Blue Oval News Says No More Verbal Abuse Will Be Allowed

[Tony James]

They can create a new account or we can prevent them - we know their I.P.'s and who they are. Our T.O.S. clearly state that once you are banned you may not register again. If people keep coming here causing problems, we'll have our lawyers handle it.

 

As everyone knows, we SELDOM venture into the Ford Employee section. But personal attacks are out hand. Not only are personal attacks not acceptable, but it reflects badly on Ford and Ford employees. Image what Ford enthusiasts and consumers think when they read this stuff?

 

Like we stated above, it is NOT our intention or censor posts or discussion. It IS our intention to eliminate personal attacks, which offer nothing.

 

 

Hey Staff,

You're taking yourself and this site too seriously. Lighten up for goodness sake. Turning attorneys loose on a bunch of working stiffs is a bit much. Don't you think?

Your response to me is exactly why you need to stay out of the business of wading through the murky areas of censorship.

You're worried about what enthusiasts and consumers will think of our image when they see someone call someone else an ass-wipe or take other verbal swipes.

The questions to ask is; do you really think the consumers and enthusiasts care? Would they base their decisions to buy a vehicle on what we write? Come on. I really doubt it.

I also doubt they would base their decisions upon how well we spell, use punctuation, grammar or diction of any type.

How badly do you think it reflected on employees when you saw nothing wrong with posting Ford trade secrets on this site. Hell, sorry, I mean, heck, Ford tried to shut this site down. Didn't they?

Would you censor Littlecountry, a former Norfolk employee I believe, for posting all over this site his statements that he bought a Japanese car and bragged about how much he loved it? Common sense would say that is far more damaging to "our image" than calling someone an ass wipe.

Bigcountry responded, posted some harlarious pictures of him and made some comments that left us all in stitches.

In your world of censorship, yes, it is censorship whether you admit it or not, Bigcountry would be banned from this site, but Littlecountry would not. See what I mean?

If this is going to be an open forum then it should be just that. Whether the comments are written in jest or intellectually.

 

 

 

I would like the staff of this site to return and answer what I posted on page 3 of this thread

[Imawhosure]

Methos is till not understanding.

 

He continues to beat the drum over this as he believes in it wholeheartedley.

 

Methos, there is nothing wrong with what you believe, and I will be the first to come to your defense should someone attempt to silence you.

 

On the other hand, as you can post articles for your position, just as many articles can be posted that claim it is bad science. Just because I choose to believe the facts that support my position, and you choose to believe yours, does not make either one of us correct.

 

It will not take an anvil to change minds, but when either side can easily explain their opponents side away, you and I are left in the middle.

 

I applaud your concern for staunchly taking a stance; regardless if I believe you are in error. The truth is yet to be proven out, since the same people were claiming we were going into an ice age just 35 yrs ago, and somehow that was our fault too. (I believe we already discussed that one on an earlier thread)

 

Are you so positive that the same people, the same groups, the same sky is falling crowd, who claimed the exact opposite in our lifetime now has turned 180 degrees opposite and has nailed the problem?

 

Not me, cause fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

 

If they are right, they only screwed themselves through bad science earlier. Until we have a consensus of a problem, we will never debate a solution......................and you can thank those people that eroniously tried to convince everyone we were gonna freeze to death, just 30 years ago.

 

What is going to be the story 30 years in the future from these same people and their prodgeny?????????? Is the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or possibly the Thanksgiving Turkey gonna ambush us on the holidays while we are trying not to burn wood in the fireplace because of global warming..................or maybe they will stick it to us cause we aren't melting our ice cubes cause of global freezing.

 

You figure it out, I am just gonna stick with what is real till they come to consensus instead of jumping on somebodys bandwagon who has an agenda...............and their agenda is no good for the United States of America; especially when they can't prove anything as of yet.

 

P.S. Everyone has a sunburn, not to mention, we are all suffocating!!!! Nooooooooo, we are freezing and have ice burn!!!!!!!! Nooooooooo, the Easter Bunny is gonna crush ya cause you are hiding his/her eggs!!!!

 

I may have been born at night, but it wasn't late last night.............and neither were most of the rest of us.

 

Luck to you and your cause. Your are a stellar individual, and if I had to have a greenie next door, it would be you cause of your remarkable ability to make something understandable to those who oppose your point of view.

 

If you ever get to Chicago, let me buy you a beer or a Pepsi; maybe even lunch. (the fire from cooking it won't cause global warming, will it? Sorry, just teasing. Luck to ya, and congrats on the education)

[NoMoVisteon]

When will the staff do something about ebrits avtar? and others like it? It's over the top.

 

 

Hey Mr. Save The Planet, what's the problem? Got "Avatar Envy" or something? Sounds like it to me.....What's this "Over The Top" shit topic you've brought up? What? Just because Ebritt thinks that the Tundra Sucks and he made it an avatar of his? You mentioned that there are more on this forum that offend you, well, YOU CAN ADD ME TO THE LIST :happy feet:

 

 

I'm proud of my avatar and everyone who posts on this site puts on what they feel is right and I've never, Never, EVER, had a problem. Never! Oh, how I LOVE MY FREEDOM and I support the troops not only here on this site, but those that are out in faraway places as well. Now, that over the top thing, yeah, just keep in mind this:

 

YOU CAN RUN, BUT YOU CANNOT HIDE.... :whipped: :beatdeadhorse: :fan:

[diamondhead]

Hey Mr. Save The Planet, what's the problem? Got "Avatar Envy" or something? Sounds like it to me.....What's this "Over The Top" shit topic you've brought up? What? Just because Ebritt thinks that the Tundra Sucks and he made it an avatar of his? You mentioned that there are more on this forum that offend you, well, YOU CAN ADD ME TO THE LIST :happy feet:

I'm proud of my avatar and everyone who posts on this site puts on what they feel is right and I've never, Never, EVER, had a problem. Never! Oh, how I LOVE MY FREEDOM and I support the troops not only here on this site, but those that are out in faraway places as well. Now, that over the top thing, yeah, just keep in mind this:

 

YOU CAN RUN, BUT YOU CANNOT HIDE.... :whipped: :beatdeadhorse: :fan:

 

 

Remember the saying?

 

My cold, stiff hands!

[tinman]

you bunch of old women!! mommy billy said something mean to me! daddy billy is hitting me. mommy billy is looking at me! daddy billy is touching me! grow up and quit cry-babying!

[DeezNutz]

I think that if you're easily offended by what you read in any forum online then maybe it's time to toss out the computer. As I read though some of these posts the "Shut the fuck up" signature seems appropriate more often than not. I also don't see where the King blowing off Ronnie's head adds much value, or even a relevant point, to a Ford forum. However, I can overlook it because A.) I'm an adult. B.) Usually I'm just trying to sort through rumor to glean a little information in regards to the company, the union, and my future.

 

The bottom line is that you're going to find a lot of bullshit on this forum, and just about any other you go on. If you can't deal with personal attacks, and I'm not saying you should have to, don't post here. It's the nature of the beast. If you find certain language or images offensive, don't look here. If personal attacks and fast food violence concern you more than the well being of FoMoCo and your future...then you definitely shouldn't be here.

 

There are things that bother me and since it's getting so much attention, I've added a signature of my own. I hope it doesn't offend you. If it does, read it again!

Edited February 18, 2007 by DeezNutz

[Roadrunner]

Those videos say a lot about you Ebrit, you are showing your true colors. Same goes for you Derek.

 

The thing is that EVERYBODY who clicks on a thread that you post in HAS to see that crap, there is nothing poitive bout it, just a bunch of negativity. Do you really need attention that bad?

 

Are we really going to quibble about this small shit?

[methos]

Methos is till not understanding.

 

He continues to beat the drum over this as he believes in it wholeheartedley.

 

Methos, there is nothing wrong with what you believe, and I will be the first to come to your defense should someone attempt to silence you.

 

On the other hand, as you can post articles for your position, just as many articles can be posted that claim it is bad science. Just because I choose to believe the facts that support my position, and you choose to believe yours, does not make either one of us correct.

 

It will not take an anvil to change minds, but when either side can easily explain their opponents side away, you and I are left in the middle.

 

I applaud your concern for staunchly taking a stance; regardless if I believe you are in error. The truth is yet to be proven out, since the same people were claiming we were going into an ice age just 35 yrs ago, and somehow that was our fault too. (I believe we already discussed that one on an earlier thread)

 

Are you so positive that the same people, the same groups, the same sky is falling crowd, who claimed the exact opposite in our lifetime now has turned 180 degrees opposite and has nailed the problem?

 

Not me, cause fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

 

If they are right, they only screwed themselves through bad science earlier. Until we have a consensus of a problem, we will never debate a solution......................and you can thank those people that eroniously tried to convince everyone we were gonna freeze to death, just 30 years ago.

 

What is going to be the story 30 years in the future from these same people and their prodgeny?????????? Is the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or possibly the Thanksgiving Turkey gonna ambush us on the holidays while we are trying not to burn wood in the fireplace because of global warming..................or maybe they will stick it to us cause we aren't melting our ice cubes cause of global freezing.

 

You figure it out, I am just gonna stick with what is real till they come to consensus instead of jumping on somebodys bandwagon who has an agenda...............and their agenda is no good for the United States of America; especially when they can't prove anything as of yet.

 

P.S. Everyone has a sunburn, not to mention, we are all suffocating!!!! Nooooooooo, we are freezing and have ice burn!!!!!!!! Nooooooooo, the Easter Bunny is gonna crush ya cause you are hiding his/her eggs!!!!

 

I may have been born at night, but it wasn't late last night.............and neither were most of the rest of us.

 

Luck to you and your cause. Your are a stellar individual, and if I had to have a greenie next door, it would be you cause of your remarkable ability to make something understandable to those who oppose your point of view.

 

If you ever get to Chicago, let me buy you a beer or a Pepsi; maybe even lunch. (the fire from cooking it won't cause global warming, will it? Sorry, just teasing. Luck to ya, and congrats on the education)

 

 

My reasoning on why we need to consume less is twofold, the first being national security, and the second being global warming. I do not want to get into a long debate here, so I will just stick with the national security reasoning. If we somehow shifted our focus on reducing our dependency on oil, we could do more to slow or stop terrorism than dozens of mechanized divisions could accomplish.

 

Don’t believe me? Why is that Iran always seems to be rattling the nuclear saber - oil prices rise or remain high. I read a paper not long ago on the recent dip in prices have effected Iran’s ability to finance Hezbollah. The best weapon in fighting Iran is by using the discontent within, however that is highly unlikely while the country is experiencing record growth - due to oil revenues. Money really tends to soothe over any problems.

 

As an autoworker - at least for now - any national effort on reducing our dependency would involve at least some investment of monies in helping the industry become more efficient. Hey, the ways things are now, every little bit helps.

 

I will leave it short, and as far as lunch, anytime you are in the Ann Arbor area let me know, I would be honored to treat you to a lunch, maybe even a night out.

[Savetheplanet]

Hey Mr. Save The Planet, what's the problem? Got "Avatar Envy" or something? Sounds like it to me.....What's this "Over The Top" shit topic you've brought up? What? Just because Ebritt thinks that the Tundra Sucks and he made it an avatar of his? You mentioned that there are more on this forum that offend you, well, YOU CAN ADD ME TO THE LIST :happy feet:

I'm proud of my avatar and everyone who posts on this site puts on what they feel is right and I've never, Never, EVER, had a problem. Never! Oh, how I LOVE MY FREEDOM and I support the troops not only here on this site, but those that are out in faraway places as well. Now, that over the top thing, yeah, just keep in mind this:

 

YOU CAN RUN, BUT YOU CANNOT HIDE.... :whipped: :beatdeadhorse: :fan:

Remember the saying?

 

My cold, stiff hands!

 

Diaondhead or NOMOVISTEON, I think you two are the same person, but whatever. So I don't like Ebrit's videos, big deal, you did not see me start a thread about it did you?

But diamondhead, can you tell me what Iraq and the 2nd amendment (which I support) have to do with the thread topic? It's not really the thread drift that bothers me but the stereotyping . Why is it when someone say's the phrase GCC they are atomaticlly stereotyped as a liberall tree hugging, anti gun, pro choice, war demonstraighter? Would it surprise you that I own weapons, and have voted Libertarian in the past? Talk about an agenda! How you guy's went from a topic on verbal abuse to Mt, Rushmore and freedom, then Iraq and the 2nd amendment would baffle Freud.

[TheScrutenizer]

When I first saw the Burger King Drive-By, I laughed so hard and so long I nearly pissed my pants! I still chuckle everytime I see it. It is pure humor, not intended to offend, but that doesn't prevent people from being ofended if they lack a sense of humor.

As far as personal attacks, I don't think threats of violence or destruction of personal property are a valuable addition to intelligent conversation in any venue. Name calling just shows the lack of culture in the poster, and is done for one puropse only, to provoke anger, and as such should not be a part of the exchange of ideas and information either.

It's not some arcane rocket science to see whether or not a person is doing something to provoke a fight or a laugh. Let the people who run this site run it as they see fit. They pay the bills, it belongs to them.

Have a great day!

[ebritt]

My reasoning on why we need to consume less is twofold, the first being national security, and the second being global warming. I do not want to get into a long debate here, so I will just stick with the national security reasoning. If we somehow shifted our focus on reducing our dependency on oil, we could do more to slow or stop terrorism than dozens of mechanized divisions could accomplish.

 

Don't believe me? Why is that Iran always seems to be rattling the nuclear saber - oil prices rise or remain high. I read a paper not long ago on the recent dip in prices have effected Iran's ability to finance Hezbollah. The best weapon in fighting Iran is by using the discontent within, however that is highly unlikely while the country is experiencing record growth - due to oil revenues. Money really tends to soothe over any problems.

 

As an autoworker - at least for now - any national effort on reducing our dependency would involve at least some investment of monies in helping the industry become more efficient. Hey, the ways things are now, every little bit helps.

 

I will leave it short, and as far as lunch, anytime you are in the Ann Arbor area let me know, I would be honored to treat you to a lunch, maybe even a night out.

Dont get us wrong here dude, I think everyone here would love to break free of foreign oil, or just oil in general. The fact of the matter is that there are no alternatives at this time. They will come eventually but it takes time. E-85 is already running into problems,seems that the price of corn is rising due to a huge demand. And right now ethanol is consuming 12 to 13% of all the corn. Estimates put it at 50% or more in the next few years so it is not the answer.

I think what we all object to is wackos running around claiming that we as Americans are evil and have caused all the worlds problems and that somehow we should just curl up and die in a corner and let the world take over. Also the predictions that Florida will be under water by 2020 are assinine.

I'm all for a cleaner environment, I drive a car that gets 30 MPG, I just put flourescent lights all through my house and in the process of re-evalutaing my insulation. I have also recently replaced most of my appliances with new energy effecient models. Those are , to me anyway, some big steps.But that is not enough for the fanatics. I have to castrate myself on the global warming altar and ask their forgiveness. Sorry, aint gonna happen.

Here are some facts

Global Average temperature has risen .7 degrees celcius over the last 100 years.

3 Volcanic eruptions in those 100 years put out more CO2 and Sulfur Dioxide than man in his entire history.

Termites putout more CO2 and Phophoric acid per years than all of mankind.

The perceived leading cause of "global warming" is water vapor. (want to get rid of all the water?)

Global temperature changes can be linked with rising increases or decreases of output from the Sun.

Those facts right there, and there are more, get GCC people really pissed off and get them into namecalling mode.

 

Things like this show some of the hypocracy and the intention to make the US pay for the worlds problems.

 

Gore defends Chinese position on fighting global warming

Associated Press

 

MADRID — Emerging economies such as China are justified in holding back on fighting greenhouse gas emissions until richer polluters like the United States do more to solve the problem, former U.S. vice-president Al Gore said Wednesday. The world's top climate scientists warned in a report last week global warming is very likely caused by humanity and will last for centuries.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE

June 27, 2006

 

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

 

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

 

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

 

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

 

The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )

 

Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

 

Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:

 

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:

 

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

 

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

 

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

 

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

 

Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

 

“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

 

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

 

“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.

 

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

 

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

It's just too silly.

[DukeNukem]

ebritt, good post. Has anyone stepped forward and denounced his claims he invented the Internet!

Edited February 19, 2007 by DukeNukem

[jak65]

That was funny, YOU think I am HE ?

 

Why don't you tell the truth ?

 

 

 

It sure sounds that way with me

[jak65]

(One gold star to Roadrunner for using "elucidate" in a sentence. See, that "Word of the Day" calander was a worthy investment. :lol: )

 

**note to mods...this was meant as a jest and not a verbal attack. You guys know that I'd never insult anyone....**

 

:shades:

 

and I think that was sarcasm aimed at the mods.

[jak65]

Whosure, don,t get all worked up over nothing, nobody cares about your Mt. Rushmore avtar

 

Mt. Rushmore is not the same as a video clip, on every post telleing everyone to "SHUT THE FUCK, UP" and another avtar showing someones brains getting splated all over from a simulated gunshot.

None of it is that big of a deal, I just skip ebrits post's most of the time.

Have a nice day!!

 

 

It's just like watching T.V., if you dont like what you are seeing.....change the channel or dont look.

[Imawhosure]

Ebritt, you have proven nothing with that long disertation. SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!!

 

All you have proven is that as far as from an enviro angle, nobody really knows whats going on. It's kinda like when in the dark ages when an eclipse happened, the enviro...........I mean some gods were mad about something.

 

Junk science???? Junk science!!!!!!!

 

Now you have crossed the line. He who invented the internet, wanted to tax gasoline 4 bucks a gallon, all while saving the planet does not use junk science!!!!!! Those other scientists who disagree, they are junksters. Get it!!!

 

Now our reasonable friend Mr. Methos, has put forward a very good reason why we should cut back on foreign oil. It was absolutely one of the first LOGICAL and outstanding presentations on why we should, I can remember reading. (wonder if he verbalized it himself, if so, kudos to him)

 

Unfortunately, while the debate holds more weight than anything I have heard as of late, it still leads us back to the enviro greenies, for one, simple, reason-------------->we have 2 fuel sources in this country at this present time, that would virtually eliminate for reasonable cost foreign oil,

1. NUCLEAR..........greenies don't want it, why I am unsure, just know it is them and a few other groups.

 

2.COAL CONVERSION............greenies don't want that either, they block everything having to do with it......it works cause Nazi Germany fueled its war machine with it back in the 1940s and it is well documented.............firms wanna do this, claim that after all government taxes, average cost of this fuel throughout the US with their profit included, 1.63 cents to consumers. Only complaint? Must put moving tax on gasoline (notice how the greenies won't even consider a tax in this instance) that forces it to sell over 1.72 making their fuel competitive should the House of Saud and the Iran Mullahs decide to put them out of business.

 

Every fuel source that now exists that is viable, greenies do not like. Something is wrong with it, you name it, and it is bad.

 

Nuclear, coal, oil, electricity, water, (dams) fire, wood, even wind!!! You name it, it sucks. Now for you level headed individuals, isn't that just a little to convienient? Not 1 source of energy except maybe solar, that is any good for anything. The leaders of these groups have 1 agenda, and anyone who has any sense can see what it is.

 

And any of you greenies who pick from my list and say that it is ok, trust me when I tell you I for sure, and probanly Ebritt, will bombard these pages with links that show your leaders say they are not!!!!

 

And for you levelheaded individuals who are aghast at this list, and were not aware that a certain somebody was going to try and levy a 4 buck a gallon gas tax,(not to mention proclaiming in his own book that the internal combustion engine was the BIGGEST threat to mankind) I say this------------>for shame on the republicans for running George Bush.

 

But thank God Florida had enough sense, not to elect George Bush; but rather NOT elect 4 buck a gallon tax, destroy the economy, put Ford, Chrysler, and GM out of business Al Gore. A few hundred votes is just to close for comfort.

 

We must all make sure we pay attention and vote this next time..........in the primarys. Let us rid ourselves of two bad choices and get 2 decent ones instead!!!!!

 

There is a reasonable way to make progress, and keep MOST people reasonably happy. If we continue to put far right against far left instead of trying to get on middle ground, we will all suffer and fight for a very, long, time.

 

Right now Mcain and Edwards look good..........but that will be until the far people from both sides get done cutting them up cause they aren't far enough in one direction or the other for these nut bags from both partys.

Edited February 19, 2007 by Imawhosure

[methos]

Dont get us wrong here dude, I think everyone here would love to break free of foreign oil, or just oil in general. The fact of the matter is that there are no alternatives at this time. They will come eventually but it takes time. E-85 is already running into problems,seems that the price of corn is rising due to a huge demand. And right now ethanol is consuming 12 to 13% of all the corn. Estimates put it at 50% or more in the next few years so it is not the answer.

I think what we all object to is wackos running around claiming that we as Americans are evil and have caused all the worlds problems and that somehow we should just curl up and die in a corner and let the world take over. Also the predictions that Florida will be under water by 2020 are assinine.

I'm all for a cleaner environment, I drive a car that gets 30 MPG, I just put flourescent lights all through my house and in the process of re-evalutaing my insulation. I have also recently replaced most of my appliances with new energy effecient models. Those are , to me anyway, some big steps.But that is not enough for the fanatics. I have to castrate myself on the global warming altar and ask their forgiveness. Sorry, aint gonna happen.

Here are some facts

Global Average temperature has risen .7 degrees celcius over the last 100 years.

3 Volcanic eruptions in those 100 years put out more CO2 and Sulfur Dioxide than man in his entire history.

Termites putout more CO2 and Phophoric acid per years than all of mankind.

The perceived leading cause of "global warming" is water vapor. (want to get rid of all the water?)

Global temperature changes can be linked with rising increases or decreases of output from the Sun.

Those facts right there, and there are more, get GCC people really pissed off and get them into namecalling mode.

 

Things like this show some of the hypocracy and the intention to make the US pay for the worlds problems.

 

Gore defends Chinese position on fighting global warming

Associated Press

 

MADRID — Emerging economies such as China are justified in holding back on fighting greenhouse gas emissions until richer polluters like the United States do more to solve the problem, former U.S. vice-president Al Gore said Wednesday. The world's top climate scientists warned in a report last week global warming is very likely caused by humanity and will last for centuries.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE

June 27, 2006

 

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

 

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

 

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

 

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

 

The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )

 

Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

 

Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:

 

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:

 

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

 

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

 

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

 

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

 

Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

 

“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

 

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

 

“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.

 

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

 

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

It's just too silly.

 

The only line in your rebuttal that I tend to agree with is "It's just too silly".

 

First, here is what you left out of the article about Gore's position on China -

 

Gore Defends Chinese Position on Fighting Global Warming

The Associated Press

 

Thursday 08 February 2007

 

Says emerging economies are justified in holding back until richer polluters do more.

 

Madrid - Emerging economies such as China are justified in holding back on fighting greenhouse gas emissions until richer polluters like the United States do more to solve the problem, former U.S. vice-president Al Gore said Wednesday.

 

The world's top climate scientists warned in a report last week global warming is very likely caused by humanity and will last for centuries.

 

Chinese officials said they will act after industrial countries such as the United States and others make changes, Mr. Gore said, addressing a conference in Madrid on global warming.

 

"They're right in saying that. But we have to act quickly," said Mr. Gore, who was nominated last week for a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in drawing attention to global warming.

 

"China's reaction to the scientific report last week was disappointing, but it was instructive," Mr. Gore said.

 

The United States is the world's leading emitter of greenhouse gas and has refused to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on curbing such emissions. President George W. Bush contended it would slow the U.S. economy intolerably and should have required reductions by poorer but fast-growing countries, such as China and India.

 

Mr. Gore narrated an hour-long slide presentation with graphic evidence of global warming: Antarctic ice shelves cracking and collapsing into the sea, before-and-after shots of glaciers reduced to lakes and small patches of ice and forecasts of heavily populated land masses such as Florida shrinking drastically if glacial meltdown reaches a worst-case scenario and floods the seas.

 

"Never before has all of civilization been threatened," Mr. Gore said.

 

"We have everything we need to save it, with the possible exception of political will. But political will is a renewable resource."

 

Now for the quotes you posted from the climate skeptics here are two of several different sites that I use, www.sourcewatch.org. and mediamatters.org .It gives some background information on the sources to gage credibility. Each of the sources you quoted is funded by energy companies. You see, the big money is for climate change skeptics not proponents; the only catch is that you need to leave your conscious at the door.

 

 

 

junkscience.com

Dr. Tim Ball

Roy Spencer

Richard S. Lindzen

 

 

 

To be fair, I would like to add that just because an energy company funded or supports some research; it does not necessarily mean it is wrong. Although, I think it would be fair to state that the results would warrant even more scrutiny. I also would like to add that as in most cases, the only certainty is in the uncertainty of our hypotheses. Does that mean we should not act until we are certain, which would be to late at that point, or should we act now? I guess that is a question we all have to answer ourselves and act on it. I have made my choice and I hope you can respect it, as I do yours. Of course, there is always hope, and in the meantime debate

Edited February 19, 2007 by methos

[unionj]

From verbal abuse to global warming, go figure!

[Tony James]

From verbal abuse to global warming, go figure!

 

 

 

Unionj,

It's another reason why this site needs to step away from censorship and permit the mind of the writer to flow where it will. Whether they stay on topic or not.

[ebritt]

The only line in your rebuttal that I tend to agree with is "It's just too silly".

 

First, here is what you left out of the article about Gore's position on China -

 

What I posted said everything....Al Gore wants America to pay for everyone elses polution. It's ok with him for China to polute.

Now for the quotes you posted from the climate skeptics here are two of several different sites that I use, www.sourcewatch.org. and mediamatters.org .It gives some background information on the sources to gage credibility. Each of the sources you quoted is funded by energy companies. You see, the big money is for climate change skeptics not proponents; the only catch is that you need to leave your conscious at the door.

Majority Press Release Contact: MARC MORANO (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov) 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY (matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov) 202-224-9797 So you are saying that a senate press release if funded by energy companies? Oh come on now man, why don't you go ahead and say it.....the Evil Oil Companies.....you know you want to.

As for your sources....media matters if a far left liberal organization who I wouldn't put any faith in.

 

 

junkscience.com

Dr. Tim Ball

Roy Spencer

Richard S. Lindzen

 

 

 

To be fair, I would like to add that just because an energy company funded or supports some research; it does not necessarily mean it is wrong. Although, I think it would be fair to state that the results would warrant even more scrutiny. I also would like to add that as in most cases, the only certainty is in the uncertainty of our hypotheses. Does that mean we should not act until we are certain, which would be to late at that point, or should we act now? I guess that is a question we all have to answer ourselves and act on it. I have made my choice and I hope you can respect it, as I do yours. Of course, there is always hope, and in the meantime debate

 

And just because it comes from Spotted Owl Gore doesen't mean it is right either.

As far as taking action now, just what action? The bottom line for most of these groups is that the US caused all this and needs to cough up a shitload of money. And THAT is the bottom line....MONEY. Global warming activist are not content with you driving a better car, using less energy at home or even planting a tree....they want your money and they want a lot of it.Global warming will be used to pass legislation that raises taxes, restricts freedom of choice, and gives them power.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...d=&Issue_id

 

Some More truth.

 

Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

<LI>The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

<LI>What the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.

<LI>Something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970's, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.

<LI>A letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6, 2006 by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of scientific knowledge on global warming. The 60 scientists wrote: "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." The letter also noted: "‘Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise."

<LI>In 2006, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than "science fiction."

<LI>"Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again." That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.

<LI>A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor "Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age." The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold." An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: "Ice Age Coming Here."

<LI>By the 1930's, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming: "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise" stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.

<LI>The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles. An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: "Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada." The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be "wiped out" and Switzerland would be "entirely obliterated."

<LI>A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade." The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence" would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that "A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable."

<LI>On February 19, 2006, CBS News's "60 Minutes" produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water. "60 Minutes" failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.

<LI>According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was "0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average."

<LI>In August 2006, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun's output.

[unionj]

ebritt,

You are here by designated the methos opposition spokesperson. You have countered everything in a well presented neutralizing manner.

[Scab Picker]

ebritt,

You are here by designated the methos opposition spokesperson. You have countered everything in a well presented neutralizing manner.

 

Yeah and one more thing........................Tundra Sucks

Edited February 20, 2007 by Scab Picker

[cal50]

ebritt,

You are here by designated the methos opposition spokesperson. You have countered everything in a well presented neutralizing manner.

 

 

Yet it will have little effect,like man's action on a planet millions of years old.

 

When someone can predict it WILL rain in a 24 hour span I might have a little more faith in other predictions.

I don't want to screw up the environment but some of the wild accusations with little fact are a huge stretch.

No one has been able to get politicians to agree on a budget or the economy which is straight math,how the hell are you going to get them to agree on uncertain science? They should go back to biology and study on the difference of an observation or an inference.

[methos]

Some More truth.

 

Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

<LI>The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

<LI>What the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.

<LI>Something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970's, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.

<LI>A letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6, 2006 by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of scientific knowledge on global warming. The 60 scientists wrote: "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." The letter also noted: "‘Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise."

<LI>In 2006, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than "science fiction."

<LI>"Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again." That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.

<LI>A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor "Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age." The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold." An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: "Ice Age Coming Here."

<LI>By the 1930's, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming: "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise" stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.

<LI>The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles. An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: "Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada." The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be "wiped out" and Switzerland would be "entirely obliterated."

<LI>A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade." The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence" would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that "A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable."

<LI>On February 19, 2006, CBS News's "60 Minutes" produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water. "60 Minutes" failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.

<LI>According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was "0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average."

<LI>In August 2006, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun's output.

 

Do you really believe all that dribble? Take a guess on who is James Inhofe's biggest campaign contributor - Oil and Gas.

Edited February 20, 2007 by methos

[Imawhosure]

Ebritt,

 

I am leaving Ford shortly and do not know if I will peruse these pages much anymore. Be nice to Meth. He is a good man like us, just has different opinions. He believes what he states cause he forgot the old adage that history teaches all things.

 

People who do not study much history, (and that does not MEAN METHOS) do not understand that the media and scientists have railed this nonsense in 180 degree terms over, and over, and over again. The same people (those still alive anyway) who beat the drums for cooling are now beating the drums for warming.

 

Many people buy into their "sky is falling routine" because they are younger and have never experienced them whining in the other direction. Once they change course 2 or 3 times in your lifetime, you begin to see that their rantings are really about something else.

 

Let us be honest here------------------>Lets all pretend for a minute we believe that the warming is happening. 6 months from now, the same scientists, using the same methods now decide we are cooling. We should be relieved now right!!!!!!!! The change was soooooooooooo small, our scientists got it bassackwards, so therefore we have much more time to fix the problem!!!!

 

Not in the world of eco land, oh no............you gotta fix the perceived problem yesterday, even if they could again be 180 degrees opposite of fact. And whos fault is the freezing, roasting, or whatever???? Why my fellow Americans, 90% is all laid at your feet according to the greenie stickumcaps, lol!!!!!!

 

And for most of the people who post here claiming warming or whatever, do not judge them harshly. They read, they are informed, it is what is written, just as the freezing was written not long ago. Many of them are highly intelligent, as proven that they read, are informed, and do care.

 

If these same people would only look back to the past..........even the recent past, they would have cause to doubt what they themselves have been preaching. Probably just a pause..........but if it causes them a pause, what do you think it does to the rest of us who already know what they are going to read from the media and scientists; especially when we didn't buy this cause hook, line, and sinker!!!!!!

 

To be honest, it is a form of brainwashing. If you hear something long enough, if enough people believe it and repeat it, then it must be true!!!!!

 

Kinda like Toyoty is soooooooooo much better!!!! Eventhough statistics show that their lead is minimal, try telling that to their owners. They will tell you that the statement was made cause you are a UAW pig or something, lol.

 

Or, did you ever hear the one about US over population in the near future told in the 1970s! (I know many of you did) The scream from the eco freaks was louder than Gabriels horn. We were destroying America with our skyscrapers, and people were gonna starve...........that is until airline flight costs went down, and middle America could fly reasonably, lol. They then seen citys plopped down, and miles, and miles, and miles of open land for as far as the eye could see. Big green blotches were in the open land, farms, all kinds of em. So the eco fans changed course, and here we are again!!!!!

 

The land of plenty is scourge of the earth, become like Cuba to savetheplanet, and you are all greedy, and aren't each and every one of you terribly ashamed. Not to mention, the people from Cuba and every country they want you to be like continue to try and sneak in here!!!! Therefore, only a Magnificent Politician (ALA Al Gore) can save you by forcing you to toe the line by his and his minions making policy........against your will.....to make us a better place to live.

 

If this makes you think, this is what eco freaks want, the government to force YOU to savetheplanet on unproven science, a science they keep changing 180 degrees everytime their current crisis burns out. They know that unless it is proven, you just won't do it. Therefore, they try and sneak an eco guy in. They almost did it with Gore, and trust me if you think fuel is high now, you haven't seen the 1/2 of it.

 

Remember when they asked him about the book and his comments in it, and what they meant? I do, he lied through his teeth about what he thought!!!!! How do we know this? Cause now that he is not running for anything, look at what he is saying.

 

That is how close WE came to a possible economic depression. How many votes was that?

 

Lonesome George is not my idea of a great president, but the alternative........if he had his way any where near as much as Lonesome George has in his 6yrs so far, woulda made you a very, miserable, American!!!!!! It woulda been akin to Jimmy Carter II!!!!!

 

This is why if you are willing to spend time here, go spend time and vote in the PRIMARYS, even when it is a pain in the frame. Never allow these 2 partys to offer us such a dismal choice again.

 

And finally, if we assume that Al Gore woulda got his way even 3/4 as Much as Lonesome George, then you MUST draw this conclusion----------->the UAW woulda supported the man that put them, and the companys that employ their members, OUTTA BUSINESS!!!!!!

 

So much for the intelligence of the UAW hierarchy, and their stellar choices on whom to vote for and when to do it!!!! Both partys want to tell you what to think, and when it is reported what their candidates actually DO think, they lie!!!!!!!

 

Don't you THINK we start trying to THINK for ourselves; pay a little more attention, and tell both partys to either run people more in tune with middle America, or possibly face a November suprise!!!!!

Edited February 20, 2007 by Imawhosure