This is a pretty darn good speech.

Robert Kennedy Jr. at Live Earth 2007 (http://goleft.tv/view.asp?v=260)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of GoLeft.tv and Air America's Ring of Fire gives a speech at the 2007 Live Earth concert in New Jersey. An estimated 2 billion people viewed the concerts online and on television, and they featured performances from such acts as Smashing Pumpkins, Madonna, Jack Johnson, Lenny Kravitz, and Garth Brooks.

This is a pretty darn good speech.

Robert Kennedy Jr. at Live Earth 2007 (http://goleft.tv/view.asp?v=260)

Made an absolute Jerk of himself,and set BACK his Hypocratic
Cause,Light years.
How come he can't at least LIMIT his personal jet travel.?
Very Energy consuming.
How come The Kennedy's REFUSE to use Windmill Power
right off the Shores of their Summer Home.?
Because they Talk the Talk,but can't Walk the Walk.
They're just a bunch of Spoiled Rich Drunks.
Drunk with Power,Priviledge and Politics.

I wasn't quite so impressed. I think he dumbs it down for the crowd too much and invokes the oil companies the way Goebbels used the Jews.

The disagreement about global warming is the cause of it, not that it is happening.

I think this is an important issue and the one that frustrates me the most about Rush Limbaugh and George Bush. But Kennedy has too much baggage to be the standard bearer here,

He actually hurts the cause he is advocating.

I like the part where he said anyone who doesnt agree with man made global warming is a traitor and should be treated like a traitor. We know the penalty for treason is death, so basically he says he wants to kill anyone who doesnt agree with his views on global warming. Got to love the open minded liberals out there.

I wasn't quite so impressed. I think he dumbs it down for the crowd too much and invokes the oil companies the way Goebbels used the Jews.

You just compared Robert F Kennedy Jr. to a Nazi. :rolleyes:

Sorry Brooks, you just lost all credibility.



The disagreement about global warming is the cause of it, not that it is happening.

Speak for yourself. There are plenty of people out there claiming the whole thing is nothing but "hysteria".


I think this is an important issue and the one that frustrates me the most about Rush Limbaugh and George Bush.

Of all the things they say and do, that is what frustrates you the most?

You need to reevaluate your priorities and reexamine your morals.


But Kennedy has too much baggage to be the standard bearer here,

He actually hurts the cause he is advocating.

Only in the eyes of people like yourself and you are one of a kind Brooks. ;)

Minnesota Democrat Congressman Keith Ellison just compared George Bush to Adolf Hitler. Has he also lost all credibility with you Dharma?

"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted." Congressman Keith Ellison

Frogger, are you a Christian?

Has Congressman Ellison lost all credibility with you, Dharma.

Whether I am a Christian or not has nothing to do with that question. You said Brooks lost all credibility with you becaue he comapred Kennedy to a Nazi. I want to know if the same holds true when a member of the government compares the President to a Nazi.

All the question calls for is a simple yes or no.

1. You just compared Robert F Kennedy Jr. to a Nazi.
2. Brooks: But Kennedy has too much baggage to be the standard bearer here,
He actually hurts the cause he is advocating.
Dhrama: Only in the eyes of people like yourself and you are one of a kind Brooks. ;)1. I compared one aspect of his excessive scapegoating to one aspect of someone else's excessive scapegoating. I think you're being a bit dhramatic.

2. Not just in my eyes.
- He was on Hannity last week telling the country to get smaller cars and use public transportation, and then he went to his next apearance via private jet.
- He talks about alternative energy sources and then actively fights a wind farm off the Kennedy compound's coast in Massachussetts becasue it looks ugly.

When he's debating on the important issue of global warming his message is lost because he is a hypocrite and it is too easy for even a lesser informed debate adversary to divert the conversation.
In that way he is useless as an advocate. He may be knowledgable and passionate but he's a bad messenger.

Dharmabum,

I don't think you are a sniveling coward so I have to surmise that you have simply forgotten to answer my question.

You contend that Brooks has lost all credibility in your sight because he compared Kennedy to a Nazi. Does the same hold true for Ellison? Has he lost all credibility in your eyes because he compared Bush to a Nazi?

And to answer your red herring question, yes, I am a Christian? What relevance did that question have to the topic being discussed?

1. I compared one aspect of his excessive scapegoating to one aspect of someone else's excessive scapegoating.

Brooks, but you sunk to a new low and I didn't think that was possible after watching you defend Ann Coulter. :rolleyes:


2. Not just in my eyes.

Oh? Do you speak for some group of people now? :rolleyes:
Yes, it is just in your eyes.


- He was on Hannity last week telling the country to get smaller cars and use public transportation, and then he went to his next appearance via private jet.
- He talks about alternative energy sources and then actively fights a wind farm off the Kennedy compound's coast in Massachussetts becasue it looks ugly.



Why do you never substantiate anything you say?
Why do you always have to be badgered to provide evidence?
Your already minimal credibility isn't helped by all the unsubstantiated claims you make.


When he's debating on the important issue of global warming his message is lost...

Who are you trying to kid brooks?
His message was always lost on you.

:rolleyes:

By the way Brooks, it is "Massachusetts" and "Because".

:thumbs:

Still refuse to answer the question, huh, Dharma. How typical. You get a question you don't like, one that turns your post right back at you and you just don't answer it.


It is not Brooks who has lost all credibility, it is you, Dharmabum, the poster who ignores questions that call his personal ethics into question.

Frogger you are a useless hack with deep anger management issues.

Why don't you provide evidence for your claim about Ellison?

Why am I the only one around here who actually substantiates what I say?

:rolleyes:

I see you still refuse to answer the question, Dharma. It is a rather simple question, one that even someone of your limited mental ability should be able to answer.

Has Ellison lost all credibility in your eyes because he compared the President to a Nazi?

All it takes is a simple yes or no. No more pussyfooting. No more fake dudgeon. Just answer the question.

Oh, and here is your documentation.

Whatever side of the aisle a member of congress sits, there needs to be an underlying sense that when push comes to shove there is a love of country that when push comes to shove would come before politics. That is not the case with Louis Farrakhan protégé Congressman Keith Ellison. Last Sunday, Ellison joined the ranks of the America hating loonies. In a speech to a group of atheists in Minnesota he compared the President of the United States to Hitler and implied that Bush was behind 9/11 so he could accuse the Muslims.

http://www.israelated.com/node/19551

But even the "impeach Bush now" crowd might have raised an eyebrow when Ellison compared the Sept. 11 terror attacks to the burning of the Reichstag, or Pariament building, in Nazi Germany in 1933.
"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," he told applauding atheists. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

http://www.startribune.com/191/story/1297757.html

"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," he told applauding atheists. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."
If you're fuzzy on your history of Nazi Germany, you might have missed Ellison's point. Here's the context.
On Feb. 27, 1933, the Reichstag building in Berlin burned.
The fire occurred a week before the March 5 elections, which pitted the Nazis against the Communists, Social Democrats and other parties.
For decades, it had been widely believed that the Nazis themselves planned the fire in an effort to discredit the Communists and justify Nazi seizure of emergency powers. Today, many scholars believe that the arsonist was a lone radical. The identity of those responsible for the fire remains controversial.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/keith_ellison_goes_overboard.html

July 9, 2007
Keith Ellison, In The Nutball Box
Our new Congressman from MN-05, Keith Ellison, has performed about as well as could be predicted before his election -- he has become a 9/11 Truther. Gary Gross of Let Freedom Ring has kept track of Ellison after the election, and notes a Star Tribune article that shows Ellison not quite having the courage to jump all the way into the paranoia:
On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: "It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you."
I'd say that this puts Ellison squarely in the nutball box. It shows a depressing lack of education about the Nazis and the Reichstag fire itself, let alone the rather obvious point that Osama bin Laden has gladly taken credit for the 9/11 attacks and that all of the evidence shows he and al-Qaeda did it. The Reichstag fire was a political stunt immediately prior to a national election that not only allowed Hitler to ban a political party but also to pack the assembly with fellow Nazis -- in order to pass an Enabling Act similar to what Hugo Chavez just pushed through Venezuela's parliament.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010474.php


Now answer the question.

Has Ellison lost all credibility in your eyes because he compared the President to a Nazi?

There is a serious problem with your question. It doesn't hold up to the smell test. He didn't compare the President to anyone.

From one of the links you posted:

Ellison compared the Sept. 11 terror attacks to the burning of the Reichstag, or Pariament building, in Nazi Germany in 1933.

In summary, the answer to your false question has to be no, because Ellison didn't compare the President to a Nazi, he compared the burning of the Reichstag Fire to 9-11.

There, I have answered your question.

Now run along.

:thumbs:

Just as I thought. You are a phony, Dharma. You come down on Brooks like a ton of bricks because he compares Kennedy to a Nazi but weasel out of doing the same with Elllison because he is one of your far left buds.

You have once again proven yourself to be little more than a partisan hack not worthy of the respect given to honest posters.

Frogger,

You crack me up.
:lolhit:

Ellison didn't make the comparison you are trying to claim he did.

It is as simple as that.

:rolleyes:

Gee, it's amazing how others seem to think he did. Only Dharmabum thinks he didn't. Of course making a comparison of the Twin Towers to the Reichstag and then claiming how it allowed a leader to sieze unwarranted power has nothing to do with Hitler and Bush.

Are you simply a partisan hack or are you actually as dumb as you seem?

Gee, it's amazing how others seem to think he did.

No, you ultra-partisan hacks don't suprise me much anymore with the nonsense you believe.

:rolleyes:

1. Oh? Do you speak for some group of people now?
2. Why do you never substantiate anything you say?
Why do you always have to be badgered to provide evidence?
3. Who are you trying to kid brooks?
His message was always lost on you.
1. I speak for no one specifically in this case.
But if someone claims to care about the environment and actually engages in practices that he himself would consider destructive, then he is not a good spokesman for the issue. In fact, he's a negative influence for that particular cause.
Since I thought anyone with common sense would think so too, I didn't think I was only speaking for myself.

2. On another thread I said Patrick Fitzgerald knew from the start that the leaker was Armitage. You asked me to prove it so I asked you if you would concede the point if I did give you a link. You disappeared.
I even told you to grow a pair and tell me what you would say if I showed you proof. More crickets chirping.

So I'll ask you in this case. If I can show you examples of Kennedy's hypocrisy what will you say? Since you're insisting on the link you must think it's a pretty important point.
If you don't think it will prove anything then ignore it and shut up about the link.

3. That's where you're wrong. I take environmental issues very seriously.
And Kennedy's message is NOT lost on me. The message is important and valid.
It's the messenger that is ruining the message.

Hey Dhrama Q, Frogger's right on this.

If saying Kennedy used the oil companies the way Goebbels used the Jews is a Nazi comparison

then this -
"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."
- is definitely a comparison.

No, you ultra-partisan hacks
Says the man who gave money to the Edwards 08 campaign because he was insulted by Ann Coulter.

Brooks,

Don't ever expect Dharma to admit when he is wrong or to give an inch even in the face of facts. He is the most partisan person on the board and probably can't even see the other side of any issue. I think he is congenitally unable to see both sides of an issue.

1. I speak for no one specifically in this case.

Thats the truth, at least. You speak for nobody but your unique self.


2. On another thread I said Patrick Fitzgerald knew from the start that the leaker was Armitage.

and I corrected you and pointed out that he knew about Armitage before the investigation and decided to go through with the investigation anyway.

:rolleyes:


So I'll ask you in this case. If I can show you examples of Kennedy's hypocrisy what will you say?

I will say what I have always said, that your claims are irrelevant to the message. I can point out your failure to substantiate anything you say and call you a fraud. The only purpose of doing that kind of thing is to try and distract from the actual message.



I take environmental issues very seriously. And Kennedy's message is NOT lost on me. The message is important and valid.
It's the messenger that is ruining the message.

If that were true then the message would be more important to you than the messenger.

Obviously that is not the case and you are not telling the truth.

Frogger's right on this.

Nope, now you are both wrong.


If saying Kennedy used the oil companies the way Goebbels used the Jews is a Nazi comparison

Obviously, it is.
You are comparing Kennedy to Goebbels.


then this -
"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."
- is definitely a comparison.

Of course it is a comparison Einstein. :rolleyes:

But it is a comparison between the Reichstag Fire and 9-11.

Apples and Oranges.

:thumbs:

He is the most partisan person on the board

ROFLMFAO!!!

Correction, I am merely the only partisan on the left compared to the plethora of partisans from the right on here, such as yourself.

:thumbs:

1. I will say what I have always said, that your claims are irrelevant to the message. I can point out your failure to substantiate anything you say and call you a fraud.
2. If that were true then the message would be more important to you than the messenger.
3. Obviously that is not the case and you are not telling the truth.
1. Then why do you bother asking for a link genius?

2. If you really care about an issue then the messenger is important to you. I'm not the one who has to be convinced on this issue, others do.
Here's the problem. Sean Hannity is a borderline dope who doesn't know anything whatsoever about environmental issues. RFKJr. could easily defeat him in a debate on any related topic.
So what does Sean Hannity do? He spends the half hour cornering RFKJr on all the areas in his life where he is a hypocrite (and they are legion).
RFKJ is probably a very informative host on his AirAmerica show, but that's not the audience that has to be convinced.
I take the issue seriously and I don't want him screwing it up.

3. Other left wingers in the past, when left with nothing else, have formed their argument around the fact that they know my opinion on something better than I know it.
You sound dumb when you do that.

Obviously, it is.
You are comparing Kennedy to Goebbels.
But it is a comparison between the Reichstag Fire and 9-11.
Apples and Oranges.
No DQ, they are both a comparison of one's tactics.
I compared the tactics of Goebbels and Kennedy.
Your guy compared the tactics of Bush to those of Hitler.

This spinning on your part is worse than usual.