Gorebot 2008!

[SDW2001]

He's baaaaaack. mmmmust____beeeee______prrrressident.

There's been a lot of talk lately about Al Gore running again in 2008. He denies it, but listening to him in interviews I am fairly confident he's going to "get drafted" to "save the party from Hillary."

He's already re-invented himself to be the anti-Gorebot. He's back to the southern drawl and relaxed, regular guy Al Gore who was a victim of the media, consultants and his opponents portraying him as a stiff. See, Al Gore is really a likeable, loose guy. He's even making jokes now! "I used to be the next President of the United States" he quips as he promotes his movie.

Gore really has something going for him here. Unlike Hillary, he did not support the war and will not have a problem with the party's liberal base. His focus on the environment with "An Inconvenient Truth" has erased a lot of the perceptions of him from 2000...namely that of someone who went "scorched earth" after the election. He still commands a great fundraising advantage, so even with him telling everyone he's not running, he can enter the race late and make up the difference.

Some are even comparing Gore to Nixon.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/louv/20060502-9999-lz1e02louv.html

Will Gore run? Would he win? Would you vote for him?

[dmz]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/The_Scream.jpg/300px-The_Scream.jpg

[Chris Cuilla]

The one huge advantage that Gore will have (from a tactical perspective) is that everything "bad" that can be said about him, probably already has been. It's out. Nothing new to be said. I suspect that dragging out any of those things will look tired and cynical even to a rather obtuse and dense electorate.

[Chris Cuilla]

Something from the article that ought to concern D's (or the "anyone but R's" crowd) is this:


He also states that “Al would say” that Democrats need to do much more to organize “greater numbers of young people – who by huge percentages preferred Al Gore in 2000.”


They best not pin their electoral strategy on that. In general "young" people don't vote.

[Northgate]

This is exactly why I don't want to live through another election cycle with Al Gore on the ticket. Not that I don't think he'd make a fine president. He would.

But the title of this thread is exactly what's wrong with the idea.

Earth toned suits, baby. Earth tones. Because real men don't wear earth tones.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Northgate
This is exactly why I don't want to live through another election cycle with Al Gore on the ticket. Not that I don't think he'd make a fine president. He would.

But the title of this thread is exactly what's wrong with the idea.

Earth toned suits, baby. Earth tones. Because real men don't wear earth tones.

Have a sense of humor.

[sammi jo]

Anyone remember the controversial "Clipper Chip" supported by Al Gore during the Clinton Adminstration? This was designed with the capability of spying on American citizens. Gore even lied about its use (http://www.softwar.net/gore.html)
We already have an adminstration that's steeped in Orwellian methods. Why trust another whore to Big Brother just because he's from the other side of the political aisle?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Why trust another ... just because he's from the other side of the political aisle?

In my view, the best, most realistic strategy for "the people" and the country is for congress to be "controlled" by one party and the WH by another.

I don't really care which has which. My goal is political gridlock.

While I tend to subscribe to the Noam Choamsky theory that we don't really have two parties, but two branches of the same party, there is still enough of a difference and "infighting" to create gridlock. Let 'em fight amongst themselves in Washington, and get nothing done...leaving the rest of us to live our lives.

EDIT: If you really pay attention to what the Founding Fathers appear to have been doing, it seemed they were trying to lobotomize the (federal) government. They were quite wary of any particular sector having too much power. So far their plan has worked fairly well.

[Northgate]

Yeah. Worked great until about six years ago.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Northgate
Yeah. Worked great until about six years ago.

The constitution stopped working 6 years ago?

Maybe you should alert the media.

:no:

[Northgate]

You said: They were quite wary of any particular sector having too much power. So far their plan has worked fairly well.

So my point was if Republicans are in control of each sector starting in 2000 then the plan stopped working.

Got it?

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
In my view, the best, most realistic strategy for "the people" and the country is for congress to be "controlled" by one party and the WH by another.

I don't really care which has which. My goal is political gridlock.

While I tend to subscribe to the Noam Choamsky theory that we don't really have two parties, but two branches of the same party, there is still enough of a difference and "infighting" to create gridlock.

I subscribe to the Chomsky view as well... the "other side of the polical aisle" comment referred to a more symbolic division than a real one... and both major parties close ranks with equal as soon on any issue that might divest some power back to their employers, the much forgotten people. I see the "two party system" as analogous to the two humps on the back of a large undersea creature that remains hidden beneath the waves. The direction the two humps move is the contolling animal wants to go..(towards the nearest shoal of gobblable fish perhaps?). One guess as to what that largely invisible creature represents.... :grumble:

Let 'em fight amongst themselves in Washington, and get nothing done...leaving the rest of us to live our lives.
More noticeable than two parties being in opposition, the conflict appears more to be within party ranks... the Dems are traditionally the ones who usually suffer from internal bickering..but the usually unified Repubs are even getting in on the act now.

I cant quite decide whats worse, Al Gore or Hillary Clinton. It's a tough call, but either would be fodder for the continuation of more of the current effluent, just with a slightly different smell. But bad, nonetheless.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Northgate
You said: They were quite wary of any particular sector having too much power. So far their plan has worked fairly well.

So my point was if Republicans are in control of each sector starting in 2000 then the plan stopped working.

Got it?

Got it.

You're wrong.

One particular sector of government (legislative, judicial, executive) doesn't have control over the other (though each occassionally makes run for it). The system is still working just fine.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by sammi jo
but the usually unified Repubs are even getting in on the act now.

Which we should welcome. This is what's great. Maybe they'll get bogged down in their own bickering.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
He's baaaaaack. mmmmust____beeeee______prrrressident.

There's been a lot of talk lately about Al Gore running again in 2008. He denies it, but listening to him in interviews I am fairly confident he's going to "get drafted" to "save the party from Hillary."

He's already re-invented himself to be the anti-Gorebot. He's back to the southern drawl and relaxed, regular guy Al Gore who was a victim of the media, consultants and his opponents portraying him as a stiff. See, Al Gore is really a likeable, loose guy. He's even making jokes now! "I used to be the next President of the United States" he quips as he promotes his movie.

Gore really has something going for him here. Unlike Hillary, he did not support the war and will not have a problem with the party's liberal base. His focus on the environment with "An Inconvenient Truth" has erased a lot of the perceptions of him from 2000...namely that of someone who went "scorched earth" after the election. He still commands a great fundraising advantage, so even with him telling everyone he's not running, he can enter the race late and make up the difference.

Some are even comparing Gore to Nixon.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/louv/20060502-9999-lz1e02louv.html

Will Gore run? Would he win? Would you vote for him?


Pssst! Someone needs to tell SDW that Gore has already said he won't run.:lol:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by jimmac
Pssst! Someone needs to tell SDW that Gore has already said he won't run.:lol:


And by the way I do have a sense of humour!:lol:

[Northgate]

And he's no longer a bot. Just a regular seditionist like the me.

[Placebo]

The "I used to be the next president of the United States" joke was probably the funniest thing any presidential candidate or President has ever said.

[Benton]

Rolling Stone: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

[rok]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Something from the article that ought to concern D's (or the "anyone but R's" crowd) is this:

They best not pin their electoral strategy on that. In general "young" people don't vote.

i hate to say it, but it really is true. kerry had the young vote, too... for all the good it did him. and the exit polls at first had him leading, because the young people love making their opinion known to anyone who cares (or doesn't. see also: blogosphere) but hinging your campaign on the just-turned-eligible-and20-somethings-in-college just won't work. it's when those folks get into the work force, and they SEE and FEEL where their tax dollars work, then they care.

and yes, i realize this officially makes me "old." :)

[Northgate]

Dean had the young vote in Iowa, too. And the little bastards let us down, again.

I don't EVER want to hear another Democrat running for office talk about how the young people are going be the key to their success. Young people talk a good game. But in the end going to the polls and actually pulling the lever is a major pain in the ass when playing PlayStation2 is far more entertaining.

[NOFEER]

gore is soooo popular that his "movie" doens't even list him in the credits ha ha ha hmmmm i guess some people don't like him or perhaps his negatives are enough that hollywood doesn't want to lose money on him ha ha ha ha
i wonder what he says about this ...... it's bush's fault, oh no maybe hilliary payed off someone to keep him away from her constituents. ha ha

[groverat]

I would vote for Gore in a heartbeat.

[addabox]

Originally posted by NOFEER
gore is soooo popular that his "movie" doens't even list him in the credits ha ha ha hmmmm i guess some people don't like him or perhaps his negatives are enough that hollywood doesn't want to lose money on him ha ha ha ha
i wonder what he says about this ...... it's bush's fault, oh no maybe hilliary payed off someone to keep him away from her constituents. ha ha

Are you OK?

[NOFEER]

gore's only relevance is to take from hilliary you wait both will be at each other throats for not being "liberal" enough both will run to their left and hilliary shows her true colors. it will be an entertaining fight. anyone have popcorn for the fight not for his "movie"

he's missing from the poster credits
http://newsbusters.org/node/5738

[jimmac]

Originally posted by groverat
I would vote for Gore in a heartbeat.

I would also.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Benton
Rolling Stone: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

Oh shut up.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Pssst! Someone needs to tell SDW that Gore has already said he won't run.:lol:

Is there anything you'd like to contribute to the discussion, or are you just here to derail the thread?

I addressed the fact that Gore said he "wasn't running." in my original post. Get some reading glasses.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh shut up.

The first standard response of BushCorp drones is to tell the opposition to shut up. The follow up is name-calling. On occasions it happens in reverse.

[groverat]

Originally posted by sammi jo
The first standard response of BushCorp drones is to tell the opposition to shut up. The follow up is name-calling. On occasions it happens in reverse.

Right, like you using "BushCorp drones" right before saying that their "follow up is name-calling."

[Northgate]

Anybody who doesn't think that an election can be rigged or stolen within the United States is either completely naive or in a deep state of denial.

[Outsider]

Originally posted by Northgate
Anybody who doesn't think that an election can be rigged or stolen within the United States is either completely naive or in a deep state of denial. Anybody who doesn't think that an election has be rigged or stolen within the United States is either completely naive or in a deep state of denial.

[thuh Freak]

Originally posted by Outsider
Anybody who doesn't think that an election has be rigged or stolen within the United States is either completely naive or in a deep state of denial.
or perhaps, ignorant on the issue. I didn't really believe it, before skimming the RS article above. I am now interested in seeing a full, official investigation.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by thuh Freak
or perhaps, ignorant on the issue. I didn't really believe it, before skimming the RS article above. I am now interested in seeing a full, official investigation.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Like that will ever happen. Not with the Reds in control of everything.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh shut up.


:lol:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Is there anything you'd like to contribute to the discussion, or are you just here to derail the thread?

I addressed the fact that Gore said he "wasn't running." in my original post. Get some reading glasses.

Funny from what I read he was pretty clear about not wanting to run.

So maybe there's hope yet?;)

[jimmac]

Originally posted by jimmac
Funny from what I read he was pretty clear about not wanting to run.

So maybe there's hope yet?;)


PS. If I was trying to derail the thread I'd concentrate on a completely seperate subject over and over. Just like you and Chris are doing in that other thread. ;)

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by groverat
Right, like you using "BushCorp drones" right before saying that their "follow up is name-calling."

:lol:

fair enough ;)

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by sammi jo
The first standard response of BushCorp drones is to tell the opposition to shut up. The follow up is name-calling. On occasions it happens in reverse.

And you'll continue to claim that Ohio was stolen despite the margin being much closer in PA. Doesn't work the same when it's a blue state, does it?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Northgate
Anybody who doesn't think that an election can be rigged or stolen within the United States is either completely naive or in a deep state of denial.

Anyone who thinks that strawmen tactics are not tolerated on AI is either completely naive or in a deep state of denial.

[Aries 1B]

Originally posted by Northgate
Dean had the young vote in Iowa, too. And the little bastards let us down, again.

I don't EVER want to hear another Democrat running for office talk about how the young people are going be the key to their success. Young people talk a good game. But in the end going to the polls and actually pulling the lever is a major pain in the ass when playing PlayStation2 is far more entertaining.

:wow: :(Little bastards?)

The little bastards can feel your love...
... and run for their lives.

Totally understandable, I might add.

V/R,

Aries 1B

[progmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
And you'll continue to claim that Ohio was stolen despite the margin being much closer in PA. Doesn't work the same when it's a blue state, does it?
I don't think anyone is claiming Ohio was stolen because the margin was closer...

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Anyone who thinks that strawmen tactics are not tolerated on AI is either completely naive or in a deep state of denial.


Now have a nice shiney mirror pointed at yourself when you say that SDW.:lol:

[Aquatic]

There's something I like about Gore. He seems more like a scientist than a politician. Or wait, maybe I mean he just seems more like a reasonable person than a politician. Mostly it's because this whole environment thing is probably one of the MOST important issues and yet it's always shoved down to the friggin bottom of the list, under a bunch of dung like "gay marriage yadayada" and "stem cell research blah blah" and "gun control blah blah". Are friggin kidding me. Like those matter as much as a single environmental issue. People's lives are at stake.

I did a project analyzing sea level rise with GIS. Long and short? We're fucked. If you live in FL or LA for example... ouch. Your kids are gonna hate you. My idea was that FEMA should create flood maps (FIRMs) predicting sea level rise using GIS and LIDAR, since current maps can be way out of date and in addition even if they are up to date, become out of date again quickly. And it doesn't allow the public to make smart, sustainable decisions by not knowing what the future will look like. The technology to do this is there. The money is not. Hey maybe we won't even have a FEMA. What a fucking disaster. I can't wait to see An Inconvenient Truth. I'm tell you people, I was at a state Senate Subcommittee hearing on whether to restructure the Coastal Resources Management Council in RI, and these politicians started getting nervous about their mansions next to their beaches when this topic came up, but I could tell they just did not take this shit seriously. Some evacuation routes in RI point you north for a few miles, and then back south again once you go north, for example. Well, RI has an odd problem of not having signs on their roads anyway... But I think that's a case in point.

Gore would put the environment back at the top. He's got my vote. And that should mean he has yours if you give a fuck about your kids, or their kids. Or maybe even your golden years.

That's always in my mind been the difference between conservatives and liberals: Liberals think long term, and care about other people. Conservatives think in matters of months or years, unless it's their personal wealth, and they don't care about anyone but themselves. Hell not even their parents potentially on prescriptions or healthcare services, or their kids, who will be hit by more hurricanes, drink more arsenic, eat more mercury, and breathe in more ozone. I mean that's just...mean. To a certain degree I think we are bound to at least maintain the level of the environment for future generations. Or our species will kill itself.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Liberals think long term, and care about other people. Conservatives think in matters of months or years, unless it's their personal wealth, and they don't care about anyone but themselves.

Did you write that with a stright face?

[Outsider]

Obviously only he's been paying attention to the bad conservatives. It should have read: "...unless it's their personal wealth, their sexual deviousness, and they don't care about anyone but themselves."

Republican County Constable Larry Dale Floyd was arrested on suspicion of soliciting sex with an 8-year old girl. Floyd has repeatedly won elections for Denton County, Texas, constable.
Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.
Republican Party leader Bobby Stumbo was arrested for having sex with a 5-year old boy.
Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins pleaded guilty to sexually molesting 13 and 14 year old girls.
Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester.
Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
Republican Mayor John Gosek was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year old girls.
Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.
Republican Committeeman John R. Curtain was charged with molesting a teenage boy and unlawful sexual contact with a minor.
Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.
Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year old girl he murdered.
Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.
Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.
Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.
Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was charged with molesting his 9-year old step-daughter after including her in an anti-Gore television commercial.
Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.
Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.
Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.
Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.
Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.
Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline was placed under house arrest for child molestation and possession of child pornography.
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.
Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.
Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.
Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.
Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.
Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.
Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).
Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was found guilty of molesting a 15-year old girl.
Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.
Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.
Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.
Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.
Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.
Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.
Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.
Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.
Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.
Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.
Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.
Republican president of the New York City Housing Development Corp. Russell Harding pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer.
Republican Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the rape of children in Iraqi prisons in order to humiliate their parents into providing information about the anti-American insurgency.
Republican serial killer Ted Bundy was hired by the Republican Party
Republican activist Matthew Glavin, who preached family values, was caught masturbating in public and fondling an undercover park ranger
Republican Party Chairman Sam Walls, who is married, was urged to drop his candidacy for Congress when it was found he likes to dress up in women's clothing
Republican Congressman Edward Schrock resigned from Congress after he was caught searching for sex on a gay telephone service
Republican Mayor Jim West Republican voter Timothy McVeigh bombed Oklahoma City championed an anti-gay agenda, but was later found to be gay himself
Republican preacher Jimmy Swaggart preached fidelity, but cheated on his wife with a prostitute
Republican Congressman Bob Livingston was about to vote for impeaching President Clinton for sexual improprieties until it was disclosed he was an adulterer
Republican Congressman Henry Hyde denounced President Clinton's extramarital affair, but was later found to be an adulterer himself
Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was found guilty of raping a 15-year old girl. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren,
has told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.
Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.
Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.
Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.
Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.
Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girl.
Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.
Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.
Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.
Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.
Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.
Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.
Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.
Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger allegedly had sex with a 16 year old girl when he was 28.
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.
Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.
Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.
Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.
Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.
Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.
Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).
Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was charged with sexual misconduct involving a 15-year old girl.
Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.
Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.
Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.
Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.
Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.
Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.
Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.
Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.
Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.
Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.
Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.
Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was charged with rape for allegedly paying a 15-year old girl for sex. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.
Republican Mayor John Gosek, 58, of 275 West 7th Street, Oswego, was arrested for the federal offense of "using a facility in inte-state commerce (a telephone) to knowingly attempt to persuade, induce, entice, and coerce an individual under the age of 18 years to engage in sexual activity for which he could be charged with criminal offenses, that is, rape in the third degree and criminal sexual act in the third degree" in violation of the New York State Penal Code.
Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges.
Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.
Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.
Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a minor working as a congressional page.
Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with a juvenile and one count of delivering the drug LSD.
Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks, an advisor to a California assemblyman, was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.
Republican preacher Stephen White was arrested after allegedly offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
Republican talk show host Jon Matthews of Houston was indicted for indecency with a child, including exposing his genitals to a girl under the age of 17.
Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling confessed to molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.
Republican Party leader Paul Ingram of Thurston County, Washington, pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
Republican St. Louis Election Board official Kevin Coan was arrested and charged with trying to buy sex from a 14-year-old girl whom he met on the Internet.
Republican politician Andrew Buhr, former committeeman for Hadley Township Missouri, was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
Republican politician Keith Westmoreland, a Tennessee state representative, was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to minors under 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).
Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was charged with sexual misconduct involving a 15 year old girl.
Republican legislator, Richard Gardner, a Nevada state representative, admitted to molesting his two daughters.
Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.
Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.
Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.
Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.
Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation. Of course it's no contest! How could he even get a fair fight against those activist judges!
Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor. - That's the culture of life we all know and love!
Defense contractor, Mitchell Wade, admitted that he paid California Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (republican) more than $1 million in bribes in exchange for millions more in government contracts.
Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his 9 yr old daughter.
Republican Mayor Philip Giordano serving a 37-year sentence for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge sentenced to 3 years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl. I'm sure he had a good explanation.
Republican racist pedophile and esteemed US Senator Strom Thurmond fathered a chiled with a 15-year old black girl.
Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to sexual relations with a juvenile. Praise George!
Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having inappropriate relations with a 13-year-old girl.
Republican activist Lawrence E King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens found guilty of sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.
Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on 6counts of child sex crimes.
Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child. Look, he didn't actually do anything. He only TRIED! You can't fault a republican for trying!
Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.
Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter. Prai$e the lord!
Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger allegedly had sex with a 16 year old girl when he was 28. I love this country!
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar. Now I'm sure he can give us a good explanation for this.
Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped. Obviously a liberal conspiracy!
Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD. He was obviously trying to help this woman! Do you liberals no shame!Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography. Look! It was his own son. Geez you liberals are SICK!
Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media. He was trying to explain to her what NOT to do when in a difficult situation!
Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl. She could have turned away.
Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her. Liberal jury of course.
Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison. Now how could anyone rape their daughter 6 times! Can you say Liberal psycologist!
Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl. Obviously set up by a liberal computer hacker. These hackers no NO SHAME!
Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children). You see, actually he happened to be changing out of his bathing suit when these kids walked by.
Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was charged with sexual misconduct involving a 15-year old girl.
Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child. He pleaded guilty only to keep his family out of the liberal media's spotlight.
Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl. She was eighTEEN. That's still a teenager!
Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters. He only had their interests in mind. Why don't you liberals see that!
Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl. No comment.
Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was charged with rape for allegedly paying a 15-year old girl for sex. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women. Philanthrapy at it's finest!
Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy. That boy was a liberal trying to corrupt his mind. He did the right thing.
Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison. He did the honorable thing and did his time.
Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000. Lies. Lies! All liberal lies!
Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession. Obviously set up by that liberal media!
Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet. Who said republicans were sexist!
Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison. If you do the crime, you do the time + 1.
Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter. He just wanted to keep an eye out for those girls...and his daughter. He even had pictures to prove it!
Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison. He LOVED that girl.
Republican anti-abortion activist Neal Horsley admitted to having sex with a mule.

[Placebo]

Oh come on, it's a free country.

[Outsider]

Maybe I should cut that down... it's too big to be a sig too...

[Northgate]

Outsider - you're the man!

[Aquatic]

These days whenever I think about politics it's from the perspective of the environment, because that is my career and I'm so immersed in it. From many angles though I really think that makes sense of the whole situation. Conservatives really DO think in the short term, and liberals in the long term. Perhaps too long. Perhaps conservatives are too short-sighted. Is one wrong? Is the other wrong? I don't know. Just random thoughts... with a stright face.

Outsider that's...disturbing.

[BR]

Aquatic, I agree with pretty much everything you said except for the part where you delineated the difference between liberals and conservatives. Whether or not you agree with the Iraq war (I certainly don't), the very idea of establishing democracy in one Middle Eastern country in order to influence the rest to eventually follow their own path to democracy is very, very long term thinking.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Did you write that with a stright face?


I can write it with a straight face also.;)

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Aquatic
These days whenever I think about politics it's from the perspective of the environment, because that is my career and I'm so immersed in it. From many angles though I really think that makes sense of the whole situation. Conservatives really DO think in the short term, and liberals in the long term. Perhaps too long. Perhaps conservatives are too short-sighted. Is one wrong? Is the other wrong? I don't know. Just random thoughts... with a stright face.

Outsider that's...disturbing.

I don't think that's true at all. In fact, it almost seems the opposite is true. Liberals seem to demand immediate change to policy while conservatives seem to want to take a more moderated approach. Many conservatives believe, as I do, that with regard to energy policy we need a short term, mid term and long term strategy. The short term ensures availability of oil by doing more domestic and offshore exploration. The mid term involves transition fuels such as ethanol and reduced dependence on fossil fuels. The long term represents the near elimination of oil dependency, with domestic production making up for the what is still needed that technologies like hydrogen fuel cells cannot cover.

[Aurora]

Im not Liberal or Conservative but I would vote for Gore and really anyone opposed to the republicans these days. Republicans have shown they are the Prostitutes of Govt and for sale to anyone, the Chinaman, the Mexican, the UAE but the U.S. worker seems to be the last one they want to represent. Screw the Rebublicans and their F party. America booted the party out 50 years ago for the same kind of crap they are doing today.

Both parties are rotten, but the republicans seem to be the worst at the moment.

[Aquatic]

Well just so you know, ethanol is a sham. Unsustainable. Completely a waste.

[Northgate]

Imagine if the federal government granted R&D funds to all the electric battery manufacturer's on the same level as NASA in the 1960's. Within 6-10 years we'd finally have battery capacity and longevity where it needs to be to sustain 400 mile car trips without charging.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Well just so you know, ethanol is a sham. Unsustainable. Completely a waste.
That's based on current farming that uses such obscene amounts of gasoline. Just so you know, ethanol's efficiency and sustainability is a hell of a lot more admirable than food: for food, roughly two dozen times the energy in oil are spent producing food.

[Placebo]

Man, I hope George Bush forces a law that allows him a third term as President so I can sell the rights to this to the Democratic Party for a few million.

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/2720/20081kf.jpg

[southside grabowski]

The next President will be a Republican. While the people are unhappy with Bush and the current Congress, the people still trust Republicans more than they trust Democrats. The Democrats have lost the faith of the people.

[Placebo]

You're saying that the party people associate with the president with one of the lowest approval ratings in history is in a better position in the minds of the American people than the Democrats?

[addabox]

The trick here is that in Moe's world, "the people" are understood to be "everybody who thinks like me".

"Liberals" aren't actually "people", and certainly not "the people". Liberals are alien invaders. "The people" sprout out of the rich loam of the ancestral homelands with an instinctive understanding of American values.

Liberals are shipped in on freighters steaming under foreign flags.

[southside grabowski]

Just a prediction. I wish that the Democrats would offer a viable alternative, but I doubt that they will.

[addabox]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Just a prediction. I wish that the Democrats would offer a viable alternative, but I doubt that they will.

An alternative to massive deficit spending, tax cuts for the wealthy, bloody wars of choice based on lies, an endless series of wedge issues proffered up to the base in lieu of substantiative policy, the crippling of various federal agencies through relentless cronyism, ever increasing domestic surveillance, the complete abandonment of long standing international norms (and the attendant erosion of our prestige abroad), damaging national security for political gain, talking a lot about homeland security while defunding programs and adopting none of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, allowing industry lobbyists to draft legislation outright and a policy apparatus based almost entirely on photo-ops and slur campaigns?

I cant imagine how.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by addabox
I cant imagine how.

He didn't seem to be wondering how but rather if.

[southside grabowski]

I'm not going to argue with you box. I'm not defending the Republicans. I am saying that the Democrats need a new formula to win. The Democrats were the working man's party. The working man tends to be socially conservative. Furthermore, more so each day the working man is being outsourced to India or China or Mexico or or or. If he is in the USA, there is a good chance that he is illegal and can't vote.

[addabox]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
I'm not going to argue with you box. I'm not defending the Republicans. I am saying that the Democrats need a new formula to win. The Democrats were the working man's party. The working man tends to be socially conservative. Furthermore, more so each day the working man is being outsourced to India or China or Mexico or or or. If he is in the USA, there is a good chance that he is illegal and can't vote.

You may not be defending the Republicans but you are repeating, indeed you are practically a poster boy for, a mantra that has been part of the Republican strategy for at least the last 40 years or so.

Democrats don't "share your values". Democrats are the party of Hanoi Jane and Barbara Streisand. Democrats want to put a black guy or a lesbian or some kind of hippie slacker into your job. Democrats are godless. Democrats are shrill. Democrats would immediately surrender in a shooting war, or defund the Pentagon to pay for forced abortions.

40 years of this bullshit, and a twisted alliance with "the working man" based on constant emphasis on wedge issues to drive anger and divisiveness. It's about the blacks. It's about the hippies. It's about immigrants. It's about queers. It's about abortion. It's about them. You are losing because of them.

Tax and spend. Flip-flopper. Cut and run. Blame America first. Fellow travelers. The silent majority and the nattering nabobs of negativism. Stabbed in the back. None dare call it treason.

And now you're worried that the Dems aren't "viable"? Now that the promise of right wing triumph turns out to be hollow? I mean, didn't you notice during the run-up to all Republican all the time America that there wasn't much of substance in there? That most of it was wedge issue electoral strategy? That the entire enterprise was based on establishing the entire Democratic party and "liberalism" in general as treasonous, weak, pandering and feckless.

Well, it worked pretty well. We got to the point where "liberal" was a term of sneering contemptuousness. Where a decorated war hero could be broadly vilified as a traitor and a coward.

Gee, I'm really sorry your guys turned out to be assholes, and they did so much damage to the country getting and keeping power that you don't like the lay of the land no more. Must suck, being you.

At any rate, there is quite a bit of new energy and blood over in liberal land. Solid ideas, solid candidates. The tentative party of "don't make waves", the inevitable consequence of 40 years of relentless demonization, is beginning to totter.

Of course, when we field actual liberals with actual ideas you'll immediately denounce them as "socialists" and "ultra-left loons". Guess you can't please everybody.

[southside grabowski]

Good to see that there are some passionate Americans left.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by addabox
You may not be defending the Republicans but you are repeating, indeed you are practically a poster boy for, a mantra that has been part of the Republican strategy for at least the last 40 years or so.

Democrats don't "share your values". Democrats are the party of Hanoi Jane and Barbara Streisand. Democrats want to put a black guy or a lesbian or some kind of hippie slacker into your job. Democrats are godless. Democrats are shrill. Democrats would immediately surrender in a shooting war, or defund the Pentagon to pay for forced abortions.

40 years of this bullshit, and a twisted alliance with "the working man" based on constant emphasis on wedge issues to drive anger and divisiveness. It's about the blacks. It's about the hippies. It's about immigrants. It's about queers. It's about abortion. It's about them. You are losing because of them.

Tax and spend. Flip-flopper. Cut and run. Blame America first. Fellow travelers. The silent majority and the nattering nabobs of negativism. Stabbed in the back. None dare call it treason.

And now you're worried that the Dems aren't "viable"? Now that the promise of right wing triumph turns out to be hollow? I mean, didn't you notice during the run-up to all Republican all the time America that there wasn't much of substance in there? That most of it was wedge issue electoral strategy? That the entire enterprise was based on establishing the entire Democratic party and "liberalism" in general as treasonous, weak, pandering and feckless.

Well, it worked pretty well. We got to the point where "liberal" was a term of sneering contemptuousness. Where a decorated war hero could be broadly vilified as a traitor and a coward.

Gee, I'm really sorry your guys turned out to be assholes, and they did so much damage to the country getting and keeping power that you don't like the lay of the land no more. Must suck, being you.

At any rate, there is quite a bit of new energy and blood over in liberal land. Solid ideas, solid candidates. The tentative party of "don't make waves", the inevitable consequence of 40 years of relentless demonization, is beginning to totter.

Of course, when we field actual liberals with actual ideas you'll immediately denounce them as "socialists" and "ultra-left loons". Guess you can't please everybody.

AMEN!

[jimmac]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
The next President will be a Republican. While the people are unhappy with Bush and the current Congress, the people still trust Republicans more than they trust Democrats. The Democrats have lost the faith of the people.

You really are moe aren't you? You know the guy who said the wire tapping privacy issue would come to nothing 6 months ago.


:lol: :no: :lol:

[southside grabowski]

I have never denied being Moe. Moe Luby in Texas at your service.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
I have never denied being Moe. Moe Luby in Texas at your service.


Then why the handle change?

[sammi jo]

Has anyone seen the Al Gore movie "Inconvenient Truth" yet? Apart from the title (which imho is lame), it's a good brief on the basics of global warming, quoting from many peer-reviewed studies. Question: Are there an equal number of reliable studies (or just one for that matter) which points to either (a) the absence of global warming, or (b) finds evidence of global warming but points towards causes other than human industrial activity?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Has anyone seen the Al Gore movie "Inconvenient Truth" yet? Apart from the title (which imho is lame), it's a good brief on the basics of global warming, quoting from many peer-reviewed studies.

Here (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm) is a different perspective.

[Outsider]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Here (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm) is a different perspective. Of COURSE Canadians want the Earth to warm up. It's colder than a witch's teat up there.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Outsider
Of COURSE Canadians want the Earth to warm up. It's colder than a witch's teat up there.

Well, I didn't claim it was unbiased. ;)

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Here (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm) is a different perspective. The author is a director of a lobbying and media relations firm. Colour me "skeptical" :)

Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company.

http://www.highparkgroup.com/clients.htm
http://www.highparkgroup.com/services.htm

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Here (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm) is a different perspective.

The story you quote is from a biased source. I was hoping to see something from a respected body of scientists (for example the WMO, etc etc), rather than conveniently aligned individual opinions cherrypicked by some partisan political rag. Anyway, how the hell has the topic of global warming, whether the cause is natural cycles, human activity (or a combination of the two) become an ideological or partisan political topic? This affects everyone. We all live here, and the Earth is all we've got.

Would it not be better for us all to assume that human activity is either a cause, or at least aggravating an existing underlying cyclical condition? If so, then we get a head start on mitigating it, rather than being in denial and running the risk of facing dire consequences. The Earth and its physical geography and climate systems being so interactively complex, it is impossible to forecast how a small change in one area can drastically affect another larger aspect of the system... and this can happen rapidly and on a drastic scale... that is the nature of complex dynamics; everyone is aware of that these days. By assuming the worst, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Which ever way the reality is, large scale investment in sustainable/clean energy technologies starting right now can only be good for business. No? Yes?

Why is it that (so many) political conservatives have taken up the battle to debunk "human causes of global warming" when there is plenty of solid science out there that suggests that the two are linked? Why are so many conservatives alienated by environmentally conscious activity, whether it be green technology, activism, anti-pollution measures etc., even when there are so many profitable business opportunities that come with sustainable energy technologiers etc? One keeeps on hearing epithets like "$#@%ing treehugging hippies" etc. What the hell is that BS about? Surely the powers-that-be are not that addicted to supporting the continuance of fossil fuel consumption and exploiting nuclear energy at the exclusion of everything else, while brushing off the possibility (or probability?) of largescale future problems for the human species, in order to protect the current vested interests of a few, well connected and privileged parties?

Are they really that small minded?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by sammi jo
The story you quote is from a biased source.

Are you planning to refute any of the article's claims or simply reject the article because it comes from (as you perceive it) a "biased source" (classic ad hominem fallacy)?

Originally posted by sammi jo
Would it not be better for us all to assume that human activity is either a cause, or at least aggravating an existing underlying cyclical condition?

No. Why would it be? Oh, wait, here it is...

Originally posted by sammi jo
If so, then we get a head start on mitigating it,

Completely fallacious conclusion. If you assume a certain cause of some thing in order to "get a head start on mitigating it", and your assumption is wrong, you have gained nothing, and quite possibly lost much. NOTE: This reasoning is true independent of "global warming" or what-not...so don't try and come back at me with some mis-direction crap about how I am "anti-science" or "ignoring the facts"...I am simply pointing out that your statement (summarzied as: "The best thing is to just assume what we think it might be so we can get started on a solution.") is fallacious thinking.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
The author is a director of a lobbying and media relations firm. Colour me "skeptical" :)

Do you hold the same level of skepticism about this article:

Originally posted by Benton
Rolling Stone: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/st...election_stolen

[addabox]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Just stop now. You found an article that sort of mucks around with unsubstantiated figures about what "consensus" actually means, and goes on to cite a couple of contrarians.

From the above linked article:



The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" .

The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change"

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

If there are "other perspectives", they are coming from outside of the scientific community. I guess there's no point in getting into it with you again about concepts like "peer review" and "evidence" and "the scientific method", but that's what this is about. The odd crank doesn't have any bearing on that at all.

And no, Chris, the odd crank isn't a lonely voice in the wilderness bravely holding to their views despite the slanders and attacks of the intolerant "official" science, any more than the Holocaust denier is a brave historian. It is about preponderance of evidence and peer review.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by addabox
Just stop now.

Well okay...if you say so.

Originally posted by addabox
You found an article that sort of mucks around with...

Are you planning to refute any of the article's claims?

Originally posted by addabox
If there are "other perspectives", they are coming from outside of the scientific community.

Are each of the people referred to in the article "outside of the scientific community"?

[thuh Freak]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Are each of the people referred to in the article "outside of the scientific community"?
I'm not familiar with all their credentials, but based on the sciencemag article, it would seem the canadian article's scientists represent a minority opinion within the scientific community.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by thuh Freak
I'm not familiar with all their credentials, but based on the sciencemag article, it would seem the canadian article's scientists represent a minority opinion within the scientific community.

But:

a) They are "within the scientific community".

b) "a minority opinion" != wrong

c) It doesn't really matter of they are Bozo the Clown...the argument they are making is what matters. It is a common tactic is to dismiss an argument because, well, they "represent a minority opinion within the scientific community" or they are crazy as as loon.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
These aren't credible scientists, Mr. Cuilla.

Scientists who aren't even capable enough on the subject to get their work published?

:no:

So far...no actual attempts to refute the arguments or claims only the people. Ad hominem.

Got it.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Okay.

I'll refute the arguments with the last 900 or so peer-reviewed scientific journal articles.

Go ahead.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Okay.

I'll refute the arguments with the last 900 or so peer-reviewed scientific journal articles.

What do you got?

Ladies' Home Journal?


Pssst! He doesn't have anything! That's why you hear all the bluster.;)


Don't you just love it when you link to something and they dismiss it because it's not from a widely accepted source like CNN etc. But when they do it it's just ok.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by jimmac
Pssst! He doesn't have anything!

What is interesting is that I did post an article, but so far, rather than actually refute any of the claims made by the people in the article, all we have is:

Originally posted by FormerLurker
The author is a director of a lobbying and media relations firm. Colour me "skeptical"

Originally posted by sammi jo
The story you quote is from a biased source.

Originally posted by addabox
You found an article that sort of mucks around with unsubstantiated figures about what "consensus" actually means, and goes on to cite a couple of contrarians.

Originally posted by thuh Freak
it would seem the canadian article's scientists represent a minority opinion within the scientific community

Originally posted by ShawnJ
These aren't credible scientists, Mr. Cuilla.

Scientists who aren't even capable enough on the subject to get their work published?

Curious.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
What is interesting is that I did post an article, but so far, rather than actually refute any of the claims made by the people in the article, all we have is:











Curious.

Yes curious.;)

[Placebo]

Hey guys! If we do everything within our power to stop global warming, even if it is completely unrelated to mankind's carbon emission, the earth will be a better place for our efforts! There is no excuse not to lower CO2 emissions, invest in alternative energy, and push for stricter fuel economy standards. None at all.

So basically, all of you conservative bastards just want an excuse to continue the world reliance on fossil fuels and resultant carbon emission, because the concept of global warming will force us to reform the way we produce and consume energy as humans.

Have fun arguing with the incontrovertible truth I just laid out for you.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
The claims are refuted by the last dozen or so years worth of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles.

Such as? They shouldn't be hard to find.

Originally posted by ShawnJ
They are not credible.

You obviously don't care about the credibility of your sources.

You just don't get it (or care, I guess) do you? (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php)

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Placebo
[B]Hey guys! If we do everything within our power to stop global warming, even if it is completely unrelated to mankind's carbon emission, the earth will be a better place for our efforts! There is no excuse not to lower CO2 emissions, invest in alternative energy, and push for stricter fuel economy standards. None at all.

So basically, all of you conservative bastards just want an excuse to continue the world reliance on fossil fuels and resultant carbon emission, because the concept of global warming will force us to reform the way we produce and consume energy as humans.

Have fun arguing with the incontrovertible truth I just laid out for you.

Exactly so. See similar at the top of page.
And I have never seen any reason with which conservatives are comfortable, as to why they loathe (or profess to loathe) environmentalism and environmentalists so. The "anti-business" slant is utterly bogus.. so it can't be that.

[addabox]

I'm sorry, I'm not getting this. You link to an article in the Canada Freepress that makes unattributed assertions about the levels of consensus around human activity driving global warming, and quotes a few scientists. When we roll our eyes you demand that we "refute" the claims.

I link to an article in Science Magazine that notes that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, The American Meteorological Society , the American Geophysical Union , and the American Association for the Advancement of Science are all on board with human driven climate change, further notes that a careful study of over 900 peer reviewed articles shows no contrary claims, and you demand we produce the studies?

Is your thinking that Science Magazine is making this up? That they are part of the "mainstream science" conspiracy to muffle dissenting voices?

I assure you, if Science Magazine took to making shit up, especially on a topic as current as client change, we would hear about it.

You see Chris, the article I linked to is the refutation of the article you linked to. It spells it out in black and white, but apparently you're so used to operating in a faith based reality simple declarative statements of fact cut no mustard with you. It's all opinion and semantics.

That being the case, what would be the point of linking to the studies themselves? You could just wonder aloud if they were real studies, if the organizations that did them were real organizations, if the science they used was real science, and if the web site cited was really a web site.

Ah, hell, I don't know why I bother. I googled "American geophysical union climate change", right up top Human Impacts on Climate (http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html)

First graph:

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

But, you know, that silly American Geophysical Union is just a bunch of tree hugging hippies that want to throttle the expansion of the West, so it means nothing. Certainly not as authoritative as the Canada Freepress, so I can see where you would be unconvinced.

Now I think I'll go look for some of those classic tobacco industry doctors that kept telling us that the harmful effects of smoking were by no means a settled issue and the idea was "controversial" within the "medical establishment".

[Chris Cuilla]

See...you are attacking the source...but not the content.

If you cannot see the fallacy of this, I don't know what else to say.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
See...you are attacking the source...but not the content.

If you cannot see the fallacy of this, I don't know what else to say. No one's buying this, Chris.

The CONTENT is unattributed.

Where are the scientific studies to support the CONTENT of the quotes from the scientists? Where are the peer-reviewed, published, scientific articles or studies supporting the CONTENT of the article?

Show us where "Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia" (the most-quoted scientist in the article) has published anything that makes him a "climate expert", as the CONTENT of the article asserts.Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts

All I've been able to find by Carter is articles on sedimentary marine geology, such as this:
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(3yh2lb335qguk2yhzynnvx45)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,12,12;journal,45,45;linkingpublicatio nresults,1:111322,1
and this:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=cache:jEptNw8tnGcJ:members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/Merced-SG-2002.pdf+author:%22Carter%22+intitle:%22The+middle +Pleistocene+Merced-2+and-3+sequences+from+...%22+

The CONTENT of the article is completely unsupported, and parts are demonstrably false (ie, the claim of Carter's area of expertise).

Please - try to prove otherwise.

[midwinter]

I think it is important that we laypersons continue to debate this issue. I mean, who needs climatologists??

This debate in America is hysterical.

Scientist: "Global warming is real."

Average Joe: "But my neighbor Bob who has an 8th grade education and works at the Jiffy Lube made a damned fine argument about why it's not."

Scientist: "Rhetoric does not make global warming go away."

Average Joe: "Refusing to address the content!!!"

Scientist: "There is no content!"

Average Joe: "Typical tactics! Dodge the issue! Attack the source!"

And then suddenly we're talking about rhetorical fallacies.

I'm itching for the great debate on this. A bunch of "Global Warming Is Real" scientists on one side; a bunch of "Global Warming Is Not Real" folks on the other.

And someone gives the scientists a few drinks beforehand and tells them to take the damned muzzle off. Just tell people that they don't know what they're talking about if they don't know what they're talking about.

Yup. Non-scientists. That's who needs to be discussing this.

--

At any rate, it's funny that no one noticed that this discussion shifted from "what constitutes consensus" to "attacking the content, eh?!"

[Aquatic]

Chris what the heck is your major?

There's no polite way of saying this--You're simply out of your league.

I'm sorry, but global warming is occurring. Why? CO2, CH4, and some other stuff that factories and cars make is going up, and absorbing IR. The end.

Debate OVER.

Oh, you're still there?

Read: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/

Debate OVER.

[Aquatic]

Still there?

Watch this.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1851792711442224485

Of course, nothing in science is an absolute, so if you've done some climate research that can shed light on this issue Chris, please present it. I'd recommend submitting it to Science. It would go nice with the recent issue focusing on this topic precisely, with the Overpeck research on glaciers.Anyway, how the hell has the topic of global warming, whether the cause is natural cycles, human activity (or a combination of the two) become an ideological or partisan political topic? This affects everyone. We all live here, and the Earth is all we've got.

Good question. It most certainly effects anyone that cares at all about their kids, or their kids' kids. It's actually a really simple issue to boil down, with immensely complex scientific underpinnings. I just think the media/Democrats and/or environmentalists need to up it a notch to reach Joe Sixpack. But I think the point can be made. Hell, that's kind of what I wanna do when I grow up, and why I got in to this business (environmental science.)

I mean you're either a greedy evil prick, or you care about other people now and in the future. It's really black and white. Hey ol' Scott'd love that sentiment! Wonder where he went...

[Placebo]

Can I restate the fact that even if global warming turns out to be a bullshit phenomenon, trying to stop it, even if we can't/it's a non-issue/it's not caused by humans bears no risk whatsoever, and the potential for improvement on a worldwide scale.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Such as? They shouldn't be hard to find.

You just don't get it (or care, I guess) do you? (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php)
Shawn is quite right when he says that you don't care about the credibility of yours sources, since the sources you are citing are not credible.

Rather than claiming this is an ad hominem attack, get your hands dirty by demonstrating your knowledge of the science and the nature of peer-reviewed research by defending the credibility of your sources.

The onus is on you Chris, since your position is anchored, here, on sources that are not credible.

[Chris Cuilla]

And it continues.

:lol:

[Hassan i Sabbah]

If I cited a source that was not credible, you would be entitled to question it.

If I were to make an argument based on a source that WAS NOT A GOOD SOURCE you would be entitled to point that out. I would then have to defend my source for the conversation to continue.

This has been the way it is for anyone who ever defended their PhD during a viva, published their research or wrote a book on geography, history, physics, maths, game theory, pyschology, meterology, the science of mining, juggling or climate change for many hundreds of years.

It is the way it is done. It's been like this for hundreds of years. The rules haven't changed just because one's argument is a) politically-motivated or b) made on the internet.

Sorry, Chris. Sorry about that.

You don't get a 'free pass'.

Now engage with the fucking debate or stop posting in this thread.

[hardeeharhar]

Hey Hassan,

I found your garage in Rabat. I will post a picture later....

[thuh Freak]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And it continues.

:lol:
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe" ~ Dr. Carl Sagan

Also interesting to note, Sagan believed [along with the majority of the current scientific community] global warming was a mad-made danger.

[Aquatic]

Mocking a potential global catastrophe simply because you can not understand a phenomena that occurs slowly and works through complex mechanisms is not something to be proud of Chris.

As someone once said, ""Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit."

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Mocking a potential global catastrophe simply because you can not understand a phenomena that occurs slowly and works through complex mechanisms is not something to be proud of Chris.

Now I'm mocking it. :no:

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by thuh Freak
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe" ~ Dr. Carl Sagan

So true...isn't it.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Troll.

And it continues.

[Chris Cuilla]

How about a stroll down memory lane:

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."

"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000."
-- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."
-- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.
-- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

Gosh that was fun.

[Aquatic]

OK everyone let's just stop. Clearly Chris is an idiot troll, but let's stop before this thread, now partially derailed, gets locked.

So back to Al Gore...as I was saying earlier...I like him because he's green.

Other thoughts? Should he try to grow crazy facial hair again? Discuss.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Clearly Chris is an idiot troll

From the posting guidelines (http://forums.appleinsider.com/guidelines.html):

4. Ad-hominem attacks of forum members will not be tolerated. We understand that things get heated, but it helps to maintain a modicum of respect for the membership. Attack ideas, not people.

[Northgate]

Gore is a bad bad man. He wears earth color suits.

Oh. And he's a liar. Ok, well, no not really. But it's fun to believe.

And Charles Krauthammer says he's mental.

Off with his head.

[addabox]

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling) on global cooling.

Points made:

-- The 70s were the beginning of a growing awareness of human driven climate change.
-- While there was concern that "global cooling" was underway, the larger sense was that gross changes were being effected, without knowing what the outcome would be.
--Popular press descriptions of global cooling left out that sense of uncertainty, and caveats that are typical for science. Basically the research was saying "We think global cooling is underway, but we're not sure because the larger processes aren't that well understood. We are pretty sure some kind of large scale change is underway.
--The role of greenhouse gases was just starting to be understood.
--The consensus shifted fairly quickly from cooling to warming models, as more attention and research began to move to human driven climate change, and the role of greenhouse gases were factored in.

Now, when you link to something that purports to show how silly old science got it wrong, so how can we know they aren't getting it wrong again, that is, in fact, "mocking", Chris.

It's mocking because it substitutes "gotcha" for any awareness of how science works, how consensus is built and what it looks like.

Will climate science change its model again? It might. Will it turn out that cigarettes don't cause cancer? Maybe. But linking to medical journals of the 60s that are ambiguous about the cause and effect and mechanisms of that process doesn't make that any more likely, and it doesn't indicate that medical science is an ad hoc affair that might say one thing today and another thing tomorrow.

Although, as I and others have pointed out, that is precisely the tactic of the tobacco companies at the time. Find a few doctors, either on the payroll or just with an eccentric theory to flog, to say that there is no evidence that cigarettes cause cancer and therefore the whole idea was "controversial" and "by no means settled science". At the same time, try to poke holes in the whole idea of "medical science", broadly implying that these "ivory tower eggheads" were so full of themselves that they were given to grand pronouncements in incomprehensible jargon, so to hell with them, anyway.

That latter tactic, by the way, was designed to exploit the animosity of "regular joes" towards "intellectuals", who were understood to be untrustworthy and "out of touch".

Exploit ignorance, in other words, to protect profits. Use the less well educated to drive "public opinion", which already tended towards an anti-intellectual bias.

Personally, I think we should just stop teaching science in our public schools altogether. That way, when we are told that "cause and effect" are largely unknowable, on account of how complicated everything is and all, and that is why things like disease and environmental degradation might be on account of clear cutting and dioxins in the drinking water, it also might be God's way of telling us we're just getting too big for our britches, we can all just stand around slack-jawed and say "Gosh! That kinda figures! I know I couldn't figure that stuff out, and I surely do not want one of them white coat fellas that think they're so smart telling me no different! Let's just wait and see what happens!"

And when the hammer comes down we can humbly ask God what we have done to displease him.

[thuh Freak]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So true...isn't it.
:rolleyes: i dont think you're even trying anymore. stick your frickin head in the sand.

How about a stroll down memory lane:

Gosh that was fun.
...so, you agree with scientists that think global climate changes are caused, in large part, by humanity? and that their timelines were off? or that some measures have been taken since the 70s to help reverse the negative effects? that further measure will obviously be needed? or is it no longer a concern? or perhaps you agree with the hypothesis but disagree with the suggested solutions- maybe a little warming would be good for us?

or is this something like "look at those idiots. they read books, write studies, conduct research AND they're wrong. lets write off climatology altogether." ?

i dont see what your getting at.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by addabox
Now, when you link to something that purports to show how silly old science got it wrong, so how can we know they aren't getting it wrong again, that is, in fact, "mocking", Chris.

I was really just pointing out some interesting historical parallels. If you want to disavow, ignore or minimize them, fine. I think they are interesting.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
You don't seem to have the slightest clue what to do with that information.

Please enlighten me. I'd love to hear this.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by thuh Freak
i dont see what your getting at.

Pay closer attention then.

[Chris Cuilla]

I found this interesting too...a "smell test" for this subject:

When the conventional view is challenged, do the proponents refuse to answer the facts and logic of the challenge?

...

The evasion of criticism is invariably accompanied by changing the subject.

Look for the following kinds of ploys of redirection:

a) "You are not qualified to question science,"

b) "All scientists say X; therefore, anyone who questions X is not of science,"

c) "You must be motivated by political loyalties, economic vested interests, or religious beliefs if you question X,"

d) "You must be ignorant or lacking intellectual honesty if you question X,"

e) You desire a personal insult that demonizes you and casts you in the role of a monster, an enemy, or a fool.

[addabox]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I was really just pointing out some interesting historical parallels. If you want to disavow, ignore or minimize them, fine. I think they are interesting.

"Disavow, ignore or minimize"?

I linked to a discussion of the science involved that puts theories about global cooling into context. There's nothing tricky about it, it's pretty clear why some theories got changed and how we got here from there.

Is that what you find "interesting"? If not, you should say what you mean.

Chris, your demeanor in threads is often akin to someone responding to a statement of fact by sort of raising your voice and leaning in and saying "Oh, is it now? Really?? And when the other person says "Yeah, it is, why, do you have another idea?", you say "Oh, no, no, not at all, I just think it's interesting that you're so sure".

And then later you abruptly mention some bit of contrary something that you've been carrying around, and when asked if you think that disproves the original point, you again demur, all the while smirking. And when your (let's say dinner host) gets a little testy at that point and wants to know what you think your point is, you get to say "Oooh, looks like I hit a button! Somebody doesn't want their sacred cow put up for examination!" And when then your host explodes and says "What the fuck are you on about, you're not debating me you're just insinuating and making little veiled remarks and smirking", you say "Hey, you believe what you want to, if you're that sensitive..."

And on and on. It's a little game playing style of rhetoric that has much more to do with "winning" by irritating the living fuck out of everybody else, than it does with looking at the world objectively.

I'm just saying. I don't expect you to change, but don't think that people are short with you because we are threatened by what you think.

[Placebo]

What is one single reason cutting emissions and investing in alternative energy is not something the world should do wholeheartedly?

[addabox]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I found this interesting too...a "smell test" for this subject:

Therefore, if I insist that the Sun is sentient and people tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, that I may be an idiot, that every reputable scientist would flatly contradict my notion, that so called "scientists" who go around giving interviews about their theory of sun sentience are not behaving very scientifically, and that attributing same to a star is an oddly quasi-mystical notion at best that has nothing to do with science, it means I must really be on to something.

[thuh Freak]

rather interesting Chris. the politically motivated article your test comes from isn't written by a scientist. he's not qualified to speak on the subject. he's outside the scientific community. i suspect he's intellectually dishonest. to even it out, he's probably a dick too. you left our your link to your source (http://www.renewamerica.us/analyses/050317hutchison.htm)

but really, a few of those items just dont make sense to me. if i may make an anology: i'm a programmer. when i have a problem with computer code, i don't talk to theoretical physicists, nor medical doctors, not even priests. i talk to programmers. people who study code, know algorithms, write programs and can actually contribute in a useful manner on a topic of computer code. when a person isn't a subject matter expert there are details and shit they miss or do not understand, or that require years of study to understand. when a lot of people who dedicate their lives to a subject agree on something, i generally think they are more or less correct. atleast, they are probably the most-correct on the issue at the time.

[southside grabowski]

A lot of scientists are leftist academics. Why trust them?

[addabox]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
A lot of scientists are leftist academics. Why trust them?

Could you provide some sourcing for your claim "A lot of scientists are leftist academics"?

By the way, I assume you eschew modern medical science, dentistry, electric power, plastics, manufactured products of all sorts, store bought food, automobiles, air conditioning, computers (whoops, apparently not), telephones, television, radio and prerecorded music of any sort, since they are all the products of research conducted by untrustworthy leftist scientists.

In fact, if you ever require life saving surgery, I urge you to refuse treatment, since the socialist doctor cutting into you wants your organs for the United Nations.

[addabox]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
A lot of scientists are leftist academics. Why trust them?

Anyway, the short answer is "Because their work is checked by rightist academics, politically neutral academics, and every other species of scientist affiliation, via a process known as peer review, which is based on broadly known and entirely accepted criteria of substantiation and repeatability".

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by thuh Freak
the politically motivated article your test comes from isn't written by a scientist. he's not qualified to speak on the subject. he's outside the scientific community. i suspect he's intellectually dishonest. to even it out, he's probably a dick too.

More ad hominem instead of real arguments. Thanks for proving the point.

[addabox]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
More ad hominem instead of real arguments. Thanks for proving the point.

"I say that the chemical composition of water is identical to that of feldspar"

"You're not a chemist so you are not a credible source for a claim that flies in the face of what chemists consensually believe"

"Aha! Ad hominem attacks! You must not have a leg to stand on!"

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by addabox
"I say that the chemical composition of water is identical to that of feldspar"

"You're not a chemist so you are not a credible source for a claim that flies in the face of what chemists consensually believe"

"Aha! Ad hominem attacks! You must not have a leg to stand on!"

Exactly correct. Instead of disproving the statement "the chemical composition of water is identical to that of feldspar"...you attack the person. Fallacious argumentation. You have dont disproven the statement, but created the appearance that you have "won". you could have simply and precisely stated that water molecules are composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms and feldspar molecules is not.

[addabox]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Exactly correct. Instead of disproving the statement "the chemical composition of water is identical to that of feldspar"...you attack the person. Fallacious argumentation. You have dont disproven the statement, but created the appearance that you have "won".

I want you to look into the concept of "appeal to reasonable authority".

It's how we can "know" things with some confidence, without having to become experts in every field that we seek to have knowledge of.

For instance, if I am obliged to have a degree in astrophysics, to "authoritatively" refute the statement " interstellar space is filled with dense clouds of neon", than I am at a real disadvantage, "knowledge" wise, at least if I seek to have a generalist's overview of the world. The same principle would apply to, say, my being able to refute holocaust deniers without I, myself, having done definitive original research.

If, on the other hand, I may confidently point to the consensus opinion of astrophysicists, who are pretty uniform in the finding that interstellar space is, in fact, not filled with dense clouds of neon, than I have a much better chance of forming a coherent picture of the world.

Ditto the consensus opinion of historians, chemists, roofers, dentists, barge captains and lute players.

That is, people of whom I have a reasonable expectation to possess specialized knowledge acquired through study or experience.

Now, if you are saying that in refuting a falsehood by appeal to reasonable authority I am obliged to educate the holder of the falsehood on the state of consensus of reasonable authority and present some arbitrary amount of documentation attesting to same, then I shall call you a tedious ninny and move on.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Exactly correct. Instead of disproving the statement "the chemical composition of water is identical to that of feldspar"...you attack the person. Fallacious argumentation. You have dont disproven the statement, but created the appearance that you have "won". you could have simply and precisely stated that water molecules are composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms and feldspar molecules is not.

Excellent point!

Now get to it, laypersons! CC has presented you with statements by a source of dubious credibility, and as he has pointed out, to attack the credibility of the course is a fallacy. Obviously, therefore, your task as laypersons, is to disprove attacks on something in which most of us have no expertise at all. Unless you can do that, global warming is obviously false!

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
A lot of scientists are leftist academics. Why trust them?

A lot of people are leftist. We shouldn't trust anyone!

[Northgate]

I found out my carpenter voted for Bush. I fi