Democrats & Liberals Archives

A Convenient Truth

Yesterday, I went to the movies to see Al Gore’s opus “An Inconvenient Truth.” In the past I’ve visited movies on Sunday evenings because at such times there are very few attendees, even when the features are blockbusters. Imagine my surprise when I found the theatre packed. The movie was an eye-opener. In addition to the inconvenient truth that global warming is a huge crisis facing civilization, I also learned a couple of convenient truths that will enable us to solve the problem.

Gore made his case. He showed geographical pictures and graphs of various trends to prove his points.

He showed us glaciers currently melting from the increased heat. He showed before-and-after pictures from the North pole and the South pole that made the vast changes crystal clear. He showed us what would happen to San Francisco and Manhattan after the glaciers melt completely and raise the sea level: Fisherman's Wharf disappears and so does Wall Street.

Gore showed us how global warming is affecting weather patterns, producing more violent storms and hurricanes and turning some areas into deserts. It is affecting wild life, changing ecosystems and producing new diseases.

Gore presented many charts and graphs that demonstrate that in the last few years global heating has zoomed. He presented a variety of methods used to measure climate change. All produce similar charts: relatively little change in early years to ever more drastic changes lately.

Gore talked about solid science. At one point he said that out of 928 scientific studies of global warming, the number expressing doubts about the phenomenon and that humans are causing most of it.... is ZERO! Global warming is real!

The inconvenient truth is that we have unleashed forces that if left uncheck would kill our civilization. What are we going to do about it? We in the U.S. don't seem to be bothered about it. Of all the nations in the world only 2 did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol: U.S. and Austria. One of our senators has called global warming a hoax. Our president thinks fighting global warming would hurt our economy.

Gore showed that China has higher fuel efficiency standards for cars than the U.S. And then when California tried to have higher standards - essentially equivalent to those of China - our government did not allow it.

A convenient truth is that we can reduce global warming without harming our economy. Japan is way ahead of U.S. in these matters. Gore displayed a simple chart showing the big profits of Honda and Toyota next to the big losses of Ford and GM. Another convenient truth is that though the problem seems so impossible to fix, we, that is the whole world, did get together to solve the tear in the ozone layer.

We can do it, but we must all devote ourselves to the cause. Too bad the current administration is not interested. From the movie, however, I learned another convenient truth:

"Political power is a renewable resource."
Posted by Paul Siegel at June 12, 2006 5:08 PM
Comments
Comment #156850

High prices work. Buy a hybrid if you can get one. THe higher prices have made them very popular. The convenient truth is that the tools (prices, nuclear energy)are available and they work. The problem is we don’t want to use them.

Posted by: Jack at June 12, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #156868

Jack,

Even if you could make nuclear reactors safe from terrorism, or could ensure that weapons-grade plutonium wouldn’t get in the wrong hands, plutonium is not a renewable resource.

Higher prices will help, but this is a national problem and I do expect the government to come in and help before things get out of control. We need a real, viable, alternative energy source.

High prices will encourage those that can to get a hybrid, but what about those that can’t afford hybrids? A large part of this country (thanks Bush) live paycheck to paycheck and simply cannot afford to pay more for gas. You’re like a modern day Marie Antoinette: “Can’t afford gas? Let them buy hybrids!”.

Posted by: Max at June 12, 2006 6:03 PM
Comment #156893

TO BE A LIBERAL; A CONVENIENT TRUTH

To be a bona-fide card carrying liberal, there are certain beliefs one must subscribe to:

1: You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

2: You have to believe the same overpaid public school idiot who can’t teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

3: You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more dangerous than nuclear weapons in the hands of Red China.

4: You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.

5: You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the radiation, brightness, and heat of the sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

6: You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.

7: You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperoty.

8: You have to believe that hunters don’t care about nature, but loony activists who’ve never been out of Seattle do.

9: You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

10: You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels can’t deliver the quality that PBS does.

11: You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

12: You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

13: You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.

14: You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren’t.

15: You have to believe that conservatives are racists, but black people couldn’t make it without your help.

16: You have to believe the only reason socialism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried is because the right people haven’t been in charge.

17: YUO HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE AL GORE INVENTED THE INTERNET, HE IS THEREFORE AN INFALLIBLE CLIMATE SCIENTIST.

Posted by: Duano at June 12, 2006 7:03 PM
Comment #156914

Max

You cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. We use oil today because it is the cheapest and easiest alternative. Alternatives either cost more or are hard to use. That is why we do not use them now. Changing to alternatives will raise the price of energy. There is no magic formula for this. You can raise the price which encourages alternatives and conservation. This gives people choices and encourages innovation. Or you can let bureaucrats run the show, in which case the the prices also rise, but you have the added administration costs and inefficiency.

Posted by: Jack at June 12, 2006 7:48 PM
Comment #156924

Tut tut, Duano. The same tired cant. After reading the first few lines of a screed like yours, I yawn and move on.

Have fun ranting. No one’s listening.

Posted by: pianofan at June 12, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #156944

Duano,

One at a time:

“1: You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding”

I’m liberal and I believe that funding from the “richest” countries can help minimize the progression of AIDS.

What’s your solution?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 12, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #156948

“2: You have to believe the same overpaid public school idiot who can’t teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.”

I’ll be sure to tell my local teachers that you think they’re “overpaid”. How much do you think a teacher should be paid?

BTW I seem to read and write pretty damn well in spite of being taught by “overpaid” teachers.

Finally, I assume you think all sex ed should be conducted by the clergy. That’s been tried. It’s called molestation!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 12, 2006 9:12 PM
Comment #156953

“3: You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more dangerous than nuclear weapons in the hands of Red China.”

Duh! Have you ever tried to deter a nuke with a shotgun? I’m not sure but I doubt it’ll work.

Given recent reports of the frequency of “rage” related incidents by otherwise law-abiding citizens and the recent move towards “concealed carry” I expect at some point we’ll see exactly what the NRA has been trying to avoid, which is further restrictions on gun ownership.

Then you can blame the damn liberals. History has never had much influence on Republicans.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 12, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #156954

“4: You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.”

Please deposit you ear at the local bank!

KansasDem

PS: you might google: hitler + art

Posted by: KansasDem at June 12, 2006 9:20 PM
Comment #156955
Gore talked about solid science. At one point he said that out of 928 scientific studies of global warming, the number expressing doubts about the phenomenon and that humans are causing most of it…. is ZERO! Global warming is real!

I think it’s important to call this one out. It’s not us who are inventing global warming. We’re simply listening to the scientific community.

Posted by: Max at June 12, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #156959

“5: You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the radiation, brightness, and heat of the sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.”

If Gore and the majority of modern scientists are wrong and we reduce emmissions from petro-fuel who did we hurt? Oh shit, it might be someone like Bin-Laden! Holy crap what if we no oonger had to negotiate with the “oil rich” countries?

I guess I’ll have to give you this one. We couldn’t survive without oil. Only Brazil can do that. We’re just not as powerful as Brazil.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 12, 2006 9:28 PM
Comment #156960

“Tut tut, Duano. The same tired cant. After reading the first few lines of a screed like yours, I yawn and move on.

Have fun ranting. No one’s listening.”

Unfortunately that’s just what the Repugnicents expect us to do.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 12, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #156961

Al Gore is such a lousy actor.

Duano (Dung+Guano?) I think you might be over simplifying things but there is a certain strain that would fall into that catagory. Aids caused by a lack of funding—this would be something viewable in a petree dish somewhere? Anyway you have pretty much discribed the Clinton Platform but then again a stereotype. What that is is usually the youthvoter Dems but there are Blue Dog Dems that you are leaving out of the equasion. Those views are the hippie views and it’s not the majority, you are also taking superficial jingoisms too seriously.

BESIDES WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE PARTY—YOU NUTS?!!! Face it we don’t have that much politically to choose from, it’s either maleable baby boomers trying to serve people to the best of our needs (whether right or wrong—note the word maleable) or retarded no-nothing hicks and undeserving billionaires ruling. You decide.

I’d go Cato Institute Left if there was actually something there. So it’s one or the other.

Posted by: Novenge at June 12, 2006 9:32 PM
Comment #156965

:-)

Posted by: Test at June 12, 2006 9:36 PM
Comment #156970

“6: You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.”

And you know through experimentation that gayness is learned? In the months I’ve been at WB I’ve seen two males and one female declare that their feelings began at a very early age.

I know the same from several friends. “GOD” doesn’t make junk my friend, but some people are “different” than others. Get over it.

Opposition to the equality of all men and women is still just bigotry plain and simple. Trying to exclude one class of Americans with an amendment to our beloved Constitution is the absolute most vile form of prejudice. In that regard Republicans (and Ben Nelson) are every bit as vile as the Muslim extremists we’re now fighting.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 12, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #156974

Novenge,

Don’t forget the “Yellow Dog” Dems!

KansasDem

PS: When you think all life has ended the ol’ yellow dog will let out one last howl!

Posted by: KansasDem at June 12, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #156981

“7: You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperoty.”

Duh, you have that completely bass-ackwards. Bush promised to create a better business environment with tax cuts.

Under the Bush economy government spending is up! Debt is up! Interest rates are up! The division between rich and poor is growing every day! The number of “working poor” is increasing every day!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 12, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #156984

OK. I lied. The rest are such total drivel I can’t do it. To do so would be like arguing with a guy on the toilet about whether or not there’s paper on the spool.

Duano, the paper’s there man. Figure out how it unwinds on your own.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 12, 2006 10:12 PM
Comment #156988

We can do it, but we must all devote ourselves to the cause.

Devotion - That’s the hard part isn’t it? People don’t like changing their lifestyles. If the so-called “environmentalists” aren’t willing to do anything about it, no one else will. It’s not right, but that’s the way it is.

If Gore and the majority of modern scientists are wrong and we reduce emmissions from petro-fuel who did we hurt?

It hurts Gore, apparently. After all, he’s not changing his lifestyle to reduce polution. The administration he was part of didn’t do much, otherwise this wouldn’t be an issue.

Most environmentalists are environmentalists in name only, especially the politicians who use the issue to get elected and then do little or nothing in the way of actual lawmaking.

I agree we need to reduce polution and that polution is at the very least partially responsible for climate change. It’s the abject hypocrisy of the people who only pretend to care, that’s what pisses me off.

Just look at the way “environmentalism” goes by the board when Jack writes an article about nuclear power. Or when they want to put a wind farm near Kennedy’s home. True environmentalists don’t subscribe to NIBY when it comes to cleaner power.

I don’t do my part either, but then again I don’t run my mouth about it and try to make it a political issue.

Posted by: TheTraveler at June 12, 2006 10:27 PM
Comment #157020

I personally believe the global warming frenzy has moved from science to a political movement.

I also believe we have an energy policy that is tied to never ending war. Michael Moore in his movie Farenheit 911, made the connection that I fear the Republican Party has made. If they keep the voters scared to death, they can continue to play that card to skew elections, fund defense contractors, who in turn bribe congressmen, fund elections, keep Republicans in power and perpetuate war.

Was it a solidly connected factual tie in? NO. Was it a plausible and even likely scenario? Eisenhower wasn’t an idiot, even though some thought he was. I wonder how long before the real conservatives stand up and see the connection?

I think that scenario is a far more fearful, deadly and likely fate in the next 10 years.

Posted by: gergle at June 12, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #157026

TheTraveler,

I don’t know the east coast well enough to understand how wind turbines would impact the environment there. I do however know that there are landowners in Kansas that are perfectly willing to sell so wind turbines can be constructed here and 9 times out of 10 these operations have been blocked by government.

I understand the argument about not wanting to “scar” the natural landscape until someone wants to build a new “clean burning” coal fired electrical plant on the same ground and the same communitities fight like hell over who,s gonna get it.

We’re so damn addicted to “fossil-fuel” that we’ll be fossils before we break the grip. And, quite honestly, I believe much of the drive for that plays right into the same drive towards “creationism” vs. evolution.

If the religious right turns out to be wrong there may well be no time to turn back. That’d be one hell of an “oops” wouldn’t it?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 12, 2006 11:34 PM
Comment #157045

Good article. I saw the film yesterday afternoon too. Line to get in, every seat filled. I thought it was very well made, easy to understand, and conveyed an extremely powerful message. I encourage everyone to see it, to make up their minds — and act upon your convictions. I believe it’s the Truth. My Dad, an EPA scientist, tells me he knows it is the Truth. He says ALL of his colleagues do too, and have for many years.
Ask yourself this: Are you really willing to gamble against the word of the majority of scientists living in the world today, just to support your political party, or big business interests?

Posted by: Adrienne at June 13, 2006 12:17 AM
Comment #157050

Two articles:

‘Truth’ prevails as eco-friendly film

EPA quietly attempts to radically change pollution rules

Posted by: Adrienne at June 13, 2006 12:27 AM
Comment #157056

1975: Cover Story, Newsweek Magazine: “THE COMING ICE AGE!”
Weeereee alllll going to diiiiiee!

Posted by: David C. at June 13, 2006 1:14 AM
Comment #157057

I’m listening pianofan. I rather liked Duano’s “screed”. You were uncomfortable because you were reading while being hoisted on your own petard. That has gotta hurt!

Posted by: David C. at June 13, 2006 1:16 AM
Comment #157091

This would all be funny if amphibians weren’t disappearing and polar bears aren’t starving to death.

As it is, we are all going to watch David C explain why a dozen Category 4 Hurricanes are hitting us this year.

Posted by: Aldous at June 13, 2006 4:03 AM
Comment #157111
Gore showed that China has higher fuel efficiency standards for cars than the U.S. And then when California tried to have higher standards - essentially equivalent to those of China - our government did not allow it.

Haven’t seen the movie, it hasn’t come to Beijing yet. Fortunately, I am flying home tomorrow for a month and will to see it.

After living in Beijing for a year I can truly attest to the impact of fossil fuels on the environment. The price of Taxis just went up from 1.6RMB to 2.0RMB per km. During this change Beijing has taken all of the cars that don’t pass Euro-3 standards off the road, and to be a 2.0 taxi you have to meet Euro-4 standards. Even so the air quality in Bejing is shocking. Recently a Beijing health fanatic went on a “Run for Health” around the third ring road. He died of carbon monoxide poisoning.

Most Americans can ignore all of this information, because what many see with their own eyes is a beautiful, clean, environment. If you are middle class you must go out of your way to see the damage we are doing.

We could be the leaders of this transition back towards coexistence with our environment. But Europe is.

Ouch it stings my pride!

Posted by: stopculture at June 13, 2006 6:44 AM
Comment #157113

Intellectual property rights on clean and renewable energy production is going to be huge in the coming age. If Europe and China acquire the majority of these…

Just another incentive, other than death I mean, for us to get our heads out of the sand that used to be ice.

Posted by: stopculture at June 13, 2006 7:02 AM
Comment #157136

That was great Duano!!

nuff said.

Posted by: MacIrish at June 13, 2006 9:18 AM
Comment #157154

It’s always great when yet another Republican declares his retardation to all in viewing distance. Not that we need reminders, but when you display it so nakedly and so proudly, we stand back in awe and are glad that you don’t mind displaying your stupid to the public at large. Maybe you need billboards…oh wait, you do. Flush Limbaugh is on them.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 10:27 AM
Comment #157157

I loved that Dung + Guano = Duano. Brilliant! And you’re spot on, mate.

Duano, really now…did you just copy-paste these yourself from some Republican talking points website, or are you actually this dumb yourself? I’m not accusing, just wondering…

1: You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.
The AIDS virus is known by the scientific community to be spread by various methods. However, “lack of funding” is only a secondary characteristic, not a primary factor. The spread of AIDS in most countries in Asia and Africa (and in Europe and the Americas) could be significantly reduced by proper education, which is what this funding is for.

The reason that Republicans are against sexual education is that it’s against some Biblical principle that you all just made up. It really doesn’t exist, but Republicans all pretend to hate sex. They seem to have enough illicit sex on their own just fine, but they hate it when us naughty little libertines have it when they say we shouldn’t be. Bad, bad, us. Smack my wrists, please.

That would be stupid #1. Let’s move forward, shall we?

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #157161

The truth is Carl Rove will not be charged And another liberal lie is flushed down the toilet.

Posted by: lookingout at June 13, 2006 10:44 AM
Comment #157162

wow, lots of indirect name calling. Routine proceedure for libs when losing an argument. haha

Nice show for the intellectually superior!!!

Go Go libs.

Posted by: MacIrish at June 13, 2006 10:49 AM
Comment #157163
2: You have to believe the same overpaid public school idiot who can’t teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
I’m not even sure what this is supposed to mean. I can remember quite vividly that I didn’t receive sex education that I really understood at all until I was in high school, but kids are more sophisticated now than they were when I was a lad. Each child is different.

Again, Christian fundamentalism runs rampant through the school system already, and it’s shown to be unscientific frogwash bullshit, and yet you want more? I have news for you. The education system flounders here in the US, especially in science and mathematics, because people like you wish pseudo-science like Intelligent Design taught in our schools. You want to compete against the Chinese and Indians for the Ph.D’s? Start teaching them facts.

Please show me where sex education is taught to a 4th grader in this country. Show me the curriculum and show me the lesson plans used. As I am fond of saying, link it or it did not happen.

Stupid #2 resolved.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 10:49 AM
Comment #157168
3: You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more dangerous than nuclear weapons in the hands of Red China.
Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are not more dangerous than anything in the world. I personally have a gun and I carry it. I’m no threat to anyone that isn’t clearly a threat to me first.

However, liberals want more control over guns because of the number of gun-related deaths caused by criminals in this nation. It’s arguable that in urban areas, it’s a very good idea.

The 2nd Amendment, since I know that you conservatives have a difficult time understanding simple sentences, is for the maintenance of a militia. We have one, it’s called the National Guard. The people maintain it, and it is well regulated, as the 2nd Amendment clearly requires. It does NOT guarantee the right for everyone to own his own bazooka. I don’t know how even the unregulated militias get away with this crap, but they apparently have “fellow travelers” in government. I sometimes agree with the need for their existence, but their mere existence while not regulated borders sedition, and you damn well know it.

The trouble with Republicans is: they can’t read and cannot interpret what they read properly. When they do interpret it, they interpret it incorrectly. You’d think that even with a two sided issue, you’d get it right 50% of the time! But you don’t.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #157171
wow, lots of indirect name calling. Routine proceedure for libs when losing an argument. haha

Nice show for the intellectually superior!!!

Go Go libs.

Way to go not refuting my argument! That means that, in addition to being correct in my arguments, I dislike conservatives. Routine procedure for when you can’t beat my arguments. Instead you resort to whiny sarcasm. HAHAHAHA. Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #157173
4: You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.
Art is educational. Education is funded by the Federal Government as well as state and local governments.

Art is spiritual uplift. Art is meaningful. Art displays the potential of the culture it is created from. Banal art (like the kind you enjoy) is generally commercial and of no value whatsoever.

Art of significant value is almost always subsidized in one form or another.

Once again, a conservative tries to smother an already poorly funded government program because it doesn’t cater to their already ridiculous beliefs of the marketplace and Christian fundamentals. Didn’t you just try to destroy Sesame Street again just recently? Forgive me for laughing in your ridiculous face here, but ROFLMAO! There, I feel better.

Dumbass talking point #4 dealt with.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #157177
5: You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the radiation, brightness, and heat of the sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.
Nearly every useful scientist who isn’t in the pockets of an oil company already said that, while it’s true that the Earth has it’s own climate cycles and will do what it will, there is NO doubt whatsoever that the climate is changing more rapidly due to our use of fossil fuels and our mass-farming cattle, not to mention industrial outputs of greenhouse gasses.

No, only the fool will ignore when the house is burning and say “it’s not burning, it’s just warmer”. The intelligent response is to put out that fire before it spreads further. That’s not what Republicans want to do. They want to earn that last dollar before the whole human race goes away, because, my God, it’s going to be warm in Hell, and you pricks need some air conditioners before you go there.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #157181
6: You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.
Why not read National Geographic sometime? 20% of nature as a whole is gay, from mollusks all the way to monkeys.

And who said gender roles are artificial in the first place?

What you conservatives fail to realize is, and I’m going to attribute this to a lack of scientific knowledge, is that, in psychological terms, any reproducing couple will automatically have worked out a dominant and submissive partner in the relationship. If you want to attribute “submissive” to “female”, you have not met my mother, apparently. Or my girlfriend for that matter. In nature, dominance is the way of things, and we are not seperate from nature.

Being gay is quite natural, I can assure you. Monkeys are highly intelligent and highly evolved, and they weren’t created by abuse and trauma. They are just born that way.

So, when you come out spouting more talking points from the Republican Religious Right Douchbags think-tank, do be a bit more selective. This one is almost embarrassing.

#6, DOA. I’m not even trying, you know.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #157187
7: You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperoty.
No, but apparently conservatism causes you to not be able to spell or form sentences very well. Be that as it may, we’ll move along.

Business does not cause oppresion and no one in their right mind would ever believe that. Unregulated business does indeed cause oppression, and there are ample cases of this oppression throughout our history. Or have you forgotten coal mining, the garment industry, oil fields, cotton picking, and especially the railroads? It would appear that you have. In all cases, these industries, because of their belligerence towards the people that work for them, were regulated and brought to heel.

And what was the other one? Oh yeah. Government spending has been proven many times to be one of the adjustment knobs for a successful economy. The introduction of government spending in a time of low national productivity, poor market conditions or just about anything else that prevents a prosperous economy can aid us in preventing rampant inflation or recession. Oh, and if you really want government spending removed entirely, let’s start with the subsidies to all of the corporations that the Republicans love to give free money to. If you’re serious about it, so am I. Let’s meet halfway, shall we?

#7, wiped and flushed.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #157189
8: You have to believe that hunters don’t care about nature, but loony activists who’ve never been out of Seattle do.
They aren’t loonies for caring about nature. How about letting people have their own belief system? These people are the modern equivalent of Druids and Wiccans. Nature is very important to them, and they believe it to be alive as a big collective. It’s no better a belief than Christianity is. It’s certainly no worse, either. It’s faith, the same as anything else involved in religion.

Why is their belief nuts and your belief sacred? Bullshit. Get the blinders off.

Oh, and hunting is not loony. On this I will agree with you. People in this nation are too far removed from nature to remember how brutal a bitch Mother Nature really is. Over-hunting, such as what was done to my beloved Timber Wolves in NW PA, however, is why hunting too must be regulated.

#8, coughing up blood.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #157191
9: You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
Wow, even you get something right once in a while. Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #157195
10: You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels can’t deliver the quality that PBS does.
The free market gives us shit, more shit, and even more shit. PBS does give educational information, programs about culture, art, music, literature, etc. What do we get from your 500+ crap channel set? Survivor? American Idol? Reality TV? If I was a betting man, I’d say that Masterpiece Theatre is a bit more spiritually uplifting.

Hey, I can dig it if people don’t want to think too hard after work, and resort to these mindless tittilation exercises for their entertainment. Only don’t tell me that PBS is not worth the piddly tax bill we fund it with, or any other public media. At least it’s unbiased. Tell me Fox news is unbiased, and I’ll let you judge my main source of news. Actually, nowadays, I watch the BBC because I know I’ll get decent news coverage that way.

I’m going to give you The History Channel, Discovery, National Geographic, and sometimes A&E as being useful television. Beyond that, you can flush the other 496+ channels down the toilet, because it’s collective output is the same as what you normally put into a toilet. Shit.

#10, oh wait…no…as they say in Vietnam, Numba Faking 10.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #157196

The Inconvenient Truth is that all you have to do to scare people into being completely stupid to is to put out a movie based entirely on facts that you agree with and totally ignore any and all facts that don’t completely agree with your apocolyptic vision.

At least he didn’t chop down a bunch of trees to write a book on the subject of how bad it is to chop down trees.

Posted by: Jim T at June 13, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #157197
11: You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.
The First Amendment is arguably more important than the Second Amendment, which is what each of these organizations fights for. The NRA, however, doesn’t care about the First Amendment. It’s stance on gun control is laughable when it’s clear we have a gun problem in this country, especially in urban areas. More guns does not solve this problem. Less guns do. Handguns are dangerous in urban areas because you cannot see them.

I have no issues with rifles (semi-auto even) in private ownership. Shotguns are fine as well. Sporting rifles are fine with me. Our militia has already been established, and is well regulated by our respective states, as is written it is supposed to be. Our National Guard system isn’t exactly what it is supposed to be, I agree.

But that doesn’t give us the right to own arsenals of military weapons, either. That’s not the intention of the 2nd Amendment, and only real fools think it was.

At least the ACLU cares about something that’s deeply intrinsic to our national survival. Free speech. Free press. Free religious beliefs. Guns are only useful when you need to hunt for your food, when you have to protect your property or when the Government is being belligerent and must be brought down. Beyond that, it’s not even remotely important.

#11, not so lucky.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #157222

“Are you really willing to gamble against the word of the majority of scientists living in the world today, just to support your political party, or big business interests?”

Millions of morons are doing it as we speak. And 30% of the electorate (give or take a toothless KKK-type nazi in Macon, Ga.) think Dubya is the cats’ pajamas.

Science hasn’t been America’s strong suit since the ’50s. Neither is history. Or art. Language skills, nah. Math, are you kidding? Geography? That’s the one where you find Iran on a map? Nope. Guess that leaves bombing civilization back to the Stone Age, NASCAR and jazz. As for the latter, just don’t look for it in New Orleans.


Posted by: Tim Crow at June 13, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #157234

THIS JUST IN.Patrick Kennedy to plead guilty to D.U.I He must have got his memory back imagine that.

Posted by: lookingout at June 13, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #157236

This Just In Patrick Kennedy To plead Guilty To D.U.I. He too is a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT11

Posted by: lookingout at June 13, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #157245

joshuacrime, the lowest level of hell is freezing cold, I see you don’t read much. Novenge from now on your name is Revenge.and when i clap my Hands you and joshuacrime will be a Turkeys, then i will bend over and you two can Gobbl#

Posted by: steve at June 13, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #157255

iS IT POSSIBLE THAT LIBERAL DEMOCRAT tEDDY kENNEDY WILL REGAIN HIS MEMORY AND ADMIT TO KILLING THE GIRL HE LEFT UNDER WATER FOR 12 HOURS?Just wondering.

Posted by: lookingout at June 13, 2006 1:46 PM
Comment #157256
12: You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
I’m going to have to admit that I’m baffled on this one. I have no idea where you are going on this one. Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #157257
13: You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.
The only way you would think they weren’t important is if you’re a racist who didn’t believe that the Equal Rights Amendment and the Civil Rights Act were wrong.

Beyond that, I have no idea how you could possibly think these people are not as important as Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee (a traitor to his nation, I might add) or Thomas Edison.

#13, definitely bad luck for j00.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #157258
14: You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren’t.
Everyone knows that IQ tests aren’t relevant if they have cultural bias. That has nothing to do with race, either. There are Southerners whose English, while not the King’s, is perfectly legitimate. These people will not perform as well as their Northern counterparts because of language differences. Therefore these tests are biased. Equate that with the fact that the vast majority of the people it affects the most are blacks and hispanics, and you are running dangerously close to being racist.

And what was the second part? Quotas and set-asides were necessary because of racial attitudes in big-business, which we all know definitely occured, especially if that big business was located in the South. Are they still necessary? Not sure, but let’s find out.

Can you tell me when the last racially motivated act in this nation occured? Can you tell me, on average, how often racially motivated acts of violence and discrimination still occur to this day? I think you’d be awfully surprised. Racism still exists, and until it’s largely marginalized by the rest of us, quotas and set-asides will still be a tool to beat wrong-thinking tards into submission.

#14, call the coroner. Looks terminal.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #157260
joshuacrime, the lowest level of hell is freezing cold, I see you don’t read much. Novenge from now on your name is Revenge.and when i clap my Hands you and joshuacrime will be a Turkeys, then i will bend over and you two can Gobbl#
Wow, are you serious? I’m so well read, it’s ridiculous (ask my girlfriend when she tries to beat me at an argument). You, on the other hand, leave the rest of us in no doubt as to the level of your education. I think that, on a progressive 100 point scale, yours would be about 3 points below whale shit.

Now, you were saying?

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #157261
15: You have to believe that conservatives are racists, but black people couldn’t make it without your help.
I know lots of conservatives that are racist as HELL. I know a few liberals that are right there on the border. What does that prove? That stupid is a bi-partisan state of mind? You bet it is. Move along, friend.

#15, owned you like I bought you.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #157265
16: You have to believe the only reason socialism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried is because the right people haven’t been in charge.
Wow, this is really hilarious. I remember this one being said right after a tirade of “commie pinko fag” once.

Now, in all seriousness, tell me how well Europe is faring under all that horrible socialism. Less crime, less violence, better social services for all, a more compassionate (read: Christian) society and just as prosperous. Their education system is better than ours. Their hospital system is easily as efficient as ours are, especially now that HMO’s and insurance companies are in charge now, just like you idiot Republicans wanted.

Now, I’ll even go further. Communism was never tried successfully, but neither was it left alone to flourish. From the outset of the October Revolution on, the Western powers did everything they could to derail communism. Lenin and Stalin were the problems here, not Communism.

How do you know it was such a failure when it was never left alone to even TRY to work? I’ll tell you why. Because robber baron pricks want no truck with “power to the workers”, as it should be. Those that do the work and stuggle and risk their lives should have the most say in the government, not the pricks that hold the money.

Now, you can say that Marxism-Leninism was not a great system because of it’s totalitarian nature and emphasis on political police to control the masses. That has nothing to do with Communism whatsoever as an system of economy. Only a real shit-for-brained asshat cannot seperate the two.

Sweet 16, deflowered in the back of the Mini.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #157268
17: YUO HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE AL GORE INVENTED THE INTERNET, HE IS THEREFORE AN INFALLIBLE CLIMATE SCIENTIST.
Oh, you Republican twits are finally admitting that Gore was an important architect of the Internet finally, are you? Good for you, at least it isn’t completely a waste of time to get something through your thick skulls.

Why do all the climate scientists agree with Al Gore then, if he is so wrong? Are they all wrong also? Do you think it’s possible that, unlike feckwits like the CEO’s of BP, Exxon, Shell and the other oil baronies, Al Gore reads papers written by them, and THEN formulates his own opinions based on what he reads? Does Al Gore spend zillions of corporate monies that should be going to alternative energy sources to fund quack scientists that back up the corporate line using logic that is so twisted that even Paris Hilton would find it difficult to have sex in that position?

#17…can’t think of anything. Just sliced and diced.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #157270

And now, I apologize for apparently monopolizing the conversation here, but in this case, I had to. Now maybe Duano and Steve will go back to their conservative caves and do naughty things to likenesses of George Bush and Sean Hannity.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #157276

My message was addressed to everyone - Republicans as well as Democrats. And what do I hear? The usual partisan nonsense.

There is nothing liberal about recognizing scientific facts and responding the best you know how to a looming catastrophe. Just because Gore is the messenger does not mean what he is saying is wrong. Lots of reasonable Republicans say the same thing.

Take your blinders off. See the movie.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at June 13, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #157277

Duano-
Not going to call you names, but I got to disagree with you. As usual, you folks go for the truthy definition of liberals that you would like to think is true.

1)It’s spread by a virus that the Reagan administration waited far too long to acknowledge as a health threat, because of the Religious Right’s identification of this as disease of lifestyle, rather than the uncaring, disinterested body-fluid spread disease it is.

2)Sex is confusing and distressing enough when you know about it. It only gets worse if you’re ignorant or ill-informed.

3)Duano: Meet Strawman #3. Good heavens. We regulate cars pretty much. Why not guns, which are far more dangerous? Most Democrats are comfortable with guns being available, and only want protections to make sure only law-abiding citizens gain them. Unfortunately, the Republicans have turned this into a wedge issue where no regulation can be countenanced.

4)Bwahahahahahahahahaha! Strawman #4. Funding for the arts is meant to supplement, not replace private funding for the arts, and encourage municipal projects to bring our kids more than just the standard fare they’ve got more than enough of.

5)You’re practically assuming the scientists are stupid. Radiative Forcing can account for some increases, but not all, and besides:

When effects are found they have tended to be greater than can be explained by direct response to the change in radiative forcing from solar change, so feedback or amplification mechanisms are required.

As for the and orbital forcing, the problem is that predictions based on this theory state they would be leading us to a cooler climate, absent the influence of Greenhouse gases. We might nearing the end of an interglacial period, otherwise, you see.

As For Yuppies in SUVs, I’d have to agree. They alone could not do that to the environment. The trouble is, we’re getting the last hundred years worth of carbon emissions on top of that! Carbon Dioxide does not come out of the atmosphere quickly. It may take thousands of years to get the levels back where they were before. Meanwhile we’re pumping billions of gallons of former gasoline into the air every year. It’s not simply what we’re doing now, it’s what we’re doing into the future that matters. We wait on this, and we’ll dig ourselves deeper.

6)You only have to look at cultures around the world and throughout history to see the mutability of gender roles. The physical and psychological differences play a role in keeping the differences limited, but the variation is there. So far, nobody’s been able to successfully discount the biological origin of sexuality. That said, it’s not either/or, but ranges. Learned behavior undoubtedly has its effects, as does culture, but it doesn’t seem to be the cause.

7)Each is capable of both.

8)There is room for both loony activist and hunters in this party. After all, Howard Dean and John Murtha both come out against gun control.

9)This from the folks who brought us the Bush Presidency, where the president is to be praised in order to maintain the spirits of the troops, despite the problems of the war. This from the folks who said that Bush’s response to Katrina was the best possible, when obviously it was not.

But apart from that rant, let me assure you that Liberals are no more pleased with that line of thinking than you are.

10)What about having 500 channels makes PBS a bad thing? I’d say commercial television has more than enough room for itself. Why not let people have entertainment which is disinterested in simply following the profitable and the fashionable?

11)I believe the NRA is bad because it resists any attempt to regulate guns as a matter of public safety, and makes the issue a partisan mudslinging match built on fear. I believe the ACLU is good because it will take any case, regardless of political slant.

12)Do you have to be a conservative to dislike ATM fees? Taxes are too low, by definition, if you’re running a deficit and not cutting spending. Of course the Republicans have turned this into such a rigid-minded wedge issue that we’re paralyzed from taking the necessary action to balance the books.

13)The books I grew up reading shared history fine between all mentioned. I have no problem with that.

14)Standardized tests, being prepared by people with certain cultural biases can sometimes create lower scores in those who have the intelligence, but not the cultural context to understand certain answers. This was particularlly a problem in the earlier part of the last century. As for affirmative action? That’s up in the air. I think they should be a temporary measure, and should be eased when it seems the hiring and contracting process are balancing on their own.

15)They made it a long way without our help. I hardly hear people on my side taunting black people by telling them they were given everything. Some conservatives are racists, as are some Liberals, but there a number of attitudes that the GOP picked up in absorbing the dissatisfied Southern Democrats that sadly echo those times, attitudes that result from what is called the Southern Strategy. I won’t go into it here, but you should consider the term reverse discrimination got its start amongst white supremacist groups.

16)Republican dead horse beating # 237: Liberals as socialist.

Truth is, while we’re willing to employ certain policies that could be appropriately called socialist, our attitude is mainly capitalist, and it’s likely to remain so for the near future.

17)Al Gore voted with a number of other legislators to take the Defense oriented DARPA, and begin turning it to commercial purposes. He said he helped to create it. He never said he invented it.

As for the climate science part? You seem to believe all your pundits, religious leaders and politicians are infallible climate scientists. All the while you fail to listen to the real, authoritative scientists out there.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #157279

I plan to, mate. I am an engineer by trade (electrical, to be precise). I live science on a daily basis. Scientific facts are neither conservative nor liberal; they are facts.

The fact that conservatives try to derail the topic with talking point hogwash brings me to the fighting table. So, I’m sorry if I am a bit long-winded.

As Ross Perot said, íf you find a snake, you kill the snake. You don’t form a committee about snakes. If you spot the enemy, you have to go to it. It’s half the problem with the Democrats. The Repugnanticans (I love that), if nothing else, are political strategists par excellance, if for no other reason that they know it’s at the ground level that matters, not in Washington. That and you have to get some blood on your hands.

I’ll shut up now. ;)

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 2:37 PM
Comment #157285

Jim T.,

And what are those facts that don’t agree with global warming? I’d sure like to see them.

What’s up with the weather?
Stronger hurricanes
Warnings from the Ice
Dimming the Sun

The threat is real. We should be debating how we are going to fix the problem; not whether the problem exists when it is easily apparent it does. If only you were to just open your eyes you would see the massive problems we are causing.

Posted by: Warren P at June 13, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #157294

WE WE WE Who is we the democrats have not been responsible for any law or any bill that has helped the American people for years.You people sit in the background and disrupt ever important measure known to this country.Like a bunch of spoiled brats you which is we to hear you tell it Dont do sqwat!YOU ARE BESIDE YOURSELVES.sTOP TAKING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BE IDIOTS.

Posted by: lookingout at June 13, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #157308

Rove imagine these three ego’s ripping each other apart during the primaries.Icant wait.You are right it will win best comedy of the year and the dems.Will give out the award.

Posted by: lookingout at June 13, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #157327

Joshuagrimeslime,said: “so i’m sorry if I am A bit long-winded”. that’s ok. on a scale of 1-100. 100 being A Complete Manic, you are a 1000.

Posted by: steve at June 13, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #157358

Warren P.,

I invite you to do something…something that I usually do before posting.

I invite you to play “Devil’s Advocate” with yourself.

Just Google around and see how many arguements that can make against global warming.

Now, go see the movie and see if ANY of those arguements are presented.

Zero?

Kinda “one-sided”, huh?

Any…with very few exceptions…arguements that are made without presenting the “other” side in a serious light are nothing more than propaganda.

If this movie wants itself to be taken seriously, then it needs to present the dissenters and their opinions.

Otherwise it reduces itself to mere propaganda.

Remember, as a rule of thumb…

One Sided = Propaganda.

Fair and Balanced = Taken seriously.

Posted by: Jim T at June 13, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #157365

AWESOME!!

The reaction I got from the little list I posted(which was an e-mail sent in to a radio station by an anonymous writer) was even better than I expected. I knew the Guano joke would resurface for the 250th time, but the hatred spewed by people like joshuacrime really proved my point about angry liberals, which was my original intention. Thanks for stepping right into it, Josh. As for the hateful remarks, I shall pray extra hard for you now.>

P.S. The original post needed one more point

18: You have to believe the only crime worthy of the death penalty is being a surprise pregnancy.8-(

Posted by: Duano at June 13, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #157368

Joshuacrime,

You may want to read Dante’s Inferno, also known as The Divine Comedy, and you’ll be even better at belittling your girlfriend. Jesus loves you. >

Posted by: Duano at June 13, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #157372

Hatred? For whom? I don’t hate anyone. I hate dumb ideas and dangerous ideologies. When I see them, I go after them. As a whole, I think most Christian Conservative Republicans are beneath contempt, but I single out no single individual in anything I say. Sorry, my girlfiend loves to argue with me, also.

Save your Jesus prayers for yourself. You will likely need them.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #157374

And thanks for admitting that you didn’t even create these talking points yourself. I’m not surprised, and I think my original post even alluded to that hypothesis, and damn, I hate being right all the time. And you wouldn’t have posted them if you didn’t believe in them yourself, so you are now what…disavowing them in order to devise an amazingly clever trap for someone like me?

Please excuse me for one moment while I go over in the corner of my living room and gutlaugh for a half an hour. Nice try, Duano.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #157376
Joshuagrimeslime,said: “so i’m sorry if I am A bit long-winded”. that’s ok. on a scale of 1-100. 100 being A Complete Manic, you are a 1000.
Was that the best you can do? No attempt to refute my points? I honestly prefered PoshJosh, since I’m so damn Anglo. But GrimeSlime, yeah, I can get into that. My nephew will love it, it might even catch on. :) Posted by: joshuacrime at June 13, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #157387

Josh,

Yes, I do believe most of those points, but I did use it to get an adverse reaction like the one you graced us with. Still praying for you, because He loves you no matter how much you hate Him.

Posted by: Duano at June 13, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #157391

lookingout-
Done venting? No, I don’t think you are. People talk about liberal hatred, but we didn’t invent it. You see, the Right Wing has been preaching liberal hatred for quite some time now. Unfortunately, nowadays, they’re doing that in the place of good policy. I suspect Rove will continue to do more damage to his party by leading them down that road further.

Jim T-
The movie is part of a larger debate. It’s not Al Gore’s job to argue the other side’s point of view for them. Additionally this is science- it’s not fair and balanced, it’s what you can prove and what you can verify.

Duano-
Taken a look at your fellow Republicans lately? I regret some people on my end of things descend to the level of name-calling, but I can’t say that I see a great deal of regret for the constant, unjustified hatred of liberals that I see expressed on your side.

Tell me, then: why did you go with such flawed material? Anybody with a decent science background could unravel that SUV B.S. on point five. What makes this year’s SUV bad isn’t that they alone are responsible for raising and maintaining the CO2 levels. It’s that they help keep our new contributions high.

Trouble with that is that last years accumulation, and that of the year before it don’t exactly go away all that fast. The excess we have now is forecast to take hundreds of thousands of years to come out of the atmosphere.

We don’t have to raise the levels all at once. Year by year, consumption increase by consumption increase, we’re layering on new CO2 on top of old that’s not going away.

The question is, do you want to hit the brakes now, or do you want to wait for some sort of climatic brickwall to do the job?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2006 7:04 PM
Comment #157400

You do not have to believe in global warming or give a fig for the enviornment to conclude it is high time to develope alternatives to fossil fuels on a grand scale. A look at our trade balance should be convincing. Also the oil supply is finite and the world will run out sooner or later. Our dependance on unstable despotic regimes is a security issue and part of the war on terror. Our money is financing the Islamist.
For what ever party or administration controls Washington this needs to be a proirity. The current regime is part and parcel of the oil industry with a vested interest in keeping us dependant. Time for a change.

Posted by: BillS at June 13, 2006 7:32 PM
Comment #157405

BillS,

I couldn’t agree more. While I believe the jury’s still out on global warming or cooling(saw a special on the History Channel about the “little ice age” which put forth a theory that desalinitizing the north Atlantic [melting ice caps] causes the currents that bring in warm water from the tropics to stop, causing massive COOLING [ice ages]which would cause sea levels to DROP dramatically), we don’t need an epic apocalyptic scare scenario to tell us we need to get off oil. I disagree with the tactics, not the objectives.

Posted by: Duano at June 13, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #157415

Well, now that the thread is back on topic again:

KansasDem,

We’re so damn addicted to “fossil-fuel” that we’ll be fossils before we break the grip. And, quite honestly, I believe much of the drive for that plays right into the same drive towards “creationism” vs. evolution.
If the religious right turns out to be wrong there may well be no time to turn back. That’d be one hell of an “oops” wouldn’t it?

I don’t understand the connection you’re making. What does the creationism vs. evolution debate have to do with reducing the use of fossil fuels?

Stephen,

The question is, do you want to hit the brakes now, or do you want to wait for some sort of climatic brickwall to do the job?

But who’s going to hit them? This is a political issue that everyone pretends to care about and no one does anything on. The politicians are only arguing about climate change so as to distract from the actual problem of reducing pollution. Climate change is the symptom, not the problem.

Neither side wants to take on the pollution problem to an extent that would affect the overall environment. Just look at the Blue Side’s reaction to Jack’s suggestions about nuclear power. They just dismiss it out of hand, even though it’s almost infinitely better for the environment than our current methods of power production.
It amazes me that many people who consider themselves environmentalists are more willing to do nothing at all than chose the lesser of two evils (it’s that way with many issues if you think about it).
We can A: do what we can with what we’ve got, or B: wait until something better comes along and pretend to care about the environment while really ignoring it.
It seems to me most people on both sides of this issue are choosing B.

Posted by: TheTraveler at June 13, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #157420

“I don⦣x20AC;™t understand the connection you⦣x20AC;™re making. What does the creationism vs. evolution debate have to do with reducing the use of fossil fuels?”

TheTraveler,

Quite simple really. Whether we’re looking at evolution vs. creationism, the pros vs. the cons ie: Global Warming, or any other scientific debate (plan B contraception comes to mind also) they all involve science. In each case the preponderance of independent scientific research point one direction, while the religious right (or the oil companies, etc.) will always find someone with the proper credentials to disagree with those findings due to some preconcieved notion or bias.

IMO openmindedness is essential to good science.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 13, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #157421

Duano-
Looking at this article about Thermohaline circulation, I’m inclined to believe the jury’s still out on that, but on the subject of global warming, things are otherwise.

As the Wikipedia article puts it:

Adding carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) to Earth’s atmosphere, with no other changes, will make the planet’s surface warmer; greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C lower, and the Earth uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who “believe in” and “oppose” the theory that adding carbon dioxide or CH4 to the Earth’s atmosphere will result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth, absent indirect mitigating effects. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of carbon dioxide and CH4 will be.[emphasis mine]

CO2 levels have risen. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The industrial revolution and the increased use of hydrocarbon rich fossil fuels coincides with a huge increase in CO2 levels from their preindustrial numbers. If there is an alternative explanation of the huge increase, I’d like to hear it.

Global Warming itself is a fact. Average temperatures have risen world wide, and continue to do so.

The question, of course, is how sensitive our environment is to the change in CO2 levels. I think amidst all the uncertainty, especially given the cumulative increase in CO2 and the slowness of taking it back out, that we should play it safe. If we play our cards right, even if we can’t do much about Global warming, we can at least distance ourselves from the heat of the Middle East.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #157422

Traveller-
Other countries are raising fuel efficiency, planning to cut carbon emmissions. Even China is pushing for increased fuel efficiency.

The real question is what opportunities lay ahead for those who best exploit the changeover from fossil-fuel based energy.

If we make fusion work, that’s one way of dealing with things, since fusion products aren’t the kind of orange-afro conferring isotopes that opponents of Fission based nuclear power are rightly wary of.

Or we could find some way of more safely generating power from fission, with less radioactive waste. I personally wouldn’t mind more nuclear plants, provided folks work out the kinks on spent fuel.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #157428

KansasDem,

Understood. Thanks.

I agree with you, but isn’t the other side also ignoring science? They’re using science to create the argument and take the focus off the actual issue.

“We must agree with Global Warming” and “we must clean up the environment” are two different things. One is meant to take the focus off the other.

I’m sick of seeing arguments (started by both sides) about climate change. Belief or unbelief in climate change doesn’t matter a damn. Real or not, climate change is a political trick.
Just because you believe in science, it doesn’t mean you’re not ignoring it.

Posted by: TheTraveler at June 13, 2006 9:36 PM
Comment #157430

Stephen,

I agree with your last post as well.

Posted by: TheTraveler at June 13, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #157461

Perhaps what we need is series of spirited debates on PBS with both sides of the issue, The scientist and the corporate con men, to find out what is fact and what is fiction. Then perhaps we could grow from there. After all people, it is our kids and grandkids quality of life we are dismissing so readily with jeers and smart remarks. Absolute worst case is we become energy independent. What’s so bad about that.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 13, 2006 11:13 PM
Comment #157466

Duano…….Wow…finally someone with some common sense

Posted by: sue at June 13, 2006 11:33 PM
Comment #157468

I read link textwikipedia’s article about the “controversy” over global warming. I probably won’t see the movie because I am already well aware of the subject and seeing the movie will only show me things I already know. You are probably right that the movie is propaganda, that is because the other side’s arguments have little or no facts to back them up. The PBS shows I linked earlier present all the facts and refute arguments against climate change within them. One more thing, just because Gore’s movie may be propaganda does not mean it should be tossed aside. Remember, some propaganda is much better heeded than ignored; take Thomas Paine’s cCommon Sense for an example. It was designed as propaganda, and if people like us disregarded it solely because it was propaganda then our country might be a dependency of the UK today.

Posted by: Warren P at June 13, 2006 11:35 PM
Comment #157489

—Duano—The Bats an Gulls must have worked overtime too provide you with all this material!’!*

Posted by: DAVID at June 14, 2006 1:51 AM
Comment #157490

—Paul-(‘-‘) Very nice article, I enjoy seeing something new fresh and honest. Wish I could add something new for someone else.

Posted by: DAVID at June 14, 2006 2:18 AM
Comment #157509

Posted by: Duano at June 12, 2006 07:03 PM

17 points it takes to be a liberal and only one required for being a conservative…..I’ll refrain from providing what that would be but Duano’s next response will be an adequate representation of same.

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at June 14, 2006 7:16 AM
Comment #157516

Great post Duano!!!

Posted by: Brian B at June 14, 2006 8:01 AM
Comment #157629

—-Duano—Lookingout—Two nice people with an apparent anger problem, At one point in our life we all have the same problems more or less in severity. I would like to recommend a book called GAMES PEOPLE PLAY. Again I am not criticizing only trying offer a suggestion.

Posted by: DAVID at June 14, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #157652

A few points to ponder (with citation to source at bottom):

1. The Earth has been through 4 major ice ages, which implies at least 4 periods of non-man-made Global Warming thereafter. If Global Warming happened then without humans, then any certainty that the currently alleged phenomenon is due entirely to man is misplaced and completely discounts the Earth’s ability to adapt to this naturally reoccurring event, as it has in the past.

2. Moreover, over 450 million years ago when CO2 levels were over 10 times higher than they are currently “the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.” On that basis, “how can anyone still believe that the relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”

3. Finally, while Gore may claim that the majority of scientists believe that Global Warming is a man-made impending catastrophic event, THE MAJORITY OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS DO NOT.

Scientists Respond to Gore’s Warning of Climate Catastrophe, Canada Free Press, June 12, 2006.

This is indeed the real inconvenient truth…

Posted by: classical liberal at June 14, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #157668

—-We rise all the dead people who have died from polution induced sickness, ask them about lack of enviromental controls! I will speak for all the wild life and the plant world and I say to you protectors of polluters every where,may you die from whence you created.

Posted by: DAVID at June 14, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #157687

classical liberal,

Excellent link!! These FALSE liberals will probably try to discredit your source, though. BTW what was once a liberal is now a conservative, and what was once a radical is now a liberal.

Posted by: Duano at June 14, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #157703

Classical Liberal, let me refute your three points.

1. In the two most recent epochs of the cenozoic era of geologic time, the Earth has expirenced a series of Ice ages. During the Plestocene from 1 million years ago until 10,000 years ago, about eight ice ages ocurred. These followed a cycle, 100,000 years of ice followed by a short and warm period called the interglacial period. Interglacial periods usually lasted between 5,000 and 10,000. After this period ended another Ice Age would come. The last Ice age ended about 12,000-15,000 years so we are overdue for one; meaning that current temperature trends should continue the dropping trend they began starting in the 1300s; the problem is that during the late 1700s and throughout the 1800s the trend reveresed. As you can see the Earth sometimes does warm naturally; like it did 12,000 years ago. The problem is that any warming today is in direct conflict of the current cycles the Earth passes through.

2. I think you are refering to the “snowball” Earth events here. Three snowball events happened here on Earth from 730 to 580 million years ago. At the time, carbon dioxide levels were 17 times greater than what they were now because plants had not been around very long, so they had not converted much of the Earth’s original CO2 to O2 yet. During each snowball event;
the Earth became so cold, that the two polar ice caps spread southward so much that they covered the tropics and merged. The reason this happened despte all the CO2 is that at the time plate tectonics had lined up all the continents into a supercontinent called Gondwanaland (this predates Pangea, which formed 200 million years ago). Gondwanaland was linear in shape and strethed east to west so far it touched itself, completely cutting the ocean in two. When the continents lined up like this they reflected more sunlight than the ocean would; causing the Earth to recieve less heat. The continents also disrupted oceanic circulation from North to South; especially considering the fact that the SuperContinent was located slightly south of the Equator. This caused the southern Ocean to be starved of warm tropical water.

3. The man in your article is one of the minority of scientsts that are “skeptical” about global warming. He probably recieves funding from a right wigng group or an oil corporation of sorts. I already refuted his claim about the snowball event, and I have no college education and have not completed High School; that makes me doubt his qualifications as a scientst.

Also, look at the PBS links I posted earlier. They say things quite to the contrary of your article. Which am I supposed to believe, nationally known and recognized PBS or some Canadian site I have never heard of before.

Posted by: Warren P at June 14, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #157704

about the “ecologically conscious China” some guy was talking about before:

Yay for them. They are pulling cars off the road that don’t adhere to the new European standard. That doesn’t do a thing for all the coal burning power plants that you can see every couple of miles. Truly, that is the most polluted country I have ever been in.

I too was in China in 2004, and I noticed that every time I blew my nose that it was nasty grey. You could never see far into the city of Shanghai from the Oriental Pearl Tower because of the noxious and deadly air. I don’t think I saw a blue sky in the entire month of July, in any of the four cities I visited, either on the coast or on the interior.

I live in Houston, and as bad as the air is, it was sweet compared to what I saw in China, who by the way, would be held to much lower standards by the Kyoto treaty than the U.S., even though we breathe THEIR smog every day in west coast cities like Portland, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Take THAT, libs.

Posted by: Drjeep at June 14, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #157712

Duano, you are right, as time has progressed the United States has gotten increasingly liberal. At first only radicals supported independnce from Great Britain. Then, all liberals did while most conservatives (aka “Tories” and “Loyalists”) desired to remain colonial dependencies of the UK. Soon after the revolution, everyone accepted the liberal idea of independence. Same story with slavery. During the 1830s, only radical abolitionists like William Loyd Garrison and Frederick Douglas wanted slavery ended. Twenty Years later, mainstream liberals like Senators Charles Sumner of Massachusetts and Wilmont from Pennsylvania argued for the abolition of slavery; yet conservatives remained adamantly pro-slavery. Even in the election of 1860, Lincoln was a moderate liberal Republican that supported the continuation of slavery in the Southeastern United States. After the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, now everyone both liberals and nearly all conservates agree that racism and slavery were terrible practices and institutions. And so the trend continues to this day; you can see it best in the history of the movements to allow everyone to marry the person they love and in things like enviromentalism.

Posted by: Warren P at June 14, 2006 4:31 PM
Comment #157744

Warren P,

While I do appreciate your attempt to refute my points, your lack of citing a source discounts your analysis. The following will correct your assertions, while at the same time providing sources for anyone to independently verify.

1. Contrary to your analysis, there were 4 major ice ages, and they advance and retreat on time scales of 40,000 to 100,000 years, not scales of 5,000 to 10,000 years as you stated. Therefore today’s warming is NOT in “direct conflict of the current cycles the Earth passes through”. See Wikipedia Article on Ice Ages (identifying the number and length of historical ice ages). If you have proof to the contrary please cite it.

2. The Snowball Earth occurred prior to the event that I am referring to by over 400 million years. I am referrring to the minor ice age during the Late Ordovician Period about 450 million years ago when CO2 levels were 10 times higher than now, the Earth was cooler AND life flourished during this period. See Wikipedia Article on Ice Ages (illustrating the time differences between the Snowball Earth and the Late Ordovician Period), See also Wikipedia Article on the Late Ordovician Period (stating that life was flourishing during this period) . See also Scientists Respond to Gore’s Warning of Climate Catastrophe, Canada Free Press(stating that CO2 levels were 10 times higher 450 millions years ago, yet the planet was considerably cooler).

But even putting that aside, your analysis re #2 implicitly acknowledges the fact that the Earth does go through major climate changes as a natural occurence. If the Earth could warm up enough on its own to come out of a Snowball Earth scenario, then how do you attribute a much smaller increase solely to humans?

3. Finally, regarding your final point. I learned in Law School that there are two types of arguments. Those that use facts and reason, and those that utilize emotion and/or impugn the motives of their opponents. Just because a scientist does not believe in Global Warming does not make him a stooge of the Oil industry.

Nonetheless, here are some more articles from other sources that also doubt your “consensus” of global warming.

Solar modulation of Little Ice Age climate in the tropical Andes , Study from the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences (attributing glacial advances to changes in solar intensity, not increased CO2).

Researchers Question Key Global Warming Study, USA Today.

Movie Audience Divided About Validity of Truth - Gore’s Warning on Global Warming Meets Skepticism , Houston Chronicle.

Al Gore is a Brave Truth Teller? The Truth is Inconvenient, Yahoo! News (providing links to studies showing that there is NO CONSENSUS by scientists that Global Warming is man-made).

While this does not unequivocally prove that Global Warming is not man-made, it does illustrate the fact that scientists are no where near unanimous in believing that Global Warming is an impending man-made catastrophe, as Gore would like us to believe.

Posted by: classical liberal at June 14, 2006 5:20 PM
Comment #157751

—-Something to Chew On—-Pall Life Sciences wants to close down the Web site by DEQ because DEQ keeps an update on the progress of their clean up of a major leak of (DIOXane) into the ground water in ANN ARBOR.Mi By all means come to Ann Arbor to visit. Their are no signs saying do not drink the water. In in the event you drink any well and get sick like I did forget any compensation because the state made it illegal to sue (at that time) Gilman Chemical Co.

Posted by: DAVID at June 14, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #157754

—sorry! I got the above post from the Ann Arbor NEWS.

Posted by: DAVID at June 14, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #157759

WarrenP,

You once used the analogy that you could have your arm amputated for no good reason as a defense of abortion on demand. Did you actually read classical liberal’s article, or just dismiss it off hand(like I said would happen) as someone “funded by oil companies.” The guy was a REAL climate scientist not funded by anybody. Gore’s scientists are in fact real scientists, but, sadly, not climate scientists. They’re more into the computer model field than in really observing climate patterns in the REAL WORLD.

Posted by: Duano at June 14, 2006 5:34 PM
Comment #157786

Talking about REAL WORLD, here a link for those interrested in what climate scientists think of the movie:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/#more-299

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 14, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #157796

Why has the moderator failed to post my rebuttal comments to Warren P’s comments? I included links to USA Today, Houston Chronicle, Yahoo! News and a study by the National Academies of Sciences.

Comments by others after mine have been posted, but mine have not. I hope this is simply an unintentional delay, rather than an attempt to silence certain opposing views.

Posted by: classical liberal at June 14, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #157870

Ummm classical liberal the moderator does not post, you do. He may choose to remove it, but generally leaves a comment denoting reasons for removal. I suspect your posting simply failed.

Posted by: gergle at June 14, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #157873

Stephen,
I frankly don’t see fusion containment as feasible in the near future. A breakthrough in understanding of plasmas would have to occur, and we don’t fund high energy physics in this country.

Posted by: gergle at June 14, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #157880

Duano,

Duano said:
“10: You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels can’t deliver the quality that PBS does.”

Have you ever watched cable TV? 250 channels are the Home Shopping Channel, 150 are Religious preachers selling wealth in a bottle for a mere $29.95 tithe, The rest are a mix of infotainment and movie reruns.

Posted by: gergle at June 14, 2006 9:43 PM
Comment #157956

HOW TO BE A RIGHT-WING WHAC-O; A CONVENIENT TRUTH

To be a bona-fide card carrying right-wing whac-o, there are certain beliefs one must subscribe to:

1: You have to believe that the AIDS virus should not be Government funded. Let those gays pay for their own health care, (and peversions - God is watching!).

2: You have to believe that public schools should get public funding (donations); and, that private schools should be privately funded by the U.S. Government and other corporations. (That way our kids don’t have to learn about sex, and evolution, and all that crap).

3: You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are safe, and that only criminals get shot. (“Johnny, put that AKA-47 down, you know it’s my huntin’ rifle. That’s the 3rd time this week, that you’ve tried to shot your little brother in the head!”).

4: You have to believe that art should not be federally funded. Federal funds belong to large corporations like Hallaburton, to rebuild things, like Iraq, and New Orleans. (“Just look at how terrorism has been distroyed in Iraq, and how the poor in New Orleans have a much better life now! We are on-track and we are SMOKIN’! And, as the Pres. says, “Mission accomplished”).

5: You have to believe that global temperatures are not the problem of burning fossil fuels. But rather, the effects of nature. And, that $3 a gallon for gas is not unreasonable, when you have to support large business interests like, private contractors in Iraq, our Arab oil partners, and the Federal Government. (“Besides, Bush has just given us a big tax write-off for that new SUV. SWEET!”)

6: You have to believe that gender roles are “set in stone … by God” and that being gay is unnatural. (“There are no gay horney-tods in nature, my friend!

What? Oh, there are? Well, slap my knee and call me Bruce. NO. NO. STOP IT. IT’S JUST A FIGURE OF SPEECH YOU FILTHY PEVERT, GET THE HECK OFF ME, YOU GAY BAS,,,,,”

7: You have to believe that business creates oppurtunities and prosparity, and that things like unions and fair wages, only act to stop progress. You have to believe that the people should serve only at the discression of the government and not visa versa.

(“Who thought up that crazy stuff, anyway? What? Oh, the constitution …, and …, the bill of rights? Well, that old stuff, that was so pre-9/11. We live in a different world now. WE GOT TERRORISTS, you know?!”).

8: You have to believe that hunters care about nature. (“Ever blow away a defenseless deer, in the crisp morning light, with an elephant gun and a 20-ought scope. You can’t get any closer to nature than THAT, my friend!”).

9: You have to believe that the self-esteem from having more, is self made, and is more important, and worth more intitlements, than people with less deserve to have. No matter what their circumstances. (“If they wanted more, they should have made more, … like me. DANG … RIGHT!”).

10: You have to believe that the free market that gives us 500+ channels, and is supported by big business (with mind numbing commercials), always delivers the truth. And, that PBS, funded by the unwashed masses, and bleeding heart liberals, always puts on lies - to cater to those tree-huggers and enviornmental nut-cases. I don’t think any of those types, ever heard of cow farts? They always blame nutty things like cars and trucks and the factories and such, for messin’ up the enviornment. Hey, you whac-o liberals, never thought of cow farts, did ya?”)

11: You have to believe that the NRA is good, and only has our best interests at heart, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution. And, you have to believe that the ACLU is bad, because they only stand up for people’s rights. (“Bunch of pink-o’s”)

12: You have to believe that taxes are too high, and you have to keep pushing for tax cuts, for youself and for your rich friends. (“Hey, I’m cuttin’ way back on the gas for the boat this year. So, I’m doing my part, to economize. At least, until there is another tax cut!”)

13: You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria Steinem are whac-o’s, that cared more for their own self image, than they did in helping other people. And, you have to believe that Thomas Jefferson (who fathered a lot of black children), Robert E. Lee (who lost the Civil War) and Thomas Edison (the father of modern monopolies/of public works), are all saints and public leaders that we should look up to. (“Hey, and don’t forget Bill Gates! He’s my hero! You couldn’t do squat with a computer, if it weren’t for Bill Bates! He’s brought the word “Monopoly” into a whole new level, and into the 21’s century.”)

14: You have to believe that standardized tests should be the same for all kids, no matter if they are from wealth or the getto. And, that only liberals are rasist, because they try to have a equal playing field for all, by giving some, special priviledges, over others. (“Hey, if those kids wanted special priviledges, they should have been born rich, or earn them. If you can’t afford college, then you should get the heck out of the classroom.”)

15: You have to believe that liberals are racists, and that they believe, that black people couldn’t make it without their help. We are not racists. We don’t believe in helping black people. Black people should help themselves like everyone else.

16: You have to believe that the only reason corporatism hasn’t worked yet, is because George Bush hasn’t been in office long enough. (“But, we are making progress, victory is just around the corner” —- like Iraq).

17: You believe that because Al Gore invented the internet, and it was origionaly run by the government; that the internet should be like everything else connected with our government……UP FOR SALE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER, (not for the people, who would just waste it! Never ignore a business opportunity.)

18: As a dilligent Right Wing Whaco, you need to be prepared for the occasional intelligent argument, from the other side. Here are a few things that may help:

A) Memorize 30 sec. sound bites. Little catch phrases that we use to defeat the other side like: “You have a pre-9/11 mind-set”; “Marrage is defined as being between one man and one woman”; “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”; “I don’t mind if I loose a few of my rights, as long as it helps the war against terrorism”; “Yes, there are WMD’s, we just haven’t found them yet”.

B) When you are faced with a very difficult subject, one that you fear you might loose, find a way to blame it on Bill Clinton. If that dosn’t work find another Democrate to blame it on like Hillary, or Ted.

C) If you become stuck, just fall back on the “old stand by”. Either attack the other person’s character, or you attack them personally, by calling them names.

Remember: you hold the future of this country in your hands. And, without brain dead clones like you, we don’t have a chance. GOOD LUCK!

Posted by: PlayNice at June 15, 2006 1:50 AM
Comment #157969

classical liberal,

Why has the moderator failed to post my rebuttal comments to Warren P’s comments? I included links to USA Today, Houston Chronicle, Yahoo! News and a study by the National Academies of Sciences.

Comments by others after mine have been posted, but mine have not. I hope this is simply an unintentional delay, rather than an attempt to silence certain opposing views.

Oh please, stop victimize yourself, stop whining and act instead: click this damned “Post” button.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 15, 2006 5:34 AM
Comment #157972

OurLadyOfTheTruth,

[…] it’s more of an Engineering Problem than a Theoretical Problem, but the key is in what you wrote next:
… and we don’t fund high energy physics in this country.

Bingo! It began, many years ago, when the U.S. Government took - directly, dollar-for-dollar - the Federal component of funding for Fusion R&D (the Corporate Component was from Howard Hughes) and transferred it into the programme to develop the Maverick Missile.

Hey, we never know, maybe enough Maverick bound together could actually achieve fusion containment discovers!?!

Anyway, I just check ITER project costs sharing and, indeed, US is not a major funder on this international fusion energy program. I wonder why? Because it’s international, not US only one?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 15, 2006 5:57 AM
Comment #157991

Duano,

Did you read any of the links I posted earlier?

Yes, I did read the Canadian article. I’ve never heard of the source before though. The article never said that this person was not associated with an oil company or if he was a right-wing extremist.

I wish I could say more, but my first class is starting now.

Posted by: Warren P at June 15, 2006 7:49 AM
Comment #158057
C)and if you become stuck, just fall back on the “old standby”. Either attack the person’s character or attack them personally by calling them names. And without braindead clones like you…..

Playnice, do I really even need to respond?

Posted by: Duano at June 15, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #158062

I did hit the post button and it prompted me that the moderator needed to approve the posting to ensure that no malicious content was included. I suspect it was due to the number of html formatting inserts included, and not because of any attempt at censorship.

I posted it twice at 5:30pm last night and am still waiting for it to be displayed.

Posted by: classical liberal at June 15, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #158100
Republicans all pretend to hate sex.

You ever seen Shrub or Rove or Frist in high-def? There’s no pretending here, having sex with a repugnantcan is revolting and should be hated.

=)

Posted by: Taylor at June 15, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #158278

Duano,

Why yes, yes you do. You can’t help it, it’s in your nature. A true Republican whac-o, can not resist takeing two things out of context, twisting them around, and useing them for a weapon to strike back.

WELL DONE.

The last comment was not ment to be part of the rule book, but was rather a “think-bubble” by the commentator. Or perhaps a “think-bubble” by the fearless leader, as he rallied his troops into action. Of course it was implied or though, but not ment to be spoken.

Posted by: PlayNice at June 16, 2006 2:49 AM
Comment #158300

Classical Liberal, you should probably e-mail the Watchblog manager about your posting problem. I think they block your post if it contains too many links in an effort to prevent spam. So if you have more than five links in your comment; you might be able to post it if you remove some of the links and post them on a seperate comment.

Posted by: Warren P at June 16, 2006 7:47 AM
Comment #232343

I think that PlayNice might be mentally retarded.

“3: You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are safe, and that only criminals get shot. (“Johnny, put that AKA-47 down, you know it’s my huntin’ rifle. That’s the 3rd time this week, that you’ve tried to shot your little brother in the head!”).”

Obviously PlayNice should never have/own a gun. Any one with half a brain knows that most of the gun crimes commited are done with unregistered illegal guns, Typical of criminals since they cannot pass background checks to legally obtain a gun.. So, If they can get a gun illegally now, well then obviously they will be able to get a gun even if guns were banned. A gun ban or anything of the sort only affects people that obey the law. A gun ban is an incredibly stupid idea, because then criminals know that nobody else has a gun.. Here is some intereting info for ya

Posted by: Chuck at September 9, 2007 2:27 AM
Post a comment