Jump to content

An Inconvenient Lie?

Recommended Posts

Let's just give ole Al every award we can think of! After all, he probably think he deserves credit for everything!


Hey I invented lerts! Ya know why! We need to be alert! Cause the country needs more lerts!


Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


So, how do you feel about Gore''s son? Doing 100 mph in a Prius, busted with marijuana along with Xanax, Valium, Vicodin and Adderall. He didn''t have a prescription for any of those. This was his fourth run in with the law - possession of pot in 2003, drunk driving in 2002, and reckless driving 94 back in 2000. He gets off without a slap on the wrist every time. Is it just a matter of time before this guy kills someone?

I''d really like to hear how you feel about Ted Kennedy!


Funny, I felt the same way about Clinton. I couldn''t see how this guy could win, or why anyone would want to vote for him. When he won, I decided I would give him a chance. That didn''t last long! What a disgrace - to the country and to his family! Bill has a serious allergy with the truth!


Bush had led us in the war against terror. I am thankful for his leadership. We have defeated Saddam and we are defeating Al-Queda. I''m sure you disagree - hey, it''s a free country.


Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled

Washington Post Staff Writers

Monday, October 15, 2007; Page A01

Better get your digs in before we win! Just like Gore better solve GW before the natural cycle turns!



He said every skeptical scientist he looked at was backed by oil money. I''ve called that bluff before. He made the claim, he needs to back it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brent, Throw in the Bush daughters and I don't think much of any of it. Happy?


I'm elated that we've finally won the war. Now we can turn the whole mess over to the successful Iraqi democracy and get out immediately. Thanks for the great news.


I am astounded that you would even mention AQI. I remember a similar claim by the military back in 2006 as well, and "fatal blow" before that, and "mission accomplished"...oops, there was that "bring it on" thing. You know, don't you, that Al-Qaeda wasn't significant in Iraq until after we invaded. Or do you have evidence to the contrary? Do you know the difference between AQI and Al-Qaeda? Have you read the report that came out last February? You know, the one that outed the failed attempts by Feith, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld to make a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda to justify the war? What about Al-Qaeda everywhere else? Have we defeated them as well? The only digs of significance are those into which thousands of our good men and women are being planted. I, for one, hope they end soon.


Beavah, I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding fiscal policy. But this is not the result of Dubya alone. We as a nation condoned a feeding frenzy and expansion of government that exceeded anything the old tax and spend people could have dreamed. This happened during the Reagan years, as David Stockman eventually admitted, but they had an actual agenda. This was merely "grab as much as we can while we can".


The recent book by Greenspan lays it out pretty well but I guess that as Greenspan says, as the President, Dubya could have controlled it. He didn't. But then he had a history of excess, didn't he? We trolled a bottle of Wild Turkey through Texas and caught a President. Heck, we could have saved a lot of money, caught that one with MD 20-20 or a pint of rosie with a skirt, maybe a little blow on the side.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would anyone consider this thread as being officially hijacked?


Me too!


By the way, Global warming probably is a fact, not absolutely sure, but I don''t always agree as to the real cause, whether it be green house gasses or part of a natural cycle of climate change. For the fiction reader in us all, great book by Michael Crichton - State of Fear. I recommend it to both sides of the argument...



Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth or Lie? I don't know... there are world-renowned scientists on both ends of the spectrum with facts and logic to support their arguments.


Regardless, the Nobel Peace Prize doesn't amount to much to me. They can give it to anyone they feel like. It doesn't make them internet inventors, dancers OR presidential election "winners" ...


But I do like those nifty flourescent bulbs and I have replaced all my old light bulbs with them because they decreased my electric bill!


I bought a hybrid SUV that gets 26mi to the gallon!


And I let my kids use their shirts instead of napkins!


I will however draw the line at only using 1 square of toilet paper. That's just going too far :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone else notice the big headlines over at CNN yesterday (10/24) that the UN climate change group released their study showing that the Greenland icemass is indeed melting, and faster than they had originally thought.


Interesting that this was one of the "11 inaccuracies" that the Judge in Britain based his ruling on when the Government didn't defend the supposition.


The ruling in the case in Britain really doesn't support the global warming debunkers case since the British Government (the defendants) never really put on much of a defense anyway.


I wonder what would have happened if the British government had taken the case seriously instead of just essentially noloing it.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Calico, the inaccuracy involving the ice caps and Greenland melting was a claim by Gore that sea levels would rise over 20 feet in the near future. The CNN piece claims sea levels have risen 3 mm per year since 1993 (how they can measure such a small change on such a dynamic surface is beyond me) and they might rise 3 feet over the next century. So, no, the CNN piece did not refute what the Judge stated. Gore's claim is unbelievable and unsupported by science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

packsaddle! That's one big O-U-C-H to me!


And here we thought we were roughing it with generic double rolls that supposedly break down better in a septic tank, instead of my preference, Charmin Plus with Aloe, E and Lotion!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was Gore I'd be embarassed by the 2000 election. Having to admit that my supporters in Florida were too stupid to know how to vote.


One woman was interviewed after the election and said, "I say my friend coming out of the polls and she said to be careful because the ballot was confusing. So I punched every hole to make sure that my vote would count." The Dems designed and accepted the ballot and the GOP gets blamed for the stupidity of the voters.


BTW, it was Gore who said that he couldn't dance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'll mince a couple of words here. A belief is something that can be based on faith alone or nothing at all. So, depending on a person's desire to self-deceive, they can believe almost anything. Otherwise I wouldn't still be getting all those really lucrative offers from Nigerian princes.

The concept of 'support' when used in the sense of science invokes several things. First is the logic itself. In the case of global warming, the basic logic is sound. Most of the objections are as to the cause - human or not. And the logic is supported by observations that seem pretty good. Moreover, as more evidence mounts, it tends to support the logic even more. The problem is...evidence isn't unequivocal yet. So in that sense, it 'supports' both opposing views on human influence. Perhaps in time this will be a little clearer.

GoldWinger, you reminded me of THE best episode of one of the best TV shows ever. Here's the essential clip:


"She bit me on the neck, Peg! Now I'm going live forever...Oh Nooooo!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Day by day, it's easier to see how the GOP of today is about as far away from what I grew up believing was good about the party. So, for those of you convinced Gore is lying about global warming, how do you explain the Bush administration's editing of it's cabinet member's reports to Congress?


The CDC director gave Congressional testimony on the health effects of climate change last week. But her statement was cut by the Bush White House from over 3,000 words to 1,500, omitting large parts of her prepared remarks. "She was able to say everything she wanted to say," White House spokesman Dana Perino said. "It was not watered down in terms of its science. It wasn't watered down in terms of the concerns that climate change raises for public health."


Take a glance at the 1,500 words that were cut out of the remarks... redacted parts in red.




Who's not to be trusted?




Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it really matter what her prepared statement was? I'm reminded of a far side cartoon in which a person was scolding a dog but all the dog heard was "Blah blah blah blah Trixie blah blah blah."


Those who sit in either house of the congress do not have science or engineering backgrounds. They don't understand 90% of what is said to them during the hearings. They depend on aides who don't have science backgrounds to condense everything into half page notes with comments like "this is good" or "bad. will cost votes".


We also need to wonder if that is really the text of the CDC Director's orignal report.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...