Comments on: A Question for Glenn Beck on Global Warming and Conspiracy

By: Lois Wells

Lois Wells — Sun, 30 May 2010 00:03:59 +0000

Glenn! This is the second solution I have in stopping the OIL FLOW and CAPPING/CLOSING The other solution that I have for stopping the OIL FLOW and CAPPING/CLOSING those enormous pipes is:
So far BP has tried putting mud and cement down into the pipes to stop the Oil Flow. They say it is not working. My thought is, "Why not mix mud and GRASSES together, and shoot the mixture into the pipes? If this works, and slows the Oil Flow down, then shoot Cement into the pipes on top of the mud and grasses?
Through the experiments of the two farmers, I was convinced that by using HAY and GRASSES this could be the answer to solving America's massive Oil Leak problem. What say you?

I have one more problem. I need Glenn Beck's e-mail address. In the past I have sent e-mails out to other commentators, and my e-mail would never get through. My comments were always returned to me. This is very frustrating, especially for someone who wants to speak her mind. (LOL)

By: Lois Wells

Lois Wells — Sat, 29 May 2010 23:46:56 +0000

Glenn! I'm writing you because I think I have a solution in stopping and controlling the enormous leak of the oil pipes and the oil slicks. Recently, I saw on U-2 videos, how these two farmers came up with a solution on how to stop the oil slicks. I was amazed at what I saw. The farmers used two huge bowls (vats), and filled them with WATER. They poured CRUDE OIL into the two bowls. Then the farmers took two large handfuls of "HAY" and sprinkled it into the first bowl that had the Crude Oil. They proceeded, and took all types of GRASSES and sprinkled the grasses into the second bowl. At this point, I was amazed. Within a few seconds the HAY and the GRASSES had soaked up every bit of the CRUDE OIL in both bowls. Amazing, the WATER was crystal clear. There was not one bit of oil left in those bowls. I thought to myself, "Why isn't the government using this technique to clean up the OIL SPILLS? By using this method, our shorelines would be protected and free of Crude Oil. It would just then be a matter of using fishing nets, or whatever resource the government may have to pick up the GRASSES.

By: Rich Matarese

Rich Matarese — Tue, 25 May 2010 12:29:30 +0000

A bit late to the scene, but once it goes up on the Internet – of course – it never comes down.

From a later perspective I have to say precisely what I would've said in February, I have had "…to study the science, the clues, the mystery behind global warming [and] the global warming swindle" – some thirty years of sensibility to the arguments on both sides of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis – and both undergraduate and graduate education in the scientific method. I'm not a meteorologist, atmospheric physicist, geologist, limnologist, or "climatologist," but I'm well enough versed in the physical sciences to have looked upon the AGW contentions back in '79 and muttered: "These bloody fools are overestimating the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect by at least three orders of magnitude."

Turns out my horseback assessment at that time way way to hellangone too charitable. Turns out (courtesy of ERBE satellite data analyses published last year, not to mention a bunch of other verified observational evidence) to be even less of a potential problem than that.

Pressing for adherence to the principles of the document that emerged from Hamilton's connivance – a Constitution deliberately riddled with loopholes through which the statists have been driving their engines of aggrandizement and pillage since day one – is all well and good. The problem is that majority opinion to the effect that "the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is" ruins the ardent constitutionalist.

Always will. On the issue of anthropogenic global warming, however, it has been the position of the fraudsters – the politicians, the private sector rent-seekers, and the Cargo Cult Science charlatans who were de-pantsed in the Climategate revelations last November – that they have the facts on their side.

And as opposed to dependence on the Constitution, when ex-law school students in robes can screw you to death (and have done so), it is far more likely that the tide can be turned against the thieving statists in the debate over the "global warming" fraud because – surprise! – those of us who are condemned as "skeptics" have factual reality (which is not susceptible to more than tentative confounding by way of legalistic bafflegab) on our side.
–

By: dan

dan — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:54:40 +0000

It isnt that anyone is afraid of him. Its the fact that we are sick of him. I will admit he is good at gitting ratings though thats for sure. How does this headliner sound to you. (Tonight on FOX news, O?BAMA! a racsist???) Well accorse your going to watch. You are going to feel inclined to what nonsense they have to say. This man is feeding on the (angrey) emotions bottled up in the back of your head that say what if? I learned a long time ago to just discredit him because 1. he was a drug addict. 2.he tried to kill himself. and 3. he claims to be always right about everything yet he has been proved wrong numerous

By: TAC grapevine | The Ruthless Truth blog

TAC grapevine | The Ruthless Truth blog — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:03:44 +0000

[...] A Question for Glenn Beck on Global Warming and Conspiracy [...]

By: Lloyd Miller

Lloyd Miller — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 03:11:04 +0000

No, no, no! If you can't make your mind up on the GLOBAL WARMING scam, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. Acceptance of Global Warming propaganda means throwing the Constitution in the waste basket PERMANENTLY! Yes, I am 100% in favor of restoring the 10th Amendment to operational status! So is Glenn Beck!

By: bee bee

bee bee — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 02:14:59 +0000

wow – you've the searing repartee of an 11 year old. WOW.

By: bee bee

bee bee — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 02:12:48 +0000

Michael Boldin's article is the most scattered, immature, meandering article (vignette?) I've ever read – and that takes a lot. What is his premise? what is the point he's trying to make? None, he's angry Glenn Beck doesn't support his candidate, but instead of addressing that point, Boldin wanders around making a few hits here and there. It sounds like what he doesn't like is Glenn Beck not supporting D Medina because, yes, someone who waffles on an outlandish theory might be questionable. Question, have you not done the same thing, you have thrown Glenn Beck out because he didn't like D. Medina? Boldin's assertion seems to be everything about Glenn must be fake because he doesbn't suport Boldin's candidate. And where does Boldin come up with this facile link between – what's more important – the constitution or a conspiracy theory – Boldin's setting up a false choice. If he's angry about Beck not supporting his babe candidate, explore that, but this circuitous Alice in Wonderland meandering – it is disappointing and I must now pause and wonder about the quality of this site.

By: bee bee

bee bee — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:46:13 +0000

Glenn Beck is the 'quintessential Pied Piper' – what the hell does that even mean? He presents a certain point of view and backs up his positions with statements supporting that view. A Pied Piper is someone who leads a non questioning group behind him, he doesn't ask that or expect that. He expects his audience to be mature enougn and well-versed enough in the issues to make their own decisions – that, I suspect, si the true root of your ire. He's a con artist? No, you're just a dufus who could not dispute one of his positions.

And actually, Beck started the 9/12 project which rivaled that of the tea party – it might even have been the genesis. And as far as Medina, I thought the beef was her waffling on the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory – not anything with Global Warming. I think you folks have confused your conspiracy theories.

His show is a POX on the Republic? Well, if you don't like his free speech, or more likely you're just not informed enough to understand his free speech, turn the channel. Why so cscared of his free speech?

By: Keith B.

Keith B. — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:20:19 +0000

I live in liberal MD. One reason I am not a Perry fan is the controversial HPV Vaccine. Remember the Executive Order? Most girls/women get this by sex. It can happen by rape, but that percentage is very small compared to consensual sex. If I had a daughter in TX I would have said NO. This is the reason I would have voted for Medina along with her other views. I would not agree with them all, but enough to say yes to Medina. Link to Perry's Executive order

http://cbs11tv.com/local/rick.perry.hpv.2.499776….