Great line

I just want to know why they are named moveon.org when they dwell on things for...presidential terms. MOVE ON!

And ladies and gentlemen, over here on this thread we have those who don't believe our environment is in trouble. And who did not even question why the Bush Administration would not include the section on global warming in the government's report on the environment. The report that their own scientists wrote! Ladies and gentleman, yes, these people will probably not believe in evolution in a few years. This is your chance. Watch them as they listen to Rush and Hannity and peruse the latest from Newsmax! Step right up!

Oh and...

"Whether its premise is valid or not, or possible or not, the very fact it's about climate change could help to spur debate and dialogue," said Gretchen Cook-Anderson a spokeswoman for the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). "In the event that the movie is popular beyond American borders, it will be an opportunity to spur dialogue, to inform people and educate people about climate changes."

From this link:

http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/040525105352.7uv73svx.html

doesn't the ice follow people in that movie?

At some point, nature will need to 'adjust' itself, and we'll get a mass extinction. It's happened what, five or six times since the beginning of earth? It'll happen again, whether we cause it or not.

Does anybody really care this much?

astudill

It'll happen again, whether we cause it or not.

I think most of us would be mighty pissed if people a hundred years ago knew this was going down and did nothing to look into it and especially if they could have given us more time by not hastening it. So, yes, I care about stewardship. And my nieces and nephews. And their children. And so on. And so on.

Does this mean I won't have to run from carousel?

this sort of makes me think twice (ok a third time) about moveon.org. That's just stupid. Of course, maybe they're trying to appeal to that demographic so... ;)

***sigh***

Anything to sell movie tickets and guns.

Mmm, waffles...

The movie the White House doesn't want you to see -



It works on so many levels!

I thought this honor belonged to Fahrenheit 9/11?

Hopefully this will turn into a flame-war and we can heat up those waffles. Damn, I'm hungry.

Cool.
Voting seems to be enabled.
I guess you can vote on your favorite flame.

The situations in this movie are quite silly.

We can destroy ourselves, but earth will always find a way to survive. If you belive God put us here, or evolution we have not been on Earth to long, Earth will out last us and repair what little damage we have actually done, it is time for our race to get off this God complex that we can destroy this plant. They are numerous things in the universe that we can not control that cause Global Warming, it is something nature is doing and not us. We can destroy our selves, and not this planet. Even if we destroy ourselves with Nuclear weapons Earth will find a way to repair itself. If might take thousands of years, but it will occur. The Earth will outlive our race, no matter what you do, as soon as you accept that we do control the universe!

"Thousands of MoveOn members will be there to enjoy the show, to help get people talking about the real danger of a climate crisis, and to take action to prevent one."

Sell-out! We sold our soul for rock and roll.
ERRRR, well maybe for just some good hard $$$$.Taking you even less serious Moveon.whore --if that were possible.

I thought Fahrenheit 911 was the movie the White House does not want me to see?

Tin-foil hats selling like waffles

Can I order my tinfoil hat with butter and syrup?

I think it's amusing that a movie (Fahrenheit 9/11) will destroy Bush's presidential campaign.

Vote for me if you masturbate on a regular basis.

clj124,

Totally agreed. When people say the things we do are unnatural...as I recall, the chemicals we've made are made from chemicals naturally occurring in nature.

If we screw ourselves, the earth will eventually break down what we do, and some lizard species will go sentient or something...oh, well...

radioberlin
Let me try.. umm..

Global warming is basically a religious philosophy, not a scientific fact. It requires a belief that the combustion of fossil fuels negatively impacts our environment without sufficient evidence or explanation of the processes involved.
I believe that God is responsible for all weather, and clearly if he is warming the earth, it's because we've pissed him off, probably about the whole gay marriage thing.
So you can see, clearly Bush, by attempting to ban gay marriages, cares about the environment and is doing his best to prevent global warming.

This is so pathetic. Not that I took moveon seriously in the first place, but to link themselves to a really stupid movie that even the most ardent environmentalists dismiss as impossible is quite insane. Anything to bash Bush I guess...

Ah damn, forgot to enable voting.
A vote for me is a vote for my other post!

I saw that the other day, a freind and I just sat there MST3K'ing it. That was fun.

I think it's amusing that a movie (Fahrenheit 9/11) will destroy Bush's presidential campaign.

I think it's funnier that people think Michael Moore is any more credible than Jayson Blair.

"So it's silly, almost, to listen to the political turmoil being stirred up over Emmerich's newest disaster movie, "The Day After Tomorrow."

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/May/05302004/arts/170871.asp

moveon.org is silly.

I went with a bunch of far far left friends to see The Day After Tomorrow.
Cool effects, but we all agreed the movie itself was laughable.
Very silly.

But, global warming is still an issue, and stuff.

Day After Tomorrow was a poopfest.

Anyone involved in the making of the film and anyone who liked it shall be put to death for the sake of humanity.


/poopfest!

Easily the movies grossest inaccuracy is when the US Vice President admits that he was wrong.

"The Day After Tomorrow" is a Republican's wet dream film. It's probably doing more to discredit the idea of global warming as a topic of serious scientific discussion then any specch by Bush ever could.

It's a movie, but Global Warming is a real concern, folks. The George W. Bush adminstration has even said it is - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

And here's something from National Geographic concerning the questions raised by the movie -
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/05/0518_040518_dayafter.html.

Remember, there's boobies at National Geographic.

A Republican's Wet Dream: lower wages, no taxes, & immunity from Government enforced laws that keep the rabble in their place.

A Democrat's Wet Dream: A world without neo-conservatives.

Thanks, redbo you have a gift for satire...I hope.

Screw Bush.
Screw Kerry.

/vote 3rd party.

//Secret service at my door, got to run.

BLIAD THE IMPALER is that SFW?

If there is a God. And he put us here. It was to look out for each other and to take care of and enjoy each other and the world he made for us. So far we have failed miserably.
If scientists tell us we need to stop doing things that hurt the environment. I think we should listen to them. Not worry about how much of our profit it'll cut into. Or pass the burden onto our children.

the guys at popular science aren't laughing either.

Give me a farking break. The only thing factual about the whole damn movie is that snow is cold.

Dear God man! Snow is COLD?! Your SUV is to blame!

/pre-coffee sarcasm, forgive me

txt_eva:

I wasn't sure. It's "sidal" nudity at most with a tiny little bit of crackage, seen at a distance.

I dedided to risk it. If the mods see fit to delete it, I won't gripe, since I knew it was borderline....

(ps: You should all still vote for me though--just because)

duuuuuude: you should read the rest of the article you posted.

/moran.

Stealthdozer: what republicans are you talking about?

The movie the White House doesn't want me to see? How about the movie you couldn't get me to go see if it was free. I can only assume the white house has seen the same previews I have and have come to the same conclusion: This movie looks thoroughly shiatty and unwatchable.

I don't recall the libs making this much of a stink when Volcano came out... The only thing this MoveOn.org claim is gonna do is cause a bunch of libs to rush out & fill up the 40 gallon tanks in their Expeditions and drive 1.5 hours in town to see this movie. Way to go, MoveOn. Way to hasten global warming.

This weekend, thousands of MoveOn members will be handing out flyers, answering people's questions, and giving them a way to take action.

I'll treat them like abortion (or any other_ protestors. Get within 150 feet of me and I'll beat the hell out of you. Global warming or not.

I hate protestors. What an idiotic way to make a statement.

The asteroid impact that killed off the dinosaurs cut off 90% of the sunlight that reached the Earth.
The amount of sunlight reaching the Earth has now declined 10% due to pollution.

Do the math.

if only someone would make a factual movie.......
maybe a police drama where they have 10 minutes of action and 4 1/2 hours of paperwork

I hate protestors. What an idiotic way to make a statement.

I'm not trolling, just honestly curious: what else would you recommend?

'Sokay. Somehow, I suspect that "The Passion of the Christ" was the top movie that MoveOn.Org didn't want folks to see.

I liked it. It was just a fantasy. The FX were the only reason to go. Besides it was a matinee. The CG wolves were pretty lame.

"Do the math."

ok,I'll try.

moveon.org + Hollywood = Mecha-Streisand

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/sucks/RUP/

Somebody should tell MoveOn and the environmental wackos that believe in Junk Science that this movie is FICTION!

Top "The Day After Tomorrow" inaccuracies:

1) Fox News provides people with useful information
2) ... about New York
3) ... and doesn't blame it on Clinton
4) Dick Cheney although a son ova biatch, actually cares.
5) Bush not immediately evacuated at first sign of rain.
6) Bush *compromises* with Mexico to evacuate the US.
7) At no point was Dick Clarke called in to take over.

This is the post Bush doesn't want you to see. Why? Because all these letters of the English alphabet are bunched up together like a bunch of hippie homosexuals!

T h i s i s t h e w a y s t r a i g h t p e o p l e
t y p e !

Top "The Day After Tomorrow" inaccuracies:

1) Fox News provides people with useful information
2) ... about New York
3) ... and doesn't blame it on Clinton
4) Dick Cheney although a son ova biatch, actually cares.
5) Bush not immediately evacuated at first sign of rain.
6) Bush *compromises* with Mexico to evacuate the US.
7) At no point was Dick Clarke called in to take over.



/now with voting

Wow you trolls have really no farking idea what the hell you're talking about. First of all Global Warming is NOT a religious philosophy. It is talked about almost all environmental science textbooks. Secondly, there are records to show that the global temperature spiked when global population spiked---around the 14th and 15th century. Dammit, do your research before you go blabbing off like you know everything! While it is true that nature corrects itself, it also needs time. And we are currently not living at the sustainable rate that allows the earth to replenish what we have taken away. For each carbon atom that we dump into the air, it dissolves 1000 of the ozone atoms in the atmosphere. In case you haven't noticed, America is one of the most wasteful countries in the world. We drive big SUVs when we can be driving small cars with more fuel-efficient engines, we "throw away" a lot of the things we can re-use, and we spend a hell of a lot more on weight loss than it takes to feed all of Nepal. Again, I say, do your own research. I put "throw away" in quotes because there really is no "throwing away"---it always goes somewhere else. Even in a landfill, it takes many years for it to deteriorate. Almost all of europe recycles way more than we do and they use about 3/4 less energy than we do. Of course MOST of you wouldn't know a darn thing about that before you go off making fun of those "tree huggers" because *durrrrrrrrrr* You're amerrrican and you live in the bestest, freest, beautifulest country in the world and you're so damn sure everyone else in the world is inferior.

Global warming is real. It CAN stop the Gulf Stream and scientific models have shown this multiple times. OF COURSE the movie is a great extreme of what can happen but instead of making fun of it or writing it off as some "liberal shenanigans",maybe you should actually analyze the facts and use your brain to think? Or is that not an American characteristic?


/end rant of asian chick at 7:00 am

Classic repiglican move by Dahnkster: ignore, smear, gloat

From what I have seen, this is another movie adhearing to the theory that "CGI=Good", like the Hulk, Van Hellsing, and roughly 80% of all movies that have come out since Jurassic Park.

Ah MoveOn.org, the organization that thinks bush is responsible for tornados in the midwest, the chickweed in your front yard, the fact that your kids are ugly, John Ritters death and pretty much everything else.

ok I'll bite back Troll.
Typical knee-jerk liberhole Californicator tactic.
Insult,get stoned,eat Cheetos,Blame Bush,cry "The sky is falling!" Praise moveon.org who is obviously getting paid to endorse this crappy movie. WWJD

What would Jerry do? Dude!

California, the granola state, Home of fruits,nuts and flakes.

Harry Pooter

I find protestors tend to be people who like to line up and shout/whatever, but not actually do anything about the problem at hand.

I have more respect for U2's Bono because, rather than biatch about AIDS on TV constantly, yapping at talking heads and pretending he is making a difference, he actually goes to individuals in power, one-on-one, and talks to them and tries to persuade them through actual conversation.

Mother Theresa could have done the talk show circuit and held signs in front of the whitehouse screaming in outrage. Instead she went and fed/medicated starving people herself.

This is the difference. Scream on a streetcorner vs. getting your hands dirty. The latter are usually not hypocrites. The former just want to look good on TV, IMO. "Ooh, look at me.. I care!" *pushes homeless person into gutter on way to their SUV*.

Just my observation on the behaviour of sign-wielding mental midgets. Prolly not worth the screen space, but there it be.

/Didn't your post as trolling...

remember when "conservative" described someone who was actually conservative, instead of someone who supported the wholesale rape and pillage of our environment?

BTW -- that's troll with a small "t", if you don't mind

no one wants to hear your trolls. everyone knows your all paid off by campaigns to post to fark.

The Day After Tomorrow is a movie NOBODY should see.

Nothing to do with political affiliation.

It's just crap.

'sall.

A vote for me is a vote to find out why the f*ck voting is enabled on this thread.

"no one wants to hear your trolls. everyone knows your all paid off by campaigns to post to fark."

Gee, in a way you are correct slobar, am enjoying the benefits of my Bush tax cuts. I used my IRS tax rebate to get a gigantic SUV that runs on condor eggs for this month's PETA-member hunt.

PeteBDawg

I liked Ishtar!


Token The asteroid impact that killed off the dinosaurs cut off 90% of the sunlight that reached the Earth.
The amount of sunlight reaching the Earth has now declined 10% due to pollution. Do the math.

Um...if it wasn't for Mother Nature (or G@d), we'd all be dinosaurs?

I'm considering seeing this one, if only because I like disaster pics, (even if they are crappy)

Anyone with common sense know's its exaggerated. I only hope when I go to see it the righties and the lefties won't be too busy pitching a fit for me to enjoy campy disaster goodness.

The link the the White House doesn't want you to see....




http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

US politics - world's dirtiest job. Just look at the shiat posted in here

Isn't this the same movie that was so out of whack with reality and actual science, that NASA put a gag on its scientists from speaking on it?

I'm going to laugh my ass off when it turns out global warming is something of astronomical origin, not ecological.

/the sun, stupid

Count on all the hard-headed nay-sayers to jump on this one. But seeing as how I heard similar scenarios being posed by scientist long before viewing this film I have to say it made me a bit uncomfortable. Granted we have no way of truly predicting such changes happening so quickly, I do believe that since man has only been polluting for such a small time in Earth's history that it is impossible to say with ANY certainty what may or may not happen. Of course most of you who are blasting the theory are probably bothered that the possiblity of not being able to drive to the movie theater in a Hummer is just unthinkable. How would you be able to grow your waistlines if not by burning excessive fossil fuels? Poor, poor Farkers, the world doesn't revolve around you like it should, does it?

Attention Righties:

Climate shift is a real thing and is very dangerous. We need to devote more study to this or we might get farked without even seeing it coming.

Denial isn't a good thing.


Attention Lefties:

Global warming is not the absolute fact you've convinced yourself it is. Scientists are still at odds over the source, scope and ultimate effect of climate changes around the world taken in issolation much less the massively complex relationships these events have with the global weather as a whole.

If your local weatherman, using models generated by billions of dollars worth of computing power, cant accurately predict the weather more than 6 hours out, what makes you think that the scientists you hold up are so much smarter that they can predict things 60 months or 60 years out.

Extremism means not having to think.

Remember the movie "The day after" in the 80s? Nuclear war etc, "This is Lawrence Kansas, is anyone out there?"

Now we are faced with "The day after tomorrow".

That's shaping up to be one hell of a week..


Global warming? HELLO? We live next to a variable star...

Was funny how the president was a total dumbell in that movie.

But I suspesct the REAL movie the White House doesn't want me to see is Farenheit 911. Go Lion's Gate!

Astronomy133 --->

Variable star?

I'm not going to say Gore is wacko... I'll leave it to a liberal to say it.

Maureen Dowd
NYT
5/27/04

John Kerry's advisers were surprised and annoyed to hear that Mr. Gore hollered so much, he made Howard Dean look like George Pataki. They don't want voters to be reminded of the wackadoo wing of the Democratic Party.

They would like Mr. Gore, who brought bad karma to Mr. Dean with his primary endorsement, to zip it and go away. But more and more Democrats think it is Mr. Kerry who should zip it and go away.

Mr. Kerry has made a huge $25 million ad buy in recent weeks, believing that the better voters know him, the more they'll like him. But many Democrats fear he's one of those supercilious/smarmy candidates (like Al Gore) for whom the opposite is true: the more you know him, the less you want to see him.

/I guess even a far-left member of the liberal media has to hit upon the truth every so often.

I saw it in a movie! From the same people who brought me "Independence Day" and "Godzilla." It's got to be true.

(VOTE FOR ME!)

The first sign this movie smoked cock was the title. How stupid is "The Day After Tomorrow"? They so wanted to call it "The Day After", but that was taken.

Nobody going around saying, "I wanna see "The Day After Tomorrow" -- they're going, "I wanna see that global warming disaster flick, that 'Day After' thing."

It's like calling a movie "Events That Happen Next Tuesday".

I have a question for the science-minded. Only those who have actually seen the movie, please.

What was the deal with the "absolute zero" eye of the storm? Is that even remotely possible? More than anything, that ruined the movie's credibility for me.

The D.A.T. is a hokey mess....a awkward medium between the 'thrills' of Independence day and the laugh out loud stupidity of Showgirls.

Still, just cause the movie is a mess don't mean we should discount global warming. The movie is right in the sense that global warming could have catastrophic effects. It just wouldn't happen overnight, but over a decade or so. It could already be happening.

Hey, this is a serious issue. If "Day After Tomorrow" bombs at the box office like the "The Alamo", Dennis Quaid may be looking at permanent unemployment. And we can't have that, regardless of your political affiliation. The mere thought is deeply troubling.

The movie was entertaining sort-of, but that's where it ends. There is still zero solid evidence to support global warming. I really don't think the white house gives any kind of a shiat about people seeing this movie.

I think they'd care more about people seeing Farenheit 9/11

From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity
Scholars Say Campaign Is Making History With Often-Misleading Attacks

By Dana Milbank and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 31, 2004; Page A01


It was a typical week in the life of the Bush reelection machine.

Last Monday in Little Rock, Vice President Cheney said Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all" and said the senator from Massachusetts "promised to repeal most of the Bush tax cuts within his first 100 days in office."

On Tuesday, President Bush's campaign began airing an ad saying Kerry would scrap wiretaps that are needed to hunt terrorists.

The same day, the Bush campaign charged in a memo sent to reporters and through surrogates that Kerry wants to raise the gasoline tax by 50 cents.

On Wednesday and Thursday, as Kerry campaigned in Seattle, he was greeted by another Bush ad alleging that Kerry now opposes education changes that he supported in 2001.

The charges were all tough, serious -- and wrong, or at least highly misleading. Kerry did not question the war on terrorism, has proposed repealing tax cuts only for those earning more than $200,000, supports wiretaps, has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years, and continues to support the education changes, albeit with modifications.

Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented -- both in speeches and in advertising.

Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.

The assault on Kerry is multi-tiered: It involves television ads, news releases, Web sites and e-mail, and statements by Bush spokesmen and surrogates -- all coordinated to drive home the message that Kerry has equivocated and "flip-flopped" on Iraq, support for the military, taxes, education and other matters.

"There is more attack now on the Bush side against Kerry than you've historically had in the general-election period against either candidate," said University of Pennsylvania professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson, an authority on political communication. "This is a very high level of attack, particularly for an incumbent."

Brown University professor Darrell West, author of a book on political advertising, said Bush's level of negative advertising is already higher than the levels reached in the 2000, 1996 and 1992 campaigns. And because campaigns typically become more negative as the election nears, "I'm anticipating it's going to be the most negative campaign ever," eclipsing 1988, West said. "If you compare the early stage of campaigns, virtually none of the early ads were negative, even in '88."

In terms of the magnitude of the distortions, those who study political discourse say Bush's are no worse than those that have been done since, as Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar put it, "the beginning of time."

Kerry, too, has made his own misleading statements and exaggerations. For example, he said in a speech last week about Iraq: "They have gone it alone when they should have assembled a whole team." That is not true. There are about 25,000 allied troops from several nations, particularly Britain, in Iraq. Likewise, Kerry said several times last week that Bush has spent $80 million on negative and misleading ads -- a significant overstatement. Kerry also suggested several times last week that Bush opposed increasing spending on several homeland defense programs; in fact, Bush has proposed big increases in homeland security but opposed some Democratic attempts to increase spending even more in some areas. Kerry's rhetoric at rallies is also often much harsher and more personal than Bush's.

But Bush has outdone Kerry in the number of untruths, in part because Bush has leveled so many specific charges (and Kerry has such a lengthy voting record), but also because Kerry has learned from the troubles caused by Al Gore's misstatements in 2000. "The balance of misleading claims tips to Bush," Jamieson said, "in part because the Kerry team has been more careful."

Attacks Get Early Start


The attacks have started unusually early -- even considering the accelerated primary calendar -- in part because Bush was responding to a slew of attacks on his record during the Democratic primaries, in which the rivals criticized him more than one another. And because the Bush campaign has spent an unprecedented sum on advertising at this early stage of the campaign, "the average voter is getting a much more negative impression," said Ken Goldstein, who tracks political advertising at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

From the president and Cheney down to media aides stationed in every battleground state and volunteers who dress up like Flipper the flip-flopping dolphin at rallies, the Bush campaign relentlessly portrays Kerry as elitist, untrustworthy, liberal and a flip-flopper on major issues. This campaign is persistent and methodical, and it often revs up on Monday mornings with the strategically timed release of ads or damaging attacks on Kerry, including questioning medical and service records in Vietnam and his involvement in the peace movement afterward. Often, they knock Kerry off message and force him to deflect personal questions.

Sometimes the charges ring true. Last week, Kerry told NBC: "I'm for the Patriot Act, but I'm not for the Patriot Act the way they abuse the Constitution." That brought to mind Kerry's much-mocked contention in March on Iraq spending: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

But often they distort Kerry's record and words to undermine the candidate or reinforce negative perceptions of him.

One constant theme of the Bush campaign is that Kerry is "playing politics" with Iraq, terrorism and national security. Earlier this month, Bush-Cheney Chairman Marc Racicot told reporters in a conference call that Kerry suggested in a speech that 150,000 U.S. troops are "universally responsible" for the misdeeds of a few soldiers at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison -- a statement the candidate never made. In that one call, Racicot made at least three variations of this claim and the campaign cut off a reporter who challenged him on it.

In early March, Bush charged that Kerry had proposed a $1.5 billion cut in the intelligence budget that would "gut the intelligence services." Kerry did propose such a cut in 1995, but it amounted to about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget and was smaller than the $3.8 billion cut the Republican-led Congress approved for the same program Kerry was targeting.

The campaign ads, which are most scrutinized, have produced a torrent of misstatements. On March 11, the Bush team released a spot saying that in his first 100 days in office Kerry would "raise taxes by at least $900 billion." Kerry has said no such thing; the number was developed by the Bush campaign's calculations of Kerry's proposals.

On March 30, the Bush team released an ad noting that Kerry "supported a 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax" and saying, "If Kerry's tax increase were law, the average family would pay $657 more a year." But Kerry opposes an increase in the gasoline tax. The ad is based on a 10-year-old newspaper quotation of Kerry but implies that the proposal is current.

Other Bush claims, though misleading, are rooted in facts. For example, Cheney's claim in almost every speech that Kerry "has voted some 350 times for higher taxes" includes any vote in which Kerry voted to leave taxes unchanged or supported a smaller tax cut than some favored.

Stretching the Truth


Incumbent presidents often prefer to run on their records in office, juxtaposing upbeat messages with negative shots at their opponents, as Bill Clinton did in 1996.

Scott Reed, who ran Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign that year, said the Bush campaign has little choice but to deliver a constant stream of such negative charges. With low poll numbers and a volatile situation in Iraq, Bush has more hope of tarnishing Kerry's image than promoting his own.

"The Bush campaign is faced with the hard, true fact that they have to keep their boot on his neck and define him on their terms," Reed said. That might risk alienating some moderate voters or depressing turnout, "but they don't have a choice," he said.

The strategy was in full operation last week, beginning Monday in Arkansas. "Senator Kerry," Cheney said, "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all. He said, quote, 'I don't want to use that terminology.' In his view, opposing terrorism is far less of a military operation and more of a law enforcement operation."

But Kerry did not say what Cheney attributes to him. The quote Cheney used came from a March interview with the New York Times, in which Kerry used the phrase "war on terror." When he said "I don't want to use that terminology," he was discussing the "economic transformation" of the Middle East -- not the war on terrorism.

On Tuesday, the Bush campaign held a conference call to discuss its new ad, which charged that Kerry was "pressured by fellow liberals" to oppose wiretaps, subpoena powers and surveillance in the USA Patriot Act. "Kerry would now repeal the Patriot Act's use of these tools against terrorists," the ad said.

Kerry has proposed modifying those provisions by mandating tougher judicial controls over wiretaps and subpoenas, but not repealing them. In the conference call, Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman was prodded to offer evidence that Kerry was pressured by liberals or that Kerry opposed wiretaps. He offered no direct evidence, saying only that Kerry objected to the Patriot Act after liberals did, and that "a common-sense reading indicates he intends to repeal those important tools."

Meanwhile, Kerry was greeted in Oregon and Washington state with television ads paid for by the Bush campaign that underscore what ad analysts call the negativity and misleading nature of many of the Bush TV spots. One titled "Doublespeak" pulls quotes from several major newspapers to argue that Kerry has waffled on major issues and has often said one thing and done another. The quotes, however, are often from editorials, sometimes from opinion pages hostile toward Kerry, such as that of the Wall Street Journal.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, as Kerry talked about rising gasoline prices, the Bush campaign recycled its charge that Kerry supports raising the gasoline tax by 50 cents per gallon. This was done in a memo to reporters and through Bush surrogates such as Rep. Jennifer Dunn (R-Wash.). The Bush-Cheney Web site also features a "Kerry Gas Tax Calculator," allowing users to learn "How much more would he cost you?"

In Thursday's Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Tracey Schmitt, regional spokeswoman for Bush-Cheney '04, echoed the point: "John Kerry helped block the bill in the Senate and is now inserting himself into the debate in a blatant display of political opportunism. Senator Kerry supported higher gas taxes at least 11 times, including a 50-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax," Schmitt said.

On Thursday, after Kerry delivered a major foreign policy address, the Bush campaign dispatched Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to make this statement to the Green Bay Press-Gazette in his home state: "John Kerry has a history of making proposals and casting votes that would decrease America's safety." Kerry was campaigning in Green Bay on Thursday and Friday.

It is true Kerry has voted numerous times to eliminate weapons systems and opposed the 1991 Iraq war. But Cheney voted against many of those same weapons systems, and Kerry has voted for several defense increases, especially in recent years.

At Bush campaign headquarters on Thursday, Mehlman held a conference call with Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and George Allen (R-Va.) to level similar charges. "For John Kerry, the war in Iraq and the overall war on terror are a political game of Twister," Mehlman said.

Mehlman also drew reporters' attention to a new feature on the Bush Web site, allowing visitors to "Track Kerry's Shifting Positions on Iraq." That feature joined a Web log that points out negative coverage of Kerry, a feature called "John Kerry: The Raw Deal," "The Kerry Line," "Kerry Flip Flop of the Day," and "Journeys with John," a Kerry itinerary allowing people to see why "John Kerry is wrong for your state."

On Wednesday, a Bush memo charged that Kerry "led the fight against creating the Department of Homeland Security." While Kerry did vote against the Bush version multiple times, it is not true that he led the fight, but rather was one of several Democrats who held out for different labor agreements as part of its creation. Left unsaid is that, in the final vote, Kerry supported the department -- which Bush initially opposed.

chain

You article is from the Washington Post
Charter member of the media wing of the Democratic Party

i.e. it's to be expected that the rag would do a hit piece.

NEWSFLASH: IT'S A FREAKING MOVIE!

Someone should make Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle's Fallen Angels into a movie.

In it, a super-green administration is elected in the United States to counteract the greenhouse effect. What they find is that the greenhouse effect has been staving off the onset of another ice age -- which, pissed off at being kept waiting, comes on with a vengeance.

Fark Shortcut

After 17 years of dimming, Earth now reflecting more light in recent years. In other news, Al Gore hysterically screams warnings about the horrors of "global brightening"

(247)

Hrm. Could global warming have been caused by NORMAL CLIMACTIC changes? OR....could the Earth adjust its "thermostat" to keep itself healthy against all us kids on its surface?

Can I go back to sleep now?

Comparing TDAT to 1984 is an extraordinarily long bow to draw.

1984 - insightful examination of the nature of truth, ownership of truth and the pitfalls of an artificially stratified society.

TDAT - Over-the-top disaster flick driven entirely by expensive special effects and let down by a weak story.

Both fiction, yes. But I Know which one I found more interesting.

[/intellectual snob and proud]

From the president and Cheney down to media aides stationed in every battleground state and volunteers who dress up like Flipper the flip-flopping dolphin at rallies, the Bush campaign relentlessly portrays Kerry as elitist, untrustworthy, liberal and a flip-flopper on major issues. This campaign is persistent and methodical, and it often revs up on Monday mornings with the strategically timed release of ads or damaging attacks on Kerry, including questioning medical and service records in Vietnam and his involvement in the peace movement afterward. Often, they knock Kerry off message and force him to deflect personal questions.

Sometimes the charges ring true. Last week, Kerry told NBC: "I'm for the Patriot Act, but I'm not for the Patriot Act the way they abuse the Constitution." That brought to mind Kerry's much-mocked contention in March on Iraq spending: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

1. HEY, I'm famous!
2. I hadn't heard of that flip-flop before. Nice....

Sturgeon637

chain

You article is from the Washington Post
Charter member of the media wing of the Democratic Party

i.e. it's to be expected that the rag would do a hit piece.

And yet, not one bit of it is refutable.

/RTFA

But a link next time would be a-ok with everyone I'm sure.

CHAIN should be banned from fark for wasting so much space with something that is off topic.

FYI, I was on a glcier in New Zealand this summer and came across some people from one of the universities there thast was taking measurments from their study. They laughed when I asked them if the glacier was emmlting becuase aof global warming. They said their info pointed to cooling and an ice age - but not in our lifetime.

Notmuch scientific to back up my statement, but neither does "Day after tomorrow"

Dragon I think it has to do with the hurricane model. Of course a hurricane is created in a much warmer climate, but basically it is caused, I believe, by warm air and cool air mixing over a warm water system. The eye of the storm is when it's calm, you can go outside during it fairly safely. I suppose the theory is that if one were created over a cold land mass that the vortex created would pull the cold air from the upper atmosphere downward creating such cold conditions. Remember the golfer whose plane got so cold in the air that everyone inside froze to death? Imagine that hitting the ground.

/of course I'm no scientist, just a stupid theory

having actually seen the movie, it wasn't horrible (and the SE were killer--no pun intended).

But they weren't trying to say that next week we're all going to die because of global warming. They had to speed up the time frame of the events because otherwise it would have no effect the audience--it would be completely irrelevant. They were just trying to warn people that quite possibly not taking care of the environment can have brutal outcomes.

Who cares if MoveOn thinks the Bush admin doesn't want you to see it? NEWSFLASH: You don't have to listen to MoveOn OR Bush. You can see it for yourself, enjoy the mayhem, go home and forget you even saw it.

Wow, who knew.


Oooh, voting!

Art Bell had a guest Saturday Night/Sunday AM who was a climate change expert, Robert Felix, and he basically used science to refute what a lot of whackos think...to promote his own whacko conclusions.

www.iceagenow.com

It's interesting because the point he kept driving home was not global warming, but global cooling. A phenomenon I am familiar with...but the Greenpeace moron on Robson St.the other day in Vancouver passing out propaganda was totally ignorant of...I dunno.

He even mentioned that while the artic ice shelf was smaller, all other glaciers are getting bigger. Interesting. Except that he thinks underwater volcanoes are going to destroy the world if the one in Yellowstone doesn't get us first.

Blame the USA for that. And Yogi Bear.

I guess the moral is that everyone I hear talking about climate change is laughable to me...junk science, willful ignorance, political agendas and wacky conclusions...if the White House truly didn't want us to see it, I hope they would be sparing us the embarassment of yet another idiotic take on eco-disaster.

Vote for me, if I shouldn't see TDAT!

Isn't this movie being distributed by the same company that owns Fox news?

So MoveOn.org is indirectly supporting Fox News. I expect the planet to stop spinning any minute.

I am almost ashamed that I have sent them support.

almost.

gotta love fake science.

i already dont wana see it

I went & saw Shrek 2, does that mean all In-Laws are unlikable?

2004-05-31 06:58:50 AM Dahnkster


ok I'll bite back Troll.
Typical knee-jerk liberhole Californicator tactic.
Insult,get stoned,eat Cheetos,Blame Bush,cry "The sky is falling!" Praise moveon.org who is obviously getting paid to endorse this crappy movie. WWJD

What would Jerry do? Dude!

California, the granola state, Home of fruits,nuts and flakes.


HEY! How can you say that about the home of St. Ronald Reagan, Ahnold, and the final resting place of Richard M. Nixon???

You'll be crying like a biatch if we ever secede. Kiss all that tax money good-bye you no-account, free-loading states. (I'm talking to you, Iowa and North Dakota, Comprende?)




And, yes, I'm a pinko with guns!


NOW/NRA--I'm pro-choice and armed!

The real question is, when will moveon.org stop spamming my email address?

A vote for me is a vote for those who get spammed.

LittleLotus : there are records to show that the global temperature spiked when global population spiked---around the 14th and 15th century. Dammit, do your research before you go blabbing off like you know everything!

Before that, the Earth's temperature was static, right?

The Earths temperature has always been changing, getting both warmer and cooler. Whether humans are contributing to it or not, the climate will continue to change. Run for the hills!!

Sturgeon637 --->

So, the article is from a media supportive of the democrats. Does that make it false?

Kevin5lynn:

Yes, variable star. Our sun is one, which is why the earth undergoes climate changes which we can't do anything about. It's only been in the last 10 years or so that we've figured out that our star falls into a class of variable stars. We're doomed, or maybe not.

variable star, star that varies, either periodically or irregularly, in the intensity of the light it emits. Other physical changes are usually correlated with the fluctuations in brightness, such as pulsations in size, ejection of matter, and changes in spectral type, color, or temperature. The class to which a variable star belongs is determined by a plot of its light curve, which is a graph of the star's apparent brightness versus time. The light curve reveals its maximum and minimum brightness and gives evidence for periodicity, if any exists. The approximately 30,000 known variable stars are grouped into three broad classes: the pulsating variables and the eruptive variables (both of which are intrinsic variables, because the variation is caused by a physical change within the star) and the eclipsing variables (which are extrinsic variables, because the variation is caused by two or more bodies eclipsing one another).

newmoonpuppyhead

So, yes, I care about stewardship. And my nieces and nephews. And their children. And so on. And so on.

I understand your point of view. I was subtly reminding my co-lefties that mass extinctions are inevitable.

I also think that, without the Industrial Revolution, this planet would be unable to physically support the number of lives we have today. Something is going to give at some point, it's unstoppable.

I don't want people to see this movie either. Not for political reasons though. I just think it looks like a really, really stupid movie and I'd hate for my fark brethren to waste their time and money on it.

Day After Tomorrow had Ian Holm, Armageddon had Liv Tyler, Deep Impact had Elijah Wood. Thought that was funny.

The movie however, crap crap crap. The acting made me want to stab myself, and those who saw it will know what I'm talking about when I say...

WOLVES.

I don't dislike TDAT because it's scientifically inaccurate.

I dislike it because cinematically it's a big steaming turd. *L*

I get spammed by the MoveOn freaks all time, themeatball. MoveOn.org is like troll on Fark, a one-note-wonder. (Kind of like Flipper_The_Dolphin or Kerrykabob, now that I think about it.)


Have you tried the "Don't send me mail ever again" response yet? I'm afraid to, they might send my e-mail addy forward to the Lyndon Larouche people or something.

That's because I'm using the hats to BBQ my waffles.

sonnyboy11

I did read the article you dumbass. I read in on the Washington Post website before it was posted here. I like to read the Democratic media websites so I can know ahead of time what the liberal sheep will be saying.

The Bush team can show you votes or statements to back up everything they are saying about the Gigolo. It is the opinion of a liberal newspaper that they are stretching the truth.

Please, stop listening to your masters and learn to think for yourself. You are undoubtably a member of the proud Homo Sapiens genus and species and should act accordingly, and not like a sheep.

The movie was actually pretty darn good. I saw it Saturday with my girlfriend. We both enjoyed it, and she's usually a harsh critic. The special effects were great. I don't know or care how accurate it was, it was a great ride. See it!!

Extremism means not having to think.

I don't think anyone has ever put so succinctly how I feel about politics in general.

By the way, the real life institute the fictional paleoclimatologist works for in the movie has put their views on the website regarding the science in this movie:

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/ct_abruptclimate.htm

As for why climate scientists are so often wrong, it's because we don't have enough data on the oceans. There is no sensor network to measure anything about the oceans except for the surface (which doesn't matter a lot in the great scheme of things). As a result, we can't even tell what the currents and temperatures are like right now, let alone predict them. And when you know the global climate is defined by the ocean climate, then it explains why climate scientists can make so few predictions.

Thousands of MoveOn members will be there to enjoy the show, to help get people talking about the real danger of a climate crisis, and to take action to prevent one.

This is the typical symbolism over substance that demonstrates what a bunch of morans MoveOn leadership/members are. I'm sure that they are going to convince a whole lot of people who don't believe that global warning is a threat just by being there and drumming up discussions. Hey retards - the people that need to be convinced that global warming is a dangerous reality won't be at this movie! It's going to be a bunch of self-righteous asshats carrying poorly made posters and patting one another on the back for the difference that they're making. What a friggin call to action this will be!

2004-05-31 08:51:58 AM CaptStubing
Before that, the Earth's temperature was static, right?

The Earths temperature has always been changing, getting both warmer and cooler. Whether humans are contributing to it or not, the climate will continue to change. Run for the hills!!

It was static for longer periods of time, not for only a few hundred years. If you would DO YOUR RESEARCH, the global temperature graph looks very similar to the CO2 level graph. And this is within the last couple of hundred to thousand years. It took much more time for the climate to from tropical (from the time of the dinosaurs) to the ice age (the time of the mammoths).
Oh wait, why am I explaining this to you? You only want to wave around your American flag, drive your SUV, and go on the Atkins diet in absolute peaceful ignorance. Screw science, AMerrrrrica can conquer ANYTHING!

Some reviews...

CNN:
Too bad the plot is full of holes, the story itself does not stay within its own reality, and the dialogue is downright laughable. I know disaster flicks rarely make a whole lot of sense, but this film seems to go out of its way to be stupid.

FILMJERK:
In trying to mix together a cautionary tale about global warming with expected (demanded?) summer movie entertainment, "The Day After Tomorrow" falls apart almost immediately in director Roland Emmerich's hands. Though well-acted and filled to the brim with good special effects, the picture is often too hammy and terribly clumsy with its messages and genuinely uninteresting locales for nature's attacks. A huge disappointment.

FOX:
Ah, well: No amount of edible swag could save "The Day After Tomorrow," a $200 million disaster film that is quite the disaster, indeed. (note: Fox made the film!)

CHICAGO TRIBUNE:
This often entertaining movie mixes grand, epic effects and amazing visualizations of catastrophe with a sappy family-in-crisis plot that would look hackneyed in a '60s Disney TV movie.

ROLLING STONE:
The only truly scary thing about this doomsday popcorn flick is the momumental ineptitude of the acting, writing and directing.

/'nuff said?

A junk science movie for a junk science movement. Perfect.

I think it's silly that some people are using this POS movie as an excuse to "start dialogue". That said, though, simply because there exists a crap, over-the-top movie on the subject of climate change does not negate the fact that we need to stop living like there is no tomorrow and start taking care of our habitat better.

/junk science = science that conflicts with what you want to believe

"lookie, lookie we can all learn something from the movies!!"
/riiiiiiiiight, get a farking book or take a class.
asswipes.

Puffy999:/rant
//what the hell does RANT mean?

well, it's kind of like raving, but a lot less fun!

yayyyy!! global warming! i always wanted a wave pool in my backyard!!!

Finally, the left gets their own "Red Dawn".

"I'm starting to believe some of the stuff the cult guy's been saying. Some of it makes a lot of sense." - Sandler

Two words: Art Bell.

The right-winger who submitted this link, and the admin who approved it, apparently didn't read the MoveOn.org letter. Just another day at Fark.

global warming!-dat's a good one

Yes, this movie isn't good.. and yet.. we talk about it? Damn people go away.

I've said it before; I'll say it again...

Elizabeth Windsor for President



Write-in, people; WRITE-IN.

I have lots of cans of beans.

After the coming tribulation you will all be sorry.

to many of the above - the movie is scientifically innacurrate? IT'S A MOVIE! The plain truth would never sell ticktes. Pull your heads out of your arses.

I bet you all went to Texas Chainsaw Massacre and enjoyed that steaming pile of ****. btw, That never happened in Texas. See a trend forming?

And yes, there is lots of research that links our actions to present and future climate and enviromental changes. To say that dramatic climate changes cannot occur as a result of our pollution is about as intelligent as saying smoking doesn't cause cancer.

As for the mindless trashing of moveon.org, Yeah, they picked up a stupid movie to endorse, but who really cares? They also state very clearly the movie is more science fiction than fact. Maybe they should write their articles in AOL speak so you kiddies will understand.

Maybe something like - m0v;3 n07 4 r33l

But the comments about the movie being a bust are definitely true.

LittleLotus: "Secondly, there are records to show that the global temperature spiked when global population spiked---around the 14th and 15th century."

Wasn't it the other way around; didn't population rise when the temperature rose? (hotter weather = longer growing season = more food = more people)

Tribalism. Does the primative urge of humans to form blood clans, aka tribalism, trump religion as number one reason for humans fighting humans today? Tribes show utter contempt for a higher political authority. The far left embodies all that the fading religious tribesmen and their radical fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran hold dear. They are both tribal in their most basic structure. They both disdain higher political authority. They are both fanatical naturalists.

For the muslim fundamentalists, literal reading of the Koran imbues within them beliefs holding preservation of the environment always over and at odds with the demands of humans for quality of life improvements. Basically, the preservation of the way it used to be.

For the far left, anti-globalization groups like J18 and the WTO protestors and even ANSWER and now Moveon through it's endorsement of junk science, stasis in the environment and a rollback of civilization is very much on the top of their agenda. They also fight for preservation of the way it used to be.

The way it used to be can be seen in the archaic landscape of the middle east. The primary political structure there is the tribe or extended family. Cousin marrying cousin. The way it used to be can be seen in the natural dress and natural appearance, with unshaven face and uncut hair. Was I talking about the ME tribesman or a NoCal leftist? Kind of hard to tell if only given a description.

Tribalism/Naturalism is quite reactionary when challenged, as we have all seen. Has the philosophical kindredship between the far left naturalists and radical Islam created a natural alliance against a common enemy?



Does the greatest threat to the US occur when the enemy at home and abroad somehow converge? This is what makes remarks by ANSWER founder Michael Berg, father of slain Nick Berg, so chilling. "They killed their best friend". You don't want your nation done in by sympathetic natural citizens, or as some would say, traitors. I'm not optimistic that won't be the case when the US suffers the next great terror strike. Encouragement of the naturalists through fear mongering found on the likes of this stupid movie can't be helpful. Irrational people don't need much of a push.

I didn't know Michael Bergs father was affiliated with those ANSWER wackos.

No wonder he made those statements after his kid was butchered by those islamo-facists.

At the time I was wondering where his hatred for Bush came from, I gave him the benefit and assumed it was grief, but now I see he was using his own sons death for cheap political capital.

That is a truly sad excuse for a human being.

TappingTheVein

I wasn't going to vote for any of these crap posts on this crap thread talking about a crap movie. A crap organization trying to discredit a crap campaign does not mean crap to me.

You got my vote because I masterbate an aweful lot, though.

/no crapping involved in that. I may be an idiot but I'm not sick.

My bad. Remove voting goodness. Vote for TappingTheVein.

The left wing in this election cycle seems to have two thing going for them. A candidate who couldn't be charasmatic if he were stading next a cardboard cutout of himself, and a movie about the end of the world while they quite literally scream "The sky is falling!".

moveon.org and the democrats have twisted every little thing that happens into a scathing indictment of the Bush administration. They've gone to such extremes that legitimate issues where Bush actually is weak have been lost in the flood of accusations.

Ironicaly the repulicans tried this EXACT tactic 8 years ago with Bob Dole and it failed miserably. They tried it again 6 years ago becoming so extreme they actually impeached President Clinton... and went down to such an humiliating defeat that Newt Gingrich was kicked out of Washington.

Not missing a beat the democrats tried this 2 years ago screaming at the top of their lungs about how horrible Bush is and ended up giving the senate back to the republicans in the process.

Both sides have tried this strategy in the last decade and it's failed everytime. On Kerry's best day he's even with Bush. At this point in the campaign the challenger historically has a lead regardless of who eventually wins.

Can anyone seriously tell me Kerry has a prayer in november?

You want to talk about preservation of the way it used to be, Raicilla, that's the mainstay of conservatism, of which you are an advocate. Same goes for those Muslim extremists. Conservatives. Should I assume then that Republicans = terrorists? If I were using your jumps in logic I cerainly could.

I could also compare your nationalism to it's own form of tribalism, or remind you as you throw around the word "naturalist" that Ralph Waldo Emerson was himself a "naturalist". Need I remind you that this is the same man who wrote "Self Reliance", an essay that is as libertarian as they come? Another naturalist was Stephen Crane, who once wrote:

A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.

Seems to me you don't know what Naturalism means.

Was Tim McVeigh not upholding the honor of a tribe in Waco when he went about destroying the "higher political authority"?

Did Terry Nichols not become a member of a tribe when he purchased his wife from a Muslim (and later discovered Abu Sayeef/Al Qaeda stronghold) southern Phillipines tribe, notorious for criminal mail-order-bride services aimed at pathetic schmucks(ie malleable fools)?

Does this have anything directly to do with the movie? That depends. Was Kevin Bacon listed in the closing credits?

I had to apologize to my daughter for taking her to this movie, it stunk. Bad acting, bad science, holier than thou moralizing by environmentalist nutjobs.

However my daughter looked at me and told me she had a wonderful time, the movie was so incedibly bad she enjoyed herself immensely. Needs to be MST3K episode.

If you have half a brain you'll hate this movie.

If you're a liberal and hate america, you'll love it. It has everything you'll love.

Sturgeon637
The Bush team can show you votes or statements to back up everything they are saying about the Gigolo. It is the opinion of a liberal newspaper that they are stretching the truth.

Please, stop listening to your masters and learn to think for yourself. You are undoubtably a member of the proud Homo Sapiens genus and species and should act accordingly, and not like a sheep.

In early March, Bush charged that Kerry had proposed a $1.5 billion cut in the intelligence budget that would "gut the intelligence services." Kerry did propose such a cut in 1995, but it amounted to about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget and was smaller than the $3.8 billion cut the Republican-led Congress approved for the same program Kerry was targeting.

I think this one speaks for itself...

The strategy was in full operation last week, beginning Monday in Arkansas. "Senator Kerry," Cheney said, "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all. He said, quote, 'I don't want to use that terminology.' In his view, opposing terrorism is far less of a military operation and more of a law enforcement operation."

But Kerry did not say what Cheney attributes to him. The quote Cheney used came from a March interview with the New York Times, in which Kerry used the phrase "war on terror." When he said "I don't want to use that terminology," he was discussing the "economic transformation" of the Middle East -- not the war on terrorism.

What? Taking quotes out of context? Cheney must be a farker!

One titled "Doublespeak" pulls quotes from several major newspapers to argue that Kerry has waffled on major issues and has often said one thing and done another. The quotes, however, are often from editorials, sometimes from opinion pages hostile toward Kerry, such as that of the Wall Street Journal.

Yes, portraying editorials as newspaper articles sounds aboveboard

It is true Kerry has voted numerous times to eliminate weapons systems and opposed the 1991 Iraq war. But Cheney voted against many of those same weapons systems, and Kerry has voted for several defense increases, especially in recent years.

Yes, let's not be sheep listening to what our preferred media tell us...

the special effects were awesome in the movie...the story line kinda fizzled out towards the end.

swahnhennessy,

swiiiiing andamiss. and here's the pitch..

Look at the delicate areas of the eccosystem. Coral reefs, which have existed for millions of years and survived numerous natural climate cycles are dying. Areas of rain forest destroyed for cattle grazing and gold mining (by cyanide extraction). Record low water levels in the west and large areas of the midwest aquafier. Tap water in central Florida that is unhealthy for drinking.

We're having an effect on the world's climate. Mankind will survive those effects, but with great difficulty. Were we to make just a small commitment to slowing down these changes, future generations may praise us for having foresight rather than damn us as they mine our landfills for the resources we wasted. Complex hydrocarbons are easy to break down, but those long-chain molecules are near impossible to create.

We've decided that the cave men were right. The best way to generate energy is to burn stuff. Why bother with another method while there's still plenty of stuff left to burn? Look back to the state of the climate when all that carbon was floating in the atmosphere, not trapped in pools underground. That's the climate we're making.

KyngNothing

Kerry did propose such a cut in 1995,
-->I think this one speaks for itself...

Kerry said "I don't want to use that terminology,"

pulls quotes from several major newspapers
-->SO you admit that the quotes are real

It is true Kerry has voted numerous times to eliminate weapons systems and opposed the 1991 Iraq war.

***
SO basically you have all this time to pick and choose the items that would most clearly demonstrate that Bush is lying about Kerry, yet I don't have to do any research because you admit to the very things in your post.

Your candidate is truly sad.

snowboard22

I hope you're joking and mocking people, because that article isn't true at all. It's a report about what-if scenarios.

Please tell me that you're joking, and you don't actually believe the THEORIES and contingency plans for those theories as fact.

But, you know the hole in the ozone is getting smaller, right?
http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/10/10222001/ozone_45313.asp

Global Warming? Then why all the record cold?
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s557.htm

swahnhennessy

/junk science = science that conflicts with what you want to believe


Rather, it's pure belief presented with a scientific facade - without all the messy entanglements such as fact, repeatability, credible peer review, etc.

Junk science is merely a rhetoric or propaganda technique. It has little resemblance to the process engineers and scientists work within though its goal is to mimic this process.

LittleLotus

It was static for longer periods of time, not for only a few hundred years. If you would DO YOUR RESEARCH, the global temperature graph looks very similar to the CO2 level graph.

You know, I think it's safe to say that most of the people here have done their research. Unlike you, they're not self-righteous enough to declare their theories on the subject as fact. Or should I say dogma, with the fervor some of you go about this topic...

And this is within the last couple of hundred to thousand years. It took much more time for the climate to from tropical (from the time of the dinosaurs) to the ice age (the time of the mammoths).

Actually, if you read the link I posted, this guy says the cycle is 11,500 years, which can be proven.

Oh wait, why am I explaining this to you?

Because you're desperate to validate your theories as fact by trying to get people to agree with you? I dunno, why are you explaining your coincidental observations as scientific fact? Answer you question.

You only want to wave around your American flag, drive your SUV, and go on the Atkins diet in absolute peaceful ignorance. Screw science, AMerrrrrica can conquer ANYTHING!

Wow, I hope the irony isn't lost on you there with the whole "screw science" thing! It occurs to me that you don't know how to scientifically test hypothesis/theories. You seem to think that whatever conclusion you make is automatically right. I wished you could be our king.

Ouroborus

Wasn't it the other way around; didn't population rise when the temperature rose? (hotter weather = longer growing season = more food = more people)

Of course not, because his opinion says otherwise, LOL.

Actually, I've always entertained the theory that polar ice caps are water reserves, and as the world population increases, they melt to increase precipitation so that farming can be sustained.

Now, unlike LittleLotus, I'm not going to state it as fact, then call out the USA for not agreeing with it. But I would put it out there and let people support/disprove it with any sort of data they might have.

Ah, to live in the blissful ignorance of the republicans...

Dunno--the enviromental wackos make me think funny.
had one come to door trying to tell me that the gov't wanted to poison poor people's water, and that for several thousand dollars, i coould buy a water filter for my home. I said, what about restaurants, pools, etc...
He said the rich could afford filtered and bottled water, the poor would die.
I just laughed. This guy was just stupid.
I asked him how Houston's water rated. (live in Tx)
He sad BAD!!!!! So I asked---"why do they bottle and sell Houston's water to other cities???"
No answer.
Like, the gov't want to poison our air, too, according to another lib college student at my door.
Now, how do you separate AIR from the poor and the rich???
Geesh..
And these students believed it. all I could do was laugh!!!
I mean, a bit of scare tactics might work, but not---
"YOUR GOV'T WANTS TO KILL YOU!!!!!"

Flipper the Dolphin

KyngNothing

Kerry did propose such a cut in 1995,
-->I think this one speaks for itself...


One that was lower than the republicans wanted?



Kerry said "I don't want to use that terminology,"

When he said "I don't want to use that terminology," he was discussing the "economic transformation" of the Middle East -- not the war on terrorism.



pulls quotes from several major newspapers
-->SO you admit that the quotes are real
What?


It is true Kerry has voted numerous times to eliminate weapons systems and opposed the 1991 Iraq war.
And? So did many republicans... of course, they were probably real republicans, not like bush...

***
SO basically you have all this time to pick and choose the items that would most clearly demonstrate that Bush is lying about Kerry, yet I don't have to do any research because you admit to the very things in your post.


I "picked and chose" the main points of the article we were discussing... which was talking about misleading ads...

Your candidate is truly sad.
good point!

How is this a survey?

I saw the movie the other day and it was fun to watch. Regardless of if the movie is plausible or not the fact still remains that we waste oil like nothing else and even if there is not greenhouse effect, we will still run out of oil if people keep driving SUVs down main street to get a gallon of milk.

/9 miles to the gallon? thats great!!!!

kevin5lynn

Ah, to live in the blissful ignorance of the republicans...

I guess if forced to choose between that, or the stressful ignorance of the Democrats, I'd choose blissful ignorance over being a contentious flip-flopping complainer all the time.

/Should I waste my vote on Michael Badnarik?

More proof that pot makes you a dumbass.

LittleLotus,

For each carbon atom that we dump into the air, it dissolves 1000 of the ozone atoms in the atmosphere.

No.

What a lame ticket-peddling technique. NBC already had their stupid disaster miniseries 10.5, and "The Day After Tomorrow" is a big pile of cowflop. (So is "Van Helsing." Looks like another shiatty-movie Summer.)

lol @ lefties and their silly movie.

For each carbon atom that we dump into the air, it dissolves 1000 of the ozone atoms in the atmosphere.

there are ozone atoms now? is it right next to bolonium on the periodic table?

peter_hook --->

Flip flopper? I hate that whole "flip flop" notion. It's weak. Anyone understands that when circumstances change, you change your decisions.

See, if the captain of the Titanic hadn't insisted all the time on "steady leadership", the Titanic wouldn't have rammed head first into an iceberg!

infie --->

You won't be laughing so loudly when Farenheit 911 comes out.

Weaver95 --->

Just an appetizer before farenheit 911.

I can't wait to see the Bushes and bin Ladens dining together, like the old pals they are.

/F911

kevin5lynn

Flip flopper? I hate that whole "flip flop" notion. It's weak. Anyone understands that when circumstances change, you change your decisions.

No, I'd say "anyone" understands the difference between having conviction and not having it. If you have a clue what you're doing, or talking about, you don't need to flip-flop. If you're saying "this is what I'm going to do" and then you change your mind, you've never done anything. Not only are you not a person of conviction, no one knows where you stand.

See, if the captain of the Titanic hadn't insisted all the time on "steady leadership", the Titanic wouldn't have rammed head first into an iceberg!

See, you're wrong. This is a person who didn't have any clue what he was doing. Having conviction without education is simply faith, and that's equally as stupid. If you do your homework, get the story straight, and know what is going on, you should NEVER need to flip-flop, only make minor adjustments in course.

Flip-flopping is going from white to black.

If people need to flip-flop and make 180 degree turns from their statements, they obviously either have no clue/basis in fact for what they do, or they are easily manipulated.

So if Kerry's voting record makes him the most liberal senator, but he "flip-flops" 180 degrees on everything...what does that make him?

Can't be both. Which is it, most liberal or 180 degree flipflopper?

Anyone see that Penn&Teller: Bullshiat! about the environment.

That pretty much sums up how I feel.

And now you now how I feel, because I know you were all dying to know what I think. And what television shows I watch.

Peter_Hook --->

Who are you describing in your post? Looks more like Bush than Kerry.

Weren't Bush's convictions that Saddam had WMDs based false intelligence? Now that this has been proven false, why does he still try and convince us the war was justified?

Wow - it would appear that moveon.org is pandering to certain left coast entertainment types. Who'd a thunk?

peter_hook,

If people need to flip-flop and make 180 degree turns from their statements, they obviously either have no clue/basis in fact for what they do, or they are easily manipulated.

When Bush was campaigning for the presidency during the last election, he said that the U.S. would not act as the world's police if he was elected.

Would you consider this to be flip-flopping? Why or why not?

And, for the record, I think Bush and Kerry are both guilty of reversing their statements and views. In some cases, they were justified, and in some cases, they were doing nothing more than pandering to voters.

I love good stupid disaster flicks but...

they burn books in the library in this one. Bad, very bad.

Won't go see it.

edverb

So if Kerry's voting record makes him the most liberal senator, but he "flip-flops" 180 degrees on everything...what does that make him?

Perhaps his being liberal makes him too open-minded. Maybe with some conviction, we'd know where he stands, and we might be able to hold him to some campaign promises...if we knew what the planks in his platform were. He's really trying hard to lose my vote, I tell you.

Can't be both. Which is it, most liberal or 180 degree flipflopper?

I guess when you're 350 degrees of left and 10 degrees of right, you've got plenty of room to go 180 degrees and become either way more left, or slightly less left.

stultus,

they burn books in the library in this one. Bad, very bad.

If it makes you feel any better, they burned the tax code rather than a Gutenberg Bible :)


/saw it, but didn't pay for it

Peter_Hook --->

Man, I'm 350 degrees of left, and damn proud of it. Throughout history, the left has always been bringing social progress, resisted harshly by the right.

I love wingnut logic....

Environmentalism is bunk, so please add mercury to my water. Extra arsenic, please. I don't want the poor, poor coal-burning powetr plants to clean up their emissions, because environmentalism is bunk! The best way to prevent forest fires is to sell out to timber companies who'll clearcut the forest. No trees, nothing to catch fire. Problem solved! Screw Superfund, it's a hippie plot!

Fearless Leader would never poison me and my family, certainly not for the almighty dollar. And sheesh, that whole global warming thing is a scare tactic -- Rush Limbaugh told me so.

/you're fired, dummies.

I don't care about Move On's claim. The fact remains...

ID4 was super patriotic, and many rednecks enjoyed it beyond beleif because of that, watching the pres speach and jerking off to it's patriotic overtones.

Now the same guys come up with TDAT, and in it the US gov looks little more than an inane useless organisation.

And that, my friends, is why many people hate it. It was much better than ID4, and yet, a lot of people bash it down, simply because they dared showing the US gov like morons.

Sure, the science in it was way over the top. But it was still a fun mindless disaster flick. And the fact that it deals primarily with the FACT that we're screwing with the planet no end just strikes a nerve that people would rather leave untouched, because it questions their very lifestyles.

It hurts, doesn't it ?

Keep on shiating on everything you senseless morons.

God I hate humans.

Damnit, that was a response to

I guess when you're 350 degrees of left and 10 degrees of right, you've got plenty of room to go 180 degrees and become either way more left, or slightly less left.

So he'd be 530 degrees of left?

/confused
/doesn't think this is a circle
/a vote for my last post is a vote for crappy html

kevin5lynn

Weren't Bush's convictions that Saddam had WMDs based false intelligence?

False intelligence from the Clinton administration. And in all fairness, both Clinton AND Bush were GUARANTEED that the intel was accurate. Both also made a case for war. Clinton failed, Bush succeeded.

Regardless, your statement proves my point. Real leaderships is having implementation of the facts. At the time, the facts were right. It turns out that for awhile, the facts were in doubt. Some people who are anxious to jump the gun and prove their own agendas right declared there were no WMD, to which Bush's administration partially conceeded...however in the past week, WMD have been found. That validates both Bush and Clinton. And you cannot fault either for having the vision, commitment and leadership to take the best available information and make their case to test their theory.

It's better than simply sitting on your hands and changing your mind all the time.

Now that this has been proven false, why does he still try and convince us the war was justified?

It hasn't been proven false. If you're biased, and desperate to validate your opposition to the war for your own political machinations, you can try to pass that statement off as fact, but I laugh at it.

It took months to find Uday and Qusay. But they were found. It took more time to find Saddam. He was found. How silly would you look making your argument 2 weeks after war saying "There's no Saddam in Iraq, why did we go to war to overthrow him when he was gone?"

And then he's found. Fancy that.

They've found sarin. There's plenty of time to allow for finding more things, if you're fair, objective and open-minded. Are you? Are you patient enough to let the truth be proven, or so biased that you cannot accept it ever happening?

The way it looks to me...if we pull out troops, and people stop looking for WMD, you can say they've never been found. But if the presence continues, and they ARE found, you end up looking pretty dumb. If Kucinich got his way, the US would have been out months ago, and then the sarin shell would not have been found, thus proving your theory correct: there are no WMD.

It's obvious that your bias is terribly unfair.

Peter_hook --->
There's no point in discussing things with you. Good bye.

Son Of Thunder --->
Interesting twist there. Um, could you give me a quick example where the right brought about social progress?

Thanks

Since we're straying into WMDs & proliferation:

I love how all these WMD discussions inevitably fail to mention NK and AQ Khan. Keep arguing about Saddam's "arsenal" of rusted, leaking battlefield shells while ignoring the actual nuclear WMD proliferation right under your noses. Think AQ Khan had any compunction about selling to UBL? You know, the guy who attacked us on 9/11, who's still out there threatening us? The one the administration is convinced will attack before the election?

Thanks for distracting the country and making us less safe, you brainwashed buncha psy-ops victims.

And hey, Peter Hook....if you think the bad intel came from Clinton, and not Chalabi & his defectors....

Wow. How's that ice cream taste? It smells like poop.

SchlingFo

When Bush was campaigning for the presidency during the last election, he said that the U.S. would not act as the world's police if he was elected.

Would you consider this to be flip-flopping? Why or why not?

Well, I guess the first thing would be "is he acting as the world's police?" to which I say no. He's acting in the USA and their allies' best interest.

The second thing, which is the bait of your query, goes as follows: Unforseen.

John Kerry, the self-proclaimed military genius and social genius that he is, knew the outcome of the war, and the risks. You don't go toss the dice, lose, and say "oh, I was only kidding, that was a practice throw."

Sorry. To this day I'm not convinced that Bush wanted to police the world. It's funny how people say "the US believes in policing, we beleve in peacekeeping."

I didn't see a lot of peacekeeping going on anywhere, especially where the UN are concerned, who austensibly are the world's police and/or peacekeepers. If you truly want to point a finger at Bush's change on this issue, point it at the UN and it's sheer corruption and impotence. Giving France, who has extensive oil interests in Iraq a permanent veto...that's just aborrhent. If the UN worked as a body, it would have never fallen upon the USA's shoulders to make drastic moves in an effort to calm it's collective paranoia. Perhaps if the world itself did a better job on it's own soil, the US would not encroach on theirs. And that's exploitation both ways, the US exploiting and being exploited.

And, for the record, I think Bush and Kerry are both guilty of reversing their statements and views. In some cases, they were justified, and in some cases, they were doing nothing more than pandering to voters.

I would disagree because Kerry is quite "viewed" ie opinionated. Bush is more direct and careful. Unnervingly simplistic. But Kerry is all over the map. Bush may change his actions, but Kerry changes his mind and makes excuses. Sadly, in that contest of a lesser of two evils, Bush wins.

Weaver95 --->

Let's see... Communism is a form of government, not social progress. They did, however, bring some for of social progress, especially racial and religious equality.

If Lincoln was a republican, that does not mean he was from the right. I I recall, there was also a Whigs party that was pretty to the right of the republicans.

Don't know Jim Crow.

Abortion right? Well, I call it free choice.

I was thinking euqal rights, abolition of slavery, women's rights. That kind of thing.

Gotta go to a meeting, won't be online for a while.

peter_hook,

re: the sarin shell

First, who knows where the shell came from or how long it's been in Iraq. It may have been smuggled in with the influx of terrorists.

But, I'm willing to accept the idea that it has been in Iraq this entire time.

Finding one shell doesn't seem like validation to me. It would be akin to the DEA launching an all-out assault on Pablo Escobar's compound, only to find a roach clip and some seeds in the carpet.

Yes, they found some drugs. But, what they found didn't come anywhere close to justifying their full-scale invasion. And, honestly, I hope to god we do find a huge cache of WMDs in Iraq. I hope that we do actually manage to put a stable democracy in place over there.

I don't want this because I want Bush to succeed. I'd like nothing more than to see that smug prick fall flat on his face. However, if he falls flat on his face in this war, we, as a nation, will be decades in trying to regain our international status and credibility.

I want this to succeed because we can't afford to fail in this.

Hey, I heard there were a few corrupt Congressmen over the years. I guess Congress is corrupt and useless, right?

/same wingnut logic applied to UN

kevin5lynn

There's no point in discussing things with you. Good bye.

Because you're not able to refute the facts? Thanks.

edverb

And hey, Peter Hook....if you think the bad intel came from Clinton, and not Chalabi & his defectors....

It was Clinton's people who verified it. They got lots of intel that they didn't accept. That's how it works. You can try and pass the buck all you like, hell, you can blame Allah for creating Chalabi if we use your line of reasoning. But you can't blame the federal treasury for Clinton's stock market crash because they print the money. Bush inherited Clinton's military, economy, you name it...including intel.

Chalabi can say whatever he likes, but the fact remains that Clinton and his people took it to be fact. And frankly, were I in Bush's place, I would trust my best and brightest, especially if their information was compelling enough to have Clinton push for war himself.

Peter_Hook

Guess you've never heard of the agency created within the Bush admin...the "Office of Special Plans". The one that stovepiped all that defector disinformation garbage straight to the VPs office. Chalabi was their "best friend in Iraq", and some of them (the ones who haven't seen the conclusive proof of his double-agent status) still think he's their friend.

/Pin the blame on the donkey doesn't fly here, and I welcome you to try to blame Clinton for this mess...it won't fly with voters either. But don't let me stop you from trying. Maybe that dog will hunt, but I doubt it strongly.

SchlingFo

re: the sarin shell

And that's all fine, but Saddam did have Sarin, Anthrax and other weapons that were not accounted for. It's sad how people leave that objectivity out of the discussion to promote tangent arguments. Even Hans Blix, who has recently recanted that Iraq had any WMD left, said they were unaccounted for.

edverb

Hey, I heard there were a few corrupt Congressmen over the years. I guess Congress is corrupt and useless, right?

That's a retarded analogy. I guess if congress has 181 members, but 5 of them had a permanent veto...if those members didn't all have equal votes, but 176 junior votes and 5 supervotes that can nullifty a 95% majority wants.

I guess you don't know much about the workings of the UN, and how it's a tool for a few old superpowers to impose their will on the rest of the world for their own self-interests. If it weren't true, France would not be thwarting it's own UN inspectors from doing their job in Iraq from 1991 until 1996/1997 when it got really silly.

What a lame ticket-peddling technique. Earlier this year, NBC had their stupid disaster miniseries "10.5," and now "The Day After Tomorrow" is a big pile of cowflop. (I think pollution and global warming are major concerns, I just don't like dumbass movies, like TDAT. "Van Helsing" is another one. Looks like another shiatty movie Summer!)

peter_hook,

Well, I guess the first thing would be "is he acting as the world's police?" to which I say no. He's acting in the USA and their allies' best interest.

I view our incursion into Iraq as a policing operation. We said that Saddam was breaking the law in regard to the terms of the cease-fire. We said that he must be removed from power for failing to follow the law.

You don't feel that to be policing, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

The second thing, which is the bait of your query, goes as follows: Unforseen.

This very rational. People can't predict what the future is going to bring about, so it will be necessary to change their beliefs and actions.

But, you suggest that Kerry never changes his views or suggests new courses of action due to unforseen events simply because he is opinionated while Bush's changes in opinion and action stem from careful consideration of the facts. I have two problems with that:

1)Opinionated people very rarely change their minds or their courses of action. They are convinced that they're right, and they aren't likely to admit otherwise.

2)Kerry and Bush are both cut from the same mold. They're both upper-crust, Skull and Bones, self-serving politicians. I don't see any inherent altruism or nobility in either of them. They're both simply looking out for number one.

What is your opinion on Bush's reversal of his views on gay marriage? When he was campaigning, he said that gay marriage is something that should be left to the states to decide.

Now, he has been calling for a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage.

Is this not flip-flopping?

2004-05-31 10:12:11 AM peter_hook


You know, I think it's safe to say that most of the people here have done their research. Unlike you, they're not self-righteous enough to declare their theories on the subject as fact. Or should I say dogma, with the fervor some of you go about this topic...

I hope you aren't speaking for those that don't even believe global warming exist. Sure, that's a lot of research behind that claimt here ;) I never stated that my "theories" were fact. As matter of fact, they aren't even MY theories but rather research from a research university. I'm sorry, are my shocking statistics making you nervous when you drive your SUV?

Actually, if you read the link I posted, this guy says the cycle is 11,500 years, which can be proven.
Proven? ok. Prove it.


Because you're desperate to validate your theories as fact by trying to get people to agree with you? I dunno, why are you explaining your coincidental observations as scientific fact? Answer you question.

I'm desperate to educate those that don't think we have a problem, yes. If wanting to make people realize that mankind won't live forever is wrong, then wrong I shall live. And if observations are what REALLY HAPPENED and not made up, don't you think they can be called fact? I surely wouldn't call those observations a part of a fairy tale...


Wow, I hope the irony isn't lost on you there with the whole "screw science" thing! It occurs to me that you don't know how to scientifically test hypothesis/theories. You seem to think that whatever conclusion you make is automatically right. I wished you could be our king.

And it appears to me that you can't catch sarcasm. You seem to think you're superior simply because you are older, balding, and don't get as much sex as you used to. Newsflash: You're still just another sheep in the herd.

and how it's a tool for a few old superpowers to impose their will on the rest of the world for their own self-interests.

Like the US and Israel?

edverb

Guess you've never heard of the agency created within the Bush admin...the "Office of Special Plans".

A tinfoil hat statement for a thread with tinfoil hat in the title.

Listen: the Pentagon is the Pentagon. Whatever conspiracies (unproven) you want to believe about Rummy is fine with me, but I would like to know what those people had to do with Clinton using the same intel to make the same case for war.

Were the manipulating him as well? I'm sorry, I don't buy the Pentagon as some secret military society feeding contrived scenarios to the president because some conspiracy website says so. I listened to the UN inspectors, Clinton, Bush, and Saddam. It's not a complicated issue. Abstracting it with conspiracy crap when it's all out there in black-and-white is a cheap tactic to drag the issue into a spiral of manipulation so that it can be ignored.

It's not hard. Saddam had WMD. He kicked out the UN. His WMD were unaccounted for. Believeable people backed what was being seen. Whether or note the Bilderbergs and Illuminati used mind control on Rumsfeld in the Pentagon's secret tunnel to Israel is irrelevant. It's just an entertaining story of heresay, nothing more.

To turn your back on the UN b/c they aren't hellbent on war like you are is what's retarded. And don't tell me that the discreditation campaign is based on anything but.

It's a massive failure of diplomacy on Bush's part.

HUGE Bush flip-flop: He said he'd put the resolution to a vote, then changed his mind. Never went to a GA vote.

Don't know how Canada, Mexico, Chile, et al would have voted. Maybe they'd have voted "no".

You can point to the Security Council veto, but you don't even know if it would have garnered a simple majority. France's veto may have been a moot point. You'll never know b/c of a Bush flipflop.

Cokedupwerewolf

Dear God man! Snow is COLD?! Your SUV is to blame!

I don't own an SUV, my family does.....

Wow. Willful ignorance at it's finest. You've just invented a scenario where your positions are justified.

If you think the OSP is just a conspiracy theory, I'm not going to waste my time educating you. Suffice to say, reality doesn't care that you've deceived yourself about how this war came to pass. Neither do I.

Best of luck trying to convince people that Clinton was responsible for disinformation that Bush swallowed whole, and went to war over.

We're done here.

LittleLotus,

The fact is that the scientific community is still out to lunch on the issue of global warming.

They don't know whether what we're seeing now is a result of our actions or if it's just part of the natural cycle of the earth.

I think more research needs to be done in the area, but I also feel that it can't hurt to act on the safe side until it's determined whether we're causing the global changes.

LittleLotus,

Clearly, you're another one that refuses to accept scientific fact.

Carbon atoms don't cause the breakdown of ozone.

Free radicals cause the breakdown of ozone.

Weaver95 --->
No no no! Don't ignore me! I'm not a communist and I don;t support communism. I was just saying communism is not a form of social progress.

Peter_Hook --->
I don't want to discourse with you because all your facts are straight out of the propaganda machine and, while I could, I'm not enclined to have to go on a link hunt to show you proof which you will dismiss because of trivial matters.

Son of Thunder said ---.
If "the right" is defined according to the defense of the status quo .

Kevin5lynn answers --->
Yes, that is my definition of the right: defenders of the status quo.

Maybe LittleLotus, who doesn't seem to mind studying or working at Virginia Tech (shame on you! I wonder what her computer and her job is doing for the environment!) is thinking about the carbon atoms with the meson cannons that go about destroying ozone atoms before being shot down by the Argon Defense Forces.

Many on the extreme left, right and libertarian seem genuinely angry that people have the temerity to disagree with them and lead lives contrary to what they "should" be leading.

2004-05-31 11:16:31 AM LittleLotus

"...And it appears to me that you can't catch sarcasm. You seem to think you're superior simply because you are older, balding, and don't get as much sex as you used to. Newsflash: You're still just another sheep in the herd."

This is a textbook example of an ad hominem.

Mugato --->

If you saw all nations coming together in that movie, you've got better eyes than I.

Oddly enough, this movie was produced by Fox. The same Fox which houses the Fox News Channel, which they even are starting to admit is conservative. If the Administration didn't want us to see this movie, I doubt Fox would have touched it.

LittleLotus
Newsflash: You're still just another sheep in the herd.

Of course, you are something special and unique.

Here's another newsflash: You're another sheep, just in a different herd.

BigBaldRon
Global Warming? Then why all the record cold?
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s557.htm

The jetstreams, or lack thereof. The midwest, north east coast, and europe could become ice cubes on a warmer planet because of how global air circulation might change.

SchlingFo

I view our incursion into Iraq as a policing operation. We said that Saddam was breaking the law in regard to the terms of the cease-fire. We said that he must be removed from power for failing to follow the law.

There's a difference between a treaty and law. He may have broken laws of the international community, but he broke the terms of surrender; a treaty, with us. Law is irrelevant. Were it relevant, the UN would have enforced it's laws upon Iraq.

You don't feel that to be policing, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Making someone stick to an agreement isn't policing, it's actually enforcement.

I don't see any inherent altruism or nobility in either of them. They're both simply looking out for number one.

Or the groups that support them. The difference is that Bush is direct enough to be hung with his own words and actions. Were he being truly subversive, he would be slippery, like Kerry. There's very little to hold Kerry to. Bush stands by everything he's done, and he speaks in simple, certain terms, unlike Kerry.

What is your opinion on Bush's reversal of his views on gay marriage? When he was campaigning, he said that gay marriage is something that should be left to the states to decide.

Now, he has been calling for a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage.

Well, where do senators and congressmen come from? States. And if state A does not want gay marriage, but state B does, state A is forced to accept the actions of state B. So you've got a handful of states saying 'yea' and many more saying 'nea.'

If the states want federal intervention, and the President complies, he's still doing the will of the states. Since senators and congressmen from EVERY DISTRICT IN EVERY STATE have to vote for it, it's the ultimate in democracy: majority rules. Since state A can't be exclusive and compatible with state B, the federal government is supporting the states' rights.

Is this not flip-flopping?

No, because as any clever politician, he can say exactly what I said and be right, whether or not gay marriage is implemented or not. There can't be 2 sets of rules because you have one state imposing it's laws on another, and there's no accountability there.

LittleLotus

All that being said, explain global cooling.

KyngNothing

and how it's a tool for a few old superpowers to impose their will on the rest of the world for their own self-interests.

Like the US and Israel?

Like the US, Israel, France, UK, China and Russia...and to a lesser extent, Germany and Japan.

edverb

To turn your back on the UN b/c they aren't hellbent on war like you are is what's retarded. And don't tell me that the discreditation campaign is based on anything but.

And yet you discredit Bush...hypocrisy?

Anyway, the way you just framed the UN is a blatant lie. France and Russia have extensive oil interests and agreements with Iraq. If they were interested in the UN enforcing it's policies, they would have backed it. There's no "hellbent on war" or not. It's a simple history lesson: France personally invested BILLIONS of dollars developing Iraq oil for the past 100 years. They don't care about WMD, they care about protecting their oil-based economy. I don't see how that's in the USA's best interest if the USA determines that Iraq's failure to comply with WMD agreements is bad for the USA.

You can point to the Security Council veto, but you don't even know if it would have garnered a simple majority. France's veto may have been a moot point. You'll never know b/c of a Bush flipflop.

That's rather revisionist. It was well-known that France, Russia and China would veto.

2004-05-31 07:24:36 AM Dahnkster

"no one wants to hear your trolls. everyone knows your all paid off by campaigns to post to fark."

Gee, in a way you are correct slobar, am enjoying the benefits of my Bush tax cuts. I used my IRS tax rebate to get a gigantic SUV that runs on condor eggs for this month's PETA-member hunt.

Condor eggs? That must be the new hotness. Mine runs on spotted owl eggs. It's so hard to keep up with these things.

2004-05-31 11:21:39 AM LittleLotus

Clearly, I meant molecule. Clearly, I wrote that very early this morning. Clearly, you're another one that refuses to accept scientific fact.

Why did a mental picture of Homer lecturing Marge on why the latest screwup is not his fault just pop into my mind?

/Is it possible to watch too much Simpsons? I'm thinking not.
//No voting, because sarcasm should not be rewarded.

edverb --->
There's no point in arguing with Peter_Hook. His arguments are all propaganda and he'll ask you to go on a link hunt to prove him wrong.

Movie is pure fiction, not based on science at all. It is not a documentary, just entertainment.

Very sad to think people would actually believe this could happen like this. Very sad indeed.

Why doesn't the White House want you to see Ishtar?

It was a terrible idea and a horrendous failure.

Nobody really understands why anybody involved agreed to do it, and nobody will ever tell you the real answers.

It cost a tremendous amount of money and made back next to nothing.

It's about the federal government (the CIA) affecting regime change in the middle east.

It just seems to drag on forever.

Its humor comes from the fact that Americans have no idea how the middle east works and generally bumble around that part of the world without accomplishing anything positive.

It's shamelessly racist.

People constantly biatch about how awful it is without knowing a damned thing about it -

- but people are right.

And Elaine May, the person in charge of this disaster, was ultimately held accountable for it and didn't direct another film ever again.

kevin5lynn

Peter_Hook --->
I don't want to discourse with you because all your facts are straight out of the propaganda machine and, while I could, I'm not enclined to have to go on a link hunt to show you proof which you will dismiss because of trivial matters.

So "Ah, to live in the blissful ignorance of the republicans..." isn't propaganda?

Everything I've said is true. Just because it happens to be something you don't like doesn't mean it's propaganda, and you certainly can't propagandise on your own to combat it. Hypocrisy at it's finest!

I guess you can dig up links from conspiracy websites that claim opinions and heresay as fact, but I'm just going to refute it. Maybe you should just accept that I don't accept your leftist propaganda, or the right-wing's propaganda, and you've got no way to deal with me since I really hate both sides equally and am just stating the facts.