Movie News

Vern Finds Al Gore's INCONVENIENT TRUTH!!

Published at: May 3, 2006, 8:26 a.m. CST by staff

Merrick wishes more people would at least think about stuff like this...


Vern got a look at AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH – Al Gore’s cinematic admonition regarding the various ecological “crises” facing our world today.

Regardless of politics, anyone who uses FUTURAMA as a learning aid (as Gore does here) is aiight in my book!


Here’s Vern…


AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH

This summer there will be many exciting movies you can watch. There will be guns, cars, pirates, snakes, probably Superman or somebody, maybe Spiderman will show up, maybe a time machine or space ape of some kind. These are all thrilling scenarios, but I got another one for you. What about a movie about A GOD DAMN GLOBAL CATASTROPHE? Cities under water. Whole lakes drying up. Glaciers disappearing. Hurricanes and tornadoes, bugs and diseases, miscellaneous terror. Pretty much everything horrible except giant snakes and killer bees. Innocent polar bears drowning right and left. A fuckin’ nightmare.

Global catastrophe - that's pretty cinematic, huh? But you know what, I'll do you one better. What about Al Gore doing a SLIDE PRESENTATION about global catastrophe? Huh, what about that?

Bam. Sleeper hit of the summer.

Okay, maybe you aren't getting a "geekgasm" or "nerdboner" or "semen stains" over this particular movie. Maybe you are, maybe you aren't. But AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, or AL GORE'S SLIDESHOW as I would have called it, is a good movie. And usually I wouldn't want to say corny bullshit like this, but you could say that it is An Important Movie. I read a lot of things this week saying that it is important to watch the UNITED 93 movie. Well I wouldn't know anything about that but it is definitely important to consider the issues that AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH addresses. Unless you are some kind of earth hater and polar bear drowner. And I don't want to be controversial, but FUCK polar bear drowners. You suck.

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH is almost like a concert movie. Apparently since college, Al Gore (former vice president of the United States, looks like Superman*, etc.) has been very concerned about climate change. And over the years, especially after 2000 for some reason, he has been traveling around doing this slide show demonstrating through charts and diagrams and photos and etc. a very convincing argument. He argues that somehow the near-unanimous scientific community are actually right that we are causing climate change, and that the guy who did WESTWORLD is wrong. (He doesn't specifically mention that guy though. Sorry bud, maybe some other documentary.)

So most of the movie is basically a live performance. Al Gore in a high tech lecture hall doing a slide presentation. There are even behind-the-head shots of him walking down twisty backstage corridors to get to the stage, like any other concert movie. And you see him in airports and on planes. On tour.

The main thing that is emphasized is not just "this is happening" but "this is happening now." He says that if we do not make a dramatic improvement within ten years, we will hit a point of no return. And personally, I would like to return. Your mileage may vary. Only metaphorical mileage though, don't be driving all over the fuckin place if you don't have to, that's part of the problem.

Think about it, if there is no earth, what are all those comic books you've been saving gonna be worth on ebay? NOTHING.

He also emphasizes the idea that this is a moral issue. It has nothing to do with left wing vs. right wing, Bush vs. Stephen Colbert, Coke vs. Pepsi. It's an issue that most of us agree on and need to unite over if we want to get the problem solved. It's about not fucking over your kids and grandkids. It's about not being an asshole. It could even be about Jesus if you wanted it to be, because Jesus said "don't be an asshole" (paraphrase). I'm not saying you have to see the movie to not be an asshole, but you do have to consider what we are facing here and what we can do about it. And watching the movie might help.

Climate change is not a partisan issue, but that's also the problem with this movie. Because, fair or not, the fact that it's all about Al Gore is enough to divide any potential audience. I think there are alot of republicans who would never watch this movie because it's about Al Gore. There are still people pissed at him because he didn't want to stop counting the votes in Florida. And there are people on the other side, we will call them "people like me," who are still pissed at him for only wanting to recount the counties that favored democrats, instead of recounting all of the votes in the state. That would've been the right thing to do and also would've won the election and saved us a little trouble here, in my opinion. You guys know what I'm talking about. Starts with an 'I' and ends with a 'Q.' That place where the major combat missions ended three years ago Monday.

Of course, that last paragraph guarantees that this review will have the worst talkback of all time. But I think that would've happened even if I never mentioned 2000 at all, and that's my point. To most people, the sight or mention of Al Gore brings up old arguments and emotions about the, uh, Y2K problem. And that shit is irrelevant to this movie. So it's a big hurdle to jump over in order to get the movie's message across.

Not that the movie tries to dodge that. It's mostly the slideshow, but every once in a while it veers off into biographical information about Gore, showing how he got interested in this issue and telling some personal stories that make it hit home a little more. I especially like the scene about growing up farming tobacco and why his father eventually decided to stop growing it. The charts and maps might scare the shit out of you (it's like a Halloween party at the science center) but the real human being stories are more interesting if you ask me. Anyway they take that approach so there is a little montage about the 2000 election in order to show when he decided to really dedicate all his time to environmentalism. I was surprised the people at the screening - mostly lefties, I'm guessing - were able to restrain themselves from booing. I guess that shows that the movie is pretty involving, especially for a movie about slides.

There has been a whole slew of politically oriented documentaries in the last, say, six years. It is hard to say why, nobody really knows. I am as liberal as they come so I agree with alot of them, but I don't necessarily like them. For example I'm not a big fan of the Robert Greenwald documentaries like OUTFOXED, UNPRECEDENTED and all those ones. They're important topics but they're cheap ass movies. AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH is not like those ones. It's simple, but it's classy. It feels more like a real movie than those.

I actually liked the documentary footage of Gore talking on the phone and riding on a plane and shit, because that's my type of documentary, the Maysles brothers type shit where they just show what somebody does in real life. But including even the small amount they have of this type of scene was probably a mistake as far as the mission of this movie. You need to get the message across to people who don't give a shit about Al Gore, and even to people who despise Al Gore. Maybe they should treat this like a Japanese horror movie and remake it with Naomi Watts.

One thing I should mention, I know a thing or two about Al Gore's reputation, but this movie is not as dry as some will expect. Yeah it's a serious talk about a serious topic, but the dude is not without a sense of humor. He has some good visual methods of explaining things and even uses a clip from the "Futurama" cartoon to explain the concept of global warming. One thing that would've been cool would've been if he still had that crazy beard he was sporting for a while. Or if he would swing around on a rope above the audience during his presentation. Maybe some pyrotechnics or a jetpack or something. To be fair I'm not sure how environmentally up to snuff those things are, it might seem hypocritical for him to be flying around on a jetpack and then complaining about the CO2. So he probaly made the right decision on that.

After the screening one of the cast members, Al Gore, came out for a question and answer session. He actually seemed pretty cool. He didn't seem like he was running for president, and nobody asked him if he was. I forgot what it was like to watch a politician or politician-like individual stand and take questions and then answer them knowledgably. He would not only answer the actual question, but would illuminate it with all kinds of detail, showing a great knowledge of science, history, politics, and even making a relevant comparison to The Sopranos. I also realized that the guy who did the impression of him on Saturday Night Live was very accurate. But the point is I have never been a big fan of the guy but I was impressed by him in the movie and in person. Still would've liked to see the beard, though.

Anyway, I hope Al Gore gets his way and saves the world and what not. The way I figure it, there is no reason not to get on board with this shit. Even if you are like the westworld guy and refuse to believe what the non-fiction scientists are telling us, I don't see what the problem is. What is it going to hurt you to get better mileage on your car, trim down your energy bill, have less smog in your city, have cleaner rivers, etc.?

Unless you are terrified of pandas and owls someday overrunning our cities and eating our children, why not get in on this. Even if there was no global warming, you have every reason to want to conserve energy and be less dependent on foreign oil. You can even be greedy about it, because new technology means money. People will get rich off of developing cleaner energy technologies. Even Bush has figured this one out, he's gonna be all over squeezing big bucks out of his magic corn powered cars or whatever it is. After he stops steroids.

For the reasons I mentioned, AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH is maybe not the perfect movie for making people take this issue seriously. But it's a good one. It definitely worked on me. Leave those polar bears alone you fucks.

--Vern

http://www.geocities.com/outlawvern
http://www.lulu.com/outlawvern

*Chris Tucker pointed out back in 2000 that Al Gore looked like Christopher Reeve. He said if Gore would make his speeches wearing a Superman costume he would win. I never forgot that even if superman is looking a little chunkier these days.


Thanks, Vern!

AN INICONVENIENT TRUTH is slated for release May 24th from Paramount Classics.


Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 3, 2006, 8:37 a.m. CST

    WOW

    by skinnyharry

    This sounds pretty serial

  • May 3, 2006, 8:40 a.m. CST

    So that's what that South Park episode was about?

    by cromulent

    I was wondering wtf Al Gore and bearpigman.

  • May 3, 2006, 8:42 a.m. CST

    Wow

    by seppukudkurosawa

    We've all just been invited to the world's first AICN Version of Vern Tells it Like it Is. And I'm calling that this talkback will spiral out into a "righties VS lefties" slanging match within 15 posts of mine... (By the way it was a close fight, but just when you thought lefties were down for the count, they got right back up again and issued the righties a Spinning Hook Punch square into the jaw, stealing the fight at the last moment).

  • May 3, 2006, 8:43 a.m. CST

    Wow. A liberal peice of crap that AICN loves.

    by biggles2_22

    Yes, the globe is warming, the globe is warming! Please please, will someone institute a global warming tax upon us! Yes, and impose it only upon the US (since we are solely responsible for all evil in the world). From those with the means to those with the needs, eh? All I ask is that we don't cool down the globe too much. My winters in Michigan are already too long.

  • May 3, 2006, 8:47 a.m. CST

    A Halloween Party at a Science Center

    by BankyFan

    Please see every movie that ever comes out ever, Vern.

  • May 3, 2006, 8:48 a.m. CST

    It only took one

    by madoo14

    I dont think kurosawa saw that one coming lol.

  • May 3, 2006, 8:52 a.m. CST

    I want to see this.

    by Cory849

    I am incredibly skeptical of the global warming crowd. They have been proven to be liars and knaves. Michael Crichton just wrote a fiction novel with an appendix in it arguing against such "politicised science". (State of Fear. check it out at airports and revolving pocketbook stands everywhere). The "hockey stick graph" has been debunked. The causation continues to be seriously in doubt. Yet off we go again with Paul Ehrich's personal politico spouting at the mouth and making his first step back toward Al Gore 2008,2012, 2016. whatever. Or maybe just a nice Ambassadorship to the UN or something. Anyway, perhaps they are right. I'm still treating the debate as open. But before anyone climbs on board ask yourselves if they have actually proven: 1) that global warming is happening as they say. (2) whether the causation is, in fact, man made. (3) whether they have proven the harms they speak of (4) whether the policies they advise for fixing it can actually be effective. (5) whether the problems caused by the policy fixes outweigh the cures.

  • May 3, 2006, 8:53 a.m. CST

    Quick fact correction

    by chrth

    The NYT/Etc. recount had Bush winning, so there was no chance for Gore to win Florida (short of the Florida Supreme Court declaring all votes invalid and awarding the Electoral Votes to Gore, which is pretty much what they were heading towards). As for Iraq, I believe Gore would've gone too.

  • May 3, 2006, 8:57 a.m. CST

    BUSH---2 Terms as President GORE---ZERO

    by uss cygnus

    Sore/Loserman 2000 YOU LOST. GET OVER IT. I love the smell of Napalm dropped on insurgents in the morning. God bless ya, W.

  • May 3, 2006, 9:02 a.m. CST

    There will always be skepticism

    by chrth

    The problem is our data sample size just isn't large enough. We're all pretty much in agreement that a mini-Ice Age ended in the 18th(?) century ... so for all we know this is part of a post-Ice Age warming trend, and that the "normal" (if such a thing exists) temperature hasn't been reached yet. That said, I think we are polluting and causing problems, and I think everyone should be a conservationist, but the whole "humanity is to blame" angle is just going to turn people off. It's the like the Buffalo. The White Man didn't hunt the Buffalo to near-extinction just for the heck of it; the problem was that after the Indian population was seriously depleted by disease, the buffalo population exploded; the giant herds of buffalo didn't exist until the white man showed up. So the cause/effect/result kinda get tied up in each other. (Buffalo analogy from 1491) In short: we don't really know what's natural and what's artifical, but we should be doing positive actions to hopefully arrest the problem.

  • May 3, 2006, 9:07 a.m. CST

    Jeez, another poster who can talk sense?!

    by biggles2_22

    Amen, Corey 849

  • May 3, 2006, 9:09 a.m. CST

    Nuclear power is the only viable solution

    by Curious Jorge

    I don't know if this is Gore's thesis (probably not), but I think it's pretty exciting that a number of prominent environmentalists are finally waking up to realize the nuclear power really is the path to a cleaner environment. It's been three decades since we built a reactor in the US, because the anti-nuke crowd has worked hard to make construction prohibitively expensive. I am a staunch conservative, and I agree that it's time to take ecological conservationism seriously. Nuclear power is a cheap, safe, and clean alternative to fossil fuels.

  • May 3, 2006, 9:09 a.m. CST

    a truly awful president

    by Cory849

    And just to politically position my comments: (very good points by the way, chrth) I am a centrist with neo-conservative tendencies and socially liberal beliefs. But anyone who continues to defend this travesty of a White House administration is employing wilful blindness. Im not talking about ideological direction here. I am talking about clumsy execution on a global scale. The united states had better hope that your next president, whoever he or she may be, sweeps up his mess effectively or you are heading toward a world of hurt. Honestly, guys like Harry Knowles and USS Cygnus up there need to stop looking at politics like its a team sport. Its too important and the repercussions are too grave for that kind of behavior.

  • May 3, 2006, 9:17 a.m. CST

    I have to agree, that was a big mistake ...

    by Shan

    Al Gore and the Democrats should definitely have asked for a recount of every ballot in the entire state. Just asking for a few counties seemed far too calculated and it looked too self serving.

  • May 3, 2006, 9:26 a.m. CST

    Jesus said: "Don't be an asshole."

    by Childe Roland

    That was beautiful, Vern. Brought a tear to my eye. And speaking of "so funny I wept," Al Gore is actually a pretty charismatic and witty guy. When I was covering the DNC in Chicago back in '96, everyone at the convention was doing that damn Macarena. It was the most annoying thing in the world. And Gore called them on it. He got up, totally straight-faced, stood at the podium and said: "I've seen you out there, all week long, doing your Macarena. And I know some of you think I'm a pretty stiff guy. But I can have fun, too. Would you like to see my version of the Macarena?" The crowd went fucking nuts with frenzied cries of "Yes! Please, god, yes!" And I have to admit I was curious, too. So the guy stands there with that same totally deadpan look on his face for five seconds. Five fucking seconds of precious multi-network air-time passed in dead fucking silence. Then he says: "Would you like to see it again?" I nearly lost it. Say what you want about his presence on camera and nerdy disposition, but he's a smart, funny fucker and would've made a pretty damned good president. BY the way...gotta applaud what seems like some level-headed straight-talk about U.S. politics so far in this thread. Nice to see even those with neo-conservative tendencies recognizing what a piece of shit the current administration has turned out to be. Can we all just agree to set the partisan bullshit aside this next election and get someone in there who won't make things even worse?

  • May 3, 2006, 9:29 a.m. CST

    I kinda side with the guy who did Westworld.

    by El Fuego

    His stuff was very well researched and his sources were all right there. Here's how I see it. The entire world is not heating up. However, cities are, and those individual heat pockets are what's causing some of this extreme weather. Presume that you have a pot of water. You can predict what happens when it's still, you can predict what happens when you boil it, but what happens when you only boil little spots of water in the pot? Can you accurately predict the effects on the entire pot of water? No, you can't. I'm all for moving away from fossil fuels since we are running out... but as George Carlin said, the planet is fine.

  • May 3, 2006, 9:33 a.m. CST

    Leave the Polar Bears alone, you FUCKS!

    by Kentucky Colonel

    I, too, am a Polar-Bear hugger. Leave those viscious bastards be! I didn't vote for Gore (or Bush, for that matter...Nader: what was I thinking {I know what I was thinking....no way in hell will that boob Bush even come close to winning this election}!!! But now in his "elder statesman" role maybe he can help pull us back from the brink. What happens when you get CO2 runaway emmissions....VENUS! FUCKING VENUS!! 900 degree surface temps and a crushing atmosphere! Fuck Bush! Fuck Global Warming! Hug a polar bear!!!!! McCain in 08!!!

  • May 3, 2006, 9:40 a.m. CST

    Fu&* polar bear drowners!

    by Manaqua

    Thats funny. As for the message in the flick, maybe if it was delivered by somebody else besides Al Gore the nutter it may not fall on so many deaf ears. I plan on seeing it as soon as possible, but it still reeks of an attempt by Al to thrust himself back into the spotlight. And for the record, the point of no return was about a hundred years ago. Hang on, stock up, and enjoy the ride boys....

  • May 3, 2006, 9:57 a.m. CST

    Trey and Matt botched it in that episode

    by Knugen

    ...and its not the first time. When they hit it right they're hilarious though. Remember that everything is politics. The capitalo-fascists would gladly see the polar bears drown as long as they made money of the damn thing.

  • May 3, 2006, 10:04 a.m. CST

    Classic.

    by DocPazuzu

    "Or if he would swing around on a rope above the audience during his presentation. Maybe some pyrotechnics or a jetpack or something." ....... I laughed my ass off at that. I fear you're right, though, Vern; this will doubtlessly turn into the worst, most vitriolic left-right talkback in history. You did bring up a good point though, namely that even the people who DON'T believe in global warming have nothing to lose by showing some environmental sense. In fact, it's in their interest to do so. Let's say the U.S. or even the world goes green and the planet's STILL heating up. What better argument could the conservatives then have that liberals have their heads up their asses? And if global warming lessens, well then everybody's a winner anyway. Fuck gas-guzzling SUVs and the drive-through morons behind the wheels.

  • May 3, 2006, 10:05 a.m. CST

    Florida Recounts

    by McCroskey

    Didn't all but one of the multiple recounts done by the pro-Gore media outlets show that Bush would have won Florida anyway? The Left really needs to let go of the mistaken and incorrect notion that the recounts would have carried the day for Gore, and instead go with the argument that had the intent of all the voters been represented (i.e. had their voters not ruined their own ballots through easily avoidable mistakes) then Gore would have won. Of course, the Right can then reply with all of the overseas/military ballots that weren't counted and that were going heavily for Bush, and all of the felons who voted who weren't supposed to (heavily Democratic vote), and the pronouncements from the media that the polls were closed in Florida when there was still an hour to go in the heavily pro-Bush pandhandle. Even Democrat Bob Beckel estimates that cost Bush thousands of net votes.

  • May 3, 2006, 10:23 a.m. CST

    They're remaking THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW already?

    by TheBaxter

    boy, hollywood has really lost it's imagination when it starts remaking movies from just a couple years ago

  • Gore lost in 2000, period. Anyone still fighting this battle really needs to get over it. As for the environment, regardless of whether you believe the science or which side you believe, it's pretty obvious that there's now smog in the air when there wasn't before. The answer is simple: whether it's a "greenhouse" gas or not, people need to work to stop pumping chemicals into the air that aren't traditionally being put in there. Case mostly closed.

  • May 3, 2006, 10:34 a.m. CST

    Gore and his crazy beard

    by Crimson Dynamo

    He looked cool when he had the crazy beard and wild eyes - it was like he had traveled to the future and back again to warn us like a crazed Charlton Heston-type

  • May 3, 2006, 10:34 a.m. CST

    Michael Crichton ....

    by Chet Hudson

    knows just enough about science to be dangerous. Anyone who values the opinion of a fiction writer over that of a huge majority of the world's scientists is a fucking idiot. Period.

  • May 3, 2006, 10:35 a.m. CST

    re: GirthFerguson

    by mattw

    Girth, besides always posting first, your only contribution to this site seems to be inane nonsense like "lllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooyyyyy JENKINS!!!!" and "Im cerial yous guys". Can you please either A) Die a slow, painful death and stop annoying us or B) At least take the time to make them grammatically correct and use proper punctuation.

  • May 3, 2006, 10:38 a.m. CST

    By the year 1985 . . .

    by Guy Gaduois

    We will be surrounded by mountains of waste and the oceans will be uninhabitable due to waste. It's all right here in my Environmental Sciences textbook my Dad passed on to me - this is a Science book, friends, and scientists have no reason to lie and they are never wrong. He bought this book for $8 when he went to Cal Poly Pomona in 1969. Do you know how much $8 in 1969 money translates in today's marketplace. It equals $EleventyJillion dollars and .48. Books don't lie, people. I have to start down the stairs of my 12 floor apartment complex of sleeping tubes to get into my computer controlled hovercraft to begin my six hour work week in my office full of supercomputers now. HAL already has me late twice this week, and I won't get my share of Soylent Green if I'm late again. Soylent Green: It's what's for breakfast. And lunch. And dinner. Does anyone want to trade me some tickets to the moon colony for a contraband box of Tang? No? Bastards.

  • May 3, 2006, 10:38 a.m. CST

    Didn't Carl Sagan write fiction?

    by chrth

    ...just asking is all... ;)

  • May 3, 2006, 10:43 a.m. CST

    Global Warming is still a topic of debate...

    by TheBaxter

    ...in the scientific community. and for the record, here are some other topics that are still open to scientific debate: 1) evolution vs. creationism; 2) round-earth vs. flat-earth; 3) earth revolves around the sun vs. sun revolves around the earth; 4) scientology vs. common sense; 5) pyramids were built by egyptians vs. pyramids were built by aliens; 6) saddam had WMDs and was best friends with osama vs. bush lied; 7) mental illness vs. possession by demons; 8) thunder and lightning caused by electrostatic discharges in the atmosphere vs. we made zeus angry; 9) television vs. i have a box full of little people who talk to me

  • May 3, 2006, 10:46 a.m. CST

    TheBaxter

    by DocPazuzu

    Nice one.

  • May 3, 2006, 10:51 a.m. CST

    There Is No Debate On Global Warming

    by CaptDanielRoe

    If you insist there is its because you are AN IDIOT. And A SUCKER. It's the guy who did WESTWORLD, and those who think that makes him a scientist, versus science. And common sense.

  • May 3, 2006, 10:52 a.m. CST

    "Gore Lost," Etc.

    by blackwood

    Self-impressed gloating is the answer to all our environmental concerns. Clap. Clap.

  • May 3, 2006, 10:58 a.m. CST

    I'm Serial! I'm Serial!

    by MarkWhittington

    Why won't anyone listen to me! Boohoo! Boohoo!

  • May 3, 2006, 11:01 a.m. CST

    Carl Sagan Wrote Some Fiction

    by CaptDanielRoe

    He also smoked a lot of pot and did a TV show. He was a "science celebrity." There are many; most of the "leading scientists" you have heard of are actually just scientists of varying degrees of accomplishments who have successfully parlayed that into mass market stuff. Like Stephen Hawking. Not exactly a big fake but not the Einstein that laymen are allowed to believe he is, either. Carl Sagan is irrelevant. Michael Crichton is not a scientist at all. Unless you consider his summa cum laude degree from Harvard in ANTHROPOLOGY to make him a scientist. Anthropology is a "soft science." It doesn't involve studying hard data and processing it for conclusions that have to stand up to rigorous factual analysis. In any case, to be a "scientist," one has to be a scientist as a profession. Educational credentials are not the determining factor; the quality of one's work as a scientist is. Crichton does not do scientific work. He is a writer. And he is not even a science fiction writer; his stuff isn't science fiction by the standards of the genre. It is, rather, populist stuff that appropriates some usually very pass

  • May 3, 2006, 11:02 a.m. CST

    TheBaxter

    by IAmLegolas

    Winner of funniest post today. Thanks!

  • fiction, I'm saying we should discount Crichton because he hasn't written any non-fiction (at least not for 30 years). Just because someone is a fiction writer doesn't mean they're not a scientist. The fact that they're not a scientist means they're not a scientist. Decrying Crichton because of his real job is not the best way to win your argument.

  • May 3, 2006, 11:07 a.m. CST

    GORE!!! GORE!!! GORE!!!

    by Shermdawg

    E-C-DUB! E-C-DUB!

  • May 3, 2006, 11:10 a.m. CST

    The public

    by jalfredprufrock

    will scream "manbearpig" and go grab another six pack and Bruckheimer [sic] flick.

  • May 3, 2006, 11:17 a.m. CST

    Idiots, 30 years ago it was Global Cooling

    by JUSTICE41

    That plow didn't work so we shift to Global Warming. And the suckers lap it up like manna from heaven. They've only been keeping track of temperature for little over a hundred years. The arrogance of those who think they know enough to say anything like Global warming exists is stunning but even more stunning is the idiots who believe this garbage just because it fits their world view. You want credibility go to Dictatorships and go complain. Go to North Korea and chastise Il Kim Jung.

  • May 3, 2006, 11:22 a.m. CST

    Lies, damn lies, and statistics...

    by Achilles

    That is one of innumerable quotes from Benjamin Disraeli (I've also heard it attributed to Mark Twain, but it is Disraeli). The full quote is:

  • May 3, 2006, 11:23 a.m. CST

    Ploy not plow although this is a tough road to ho

    by JUSTICE41

    If these Eco Terrorist weren't out making trouble and the other enviro idiots using this Fear to raise funds then maybe they would be a bit more credible. Funny how these wackjob Libs accuse Bush of using Fear to get his way yet What are they all doing? Using Fear to get their way. Hypocrits

  • May 3, 2006, 11:25 a.m. CST

    Facts are Untrustworthy!

    by tripp5

    They can be used to prove anything!

  • May 3, 2006, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Science, Unfortunately...

    by CaptDanielRoe

    ...Exists in a sphere far too many regular people understand. Science popularists like Sagan, Kaku, etc., are read by regular folks and then regular folks think they get it. But science has gone way past what regular people can get... At least unless they approach the subject with an enormous amount of humility, and an initial understanding that they know next to nothing. Which is not to say science knows everything. But high science isn't about knowing things anyway, it's about being reasonablyu certain enough of things that one is a complete fool to disregard them. Such as global warming. Basically the idea that global warming is some sort of "periodic uptick" in temperatures is moronic merely by virtue of the fact that the odds of that happening in conjuction with the human population explosion, pollution, not to mention messing with the jetstream, are long odds indeed. More people are alive today than lived in all of human history and prehistory previously. And on average they are putting far more into the atmosphere than ever before. Stupid odds to bet against. ...........chrth, I understood you and we have no disagreement. As to Michael Crichton and his non-fiction writing... He never wrote about his own research. He never published a book with the intention of contributing to science, and has no done so through his mass-market writing either, not that I'm aware of. For an example of a science fiction writer with something topical to say I recommend Bruce Sterling (who occasional writes fiction stories for real-science journal Nature).

  • May 3, 2006, 11:29 a.m. CST

    Reality Has A Well-Known Liberal Bias

    by CaptDanielRoe

    Quoth Colbert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbUcpdfWbEc&feature=Views&page=1&t=t&f=b

  • May 3, 2006, 11:32 a.m. CST

    The Pentagon Acknowledges

    by CaptDanielRoe

    Global warming as a serious threat. So does Nasa. It's real, deal with it rightwingers. You just haven't gotten the message yet. Most of your opinion makers have actually stopped pretending that global warming isn't real. That includes most Republican politicians.

  • May 3, 2006, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Politicians are cowards who will take any side that wil

    by JUSTICE41

    Gain them favor so they can stay in office/Power. I wouldn't believe a Dem or Rep. Politician about almost anything. They are panderers. Come up with a better stock of people.

  • May 3, 2006, 11:40 a.m. CST

    Global Warming???

    by McCroskey

    I admit that I've read very little about it, so I don't really have an opinion one way or the other. I don't have a problem believing that the planet is warming, but isn't the key question with regards to how much human activity is responsible for the warming? Is there really a consensus among scientists about the answer? And how do we know that its not just a natural cycle, beyond our ability to significantly influence or control?

  • May 3, 2006, 11:45 a.m. CST

    Like the internet

    by Shaner Jedi

    the global warming scare was created by Al Gore. Mother of invention!

  • May 3, 2006, 11:45 a.m. CST

    McCroskey, re: Florida Recounts

    by Immortal_Fish

    Your post, sir, is an INCONVENIENT TRUTH.

  • May 3, 2006, 11:46 a.m. CST

    I can see where this GW conspiracy is heading.

    by JUSTICE41

    This is Leading to A One Child Policy. Libs are for abortion on demand till the kid is 18 so I can see them taking the Global Warming conspiracy to it's logical conclusion. That the planet needs less people. Maybe why Lib Politicians never want to help when places like Rhawanda and Ethiopia happen. I think mass deaths fit nicely into the Global warming solution.... A Final Solution it seems.

  • May 3, 2006, 11:57 a.m. CST

    JUSTICE41 I get it. You're just high, right?!

    by Borgnine JR

    Put down the Meth and pick up a book.

  • May 3, 2006, 12:01 p.m. CST

    One child is way better than...

    by Kid Z

    ...having 18 of them like those creepy Jesus-freak zomboids on that reality show on one'a the cable networks. Yeah, turning your wife into an ambulatory uterus so you can breed like rabbits, then live off handouts and welfare (that we taxpayers pay for, as you wingnuts always remind us) is SO much better than taking a little responsibility for yourself and your society, nation and planet.

  • May 3, 2006, 12:03 p.m. CST

    the global warming scare was created by Al Gore. Mother

    by Guy Gaduois

    Aha! Mothers of Invention was Frank Zappa's band. I will get my pitchfork and torch and find this 'shaner jedi', drive him to the top of his castle laboratory and . . . damnit, just found out my torch has been banned by Al Gore - apparently, it's a 'gross pollutant'. You got away this time, heretic.

  • May 3, 2006, 12:05 p.m. CST

    Great review Vern

    by quadrupletree

    Can you guys hire this guy full time? (no offence Merrick). I think I'll check this movie out... I'm totally serial!

  • May 3, 2006, 12:07 p.m. CST

    Yes McCroskey

    by CaptDanielRoe

    There is absolutely a concensus, to put it mildly, about exactly how global warming works, and that humans are responsible. Humans are not only responsible but are now undeniably intentionally responsible. That people have been misled to think there is any question was a deliberate move to sell out their interests for short term profits, and to conflate an argument over "fluffy bunny environmentalism" into a wedge issue, since Gore et al. don't actually have any strong environmentalist positions on issues that don't, actually, threaten the entire planet. As I noted above the PENTAGON has already stated that global warming is a real and dire threat. Not a threat just to ecology but a threat to what it is their job to worry about. .............Seriously, SCIENCE says the world faces a dire threat. Not a potential threat, but a certain, imminent threat. .........And you folks wonder why people like me get so testy with you. .........Look, don't take my word for. Even the EPA, which has been gutted of any "liberals" and which the moderate Republican Bush initially appointed to head, quit in apparent quiet disgust, says this: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases

  • May 3, 2006, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Crichton's non-fiction

    by chrth

    I had originally typed that he hadn't written any, then I remembered that his first book was about his experiences as a medical intern/resident and was thus non-fiction, so strictly speaking you can't say Crichton hasn't written any non-fiction. However, afaik Crichton only has a Medical degree, I've never seen anything that indicates he has a post-graduate degree in the relevant (to our discussion) sciences. In any case, I don't trust MC's word on the issue. Besides, his book topics have always made me feel he's a little ADD.

  • May 3, 2006, 12:17 p.m. CST

    by byrodude

    IN response to Justice41: The Bush Administration is using fear to gain power. To drive people to give over their freedoms. This movie is trying to use fear to drive people to be more frugal in their spending and live less wasteful lives, (MY GOD! NO! Don't be frugal! We need to feed the economy and buy shit!) So I hardly see there is even a MILD correlation. How about this: FUCK SCIENCE, be less Wasteful just cuz it's less dickish.

  • May 3, 2006, 12:22 p.m. CST

    All political groups use fear to move their agendas

    by chrth

    It's a pretty effective method, and it sure as hell ain't limited to Bush and his cronies. As for me, I'm still waiting for Bush to implement the draft like the Democrats told us in 2004 ...

  • May 3, 2006, 12:26 p.m. CST

    the fact that we have a President that doesn't believe

    by beamish13

    in evolution is terrifying enough for me. He can't wrap his miniscule little brain around any scientific concepts. Global warming is not a cause for debate. It's happening, you fools. God, I hate this fucking country.

  • May 3, 2006, 12:26 p.m. CST

    Good review, but I miss Neil Cumpston.

    by Dannychico

  • May 3, 2006, 12:29 p.m. CST

    I concur, Dannychico

    by chrth

    But think of it this way: when he does appear, isn't it that much more enjoyable? Too much Neil is like too much liverwurst ... it's great when you do have it, but you gotta lay off the stuff for about six months or it'll make you sick.

  • May 3, 2006, 12:31 p.m. CST

    Is this the year that Eggs are good for you?

    by durhay

    I can never remember if it's the odd years or even years.

  • May 3, 2006, 12:32 p.m. CST

    Actually, you would think creationists would make ...

    by chrth

    Better environmentalists. I mean, Polar Bears drowning is pro-evolutionary, doesn't matter whether the causes are natural or artificial. Creationists, however, should be protecting all of God's creatures because he only made them once.

  • May 3, 2006, 12:32 p.m. CST

    byrodude you can't prove that or GW

    by JUSTICE41

    And I am a frugal person, actually very cheap. I reuse everything or at least as much as I can. Bush will be out of office so what was Clinton's excuse? What will be the next President's excuse for not doing anything about Global cooling? It's all talk man from both sides and it's all bilge to gain power. The enviro's have used this to gain money. Do these people work or just fund raise, do they drive nice cars and live in nice homes? Of course they do. The enviro's are hypocrites. Also man every-time the planet shrugs more people get killed and more pollution and destruction happens than anything the people could cause. The earthquake in Pakistan 75 to 80 thousand dead. The tsunami killed about 200+ and destroyed entire seaboards. Katrina it goes on and on. It's not because we are doing anything bad it;s because we are living in areas that get wacked by nature. All this stuff was happening before we arrived on this planet and will continue when we are extinct. You live in fear man go... unburden yourself and enjoy life.

  • May 3, 2006, 12:32 p.m. CST

    Did you watch this as 'background' for On Dangerous...

    by brycemonkey

    Ground? Sounds like good research to really understand the 'issues' of that flick ;-) Great review Vern and I'm with you all the way. Fuck those polar bear drowners!

  • May 3, 2006, 12:32 p.m. CST

    I have ridden the giant Moon Worm!

    by Teamwak

    Fry "Good for him". Long live Futurama, the greatest cartoon ever!!

  • May 3, 2006, 12:40 p.m. CST

    Beamish13

    by CaptDanielRoe

    I think Bush knows both evolution and global warming are real. The man has a Yale education for heaven's sake. Unlike the yokels that BELIEVE what he IMPLIES. Thing is, guys, global warming is not going to kill us all very soon. It's just going to do a catastrophic amount of damage. But if you are very wealthy and privileged there will be ways to endure. Already, there are plenty of people starving on the planet, plenty of man-made cataclysm and slow poison. The point, as ever, is that this is not good for the vast majority of people especially in the long term. But it is profitable. And it is a way to rally the stupid people against the smart people who make them feel stupid. ....And no, dear readers, I'm not calling YOU a stupid slack-jawed yokel brownshirt hack. Because all you have to do is listen to reason and, voila, join the smart guys.

  • May 3, 2006, 12:40 p.m. CST

    There is no debate over GW

    by Knugen

    And what the hell would be the "agenda" of the scientific world? Crichton is a hack regardless of subject matter.

  • May 3, 2006, 12:45 p.m. CST

    re: CaptDanielRoe

    by beamish13

    Bush is a born-again fundamentalist that has no respect for the scientific community, nor does he have the capacity to comprehend the concepts of evolution or global warming. He may have attended Yale, but his academic performance does not make me inclined to believe that he got in on his own accord. In fact, most portraits of Bush the collegiate say that he spent most of those years getting wasted and listening to Tex-Mex music instead of studying, which is hardly surprising.

  • May 3, 2006, 12:50 p.m. CST

    Justice41

    by CaptDanielRoe

    The only thing wrong with your utterly helpless, resigned, adrift attitude is that you shouldn't be using it as an activist attitude. We wouldn't be in dire straits if people who didn't give a damn weren't confusing that with a political philosophy and a belief that they should be in charge of things, or put likeminded people in charge of things. Seriously.... It's like putting a creative team that doesn't give a damn about source material, the audience, or the science of cinematography, in charge of the most important film of your life.

  • May 3, 2006, 12:55 p.m. CST

    Goddammit beamish13, stop trying to help!

    by chrth

    Don't you freakin' get it? Bashing Bush doesn't help. Environmental law starts in CONGRESS, not the White House. So not only are you making irrelevant points, you're turning off people who might be inclined to help with your misdirected vitriol. SO SHUT UP AND LET THOSE OF US WHO CAN ARGUE INTELLIGENTLY DO THE WORK.

  • May 3, 2006, 1:02 p.m. CST

    True, Bush Is Irrelevant

    by CaptDanielRoe

    To this discussion. Of course his administration has recently worsened matters drastically by suspending all the big laws on air pollution for the duration, delisting airborne mercury as a pollutant too years earlier... .................Actually, if more people opposed that and talked about those issues the Republicans in Congress would stop backing him up. And it's not as if Bush is popular with anybody but a few remaining wingnuts. Many Republicans don't like him anymore either, his poll ratings are comparable to Nixon. In fact, I'd say at this point that the Republicans likely to be allies in fact actively dislike Bush enough that framing this as an opportunity to undo Bush-damage, is actually motivating. Not counterproductive. We don't have to tiptoe. America is united again... Against Bush. It's true; two out of three at least. ...Which is not to say a minority position is perforce wrong. But when it is wrong versus science and evidence and the record, it's safe to say it is wrong.

  • May 3, 2006, 1:04 p.m. CST

    The worse thing is that all the anti-Bush people ...

    by chrth

    Blame him for the gas prices, so he lifts EPA regulations. I don't need enemies, my friends are doing a heckuva job on their own.

  • May 3, 2006, 1:05 p.m. CST

    JUSTICE41=comedy gold

    by vacuous tart

    But seriously thanks for this review, that manbearpig shit had me totally fucking lost. Half the episodes this season are like 5 minutes of actual joke and then they spend the next 20 minutes on some obscure-ass shit they saw on the internet. Back in the day when you had Scuzzlebutt show up it was just funny, now if you have a bigfoot with celery for an arm he's probably symbolizing Jaques Chirac in some gigantic retarded allegory about the International Monetary Fund's debt negotiations with Bolivia or some shit. Get a fucking blog, Trey, Christ.

  • May 3, 2006, 1:09 p.m. CST

    once again, Vern hits it outta the park.

    by OBSD

    I've been looking forward to this movie for a while now. What I find interesting though, is that this site would much rather put up reviews for Tom Cruise's latest attempt to give Scientology 25% of his enormous paycheck than focus on a movie that matters. Oh, and Merrick...nice. "crisis". Like it's all made up and shit. Like "the jury is still out on global warming". Like an ignorant redneck Republican. And I was just starting to like you. Oh, well.

  • May 3, 2006, 1:12 p.m. CST

    Crichton

    by Cory849

    two points. (and I wish there was paragraph spacing in talkbacks. sorry.)========= first. there appears to be some self serving mischaracterisation going on. No one, least of all me, is suggesting that Crichton's work is the scientific evidence that one should use to reject a hypothesis. Chrichton is currently a person with a podium that is using it to articulate a position based on his own investigation. That is what Gore is doing as well. Neither are scientists. Ad hominem attacks against either gentleman with respect to their scientific credentials are fallacious. Dismissing one of them while backing the other based on there respective positions/careers is just bias. ======= second, Some of the more sarcastic comments above actually point to the problem. "The Baxter", above, is making fun of questions about global warming and his basic statement is that there really is no debate anymore. And maybe he is right. But scientific orthodoxy is constantly being proven wrong by iconoclasts. Science used to believe that frogs came from spontaneous generation. They used to believe the world was flat. They used to believe the sun revolved around the earth. Look - I know science is more rigorous now than it was then, but it is still quite impure. It is heavily politicised. Grant funding plays a role in this kind of research. Ideology plays a role in this kind of research. Science may be hard to understand for "laymen" but it would absolutely be wrong to suggest that we should just shut up and trust the scientists. What is interesting about this debate is how many scientists were willing to sign their names to this set of theories prematurely - long prior to any of the "new, better" evidence that apparently exists. That should give everyone something to think about with respect to the motivations of those involved.

  • May 3, 2006, 1:12 p.m. CST

    Clarification

    by MrD

    Global warming is real is not the same as global warming will end life as we know it. There is considerable disagreement about the long term effects of GW, and what we are experiencing now is far short of the calamities predictied 20 years ago. The issue is one that should be approached with genuine concearn, but not hysteria. Conserve gas because it will keep your environment cleaner, lower your bills, and make us less dependent on third world thugs. Don't do it to "save the planet", because you can't, you won't, and it doesn't need it.

  • May 3, 2006, 1:13 p.m. CST

    doc turing

    by chrth

    That would be fine and dandy if we had a leader who actually had strong approval ratings. But he doesn't. Besides, I'm sure if he came out with a huge pro-environment plank the wingnuts would scream to keep their side down and the moonbats would claim its all part of some vast Halliburton conspiracy. At this point, dropping Bush from the discussion entirely is the only effective means of making progress.

  • May 3, 2006, 1:16 p.m. CST

    My imitation of the conservatives in this thread:

    by Holly_Wight

    LALALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LALALALA! I'M NOT LISTENING! STOP TOUCHING ME! LALALALA! I'M CLOSING MY EYES- IF I CAN'T SEE YOU THEN YOU CAN'T SEE ME! LALALALA! IF I DON'T BELIEVE IN IT, THEN IT ISN'T TRUE! LALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! --- and so on.

  • May 3, 2006, 1:16 p.m. CST

    Gas Prices

    by CaptDanielRoe

    Well yeah that's a good point but it's not intelligent activists that are blaming Bush for high gas prices. In fact gas prices are not high but are still artificially very low. THe problem you are talking about chrth, I think it's more accurate to say, isn't that it's "anti-Bush" people but centrist hacks, many of whom are Democrats, hectoring about gas prices. Using non-issues as political fodder so that they can avoid touching real issues. .....For the benefit of all the Republicans here let it be known that I am not in favor of the face of the Democratic Party you most frequently see. I'm a progressive. Just like Teddy Roosevelt was. And the progressive agenda by the way was important enough to Roosevelt that he headed the Progressive Party (Bull Moose) ticket, costing the Republicans (whose direction following his term in office he hated, and would continue to hate today) the election. .........It is hard to separate well-intentioned and dedicated dudes like Gore (and Kerry) from the terrible, shallow, and even manipulative campaigns they've been at the center of. It's hard to separate them too from the often closely associated, undeniable hacks in the party. But it's necessary. Al Gore is not your enemy. He doesn't want to restrict you to one child, or any other such nonsense. But if global warming isn't about Bush, it certainly isn't about Gore. Sure they are important figures in it, whose power and lack thereof has had an impact. But its true, political considerations should not affect your perception of scientifically illustrated reality. Republicans: If you take that path, and continue to argue against demonstrable reality, don't you see what a political disadvantage that will put you at?

  • May 3, 2006, 1:18 p.m. CST

    Corey, Biggles, et al

    by Bunger

    are you scientists? do you have any expertise whatsoever (bear in mind that regularly skimming the New Republic or listening to Fox News actually diminishes your expertise. FACT!)?? . . . . Every credible scientific organization in the entire world knows that Global Warming is real, it is manmade, and it is very dangerous (note, I said credible: GOP thinktanks funded by the petrochemical industry have a credibility problem that can't be denied even by you). You are idiot contrarians to deny what you don't really understand, just cuz some pundit tells you what you want to hear to make you stay comfortable driving your trucks every time you need to go 2 blocks from 7-11 to Blockbuster and home again. STOP FUKKIN RAPING MY PLANET!!!

  • May 3, 2006, 1:19 p.m. CST

    knugen - scientists agenda

    by MrD

    In the case of GW scientists find it much easier to get funding if they back extreme GW predictions than if they take a moderate or contradictory approach. It certainly provides a motive to jump on the GW bandwagon. I am not saying this DOES skew research, but its hard to fault people for asking.

  • May 3, 2006, 1:19 p.m. CST

    Polar Bears are Evil. F*ck em.

    by The Skeptical

    Look I like nature in general, but Polar bears are the only species to intentionaly stalk and kill humans. Lions don't, grizzleys don't, sharks don't, even killer bee's don't. But a polar bear will eat you as soon as you give it a chance, okay? That makes them the enemy. Plus, they are not an important part of any eco system. Polar bears belong in zoos, where we can admire their cuteness.

  • May 3, 2006, 1:28 p.m. CST

    chrth - Little Ice Age

    by MrD

    Ended around 1850. "Accurate" global temp records started not long after, though the most accurate would likely come after the 1950s and the use of satellites. This is also when we see the greatest increase in temp growth. There are methods for estimating temps in earlier time periods. Though these would be less accurate, good statistical analysis should be able to take that into account when looking for significant trends.

  • May 3, 2006, 1:29 p.m. CST

    The Skeptical- Skalking people

    by MrD

    Salt water crocodiles have been known to do it frequently.

  • May 3, 2006, 1:32 p.m. CST

    What the hell is Artisan bread anyhow?

    by Borgnine JR

  • May 3, 2006, 1:33 p.m. CST

    People Stalk People Too

    by CaptDanielRoe

    People kill a lot more people than polar bears. Is that your real argument in favor of global warming? Kill the people to save the people from the people? Destroy the village to save the village?

  • May 3, 2006, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Congratulations everybody

    by Vern

    So far this is NOT the worst talkback of all time. SO FAR. Anyway, I think alot of the skeptics should actually watch this movie and see what they think. Most of the questions and objections brought up in this talkback are convincingly addressed in the movie. Maybe you will not be convinced but it's worth considering in my opinion. Now I understand maybe you don't want to pay to see it, but if you can sneak in or eventually see it on TV or borrow it form the library or something, you should give it a shot. As for Michael Crichton, I am as layman as they come so I just gotta read what I can and take a guess who's right. Look him up on wikipedia and then check out some of the external links to scientists commenting on his novel. Those links were overwhelmingly convincing to me that the guy is full of congo. Westworld is pretty cool though.

  • May 3, 2006, 1:34 p.m. CST

    MrD, that's interesting from a timing perspective

    by chrth

    What if the burgeoning industrial era pulled us out of the little ice age? Stupid humans, ending the ice age!!! ... Anyone else find it a tad ironic that it's all science's fault in the first place that we're in this mess?

  • May 3, 2006, 1:35 p.m. CST

    HEY LOOK AT ALL THEM POINTY HEADED

    by Borgnine JR

    WEATHER NERDS!!

  • May 3, 2006, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Artisan Bread Is BS

    by CaptDanielRoe

    Its a conspiracy hatched in conservative think tanks. They open these "artisinal bakeries" in hipster neighborhoods where their trained "liberal ringers" bake "artisan bread." All to not only make the liberals who live their look stupid, but also to deplete their supply of money that they could otherwise spend on progressive causes. Because, you see, artisan bread, while more expensive, is yummy.

  • May 3, 2006, 1:37 p.m. CST

    Sorry, Vern

    by chrth

    You'll never have a chance at the worst talkback ever as long as Harry continues to post his political stupidity on this site (yes, even the stuff I agree with I think he's stupid on)

  • May 3, 2006, 1:42 p.m. CST

    doc turing, I may be reading you wrong, but

    by chrth

    Copernicus was first to say that the earth revolved around the sun, not Galileo. Galileo just required a heliocentric universe in order to explain some of his theories on motion, and he got in trouble for doing so. Of course, he wasn't thrown in jail or anything like that (I think he had to spend like 18 months in a friend's posh villa under house arrest) ... but no one wants to hear that because it doesn't make the church look evil enough.

  • May 3, 2006, 1:45 p.m. CST

    Vern, Congo Was.....

    by CaptDanielRoe

    ....A much better novel than a movie in case you don't know. Of course it would sort of have to be. And it would be hard to appreciate it in light of the "film." .........For the record, I don't dislike Crichton as a writer. He hits and he misses like many of my favorites (among whom he is no longer one, due to too many misses): Gene Wolfe, Harry Turtledove, Neal Stephenson.

  • May 3, 2006, 2:02 p.m. CST

    My only post about recounts

    by Vern

    I'm not gonna argue about this because I don't want to personally fulfill the prophecy of the Worst Talback Ever. But to the couple people who "corrected" what I said about recounts I just wanted to back up my statement. It's true that, if you only read the headlines, the media consortium on the 2000 elections found that Bush would've won. But if you read more about it you see that what I said in the review was true. Gore's method of only counting Democratic leaning counties would have still lost him the election. But if they had recounted the entire state, Gore would've won under 4 out of 4 different methods: standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey, Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Any dimples or optical mark, or One corner of chad detached or optical mark. ANY of those methods state wide and Gore would've won, although it still would've been ridiculously close. Regardless of those results, I think the whole state should've been counted, and not just certain areas selected by either side's legal teams. There are many other issues that complicate the matter obviously and you can feel feel to disagree but that's what I was referring to and I stand by it. Here is one paper about it I found in a quick google search: www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf I'm sure there is a more definitive version somewhere but this paper makes some good points. p.s. LEAVE THE FUCKIN BEARS ALONE.

  • May 3, 2006, 2:05 p.m. CST

    to CaptDanielRoe...

    by The Skeptical

    "People kill a lot more people than polar bears.Is that your real argument in favor of global warming" You think I am arguing in favor of global warming, but I'm actually arguing against polar bears. (And maybe saltwater crocodiles.) It has been estimated that the Kyoto protocol will cost $150 Billion per year to enforce. That will have a net effect (best case, admitted by proponents) of 0.15 degree. For $150 Billion per year we can provide clean drinking water for everybody on the planet. That would save millions of lives anually (Mostly children.) Se we have to decide as a species: would we rather lose a few thousand man eating polar bears, or tens of millions of children. On the other hand the polar bears are white, while the dying children are not. So maybe Gore factored that in...

  • May 3, 2006, 2:07 p.m. CST

    "the polar bears are white,

    by chrth

    while the dying children are not" ... OMFG I just spit soda all over my keyboard.

  • May 3, 2006, 2:16 p.m. CST

    mattw you need to start looking for lights...

    by JuggFuckler

    ..and stop starting fights. Anyone who posts first without writing "first" is okay in my book. Where are your awe inspiring posts? The one where you ask Quint to explain the plot of History of Violence to you because you couldn't figure it out for yourself certainly doesn't count.

  • May 3, 2006, 2:20 p.m. CST

    I'm actually still pissed at Gore...

    by deadgirldown

    ...for giving his harpy wife carte blanche to bring Frank Zappa and Dee Snyder before Congress because she doesn't like dirty words. And for trying to ban "Little Red Riding Hood" and other fairy tales from TN school libraries because the talking animals implied occultism. That is the Albert Gore, Jr. I know and loathe.

  • May 3, 2006, 2:35 p.m. CST

    Say what you will...

    by Cruel_Kingdom

    ...but at least I can sleep at night knowing I didn't vote for the motherf+cker who shot down the Kyoto Treaty. Duh. Funny how only 33 percent of Americans like him now. Too late fuckers, it's no good now. The freaking election is over. Yes, you were wrong, douche bags. Now the entire world must suffer for your mistakes. Thank you on behalf of all us sane folks.

  • May 3, 2006, 2:36 p.m. CST

    me again

    by Cory849

    Heya again. Im not squarely in the conservative camp. Like a drunken caesar at a really good roman orgy, I guess I swing both ways. As for why I dont just accept the obvious causation between pollutants and global warming: its because it might be a post hoc ergo proptor hoc fallacy. Might not be - but thats why we need better proofs. Im going to do what Vern says and watch the movie. I havent looked closely at this issue for a few years now. Back when I did I totally came away smelling a rat. Im fine with having my mind changed. But note: I posed four questions in my first post. Most people are ignoring at least two of those questions.====here's some of my answers. You will find them wishy washy: Is the world warming up? probably. == Are we causing it? umm...maybe. == Is this a bad thing? cant say. could over all be a good thing. Sure feels like it in Canada. We might need to adapt a bit. == But what about apocalytic weather? We've had it for years. I need to see some real evidence to suggest that the warming will cause it in sunstantial enough amounts to warrant the costs imposed by something like Kyoto in the short term. == Can we actually stop it in any meaningful way through reducing, reusing, recycling, and emissions trading? I remain very unconvinced. == Based on the precautionary principle, shouldnt we do something anyway right away? no. == not really and not necessarily - its an evolutionary problem with incremental per year effects. we have time. and believe me, based on Kyoto ratification and implementation schedules we are going to take it anyway. == but shouldnt we be environmentally conscious anyway? absolutely. smog sucks and oil is getting pretty expensive. but as oil gets more scarce and thereby more expensive, wont we naturally look to substitute to more efficient (less expensive) fuel technology and thereby lower fossil fuel emissions? just a thought ======= a final note: check out the ass kicking that Julian Simon gave to Paul Ehrlich a few years ago and check out some of his anti-hysteria writings on this and other topics. Contrarians are fun. Google it.

  • May 3, 2006, 2:41 p.m. CST

    Loved Bill Maher's comment...

    by Cruel_Kingdom

    about finally understanding what the President means by war on terror. "He's actually saying 'war on terra.' George Bush wants to destroy the earth." That made me laugh. Argue all you want, love him or hate him surely you can admit that he's not the most ecologically concerned leader we've ever had... But then that's a given. Sort of like saying George Lazenby wasn't the best Bond ever. It goes without saying.

  • May 3, 2006, 2:45 p.m. CST

    re: JuggFuckler

    by mattw

    Jugg, I'm not sure if you can do a search on this site for specific posters, but if you can, look up Girth. All of his posts are inane, irrelevant nonsense that make no point and use caps and lots of exclamation points. In addition, he is almost always first, which shows he has nothing to do but hit refresh and wait for a new story. Most people, including myself, come to this site for movie and tv news, and perhaps to argue, debate and yes, be immature and say funny, silly things. This Girth guy has never had anything to add to any discussion besides "yelling" about nothing. His mommy needs to take away his computer privileges and let the rest of us get back to making "snake on a (blank)" jokes and talking aboput Superman's suit. P.S. I never said my posts were awe inspiring. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

  • May 3, 2006, 2:46 p.m. CST

    meant to say environmentally concerned...

    by Cruel_Kingdom

  • May 3, 2006, 3:09 p.m. CST

    MattW and Girth: Let's not fight

    by chrth

    This is the AICN Talkback. If you want enlightened debate/discussion, go to the pub. Otherwise, you have to take the good, take the bad, take 'em both and there you have ... AICN Talkback

  • May 3, 2006, 3:16 p.m. CST

    re: Girth

    by mattw

    HOLY SHIT! Sentences! Punctuation! Relevant to the topic! Something vaguely resembling a point! Great work! And also...wait, you have a job? Is Blockbuster still hiring?

  • May 3, 2006, 3:21 p.m. CST

    Cory849

    by CaptDanielRoe

    I'd like to address your questions with a simple powerpoint presentation, but I think somebody else has already got one to show you....

  • May 3, 2006, 3:25 p.m. CST

    re: deadgirldown

    by CaptDanielRoe

    MEEEEEE tooooo. Add to that Joementum for veep. Yikes. Still, as much as Gore is a "Dad" in the bad way, he's also a "Dad" in the save-you're-ass-in-a-jam way. You know during Katrina he hired, and personally helped load, a plane loaded with survival goods. And did not invite any TV crews, by the way.

  • May 3, 2006, 3:27 p.m. CST

    CaptDanielRoe

    by Cory849

    hehe. Exactly. Which is why I will definitely be taking in the movie. But I'll be very skeptical as usual. For example: I just went to the movie web site and decided to see how much of the problem I was causing. First, I guess I dont exist if I am from outside the U.S. so I pretended to be from Michigan since it bordens Ontario where I am. Then I tried to figure out how bad a polluter I am. Interestingly - as a non-car owner who takes the bus, cycles or walks to work and who rents a car maybe 4 times a year with a low electricity bill I pollute MUCH MORE THAN AVERAGE!!!!! try this on the site - the average car owner drives 12000 miles per year according to the site. Put yours in as 1200 miles. one tenth of the average. See what the site tells you. And then...wonder whether they are being totally honest with you. Anyway - See you again after I get to see Al's power point slide...and then get to follow his footnotes. It should be fun.

  • May 3, 2006, 3:29 p.m. CST

    CaptDanielRoe: If he didn't invite any TV crews ...

    by chrth

    How'd you find out about it? Things that make you go Hmmmm

  • May 3, 2006, 3:33 p.m. CST

    Dennis Miller said it best...

    by Blue_Demon

    "When it comes right down to it, I don't really give a fuck about caribou."

  • May 3, 2006, 3:44 p.m. CST

    Gore lost the election, Bush lost the Iraq War

    by CISCO Bunny

    Gore and Kerry lost the election, but Bush is who lost the war in Iraq. Maybe you Republicans should keep that in mind when you spout of your clever "Sore/Loserman" lines. You should feel nothing but shame about how you've led this country to it's most devasting military defeat ever.

  • May 3, 2006, 3:49 p.m. CST

    CISCO Bunny: WHAT?

    by chrth

    Yeah, it's a shame that Saddam's crack troops were able to beat our troops back to the border and we had to pull out ... wait, no we didn't, we toppled Saddam's regime and are helping establish a democratic government. 1) What the hell are you talking about, and 2) What the hell does that have to do with the environment? (And before anyone jumps on me, I opposed the Iraq War when it started)

  • May 3, 2006, 3:53 p.m. CST

    Have to disagree about Romney

    by CISCO Bunny

    There is no way the Republicans will nominate a Mormon. The Republican party is anti-gay, anti-black, anti-woman, and anti-Catholic. There is no way anyone who is not an Evangelical will get the R nomination. The 2008 Republican primaries will be brutal. 11 morons arguing over who hates gays more.

  • May 3, 2006, 3:54 p.m. CST

    Can Bush grow facial hair?

    by Fred

  • May 3, 2006, 3:56 p.m. CST

    The three most pathetic groups in America

    by chrth

    Coming in 3rd place, those that whine about the 2000 election. In 2nd place, those that claim "Han Shot First", and still in 1st place after almost 150 years, those that think the South should've won the war.

  • May 3, 2006, 3:56 p.m. CST

    Hey chrth

    by CISCO Bunny

    If what is going on in Iraq is victory, I'd hate to say failure. If you want to pretend this is what we were promised (a war that will last a decade or more), go ahead... but it doesn't change the fact we are getting our asses kicked over there by a bunch of third-world insurgents. Why? Because Republicans are lousy military leaders. They're cowards and blowhards.

  • May 3, 2006, 3:57 p.m. CST

    MAY 2004

    by El Scorcho

    It was that fateful month that Al Gore held a special screening/discussion about the film "The Day After Tomorrow," on the coldest day in May that many east coast cities (including the location of the event) had ever seen. LOL. I really feel sorry for Al Gore. He has to spend his days as Al Gore, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

  • May 3, 2006, 3:57 p.m. CST

    Republicans are anti-Catholic?

    by chrth

    News to this (former) Republican Catholic, and probably news to all the Republican Catholics I knew up in the Northeast. But since you're not operating from a position of intelligence with your posts, I guess this claim is easily disregarded.

  • May 3, 2006, 3:58 p.m. CST

    No, chrth...

    by CISCO Bunny

    ... the most pathetic people in America are the Evangelicals who control all 3 branches of government, and yet still claim to be persecuted and victimized, because people watch "Will and Grace" and say, "Happy Holidays." You want to see some pathetic wimps, hang out with the "War Against Christmas" crowd.

  • May 3, 2006, 3:58 p.m. CST

    Sorry, Cisco

    by chrth

    You're obviously a scarecrow. I can no longer discuss stuff with you. Have a good day.

  • May 3, 2006, 4:01 p.m. CST

    Republicans are anti-Catholic

    by CISCO Bunny

    Bush openly praises and associates with a man (Bob Jones) who runs a Christian Supremacist organization that claims the Pope is the anti-Christ, and the Catholic church is a Satanic cult. If Republicans don't want to be called anti-Catholic, maybe they should stop giving speeches at an anti-Catholic organization. Maybe they should denounce this anti-Catholic organization, instead of praising it. ------- The Republican Party is under the control of the Evangelical movement... it is no secret that Evangelicals hate Catholics.

  • May 3, 2006, 4:04 p.m. CST

    Awww... poor chrth

    by CISCO Bunny

    He doesn't have the facts on his side, so he turns into the typical Republican fraidy-cat, and runs home to mama. He'll probably spend the evening shivering under the sheets, praying for Bush to suspend the Bill of Rights because those mean terrorists scare him so much. It's been amazing to see the macho NRA crowd of the Republican Party turn into a bunch of chicken littles, running through the streets screaming, "SAVE ME!!! They're gonna KILL US ALL!!!"

  • May 3, 2006, 4:08 p.m. CST

    At least chrth...

    by CISCO Bunny

    ... only contested the "anti-Catholic" aspect of Republicans. He didn't have any problems with the "anti-gay, anti-black, and anti-immigrant" part.

  • May 3, 2006, 4:09 p.m. CST

    Republicans Aren't Anti-Catholic

    by CaptDanielRoe

    The Catholic ones aren't. Among evangelicals and other groups, there is a degree of anti-Catholic prejudice that Catholics would indeed be very surprised by. I've heard it expressed viciously by Republicans. And in New York, not the South. And among thirtyish guys, not old timers. ..............However, the Republican Party per se is not anti-Catholic. The Republican Party has a coalition that contains a lot of groups that actually hate each other or would otherwise have nothing to do with each other. Libertarians and NeoCons, for example. If the Democratic Party understood how to maintain a coalition with major differences, then it would be the Democratic Party with about 85% of the vote everywhere. .........That said, Catholics are currently split about fifty/fifty between the parties. The Opus Dei types (yes that is a real organization, and I use it loosely to describe the more conservative elements) are definitely Republican in the main. But that doesn't make them steadfast Bushies, or NeoCons. ...........As for the Vatican position on global warming, I can't determine if one exists, but Vatican City has not signed Kyoto.

  • May 3, 2006, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Where I Heard About Gore Helping Post-Katrina

    by CaptDanielRoe

    Here..... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/5/183618/3893 And then here...... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/10/15459/8742 .....But I'm not pushing him for '08. That would be Russ Feingold....

  • May 3, 2006, 4:30 p.m. CST

    to CISCO Bunny...

    by The Skeptical

    As a gay republican (log cabin!), I can attest that we are only really anti-polar bear, and anti-stupid. And even stupid is okay, as long as is it leaves me alone. That pretty much just leaves filthy, poisenous polar bears.

  • May 3, 2006, 4:37 p.m. CST

    I Went As A Log Cabin Republican...

    by CaptDanielRoe

    ....One Halloween. Are you guys sado-masochists or what? Seriously what's the deal? With Jeff Gannon/Guckert and all, we know you guys exist but... Why? For all the "straight" dudes? ..........Now of course I don't agree with your choices, but as a good American once said I'd die to defend them.

  • May 3, 2006, 4:38 p.m. CST

    Skeptical...

    by CISCO Bunny

    ... you lost all credibility when you admitted you were a log cabin republican. Anyone that would align themselves with a party that is using you as a boogeyman and a political prop has no self-respect, and is by definition, a coward.

  • May 3, 2006, 4:51 p.m. CST

    OBSD

    by Joseph Merrick

    I used the quotation marks around

  • May 3, 2006, 4:56 p.m. CST

    Merrick of course you're a lib Harry wouldn't have it

    by JUSTICE41

    Any other way. Oh and shove you simple minded views on the ecology. You act like you created the land the seas and the skies. You idiots have some gall.

  • May 3, 2006, 5 p.m. CST

    JUSTICE41

    by Joseph Merrick

    We didn't create them, nor are they yours to destroy.

  • May 3, 2006, 5:04 p.m. CST

    Actually they are ours to do with as we please

    by JUSTICE41

    Now go back to fellating whomever it was you fellated to get the gig.

  • May 3, 2006, 5:07 p.m. CST

    Digging this talkback overall, kids.

    by Childe Roland

    Danny Roe, I like the cut of your jib. Reasonable yet clever (not two things that often go together when discussing politics or important issues) and dispassionate while remaining compelling. You're hired. From now on, you can address any and all claims that global warming was either made up or poses no real threat. As for the counter argument that's been made by a few folks here concerning how things aren't anywhere near as bad as they were predicting 20 years ago, might that have something to do with our awareness of the problem and those wise enough to recognize it for what it is actually taking steps to curb their destructive behavior? There are companies which have made an operational policy of exceeding the minimum requirements imposed on them simply because they are run by intelligent people with consciences. There are people who recycled in their homes even before many municipalities mandated it. Are you suggesting these behaviors, which stemmed from an increased environmental awareness (which resulted from the way folks were screaming about the dangers of the future two decades and more ago), had no impact on the course of events? That would seem to run counter to the fundamental notion of physical science that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Just something to think about before you make that argument again. And if you also happen to be one of the people who believes the reason we haven't had another terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11 is because of steps the Bush administration has taken, you are officially not allowed to contest my theory that environmentally conscientious people and businesses are the reason global warming hasn't done more damage already.

  • May 3, 2006, 5:28 p.m. CST

    If Al Gore were president...

    by DarthSnoogans

    If he's like anything like his mentor, Bill Clinton...our response to 9/11 would have been to lob a couple of cruise missiles into a mountainside, followed by some tough words that would be quickly forgotten, along with any intent to track down the people responsible. His response to high gas prices would have been to increase taxes on oil companies, which would drive up prices even further and not produce a single drop of additional oil. His response to budget deficits would have been to raise taxes, taking even more money from taxpayers, stifling the economy and reducing overall tax revenue...worsening the budget deficit. He would have insisted that we sign the Kyoto treaty, which would have negligible effects on the environment but would manage to drive up consumer prices as well as unemployment. And for the kicker...deferring more national policy decisions to the UN, a collection of third-world dicators and corrupt bureaucrats with a hatred of the United States. Sleep tight knowing that we have a fucking cowboy in the White House instead of the clueless hippie.

  • May 3, 2006, 5:32 p.m. CST

    to CaptDanielRoe...

    by The Skeptical

    CaptDanielRoe, thanks for the offer to die to protect my freedom. I appreciate that. (Seriously)

  • May 3, 2006, 5:39 p.m. CST

    to Joseph Merrick

    by The Skeptical

    I appreciate your passion for the environment. I feel the same way. But just because you love birds an sunrises and deer doesn't mean the Kyoto protocol is a good idea. (also, be careful loving deer. They kick and sometimes they carry diseases, although they always claim to be clean.) There are interests who make lots of money off the global warming politics, and stand to make trillions (yes, trillions) off of some of the proposed global warming solutions. This is not speculation, it's well known. Be suspicous of the motives of those people, and don't let them use your zoophelia as a handle to manipulate you. Follow the $$$. I can ask no more of anybody then that--be suspecious, and don't let yourself be someones useful idiot.

  • May 3, 2006, 5:45 p.m. CST

    Darthsnoogans

    by CaptDanielRoe

    If Dubya had been President during 9/11, his response would be to lose interest in Afghanistan rather than capture Bin Laden at Torah Bora, invade Iraq which is an unrelated country for about 12 shifting reasons none of which upon analysis is satisfactorily met, he would announce his intention to go to the moon and Mars and immediately lose interest, he would cow to protect us from manimal man animal hybrids, introduce torture into America, have the national anthem sung en espanol at his innauguration and then claim to oppose the national anthem being sung in spanish, appoint know-nothing yes men to important federal agencies, and... Oh fuhgeddabout it. It's too easy. ....The difference of course is that your charges about what Gore (or Clinton) would have done are pure, and fairly ludicrous speculation.

  • May 3, 2006, 5:49 p.m. CST

    re: Girth

    by mattw

    That wasn't a comeback. Comebacks are unnecessary for someone who can't form a coherent thought. Although I (along with the 12 million immigrants who marched on Monday) would be curious what type of job you have where speaking and writing proper English is not a requirement.

  • May 3, 2006, 5:49 p.m. CST

    Wow

    by Faith's Favorite

    Vern sure thinks a lot of himself. Regardless of the politics or the merits of the movie, the pretension and smug self satisfaction in that review actually dripped off my screen and ruined my keyboard. I haven't seen that kind of pompous disdain since . . . well the last time I saw Al Gore speak.

  • May 3, 2006, 5:50 p.m. CST

    HE PLAYED ON OUR FEEEEEEAAAAR-UHS!!!

    by BannedOnTheRun

    Gore, that is. I don't own a car, I take mass transit to work, I recycle...but why do I have to buy into this global warming bullshit to prove my environmental "cred?"

  • May 3, 2006, 5:50 p.m. CST

    Follow the $$$? On Kyoto?

    by CaptDanielRoe

    You want to know who can make money off the Kyoto Treaty? Companies that pollute a lot. They can make money by cleaning up their emissions, and selling the remainder of their pollution quota to companies that are having a harder time achieving the standards. Where's the loser there? It doesn't impose unrealistic pressure are poor enormous corporations. It was drafted by perfectly reasonable economically-minded world leaders, and signed by most of the world. And by the way, there are some minor problems with it, which is why Kerry said he'd renegotiate it to be fairer to the USA, in order to make ratification possible in congress. (We've already signed it.)

  • May 3, 2006, 5:50 p.m. CST

    THE SKEPTICAL

    by Joseph Merrick

    Points very well taken, and thank you. I know my long post sounded a tad precious

  • May 3, 2006, 5:54 p.m. CST

    "a huge majority of the world's scientists"

    by BannedOnTheRun

    Yeah, I remember when Newsweek did their cover story on global warming back in the early '90s. The cover, six pages inside...and their source for the whole thing was ONE GUY. A "maverick," so to speak.

  • May 3, 2006, 5:57 p.m. CST

    re: Mott

    by mattw

    1. I never claimed not to be a dick, so calling me one is not an insult. 2. Read some of Girth's posts and get back to me. No one cares about typos and missed commas, but his posts read as if they were written by a 3 year old pounding away on his dad's keyboard. He says nothing, but posts nonstop. Oh, one other point: fuck off and mind your own businees.

  • May 3, 2006, 6:01 p.m. CST

    re: BannedOnTheRun

    by CaptDanielRoe

    Nobody can make you believe anything. To restate it from numerous above posts: Just because the scientists of the world, the Pentagon, most of the Republican Party, and most captains of industry agree (openly admit) that global warming is completely real and manmade... Still, it's a free country, right? You can believe as you like. .............See, that's the thing. All this talk about "faith," "belief," and so on... It's not about that. Science is not about that. Living in the the real world is not about that. It's about data, and about theories that are shown to be valid through their predictive ability. .....As to the point above about how global warming pundits worst fears of twenties years ago have not materialized... I ask you, which pundits? Which predictions? Where's the data? Are you talking about Soylent Green? Waterworld? Junk science? .......Science has determined that we aren't seeing a more pronounced warming effect overall because as the additional heat melts the ice caps, that cools the oceans. But when the ice caps can't melt further, the oceans will begin to hold more heat overall. However, you all can believe whatever you like. Free country.

  • May 3, 2006, 6:09 p.m. CST

    "It's about data"

    by BannedOnTheRun

    Obviously, so give it up. Don't give me some crap documentary. Don't give me friggin' Ted Danson telling me all the world's oceans will be dead by 1990. Give me the data. Seriously. You can make me believe if you have hard science behind it; not that greenhouse gasses are real, not that global warming is real, but that human activity alone is responsible for raising the temperature of the entire planet.

  • May 3, 2006, 6:24 p.m. CST

    re: BannedOnTheRun

    by CaptDanielRoe

    The data if backed up to you house and dumped on it would be mountainous. You can start at the wikipedia entry. I don't like Ted Danson either, I agree Hollywood spokesliberals do more harm than good; except for Paul Newman. Now when you get to the wikipedia page, you will see two particular graphs along the righthand side. One is for global temperatures. Another is for human-caused atmospheric emissions. Notice the similarity in those peaks. Just try to convince yourself that in light of the PREDICTED scientific relationship between those two peaks, that the connection doesn't exist.

  • May 3, 2006, 6:35 p.m. CST

    Merrick...

    by OBSD

    Thanks for reposnding. Boy do I feel like a tool. In one sincere non-snarky swoop you have made me realize my jumping to action was not well thought out and premature. After re-reading my post, you would have been well within your rights to be snarky, but you responded with class all the way. Many apologies, sir . You are a true gentleman and a fine addition to this site.

  • May 3, 2006, 6:39 p.m. CST

    You're glib Mattw, you're glib.

    by JuggFuckler

    And you spend way too much time following Girth's posts for someone who is constantly berating them. What's your beef anyways? Do his posts bother you that much? Enough for you to treat everyone else like shit? If you are going to be such a fucking asshole,why don't you just put in an application at Blockbuster instead of asking Girth to pull some strings for you. Better yet, why don't you just go somewhere else. Dick.

  • May 3, 2006, 6:41 p.m. CST

    CaptDanielRoe

    by deadgirldown

    That was a very nice thing for Gore to do. I am not saying the guy isn't human (oh, wait, I have said that). I am just saying that everybody seems to think Al Gore is a Liberal, and as a former resident of Tennessee, I just don't see him that way. Kind of like a lot of Conservatives are now saying that Bush isn't really a Conservative. Politics aside, I will probably catch this movie on HBO because documentaries are nifty.

  • May 3, 2006, 6:55 p.m. CST

    I stop by and this happens

    by FordPerfect

    Mattw has a very small penis!

  • May 3, 2006, 7:06 p.m. CST

    Re: Girth

    by mattw

    You are too stupid to insult me. Here is your post translated to English: What type of job do you have where you can constantly attack people all day and be a huge asshole? Are you a fluffer for gay Porn? Yeah, I bet you love gay porn! I also bet you suck your father's cock all day long! Yeah, that sounds like you. How can defend your actions and be proud, you illegal dick? You can't. You suck and you're a loser...wait a minute you're in love with me, aren't you? You are, and you want to gobble my cock like there is no tomorrow.

  • May 3, 2006, 7:08 p.m. CST

    global dimming...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    ... ever here of this.. i might have the name wrong - its the dimming of the sun light that reaches the earth due to polutants in the air - the clouds - which absorb and retain man made polutants - become highly reflective thus bouncing a good portion of the suns light away from the earth - i saw a "nova" about this - it seemed logical and nade sense - there were plenty of scientists that did years of study and research trying to determine the cause and effect at play in all of this - im sure there are plenty of people out there (and in here) that would dismiss this as bs

  • May 3, 2006, 7:08 p.m. CST

    re: Ford

    by mattw

    No argument here.

  • May 3, 2006, 7:25 p.m. CST

    re: Girth

    by mattw

    As usual, a very intelligent, insightful post. I highly recommend suing your school district for letting you graduate the third grade.

  • May 3, 2006, 7:27 p.m. CST

    re: Mott

    by mattw

    I don't remember giving you permission to address me.

  • May 3, 2006, 7:59 p.m. CST

    Al Gore, the man who recently gave blowjobs to Sheiks

    by Kamala

    In Saudi Arabia, after he told him how sorry he was for the way they were treated after 9/11. Even though all of the 9/11 terrorists and their conspirators were arab muslims, and most of them were from Saudi Arabia. He apologized that Feds actually started looking into Clerics who openly preached hate and murder at their mosques. He was sorry that the U.S. stopped handing out passports to people from the middle east like they were candy. He was also sorry that US had the nerve to detain and question people from the middle east who were plotting to blow up malls and airplanes. My, how awful we were!

  • May 3, 2006, 8:08 p.m. CST

    Anchorite that's what I told merrick.

    by JUSTICE41

    Not in as many words but it's the same. We are animals living like any other animal on this planet We are as natural as anything else on this planet. If we weren't meant to eat meat we wouldn't have developed incisors and a digestive system that can process meat. What kills me about these Eco-terrorists is that they haven't the guts to go overseas to real Eco destroyers and confront them because they know they'd be shot or locked away in a deep hole. This country is filled with so many shame faced cowardly guilt ridden people that these eco-terrorists can just shame them into doing stupid things and handing money over. But the funny thing is there's nothing to be Guilty about. We are doing what come naturally to our species. That's why I suspect that the Global warming conspiracy is leading to some sort of Birth rate control like China. Libs love killing Babes in the Wombs so what's reducing the worlds population to them. Probably had a party after The Tsunami and Earthquakes that killed almost 300 thousand people in the last few years. We could all shed our clothes and abandon our homes and cars and everything and the globe would still do exactly whatever she's doing. We are gnat's on this planet You could fit the entire Earths population in Texas and still have enough room for every animal.

  • May 3, 2006, 8:08 p.m. CST

    to CaptDanielRoe

    by The Skeptical

    Let me summerize your proof: there are 2 graphs on wikipedia, covering different things in different units, on different timescales. They both go up at the right, so graph #2 must be caused by graph #1?

  • May 3, 2006, 8:24 p.m. CST

    The Church of Enviromentalism is now ordained.

    by JUSTICE41

    Read this you wacko's and get some perspective. You guys must be too young to have been around when these same scientists were warning of Global Cooling. You simpletons live in fear all the time and these are just pseudo parents keeping you in fear. You all do realize Environmentalism is now a new Religion. It has it's own strict dogma and beliefs. There is an alter and there is tithing. Every facet of the Other Religions is duplicated by Environmentalists. You even have your more Secular and Fundamentalists branches. Now eat a dick all you Religion hating assholes because your part of one. http://www.failedsuccess.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/global_warming_fears_rise/

  • May 3, 2006, 8:42 p.m. CST

    Justice 41 nails it

    by The Skeptical

    People have a need to beleive certain culteral mythes. Christianity tells od a perfect world (eden), spoiled by human intelligence. As a result Christians believe that we are all fundamentally guilty (original sin) by virtue of just being human. We are doomed to impending (high temperature!) apocolypse unless we repent. That is almoast exactly the sermon that revereng Gore is preaching. (Repent! Humans have tasted the forbidden fruit of civilization and now we shall pay, the end is near! I am the prophet of doom! I am cereal!). The similarities are not coincedental--and I have no doubt that Gore believes it. There is fundamental human desire to feel guilty, and to want salvation. Leaders have preyed on this for millenia, and will doubtless do so forever. In todays secular world, people crave the same things that religion use to give them. If you still doubt, listen to Vern's predicitions in the review: "Cities under water. Whole lakes drying up. Glaciers disappearing. Hurricanes and tornadoes, bugs and diseases" If that does not sound like a raving religious fanatic, than nothing does.

  • May 3, 2006, 8:47 p.m. CST

    Climate change NOT a political issue?

    by KCMOSHer

    Uh, okay there Vern. Smoke another one, maybe you'll see God. This movie isn't about climate change, something that can and has happened rather regularly over the history of the planet. It's about 'global warming', a thoroughly bullshit theory that somehow -we- have caused this climate change. The science behind it is bullshit, and yes, it is a 100% political issue. You'll note that conservatives and Republicans tend to say things like, for example, 'this global warming nonsense is bullshit' while liberals and Democrats tend to say thing like 'oh Good Father Al, please allow us to fellate you while you teach us your wise wisdom about the future of our planet!' As for the movie, did you WATCH that trailer? Most unintentionally funny thing I've seen since Battlefield Earth. I kept waiting for the narrator to say 'CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS IN TROUBLE!!!' But hey, all the moonbats out there have to have SOME 'important' movie to rally behind every year, so I guess this year it's Algore's turn unless someone decides to make another gay cowboy movie and ADD the pudding this time.

  • May 3, 2006, 8:47 p.m. CST

    justice41

    by Amazing Inframan

    You wrote: "We are doing what come naturally to our species." ---->Murder is natural, but that doesn't make it generally acceptable, or absolve us of *responsibility* if we do it. Ditto for the environment. We are animals, but we are sophisticated animals who have the ability to exercise self-control and incite change when we "know better". You say the earth, sky, and water are ours to do with as we please, but that doesn't give certain people the right to damage it for others - just like no one has a right to break into someone else's house, explode someone else's car, or rip up someone else

  • May 3, 2006, 8:52 p.m. CST

    Just hand Vern and Merrick some signs saying

    by JUSTICE41

    The world is ending Repent and have a quote from the Environmentalist bible written by Gore or Ted Kazcinski (sp) like][ The wheel: The destruction of man began with it's invention.][ or some such nonsense. Some of you are so deluded you think you just discovered something new. Idiots. A wise man once said that a persons Historical Perspective starts at their birth. Just watch Jay walking On Leno. Those are the idiots professing to know the real truth. Morons.

  • May 3, 2006, 9:07 p.m. CST

    justice (P.S.)

    by Amazing Inframan

    Your arguments would be much more compelling if you didn't treat those who don't share your opinion with such hostility ("morons", "idiots", and so forth). Even though I agree with some of what you're saying, it's hard to take a school yard bully too seriously. You're undercutting yourself. If you believe in your argument, there's no need to *appear* so threatened.

  • May 3, 2006, 9:15 p.m. CST

    The Scientific Majority

    by BrunoTheDog

    swore up and down that the world was going to be destroyed by global cooling in the 70s. They said that we were heading for a new ice age and that by the new millenium our world's food supply will have been so destroyed by the cold that we would suffer massive worldwide casualties. Honest climatologists will tell you that there is no real way to predict what the Earth is going to do. Climatology is such a relatively new science, that there is really nothing to compare what's happening now to anything. They conjecture based on hypotheticals, not facts.

  • May 3, 2006, 9:38 p.m. CST

    Amazing Inframan you want a solution to endangered

    by JUSTICE41

    Make them food. We will have more of those species than we would know what to do with. The same applies to Land. Land owners love their land and take great pains to maintain what they own. The more land that is in the hands of people the more likely that land will be taken care of by those people. I watch a docu about a country in Africa and how people in this country weren't allowed to own land until recently. They interviewed and old man who bought a piece of land and he was so happy to have something of his own.

  • May 3, 2006, 9:48 p.m. CST

    Take me seriously or not I don't care.

    by JUSTICE41

    I know what I know and anyone ignorant enough to spew the bile and bilge I've been hearing since I was kid but with a flip to Global warming from Global Cooling is and are idiots, morons and paltroons. They deserve to be scorned and spit on. Like the man above me just said about the science of climate. It's new, They haven't been at it long enough to make any predictions. We can't even predict when a Hurricane will come or where it will go, or how strong it will be. I really believe there is a new anti birthrate movement coming. I've heard a few speeches from the likes of Robert Kennedy (sp) and others who are in this movement. It's all about making money and controlling Birth rates especially for the brown peoples of this planet because to Libs the brown people are children to be taken care of. Well I'm Brown and I can't stand the condescension from Libs. That holier than though way they look at Blacks as if they were all indentured slaves who will always bow down and vote for them. Sickening.

  • May 3, 2006, 10:06 p.m. CST

    justice

    by Amazing Inframan

    If you don't want to feel looked down upon (I won

  • May 3, 2006, 10:09 p.m. CST

    So now you have white mans burden too

    by JUSTICE41

    Give it up man I am who I choose to be and Merrick can lick me.

  • May 3, 2006, 10:15 p.m. CST

    Did I understand Vern correctly?

    by The Skeptical

    This movie is largly a video tape of Al Gore giving a slide show? Did I hear that correctly? Is that a joke?

  • May 3, 2006, 10:22 p.m. CST

    justice

    by Amazing Inframan

    You just proved my point. "I am who I choose to be". If you don't feel you're perceived properly, change the way people perceive you. Whos is responsible for how you're perceived if you don't take control of that yourself? Or, fester and be hostile for no reason. Go ahead and waste that energy on bitterness instead of wisdom. But, it looks kind of immature from the outside. You are correct, it

  • May 3, 2006, 10:35 p.m. CST

    You must be a newbie and Merrick needs this

    by JUSTICE41

    He's new and he just can't expect everyone to bow down just because he's Harry's lackey. Everyone at AICN has gone through his or hers right of passage. Merricks no exception. and take no offense man I was just using a debate tactic called demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. It points out how someone else is being seen or heard by others. Kinda like how your trying to get me to calm down. Rush uses that tactic all the time it's similar to how kids will repeat what another kid is saying as he's saying just to annoy the other kid. Now go on with this discussion of the fantasy land you Libs seem to live in where everyone but themselves is evil.

  • May 3, 2006, 10:53 p.m. CST

    justice

    by Amazing Inframan

    I'm not a newb. Not by a long shot. That's the exact kind of overgeneralization you say you disdain. Don't deflect this issue by talking about Merrick and rights of passage, that's not what we're talking about here. The fact is: Merrick can walk out of here tonight being considered a "gentlemen", but most people wouldn't say that about you (presuming you're a male). This will make you feel disrespected and under appreciated, and maybe even mad. You'll get more angry and loudly blame white people and liberals for this, instead of thinking about what you could have done to get the results you say you want from conversations like this. That's not fair to you, or to anyone else. Wake up. Get real. I appreciate your civil discourse and replies, though, as well as the thought provoking conversation. I'm sorry we didn't get closer to a mutual understanding - kind of hard to do when one person is so determined to remain bitter and resentful towards people they do not even know. have a wonderful evening (if you're in a part of the world where it's currently night time).

  • May 3, 2006, 11:22 p.m. CST

    JUSTICE41 CAN BE WHO HE WANTS TO BE:

    by halfmahalfn

    A wanker.

  • May 3, 2006, 11:23 p.m. CST

    fuck corn, fuck oil=hydrogen

    by skiff

    when are they going to put billions in to hydrogen?

  • May 4, 2006, 12:56 a.m. CST

    skiff..

    by The Skeptical

    "They" will put billions into hydrogen when "they" think they can get 2xbillions out of it. Would you want something else done with your money?

  • May 4, 2006, 1:39 a.m. CST

    LOL@ TheBaxter!

    by Krazy Eyez Killa

    I really did laugh out loud. Oh and I'm looking foward to seeing this, not that I'll learn anything new but I'm curious to see how they present the material. A film of Gore making a speach could, in concept, not be so captivating.

  • May 4, 2006, 3:02 a.m. CST

    Oh Al ......

    by thebearovingian

    So Gore's not gonna take responsibility for global warming since he "invented" all of the technologies that have created this phenomenon?? Al, you made your bed and now you must lie in it!!! And stop with the aerosol hairspray, Al Gore!!!!

  • May 4, 2006, 3:33 a.m. CST

    Mother Nature is one Big Bad Bitch...

    by thebearovingian

    Just like Buford Pusser from "Walking Tall". Try as they may, they couldn't kill that SOB either. Scientists/ The Experts should know how remarkable nature is at adapting and recovering yet all we hear is how nature is dying. Nature has recovered from devastation caused by floods, fires, nuclear radiation (atomic bombs (ala Hiroshima, Nagasaki, poor lil' New Mexico) explosions (ala Chernobyl), fallout, waste), the Exxon Valdez, the stock market crash of 1929, and Yanni. Of course we should do our part to live in a clean environment but please give Moms some credit!!!! Fucktards! That just ruined my whole post...

  • May 4, 2006, 4:41 a.m. CST

    Mother Nature pwns your ass

    by BannedOnTheRun

    I swore I wasn't going to come back to this thread, but here I am. Nothing personal here, but I really do believe the "global warming" scare is largely a function of post hoc ergo propter hoc coupled with some internal self-hatred/insecurity. Like Merrick said, a local Wal-Mart goes up and spoils your view; guilt takes over and you start to project: every tree cut down (and everyone else's exhaust pipe but yours) becomes "proof" that we're destroying the planet. (See http://tinyurl.com/bt8v9 for how to destroy the earth.) Anyway, peace everybody. I've got to go catch my stinky clean-air bus.

  • May 4, 2006, 5:24 a.m. CST

    Post hoc

    by BannedOnTheRun

    e.g., my neighbor bought an SUV last summer, and it snowed really hard this winter. Which doesn't do much to explain the extinction of the dinos or the Ice Age.

  • May 4, 2006, 7:14 a.m. CST

    Vern

    by NuteG

    Not that I want to suggest you haven't been STRIVING FOR EXCELLENCE and so forth, but this review is the best I've read from you in a while now. I think I will check out this movie!

  • May 4, 2006, 8:03 a.m. CST

    Merrick knocks some sense into Mattw

    by FordPerfect

    Can you ban people for being just plain annoying? Because if you can MAttw has to go. He never brings anything insightful to any conversation. He justs...insults people intelligence, and when someone has something to say to him he tells them that they "don't have the right to address him" lame. It just sucks when someone picks a fight with the other person all day and all night. Forget about Girth and the things he says, he has been around more than Mattw has, and has posted some pretty insightful things about Lost. So far I haven't seen a God damn thing that Mattw has posted that is relevent to any topic whatsoever! He is lame and boring, and after this I propose that no one respond to anything he has to say, even if he corrects your grammer.

  • May 4, 2006, 8:44 a.m. CST

    I find it kind of amusing...

    by Childe Roland

    ...that a guy like anchorite can talk about America's moral responsibility to do something about the "natural order" of things in Iraq but thinks we should act like a pack of wolves when it comes to exercising a bit of common sense and care in the way we treat our environment.

  • May 4, 2006, 8:50 a.m. CST

    Final Word on This...

    by biggles2_22

    Man you guys got some serious time on your hands. Got life? Nothing you or I, or mankind for that matter, does will make a serious dent in the planets eco-system. Be serious. Kyoto? Just a failed attempt to stick a hand in the US's pocket and a leg up to third world countries. Hate to be cynical about such things, but does anyone remember the coming ice age of the 70's?! I do. Does anyone remember the reports of oil running out within five years of 1978?! I do. Does anyone realize that the air today is cleaner than it was in the 70's and 80's, by any measurement?! Why don't we argue that maybe THAT is causing the warming. Look I understand, the granolas have to march about something, but at least wait until the people that were alive in the 70's and 80's die off before you contradict yourselves. Better yet? Make the world a better place by marching on REAL oppressive governments. Dictatorships. Communists. Warlords. Focus your energies were REAL tragedies are occuring. Darfor (did I spell that right?) is great example of were liberals should be focused. Follow Clooney's lead. He was way off base (and proven wrong)with his anti-McCarthy efforts, but now I think he's onto something better and more noble. I know its easier to focus on things here, at home, and say we're soooo bad, our government's bad, we're killing the planet, Walmart sucks, whatever, but until we realize just how "right" we've gotten things in this country and focus our efforts on helping those in real pain around the world, we'll be stuck in the masturbatory rantings that I've seen posted here. Show the world a united front against inhumanity and, trust me, it will change. All this eco stuff? Please, humans, get over yourselves. Al Gore has a big head, he's a liar, and to be honest, he's a jerk. Bush? A boob. Throwing monkey dung at either is a waste of time. OK. I'm spent. Bye.

  • May 4, 2006, 9:03 a.m. CST

    People always defend Bush, but...

    by Cruel_Kingdom

    we have a fucking president who can't pronounce the word "nuclear." No one sees that as a sign that the man is a little, er...unintelligent?

  • May 4, 2006, 9:07 a.m. CST

    NO! I SAID FINAL WORD ON THIS.

    by biggles2_22

    Yeah, Bush is a boob. We get it.

  • May 4, 2006, 9:27 a.m. CST

    You Guys Are Funny! *slips on wet suit* See You In Hell

    by www.valiens.com

    biggles2_22 - you're from Michigan? Big shock. Normally I like to joke about this stuff too but you know what? 10 FUCKING YEARS IS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO PLAY POLITICS OR SIT ON OUR CYNICAL ASSES AND SMIRK IT OFF. THERE IS NO NEXT GENERATION TO PASS THIS OFF TO. Sorry if the facts don't cause you a "nerdgasm."

  • May 4, 2006, 9:28 a.m. CST

    Back atcha

    by Cory849

    Amen Biggles. :-) (for the long post there.)

  • May 4, 2006, 9:43 a.m. CST

    Skeptical....

    by CaptDanielRoe

    ...My proof is all of science and the vast majority of the establishment. I have all smart people everywhere on my side. You have the word of a very small handful of the powerful who happen to be making a lot of money off of the forces that cause global warming... And who can't present any argument to it other than saying "We need more research that conclusively proves this theory" ...But of course, theories are not "proven" conclusively... They are instead proven over and over by their ability to predict future data. If you can't mentally adjust timescales on graphs 2/1, I'm sorry, but you are a lunkhead. I don't think you are a lunkhead. I think you are just pretending to be a lunkhead so that you can keep arguing. It's kind of like pretending a slipped disc prevents you from being able to take the garbage out. Or Republicans pretending they can't remember anything when called to testify. It's like kids in school deliberately failing because they think it would be uncool to succeed at schoolwork. Global warming is not that complicated, and there is abundant information on it. I'm sorry but I'm not going to play the game where you insist, every time I come back, that it be cut into smaller and smaller chunks to be spoonfed to you.

  • May 4, 2006, 9:56 a.m. CST

    Biggles, you need to re-evaluate your deifinition...

    by Childe Roland

    ...of "getting things right" if you think the U.S. hads its shit together enough to tell any other nation in the world how they should be running things. Until we don't have people dying for lack of adequate healthcare...until we don't have people freezing to death because they can't afford heat...until we don't have people dying of starvation (which is really just fucking inexcusable given how much food we waste), we are in NO position to tell anyone else how they should run their governments. Sorry, but that's just common sense. Clean up your own yard before you yell at the neighbor about mowing his lawn or having his fence painted the wrong color.

  • May 4, 2006, 11:15 a.m. CST

    Roland

    by Cory849

    sorry man. thats facile. Im Canadian and hey, I think you folks down there do lots of things wrong. We even do a few things wrong up here. Not as many as you...but some. Still though - you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The U.S. is responsible for a lot of global prosperity and has led the evolution in the discussion of how to appropriately behave as a country and a government. You need to look at things with a bit more of a historical timeline and a broader geographic scope I would say.

  • May 4, 2006, 11:21 a.m. CST

    CaptDaniel

    by DarthSnoogans

    As far as I know, we still have troops in Afghanistan. Just because the media doesn't pay attention to it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The Iraq war was and is a perfect example of attracting your enemy to a battlefield that you control. Going to the moon and Mars? Every president since we landed on the moon has talked about that, has it happened? It's called "wishful thinking". Backtracking on the national anthem in Spanish is a non-issue. Appointing yes-men to administrative positons? Conjecture on your part. Let's talk about the serious breaches in national security under the Clinton/Gore administration, such as giving nuclear technology to the North Koreans, missile technology to the Chinese, and being completely asleep at the wheel on terrorist organizations. I'll take the Mars landing that will never happen and the National Anthem in espanol, thanks very much.

  • May 4, 2006, 11:44 a.m. CST

    Snoogans, it was your boys who were asleep at the wheel

    by Peven

    how friggin ignorant are you? it was Bush's bunch who blew the chance to stop the attack on 9/11, but dismissed concerns about an attack on US soil, because they were too busy plotting how to justify running in and grabbing Iraq's oil. i guess next you'll tell us how bad the economy was during the 90's too, and how much better it is now. yeah, thats right we still have troops Afghanistan, though your boy Georgie has underfunded and undersupported them, because there isn't any oil there, and meanwhile have created more enemies of the US with a war in Iraq that was begun by using outright lies and half truths to mislead the American public into supporting the start of it, though they are pretty sick of it now, just check the numbers. but hey, you just go ahead and keep regurgitating what Rush and Hannity keep spoon-feeding your ignorant sorry ass. people like you are nothing more than children waiting to be told what to say, think and do.

  • May 4, 2006, 11:45 a.m. CST

    Cory, if you bring history into it...

    by Childe Roland

    ...then the U.S. has ABSOLUTELY no business condemning the actions of any government accused of genocide or mistreatment of a people based on race religion. See also: Native American history, slavery and the Salem witch trials. And the current geopolitical maneuvering is really designed to make the rest of the world easier for us to deal with politically, militarily and economically. As a non-American, you should be able to see that for what it is.

  • May 4, 2006, 11:48 a.m. CST

    JUSTICE41 - Didn't you say that all Iraqis should die?

    by Max Meanie

    All these statements you're making about libs want babies to die & Eco-Terrorists are evil, blah, blah, blah. Didn't you say, "Only wrong thing the military is doing in Iraq is Not blowing the fuck out of everything and everyone." Doesn't that make you a bloodthirsty hypocrite that isn't interested in helping the innocent as you said here about Rwanda & Ethiopia? You mention the Pakistan earthquake. Should we help them with humanitarian aid even though they harbor Al-Qaeda? And why do you blame libs for not wanting to help Africa when republicans are in charge & have been for the past 6 years? Abortions went down under Clinton & are up under Bush who endorses abstinance to Africans but wont give them condoms to reduce the spread of AIDS. How's that helping them?

  • May 4, 2006, 12:02 p.m. CST

    The thing is... this is a worldwide effort

    by Immortal_Fish

    Once again, the USA isn't the only party bearing all the responsibility on this matter. Yet once again, it's all our fault as it always is. Look, as a conservative that's spoken with many other conservatives, I get the sense that most of us on this side of the aisle want to do the right thing in any small ways that we can. However, efforts as broad reaching as what Gore strives for requires buy-in from the rest of the world. Kyoto looked *great* on paper, but it would never be fairly executed, leaving only those who play by the rules holding the bag. Oil for Palaces... I mean, Oil For Food is a mere glimpse at how Kyoto would have really functioned. Until the world agrees to play by the rules, all this eco talk is just another reason to increase our taxes. And for half my money each year, I *still* have to pay to send my kids to private school so they can get an adequate education. Big government always leads to big failure.

  • May 4, 2006, 12:09 p.m. CST

    anchorite - humans do have an effect on environment

    by Max Meanie

    Not looking to argue but when you say "We will have as much of a lasting effect on the Earth as any other species has" you should check out Brazil who has signs up measuring the amount of air pollution and when it is safe to go to certain areas. And have you ever seen the smog over San Francisco? I mention these 2 examples from experience. I'm sure others can point many out. Switching cars from gas & oil to cleaner burning fuels would help us on many levels - air quality, financial independence from foreign oil, etc. Sure you agree on that.

  • May 4, 2006, 12:14 p.m. CST

    Max max max. It's war man You kill the enemy

    by JUSTICE41

    In war and people who get in the way get killed The Military is holding back and this is why we are still slogging it over there. This thing would have been over and done if the Military was allowed to use a heavier hand. Oh and I don't give a fuck about any Iraqi or anybody in Africa or anyplace else for that matter. I was pointing out that you libs love to talk about sympathy and love for the downtrodden but when real disasters raise their heads you libs head for the hills and yell out platitudes. Only people and place I care about is the people here and this country let the rest of the world fend for itself and when you fuck with US then your in for a hurting. Nice try fucker try again.

  • May 4, 2006, 12:15 p.m. CST

    Peven...HAHAHAHAAA!

    by DarthSnoogans

    You continue to prove how the "Blame Bush First" crowd resorts to name-calling when their views are challenged. Keep to the insane ramblings about "Bush Lied, Kids Died" and "No Blood For Oil"...the Clinton Administration had eight years to stop the 9/11 attacks, and turned down Sudan when they offered Bin Laden to us on a silver platter. The Bush Administration had eight months. Tell me who had more warning. Fine, go ahead and accuse me of being a Rush/Hannity drone...I have a sneaking suspicion that you get the majority of your news from "The Daily Show" and Bill Maher.

  • May 4, 2006, 12:32 p.m. CST

    JUSTICE41 - then what about New Orleans, Mississippi?

    by Max Meanie

    Shouldn't Bush help them out? It's been caught on film that he was told before Katrina hit about the levees & he did nothing. re: libs not providing sympathy - I don't think the Peace Corp is made up of many conservatives, just a feeling. Also, you admit you're a hypocrite then because you equate ALL Iraqis as the enemy? Stop talking about wishing death on people & try helping for a change. Be part of the solution instead of talking. Be a man.

  • May 4, 2006, 12:39 p.m. CST

    Roland and history

    by Cory849

    No. I see lots for what it is. My posts should demonstrate that Im not easy to fit into a particular box. I am a reasonably contrarian guy after all - so gullibility and naivity dont really fit with my temperment. What I am saying is that you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater when you say things like that. You are tossing out the good with the bad. The achilles heel of leftists is that they thing big and powerful = bad. small and weak = good. therefore the united states is the biggest and evillest and not a good word shall be said in its favor. The simple fact is that its likely the most benign hegemon in the recorded history of the planet. It maintains a free press, a vibrant elected democracy, a transparent economic system. Now - all of those things are flawed. media concentration, gerrymandering etc. the education of the lower classes in your country is quite poor (when measured against other wealthy countries), and abuses exist in the economy. But you clearly are discounting, for reasons of rage and bias, the governance failures in developing countries as well as the behavior of hegemon states prior to the United States as well as the many amazing achievements past and ongoing of the United States in myriad policy areas. I dont mind you pushing the U.S. to do better. You should - on a whole host of areas (for example, you (the U.S.) are quite in danger of losing the secular rationalism that has kept you healthy, wealthy and wise, to a rebirth of christian religious zealotry.) But you lose credibility when you speak in brash absolutes like you have. Have you studied the actions of "other nations" much? surely you dont think that evil lies only in the hearts of americans? surely you dont think that the demise of america as a superpower will usher in a marked improvement of peace and tranquility in the world. You cant be that naive. too many of the other things you say are too well thought out. So why are you holding up an unsupportable position based on this facile "hypocrisy is bad, mmmmk" premise? In logic its an ad hominem argument: The argument of the U.S. must be bad on any policy subject at any time because it comes from the U.S. Come now. You are better than that.

  • May 4, 2006, 12:43 p.m. CST

    THE PROPHECY HAS BEEN FULFILLED!

    by Vern

    Sorry about this talkback everybody.

  • May 4, 2006, 12:49 p.m. CST

    DarthSnoogans - Sudan did not offer Bin Laden

    by Max Meanie

    It was a mistated comment seized upon by right-wing shows. Clinton mispoke off the cuff at an event in Long Island in 2002. There was no offer by the Sudan gov't to offer up Bin Laden. Clinton testified before the 9/11 Commission about this which stated in their report there was no evidence of that deal. Hannity continued the lies on his show over & over. I do not accuse you of getting the info from him but it is a false claim. Also Clinton's team told the incoming Bush administration that top of their list of threats was Bin Laden. And it's documented that Cheney's Anti-Terrorist Task Force didn't meet once before 9/11. That's just 1 example of Bush losing sight of priorities.

  • May 4, 2006, 12:52 p.m. CST

    We have Tax money for that Maxiepooh.

    by JUSTICE41

    We are helping out there but you can't put blame for that into human hands that's mother nature.

  • May 4, 2006, 1:06 p.m. CST

    oh suuuure Vern....

    by Cory849

    oh suuuure Vern....put that right after MY post. Make it look like its MY fault... whateva! talk to da hand!

  • May 4, 2006, 1:07 p.m. CST

    JUSTICE41 - there isn't enough tax money for New Orlean

    by Max Meanie

    The budget money for Katrina victims & rebuilding the area isn't enough. Military engineers are saying the levees will not be rebuilt for months, well into hurricane season. Aren't you in Florida? What if the gov't abandoned you during a hurricane? How would you feel about your tax dollars being spent then?

  • May 4, 2006, 1:12 p.m. CST

    Snoogans...

    by CaptDanielRoe

    Rumsfeld was on the board of directors of the company that sold the reactor to the North Koreans. Reactors which were easily convertible into breeder reactors. It was a scandal at the time that fell on Rummy and got him booted from Dole's campaign. As for the Chinese "spy" from Los Alamos the charges were disproven. Aldritch Amers, and the dude known as "The Mortician" were security breaches predating the Clinton Administration and uncovered during the Clinton Administration so I hardly see how that falls on their shoulders as a minus. As for the rest, I don't think your counterpoints are substantial enough to retort.

  • May 4, 2006, 1:17 p.m. CST

    Justice41......

    by CaptDanielRoe

    In stating "In war and people who get in the way get killed The Military is holding back and this is why we are still slogging it over there. ... Oh and I don't give a fuck about any Iraqi or anybody in Africa or anyplace else for that matter." .......WHEN you stated that you failed to provide the obligatory comment that the life of any American, or certainly the national interest of the United States, has a price above rubies, especially the valiant members of our military. Therefore your wingnut registration is revoked and you are now merely an unlicensed nut.

  • May 4, 2006, 1:21 p.m. CST

    Yeah, Clinton misspoke a LOT...

    by DarthSnoogans

    I have a hard time believing that he told the truth to the 9/11 Commission regarding a national security issue, when he was willing to purjure himself to get out of a sexual harassment suit. I'm not saying that the Bush administration couldn't have done more, but come on...the warning signs were there during while his predecessor was in office, and Clinton lost sight of his priorities because he was more concerned with taking undue credit for the economy and not rocking the boat. Maybe he did inform the Bush adminstration of the threat Bin Laden presented...but was there a concerted effort to track him down while he was in office? Lobbing a couple of missles at a mountain in Afghanistan while the Lewinsky story was breaking does not constitute "dealing with the threat".

  • May 4, 2006, 1:21 p.m. CST

    Who Are You Apologizing To Vern?

    by CaptDanielRoe

    The only people reading this talkback are the people writing this talkback in all likelihood. But bless your temperate soul.

  • May 4, 2006, 1:25 p.m. CST

    CaptDaniel

    by DarthSnoogans

    Yes, but who brokered the deal to the North Koreans? Answer: Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under Bill Clinton. That's like accusing me of being complicit in price gouging because I own a few shares in Exxon/Mobil.

  • May 4, 2006, 1:31 p.m. CST

    Darthsnoogans....

    by CaptDanielRoe

    ...The Clinton Administration held regular meetings on the Al Qaeda threat. The Bush Administration cancelled them. Even before 9/11 they were more interested in Iraq. This is a very well documented fact. You wouldn't have heard any of this "clear blue skies; we never could have imagined this" talk after 9/11 had it been a Clinton or Gore Administraion, because they were focused on such threats, actively investigating and combatting them.

  • May 4, 2006, 1:40 p.m. CST

    Owning Shares And Sitting On The Board

    by CaptDanielRoe

    Are very different things. The Board of Directors directs the company. Had the reactors been, as advertised, merely electric power reactors, it would have been one thing. However the type sold turned out to be exceptionally easy to convert to breeder reactors. I think the company doing the selling had as much or more to answer to there then the Clinton Administration. At least Bob Dole apparently thought so. (I don't even like the Clinton Administration by the way, I detest centrism, this is simply about truth.)

  • May 4, 2006, 1:52 p.m. CST

    Sorry Corey

    by Vern

    We were typing at the same time bud. I was actually trying to get mine right after a certain other poster who will not be named. But I missed it. And Captain Dan, I am apologizing to 1) the world and to 2) Jesus. In the case of the former it is more of a symbolic gesture and in the case of the latter I think he already knows but it's worth reiterating.

  • May 4, 2006, 1:55 p.m. CST

    p.s. What is a moonbat?

    by Vern

    I first saw it used by right wing types on talkbacks like this to describe "libs" like me. But more recently I have also seen it used by lefties to describe people like the people who use the term in talkbacks. What is a moonbat and is it something we need to worry about. Are they dangerous? How do they breathe on the moon? How big are they and do they look cool? etc.

  • May 4, 2006, 1:58 p.m. CST

    And one thing I forgot to mention in the review

    by Vern

    This is not relevant to any of these thoughtful discussions, but there was one detail I wanted to mention that I forgot. In one scene you see Gore going through airport security, which I thought was really funny. Obviously it only makes sense, they can't make any exceptions, but the idea of the former vice president having to take his shoes off is hilarious. You know, just in case. You never know WHO is gonna want to make a shoe bomb. Could be anybody.

  • May 4, 2006, 2:07 p.m. CST

    DarthSnoogans - believe what you want...

    by Max Meanie

    ...but those are the facts. I wouldn't compare lying about a blowjob (which is a personal matter) to testifying about terrorism. re: Clinton's priorities - he did bomb Al-Qaeda training camps in '98 & stopped the Millennium Bomb plot to blow up LAX airport. He was on the job. Compare that to Bush who ignored warnings & was on vacation for most of 2001. Believe me, I've become very disillusioned with Clinton about NAFTA but you can't place fault on 9/11 on the guy that wasn't in charge at the time.

  • May 4, 2006, 2:58 p.m. CST

    Shoe Bombs

    by CaptDanielRoe

    There is nothing wrong with properly licensed shoe bombs that are only for self defense. I understand why they have to check everybody for shoe bombs at the airport. You wouldn't want to mistakenly board the plane with your shoe bomb, only to have a terrorist seize it from you, and then terrify you and everyone else on the plane with it. Because, Lord knows, there's one thing this country needs less of and that's being terrified. That's why I favor calm and scientific analysis of threats, keeping them in the proper perspective.

  • May 4, 2006, 3:12 p.m. CST

    See, now, Cory, you've gone and missed my point...

    by Childe Roland

    ...entirely. And jumped to quite a few conclusions about my beliefs in the process. If you look back on my posts, you'll realize that I made no pronouncement of "evil" anything and I certainly am not suggesting that bigger and more powerful means bad. I'm suggesting that bigger and more powerful caries with it a certain amount of responsibility (hell, simple self-awareness carries that), and that responsibility cannot coexist with hypocrisy. I'm addressing U.S. foreign policy, which is far too aggressive given the state of internal affairs. Even a big muscular fellow with good looks and money can be suffering from disease and, if he goes and fucks everything that moves before getting himself treated, he'll infect those he fucks with said disease. Who's that helping? And if he never treats that disease (which I don't blame the republicans for alone, so please stop trying to pigeonhole me as a lefty so you'll feel better equipped to make ad hominem attacks against positions you presume I hold), he will become sickly and die. I don't want that. I want America to be strong and healthy so it can be credible in the position of role model and counsel to developoing nations around the world...so it can be ready to answer the call should its aid be requested by those in need. You brought up history and geography in an effort to discredit my world view as narrow. I simply responded with perfectly valid examples of why the U.S., in its current socioeconomic condition and based on past policies and practices, is in no position to lecture anyone on wrong or right. That's not saying the U.S. is evil. That's saying the U.S. isn't infallible, which you seem to agree with. So what exactly are you arguing? That one need not be infallible to initiate change for the better? I'd go so far as to agree with that. But one should demonstrate the capacity for implementing said change on one's self, first, and ensure that one's own house is in order before pulling a "while you were out" style makeover with the neighbors. Or, to carry the analogy in another direction: I don't want the guy with his car up on blocks for six months at a time coming over to change my oil. If you still don't get where I'm coming from (because you appear to be programmed to digest only pat left vs. right arguments), why not sleep on it? My approach...building a position of strength (which need not translate into military might) and solidifying that before trying to initiate changes around the world...will still be the same and will still make sense. Why would the U.S. want to adapt the world to suit its needs in its current, flawed state? Because it's easier than trying to change from within? That sounds like a cop out to me. If we can't solve our own problems, what makes us think we can solve anyone else's? Pride? A desire to shift the focus from our problems to someone else's? I'm open to suggestions, but I strongly recommend you actually process what I'm saying before you formulate an attack on a position you believe I hold. You will come off sounding far less like a smug tool.

  • May 4, 2006, 3:16 p.m. CST

    And anchorite...

    by Childe Roland

    ...how was that analogy off target again? You suggest that people and their behavior are part of the natural course of events that shape our world and the consequences of those actions shold be embraced and dealt with rather than articficially curbed to slow the Darwinian progression of life (and death). Yet you have argued vehemently that we had a moral obligation (something that really has no grounding in Darwinism) to step into Iraq and interrupt the natural course of events there. I'm trying to understand how you resolve those parallel-yet-contradictory positions in your world view. Help me.

  • May 4, 2006, 5:58 p.m. CST

    the one thing working against this movie...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    ... is the prominent presence of al gore - im not a gore hater - i voted for him - but so many people hate this guy that its going to have an impact on how seriously this movie and its message are taken - and based on the review it plays out like an al gore concert film - this movie wouldve better served its intended audience if it was made to be shown on cable - then shortly there after pbs - then quickly put out on dvd

  • May 4, 2006, 5:59 p.m. CST

    Achorite...

    by CaptDanielRoe

    ...If your hair was on fire, would it be against your understanding of Darwin, that great philospher, to soak your head? ..............Wouldn't it be against the great cycle of nature to perform even the most basic personal hygiene? No? Well, see, that's all people with an ecological understanding are trying to do. Human industry simply needs it's butt wiped... So desperately that if it doesn't happen there will be huge catastrophes. It's not our fault, although apparently it IS our problem, that the science of this advanced form of "needing one's butt wiped" is beyond the ken of certain people. .............Now as to the earlier posters' point about how since they do everything decently in their own lives ecologically they don't want to care about ecology... To that I say, fine. Great. Just vote in people who do give a damn, understand the situation, and will take care of it. So that you don't have to worry about it. Simple. Extra bonus side effect: Lack of horrible garbage in many other areas of governance.

  • May 4, 2006, 6:03 p.m. CST

    JimmyJoeRedSky...

    by CaptDanielRoe

    A lot of people intensely dislike Michael Moore. And yet his last film was the most moneymaking documentary of all time. Yeah let's all argue now over whether it was a documentary or... Not! No, actually, let's don't. Instead let's just reflect that this film will in fact make a bundle and be influential. Because not everybody should like every film. Otherwise every film would be pretty pointless.

  • May 4, 2006, 6:29 p.m. CST

    JimmyJoeRedSky...

    by CaptDanielRoe

    A lot of people intensely dislike Michael Moore. And yet his last film was the most moneymaking documentary of all time. Yeah let's all argue now over whether it was a documentary or... Not! No, actually, let's don't. Instead let's just reflect that this film will in fact make a bundle and be influential. Because not everybody should like every film. Otherwise every film would be pretty pointless.

  • May 4, 2006, 6:31 p.m. CST

    And With That Accidental Double Post....

    by CaptDanielRoe

    ...I resign from this thread. See you all again. Best of luck in Waterworld. I hope, however, that we are all smart enought to realize, come to that, that the complete melting of the polar ice caps would raise the sea levels no more than 100 feet. Catastrophic, but hardly cause to spend life adrift with Dennis Hopper. (I'll take my chances aground with Tom Petty.)

  • May 4, 2006, 6:39 p.m. CST

    Anchorite

    by CaptDanielRoe

    You pulled me back in. Sigh. Anyway, I like you, I really do. I don't want to insult you. That's no way to build coalition politics. ... All I ask you to do is resign yourself to the idea that your resignation is misplaced. Just because you don't see how people can have a massive impact (and correct one) doesn't mean, perforce, that no one else is smarter than you. Not me, but the world's scientists collectively. See what I mean? I'm not being a know-it-all. I'm being humble. Humility is saying I'll trust that I'm not the smartest one around, and that one isn't smarter than many (whose job and training qualifies them). But what is hubris? Is hubris scientists' theories (however well their theories work predictively)? Or is hubris thinking that one knows better than they do? ... I'm reminded of John McCain stupidly joking that a scientific study of whether methane from human-raised livestock contributed to global warming. He said the study should not have been funded because he found the premise laughable. No matter that it showed that cow farts do add to global warming. Now that's hubris.

  • May 4, 2006, 7:34 p.m. CST

    How do you eco-libs stand your ground against...

    by Immortal_Fish

    Castro and Chavez? If you truly think you're right (and I think you are) then aren't they much more guilty of eco-violence? How do you propose we handle them; hold them accountable for their actions? Sanctions? Embargos? I'm not kidding here. How do we deal with them? This is yet another liberal doublestandard that I have trouble swallowing. When you talk eco-centric values, you involve the entire planet. Ergo, you involve sentiments that you are sympathetic with that are not necessarily sympathetic with you. Do EarthDay scions wear Che tees?

  • May 4, 2006, 7:54 p.m. CST

    Hey Immortal

    by samsquanch

    I understand what you're trying to say, but you're assuming quite a bit- that being concerned with the environment pigeonholes one into a ready-made, pre-packaged mode of political ideology. Say, if someone is pro-environment, according to your logic, that same person must inevitably be pro-socialist? Communist? Pro Choice? Anti-death penalty? Against the War in Iraq? Where does your line of thinking end? You're assuming that everyone shares your personal definition of either political "wing", but I'm telling you, this will only leave you confused and frustrated. How would you identify someone who is pro-Iraq war, Anti-Bush, Pro-Choice, Anti Death Penalty, Environmentally Conscious, and Christian? Not quite so easy, is it? I applaud the question you raise, it's a fair one, but your motive is so plainly narrowminded. Politics isn't a game, Liberals and Conservatives aren't sports teams.

  • May 4, 2006, 7:56 p.m. CST

    Oh yeah- on a more important note-

    by samsquanch

    There's a bunch of new X-3 TV spots on YouTube, you can get to them thru SuperHeroHype.com if you want.

  • May 4, 2006, 7:57 p.m. CST

    Enviro's aren't really enviro's They are socialists

    by JUSTICE41

    Who hate capitalism. Don't believe me? Like my old pappy used to say," show me who you hang with and I'll show you what you are". So far in the Senate we have a Klu Klux Klan member and a Murderer as well as communist sympathizers and people who side with Hamas and other terror groups in the democratic Party and it's affiliations.. Don't believe me? Watch the speeches given by the anti-globalists and enviro's I realize Libs will point to non entities like Bob jones and some other flaccid and un-important people and groups, to say the same about Conservs, but it won't wash. You Libs have laid with some really flea ridden dogs and now your infested with them. Al Gore is a traitor to this country with what he did in Saudi Arabia when he went over their to lick the asses of those people. The man should be in Jail awaiting trial for Treason and or Sedition. I used to like Gore, until he went all Moral Majority with his depressed wife when they went after Zappa and other Musicians. Now he's basically Ted Kaczinski(sp) but he's out and about instead of hiding and bombing people.

  • May 4, 2006, 8:03 p.m. CST

    Hey Justice41

    by samsquanch

    I've been reading your posts for a couple of days now, and man, I've got some friendly advice- cut down on the white sugar intake, friend. You're only hurting yourself.

  • May 4, 2006, 9 p.m. CST

    put the blame on Al Qaeda !!

    by thebearovingian

    stop frickin' arguing about Bush and Clinton! Get pissed at Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden and his terrorist cronies who hate and want to destroy everyone ON THE GLOBE who aren't Muslim!!!

  • May 4, 2006, 9:51 p.m. CST

    Hillary in 2008!

    by MaryTylerMorbid

    Can somebody say landslide victory?

  • May 4, 2006, 11:10 p.m. CST

    If Hillary wins election

    by JUSTICE41

    The Military will drop by a million soldiers. Maggie Thatcher she aint. Disturbo, apt name. I'm just giving back what I get from you wacko's, musta touched a nerve somewhere though for you Libs to constantly be trying to rein in my rhetoric eh...? Don't worry guy/girl You guys are slowly putting yourselves into that fringe wacko area reserved for the truly insane. Next thing we know, the people from ELF will be holed up in a compound somewhere in San Fran shooting it out with FBI. And believe me this is the honest truth you people on the left and far left should really listen to what your repeating and where your hearing what your repeating from. Check their motives and always follow the mullah. If money is being made power is also growing and just because the regular folks, who are just good people, slightly gullible though, want to believe in the people heading these groups. Doesn't mean they are honest people doesn't mean they aren't, but money man, money, especially money handed over willing for speaking words... just too tempting. If you can show me where all the money donated to say a group like the Sierra club went and I mean true accountability not just some rep spouting platitudes and talking points you'd find that money went into a very good living for those higher up founding Members. Didn't a former member of the SC quit and started blasting the Club for being a sham? Anyways man/woman, watch as your life passes away while nothing gets done. These Enviro Groups are all the same as the Racial groups. Some are Militants but all are fund raising, scam artist, blackmailers, making money off the guilt of people in this country an unfounded guilt I might add. A guilt based on Affluence. Those people should stop feeling guilty and embrace their money... kinda like Oprah has..... She likes her expensive four thousand dollar sheets that are only on her beds and fat ass once a month.

  • May 5, 2006, 12:07 a.m. CST

    Justice, I find it hilarious

    by samsquanch

    that you're politically correct enough not to assume you know my gender, but you plow right into the "you Libs" trap. Ask Anchorite if I'm a Liberal. The only political position I ever really take online is a centrist one. When I hear loudmouth morons from either side of the spectrum cheerleading for what they think is their team, I take a moment to try and point out how utterly useless (and offensive, considering some of the topics) it is to try to reduce certain issues to a black and white, right and left argument. For example, the jackasses who think 9/11 should be a mascot for their team should be kicked out of the country, in my opinion. I've taken shit from folks on both sides my whole life. Whenever I criticize Bush the meatheads on the right want a piece of me. Whenever I talk about supporting the troops the twits on the left give me a tongue lashing. I can have a respectful, rational debate with anyone, and I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, but fools like you bore me. You scream and yell, but you're incoherent and blinded by your prejudice (and if you think that's a reference to racism, you should read more.) Good luck to you, the nerve you struck is calloused, but I guess you're right, it still gets to me when I read such ineffectual bullshit.

  • May 5, 2006, 12:22 a.m. CST

    Centrist my ass just a plain old coward.

    by JUSTICE41

    Awwwwww Did the widdle disturbed one get his widdle fweeliings hurt? Your a centrist? No just a coward who can't take a firm stance. And don't go lecturing anyone of either stripe, your too conflicted by too much doubt to be any help either way. Just flip flopping around trying to stay in the middle is just cowardly so go fuck off already.

  • May 5, 2006, 12:31 a.m. CST

    nice comeback

    by samsquanch

    you totally blew my 'incoherent' line out of the water. What's more cowardly- thinking critically about each topic as it presents itself, or needing a set ideological paradigm to do your thinking for you? Cue babytalk insult...

  • May 5, 2006, 1:12 a.m. CST

    I don't get why...

    by Ribbons

    ...people keep saying this just "reeks of Gore trying to thrust himself back into the spotlight." For starters, that doesn't automatically make what he's saying invalid. And for after starters, I don't understand what he's doing that makes his behavior seem suspicious. Public speaking? So what? Then again I don't know as much about this argument as some of you do, so if there's more to it then that feel free to respond.

  • May 5, 2006, 1:14 a.m. CST

    Blast!

    by samsquanch

    The accursed Homewrecker has used his Aryan X-Ray powers to learn my secret identity! How can he be so omnipotent? I must utilize my Super-Gay-Zionist-Amulet to deflect his all-seeing gaze! ARRGH! Where is the Dancing Jew Brigade when you need them!? (P.S. for all you normal, non-paranoid/schizophrenic pod people out there, I'm actually not DocPazuzu).

  • May 5, 2006, 2:57 a.m. CST

    The millennium bombing plot

    by Vern

    I would take one of Clinton's fingers over Bush as president any day, even the pinkie finger. And I don't like Clinton that much. But fair is fair and I have to point out one thing. People (even a republican or two) have given Clinton credit for stopping the millennium bombing plot, but unless I'm missing something he didn't really do anything. The plot was stopped by an attentive Washington State border guard who noticed Ahmed Ressam was acting freaked out and weird so he checked the vehicle and found the explosives. I'm sure there were other aspects to it that Clinton may have handled well (hey border guards, please be on the lookout before the millennium, your friend President Bill Clinton), but whoever that border guard was should get most of the credit. Giving the credit to Clinton is kind of like when Ashcroft used to take credit every time the Pakistani police caught some terrorist.

  • May 5, 2006, 6 a.m. CST

    Bring on the underwater cities!

    by Maniaq

    ...in the dried up lakes! See THIS is the reason we should be out in SPACE already! To get all those wierdos off the planet so we can have the whole place to ourselves - like in Bladerunner... Sure it may be a little wet... And George Carlin is right - THE PLANET IS DOING FINE - it's us people we have to worry about!

  • May 5, 2006, 7 a.m. CST

    Roland, my friend

    by Cory849

    Didnt take you long to resort to name calling. And after all I said about how smart you usually are too. Anyway, I wont be doing the same. As for the point: I clearly didnt miss your point. Your point is "Physician heal thyself". Im disagreeing directly. The internal problems of the U.S. are minor when compared to the internal problems of most other countries. Thats why you (and we) do technical assistance regularly in international fora and bilateral meetings. Providing knowledge on economics, governance is one of the best things the U.S. can do. You agree with the idea that the U.S. doesnt need to be infallible to have a foreign policy. So we agree on that. And thats what I was arguing since you seemed to be saying the opposite. You hold a principled view of foreign affairs that doesnt really mesh with the reality of it. The U.S. cant exactly just disengage. Its tried to more than any other free nation. But it has failed. The world is interconnected and the geopolitical chess game must be played. And some hypocracy will always be present. That will happen because the USs principle responsibility is to its own citizens. But regardless - its moot because the U.S. has its shit together WAY more than the countries it provides technical assistance too. It has every responsibility, under your articulated philosophy, to share that information.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:11 a.m. CST

    JUSTICE41 - lift up your blindfold & grow a spine

    by Max Meanie

    You're the most blind person on this TB. You bitch about Al Gore "licking the ass of the Saudis" when Bush is holding hands with them in public posing for pictures. Complain all you want about the libs, the Sierra Club & Hillary but they ain't in power, are they? The republicans are, so if want to complain about policy & the state of the world point your finger at them. Or are you holding hands with Saudis like Bush is?

  • May 5, 2006, 10:25 a.m. CST

    anchorite - should we not get involved?

    by Max Meanie

    I understand your point that natural forces will always apply more effects to the environment than humans. One volcanic eruption can emit more gases & destroy ozone than us. BUT that doesn't mean we should not do something. There's no reason to add to the destruction of the ozone layer or add to the temperature of the Gulf of Mexico's waters. Industrial progress can occur without damage to the planet. We all know fossil fuels are finite so why continue to use them? That's the laziness & greed of corporations. And about Al Gore wanting power, you're attacking the messenger & ignoring the message. Would it sound better coming from a conservative? That's silly. If he runs for something, don't vote for him but have you tried breathing the air in midtown NYC lately? Ignoring the problem cause you hate some person makes no sense.

  • May 5, 2006, 2:36 p.m. CST

    Anchorite

    by CaptDanielRoe

    Please provide some data to back your allegations. By the way you will not find many environmentalists who fit the picture you have drawn there. If that is what you really believe, then it explains why you... Ummm... Believe as you do. However, you're wrong. Most environmentalists are also live-free types, and many are hunters. I've even run into a few who work in the coal industry. The head of Ford Motor Company is a self-described environmentalist. It doesn't stop him from selling people SUVs, because as I said, environmentalists also tend to believe in people getting what they want where possible. Of course if you are accepting the opinion of someone who wants to heal you with crystals on anything, for example what an environmentalist is, then I can't help you.

  • May 5, 2006, 4:27 p.m. CST

    What does any of this have to do with movies?

    by MaryTylerMorbid

    Do Republicans even LIKE movies?

  • May 5, 2006, 6:57 p.m. CST

    maybe

    by frank cotton

    the film is worth seeing, but al gore sucks, and that alone is reason enough for me to avoid it

  • May 6, 2006, 11:20 a.m. CST

    George Bush Is The Most Important President In History

    by MajorMajor

    He kept Al Gore and John Kerry out of the Office of President of the United State. That's the sole accomplshment he needs for greatness. Global warming slide shows. What a maroon. Humanity spritzes out a pinprick of toxins in very rarified megopolis settings. The Earth's weather is so geometrically vaster than Mankind and it's doings. Look at snowfall covering mountain ranges. Think of the Tonnage of that snow! Man's pollutant output as tonnage wouldn't cover a single mountain with a skiable depth. Pinpricks, it's all we are. But the commies and America haters always want to level the playing field and this is a nice convenient bitch why America should spend some cash on a leftie UN run monitoring authority to give regular rebukes to the country paying the bills.

  • May 6, 2006, 1:54 p.m. CST

    sorry, Justice41, about the incoherent dig...

    by samsquanch

    MajorMajor makes you sound like Truman Capote.

  • May 6, 2006, 10:40 p.m. CST

    I am glad someone brought the evil dancing Jews...

    by Alonzo Mosely

    into this, you can't possibly claim to have the worst talkback ever without a cameo from everyone's favorite conspiracy theory dance troupe. Also, this thread is educational, I now know that it is only the evil saltwater crocodiles that stalk people, not their much more pleasant peacenik freshwater cousins. However have we determined who would win in saltwater crocodile V Polar Bear? We could probably take a rejected Alien V Predator script, but we need scientific backing as to which human stalking monster would prevail. Also, Vern in '08, for a better America. What nationality is Seagal? Could he be on the ticket as well?