Gay Denier? She must have been thinking of Tom Cruise.
GOLDBERG: He’s a gay people denier. He’s a woman, right to choose denier. He denies everything. Listen, I’m sorry and I am going to take pot shots at him. He may not have been at the charge but he didn’t stop the charge.
When someone starts tossing around statements like that with nothing, absolutely nothing to back them up, you know that they are ranting. Such people need to be confronted with their statements.
“Wait, what do you mean ‘gay people denier’? What does that mean, and what has he said or done that would make you believe that?”
No sooner does a Republican announce for any political office the vultures are released for a feeding frenzy. Activist liberals, in or out of politics, attack and accuse, in many cases with absolutely no proof or facts to back up their allegations. Their focus is the uninformed and lazy voter who will absorb the attacks as ‘oh yeah, right’. Mission accomplished right Whoopi?
Tom Cruise is probably asexual. At least, he gives off that vibe.
What exactly is a gay people denier?
Whoopi is a fool and while I’m not on the Cruz for president train I don’t give one whiff what she thinks about him.
Whoopi is a child tale denier since she thinks Polanski didn’t “rape rape” his victim. Give me the guy who has opinions on gays over the woman who supports child rape when the perpetrator is a rich man from Hollywood.
Whoopi is a pedophile and rape denier who supports drugging and molesting children.
And CrayCray is a troll.
I find Behar’s statement right before just as inexplicable, where she says that we cannot have a climate change denier as president.
First of all, the question of whether or not we can is clearly answered, “Yes we can.” There is nothing in the Constitution nor any law in any state prohibiting a person who denies that manmade global warming is a serious threat from becoming president. We have, after all, a president who denies that capitulating to Islamic regimes is a dangerous move, despite evidence now in Egypt, Iran, and Libya.
What I find absolutely inexplicable, however, is the arrogance shown by these people towards global warming skeptics, claiming that they are denying SCIENCE! That if they would simply pay attention to the SCIENCE! that they would change their minds.
It never occurs to them that the skeptics ARE looking at the science and finding it wanting, and it is the proponents who seem to be denying any evidence against their hypothesis, especially the 18 year period of no global warming despite every single computer model used to support the hypothesis has been show to be, not only wrong, but EMBARRASSINGLY wrong. Yet, they refuse to go back and do what every scientist worth their salt MUST do, and that is revisit and revise the hypothesis. Their adamant refusal to do so says that they are NOT looking at the science, but are blindly following the Chief Priests of SCIENCE!! Which, of course, is not the same thing.
Since he’s a Christian…I’m wondering how many gay people Cruz has killed. Right, James Edwards?
Furthermore, Craig, to your point, the climate psychotics like Behar muddle a whole slew of issues.
There are four questions at stake here:
– Whether the climate changes at all
– How the climate is currently changing
– What the mechanism for climate change is
– Whether or not said mechanisms are human-influenced
The correct, scientifically proven answers are as follows:
– The climate does change and can change. Ice ages and even fluctuations like the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age show that quite clearly
– Mathematical models indicate that the earth’s climate is warming slightly; however, observational data does not uniformly back up or reflect that fact. Sea levels are rising; however, a change in temperature across the planet does not necessarily correlate to the same.
– Whether or not carbon dioxide emissions affect the climate is an open question; theoretically yes, but the overall planetary mechanisms and their impact for balancing carbon dioxide, i.e. plant growth, are not completely studied or understood. Furthermore, solar output, which has been proven to fluctuate, CLEARLY affects climate, and there is strong evidence that indicates that above all other factors is what is most responsible for climactic variation.
– And thus, what is most likely is that human activity will influence climate, but that this is and will likely continue to be offset by the planet’s natural balancing mechanisms and completely innocuous in comparison to the sun’s output.
Does anyone seriously believe the imbecile Behar knows any of this?
What needs to happen is that Ted Cruz or someone else needs to ask the imbecile Behar why, if climate change is such an issue, she still travels by air or supports celebrities with private jets. Force the imbecile to defend herself and point out that she has no concept of what she’s talking about.
Whoopie is an entertaining woman, but her liberlaism comes out of the seat of her pants. As for Joyce Behar, she’s just space filler. She couldn’t make a success of her show on HLN. If anybody is a denier it is Behar.
BTW NDT 30, we’re in a cooling phase. Arctic ice has increased by 60% since late 2013. With record low temperatures this past couple of months, it has probably increased more.
Seems most liberal activists come out swinging against anything they do not like and when facts become a hindrance, the lies flow like water under a bridge. The enabling media gave us Obama and it goes without say, they will choose our next president like they did in 2008 and 2012. Chances are about 90-10 they will endorse, support, fawn over and worship the democrat nominee no matter who it is. Do we need a definition of what ‘is’ is?
Dear Whoopie – I turned gay after seeing you for the first time. Whadda ya think of that?
4.What exactly is a gay people denier?
Someone who turns down gay sex.
As to “climate change deniers” – skepticism is science. Unwavering belief despite evidence is not.