OCinBuffalo

First of all: Welcome to the board Next: Welcome to the standard OCin(wherever I am at the time) logic/fact based beating Don't worry, you aren't special, I am an equal opportunity hazer of both the left and the right. Wait a second, giggle....Are you sure you want to start out your first post, ever, referencing this nutjob? This is who you want us to think of when we think "progressive"? Really? Buddy, I am certain that there are other progressives on this board who might even be posting as I write that McKinney is NOT the progressive poster-girl. She got run out of Congress because that's what we do when crazy gets elected....same thing we will be doing to Pelosi in 2010, same thing that happened to McCarthy...etc. Uhhh.....dare I say, conspiracy wingnut? Take this with the McKinney thing, and yeah right out of the gate, this post isn't going so well for you. Kucinich single-handedly bankrupted the City of Cleveland. That alone screams "make fun of me". He is completely in the pocket of George Soros and a few other extremely wealthy benefactors in Cleveland, whose sole purpose in keeping him elected is that he will literally say whatever they tell him. He is a live action puppet. The first real breakthrough in organic androids, George hands him the money and says "tell them that 9/11 was a setup"...and lo and behold Dennis3000 says it. And that's not even the funny part(that's the sad part): "We're asking our countries' leaders to understand that the world is undivided. We're asking our countries' leaders to see the world as an interconnected whole. We're asking our countries' leaders to take a holistic view of the world and to allow the globe, the sphere of the Earth herself, to exist free from an assault from space" This is what he says when he is allowed to speak on his own.....so...it's a safe bet that this is the reason nobody cares that he is force fed what to say by Soros, etc. The fact that he intermingled Soros' "one world government" concept with what I can only assume is something right of out Scientology is....not supposed to be hysterical? We are NOT supposed to make fun of this guy? Why the hell not? You gonna add Hillary Clinton to that count? She, along with at least half of the House Dems currently identify themselves as progressive. So, either they are and you are wrong, or, you are calling them liars. Which is it? Remember I said LOGIC.....there are only 2 logical possibilities here. Pick one. I have asked once and I will ask again: what progress? and progress towards what, exactly? This is what pisses me off. You never tell us what the f you want to progress towards, or, how you even define progress, so that we can measure it along the way. And, how will we know when we have achieved progress, if you never tell us what it is we are striving for? Seems to me that all we ever hear is some contrarian, socialist, or, anti-capitalist mantra....and problem definition(over and over and over = bitching), but never a stated goal, up front and honest. Everything is an abstraction or telling us that things are bad. None of that even comes close to defining, planning for, or achieving anything, and again, does nothing to support your claim to the word "progress" as a way of defining your views. Right now, from where I sit, you are closer to "eternal bitchive" than "progressive". Yes, and while I can see your point, I can also see the following: if I am driving down the 190...I can follow the same old path to get home...or, today, I can move in a new direction....and turn into oncoming traffic. Lord knows I hate dealing with the idiots on my current direction....but I become the idiot if I move in a new one. And, this is another example of what I am talking about: abstractions like "new direction". Define that please. This is the "Scientology-Speak" that makes me suspicious of your kind. Asking me if I want to "move in a new direction" is like when they ask "do you sometimes feel stressed" or "do you sometimes whistle for no reason"? Yeah, but so what? I also like to whistle when I am taking a leak at the bar, where I went to relieve some stress, jackass. Without any context or meaning behind the words "move", "new" or "direction" or how they fit together, we have no f'ing clue what you are talking about, and you sound like you are full of crap. And, this goes back to: how is that new direction defined in terms of TANGIBLE PROGRESS, there Mr/Mrs/Miss Progressive? And....people welfare only ever helps the people who didn't earn the money they receive....so....the welfare that your heroes were unsuccessful in sustaining is good, for people, but, bad, when its used for corporations, that employ...10s of thousands, of people? Right. Don't get me wrong...I think ALL welfare is bad. It's just that my hypocrisy alarm went off when I am reading a post that has Dennis Kucinich, welfare, and corporations in it. Jesus, you could write speeches for the very people you claim to dislike. There is nothing, NOTHING in the above that has any real meaning whatsoever. You might as well have written "I like stuff that's cool, and I hate stuff that sucks". What goals? What about them is "similar"? Accountable for what? Based on what standards? How? What are they representing? Whose ideas? Mine? How? And, again, how can any of this be synthesized and/or quantified to demonstrate REAL progress? As I said, take your pick between self identified Progressive in Congress or you. One of you is lying. Which one is it? If they are in fact progressives as they say they are, then yes, they are at fault...if they are lying what does that mean for real progressives....and what progress are you going to make in making sure people don't use your name? Sure, and you can show your good faith in that effort by immediately insisting that all labor unions be banned from contributing money to political campaigns....or, is that too "progressive" for your tastes? As soon as you get that done, I will get right to work on not allowing the health care software/device companies spend big $$$ and get a President elected who promises to spend $650 billion dollars on their worthless products/services.

Hysterical....yeah...you mean like what the Democrats did with the ENTIRE IRAQ WAR thingy? Let's see: Harry Reid: "The war is lost" John Murtha: The whole Marines ruthlessly murdering civilians thingy John Kerry: Playing politics with funding for our troops in the field "I voted for it before I voted against it" Do you even have any kind of shame conner? Any kind of ability to objectively reason? You and your kind started this bottom feeding crap, and now you dare cry about it when the tables get turned? Laughable idiocy. Sorry, you made this bed, and now you are going to have to sleep in it. Now, that we all see just how phony your "team" has been all along, nobody gives a crap about your whining that the Republicans are making you take your own medicine. (I am sure I can get another euphemism in here someplace ) The ONLY positive that is going to come out of this already has: 1. the realization by a clear majority of Americans, that you are just as completely full of schit, if not more so, as the Republicans were, 2. that it will be impossible to stop that sentiment from tossing your party out on its ass in 2010, 3. at the very least, the far-left in your party can kiss their jackass agenda goodbye, thank God 4. dare I say, we all get to learn the Jimmie Carter lesson one more time: don't let the far-left be in charge of anything, ever = they will ALWAYS f it up, and then they spend the next 20 years trying to blame everybody else Hopefully, rational Americans who realize that it is the economic strength of this country first, that makes all the rest even possible, form a coalition government and get rid of all "wingers" and their jackass agendas. If that coalition forms a "party" of sorts that puts country first, party/BS/special interests second if at all, then maybe we have a shot at turning things around.

....so Bill, this surprises you how exactly? How many times have we heard "it's everybody else's fault but ours" from the Democrats? In the last year? In the last 2 years? How about in the last 10 years? That's right, blame the pollster, who is consistently accurate, for the low poll numbers. Here's one I am sure you will especially enjoy: "It's not the criminal's fault that he committed a gun crime, or propagation of the asswipe culture that values having a gat tucked into you boxers so that you can 'be a man'...but then, shoot poorly, miss, and kill innocent people, nah, it's the gun manufacturers and the NRA'a fault" While we are at it: It's not the 100k far-left people's fault, who voted for Nader instead of Gore in Florida, that Bush won with less than 500 votes, it's the media/Bush lawyers/evil Dick Cheney/Haliburton. Coming soon: It's not Obama's fault that he is repeating the same depression-prolonging mistakes made by FDR, listening to the fools that just won't let Keynsian concepts drift off, finally, to where bad economic theory goes to die, nah, it's 2010 and it's STILL Bush's fault.....so let's spend more money we don't have.

We had to elect a new congress in 2006 because soooo many things were soooo wrong...and if we didn't act immediately, and let the progressives take over control of our government, there would be irrevocable consequences for the country..... :lol: .....now that we are all done laughing, and in many cases, crying...um the economy, idiots....is this how you define progress?....is this what you were going to save us from? That was the the premise for Democrats taking over Congress in 2006. Spare us the BS. That was it. So again, I ask, if you are going to use the word "progressive" to define yourself....and thereby lay political claim to the word "progress"...unless you are an unhinged jackass, shouldn't you be able to point to consistent cases where your ideas have shown progress? How about your candidates? Shouldn't you be able to point to their activity and say "see there's clear and consistent progress defined"? Again, words have meaning. If you are going to represent yourself as "for progress" doesn't that mean you get to take credit when it occurs, and, hold yourself accountable when it doesn't? So, once again, I ask any and all progressives: Where the f is the progress since 2006? What exactly did we get for putting "progressives" in charge of Congress? (Just like I didn't blame Bush for 9/11 because IMO he was barely in the job, I can't blame Obama....yet.) And, just like last time, and I am making it even more obvious this time, you don't get to blame other people when you have complete control of the government, so lets focus on the people that we "had to elect immediately in 2006". Where's the "progress"?

Realistically, Obama made the promise that his very existence would bring full transparency to DC. That's what he got himself elected by saying. There's no "yeah, buts" now. Of course it was utter BS when he said it, and, of course fools lapped it up instead of....realistically....saying "wait a minute, this guy is ALREADY IN Washington, DC...so HOW is he going to make the opaque processes he is currently participating in suddenly transparent? By coming flying back to DC on a different plane?" Realistically, its a little lame to try and blame other people when you screw up sooooo badly. And, realistically, no way in hell Obama is going to let Rahm Emanuel and the rest of his little barking dogs operate in front of a camera....not because they would be intimidating...because please...intimidating? Hardly. Rather, because they are so clearly hapless when it comes to understanding how business/the economy in general works. Having the cameras on hand would be like taking Economics 110 from home, but doing it with Horshack(70's), Kelly Bundy(80's), Tommy Boy(90's) in the classroom.

Holy crap!...look at all the fish you caught! Those fishing shows have nothing on you. You should change the title of this thread to : "Stupidest Catch" No spoiler here....I'm betting there will be at least 2 more pages of "yes of course you are a bad person"

Hmmm...why does he keep bringing this up? This is the third thread now that he has talked about ignoring me...if you are ignoring...why would you keep talking about it? Ahhh...this is interesting....when he ignored me, it was because I directly challenged him on his understanding of methodology For the uninitiated, deploying "Workflow" itself is done using a methodology, and highly dependent on the design and implementation methodology of the OLTP system you choose to employ. Workflow is basically defined as a system that studies users' use, mistaken or correct, speed, etc., of a system, projected against a set of business rules, producing events/reports/data for analytical use. Its main purpose is to provide management with real time information on where the users "are"(training, ability, exception management) in their use of system as a function of where they are in the completion of a business process compared against expectation(time/some other standard). These systems are not Workflow systems. Who's the amateur again? In fact, misuse of the word Workflow(and other well defined IT constructs, concepts and systems) is RAMPANT in health care software and among the J.V. people that work at these companies. And, this tool just did it right in front of you. I warned him not to play the "intellectual", and this is why. Also, these systems are almost guaranteed NOT to have REAL workflow components or systems in place. These systems are transactional in nature, strictly defined as OLTP systems, and do the business of recording completion of the business process, not tracking the active use of the users. Yes amateur hour indeed. Laughable. And this is supposed to be what this guy does for a living? These are the people that have created the awful health care systems that my group has to fix/rip out/integrate over/encapsulate/slowly deprecate every day... And they dare ask the Feds for more money to build systems they themselves don't even know how to define, much less design properly? These amateurs have no business in my business. So, no wonders coward-boy has me on ignore. He knew I would take his ass to the wood shed on these issues, just as I have here. Ignore is his lame attempt to avoid that beating. He is fond of making light of me being a Fortune 500 project manager(ex...I run my own outfit now). Well, this is what happens when J.V. Gene goes up against the Varsity. And to think, if he hadn't brought it up over and over, I wouldn't have noticed....

What's so surprising? Liberals gave away an undeserved award to her husband, why do you expect them not to feel compelled affirmative action their way into giving a similarly undeserved award to her? If nothing else, for the symmetry of the BS? I mean come on, she is the female partner of the President....(because I am sure they will be doing away with "First Lady" soon enough).

You mean how like how the Democrats who started "MoveOn.org" wanted to Move On from Bill Clinton's stupidity? No, sorry, like I said above, this was never about Gay Rights or common decency or people minding their own business or religion or Donald's wife turning into gay pumpkin if Bob and Steve get married. The far left got caught up in the arrogance(= audacity) of their agenda(= hope), the far-right saw it coming and beat them at their own game, soundly.(44 states with anti-gay marriage laws is a beating, period) Now, the far left is trying to act like the loser of a fight the day after...and deny, deny, deny, talk about how it wasn't fair, how evil the other guy is, deny, deny, deny. Look at this thread: half of it is devoted to people working out the solution that almost all can agree with. If the far left was REALLY concerned about Gay Rights, they could have easily worked out something similar, if not the same, as what John Adams, GG, Chef Jim, etc. have been proposing here. Then they could have sold it in the media, and it would be an easy sell, as demonstrated by this thread, as long as "real" marriage was respected and left unscathed. 6 months of that, and you have 85% approval of the idea, the laws get passed and we all, for once, get to feel good about coming together on something and working it out. Instead, the low lifes decided that they were gonna intimidate/sue/attack/name call into getting their way, and the American people, who especially hate being told what to do by the weakest in this country, told them to shove it. Unfortunately, instead of of the idiots who played this game and lost paying for it, gays nationwide have. If I was gay, I wouldn't be very happy with the people supposedly representing me right now. You cannot legislate normality any more than you can legislate morality. Laws are one thing, morals are another. What is "normal" for you is based solely on your perception. Both sides are confounded by the reality that no matter what, "normal" means something different to each individual person. However, we can all agree on how to define traditional marriage, hence, we can make laws about it. We can never agree on what defines "alternative" marriage, so equity cannot be established, and therefore, laws that define it become impossible to create PROPERLY. Just like you cannot legislate normality, and morality, you cannot enforce economic equality. Why? Because after birth, human beings stop being equal, period. One person will always have more ability than another, and for REAL progress to occur, the person with more ability has to be allowed to use it for his/her own personal gain. The rest of us almost always benefit from that as well. Louis Pasteur didn't die a poor man, did he? Stifling that, and trying to make one set of people do all the work for another set of people, is always a bad idea and will lead to big trouble...in fact didn't you have a Revolution over this in France? I believe the people who thought it was a good idea to sit around telling themselves they were "entitled", while others did all the work, got their heads chopped off, didn't they?

....and with Copenhagen coming up? What does that mean? White Flag #1: The professor in England has stepped down pending investigation. White Flag #2: The famous "hockey stick" professor at Penn State is under investigation. White Flag #3: The main stream media is trying like hell to not report this story....but they are headed straight into Acorn pimp/hooker video land all over again. They are certainly not doing anything to discredit the story. If there was anything fishy about these emails, they would be all over it. The fact that they aren't is a pretty darn good indicator of its accuracy. White Flag #4: I am still dumbfounded that ALGORE, inc., and the rest of his ilk haven't attempted to tell us that the emails were doctored. In fact, that angle died the day after the story came out. I have to think its because, for once, somebody got to these people before they opened their mouths and explained that, in the IT world, you don't doctor what you hack. Every hacker wants credit for the hack itself, and doctoring what you hack only serves to call the hack into question. White Flag #5: Along the lines of #4, Barbara Boxer lamely tried to make the story about catching the hackers, instead of dealing with the emails themselves. Talking about arresting the hackers acknowledges that what they stole was valuable info, and therefore, accurate. White Flag #6: The polls indicate that support for drastic measures such as cap and trade is dwindling. In fact, the economy has moved ahead of environmental concerns for the first time in years. So I wonder: 1. What is it about these emails that everyone has stopped questioning their authenticity? So quickly? Besides the obvious: data in the headers, which could easily be faked, something has made it clear to all that these emails are legit. You don't launch investigations based on possible doctored info...unless your name is Dan Rather. 2. It seems like all of this is veeeeery convenient for the skeptical crowd. I wonder if there is something to that? 3. It seems no one expected much out of the meetings in Copehagen to begin with...now, the meetings seem like a complete waste of time. Especially when you consider the fact that the #1 polluter in the world is China, and #2 soon to be India, who want big $$$ from us to "fix" their pollution issues. Is there any point in talking about anything with anyone until the data from these scientists can be reviewed?

....and while that may be true...it certainly doesn't get McKinley off the hook here. I don't believe Obama is a bigot anymore than I believe the all of the religious right have their head on straight when it comes to the concept of compassion. But if we are going to use McKinley's retarded standard, and judge everyone by it as he is doing here, then we must include everyone who is on record as against gay marriage as "bigoted", including Obama. It's flat out indecent, and has no place in a rational discussion of the issue. This nonsense cannot be tolerated, never mind accepted.

Then you really must hate our bigoted, religious President. He's against gay marriage, he's religious, and now according to you, a bigot as well. While we are at it, you must also dislike our bigoted Secretary of State, her husband, and all the Democrats and Republicans that voted for the Defense of Marriage act, or all the state legislators, and all the private citizens who voted against it in referendums...yes, religious bigots all.... ....or maybe, you should watch your mouth. You want to throw that name around at people, you better realize that you are calling way more than half the country bigots. Just a friendly head's up. You may find yourself face down in a puddle of your own piss if you apply that name to the wrong person in real life as you so casually seem to apply it here. This is another fine example of what happens when the anti-religious start telling is that they are now in charge of morality.....instant hypocrisy and unintended consequences galore.

I have one that is not based on anything other than logic: P1. Gays can't control who the are attracted to, and whether causes that attraction is chemical, genetic, whatever. P2. The Constitution, in its current form, says/or at least implies, that we cannot pass one set of laws for one genetic group, and another set for another. Therefore, we must conclude that gay marriage cannot be legislated against, and, that traditional marriage cannot be made law if it excludes gays. That would be all well and good if that was how the world really was, but it's not. In fact: P1. It is true that some...most...whatever....gays say they can't control who they are attracted to P2. Bisexual people exist, and, if gays cannot control how their attraction works, then bisexual people have every right to claim the same thing. While we are at it, all sorts of bisexual relationships exist, with each person involved able to lay claims as defined in P1, or, we run into problems with P3. P3. The equal protection and civil rights amendments of the Constitution, etc. How can we pass laws for gay people, AND, part-time gay people, at the same time? Consider:a bisexual person says they want to be married to a gay person, but then decides to marry someone of the opposite sex as well. By definition, you cannot restrict the bisexual person's rights to marry two people, because they are using the same logic that was used to allow homosexual marriage = they can't control who they are attracted to, and therefore protected under P3. IF they claim to love and wish to be with 2 people in lasting marital bliss, and this is something that they, same as is defined for gays in P1, cannot control, then you can't move the goal posts on them just because they aren't 100% gay or straight. Now, we have two civil unions/marriages/whatever. Lets's say Adam is married to Steve, and married to Eve. If Steve wants a divorce, he gets some of Adam's stuff. However, that is not fair to Eve, since she also has an equal claim to some of Adam's stuff. This arrangement is not equitable in any way and therefore cannot be legal. If this arrangement cannot be legal, then, by definition, neither can gay marriage, or traditional marriage, because it denies as set of legal protections to one "genetic" group(s) and gives them to another. We are not going to remove/modify the concepts of traditional marriage any time soon, and, "alternative" marriage simply cannot be strictly defined the same as traditional marriage can be, therefore, legally impossible to codify. And there's my legitimate counter argument. Unless, all three of them were to enter into a partnership together....but is that marriage? Regardless, if a marriage/union, whatever...any contract is not equitable, both coming in, and going out, then it is not binding, and therefore, worthless.

But this is the entire friggin reason they are doing this. Let's examine how we got here, shall we: 1. Far-left people decided they were gonna stick it to the far right. 2. So, they start out passing laws or, more likely, filing lawsuits, in liberal dominated states like Massachusetts and California that say it's ok for Steve to Marry Adam 3. The religious center and the far right counter, rally a groundswell of support, partly because of the matter itself, mostly because of the manner in which it was handled. 4. 40+ states pass anti-gay marriage laws, all the referendums defeat gay marriage, and now, even NYS says no. First of all, if I were gay, and interested in marriage, I'd be pissed right now. I went from: having a chance at one day getting married, to, no chance at all...but why? 1. Far-left people decided they were gonna stick it to the far right. You say that we are arguing over a word, and you come up with a perfectly rational/legal way to deal with this entire issue, yet it won't be adopted by anyone on the pro-gay marriage side. Why? 1. Far-left people decided they were gonna stick it to the far right. Alaska Darrin, etc. deride every "round the bend" Christian that shows up on this board, and that sentiment is shared by many, including myself, that there simply is no rational reason to deny anybody equal rights under the law....however, at the same time, in vote after vote, people choose the anti-gay marriage side, Why? Because we all know that this issue started with: 1. Far-left people decided they were gonna stick it to the far right. Just like on this board, the far left are going to do whatever they want and call you names if you don't agree with them. In fact, HOW DARE you disagree with them. They have laid claim to all morality, and since they deny religion, they are the sole arbiters of right and wrong and therefore disagreeing with them makes you immoral.... Ultimately, even if we generally agree with some form of civil union for gay people, we hate far-left people trying to push their out-of-control PC agenda on us far more. You said: by insisting on calling their unions marriage, gay groups are heading straight into the teeth of religious opposition. Yes, because this was never about simply allowing gays to marry, this was always about: 1. Far-left people decided they were gonna stick it to the far right.

I totally disagree.

Also, let's take the opportunity right here and right now to dispel the myth that indulging in the black taco means you cannot go back to other color tacos. If anything, all indulging in the black taco does is ensure further interest in tacos of all colors, which of course widens the array of tacos that are desirable, leading to significant increase in taco indulgence in general....and increased taco indulgence is a good thing for everybody. Of course, the capping and trading of tacos is not desirable for anyone. Capping taco indulgence only makes those who have tacos want more, and this either leads them to do strange and annoying things in order to indulge in that taco more, or, go out and look for others' tacos. Meanwhile, those who don't have tacos do strange and annoying things to try to get tacos. Thus capping taco indulgence only leads to the unintentional consequence of creating even higher demand for tacos. Trading tacos is undesirable, especially while one is in the middle of indulgence...usually. While it may seem attractive to have more than one taco, ultimately too many tacos leads to exponential problems. This is due to tacos always having problems with each other on some level or another, and this tension will ultimately lead to capping of taco indulgence, so its best to keep tacos away from each other. Typically one taco presents more than enough problems to deal with for most taco enthusiasts. Synthetic tacos have been tried but never seem to be as satisfying to the true taco connoisseur, and few would be comfortable trading their real taco for a synthetic. Ultimately, there is no substitute for tacos...although some seem to feel differently, and that is a whole other thing....

That's what.

So wait a minute...last time it was "Lincoln would be a Democrat", now it's Reagan? Yeah...the guy who basically told all the intelligentsia who "knew better" to blow it out their asses, and proceeded to play hardball with the Soviet Union? He would be a Democrat today. Right. The guy didn't bow to anyone, especially not the US Congress, and went ahead and funded anti-communists in Central/South America in spite of them...but he would be a Democrat today. Right. Wait a minute, are we talking TODAY's Democrat, or 1960's, or 1980's Democrat? JFK would not be a Democrat by today's standards. Not even close. The bottom line: How many Americans want to us to leave Afghanistan, want the kind of health care "reform" currently being proposed, and want us to close Gitmo/want terrorists imprisoned here in this country? Answer: 22%. 22% of our people agree with these ideas and identify as Democrats. Last I checked only having 22% support gets your ass kicked in an election. But, we have somebody trying to tell us that the Republicans, not the Democrats, have serious party division problems? Example: Tell me that both of you(Steely, Hedd) support all 3 of the above measures....if you don't, then you can't call yourself a Democrat anymore...according to the people running your party. I think the point you are missing, is that however much the Republicans may be squeezing out their party...the Democrats are doing it twice as much, over the last few years, and especially in the last year. IF this wasn't the case, then health care, cap and tax and all the rest of of the douchebaggery would have sailed through Congress in a few months. But it didn't, it isn't, and it won't. Why? Because Republicans have party division problems? Next time you decide to post what you see on MSNBC...remember that while those people are lemmings, not all of them are dumb lemmings. No, the smart ones see the cliff coming. The only way to avoid dealing with the fact that the cliff is coming, is to try and invent/exaggerate problems for somebody else, and talk about them. So, yeah, now instead of acknowledging that there is a serious chance that their party is about go off the rails, the effects of which may last for 20 years, they are trying to talk about something, anything, else. Today, it happens to be "Reagan would be a Democrat"

Those of us that have indulged know that there is nothing wrong with a black taco.

You REALLY don't get it do you? This whole thing is a specious attempt at defending the lazy-ass, "lets get to mediocre" culture that is so prevalent in the countries you listed and is a direct result of their socialism-oriented policies. Wise up: these guys are extremely insecure when it comes to comparing themselves to us...for good reason, we beat the hell out of them all the time. This insecurity means that they will say anything to prove that they "are just as good, or even better!" than us. So....they make up these phony "measures" and wrap themselves in a "yeah but, we get to take 8 weeks of vacation a year" security blanket. They can't win using the standard economic measures, so they make up new ones. I will never forget walking into my first Canadian client, and, having said nothing other than "Hi, I'm here to see Bob" was treated to a lecture from the receptionist on why Canada is better than America because they get to go to Cuba. The points others have made above are exactly on target. If you had ever lived and worked in any of these countries, like I have, you would know, and rapidly grow bored with, their incessant need to make everything about why they are just as good as Americans. The insecurity becomes blatantly obvious at the pub. If they find out you are an American, you literally can't go out for a quiet beer, without somebody trying to draw you into a political/economic debate, that will only end on a friendly note if you validate them in some form or another. My favorite is: I like Rugby...or Hockey if in Canada.

Is it me?...or is this entire article a lame attempt at damage control by saying: 1. Because there is so many emails on the server, let's spread some FUD about the authenticity of anything that comes out. 2. This was by people whose only intent was to discredit Global Warming 3. Nothing about the actual story: these emails raise doubts at least, and are flat out incriminating at worst, about whether these scientists are doing their jobs properly. IF you were a reporter, wouldn't you want to get your hands on what the emails actually said? Isn't that the story? IF your editor was interested in selling papers/air time, wouldn't he be printing/showing those emails as sensationally as possible? It has been reported that the hacker's initial intent had nothing to do with global warming. Why nothing about that? Somebody want to take a stab at telling me why this whole article shouldn't be looked at as damage control?

Since there is sooooo much fondness of science on this board, let's apply a well know scientific precept, Occam's Razor, to this shall we? (For those that aren't familiar, google it biotches) 1. The earth appears to be cooling instead of warming, yet we have been told the opposite is the case. What is the more simple explanation? a. The scientists/activists/politicians involved lied/and continue to lie to further a political agenda b. Man now holds more power than the Sun. In fact, Man via layer upon layer of "cause and effect", and not the Sun or the entire ocean's salinity levels, is responsible for Global Warming(that actually isn't happening). 2. The entire Global Warming theory centers on clouds behaving a certain way. Said clouds aren't exhibiting the behavior necessary for this theory to be supported. What is the more simple explanation? a. The scientists/activists/politicians involved lied/and continue to lie to further a political agenda b. Our understanding of these clouds is completely wrong in every aspect. Basically we need to start all over again, because we must not be able to properly measure these clouds, since of course they ARE in fact showing the behavior the Global Warming theory describes. 3. Amazingly, the support for Global Warming among peoples of the world directly correlates to how much benefit they will gain from proposed actions. What is the more simple explanation? a. These people are using a BIG LIE, just like religion has been used, to further their own self-interests and greed, knowing full well that they cannot compete if the playing field is level. Instead, they make up phony "moral imperative", and thereby get to claim "justice" as they see our economy stifled, and theirs improved. b. Truly these are the "children of Gaia", and they have been full-blooded environmentalists their whole lives. Of course they can show that they have been thinking green since they were in highschool...and not simply the minute that they realized Global Warming = $$$. Of course they can all document fully their "earth first" positions since high school/college. They haven't been spending any time pursuing "alternative" economic models or fighting for wealth redistribution in any way. No this has only ever been about the environment. I will leave it to you all to decide. Careful though...if you choose "a" to any of those, you are going to be told that you believe in conspiracy theories.

Perhaps conner, in his apparent infinite wisdom, can explain how this is happening, with Democrats controlling the House, Senate, and White House. I mean really, how, exactly, are Republicans holding "things" up.

Awesome. Now I can continue ripping you a new one unhindered. You have offered nothing to support your position, once again. Your only avenue has been to "take all my toys and go home". So, now you are 0-23. EDIT: And Carl Sagan, yes the very guy you quoted to begin this thread, is the source of the Scientific Method criticism I have deployed here. In fact, he was using this criticism as a means to question other scientists. So all along your hero, and not me, is the one who you are arguing against....but of course, you will probably ignore that as well. More evidence that liberals and atheists and in no way intellectually superior to anyone.