There's your so-called experience folk's, 3 month's after the Fact that Barrack had already outlined the same. # month's after the fact, The world as we know it, could be gone. Is that the kind of Leadership we need in our next President, I Think NOT ?

A Taxpayer; I agree that we have the ability to combat global warming.  We have the best research facilities, the best researchers, the best industrial base.  If we take the lead in this area the rest of the world will buy these developments from us and we can even make a profit.  In fact it's such a great idea it was a centerpiece of Al Gore's presidential campaign.  So why aren't we doing it?

Hey, Van

When is Hillary going to release her earmarks from the Senate?? Obama already has. I see no leadership at all from your BFF Hillary. Awwwww... is she hiding something??

stardate spetember 11 2001 dead or alive stardate october 12 2007 468 days left

I think what freaks the conservatives out, what they can't figure out, is our motivation.  Why would anyone be motivated by anything but personal gain, or simple revenge?  They have always been the "what's in it for me?" crowd, right?  The "I've got mine, get your own and keep off my ground!" folks. So they try to spin this to ask how much money is Al making off of this global warming thing.  They also want to make it about how the liberals hate business, hate America and are determined to drag it down with regulations.  They don't get that we simply want to help the planet and ALL the people on it, not just the ones who already have it good (us).  I am truly sorry for you if that is such an alien motivation. I really pity you if you can't see further than your interests and your family's and friend's.  Peace to you, and hopefully, spiritual evolution.  The world needs it.

I agree with Braveheart......Gore/Obama, will lead us in the right direction. I hope that happens.

It curious that since Reagan Republicans have been against public education, universal hlthcare and environmental protection. It is simple: 1) keep the masses stupid; 2)keep the middle class sick and eventually die off,3) keep corporate polluters happy and wlthy.    

Susan,Nebraska welcome back! Good post.

Anyone else see the article about the hurricane forecast being substantially wrong for the third year in a row? The article is from Reuters and is entitled "Atlantic hurricane season puzzles experts".

These are scientists who are not able to accurately predict one year out and we're supposed to accept as gospel, on the word of Brother Al's Travelling Climate Salvation Show (my apologies to Neil Diamond), the predictions and models that extend 30, 50 or 100 years?

The term of my skepticism is hereby extended.

Sierra:
I agree that most endorsements mean nothing, but the Al Gore endorsement carries a lot of weight (even if he has taken off some of his own tonnage).  There is the emotional content of guilt that haunts Dems and Indys who may have voted for Bush as a result of the Clinton/Monica thing and those that voted for Bush because they bought into the 'wooden Al' concept and 'who would you rather have a beer with?' thing. Also the fact that many (including my self) feel that the 2000 election was stolen from Gore, may lend him a certain martyr status.  In addition, a lot of Nader voters who helped to defeat the most environmentally friendly candidate of a major party since TR, may feel that Gore has earned the right for their support and will support his endorsee - although I admit they will have to work through Obama's position on nuclear (thank God we can finally eliminate the word 'nucular' from the American lexicon) energy and how it is to be researched and only used when the waste problem is solved.  Finally, I think that Gore has achieved a status of greatness and relevence, even a position of moral authority, that is really quite remarkable.  Unlike other endorsements, Gore's will be a consolidating force that will help Obama to emerge as the anti-Clinton candidate.  

Van:  
I agree with your link that Hillary does not vote in lock-step with corporate interests.  However, her poisonous associations (most importantly, her pollster) may result in decisions that are contrary to the interests of middle class and working people (as I feel that it was with NAFTA; it's careless implementation has resulted in a waterfall effect of liquidity and jobs from this country).  The Clintons have had a long history of accepting donations from questionable sources (not unlike many candidates) and I'm looking for a candidate who is more selective in his/her associations.

As to her vote for authorization of force in 2002: when I read your quotes it seems as if she was trying to have it both ways.  She voted to side with the president's request for authorization of force but yet advised caution.  She claims that she intended the authorization only as a tool to help enforce the president's negotiating power with the Saddam and the UN.  However as Chris Matthews points out in his 'street-wise' eloquence, (and I paraphrase) when a robber asks to borrow a car and promises you that he won't use it to rob the store, do you believe him?  Van, all of America, knew that this president planned to go to war.  I remember that I knew it at the time.  And in addition, I knew that Saddam had nothing to do with the Saudi/Qaeda terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.  If I knew it, I'm sure that Hillary did.  And if Senators like Jack Reed (a military guy) voted against the authorization because the NIE (a report on which Hillary claims that she was well briefed) cast serious doubt on the presence of WMD, I can only assume that if her vote did not represent political posturing then it was indicative of awfully bad judgment.  The nay vote on the Levin amendment was only not self-destructive to Congressional authority (ceding war making power to a president who lacked credentials for judgment and trust) but it was a disavowal of basic Constitutional principles.  I won't even go into the Lieberman/Kyl resolution and its implications.

Man what a mess!  I can't see how I could, in good conscience, vote for HRC in the general, even as the lesser of two evils.  I hate the idea of third party candidates,  but I may be forced into that position if she is the nominee and if that were the case, I could only hope that a third party would ensure that the Democrats would increase their majorities in the House and Senate (something that I don't think Hillary, as the nominee, can do).  

Anyway, contrary to your excellent representation of the national polls, I think that Iowa is up for grabs, that as Howard Fineman wrote in Newsweek on 10/2, the race in NH is very fluid (confirming my 'inside information' - he reports that only 17% of voters in the Granite state have made up their minds) and that South Carolina will depend on how the black electorate perceives Obama's electability.  Man, I hope that I'm right.
Obama '08

Doug, San Diego: Are you promoting religion?

I'm a conservative and a Republican and I would bet that my lifestyle is more environment-friendly than Al Gore's.

But thanks for your pity anyway.  With stereotypical yahoos like you around, I am deserving of it.

Doug, San Diego, excellent post.  I think you make some excellent points.  A while back my politically conservative brother told me of an eye opening revelation he had.  In terms of environmental issues he suddenly realized that the world would go on, but nothing said our society as it exists now or even the continued survival of humans has to be a part of that.

<<...Peace to you, and hopefully, spiritual evolution.>>

Republicans don't believe in evolution.

Gore/Obama would be ideal, HP Kansas..we can dream, can't we?

Truly amazing that Gore has won the Nobel.  Most others earn the award through hard work and self sacrifice.  Gore has earned through self promotion along with Hollywood sponsorship.  He has also benefited from his propaganda financially. The committee that has selected Gore should be embarrassed for themselves and their award.  The award has been greatly diminished, and the previous winners of the award (Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, on and on) should feel slighted.

first read,quotes from dylan thomas and william shakespere are censored.

PJ, they are making the world a better place by borrowing more money than they can pay, waving the flag and being armchair warriors who switch the channel when they see anything which makes them uncomofortable.


Van, your wide-eyed support of Hillary masked by your "informational posts" is not much different than James Dobson's treatise's on Jesus' teachings.  Both of you believe your interpretations are true but neither of you get the point of what was actually being said.


To Richard in Washington, the definition of a charlatan is a confidence man who is trying to gain monetary or other advantage by false pretense.  This can't be Al Gore.  Probably 75-80% of scientists, not paid by energy companies, believe global warming is  serious problem.  So, what Al Gore has said cannot be false pretense.  However, going into Iraq under false pretenses to enrich a part of the private sector with strong Republican Party ties sounds more the work of a charlatan to me.  Raising money or else "being called to heaven," the whole Jim and Tammy Faye fiasco, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, and a whole host of others are more charlatans than Al Gore.  At least, Al has some scientific evidence to back up his belief.

"Gore & the IPCC that's perfect. Many of the scientists involved in the IPCC project sued to have their names removed from the report. WTG AL!!
Dave, Tn (Sent Friday, October 12, 2007 11:03 AM)"

Dave,

They sued to have their names taken off the report because key scientific items were removed at the request of the Bush administration.  By the time our diplomats got done censoring the report it stopped being science and was quickly being a political football that reputable scientists didn't want to be associated with.

Maybe try doing some research before spouting your mouth off.

BTW this is exactly why Hillary is getting refered to as "bulletproof".  It's not that Americans will forgive a Clinton anything.  It's that people like you have spent the last 16 years screaming your heads off at every little thing you think might somehow be vaguely bad about the Clintons and so much of it has turned out to be complete BS that no one is willing to listen to your or any other Rethug's latest hysteronics.  

Folks like Dave, Jerry, IntheMiddle, and every other right wing nut job have helped pave the way for a Clinton Presidency.  Heck of a job, guys...

Richard, Washington State  [[These are scientists who are not able to accurately predict one year out and we're supposed to accept as gospel, on the word of Brother Al's Travelling Climate Salvation Show (my apologies to Neil Diamond), the predictions and models that extend 30, 50 or 100 years? ]]


The scientists were wrong about global warming, too. It's happening much FASTER than they had feared it would. The north polar ice cap is melting leading to a squabble between northenr nations over the resources and ship routes  its retreat has made accessible.  The subtropical climate zones and their species have moved northward at a much faster rate than expected, pushing some northern species of plants and animals to the brink of extinction. And some island nations in the Pacific are threatened with inundation by the rising sea level.

The vast quantities of hot air that far-right gasbags are expelling over Al Gore getting a well-deserved Nobel Prize only add to the global warming problem.

Richard, Washington State  [[These are scientists who are not able to accurately predict one year out and we're supposed to accept as gospel, on the word of Brother Al's Travelling Climate Salvation Show (my apologies to Neil Diamond), the predictions and models that extend 30, 50 or 100 years? ]]


The scientists were wrong about global warming, too. It's happening much FASTER than they had feared it would. The north polar ice cap is melting leading to a squabble between northenr nations over the resources and ship routes  its retreat has made accessible.  The subtropical climate zones and their species have moved northward at a much faster rate than expected, pushing some northern species of plants and animals to the brink of extinction. And some island nations in the Pacific are threatened with inundation by the rising sea level.

The vast quantities of hot air that far-right gasbags are expelling over Al Gore getting a well-deserved Nobel Prize only add to the global warming problem.

On Gore:

The Nobel Prize is quite an accomplishment and is well-deserved.

Gore shares the prize with the IPCC. That body will use its share of the money for keeping that panel in the black. Gore will donate his to the Alliance for Climate Protection. That money will go to help keep that group in the black.

Remember, we're not talking about the Bush gang here, who are not above board in their private dealings.

I really don't expect him to run for President anymore. He's had his time in the political scene in DC and I'm sure he's not that pleased to jump into the muck once again. However, we'll see...

On Clinton:

Hillary is a formidible opponent and has one thing that may set her apart from all the other Dem candidates... she can win. The Clinton political machine is strong and will not take mud slung at them, sitting down. They may not sling it themselves since Kerry set that precedent, but they will surely defend themselves to the end.

While I may favor John Edwards, who is a much better candidate than many realize, he is also in a spot where he is coming from behind. (The same with Obama, who is someone I like very much, but I feel it is not his time just yet. This campaign is his time to get the experience in the whole process and become more of a household name. If he loses, he will run again and again and will someday win.)

Hillary is more prepared to lead this country than any other candidate on either side. If Rudi wins the GOP nomination, it will be the toughest battle, but Hillary will prevail since no one can challenge her toughness on terrorists and get away with it. With Hillary in the Dem seat, Rudi will not be able to use the "Patriot" card for his actions during 9/11.

Next stop: the primaries. The Dem squabbles with New Hampshire demanding to be #1, even at the insistence of the other states eliminating their primaries, is quite ridiculous and very petty. The DNC needs to allow any state to have their primaries whenever they wish, as long as it is not before a specific date (and that date should not be the NH primary date or timeframe).

Finally, remember the Dems like to argue amongst themselves. When it comes time to back their candidate, they/we all jump in with both hands and feet.

Chuck, Chris, and the peons' crush on Hillary Clinton is really cute - NOT.  How surprising that 6 of 8 sections of this post mention Sen. Clinton  in one way or another.  

The more I read First Read, the more <a href="http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/dewey_defeats_truman1.jpg">this image</a> pops into my head.  

Union Leader

Clinton can parse her decision any way she wants, but the obvious truth is that she made a calculated choice to break her word for political advantage. She's a Clinton, so few will be surprised by that. But voters will want to remember that decision. If she'll break her word to participate in a virtually meaningless primary, what won't she break her word for?
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=36993ac7-40a6-40d1-a96a-55253123b1a1&headline=Clinton%27s+%27is%27+moment%3a+Who+cares+what+words+mean%3f

Nick, Ohio:  

What don't we know about Bush and Cheney's private dealings?  As public officials they are obligated to disclose their personal financial position.  The information is available to you or any other private citizen.  You will even find that Hillary Clinton is worth more than either of them.  I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt that her private dealings are above board.

A few facts, please, not a simplistic statement of what you would like to believe.

And please, no Halliburton, no Harken, no Texas Rangers or any of the other things that are also public knowledge and as such completely above board whether you like anything about these particular examples of old news.

Bill Clinton was no more straightforward than Hillary and in possession of no fewer evasive positions than Hillary.  In fact, he is universally admired by Democrats for being a master politician, which entails evasiveness and keeping options open.

He was just so much better at it than Hillary.

So what's the problem with Hillary's position on the war and on Iran?  If you look closely, there is a lot of nuance there.

 

Chris Malley [[Truly amazing that Gore has won the Nobel.  Most others earn the award through hard work and self sacrifice.  Gore has earned through self promotion along with Hollywood sponsorship.]]

I just KNEW that the rightwingnuts would quickly work themselves into a frenzy of hate over Al Gore getting a Nobel Prize. Gore has had the courage to stand up for the "inconvenient truth"  for decades despite the vicious attacks from the inconvenienced corporate liars, such as  G. H. W. Bush (aka "Poppy"), who ridiculed Gore as "Ozone man" back in 1992.

And among Poppy's many other sins, he spawned the current abominatuon occupying in the White House who, in his turn, has tried to intimidate and silence scientists warning the public about the politically incorrect facts of global warming. The rotten apple doesn't fall far from the blighted tree.

Another happy hate day to all-------never ends does it---congratulations Al Gore---go to hell to you jealous little neocons(Bush wackies)

Robert Catalano:  I am in complete agreement with one of your statements:

"the whole Jim and Tammy Faye fiasco, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, and a whole host of others are more charlatans than Al Gore."

I also think that among charlatans, Michael Moore is a more accomplished charlatan than Al Gore. You can measure that in the career box office totals.  

I agree that it's just a matter of degree.

He REG:

I disagree with everything you said.

Houston:

You're right, we were just waiting.  When the ridiculous occurs, people have opinions.  What's the problem?

Most liberals and Al Gore afficionados constantly beat the drum that global warming is an undisputed fact.  Actually, it is because I do trust thermometers.  These afficionados go much further though and take models, predictions and other dubious conclusions as gospel.  Therefore, your contention is usually that everyone but a few idiots agree with Al Gore.  With such overwhelming support, how courageous does Al Gore have to be?  

You guys usually associate courage with the skeptic.  But I guess being a skeptic in this case comes with a different set of rules, huh?

Ronnie was teflon coated
Bill was bullet proof
I propose since she is riding high in the polls that:
Hillary is unsinkable

Domenico said "Imagine the level of grief Clinton would have gotten if she had re-recorded a five-year-old speech in order to give the campaign better audio for use in paid advertising?"

I am imagining zero. What is your point?  Reaching for something?

Richard from Washington State wrote, "I'm a conservative and a Republican and I would bet that my lifestyle is more environment-friendly than Al Gore's."

I'll bet your lifestyle is also more environment-friendly that Bush's is too. It's also more environment-friendly than Cheney's. Why are you still a Republican and not an Independent?

http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/dewey_defeats_truman1.jpg

Houston - the only one here that seems to be having a conniption fit is you.  Al Gore is nothing more then a front for ecological propagandists.  He had 8 years as the #2 man in the executive branch, and did a lot more with fundraising for the Democrats then he ever did for the environment.  The man was a phony then, and is a phony now.  Running around saying the climate is changing it about as effective as Chicken Little saying the sky is falling.  News flash, the climate is always changing.  And, to say that the climate is changing is one thing, but it is a little phony to say you know why, and even more phony when you say you know how to fix it. Gore would be slightly more convincing if rather then talking the talk, that he'd walk the walk, and show the world that he can be example for the "Green" lifestyle.  Instead, he looks a little, okay a lot, hypocritical with his lifestyle.

What Gore is very smart about is that he's tapped into something that seems to have made him immensely wealthy.  It takes a lot of lemmings to support the Gore's riches, and Houston, you appear to be one of them.

Richard, Washington State [[Most liberals and Al Gore afficionados constantly beat the drum that global warming is an undisputed fact.]]

Um, no. It's not "liberals," it's scientists who have determined that global warming is an indisputable fact. The climate is changing drastically. Al Gore's opinion is actually _optimistic_ compared to some scientists who've concluded that it's already too late to prevent a run-away greenhouse effect that will cause a global catastrophe.


[[Therefore, your contention is usually that everyone but a few idiots agree with Al Gore.]]

On this issue, that's pretty much the truth.

[[With such overwhelming support, how courageous does Al Gore have to be?]]

Duh, it was already pointed out that Gore was sounding an alarm about global warming when it was politically unpopular. Poppy Bush's stupid "Ozone man" insult. Remember that from a few posts up?

[[You guys usually associate courage with the skeptic.  But I guess being a skeptic in this case comes with a different set of rules, huh? ]]

Are you also "skeptical" that NASA really landed astronauts on the moon? Disbelief in defiance of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary is not skepticism; it's gullibility.

John B: We are not doing it because of the Democrat leadership in Congress. Ironic,is it not,that when they were on the outs,it was the duped Americans who placed them there that figured these to be the agents of ''change''that would bring new dawns of prosperity,ethics and a devotion to the reduction of global warming. Politics,however,demands more iron realities,as displayed in todays New York Times article,''Liberal Base Trying To Democrats''.
             Democrats,especially in the House,have withstood demands for greater fuel efficiency standards. Led by ''Tailpipe John''Dingall[D-Mi],rust belt and pro-union Democrats have hardened their stance against CAFE standards bowing to the UAW.[ of course,these emissions are a primary source of global warming]. It does not end there.
            Farm belt Democrats,Tom Harkin,[Ia]Kent Conrad [ND],Tim Johnson[SD-prior to hospitalization],who pushed this years massive Farm Bill,also allowed environmental standards to relax allowing everything from the chemicals used,to the unregulated storing and dispersal of livestock byproduct[also a global warming ingredient],to remain untouched.
 As Mr. Frequent Flyer AlGore will instantly tell you,nothing is being done on the front of more efficient jet and aircraft construction either. Again,Democrat deferrence to aircraft/airline workers unions plays a direct role in seeing that nothing gets done,despite airtravel having a major causual link to global warming.[and with the release of BOEINGS new monstrous jet,the 787].
         Perhaps the real tragedy of the Nobel Prize efforts is that they were so deffcient in grasping the nature of what ''peace''encompasses. They err in assuming that global conflict,divorced from religious and sectarian violence is propelled by global warming. This is a farce on its face. The true reality is that radical Islam works its desires by engaging in either direct or proxy wars,or ,as in the case of Africa,to acquire mineral and oil-rich territory.[If one wishes to see what a real ''war for oil''looks like,let them go to Nigeria].Todays Daily Telegraph [UK]''What Has Al Gore Done For Peace?'' misses the point. That he stands convicted of certain hypocrisy in his own lifestyle is a given. However,he is but one person who yet cannot determine the course of nations and worlds based upon belief systems,which inject themselves into the realms of hard science.[the idea that Manhattan will be under water in twenty years is absurd to the point of the ridiculous]. Even this aside,African strongmen,Burmese and Sri Lankan militarists,the Chinese,and of course the Islamic radicals could care less for Gores platitudes.
                   While Gore is feted in triumph upon his return to a Manhattan-socialite shindig with assorted Tinseltown fawners,press sychophants[keep an eye on these people and note their names. These are the members of the Fourth Estate that will be peddling their agitprop garbage that would make O'Reilly look like St. Augustine],UN diplomats and corduroy-jacket leftists cluttering up the place,people reaching for real peace in the world divorced from partisan mudslinging will continue their uproad battle for peace and the cessation of the degredation of human rights,ignored by Stockholm,and the world community. A few faces who are more deserving than ''Zinc mine''Albert A. Gore Jr.

Ayyan Hirsi Ali -Somalian feminist who has fought against worldwide ''honour killings'',beatings and sexual abuse,and genital mutilation of women and girls. She has been abandoned by her adopted nation,Holland,and is under a death threat fatwa issued by Islamic extremists.

The Rev. Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness- Paisley,a radical Protestant,and McGuinness,who was the leader for the Catholic IRAs political arm SINN FEIN,once sworn enemies,have not only cemented peace in Ireland,which is now enjoying the fruits of that peace with a higher standard of living,more jobs and a highly skilled tech sector,but have also moved beyond Irelands borders to instill the ideas that longtime enemies can achieve compromise and peace. This summer,both men met with Iraqi Shia and Sunni members in order to establish a peaceful understanding between the two warring sectarian groups. [We should point out here that the sectarian violence expected in Basra as a result of British withdrawl never came to fruition,nor did the press-touted Tet-style ''Ramadan Offensive''which idiots like the New York Times and leftists including KOS,TRUTHOUT,and William Pitts asserted with confidence only a month ago, and that Shias are beginning to abandon al Sadrs ''Medhi''Army in droves].

Akbar Ganji- Leading Iranian dissident and author-journalist who has worked since the Iranian Revolution for the democratization of his nation and the separation of the mosque from government. Nominally opposed to the Bush administrations war in Iraq, he is yet sounding the alarm on what a nuclearized Iran will mean for the peoples of the world.

Any of these would have whipped Big Al in spades for the work they and others are pulling hard for in the true ''Peace''Dept.[To be fair,Gore was a more palatable choice than the one that wrecked the reputation of the Nobel panel when they picked Arafat].

Peter, Pittsburgh, PA:  

Right on both counts, no question, but Bush and Cheney aren't preaching to me about it, so the comparison is irrelevant.  And I don't judge them, or Al Gore for that matter, on their lifestyles.  My comment regarding Al Gore is simply for political discussion.  Absent that, I don't much care about his lifestyle compared to mine either.

As to why I'm still a Republican and not an independent: From what seems to be an implicit assumption that being environmentally conscious is incompatible with being a Republican and a conservative, I would conclude that I'm being pretty independent already.

Since being an "Independent" politically shouldn't hinge on one issue, I'm more than happy to stay with what is otherwise 90% compatible with my personal political perspectives and beliefs.  I disagree with my wife on things at times, but I'm not going to leave her for another woman.

I consider myself environmentally informed and aware.  I don't consider that to be incompatible at all with being a conservative and a Republican.  I'm just very skeptical about environmentalism as I perceive it to be practiced by Al Gore, particularly on the global warming issue.

Yeah, on that note, I think I might actually be the independent here.

    watch the birds outside your window

Houston, you're just one big non-sequitur.  Poppy Bush's "Ozone Man" comment is your comeback along with name-calling? Well, you're predictable at least.

For the record, I don't dispute thermometers. Global temperatures are going up. Beyond that, I'm skeptical.  I still remember the scientists predicting the onset of another Ice-Age back in the 70's as I pursued my Environmental Studies/Biology degree.

I am still thrilled when I hear the words "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."  That little jab was really stupid.  I see purchasers of carbon credits as gullible, or worse, culpable.

Houston, I think it's you who has the problem.

Lee Holmes, what stopped the Republicans from doing something about the issue when they controlled the White House and both houses of Congress?  If Republicans have such respect for science why does the Administration expect nearly all scientific content to be edited by political appointees before distribution?  Why have government scientists been ordered to not talk to the press without prior approval, a change in practice from prior administrations?  So you found a handful of actions by Democrats that are of questionable environmental soundness, that pales in comparison to the guns blazing assault on science that's been mounted by the GOP.  I'm talking about everything from refusal to replace the retiring satellites that are used to monitor global warming to administratively rewriting the Endangered Species Act to suggesting that evolution is just some crackpot fantasy.

Lee Holmes [[Democrats,especially in the House,have withstood demands for greater fuel efficiency standards. Led by ''Tailpipe John''Dingall[D-Mi],rust belt and pro-union Democrats have hardened their stance against CAFE standards bowing to the UAW.[ of course,these emissions are a primary source of global warming]. ...]]

The Democrats are no prize as a group, but as the nation has found out to its profound regret, an imperfect Al Gore would have been a vastly preferrable to the nightmare of the Bush regime over the past 7 years.

[[The true reality is that radical Islam works its desires by engaging in either direct or proxy wars,or ,as in the case of Africa,to acquire mineral and oil-rich territory.[If one wishes to see what a real ''war for oil''looks like,let them go to Nigeria].]]

Yeah, forget about global warming and the melting ice caps. All of the world's problems are the fault of the "Islamofascists," except for the problems that are Bill Clinton's fault, of course. The Nigerian civil war, and the near-genocide in Darfur have nothing to do with an evil world-wide Islamist conspiracy; these wars are stricly local struggles over resources.

[[To be fair,Gore was a more palatable choice than the one that wrecked the reputation of the Nobel panel when they picked Arafat].]]

Gore was also a better choice for a Nobel than that war criminal Henry Kissinger. His "peace" agreement with the North Vietnamese proved to be meaningless and worse still, Kissinger was complicit in the coup that overthrew the democratically government and replaced it with a bestial fascist dictatorship. Yep, the Nobel committee has chosen some clunkers. But they obviously chose wisely when they awarded the prize to Gore.

Hey Richard: Washington State and any other Bush affectionates - I support your right to your opinion but have a hard time rationalizing that the following could possibly be wrong:  (from previous comments)

"Some may question whether there is a powerful group behind the Bush Presidency that ‘call the shots’ but anyone who saw George in that class room, ‘sucking his thumb’, after hearing that planes had crashed into the World Trade Towers and then saw him again after he had been given direction and coaching, they wouldn’t doubt it.  The same image change was played out again after hurricane Katrina hit.  George W. Bush has always struck me to be like a spoiled teenager who just hasn’t grown up.  When we were thirteen and fourteen years old we use to strut instead of walk like he does, we use to have that cocky smirk and in-your-face attitude as he does, we would smile at the wrong times as if saying ‘look at me, aren’t I something to see’ as he does and we had that same ‘chip on our shoulder’ but by sixteen or seventeen we had learned that it didn’t pay and that we weren’t really such hot stuff after all, we had matured.  I personally think that Dick Cheney, who I see as the liaison with and part of the decision making team, has more real power than George.  I compare George W. Bush to a gun that someone else loads and points and then he just goes around shooting.  Who really does the loading; who establishes the direction and makes the decisions?  I think I would start with a think-tank group like the Carlyle Group and then include those who are obviously greatly benefiting: Halliburton, the oil companies, James Baker, the defense contractors and maybe several others.  The real proof is seen in the Bush Administration’s total focus on a private agenda for benefiting Special Interests and a select few, who in return provide significant financial support, likely including deferred compensation for when out of office, and powerful backing to facilitate, influence, intimidate and manipulate, all while providing the average American only apathy, the costs, the problems and an abundance of subterfuge.  It helps them that several of their people (George W. Bush, Karl Rove,,) have strong sociopathic personalities which indicates they don’t have a conscience, they don’t experience guilt, they do/say whatever they think will help them, they are simply self-indulgent, they are dishonest without hesitation and they are simply without any real concern for others."

and

   "The gross dishonesty of the Bush administration, fully backed by the Republican Party, is totally offensive and then their arrogance just ‘adds insult to injury’.  Consider the following Bush administration’s positions (if you know the details, you know the boldness of the deception and then the arrogance in the repetition tells the real story): * tax cuts for the wealthy benefit the economy;  * warnings before ‘9/11’ weren’t specific enough; * attacking Iraq was justified; * our troops needed to find WMD and to get Iraqi prisoners to confess; * there is a real coalition sharing the costs and casualties in the Iraq War; * the Iraq War didn’t take away from the effort and focus on the War on Terror in Afghanistan; * the Iraq War has always been part of the War on Terror; * importing American drugs back into the USA is unsafe; * Global Warming wasn’t a problem; * ‘private accounts’ will solve the Social Security problems; * policies benefiting ‘big money’ and encouraging the exportation of American jobs and taxes doesn’t hurt the average worker; * the growing deficit and balance of trade deficit aren’t problems affecting the economy; * energy companies need government incentives and tax breaks even though they are making humongous profits; * there isn’t any fault with giving no-bid contracts and favored treatment to Halliburton, the defense contractors and others; * turning our port security over to Dubai Ports wouldn’t be a problem; * the administration had no part in the disclosure of the CIA agent's identity; * the squelching of the ‘wiretapping without a court order’ story in an election year was done for security and not political reasons; * the heightened warnings of terrorists attacks before our elections and then disappearing afterward, wasn’t using government to manipulate public opinion; * Homeland Security has achieved significant advances and hasn’t wasted tax payers money; * America is safer and not actually worse off today because of the Bush administration’s actions * the administration’s response after hurricane Katrina wasn’t just apathetic at best; * Iraq hasn’t generated into a civil war; * by next summer bringing home less than the number of troops sent over in the surge is a reduction; * the Iraqis are making progress and not just pursuing their sectarian and individual interests; * the Bush administration fairly represents all of us and is not just focused on a private agenda benefiting Special Interests and a select few who are significant Bush supporters and who provide overt and covert public opinion manipulation; * even considering all of these things and the necessary contradiction of a sociopathic personality, President Bush is strong on Christian values; * the loss of international prestige, the costs of nearly 4,000 Americans dead, 21,000+ injured and the estimate that a trillion dollars will be spent is really justified even when 190,000 weapons disappear, $4 million a day in Iraqi oil money is diverted, Iraqi police readily fire on American soldiers, Iraqis are fighting Iraqis,,;  * faulting the ‘moveon.org’ for their ‘General Betray-us’ ad wasn’t just the often used tactic of ‘aggressively attacking the critic to avoid answering the criticism’; * having the Bush sponsored seminar on Global Warming, with the agenda being to discuss concerns, then go home to think about everything and decide what you can do without anything being binding, is a responsible approach and not just camouflage for continuing to do nothing; * and on and on as these few items are only a small sampling."

Any way that more of the same could occur, literally scares me!

REG, I appreciate your posts.  You often say what I have trouble putting into words.  

REG: Thanks for supporting my right to my opinion, which hasn't changed.  

I can understand completely your difficulty in rationalizing that you could possibly be wrong, but keep practicing and it will eventually come to you.

I hope at least that you're cutting and pasting your rant, not retyping it every time and I completely respect your right to rant.

REG:
Superb post.  The only slight bone to pick is your reference to James Baker and corporatism in general.  There are, in fact, Republican patriots in this country, or at least those who consider this the worst administration in history.  Same goes for corporations.  Corporations want to make money and this administration has hurt our politico-economic standing around the world, making it tougher for most corporations to do business, although the few you mentioned have indeed hit the mother lode in the past 7 years.  
Corporations are not interested in buying candidates as much as not wanting to be left out.  That is why many hedge their presidential bets so carefully.  The Clintons are not owned by corporations, but global corporatism does indeed trust them more than anyone running now.  Another reason Gore will stay out. (and Hillary will win the whole shooting match)

One last point: Lee Holmes is the most intelligent, honest and articulate conservative poster here.  Don't often agree with him, but he always makes me think.
Kudos to both posters!

Richard, Washington State [[Houston, you're just one big non-sequitur.  Poppy Bush's "Ozone Man" comment is your comeback along with name-calling? Well, you're predictable at least.]]

Talk about nonsequiturs, the above seems to be meaningless nonsense babbled in a feeble attempt to avoid admitting that Gore had the courage to embrace environmentalism decades ago while Poppy and his wretched progeny sneered.

[[For the record, I don't dispute thermometers. Global temperatures are going up. Beyond that, I'm skeptical.  I still remember the scientists predicting the onset of another Ice-Age back in the 70's as I pursued my Environmental Studies/Biology degree. ]]

I think you're confusing contemporary Repub talking points with 1970's science. Whatever evidence existed for a possible cooling effect, there was NEVER the amount of alarm, nor of the overwhelming evidence forglobal cooling in the '70s as there is for global warming today. As a matter of fact, there IS a "global dimming" effect from pollution that blocks sunlight and has slowed down global warming. But not enough to save us.


[[I am still thrilled when I hear the words "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." ]]

Goody for you. But "skepticism" about global warming and the major role humans play in it is every bit as silly as skepticism about the moon landings.

[[That little jab was really stupid. ]]

What's stupid is to continue to deny that humans are responsible for the global warming that will certainly lead to global catastrophe if nothing is done about it just because you hate the fact that Al Gore is right and his enemies on the fringe right have been wrong. That's not just stupidity, it's dangerous stupidity.

Houston: It is all quite easy. When you and yours are vaporized in a suitcase nuke attack,you will not need to worry about ''melting ice caps''. Dunderheaded,is it not?,to put the cart before the horse. Further,you are historically defficient. Lay off the cheap Scotch. Kissinger had not a damned thing to do with installing North Vietnams Minh government OR South Vietnams Diem government. Read Houston,read. You forget that Islamic rebels are most certainly active in Nigeria and several other African nations and that this phenomenon is spreading.

John B: Ah,but you ignore the fact that Democrats sided with the GOP to trainwreck CAFE and agricultural enviro standards and are doing it now as the majority. Indeed, gaining the knowlage we already have thanks to Al and the UN scientists,greater in its scope,then WHY is there still stonewalling among the Democrat majority on this issue? All talk. No action. Is anyone really dumb enough to believe that an increased price of fossil fuels is going to keep global warming on the front burner when a gallon of milk goes for eight bucks a pop and unemployment rises to 8.5%?[or more]. Trust me on this one. It will not be algores financial ass in a sling over this one. But ordinary Americans who,like with Carter in 1979,will demand that he get with the program chop-chop,or be canned in the next election.

Houston: It is all quite easy. When you and yours are vaporized in a suitcase nuke attack,you will not need to worry about ''melting ice caps''. Dunderheaded,is it not?,to put the cart before the horse. Further,you are historically defficient. Lay off the cheap Scotch. Kissinger had not a damned thing to do with installing North Vietnams Minh government OR South Vietnams Diem dictatorship. Read Houston,read. You forget that Islamic rebels are most certainly active in Nigeria and several other African nations and that this phenomenon is spreading.

John B: Ah,but you ignore the fact that Democrats sided with the GOP to trainwreck CAFE and agricultural enviro standards and are doing it now as the majority. Indeed, gaining the knowlage we already have thanks to Al and the UN scientists,greater in its scope,then WHY is there still stonewalling among the Democrat majority on this issue? All talk. No action. Is anyone really dumb enough to believe that an increased price of fossil fuels is going to keep global warming on the front burner when a gallon of milk goes for eight bucks a pop and unemployment rises to 8.5%?[or more]. Trust me on this one. It will not be algores financial ass in a sling over this. But ordinary Americans who,like with Carter in 1979,will demand that he get with the program chop-chop,or be canned in the next election.

Hey, I've got an idea for the wingnuts who are besides themselves with rage because Gore won a Nobel Prize. Why don't you take it to the Supreme Court and get them to take the prize away from Gore and award it to Duhbya? After all, that's what they did with the presidency. The Nobel Prize would be a trivial theft in comparison to that.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):