Al Gore, a truly principled man

[Oxrock]

You know what IS 100% settled science? One day that life giving gaseous orb in the sky is going to expand and swallow the earth and there is nothing we can do about it.

[Juror#8]

Al Gore, you know the guy who cares about Climate Change, not for any sort of self-serving reasons, nooooo, but for principled reasons, sold his Current TV network to Al Jazeera, you know that network owned by the country of Qatar, one of the highest Oil/GDP ratios in the world, the country that is primarily funded off of that toxic sludgy product that pollutes the air. Yeah, he's a principled man, cares enough about his country to make sure to sell his company off to the air pollutant nation of Qatar right before he would get hit with the new fiscal cliff agreement.

 

A truly principled man.

 

 

Al Gore is an idiot and a hypocrite. For all his talk about energy conservation, his lifestyle belied his rhetoric.

 

Oh and by the way, Magox, since you're back, do you finally believe me when I said, in October, 2011, that the administration was not worried about a Romney candidacy?

 

You don't have to answer that.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Juror#8

[Magox]

c.

 

Oh and by the way, Magox, since you're back, do you finally believe me when I said, in October, 2011, that the administration was not worried about a Romney candidacy?

 

You don't have to answer that.

 

Yes, because your choice Newt Gingrich is the one they always feared.

[Juror#8]

Yes, because your choice Newt Gingrich is the one they always feared.

 

I'd LOVE to take credit for it, but it wasn't me who was thinking that. As I mentioned then, I heard that from people who have good reason to know, and who are reliable gazetteers on matters of democratic politics.

 

And sense Newt didn't win the nomination, and it's therefore impossible to prove a negative, my point still stands unchallenged. In fact, the election taught us that Mitt Romney - due to his lack of principle, passion, and sincerity - couldn't bring together a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and couldn't inspire a prositute to !@#$. Newt, an idea man and visionary on matters of political philosophy, could never be confused as "disingenuous," "lacking ideas," or "selectively conservative."

 

Maybe that's what the administration was worried about - an idea guy who could deconstruct progressive talking points at their ideological foundation, rather than someone who could parrot "manager," and "job creator" at any media type's beck and call.

 

You obstinately denied my points (and facts as it were), guided by your own dogma and mis-applied sense of political understanding.

 

It's ok to be wrong. But you don't get the same latitude if you're wrong twice. Next time, at least feign interest in information from folks who get paid to know more **** than you do about more **** than you. It may save you the indignity of being really wrong after-the-fact.

 

If nothing else, at least you get to say that you entertained a distinct thought.

 

Eh, but what the !@#$ do I know...I'm just getting information from speechwriters, lower tier advisors , and assistants to assistants. And you wouldn't have believed me anyway if I told you that I had an interesting 15 minute conversation with Bruce Reed back in early 2011 at Sonoma's about his take on the GOP field.

 

You wouldn't believe me if I told you about my old convos at Longworth.

 

Cause I'm just some pretentious !@#$ on an internet forum.

 

You'll learn...

Edited January 8, 2013 by Juror#8

[Magox]

I'd LOVE to take credit for it, but it wasn't me who was thinking that. As I mentioned then, I heard that from people who have good reason to know, and who are reliable gazetteers on matters of democratic politics.

 

And sense Newt didn't win the nomination, and it's therefore impossible to prove a negative, my point still stands unchallenged. In fact, the election taught us that Mitt Romney - due to his lack of principle, passion, and sincerity - couldn't bring together a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and couldn't inspire a prositute to !@#$. Newt, an idea man and visionary on matters of political philosophy, could never be confused as "disingenuous," "lacking ideas," or "selectively conservative."

 

Maybe that's what the administration was worried about - an idea guy who could deconstruct progressive talking points at their ideological foundation, rather than someone who could parrot "manager," and "job creator" at any media type's beck and call.

 

You obstinately denied my points (and facts as it were), guided by your own dogma and mis-applied sense of political understanding.

 

It's ok to be wrong. But you don't get the same latitude if you're wrong twice. Next time, at least feign interest in information from folks who get paid to know more **** than you do about more **** than you. It may save you the indignity of being really wrong after-the-fact.

 

If nothing else, at least you get to say that you entertained a distinct thought.

 

Eh, but what the !@#$ do I know...I'm just getting information from speechwriters, lower tier advisors , and assistants to assistants. And you wouldn't have believed me anyway if I told you that I had an interesting 15 minute conversation with Bruce Reed back in early 2011 at Sonoma's about his take on the GOP field.

 

You wouldn't believe me if I told you about my old convos at Longworth.

 

Cause I'm just some pretentious !@#$ on an internet forum.

 

So why try...

 

Pleaaaase

 

[Juror#8]

Pleaaaase

 

 

Exactly the response I would have expected from you.

 

Good ol' deflection and indirect denial.

[Magox]

 

Exactly the response I would have expected from you.

 

 

Then Why Bother?

 

I

[Juror#8]

Then Why Bother?

 

I

 

I want to help you in your road to recovery.

 

I'm your support group.

 

I'm paying it forward.

[Magox]

But I don't really care what pretentious blowhards have to say.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Magox

[Juror#8]

But I don't really care what pretentious blowhards those proven to be right have to say.

 

Shhhhhhhhhhhh baby....just rest.....

 

You're the worst kind of "ignorant."

[meazza]

Shhhhhhhhhhhh baby....just rest.....

 

You're the worst kind of "ignorant."

 

Umm, the fact that Romney lost doesn't necessarily prove you right...

[Magox]

Shhhhhhhhhhhh baby....just rest.....

 

You're the worst kind of "ignorant."

 

Again, we really don't care what you have to say.

 

And I can tell that last dig got to ya.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Magox

[Shoutbox]

I hate it when ideas are (implicitly or explicitly) attacked by going after the personalities of the ideas' proponents. Al Gore is no doubt a giant egotistical hypocritical douchebag. So what? Then don't listen to him lecture you on global warming. Instead, listen to the overwhelming majority of credible scientists at research universities throughout the world. Global warming is definitely happening, and it's very likely due primarily to human activity. It's way past time to have an intelligent debate among grown-ups about how to address the related problems of coastal city flooding, deforestation, overpopulation, natural disaster preparation, public transportation, etc...

[Magox]

I hate it when ideas are (implicitly or explicitly) attacked by going after the personalities of the ideas' proponents. Al Gore is no doubt a giant egotistical hypocritical douchebag. So what? Then don't listen to him lecture you on global warming. Instead, listen to the overwhelming majority of credible scientists at research universities throughout the world. Global warming is definitely happening, and it's very likely due primarily to human activity. It's way past time to have an intelligent debate among grown-ups about how to address the related problems of coastal city flooding, deforestation, overpopulation, natural disaster preparation, public transportation, etc...

 

 

I think I'd rather attack people's personalities. More fun

[3rdnlng]

The sky is falling!

 

 

 

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

 

 

 

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[meazza]

The sky is falling!

 

 

 

http://www.denisdutt...oling_world.htm

 

 

 

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

I always knew you were evil.

[KD in CA]

I hate it when ideas are (implicitly or explicitly) attacked by going after the personalities of the ideas' proponents. Al Gore is no doubt a giant egotistical hypocritical douchebag. So what? Then don't listen to him lecture you on global warming. Instead, listen to the overwhelming majority of credible scientists at research universities throughout the world. Global warming is definitely happening, and it's very likely due primarily to human activity. It's way past time to have an intelligent debate among grown-ups about how to address the related problems of coastal city flooding, deforestation, overpopulation, natural disaster preparation, public transportation, etc...

Every other contributing problem to global warming or cooling (or whatever the flavor of the decade is), goes back to overpopulation. Let me know when ANYONE is ready to have a serious conversation about that. Or maybe you can kick it off with your own ideas on that topic?

[3rdnlng]

I always knew you were evil.

 

Awwwww

Awwww.bmp

[TakeYouToTasker]

Every other contributing problem to global warming or cooling (or whatever the flavor of the decade is), goes back to overpopulation. Let me know when ANYONE is ready to have a serious conversation about that. Or maybe you can kick it off with your own ideas on that topic?

Any conversation should begin with the work of Robert Malthus.

[Juror#8]

Umm, the fact that Romney lost doesn't necessarily prove you right...

 

I tried to tell her over and over again that the Administration wasn't worried about Romney. He was convinced that they were they were quite afraid of Romney and that their candidacies, and the election, would bear that out.

 

I told her that I heard from some VERY connected folks that Romney was the candidate that they most wanted to face because they felt that he couldn't connect. I told her that they had a healthy skepticism about Cain and that Gingrich's philosophical conservatism was an enigma to them and they felt it might connect with voters who wanted more substance in politics.

 

I said this 14 months before the election because that is what people who work in politics were telling me.

 

Magox was convinced that his profound [mis]understanding of politics was more informed than folks who get paid to know this ****.

 

She was wrong.