0
   

Congrats Gore

 
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 10:26 am
Ramafuchs wrote:
"Like all Americans I have been wrestling with the question of what our country needs to do to defend itself from the kind of intense, focused and enabled hatred that brought about September 11th, and which at this moment must be presumed to be gathering force for yet another attack. I'm speaking today in an effort to recommend a specific course of action for our country which I believe would be preferable to the course recommended by President Bush. Specifically, I am deeply concerned that the policy we are presently following with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century.

To begin with, I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted. Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm


Yea, maybe he should have taken his own advise when he was in a position to do something about it.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 10:32 am
Compare the noble achievement of today's vice president
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 11:31 am
The glitter of the Nobel overshadows the inconvenient news reported last week that a British court of law labeled Gore's movie as partisan political propaganda, pointing out 11 different errors of fact or scientific judgment, and prohibiting its screening in British public schools without a disclaimer of these defects.

Source
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 11:53 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The glitter of the Nobel overshadows the inconvenient news reported last week that a British court of law labeled Gore's movie as partisan political propaganda, pointing out 11 different errors of fact or scientific judgment, and prohibiting its screening in British public schools without a disclaimer of these defects.


Nice try.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=105239
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 11:53 am
Ramafuchs wrote:
Compare the noble achievement of today's vice president


Let's compare Gore to John Adams then. He was a VP
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 12:01 pm
Gore is probably a socialist sympathizer. He may very well be an incrementalist as well.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 12:03 pm
and quite possibly (shudder) a poopity head...
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 12:13 pm
Mr Gore has been pushing them to do just that. The "former next president of the United States", as he calls himself, tried to get America to ratify the Kyoto protocol to control greenhouse-gas emissions while he was Bill Clinton's vice-president. Mr Clinton signed the protocol, but the Senate opposed the idea of America agreeing to a treaty that didn't include controls on developing-country emissions, so it was never ratified.

After an agonisingly tight finish in the 2000 election, which he lost by a few Floridian hanging chads, Mr Gore refused to disappear into the political wilderness. Instead, he prowled the country in the guise of an Old Testament prophet with audio-visual aids, warning of the dangers of climate change. His slick, entertaining presentation was eventually made into a film, "An Inconvenient Truth". That film, bizarrely for what was in effect a slide-show with lots of charts, did well at the box office and won two Oscars (although one was for a song).

Mr Gore has his detractors. His film is propaganda rather than documentary. A British judge this week ruled that it should not be shown to schoolchildren without a health warning, because there were several claims in it that were wrong: the ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica are not, for instance, expected to melt "in the near future", but in millennia. Nevertheless, America is now generally expected to accept in some form the controls on emissions that it rejected when it turned down Kyoto, and Mr Gore has been instrumental in getting it there.
http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9968899&top_story=1
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 01:04 pm
kickycan wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The glitter of the Nobel overshadows the inconvenient news reported last week that a British court of law labeled Gore's movie as partisan political propaganda, pointing out 11 different errors of fact or scientific judgment, and prohibiting its screening in British public schools without a disclaimer of these defects.


Nice try.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=105239


The statement isn't true?

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

There are many more.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 01:15 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

There are many more.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 01:53 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
kickycan wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The glitter of the Nobel overshadows the inconvenient news reported last week that a British court of law labeled Gore's movie as partisan political propaganda, pointing out 11 different errors of fact or scientific judgment, and prohibiting its screening in British public schools without a disclaimer of these defects.


Nice try.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=105239


The statement isn't true?



I'll agree that your statement is true if you agree that the article I linked to is true as well.

Spin, spin, spin.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 01:54 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

There are many more.


I don't wonder at all. It's called cherrypicking.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 01:57 pm
It was a more rhetorical thought. Actually, many comments in tomorrow's European papers are dealing with that.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 04:11 pm
kickycan wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
kickycan wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The glitter of the Nobel overshadows the inconvenient news reported last week that a British court of law labeled Gore's movie as partisan political propaganda, pointing out 11 different errors of fact or scientific judgment, and prohibiting its screening in British public schools without a disclaimer of these defects.


Nice try.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=105239


The statement isn't true?



I'll agree that your statement is true if you agree that the article I linked to is true as well.

Spin, spin, spin.


I will agree that there is a positive spin on the story. Look at the MSNBC headline.I won't agree the rest of the author's vitirolis true. The statement I posted is true, the article you linked is a screed.

The posted statement doesn't challenge the veracity of the premise of climate change or even the premise that humanity is a major (if not the major cause of it).

What it does point out is the Gore film (the primary reason he won the prize) is laden with errors and considered by at least one UK judge to be political propoganda.

If you BB or Walter would prefer to emphasize the fact that the judge also validated the two basic premises I indicated ---fine. The vast majority of news outlets that reported on this story emphasized the gist of the statement I posted. I guess they were cherry picking too --- but of course you and Walter are not. Smile
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 04:13 pm
Thousands of individual data points, hundreds of factual assertions, and a few which a judge found to be 'in question'; this equates to 'laden with errors?'

Ridiculousness

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 04:20 pm
Me, I'm just relieved he got it, after all the noise of the pre-announcement phase.

Imagine losing the presidency and the nobel. Enough to join the Cistercians.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 04:22 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
kickycan wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
kickycan wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The glitter of the Nobel overshadows the inconvenient news reported last week that a British court of law labeled Gore's movie as partisan political propaganda, pointing out 11 different errors of fact or scientific judgment, and prohibiting its screening in British public schools without a disclaimer of these defects.


Nice try.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=105239


The statement isn't true?



I'll agree that your statement is true if you agree that the article I linked to is true as well.

Spin, spin, spin.


I will agree that there is a positive spin on the story. Look at the MSNBC headline.I won't agree the rest of the author's vitirolis true. The statement I posted is true, the article you linked is a screed.

The posted statement doesn't challenge the veracity of the premise of climate change or even the premise that humanity is a major (if not the major cause of it).

What it does point out is the Gore film (the primary reason he won the prize) is laden with errors and considered by at least one UK judge to be political propoganda.

If you BB or Walter would prefer to emphasize the fact that the judge also validated the two basic premises I indicated ---fine. The vast majority of news outlets that reported on this story emphasized the gist of the statement I posted. I guess they were cherry picking too --- but of course you and Walter are not. Smile


Well spun. Carry on.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 04:23 pm
Extreme sour grapes from Bushies who support mass murder in Iraq and hate Kyoto. Gore said from the git go that Bushie "betrayed" us into that war. That put it all in perspective as did Bushie's jokes about WMD. One of these candidates from 2000 is covered in the blood of innocent Iraqis while the other is covered in honors, Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize. One cares about the planet the other is threatening to use nukes.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 04:26 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Thousands of individual data points, hundreds of factual assertions, and a few which a judge found to be 'in question'; this equates to 'laden with errors?'

Ridiculousness

Cycloptichorn


That is truly a ridiculous argument. There are thousands of individual data points; and hundreds of factual assertions contained within theories of Intelligent Design, Racial Superiority, Aliens Visiting Earth. What is the magic number of errors that tips you over the edge of finding credibility in a given vehicle for the theory? 78? 325? 5,842?

The Judge did not review all of the thousands of data points and hundreds of assertions and find 11 simple errors.

Any vehicle for a theory about which a sitting judge considers it materially relevant to itemize 11 misrepresentations is laden with errors.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 04:37 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Thousands of individual data points, hundreds of factual assertions, and a few which a judge found to be 'in question'; this equates to 'laden with errors?'

Ridiculousness

Cycloptichorn


That is truly a ridiculous argument. There are thousands of individual data points; and hundreds of factual assertions contained within theories of Intelligent Design, Racial Superiority, Aliens Visiting Earth. What is the magic number of errors that tips you over the edge of finding credibility in a given vehicle for the theory? 78? 325? 5,842?

The Judge did not review all of the thousands of data points and hundreds of assertions and find 11 simple errors.

Any vehicle for a theory about which a sitting judge considers it materially relevant to itemize 11 misrepresentations is laden with errors.


Who can know what is in a judge's mind?

I don't rely upon British judges for my opinions about the accuracy of science. And neither do you, until it's convenient for your position.

My guess is that if the very same judge had given a glowing endorsement of the movie - though, for the most part, he did, I suppose, though that goes unmentioned by the right-wingers like yourself - you wouldn't be so quick to post his opinions as if they meant something.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Congrats Gore
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 09:11:39