OCinBuffalo

I expect you to understand that taking 130 years of data and trying to tell me that "it's all man-made" is exactly as dopey as trying to tell me that he world is only 6000 years old. I expect you to stop treating this like a religion, and realize that there is a hell of a lot of significance when the pope of your religion goes out and blatantly blasphemes. I don't know about crazy, because I can be pretty crazy at times , but he might be as smart. The difference is: I don't have to make money off of idiots.

hehe, as a real agent of change, I face up to all kinds of supposed experts and their supposed truths on a daily basis. Way more often than not, their position is based on their own convenience, and not what is best for their company. These scientists have been caught playing games with their data. If this was such an obvious thing, there would be no need for them to do this. But, they did. So please, spare us the "infallibility" of scientists who are simply trying to get another grant check by puffing up the "threat". Funding for science is a 0 sum game. Scientists have to compete for funds, and clearly they guy with a big horror story beats the guy who wants to study frogs or whatever. So, are you referring to the IPPC "mountain of evidence" that turned out to be based on newspaper articles and a thesis of an undergrad, or, are you talking about the now proven false hockey stick nonsense? Sorry but none of this has flown over my head. It's more like: it got stuck on my boots when I stepped in it.

So the planet is only 130 years old? Gee and I thought the religious people were nuts for saying it's only 6k years old. And, none of this answers how in the world ALGORE can spend $9 million in an area that he himself predicted to be under water in a relatively short period of time.

hehe. And let this be a warning to you all!

Ahh, inevitably, when the house of cards starts to fall, they turn on themselves. conner if I was you, I'd send ALGORE, inc. a bill. You have been carrying all the water for them and not making a dime. You are entitled to some of the big $$$ these guys have scammed off investors and the government. Or, are you in fact getting paid to spread this hysteria?

Granted. But hey, you are an investment guy. What if a client came to you with this, wanted to spend $9 million of the money you helped them make, and you believed in this myth?

Link So what exactly is he doing buying "oceanview" property....if the sea level is supposed to rise 5 feet in 5 years(or whatever doomsday prediction they have been selling)? My other question: wtf is he doing with that many fireplaces, bathrooms, etc. Certainly he isn't concerned about saving water, or his (BS)"carbon footprint"(BS). So, given this fact, it appears Al Gore figures this is the end of the scam, cashed in his $$$, and is now moving on. I wonder, what will it take for the dipschits here and elsewhere who have been religiously following this BS, to do the same?

Got love it when they argue themselves into a circle.

And they also think global warming is undoubtedly real....as Al Gore buys $9 million worth of beach front property: So I guess the water level rising in 5 years isn't a concern now is it, Al? How much you wanna bet they will come up with some lame story as to why their hero is doing something that directly contradicts their beliefs? The religious right is more flexible in its religious beliefs than they are in their fairy tale beliefs. But riddle me this: we already know they are going to vote for (insert Liberal Wizard here), regardless of what happens to the kingdom. How does this help to get the independent voters who don't believe they live in fairy land? It doesn't. And that's my point: all this does for independents is make them say "Yeah, yeah, we've heard it before", or, "hey stop picking on this woman and her family". It simply doesn't convince reasonable independents of anything, other than these liberals are in fact obsessive lunatics.

uhh, as if these: aren't examples of things for the right to say "we are right"? They don't have to "cling" very hard. We are awash in things that can be used to call Obama supporters idiots. Clinging? You have it backwards! The "things that are wrong" are clinging to us! If only we could wipe all you clinging dingleberries away....oh, that's right...November is coming!

My question is: wtf is the point of the book he is writing? I understand observing a Vice Presidential candidate...sort of. But wtf insight does he possibly hope to gain on Palin's political policies...by observing her back yard? Seems stupid to me. In fact, now that the cat is out of the bag, I wouldn't be surprised if this book gets canceled. Is this all about doing National Enquirer stuff? Who the f cares about that? It's all been done. And again, let's say this goes the way this dirtbag intends. All it's going to really accomplish is to further immunize Palin to this garbage journalism. Like I said, we've heard it all before. Before Cigargate, we all basically stopped caring that Clinton f'ed around. It was old news. This "get Palin" thing is only going to help her. But, given the stupidity we have seen from the left in the last 4 years, it's not surprising that they are doing things that produce the exact opposite of the results that were intended, again.

Jesus. F'ing. Christ. Dude, executive compensation? Really? GM's payroll for its assembly plant people is 8.7 billion a year. All it's salaried positions combined don't even add up to 2 billion. Right so let's make changes to the 20%, and ignore the 80%, that's sure to fix GM's labor cost problems. Joe: it helps to have actual #s that back up what you are saying. This guy asked for truth, not distortion and political BS. Yep, right out of the book...those of you who are historically, factually, or educationally challenged...please take note -> this is how you set up premises properly. It also helps when they are true. 1. Yes it does. But this is the key... 2. Efficiency of the process largely depends on the skill set of your labor force. The real difference is: India and China have lots and lots of people, but most are poorly educated. So what kinds of processes are they good at? "Brute Force" or the breaking down of a process to its most simplest parts and then assigning that massive amount of tasks over massive amounts of low-paid labor. Anybody who is familiar with Microsoft Tech Support has seen this in action But in all seriousness, we can't beat China/India/etc. at their game. They have too many people and their standard of living expectations are simply too low. So, you don't fight their battle on their ground. That's how we lose. Get it? Labor unions/manufacturing people are you hearing me? Wake the f up. Instead, we leverage our strengths. Yes our workers are better and yes they are more educated. So, we make our workers operate at a higher level, overseeing multiple processes. Becuase we will need less workers, we can afford to pay them middle class wages. The added benefit of less workers is: less management. You keep your R/D and applied people and even hire more if necessary, so that they can keep improving the processes. If the goal is to keep manufacturing here, then this is what needs to happen, like it or not. The problem is: labor unions make their $$$ on # of workers, not on quality....which is the exact opposite of how they were intended to operate when they were founded. Labor unions will have to get back to their roots or they have to be removed from the equation. When all is said and done, we will be able to produce competitive manufactured goods here, if we use our heads. If we keep trying to pretend its the 50-60's and the rest of the world's factories are still f'ed up from WWII, we are screwed. It's time for REAL change that we can really see working, never mind believe in. It's also time to get the 80-year-olds off the boards of the Empire Zones in NYS, but that is another story. Which was an outcome of Foreign Aid/Cold War thinking. The idea was that if we built up the rest of the world's economy, the less likely they would be to turn to Communism, and, the less likely they would be to attack their neighbors. And, it worked as designed. The difference is now: that time is over, and we have to have new solutions for our time.

Nah, I just got in the habit a long time ago. One of the firms I worked for had a real d-bag VP of Sales. I had 0 respect for this guy, so, every time he called me, and especially on conference calls I would just get naked. The thinking being 'you can yell all you want, but I am still naked!' I just got used to it.

Hey! Just because I don't have any clothes on most of the day doesn't mean I ain't working! You're just jealous! Besides, I clearly get a hell of a lot more done at home than I ever did at an office, never mind all the wasted time dicking around with driving/parking/train etc.

In both interviews he specifically stated that "there is no moral equivalency". So he's not comparing them directly, as in Obama = Stalin because both killed 25 million of their own people. What he is saying, and it happens to be true, is that the current Agenda Obama/Pelosi/Reid are running is a direct threat to our way of life. So much so, that the threat is on par with what would have happened to our way of life had we not beaten Hitler, Stalin, Mao. We had to fight wars to beat the ideologies these 3 men espoused: all socialist, all godless, all totalitarian, all government-controlled economic policy, and all anti-freedom. What exactly about the current Obama etc. agenda isn't: socialist, godless, totalitarian, government-controlled economic policy, and anti-freedom? I can surely give you many examples for each. Or how about you show me one policy that is based on giving people more freedom to decide how they want to live their own lives, or, one policy that isn't based on taking more money from the people, or, one policy that isn't based on spending more money than we have. Thank God, this time around all we have to do to defeat the same old bad ideas? Vote. November can't get here fast enough.

True. But, I usually can get a quick sense of where things really are based on the reactions of these extremists to each issue. Also, I pay attention to specific pundits and usually ignore others. No doubt about this. And, Krauthammer is awesome. Goofy, but awesome. I am in the same boat as to not understanding why I like him. In fact, he recently got "promoted" to having his own segment on O'Reilly. It's interesting, because he is one of the very few people that O'Reilly won't interrupt to keep things moving. On the Dem side, Juan Williams, Beckel, the Temple law professor guy, and the Democrat version of Laura Ingraham...the chick from Alaska(no, not that one) are all useful to me. On the right, I actually like Dick Morris and Karl Rove because of their sincerity, they think what they think and that's it. They aren't trying to be purposely contentious or controversial...unlike a certain long legged blond.

Nope. If you add up all of the market share of the others, Fox always has at least more, if not double the market share. Dude, Red Eye at 3am is beating Keith Olbermann at 8pm. Think of it that way. Maybe but they do things the exact opposite way: they started with the talent and then got the money. Talent is the cause, not the effect. This is clearly the case when it comes to their straight news reporters as well as their hosts. Or, think of it this way: should CNN have hired Bill O'Reilly? Straight business logic says: hell yeah, especially given his ratings with Inside Edition. A-hole ideology(um, Ted Turner) says no. Good business logic always wins. Ideology always walks. How about this: if MSNBC had the opportunity to hire O'Reilly tomorrow, would they?

I think Fox does well because: 1. It is interesting and well done by clearly talented people. 2. It has the support of the right and most independents. So # 2 is a distant second. What I have observed is Fox does Fox, and everybody else is trying a lame impression of Fox but using an intentional, ridiculous left-wing bias and not letting the other side have its say. And, B word all you want but Fox's lineup has the best talent. No question. In terms of pure interviewing skills, and starting with the facts of an issue, its a blowout. And, the talent doesn't end with the host, the research departments/straight news reporters at FOX = no contest. On a side note, I also think the FOX straight news people are given the freedom to report the news as they see fit. No way that is the case with the others. Fox puts left wing people on all the time, MSNBC/CNN hardly ever does, and, if they do, they shout them down. Fox does the exact opposite. They want the left to say what they think so that they can crush them later when they are inevitably wrong. You can whine all you want, but the left is given every opportunity, and in fact, many on the left are employed by Fox and show up on a consistent basis. How many real conservatives are employed by CNN/MSNNBC/NY Times? This is why Fox is winning: they have the balls to put people on who disagree, and aren't afraid to take a beating when they are wrong. This makes it: interesting. In contrast, the MSNBC/CNN talent won't consistently debate real conservatives live, and won't ever admit they were wrong about anything....and they have been consistently wrong for what? 5 years now? Nothing interesting about that = low ratings.

Wait a sec.... "Keith Olbermann has the left, Bill O'Reilly has the right"? That makes it sound like they are = , and that is not even close to being the case. More like: "Keith Olbermann has Connecticut, and O'Reilly has the rest of the USA and 30 other countries". And, please, by all means, let Spitzer be on TV. We seem to have forgotten Jimmy Carter, so... We need more daily reminders of why we shouldn't let the far-left be in charge of things. Who are finer examples of failure than John Corzine, Elliot Spitzer and their respective legislatures? How did NJ/NY get where they are today? Who was in charge for a hell of a lot longer than Patterson?

And what if he is? It's amazing to me that these idiots don't see how simple this all is. Well, I suppose I shouldn't expect much from the people that gave us the Health Care debacle, and in the media's case: miserably failed to do their jobs, again. Has the media been right about the Tea Party, on anything? Fools: The Tea Party feeds on your idiot criticism. The more that idiots, and especially the media, unfairly criticize them, the larger their numbers and support grows. You are accomplishing the exact opposite of what you intend by attacking them. Is that really such a difficult concept to understand? Who keeps the Tea Party at the top of the news each day? The Tea Party? or the unfair, and often ridiculous, criticisms by the usual suspects? How does giving the Tea Party the lead story every day marginalize them? How irrelevant can the Tea Party be made to look if you won't stop talking about them? How much credibility does the media have right now? 0 How much do they empower the Tea Party every time they attack them? 1000 I really can't believe that this many people on the left are this stupid....but, then again...Health Care, Stimulus, Trying to tell us terrorist attacks by islamic fascists are....not..... I suppose the evidence is mounting that they are in fact this stupid.

Here's what I think I know based on reading a bunch of articles from different sources and all sides: 1. This guy was a career intelligence officer who didn't pull punches. Basically a straight shooter with little interest in shaping what he said to suit his listener's ideology. 2. This guy was in a position that was poorly defined by Bush, and continues to be poorly defined. He had of the responsibility and nowhere near enough authority. The only way you can be successful in this role is to not be the guy defined by #1. 3. This guy repeatedly and again recently went out and told this administration they were idiots, what had to be done instead of what they were doing, no excuses, and was often telling the truth. 4. This guy had an ongoing fight with the CIA guy, Panetta(um, career politician), and kept losing because Obama kept taking Panetta's side. 5. The reason why #4 kept happening is that the career intelligence officer, who is doing his job, was telling this administration things it didn't want to hear, politically. 6. This administration feels that the Justice Department and FBI should be in charge of intelligence, rather than the intelligence community being in charge of intelligence. It's the same old song: terrorism as a law enforcement issue instead of the war that it truly is. What's it going to take for these people to understand that we are fighting a global war against an evil ideology? 7. Ultimately, this guy was making his boss look bad, which is not acceptable in any organization. Right or wrong, you aren't more important than the team, and the boss is the boss. There are ways to handle all of this, and not end up holding the bag if people don't listen to you. This guy chose none of them, and ended up getting fired. In the final analysis this guy ended up being Dead Right. He's right, but he's still dead. And, why the hell is a career politician in charge of the CIA? Or, what's the best way to marginalize the CIA? Answer: put a career politician in charge. So...finally, literally everything has been politicized in this Administration. Every single one of you who said "Bush Lied" or "Bush only looked for intelligence to support invading Iraq", can officially blow it our your azz, because for all your phony moral superiority, your guy is actually doing the very thing you accused Bush of doing. Tell me if you will feel safer with a yes man informing the President what he needs to attend to in the war on terror, provided his advice is politically congruent. Which means of course: that the war on terror isn't a war at all, and, that these Islamic Nazis aren't evil, they just have a different point of view.

The Dems have been rooting against us in both wars for the entire time we have been fighting them. (And before you whine: "The war is lost" -Harry Reid, so shut it) Hell the ACLU has come awfully close to treason on multiple occasions. Why then is anyone shocked by a standing O when somebody says America Bad? The only difference between now and then is that Bush isn't around anymore, so they have lost their Hate America focal point. So...it's back to Hate America instead of Hate Bush. The problem is: they don't seem to understand the consequences of America hating them back. But by all means Democrats, keep feeding the Tea Party fire. Hell, why don't you really go for it! Fire all the intelligence professionals and replace them with political operatives! In fact, let's find a young community organizer and make him/her the National Intelligence Director...since...that plan worked so well with the Presidency.

So one fact being true means we get to ignore all the others that are just as true? Funny the same exact bad thinking drove the Health Care debacle, the Stimulus, hey pretty much everything this Administration and the idiots in Congress have done since 2006. How is this myopic approach working? We have all heard of selective memory. This is selective perception. You honestly can't see the difference between Tea Party Republicans and establishment R's? There's another description for selective perception: f'ing nuts. Or, to quote Rahm Emmanuel: f'ing retarded.

Hey, you are being honest with us, and more importantly, yourself. There's nothing wrong with that, and in fact it's quite admirable. So far the only thing I see as being "historic" with this President is...the Democrats have given away their #1 issue: the economy, stupid. All of the work Bill Clinton did, and all of the good will he built up in terms of Democrats being more trusted on the economy is now at best marginalized. At worst, nobody is going to trust these idiots to run anything again for a very long time, and why should they? I can't believe that they would just give this issue away, I have to keep reminding myself this is how far we have come. Is there anybody at the DNC that realizes how bad they are getting screwed? It's perhaps the biggest choke in history. How could we have gone from 2008 to here? Simple: This Presidency has politicized everything, and in doing so, has created the biggest backlash in history. Obama has done the exact opposite of what he promised: common sense driving an all out effort to clean up DC and get real results. No, instead we have: proven retarded ideology and fantasy(Global Warming) not driving any clear objectives, paying off DC insiders and special interests thus killing all the motivation and goodwill that was how this turd got elected, and therefore, no chance of results. Since 2006 Democrats have been telling us that we have to elect them asap so they can get to work solving the country's problems. They have done exactly 0 of that, and in most cases, made things worse. Either they don't understand the problems, aren't capable of solving them, or simply lied to get elected. Take your pick.

Cool! I suppose now's a good time to make some orders. Figure....what? 20 years lead time? Ok. But, then again, I am still waiting for the flying car I was promised at the World's Fair. Hurry the f up already. In any case, I wonder: 1. If you get replacement parts, does that count as losing a % of your soul? 2. If your discarded parts have a % of your soul...do they go to heaven/hell? 3. If so, can we expect heaven/hell to soon be overrun by recently detached...organs? Or, little _ricks?