Ted Rall for May 08, 2015

Yes! This.

If nobody is offended then the political cartoonist is not doing his job.

I don’t think I’ve encountered any liberal yet who decided not to say anything about the cartoonist attacks; certainly there were a few who said that religious sentiment over a cartoon doesn’t give anyone the right to kill.

Rall seems to have taken leave of his senses and be living too much inside his own head, recently.

I think he’s in a contest with McCoy to see who can be the biggest, most delusional, liar.

This refers specifically to G. Trudeau’s rather quisling comments on the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists

Note: the Islamic extremists don’t simply object to people ridiculing Muhammed-they demand he not be depicted at all! They are demanding all-or-nothing submission.

jrmerm, you may need an adjustment in your meds.

Maybe he should check his facts, noone purposefully provoced anyone here. A delegation – who afterwards said it had been a dumb thing to do – went to the middle east with some drawings, that was then abused by “diplomats” to make a case from, no matter if they had been met with or not they would use it to be outraged.

@jrmermIt was out of concern for your health. In the past, you have shown a tendency to be rational and use logic. We even (GASP!) agree about a couple things. Your post about climate change is clearly delusional.

Journalism is dead.Now there is only propaganda.

#Night-Gaunt49Unfortunately, when it comes to global warming all of those whose income falls below a certain level (somewhere around upper middle class in this country-low six figures) will lose a lot more than an argument. I appreciate your ongoing campaign to suggest courtesy and generally agree with it. Almost all of my attacks are against what a poster has said. Having said that, I have a particular problem with scientific illiteracy. I also have a particular problem with climate change deniers. Their major claim is that there is a conspiracy of silence motivated by a desire for grant money. That’s delusional. Their premise rests on the assumption that the silence has not been broken by the many thousands of scientists, technicians and other workers in the field of climatology. Not one of those thousands has the integrity to break the silence. Not one $40,000/yr technician has attempted to bring a ‘smoking gun’ to petrochemical interests who would pay dearly for solid evidence, especially because they currently have none. I studied physics so I appreciate that climate science is particularly difficult, given all the variables. Skeptics should find what a closed system is and what happens when a reactant is introduced. It’s a pretty easy concept, but I’m sure most climate change deniers would rather get their science news from ideologically driven news outlets than from actual science writing.

It was written from an ipad (same with this), also things considered it is a bit of a touchy subject to me, so I “might” have gotten it off too fast. But as you mention yourself, it is in an understandable English. :p

@jrBecause it is obvious from the phrasing in your first post that you know very little about science (I studied physics and taught science-I know what I’m talking about), we can leave the ‘debate’ about climate change aside. Isn’t it time to move on from the prehistoric technology of burning fossil fuels and step into the 21st century with renewable energy sources? Why do you cling so rabidly to an outdated, dangerous mode of generating energy? Do you drive, or do you have a horse and buggy? If you’re a gun owner, is it a muzzle loader?