jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (14 posts)

The Heartland Institute stoops to a new low

  1. kerryg profile image87
    kerrygposted 4 years ago


    Anyone want to explain to me in what universe this ad campaign is clever or effective?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b … ing-murder

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Very clever.  Very effective, apparently, since it caused huge reaction, from liberals of course because it put light on their erroneous idea of global warming, and from conservatives because its outrageousness was akin to the way liberal activists do their thing. (The article said conservatives' reaction was negative, so they pulled the sign down.)

      Conservatives are being tempted to engage in behavior that's just as rotten as liberals' behavior.   No wonder.  When we're backed into a corner, we gotta say uncle or else come out fighting.  And after all, the article said it was an experiment.  Sounds like an echo of Obama's statement that America & its Constitution is an "experiment".   God forbid a conservative should actually say anything outrageous or questionable!  Because the libs jump on it like stink on roadkill, never mind the fact that that behavior is a main component of their ways.

      I think the one good thing about it is that it DID show that conservatives in general aren't gonna stand for impropriety, even if it's no worse than liberalism.   It's like the person who's bullied and then becomes the bully himself.  Not a good thing.  We shouldn't let the opposing side turn us into something just as bad as they are.
      Conservatives have always kinda "policed" themselves.  The "experiment" has shown that we still do.  Unlike liberalism's activists.

      1. Cagsil profile image84
        Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        This comment is just as bad as the billboard. lol

      2. vegetarianceleste profile image60
        vegetariancelesteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Global warming is not something that should be determined by politics, it's about science!

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe in some ways, yes.  But indeed it's also about whatever the Creator's plan is for the earth.

          So....you're saying that the liberals who are pushing for "green" energy and shouting dire warnings about how they think mankind is destroying the ozone layer...should keep their paranoia outta politics?  Then I agree. lol

          1. kerryg profile image87
            kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If you want to look at it that way, in the last few years, God has flooded 15% of Pakistan, sent Russia a 1000 year drought, sent the Amazon not-so-rainy-forest two 100 year droughts within a span of less than five years, sent the US the largest and earliest tornado outbreaks on record, and much more.

            If you seriously want to ignore such obvious signs of displeasure with humanity's continuing destruction of His creation, then I can't believe you care about God's "plan" at all, only your own comfort.

            Here's a resource you might find useful: http://creationcare.org/blog.php?blog=19

          2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If there was a single speck of evidence that the world was "created", your post might make sense.  As it stands, it's pure carp.

    2. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's actually a fallacy, known as "guilt by association."   The way it works is, tie some position you don't like to a really unpopular figure, and then hope that works on the psychology of the masses.

      For example, if I argue in favor of universal health care, and someone responds that Hitler was in favor of it, then they are trying to deflect from the argument itself and use a psychological red herring to make the audience not focus on the pros and cons of universal health care, but instead on the fact that Hitler, an evil dictator, favored it.  The assumption is that anything favored by Hitler is necessarily wrong.

      Nice to know the right is still engaging in their typical fallacious reasoning :p.

      1. kerryg profile image87
        kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hitler believed in gravity. Do you?

        1. 0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No.  I don't believe in anything Hitler believed in tongue.

        2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hitler believed in God and LOVED Passion plays.  If you believe in God and saw "The Passion of the Christ" you are just like Hitler.

      2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hitler adored people with blue eyes....

        Just sayin'

    3. Doc Snow profile image96
      Doc Snowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think that this is less dumb than might at first appear.

      Right now, the trial of Anders Breivik has placed front and center in the world's media a mass-murder who had on his 'hate list' global warming--though admittedly it was down the list from islam, or men showing emotion.  Additionally, the over-the-top rhetoric of voices like Rush Limbaugh, who advocated on his show that climate scientists concerned about global warming should be 'drawn and quartered'--the fate of Mel Gibson's character in "Braveheart"--combined with incidents such as the unjustified suspension of "polar bear" scientist Charles Monett, or the presentation of a noose to an elderly scientist at a public speech in Australia, have left a growing impression that those advocating the idea that warming isn't real are a bunch of nasty wackos.  For some of the details, you can see my Hub:

      http://doc-snow.hubpages.com/hub/Green- … acts-Speak

      Perhaps not unrelated is Dr. Michael Mann's memoir, currently out, which details how his authorship of the "hockey stick" graph led to death threats against him and his family, frequent libels, attempts to get him fired, hacking of his emails, numerous official investigations (all of which exonerated him), and an inquiry by the Virginia attorney (and political crony of Massey Energy, the coal-mining company responsible for the Upper Big Branch mine disaster):

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/1 … 13956.html

      Mr. Cuccinelli's fruitless inquiry was dismissed by the Virginia supreme court on March 2nd, 2012, but cost the state in excess of $350,000 on the UVA side of the fight alone.

      So, encumbered now with all this toxic baggage, the Heartland Institute is apparently trying to use this tasteless billboard campaign to shift that 'brand' of nasty extremism onto those *concerned* about climate change instead.

      I think (and hope) it was a serious misstep for them, but it wouldn't be an unexpected tack for them to take:  consider that HI ally Marc Moran--of the denialist site "Climate Depot," formerly employed by Congressman Inhofe's office to run the in-house climate change denial operation funded by your tax dollars--was also involved in the infamous "Swiftboat" affair which used false accusations to turn Mr. Kerry's strongest asset into a political liability.

  2. Cagsil profile image84
    Cagsilposted 4 years ago