On May 26, 2004 Al Gore stated: "He (George Bush Jr.) promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon."
Dishonest? YOUR President Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice for lying to a Federal grand jury. Talk about dishonor!
In fact you, Al Gore, lashed out at Congress when they asked for a vote of Impeachment. You said "I don't believe it's in the interest of the United States or the American people to go through this impeachment process with a trial in the Senate". Hiding the TRUTH would not be in the best interest of the American people? Talk about dishonest! What a blazing hypocrite!
Mr. Gore you are a FLAMING hypocrite! What about what you said about George Bush's father?
We have video of you saying it, so you cannot deny it.
Today you bash Bush Jr. but before you said this about his father:
"Bush (Sr.) deserves heavy blame for intentionally concealing from the American people the clear nature of Saddam Hussein and his regime and for convincing himself that friendly relations with such a monster would be possible and for persisting in this effort far, far beyond the point of folly."
But today you say about George Bush Jr. "To begin with, from its earliest days in power, this administration sought to radically destroy the foreign policy consensus that had guided America since the end of World War II. The long successful strategy of containment was abandoned in favor of the new strategy of "preemption."
Back then you said: "And most significant of all, in the same month, September of 1989, the CIA reported to secretary of state Baker and other top Bush administration officials that Iraq was clandestinely procuring nuclear weapons technology through a global network". . . "Did all of this make any impression at all on President Bush(Sr.)? Did his judgment on foreign policy come into play when he was told that this nation (Iraq), with a record of terrorism continuing was making a sustained, concerted effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological? Well, evidently not."
Today you say: He (Bush Jr.) has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet's nests THAT POSE NO THREAT WHATSOEVER TO US."
Before you said "He (Saddam) had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush (Sr.) had looked the other way. He (Saddam) was already deeply involved in the effort to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and Bush(Sr.) knew it, but he looked the other way."
Today you say about George Bush Jr.: "He betrayed this country! He played on our fears!
He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."
Isn't that what you were calling for back then? After all it was YOUR administration that gave the Saddam terrorist tie threat to George Bush Jr.
YOU, Al Gore, said on Larry King's TV show after Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in December of 1998
"The bombing Iraq was the right thing to do" to rid Saddam Hussien of his weapons of mass destruction".
Can you believe this?!!!
Make up your mind Mr.Gore!!!
You're a 100% HYPOCRITE!!!
Al Gore was demanding action on Iraq because Saddam was associating with terrorists, was gassing people with mustard gas and other chemical weapons, his own people, and was trying to develop nuclear weapons along with other weapons of mass destruction, consorting with terrorists, Lebanon, and so forth, and demanding that George H. W. Bush (Sr.) do something about it. Now, you just contrast this with the rhetoric coming out of this guys mouth today, "There was never any reason to go to Iraq, Bush (Jr.) lied."
For PROOF of these comments by Al Gore you can see the actual video clip of him making them.
Al Gore criticizes
George Bush's father
for IGNORING
Iraq's ties to terrorism!!!
Gore To Bush: You Ignored Saddam's Terrorist Ties!
Yeah, apparently it didn't make any difference to you when you and Bill Clinton got in the White House because you didn't do anything about it, either (other than bombing a baby asprin factory in the middle of the night!).
This is utter dishonesty, it is utter hypocrisy and I'm just going to suggest to you that when you've got somebody as deranged as this, Albert Arnold Algore, you've got to take into account now what he's saying about Global Warming. How can you believe anything somebody like this happens to say?
Al Gore want's us to believe in his nonsense of Global Warming, which thousands of scientists dispute? He refuses to even debate the topic! Who's "playing on our fears"NOWMr.Gore?!!!
Meanwhile he's making millions giving speeches and won't even debate the issue because it would affect his bank account!
He's lied before and been caught, including these examples, and about inventing the internet(!), and he's LYING about Global Warming now so he can get rich.
Al Gore now wants us to believe in his nonsense of Global Warming, which thousands of scientists dispute.
He refuses to even debate the topic!
Why should he, he'll only be proven wrong!
Who's "playing on our fears"NOW Mr.Gore?!!!
1st October 2007 05:27 PM
Fiji Joe
quote:pdog wrote:
The economics of our trade deficit and americans desire to cheap products is a sacrafice along the lines of patriotism during a time of war... Bush told Americans to shop for the war effort... Who is to blame? Morans!!!
I'd bet my nuts this fuck , if he voted, voted for Bush!!!
And this has what to do with this discussion?...grip...get one...buy a chinese made grip at Wal-Mart if you have to
1st October 2007 05:30 PM
Fiji Joe
quote:Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
>I'm just waiting for one of you foaming at the mouth lunatics to call me a "deniar"...I got news for you kooks...the nations of India and China are set to surpass the US economy within the next 25 years...<
Those Indian and Chinese factories are owned and built by American and Western European corporations.
You sure about that?...really?...well then the solution is simple huh?...just outlaw manufaturing of any goods outside the country of ownership...a simple and repurcussionless solution no?
1st October 2007 05:32 PM
Fiji Joe
quote:steel driving hammer wrote:
On May 26, 2004 Al Gore stated: "He (George Bush Jr.) promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon."
Dishonest? YOUR President Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice for lying to a Federal grand jury. Talk about dishonor!
In fact you, Al Gore, lashed out at Congress when they asked for a vote of Impeachment. You said "I don't believe it's in the interest of the United States or the American people to go through this impeachment process with a trial in the Senate". Hiding the TRUTH would not be in the best interest of the American people? Talk about dishonest! What a blazing hypocrite!
Mr. Gore you are a FLAMING hypocrite! What about what you said about George Bush's father?
We have video of you saying it, so you cannot deny it.
Today you bash Bush Jr. but before you said this about his father:
"Bush (Sr.) deserves heavy blame for intentionally concealing from the American people the clear nature of Saddam Hussein and his regime and for convincing himself that friendly relations with such a monster would be possible and for persisting in this effort far, far beyond the point of folly."
But today you say about George Bush Jr. "To begin with, from its earliest days in power, this administration sought to radically destroy the foreign policy consensus that had guided America since the end of World War II. The long successful strategy of containment was abandoned in favor of the new strategy of "preemption."
Back then you said: "And most significant of all, in the same month, September of 1989, the CIA reported to secretary of state Baker and other top Bush administration officials that Iraq was clandestinely procuring nuclear weapons technology through a global network". . . "Did all of this make any impression at all on President Bush(Sr.)? Did his judgment on foreign policy come into play when he was told that this nation (Iraq), with a record of terrorism continuing was making a sustained, concerted effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological? Well, evidently not."
Today you say: He (Bush Jr.) has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet's nests THAT POSE NO THREAT WHATSOEVER TO US."
Before you said "He (Saddam) had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush (Sr.) had looked the other way. He (Saddam) was already deeply involved in the effort to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and Bush(Sr.) knew it, but he looked the other way."
Today you say about George Bush Jr.: "He betrayed this country! He played on our fears!
He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."
Isn't that what you were calling for back then? After all it was YOUR administration that gave the Saddam terrorist tie threat to George Bush Jr.
YOU, Al Gore, said on Larry King's TV show after Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in December of 1998
"The bombing Iraq was the right thing to do" to rid Saddam Hussien of his weapons of mass destruction".
Can you believe this?!!!
Make up your mind Mr.Gore!!!
You're a 100% HYPOCRITE!!!
Al Gore was demanding action on Iraq because Saddam was associating with terrorists, was gassing people with mustard gas and other chemical weapons, his own people, and was trying to develop nuclear weapons along with other weapons of mass destruction, consorting with terrorists, Lebanon, and so forth, and demanding that George H. W. Bush (Sr.) do something about it. Now, you just contrast this with the rhetoric coming out of this guys mouth today, "There was never any reason to go to Iraq, Bush (Jr.) lied."
For PROOF of these comments by Al Gore you can see the actual video clip of him making them.
Al Gore criticizes
George Bush's father
for IGNORING
Iraq's ties to terrorism!!!
Gore To Bush: You Ignored Saddam's Terrorist Ties!
Yeah, apparently it didn't make any difference to you when you and Bill Clinton got in the White House because you didn't do anything about it, either (other than bombing a baby asprin factory in the middle of the night!).
This is utter dishonesty, it is utter hypocrisy and I'm just going to suggest to you that when you've got somebody as deranged as this, Albert Arnold Algore, you've got to take into account now what he's saying about Global Warming. How can you believe anything somebody like this happens to say?
Al Gore want's us to believe in his nonsense of Global Warming, which thousands of scientists dispute? He refuses to even debate the topic! Who's "playing on our fears"NOWMr.Gore?!!!
Meanwhile he's making millions giving speeches and won't even debate the issue because it would affect his bank account!
He's lied before and been caught, including these examples, and about inventing the internet(!), and he's LYING about Global Warming now so he can get rich.
Al Gore now wants us to believe in his nonsense of Global Warming, which thousands of scientists dispute.
He refuses to even debate the topic!
Why should he, he'll only be proven wrong!
Who's "playing on our fears"NOW Mr.Gore?!!!
DENIER!
[Edited by Fiji Joe]
1st October 2007 05:35 PM
steel driving hammer
"There is no global warming. Period."
"Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends -- be they teachers, newscasters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents, or Presidents -- is wrong," writes Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center in a recent issue of his DeWeese Report. "There is," he insists, "no global warming."
DeWeese calls global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world, bar none. Those who have been fighting against the green agenda have been warning that modern-day environmentalism has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the environment," he observes. "Rather, it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development, and redistribute the world's wealth."
DeWeese describes the relentless propaganda campaign that has been waged over the past couple of decades. "The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists," he contends. "School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and death. Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like freon have been removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for extinction."
DeWeese warns that the Climate Change Protocol is "a legally binding international treaty through which signing nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 15 percent below 1990 levels." He insists that "it doesn't matter" if the final version is somewhat modified. "Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, will devastate this nation," DeWeese predicts. "To meet such drastically reduced energy standards will, in the short run, cost the United States over one million jobs."
DeWeese emphasizes that "only developed industrial nations will be bound by the treaty. Undeveloped Third World nations will be free to produce whatever they want. These will include China, India, Brazil, and Mexico," he observes, noting that "eighty-two percent of the projected emissions growth in coming years is from these countries." That fact alone proves that the Climate Change Treaty is not designed to protect the environment. "The truth, of course," says DeWeese, "is that the treaty is really about redistribution of wealth," from America to the rest of the world.
Remember when we were supposed to be frightened because the world was getting colder? When that fraud was exposed, we then were told to beware of global warming. More and more people are now recognizing that this too is nonsense. So, what dread prospect will the conjurors of calamity con us with next? Will they try to stampede us into global governance by warning that the temperature will remain constant? No, that's not scary enough. Probably, what they will do is try to convince us that the earth is getting colder and warmer, simultaneously. After all, some of us might like it colder, some might like it hotter, but nobody likes it both ways at the same time.
1st October 2007 05:37 PM
Fiji Joe
Thought nazis???
Brendan O’Neill
Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech
The demonisation of 'climate change denial' is an affront to open and rational debate.
Whoever thought that serious commentators would want it made illegal to have a row about the weather? One Australian columnist has proposed outlawing ‘climate change denial’. ‘David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial’, she wrote. ‘Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.’ (1) Others have suggested that climate change deniers should be put on trial in the future, Nuremberg-style, and made to account for their attempts to cover up the ‘global warming…Holocaust’ (2).
The message is clear: climate change deniers are scum. Their words are so wicked and dangerous that they must be silenced, or criminalised, or forced beyond the pale alongside those other crackpots who claim there was no Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Perhaps climate change deniers should even be killed off, hanged like those evil men who were tried Nuremberg-style the first time around.
Whatever the truth about our warming planet, it is clear there is a tidal wave of intolerance in the debate about climate change which is eroding free speech and melting rational debate. There has been no decree from on high or piece of legislation outlawing climate change denial, and indeed there is no need to criminalise it, as the Australian columnist suggests. Because in recent months it has been turned into a taboo, chased out of polite society by a wink and a nod, letters of complaint, newspaper articles continually comparing climate change denial to Holocaust denial. An attitude of ‘You can’t say that!’ now surrounds debates about climate change, which in many ways is more powerful and pernicious than an outright ban. I am not a scientist or an expert on climate change, but I know what I don’t like - and this demonisation of certain words and ideas is an affront to freedom of speech and open, rational debate.
The loaded term itself – ‘climate change denier’ – is used to mark out certain people as immoral, untrustworthy. According to Richard D North, author most recently of Rich is Beautiful: A Very Personal Defence of Mass Affluence: ‘It is deeply pejorative to call someone a “climate change denier”…it is a phrase designedly reminiscent of the idea of Holocaust denial – the label applied to those misguided or wicked people who believe, or claim to believe, the Nazis did not annihilate the Jews, and others, in very great numbers.’ (3) People of various views and hues tend to get lumped together under the umbrella put-down ‘climate change denier’ – from those who argue the planet is getting hotter but we will be able to deal with it, to those who claim the planet is unlikely to get much hotter at all (4). On Google there are now over 80,000 search returns, and counting, for the phrase climate change denial.
Others take the tactic of openly labelling climate change deniers as cranks, possibly even people who might need their heads checked. In a speech last month, in which he said people ‘should be scared’ about global warming, UK environment secretary David Miliband said ‘those who deny [climate change] are the flat-earthers of the twenty-first century’ (5). Taking a similar tack, former US vice president-turned-green-warrior Al Gore recently declared: ‘Fifteen per cent of the population believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona and somewhat fewer still believe the Earth is flat. I think they all get together with the global warming deniers on a Saturday night and party.’ (6)
It is not only environmentalist activists and green-leaning writers who are seeking to silence climate change deniers/sceptics/critics/whatever you prefer. Last month the Royal Society – Britain’s premier scientific academy founded in 1660, whose members have included some of the greatest scientists – wrote a letter to ExxonMobil demanding that the oil giant cut off its funding to groups that have ‘misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence’. It was the first time the Royal Society had ever written to a company complaining about its activities. The letter had something of a hectoring, intolerant tone: ‘At our meeting in July…you indicated that ExxonMobil would not be providing any further funding to these organisations. I would be grateful if you could let me know when ExxonMobil plans to carry out this pledge.’ (7)
One could be forgiven for asking what business it is of the Royal Society to tell ExxonMobil whom it can and cannot support – just as we might balk if ExxonMobil tried to tell the Royal Society what to do. The Society claims it is merely defending a ‘scientific consensus…the evidence’ against ExxonMobil’s duplicitous attempts to play down global warming for its own oily self-interest. Yet some scientists have attacked the idea that there can ever be untouchable cast-iron scientific facts, which should be immune from debate or protected from oil-moneyed think-tanks. An open letter to the Society – signed by Tim Ball, a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg, and others – argues that ‘scientific inquiry is unique because it requires falsifiability’: ‘The beauty of science is that no issue is ever “settled”, that no question is beyond being more fully understood, that no conclusion is immune to further experimentation. And yet for the first time in history, the Royal Society is shamelessly using the media to say emphatically: “case closed” on all issues related to climate change.’
Or as Charles Jones, an emeritus English professor at the University of Edinburgh, put it in a letter to a publication that recently lambasted climate change deniers, ‘[W]e are left with the feeling that [climate change] is a scientific model which is unfalsifiable and which has not been – and indeed cannot be – the subject of any theoretical counter-proposals whatsoever. As such, it must surely be unique in the history of science. Even a powerful model such as Relativity Theory has been the object of scientific debate and emendation.’ (8)
For all the talk of simply preserving the facts against climate change deniers, there is increasingly a pernicious moralism and authoritarianism in the attempts to silence certain individuals and groups. This is clear from the use of the term ‘climate change denier’, which, as Charles Jones argued, is an attempt to assign any ‘doubters’ with ‘the same moral repugnance one associates with Holocaust denial’ (9). The Guardian columnist George Monbiot recently celebrated the ‘recanting’ of both the tabloid Sun and the business bible The Economist on the issue of global warming. (‘Recant’ – an interesting choice of word. According to my OED it means ‘To withdraw, retract or renounce a statement, opinion or belief as erroneous, and esp. with formal or public confession of error in matters of religion.’ Recanting is often what those accused before the Spanish Inquisition did to save their hides.) Pleased by the Sun and The Economist’s turnaround, Monbiot wrote: ‘Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial.’ (10)
Earlier this year, when a correspondent for the American current affairs show 60 Minutes was asked why his various feature programmes on global warming did not include the views of global warming sceptics, he replied: ‘If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?’ Here, climate change deniers are explicitly painted as the bad guys. He also argued that, ‘This isn’t about politics...this is about sound science’, and went so far as to claim that it would be problematic even to air the views of climate change sceptics: ‘There comes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible.’
Some take the moral equivalence between climate change denial and Holocaust denial to its logical conclusion. They argue that climate change deniers are actually complicit in a future Holocaust – the global warming Holocaust – and thus will have to be brought to trial in the future. Green author and columnist Mark Lynas writes: ‘I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put [their climate change denial] in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those who try to ensure we don’t will one day have to answer for their crimes.’ (11)
There is something deeply repugnant in marshalling the Holocaust in this way, both to berate climate change deniers and also as a convenient snapshot of what is to come if the planet continues to get warmer. First, the evidence is irrefutable that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis; that is an historical event that has been thoroughly investigated, interrogated and proven beyond reasonable doubt. (Although as the American-Jewish academic and warrior against Holocaust denial, Deborah Lipstadt, has pointed out, even the Nazi Holocaust is not above debate and re-evalution; it is not a ‘theology’.) There is no such proof or evidence (how could there be?) that global warming will cause a similar calamity. Second, it is, yet again, a cynical attempt to close down debate. The H-word is uttered as a kind of moral absolute that no one could possibly question. We are all against what happened during the first Holocaust, so we will be against the ‘next Holocaust’, too, right? And if not – if you do not take seriously the coming ‘global warming Holocaust’ – then you are clearly wicked, the equivalent of the David Irvings of this world, someone who should possibly even be locked up or certainly tried at a future date. At least laws against Holocaust denial (which, as a supporter of free speech, I am opposed to) chastise individuals for lying about a known and proven event; by contrast, the turning of climate change denial into a taboo raps people on the knuckles for questioning events, or alleged events, that have not even occurred yet. It is pre-emptive censorship. They are reprimanded not for lying, but for doubting, for questioning. If this approach was taken across the board, then spiked – motto: Question Everything – would be in for a rough ride.
Sometimes there is a knowing authoritarianism in green activism. The posters advertising George Monbiot’s new book are targeted at various celebrities and businessmen judged to be living less than ethical green lives, with the words ‘GEORGE IS WATCHING YOU’ (12). It comes straight out of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Some institutions employ Orwellian doublespeak when they use the word ‘facts’. They are not talking about submitting theories or hypotheses or evidence for public debate and possibly public approval – they are talking about using ‘facts’ precisely to stifle public debate and change the way people think and behave.
So in a report on global warming titled Warm Words: How Are We Telling the Climate Story and Can We Tell it Better?, the British think-tank the Institute for Public Policy Research argued that ‘the task of climate change agencies is not to persuade by rational argument but in effect to develop and nurture a new “common sense”…. [We] need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement…. The “facts” need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.’ The IPPR proposes treating us not as free-thinking citizens who should be engaged, but as consumers who should be sold these ‘unspoken facts’: ‘Ultimately, positive climate behaviours need to be approached in the same way as marketeers approach acts of buying and consuming…. It amounts to treating climate-friendly activity as a brand that can be sold. This is, we believe, the route to mass behaviour changes.’ (13)
Nurturing a new common sense? Changing mass behaviour? Behind the talk of facts and figures we can glimpse the reality: an authoritarian campaign that has no interest whatsoever in engaging us in debate but rather thinks up ‘shrewd’ ways to change the way we behave. From the description of facts as ‘so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken’ to the lumping together of climate change deniers with Holocaust deniers – and even Holocaust practitioners – we can see a creeping clampdown on any genuine, open debate about climate change, science and society. This represents a dangerous denigration of free speech. When George W Bush said after 9/11 ‘You’re either with us or against us’, he was widely criticised. Yet greens, think-tanks, reputable institutions and government ministers are using precisely the same tactic, drawing a line between good and proper people who accept the facts about climate change and those moral lepers who do not; between those who submit to having their common sense nurtured by the powers-that-be and those who dare to doubt or debate.
If anything, the greens’ black-and-white divide is worse than Bush’s. At least his was based on some kind of values, allowing us the opportunity to say yes or no to them; the greens’ divide is based on ‘facts’, which means that those who decide that they are ‘against’ rather than ‘with’ can be labelled liars, deniers or crackpots like moon-landing conspiracy theorists or anti-Semitic historians.
Effectively, campaigners and officials are using scientific facts – over which there is still disagreement – to shut down what ought to be a political debate about what humans need and want. This is the worst of it. Whatever side you take in the climate change clash of facts, this undermining of debate should be a cause of concern. In place of a human-centred discussion of priorities and solutions we have an unconvincing battle over the facts between two sides – between those in the majority who claim that their facts show the planet is getting a lot hotter and it will be a disaster, and those in the minority, the ‘deniers’, who say the planet is getting a little hotter and it won’t be so bad. We could urgently do with a proper debate that prioritises real people’s aspirations. If parts of the planet are likely to be flooded, then where can we build new cities and how can we transport the people affected by the floods to those cities? If natural disasters are going to become more frequent, then how can we urgently and efficiently provide poorer parts of the world with the kind of buildings and technology that will allow them to ride out such disasters, as millions do in America every year?
We need to elevate the human interest over the dead discussion of fatalistic facts – and challenge the ‘You can’t say that!’ approach that is strangling debate and giving rise to a new authoritarianism.
1st October 2007 05:43 PM
steel driving hammer
1st October 2007 05:43 PM
pdog
quote:Fiji Joe wrote:
And this has what to do with this discussion?...grip...get one...buy a chinese made grip at Wal-Mart if you have to
the irony that there's some socialistic agenda at the root of the debate, yet you basically support fascism, a state run by corporations with no fear of accountability... the boogie man now is, terrorists and some new made up religion of "climate change". Science only applies in a debate when it's funded by a corporation against a cleaner planet, and is dismiised when it saves human lives. One, like me, doesn't need to get a grip, the grip doesn't exist for me, the grip is a contrived, you just made it up. Just like the millions of trees that are gone, that at up Co2's, the only difference is, there once were trees, your grip is a ruse. It doesn't exist...
1st October 2007 05:52 PM
steel driving hammer
Pdog, you may be a little smarter than I thought.
I just about thought you only knew about Punk rock and some left field politics.
But I give you some credit.
Cheers.
Not too much credit, but some credit.
1st October 2007 06:01 PM
pdog
quote:steel driving hammer wrote:
Pdog, you may be a little smarter than I thought.
I just about thought you only knew about Punk rock and some left field politics.
But I give you some credit.
Cheers.
Not too much credit, but some credit.
I'm a punk rocker... knowledge of it, is not the same as being it!
Cheers to you too!
1st October 2007 06:15 PM
Fiji Joe
quote:pdog wrote:
the irony that there's some socialistic agenda at the root of the debate, yet you basically support fascism, a state run by corporations with no fear of accountability... the boogie man now is, terrorists and some new made up religion of "climate change". Science only applies in a debate when it's funded by a corporation against a cleaner planet, and is dismiised when it saves human lives. One, like me, doesn't need to get a grip, the grip doesn't exist for me, the grip is a contrived, you just made it up. Just like the millions of trees that are gone, that at up Co2's, the only difference is, there once were trees, your grip is a ruse. It doesn't exist...
It's very much being used by some pushing a socialist agenda...don't have to look too hard to see that...as for me favoring a fascist agenda, as characterized by you, please...as opposed to what alternative form of government?...real fascism?...I think you underestimate what totalitarianism is all about...I guess you're being sarcastic, but it's hard to tell sometimes
Cupey dolls and urine stalls will be laughed at...the way you're laughed at now
1st October 2007 06:40 PM
steel driving hammer
My father, he ain't no www.cheguevara.com lol
1st October 2007 07:48 PM
Riffhard
My point is that there are most certainly a rather large group of politicians, and scientists that support these pols for government grants, that are promoting a lie simply for their own agendas. However, there are many scientists that have no agenda whatsoever that are coming out and saying that the whole man-made global warming debate is junk science based on cherry picked global warming facts.
I have no problem with conserving. I do it all the time myself. I, unlike Algore, do not live in a 20,000 square foot mansion and fly on private Lear jets. I just won't be propagandized in the name conservation when the real goal is nothing more than higher taxes and more government control. I certainly don't buy that stupid argument from such a blatant hypocrite!
The sun is in a period of intense solar flares the likes of which the earth has not seen for decades! Ya think that might have something to do with the higher temps?! Of course it does!! Algore just doesn't want to you know that very real fact! Is the sun working for "big oil"?!
Every single time a scientist comes out and calls the man-made global warming argument for the crap it is that scientist is shouted down as a stooge for "big oil"! It is far from the case with the vast majority of scientists that have proven that human causation is pure unadulterated bullshit works for "big oil"! Most don't and never have!
Riffy
1st October 2007 07:52 PM
glencar
Who is funding the scientists who keep claiming that we cause global warming? These are people with a HUGE agenda. Look into them.
1st October 2007 08:06 PM
Riffhard
quote:glencar wrote:
Who is funding the scientists who keep claiming that we cause global warming? These are people with a HUGE agenda. Look into them.
The same people that are calling for new taxes to help curb global warming! Namely, politicians that have promised these same scientists government grant money to support the argument, thus supporting the new taxes! Scamopoly!
Riffy
1st October 2007 08:18 PM
robpop
Its not worth fighting about. Every politician has an agenda. Let's not kid ourselves.
1st October 2007 08:21 PM
Prodigal Son
I'm gonna sound like Sir Stonesalot in my declaration of all politics being a ruse that offers a hand of friendship while robbing the back pocket with the other. While I don't agree with "pollution cause we can" policies or the obvious indifference to environmental change that American oil companies and Republicans seem to have, I do think global warming is more hype than fact. But it ultimately proves how meaningless most studies are since you can bend the raw data to fit your viewpoint. As Homer Simpson said "Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. Forfty percent of all people know that."
Today, we have a set of understood knowledge but god knows in 100 years much of it could turn out false.
Just choose to believe what you want but in the face of overwhelming evidence, I tend to gravitate toward a popular consensus because it seems more sensible than ranting and raving about how your views are fact and the other side is all fiction. I hate all politicians and politics is there to make sure the whole of society doesn't degenerate into mass anarchy. Government is there to help the people with laws and regulations, etc. but it should then fuck off and leave us be instead of the number of political regimes around the world that do whatever they want because we elected them.
America is not a true democracy the way ancient Greece was, just like USSR was not a true communist country. It's all bullshit, typically twisted human nature in my view and it all depends on how far it goes in its extremity. Just sit back, enjoy the ride and take it for all you can I say! I feel a bit nihilistic today, but I do believe in people's genuine goodness individually. Just not as a group cause that's when humans become the biggest fucking assholes to ever grace the planet.
Even dinosaurs couldn't rule forever. Dino nature did them in if it wasn't the earth. And ditto goes for us if the world doesn't go nuts on us sometime. In the end, whether we know it or not we're all sheep to some cause. Even myself. I don't know what exactly I'm a sheep too but it's all in your upbringing and how you coexist with the societal fabric you grew up in. A little too psychological for ya? Anyway, it's impossible not to be a slave to something. But if you don't realize or care you're a sheep, that's cool too.
There's obviously a large difference to being a slave to business or a slave to the media than being a black man enslaved by a rich white plantation owner. An obvious abuse of power and ownership goes on there! What's right and wrong is subjective, but not in terms of everything. There are the .0001% of people who see nothing wrong with killing and raping for a certain cause. We're all brainwashed and indoctrinated somehow. But it's not always a bad thing. And don't get all Christopher Hitchens on me and blame religion because after all, was religion not accepted into practice by humans out of necessity to explain the world around them? Then blame humans for it, not a religion itself or the God it worships.
Because as some commie countries have proven, godless societies are sometimes the most sick, evil and barbarous of all because without the moral compass of a religious belief, society seems to degenerate into a place where blatant and unpalpable immorality becomes rampant and accepted. Socialist sheep find their belief and method of governing to be preferable to the imperialism of a U.S.A. or whatever as if killing with money and weaponry is more evil than doing it with mass purging, execution and psychological mind fuckery (which btw, might just be fabrications of our crazy psycho capitalist doctrine as if imagining conspiracies against your belief system is less nutso than sabotaging one- which socialists did try, though not to the extent that McCarthy claimed).
Opinions can be harmless enough as the disagreements friends share or the tyrannical murderous policies of a political system (take the current situation in Burma for example). Just learn how to get along or deal with the "sheep" that allign to a differing cause you don't understand. That's why it's a big ol' goofy world, as John Prine once sang. I choose to live in it and detach from how utterly fucked up it is. Others try doing something about it, others shout about it and others simply give up and off themselves rather than face the world (we call those emos- nah just kidding, but those who kill themselves because "the world is so evil" usually do so because their minds are a little messed.
It's sad to say but it's almost like a human tendency for the ranks to be thinned out through the suicides caused by depression and other mental illnesses. Not that I don't sympathize, but it just seems that way). Imagine if we were all sane and logical. Not much variety or interest there and several fields of science would be ruined not to mention). And THAT is how I relate the complexity of mankind (or as a one-time feminist teacher of mine wanted it called "humankind") ruling the earth to whether or not to believe global warming and the various ecological ills of the planet. Well I'm pretty much done expressing my view on the subject anyway.
P.S. I'm not really a nihilist unless I actually stop to think and process the incredible bullshit that makes up mother Earth. Other than that, I have a positive outlook (though I get more negative than most when it comes to myself thanks to a learning disorder of mine- a mixed blessing thing called Asperger's which is a high-functioning autism). Oh, and although I dabble expertly in playing/studying music, sports, comedy and film... I am for the record a history major in university who really needs to do journalism (be it sporting, musical, cultural, media or political issues) for some cool rock magazine (you know, like MOJO or UNCUT and not Rolling Stone).
Prodigal Son
[Edited by Prodigal Son]
1st October 2007 08:26 PM
Prodigal Son
quote:steel driving hammer wrote:
On May 26, 2004 Al Gore stated: "He (George Bush Jr.) promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon."
Dishonest? YOUR President Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice for lying to a Federal grand jury. Talk about dishonor!
In fact you, Al Gore, lashed out at Congress when they asked for a vote of Impeachment. You said "I don't believe it's in the interest of the United States or the American people to go through this impeachment process with a trial in the Senate". Hiding the TRUTH would not be in the best interest of the American people? Talk about dishonest! What a blazing hypocrite!
Mr. Gore you are a FLAMING hypocrite! What about what you said about George Bush's father?
We have video of you saying it, so you cannot deny it.
Today you bash Bush Jr. but before you said this about his father:
"Bush (Sr.) deserves heavy blame for intentionally concealing from the American people the clear nature of Saddam Hussein and his regime and for convincing himself that friendly relations with such a monster would be possible and for persisting in this effort far, far beyond the point of folly."
But today you say about George Bush Jr. "To begin with, from its earliest days in power, this administration sought to radically destroy the foreign policy consensus that had guided America since the end of World War II. The long successful strategy of containment was abandoned in favor of the new strategy of "preemption."
Back then you said: "And most significant of all, in the same month, September of 1989, the CIA reported to secretary of state Baker and other top Bush administration officials that Iraq was clandestinely procuring nuclear weapons technology through a global network". . . "Did all of this make any impression at all on President Bush(Sr.)? Did his judgment on foreign policy come into play when he was told that this nation (Iraq), with a record of terrorism continuing was making a sustained, concerted effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological? Well, evidently not."
Today you say: He (Bush Jr.) has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet's nests THAT POSE NO THREAT WHATSOEVER TO US."
Before you said "He (Saddam) had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush (Sr.) had looked the other way. He (Saddam) was already deeply involved in the effort to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and Bush(Sr.) knew it, but he looked the other way."
Today you say about George Bush Jr.: "He betrayed this country! He played on our fears!
He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."
Isn't that what you were calling for back then? After all it was YOUR administration that gave the Saddam terrorist tie threat to George Bush Jr.
YOU, Al Gore, said on Larry King's TV show after Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in December of 1998
"The bombing Iraq was the right thing to do" to rid Saddam Hussien of his weapons of mass destruction".
Can you believe this?!!!
Make up your mind Mr.Gore!!!
You're a 100% HYPOCRITE!!!
Al Gore was demanding action on Iraq because Saddam was associating with terrorists, was gassing people with mustard gas and other chemical weapons, his own people, and was trying to develop nuclear weapons along with other weapons of mass destruction, consorting with terrorists, Lebanon, and so forth, and demanding that George H. W. Bush (Sr.) do something about it. Now, you just contrast this with the rhetoric coming out of this guys mouth today, "There was never any reason to go to Iraq, Bush (Jr.) lied."
For PROOF of these comments by Al Gore you can see the actual video clip of him making them.
Al Gore criticizes
George Bush's father
for IGNORING
Iraq's ties to terrorism!!!
Gore To Bush: You Ignored Saddam's Terrorist Ties!
Yeah, apparently it didn't make any difference to you when you and Bill Clinton got in the White House because you didn't do anything about it, either (other than bombing a baby asprin factory in the middle of the night!).
This is utter dishonesty, it is utter hypocrisy and I'm just going to suggest to you that when you've got somebody as deranged as this, Albert Arnold Algore, you've got to take into account now what he's saying about Global Warming. How can you believe anything somebody like this happens to say?
Al Gore want's us to believe in his nonsense of Global Warming, which thousands of scientists dispute? He refuses to even debate the topic! Who's "playing on our fears"NOWMr.Gore?!!!
Meanwhile he's making millions giving speeches and won't even debate the issue because it would affect his bank account!
He's lied before and been caught, including these examples, and about inventing the internet(!), and he's LYING about Global Warming now so he can get rich.
Al Gore now wants us to believe in his nonsense of Global Warming, which thousands of scientists dispute.
He refuses to even debate the topic!
Why should he, he'll only be proven wrong!
Who's "playing on our fears"NOW Mr.Gore?!!!
Though to me Bush represents what's flawed with the presidential system and the governing of America, I sometimes wonder if I would detest a President Gore as much if not more. The guy is so ham-handed in his new approach. It's quite funny to see what was once the most robotic Democrat now mozying up to celebrity causes. It's sooo goddamn easy to hurl bricks at a ruling figure when you yourself are not in their position.
Everyone looks like the zen master or the answerman when dealing with Bush but when it comes down to it, so very few of them could actually muster up a better effort themselves. Which is a real sad statement on the lack of vision and imagination in politics. Gore spouts off so many of the same liberal pro-environment mantras that he really still is a robot and he makes some Dems like Obama look like Chavez. He makes Hilary look like fuckin' JFK but if she weren't running for prez, she might looks as silly as Gore throwing his stones in glass houses.
1st October 2007 08:32 PM
Fiji Joe
quote:Prodigal Son wrote:
America is not a true democracy the way ancient Greece was, just like USSR was not a true communist country. Son
Hate to pick just a part of of a good post...but Ancient Greece was far from a true democracy...perhaps it was for its citizens, but not for its slaves, its women, or its children...not to mention, it was a representative democracy much like what the US has now...they were forging policies based on referendums...I think that most western civilizations are about as free today as people living in large societies can be...we'll never have true freedom or democracy nor should we...too many people are way too fucked up to ever allow that to happen...I live in one of the most free societies in the hisotry of the planet...I try not to bitch about it too much...the alternatives could be much much worse
1st October 2007 08:34 PM
MrPleasant
Isn't Gore the only active politician to receive an Oscar?
He may win a razzie someday.
1st October 2007 08:38 PM
Fiji Joe
quote:Prodigal Son wrote:
Though to me Bush represents what's flawed with the presidential system and the governing of America, I sometimes wonder if I would detest a President Gore as much if not more. The guy is so ham-handed in his new approach. It's quite funny to see what was once the most robotic Democrat now mozying up to celebrity causes. It's sooo goddamn easy to hurl bricks at a ruling figure when you yourself are not in their position.
Everyone looks like the zen master or the answerman when dealing with Bush but when it comes down to it, so very few of them could actually muster up a better effort themselves. Which is a real sad statement on the lack of vision and imagination in politics. Gore spouts off so many of the same liberal pro-environment mantras that he really still is a robot and he makes some Dems like Obama look like Chavez. He makes Hilary look like fuckin' JFK but if she weren't running for prez, she might looks as silly as Gore throwing his stones in glass houses.
Well...that's what we have come to expect from our politicians...stone hurling...but no one demands they come up with solutions to fix the glass they broke...and for that, we can blame ourselves...it's real simple...if someone levies criticism, you simply ask them, what would you do...if they can't give you an intelligent answer, tell them to shut the fuck up and get a real job
1st October 2007 08:42 PM
Prodigal Son
quote:steel driving hammer wrote:
"There is no global warming. Period."
"Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends -- be they teachers, newscasters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents, or Presidents -- is wrong," writes Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center in a recent issue of his DeWeese Report. "There is," he insists, "no global warming."
DeWeese calls global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world, bar none. Those who have been fighting against the green agenda have been warning that modern-day environmentalism has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the environment," he observes. "Rather, it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development, and redistribute the world's wealth."
So then Bono is behind it all? Show yourself Bono if you wish to quash the rumours (he lurks around here all the time as we all know).
quote:
DeWeese describes the relentless propaganda campaign that has been waged over the past couple of decades. "The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists," he contends. "School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and death. Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like freon have been removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for extinction."
Well, it's not like ALL of them have helpful methods. After all, would we still want DDT and other things clearly mutating newborn babies? Leave that shit to some developing country to sort out, but not here. But overall, yeah sometimes the frenzy gets out of hand over "harmful" chemicals. But we're a very antsy bunch of people these days in the Western world.
quote:
DeWeese warns that the Climate Change Protocol is "a legally binding international treaty through which signing nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 15 percent below 1990 levels." He insists that "it doesn't matter" if the final version is somewhat modified. "Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, will devastate this nation," DeWeese predicts. "To meet such drastically reduced energy standards will, in the short run, cost the United States over one million jobs."
DeWeese emphasizes that "only developed industrial nations will be bound by the treaty. Undeveloped Third World nations will be free to produce whatever they want. These will include China, India, Brazil, and Mexico," he observes, noting that "eighty-two percent of the projected emissions growth in coming years is from these countries." That fact alone proves that the Climate Change Treaty is not designed to protect the environment. "The truth, of course," says DeWeese, "is that the treaty is really about redistribution of wealth," from America to the rest of the world.
Well, if those countries catch up and begin pumping out the pollution whilst taking jobs away, the shit's gonna hit the fan. The UN will rue the day they fucked with America's position at the top of the nation-state food chain. luckily for himself, Al Gore will be dead and canonized by then but someone might try to move his grave from capitol hill to a bog of nuclear waste as a final humilation. I'm not cheerleading here, just stating the likely outcome of such a phenomenon.
quote:
Remember when we were supposed to be frightened because the world was getting colder? When that fraud was exposed, we then were told to beware of global warming. More and more people are now recognizing that this too is nonsense. So, what dread prospect will the conjurors of calamity con us with next? Will they try to stampede us into global governance by warning that the temperature will remain constant? No, that's not scary enough. Probably, what they will do is try to convince us that the earth is getting colder and warmer, simultaneously. After all, some of us might like it colder, some might like it hotter, but nobody likes it both ways at the same time.
The no. 1 most effective tool for anyone hoping to inflict societal/economical change is also the name of an influential early 80s punk group: Fear. Fear can do anything. Fear can enforce rapid and radical changes in ways that the prospect of happiness could never. That's because fear is produced from worries over money, health, security and just about any other thing you hold dear. Yes fear is an emotion that can be felt en masse but guess what, it's the strongest currency in the world! Don't give me no jive about Cdn dollar---->US dollar (a fleeting occurrence for us Canucks to brag over you!).
1st October 2007 08:52 PM
Prodigal Son
quote:Fiji Joe wrote:
Well...that's what we have come to expect from our politicians...stone hurling...but no one demands they come up with solutions to fix the glass they broke...and for that, we can blame ourselves...it's real simple...if someone levies criticism, you simply ask them, what would you do...if they can't give you an intelligent answer, tell them to shut the fuck up and get a real job
I'm in total agreement on this and your statement about living in one of the world's freest societies. I too have a distinction of that being from Canada, which however comes without the groundbreaking past that told the British to fuck off but hey, it's not bad. That's kinda why Gore annoys me. I wish he could at least be more like Clinton (no not the horndog part though that would give him more personality) in how he defends and supports his causes. Love him or hate him, Clinton knows how to smooth over a crowd and instill his beliefs as the correct way to go. He also can brush aside criticism that would cause even Air Supply or Christopher Cross to go "Ouch, that's much too harsh." He is one of the few politicans that has such a hypnotizing effect on the people, well at least those who aren't neocons or staunch republican supporters.
I hear Clinton say something and I go, hmmm yeah that sounds like a good plan (aha, so that proves I can be a sheep too!). But for some reason, with Gore I get the idea there's something lacking and that he could just as easily go back and renege on his promise cause he's an opportunistic leftie Ghandi wannabe. The U.S. public almost enjoyed being duped into any of the empty promises Clinton would make (as all politicans do) so they'd go back to the well for more. No wonder he got two landslide victories and Gore lost because of hanging chads. Bush did enough to get by, Clinton did enough to get off and Gore does enough to get an oscar.
1st October 2007 08:57 PM
robpop
I posted this before...this is what makes our country great. We can all voice our opinion. I hope nobody takes what I said personally.
After all we can all agree on on thing The Rolling Stones are the best Rock and Roll group that walked or will ever walk our planet. Any friend of the Rolling Stones is a friend of mine.
2nd October 2007 12:29 AM
pdog
with this guy at the helm, I'm surprised we ain't all dead...
2nd October 2007 12:44 AM
Fiji Joe
quote:pdog wrote:
with this guy at the helm, I'm surprised we ain't all dead...
We should all listen to Pillow Case Head...
2nd October 2007 01:00 AM
pdog
2nd October 2007 09:06 AM
glencar
Funny stuff. About the experience part: Obama has been in elected office twice as long as her.
2nd October 2007 05:09 PM
CraigP
People question "What is the cause of Global Warming?"... The answer to that is... the god-damned SUN!
I don't think that people are the (main) cause of 'climate change' if any. But 'we', as in every individual, need to do our part and waste as least as possible.
2nd October 2007 10:10 PM
Bloozehound
All I know is summertime was basically cancelled here this year, rained for 80 plus days straight, the lake got filled up, so that's cool, but the hottest it ever got during the peak months july/aug was low 90's
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour
NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
