an open mind, then you have no business on Red Eye.
Bill's great, the show needs him. He's a really funny guy, and I like the fact that Red Eye has a resident contrarian, it helps to keep the other hosts intellectually honest.
I would imagine that the most painful part for Tannenbaum would be the realization that it took him all night to come up with that line, only to have Greg demolish it in an instant.
Greg is always quite respectful of his guests' various ideologies, sometimes to a fault, but it was nice to see him use his wry wit to take Tannenbaum down a peg.
Hulu has a Red Eye page, it doesn't get updated very often but it does have a good back log (15 pages). The most recent episode is the December 1 episode.
You can't argue with someone who disregards things like lies and junk science. I'm not sure if he's incredibly stupid or a really inept troll.
Both?
Improve your vision naturally!…
Thanks. Left you a trackback to help your readers improve eye vision naturally….
You must be logged in to post a comment.