Al Gore's lies exposed yet again.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The link is kinda long, but well worth the read if you are interested in how Algore has used scare tactics, lies, and misinformation based on NON PEER REVIEWED material.

 

I few tidbits:

 

Al Gore’s spokesman and “environment advisor,” Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented “thousands and thousands of facts.” It did not: just 2,000 “facts” in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.

 

Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term “errors.” In fact, the judge used the term “errors,” in inverted commas, throughout his judgment.

 

 

Ms. Kreider then says, “The process of creating a 90-minute documentary from the original peer-reviewed science for an audience of moviegoers in the U.S. and around the world is complex.” However, the single web-page entitled “The Science” on the movie’s official website contains only two references to articles in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is also a reference to a document of the IPCC, but its documents are not independently peer-reviewed in the usual understanding of the term.

 

Ms. Kreider says the IPCC’s results are sometimes “conservative,” and continues: “Vice President Gore tried to convey in good faith those threats that he views as the most serious.” Readers of the long list of errors described in this memorandum will decide for themselves whether Mr. Gore was acting in good faith. However, in this connection it is significant that each of the 35 errors listed below misstates the conclusions of the scientific literature or states that there is a threat where there is none or exaggerates the threat where there may be one. All of the errors point in one direction – towards undue alarmism. Not one of the errors falls in the direction of underestimating the degree of concern in the scientific community. The likelihood that all 35 of the errors listed below could have fallen in one direction purely by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion.

 

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

 

Cue the Algore cackslobbers claiming the link is owned by "evil big oil"

[Frank M 181]

It's a shame nobody even bothers to say rat's ass anymore.

 

What happened to this bored?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Yeah, ratsass..........

 

The Demwits on this bored were touting Algore's movie as the Gospel on what was gonna happen to us. The compilation of lies won an Oscar, exposing Hollywierd once again as lefty propogandists.

 

 

Then he won a Nobel prize because of his lies, confirming the political leanings of that organization.

 

Now, when his lies are exposed by multiple sources all you Demwits want to sweep it under the rug and go "ratsass".

 

Too focking funny.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize had nothing to do with Global Warming.

It had more to do with him defending America from ManBearPig.

[Flashover 0]

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

 

Cue the Algore ****** claiming the link is owned by "evil big oil"

 

That's because it is!

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is formerly the Center for Science and Public Policy for the Frontiers of Freedom. The Frontiers of Freedom Institute received a donation of $100,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002 for the foundation (in 2003) of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute's Center for Science and Public Policy. It received a further $90,000 in funding from ExxonMobil in 2006. Nice try. Another fine example of why you have no credibility on this board.

[wiffleball 4,797]

Maybe that's because The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is formerly the Center for Science and Public Policy for the Frontiers of Freedom. The Frontiers of Freedom Institute received a donation of $100,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002 for the foundation (in 2003) of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute's Center for Science and Public Policy. It received a further $90,000 in funding from ExxonMobil in 2006. Nice try. Another fine example of why you have no credibility on this board.

 

Hey - That doesn't mean they can't be fair and unbiased.

 

I mean, George Bush's top sciene guy - the guy who redacted all the NASA papers from the smartest guys in the world on the field. - Wasn't even a scientist! He was a lobbyist for the oil industry. It doesn't mean he, like THIS oil industry lobbying group, were unbiased and totally without agenda here. I mean, the scientists are all bogged down with facts, but these guys? They don't need some stinking science to tell them what to say.

 

And, as George Bush has proven repeatedly. You don't have to have facts to claim something. Truth is True is you just say it over and over again.

 

I mean look at it; George kept telling us we had to go into Iraq to stop the terrorists. The 'facts' told us that there were no terrorists in Iraq. But that didn't stop George. And now, look - there are THOUSANDS of terrorists in Iraq!

 

I for one am GLAD that the evil cabal of scientists looking to somehow apparently get rich by revealing their 'sceince' are finally facing some tough scrutiny by the oil industry. We KNOW what the oil industry's agenda is. But we DON'T know why all these scientists are banding together to warn us of Global Warming.

 

Makes me a little nervous...

[Brad GLuckman 519]

Hey - That doesn't mean they can't be fair and unbiased.

 

I mean, George Bush's top sciene guy - the guy who redacted all the NASA papers from the smartest guys in the world on the field. - Wasn't even a scientist! He was a lobbyist for the oil industry. It doesn't mean he, like THIS oil industry lobbying group, were unbiased and totally without agenda here. I mean, the scientists are all bogged down with facts, but these guys? They don't need some stinking science to tell them what to say.

 

And, as George Bush has proven repeatedly. You don't have to have facts to claim something. Truth is True is you just say it over and over again.

 

I mean look at it; George kept telling us we had to go into Iraq to stop the terrorists. The 'facts' told us that there were no terrorists in Iraq. But that didn't stop George. And now, look - there are THOUSANDS of terrorists in Iraq!

 

I for one am GLAD that the evil cabal of scientists looking to somehow apparently get rich by revealing their 'sceince' are finally facing some tough scrutiny by the oil industry. We KNOW what the oil industry's agenda is. But we DON'T know why all these scientists are banding together to warn us of Global Warming.

 

Makes me a little nervous...

 

Why does Al Gore refuse to debate Global Warming? Scientists have asked him repeatedly to debate in a public forum but he never does...why?

[gocolts 300]

Why does Al Gore refuse to debate Global Warming? Scientists have asked him repeatedly to debate in a public forum but he never does...why?

Because he is wrong and knows it.

[wiffleball 4,797]

Why does Al Gore refuse to debate Global Warming? Scientists have asked him repeatedly to debate in a public forum but he never does...why?

 

My initial response to you was "You'd have to ask AlGore." But, you got me curious.

 

 

Here's what I've read so far:

 

You're probably talking about the Heartland Institutes advertised calls for debate with Gore.

 

Turns out, that the Heartland Institute is actually funded by the oil companies. - So that sounds a lot like the above.

 

Moreover the 'sceintists' that Heartland has dug up are't really scientists at all - at least not in an field related to GW:

 

1) One of their guys is an economist (WTF?), the other guy, An electrical engineer/phycist.

 

Or, you may be talking about another one that apparently got a lot of press - and a lot of play apparently with Radical Right commentators: Bjorn Lumborg.

 

He also apparently challenged Gore to a debate in Europe.

 

'Course he's not a "sceintist" (as you claimed) either: Turns out, he has a PHD in Political Science. (WTF?)

 

Furthermore, when he wrote about GW, he was brought up on charges and found guilty (in sceince court? ) of the following:

 

The Danish Committee on Sceintfic Dishonest cited "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (his book) for:

+Fabrication of data;

+Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);

+Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;

+Distorted interpretation of conclusions;

+Plagiarism;

+Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results

 

______________________________________________________________

 

Dunno much about any of this, but if some jackaxx wanted to debate ME about something - and wasn't qualified to do so, it'd be pretty much a waste of time. Like my Daddy always said, Don't argue with drunks or idiots, both are a waste of time. They'll never admit they're wrong and all you'll lose is respect and time.

 

I think that's part of what's so wrong with America today - people get their 'news' from commentators - who admit they don't have to be right. Then folks like you naturally hear/read that 'sceintists' have challenged Gore to a debate and take it as fact. when in fact, the most notable ones are apparently economists & poli sci majors. And the lies become reality.

________________________________________________________________

 

Like I said in another thread. I don't know jack shiit about GW. What I DO know is the following:

 

1) I don't want AlGore or any other non-scientists debating another non-sceintist. It's a focking waste of time.

 

2) I don't want non-scientists censoring ACTUAL sceintific experts on their science - Like has been proven to have occured repeatedly with this White House.I think it's a BAD idea no matter WHO's in the WH.

 

3) If this chit is as serious as some scientists think it is, then I want those guys working with the sceptics in the science field. I want the focking truth - not Rush Limblob's opinion. - Who's only job is to stir up mouth breathers to get him ratings so he can buy more drugs.

 

4) What I STILL haven't heard from any of the frothing at the mouth Radical NeoCons is REGARDLESS of GW or not: WHY isn't reducing carbon emissions and our reliance on fossil fuels a GOOD thing? - For about a 100 far more pressing & provable reasons??

 

and last:

 

5) I don't know how the flock this turned out to be a political issue at all - it should be a scientific issue - period. Best I can figger is that AlGore took up the cause - and it's just a knee-jerk reflex the folks like Radical Right to be AGAINST whatever he's FOR. He's for puppies? Then Limblob will tell eveyone who listens why puppies are destroying the world and our very moral fiber.

[Frank M 181]

Yeah, ratsass..........

 

The Demwits on this bored were touting Algore's movie as the Gospel on what was gonna happen to us. The compilation of lies won an Oscar, exposing Hollywierd once again as lefty propogandists.

Then he won a Nobel prize because of his lies, confirming the political leanings of that organization.

 

Now, when his lies are exposed by multiple sources all you Demwits want to sweep it under the rug and go "ratsass".

 

Too focking funny.

 

You Demwits who? I never even saw his movie. Unlike your obsessive ass, I could care less about him or global warming.

[gocolts 300]

My initial response to you was "You'd have to ask AlGore." But, you got me curious.

Here's what I've read so far:

 

You're probably talking about the Heartland Institutes advertised calls for debate with Gore.

 

Turns out, that the Heartland Institute is actually funded by the oil companies. - So that sounds a lot like the above.

 

Moreover the 'sceintists' that Heartland has dug up are't really scientists at all - at least not in an field related to GW:

 

1) One of their guys is an economist (WTF?), the other guy, An electrical engineer/phycist.

 

Or, you may be talking about another one that apparently got a lot of press - and a lot of play apparently with Radical Right commentators: Bjorn Lumborg.

 

He also apparently challenged Gore to a debate in Europe.

 

'Course he's not a "sceintist" (as you claimed) either: Turns out, he has a PHD in Political Science. (WTF?)

 

Furthermore, when he wrote about GW, he was brought up on charges and found guilty (in sceince court? ) of the following:

 

The Danish Committee on Sceintfic Dishonest cited "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (his book) for:

+Fabrication of data;

+Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);

+Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;

+Distorted interpretation of conclusions;

+Plagiarism;

+Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results

 

______________________________________________________________

 

Dunno much about any of this, but if some jackaxx wanted to debate ME about something - and wasn't qualified to do so, it'd be pretty much a waste of time. Like my Daddy always said, Don't argue with drunks or idiots, both are a waste of time. They'll never admit they're wrong and all you'll lose is respect and time.

 

I think that's part of what's so wrong with America today - people get their 'news' from commentators - who admit they don't have to be right. Then folks like you naturally hear/read that 'sceintists' have challenged Gore to a debate and take it as fact. when in fact, the most notable ones are apparently economists & poli sci majors. And the lies become reality.

________________________________________________________________

 

Like I said in another thread. I don't know jack shiit about GW. What I DO know is the following:

 

1) I don't want AlGore or any other non-scientists debating another non-sceintist. It's a focking waste of time.

 

2) I don't want non-scientists censoring ACTUAL sceintific experts on their science - Like has been proven to have occured repeatedly with this White House.I think it's a BAD idea no matter WHO's in the WH.

 

3) If this chit is as serious as some scientists think it is, then I want those guys working with the sceptics in the science field. I want the focking truth - not Rush Limblob's opinion. - Who's only job is to stir up mouth breathers to get him ratings so he can buy more drugs.

 

4) What I STILL haven't heard from any of the frothing at the mouth Radical NeoCons is REGARDLESS of GW or not: WHY isn't reducing carbon emissions and our reliance on fossil fuels a GOOD thing? - For about a 100 far more pressing & provable reasons??

 

and last:

 

5) I don't know how the flock this turned out to be a political issue at all - it should be a scientific issue - period. Best I can figger is that AlGore took up the cause - and it's just a knee-jerk reflex the folks like Radical Right to be AGAINST whatever he's FOR. He's for puppies? Then Limblob will tell eveyone who listens why puppies are destroying the world and our very moral fiber.

Well then, he should have no problem debating them then, if they are wrong and he is right.

[wiffleball 4,797]

Well then, he should have no problem debating them then, if they are wrong and he is right.

 

Yeah, but it's kinda like debating Bozofan;

 

You COULD, but why bother??

[gocolts 300]

Yeah, but it's kinda like debating Bozofan;

 

You COULD, but why bother??

If it is such a slam dunk, he could debate and shut some people up. By him not willing to debate this, it looks like he is a liar.

 

Then again, he did lose debates to G Dubya of all people. So maybe debating isn't his thang.

[Flashover 0]

Well then, he should have no problem debating them then, if they are wrong and he is right.

 

Did you not read Wiffleball's post? How do you not understand what he just said?

[Brad GLuckman 519]

I don't care who the Heartland institute is...what their goal is or any of that crap.

It's simple.

They want to debate.

Gore does not.

 

If the people challenging Gore to a debate truly were unqualified then Gore would prove his point even more. Even more people would see how Global Warming is going to turn the entire world into a giant swimming pool and we're all going to die if we don't do something. If Gore debated, we all know it would get lots of attention on the news, so his "baby" would get even more attention, and more people would see the problem...

 

Or it's cause he knows he would lose...because when people see the facts they begin to see that Gore just might be full of sh*t:

 

Last March, the prestigious New York debating society, Intelligence Squared, sponsored a debate on global warming, which may be viewed at (http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/Event.aspx?Event=12.) A pre-debate poll indicated that, by 2-to-1 (57 percent to 29 percent, with 14 percent undecided), the audience believed that manmade global warming was a crisis. But in the post-debate poll, the audience reversed its pre-debate views -- the ranks of the skeptics swelled to 46 percent, the believers plummeted to 42 percent and the undecided declined slightly to 12 percent. Of course, unless you read NewsBusters, you likely didn’t hear about this debate in New York. After all, the results didn’t mesh with the media’s agenda.

 

More evidence of scientists proving Gore made many "errors"-------> Here

[gocolts 300]

Did you not read Wiffleball's post? How do you not understand what he just said?

I understand it perfectly. Didn't really agree with it all that much, but I don't have problems with reading comprehension like the libs.

 

The argument doesn't make sense to me. If he could so easily destroy somebody in a debate, why not take advantage of it and take the opportunity to educate people who don't know what to believe???

 

 

However, as in my previous post, I realize what Gore is afraid of. He lost debates to George freaking Bush for heaven's sake, so debating is obviously not something Gore can do, AT ALL.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Yeah, but it's kinda like debating Bozofan;

 

You COULD, but you'd lose.

 

Exactly.

 

Im getting used to this squirming and misdirection when dems are trying to save their own, why do you have to filibuster on the negatives of debating supposedly the most pressing issue the planet has ever faced Waffleboy? Dont you think the leader should stand up and challenge anyone with his irrefutable facts about "THE END OF OUR WORLD AS WE KNOW IT"??????? Pure bullsh!t.

 

Its a VERY simple concept, either you are the leader of the MMGW movement and have all the answers and would debate anyone at anytime, or you are a fraud and would be exposed for the whole world to see. VERY simple, debate...or not. We all know why he wont. If you need more than a sentence to explain why he wont then ur just politicking as usual.

[wiffleball 4,797]

Exactly.

 

Im getting used to this squirming and misdirection when dems are trying to save their own, why do you have to filibuster on the negatives of debating supposedly the most pressing issue the planet has ever faced Waffleboy? Dont you think the leader should stand up and challenge anyone with his irrefutable facts about "THE END OF OUR WORLD AS WE KNOW IT"??????? Pure bullsh!t.

 

Its a VERY simple concept, either you are the leader of the MMGW movement and have all the answers and would debate anyone at anytime, or you are a fraud and would be exposed for the whole world to see. VERY simple, debate...or not. We all know why he wont. If you need more than a sentence to explain why he wont then ur just politicking as usual.

 

Case in point....

[gocolts 300]

Case in point....

[wiffleball 4,797]

If the people challenging Gore to a debate truly were unqualified then Gore would prove his point even more.

 

Let's tie together a couple of threads to maybe make some sense of this:

 

Why is is that nobody - left, right or middle wants to bother to seriously debate the 9/11 conspiracy theorist? Heck, these theorists have been proven wrong and wrong and wronger over and over and over again. Why wouldn't George Bush want to debate them and disprove that he and Diick weren't behind it once and for all? Why is it even Maher and Clinton shouted down these guys? Whoever debated these guys would own their ass. So, why aren't they doing it? It'd be a chance once and for all to put to bed all these idiotic theories and conspiracies. So why doesn't somebody do it? Why won't Diick Cheney take a rhetorical biitch slap at Rosie D'Donut?

 

The answer to that is probably pretty close the answer you'd hear from Gore.

 

 

Besides, the last. thing. I want. to hear. is AlGore. Talking. Geebus Christo, he could bore his opponents into a coma. That focking plodding, pendantic, slow-paced, drone is the aural equivalent of watching paint dry. Dunno how anybody could sit through a 3 hour movie of this guy talking.

[Rattlesnake 0]

The link is kinda long, but well worth the read if you are interested in how Algore has used scare tactics, lies, and misinformation

 

I just woke up from a brief nap......so my eyes may be fuzzy, but is this a Republican accusing someone else of using scare tactics, lying, and providing people with "misinformation"?

 

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Let's tie together a couple of threads to maybe make some sense of this:

 

Why is is that nobody - left, right or middle wants to bother to seriously debate the 9/11 conspiracy theorist? Heck, these theorists have been proven wrong and wrong and wronger over and over and over again. Why wouldn't George Bush want to debate them and disprove that he and Diick weren't behind it once and for all? Why is it even Maher and Clinton shouted down these guys? Whoever debated these guys would own their ass. So, why aren't they doing it? It'd be a chance once and for all to put to bed all these idiotic theories and conspiracies. So why doesn't somebody do it? Why won't Diick Cheney take a rhetorical biitch slap at Rosie D'Donut?

 

The answer to that is probably pretty close the answer you'd hear from Gore.

Besides, the last. thing. I want. to hear. is AlGore. Talking. Geebus Christo, he could bore his opponents into a coma. That focking plodding, pendantic, slow-paced, drone is the aural equivalent of watching paint dry. Dunno how anybody could sit through a 3 hour movie of this guy talking.

 

Your nack for impossibly inaccurate analogies should be studied in labs.

[Flashover 0]

Your nack for impossibly inaccurate analogies should be studied in labs.

 

No, not really. The extremely small mental capacity of neotards...err neocons should be looked at. Maybe if scientists found out the cause of this mental handicap, we could prevent more people from becoming republitards and our country wouldn't be as focked up!

[Recliner Pilot 61]

That's because it is!

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is formerly the Center for Science and Public Policy for the Frontiers of Freedom. The Frontiers of Freedom Institute received a donation of $100,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002 for the foundation (in 2003) of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute's Center for Science and Public Policy. It received a further $90,000 in funding from ExxonMobil in 2006. Nice try. Another fine example of why you have no credibility on this board.

 

Did I call it or what?

 

Link to said donations to the "former" organization?

 

Link to proof this discredits their findings?

 

While you are at it link us to something that explains why other planets are getting warmer.

 

 

It's the sun, Stoopid.

 

[Flashover 0]

Link to said donations to the "former" organization?

 

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/...ns_public06.pdf

(Bottom of page 2)

 

 

 

I tend to believe scientists not hacks paid by Exxon. You see global warming would most likely negatively affect oil companies, especially if there is a major policy change regarding energy. Therefore any person with half a brain would find it suspicious see through the bullsh1t that big oil is trying to put out there with their hired "experts".

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Link to proof this discredits their findings?

 

While you are at it link us to something that explains why other planets are getting warmer.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

see through the bullsh1t that big oil is trying to put out there with their hired "experts".

 

ahh, the same old story, the 'haves' vs the 'have nots', thats what this entire thing is about. Meanwhile Algore is laughing all the way to the bank. MMGW couldnt follow the exact elements necessary for a con any closer yet you still have zero clue. Fascinating.

[TyCobb 0]

4) What I STILL haven't heard from any of the frothing at the mouth Radical NeoCons is REGARDLESS of GW or not: WHY isn't reducing carbon emissions and our reliance on fossil fuels a GOOD thing?

 

Because it damages our economy and lowers our standard of living in favor of a Robinhood plan. Pretty much the same reason every other idea from the left is bad. HTH.

[Flashover 0]

Link to proof this discredits their findings?

 

I addressed that already. Let's see, you have oil companies who are corrupt and are known liars hiring so called "experts" who they often try to pass off as legitimate scientists to dispute GW. The reason they are hiring these so called experts to dispute GW is most likely because financially they will be affected negatively, wether it be tighter restrictions, legislation, or people relying on other sources of energy besides oil. So again, you have Big Oil who are known to be corrupt, known to be liars, have a lot to lose if people become more environmentally conscious, hiring so called experts who a lot of the time aren't even scientists, to dispute GW and Al Gore is the one who is deliberately decieving us? What about all the legitimate scientists who support GW? Are they con men too? Yet the Oil companies who are known liars and are corrupt, they're the honest ones.

[TyCobb 0]

I addressed that already. Let's see, you have oil companies who are corrupt and are known liars hiring so called "experts" who they often try to pass off as legitimate scientists to dispute GW. The reason they are hiring these so called experts to dispute GW is most likely because financially they will be affected negatively, wether it be tighter restrictions, legislation, or people relying on other sources of energy besides oil. So again, you have Big Oil who are known to be corrupt, known to be liars, have a lot to lose if people become more environmentally conscious, hiring so called experts who a lot of the time aren't even scientists, to dispute GW and Al Gore is the one who is deliberately decieving us? What about all the legitimate scientists who support GW? Are they con men too? Yet the Oil companies who are known liars and are corrupt, they're the honest ones.

 

Apparently Al Gore is corrupt and dishonest too. The difference is that Big Oil companies actually do something valuable for the country.

[Flashover 0]

Apparently Al Gore is corrupt and dishonest too. The difference is that Big Oil companies actually do something valuable for the country.

 

How is Al Gore corrupt and dishonest? Because the Oil Companies say so? or their so called "experts" say so? Oil companies do what's valuable for them not the country.

[Hurricane Ditka 0]

What is the point?

[Flashover 0]

What is the point?

 

Don't dismiss GW because big oil says it's a myth. Try doing something that will help the environment.

[TyCobb 0]

How is Al Gore corrupt and dishonest? Because the Oil Companies say so? or their so called "experts" say so? Oil companies do what's valuable for them not the country.

 

Oil companies do what makes money. That's good for them, the families of their employees, the country, the ecomony, and the consumer. It's called Capitalism and they should unashamedly continue.

 

In general, those who like Capitalism vote Republican and those who don't vote Democrat.

 

If you want to pay higher taxes and $6 per gallon of gas like they do in Europe, keep supporting people like Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, etc.

[gocolts 300]

While you are at it link us to something that explains why other planets are getting warmer.

It's the sun, Stoopid.

 

This is a big one as you can tell by the lack of responses to this. This is the big problem with the theory of MMGW. They can't explain why every planet in or little solar system is warming, nor do the even attempt to. Because they would fail miserably. Nor can they touch the fact that we had much warmer temps multiple times over the coarse of history, long before we had cars and air conditioning and all the other stuff that supposedly warms the planet.

[Flashover 0]

If you want to pay higher taxes and $6 per gallon of gas like they do in Europe, vote Democrat.

 

Yeah, because George Bush and the Republicans did such a good job of keeping gas prices down. I was paying a little over a dollar per gallon before Bush took office. Now I pay an average of about 3+ bucks per gallon.

[TyCobb 0]

Yeah, because George Bush and the Republicans did such a good job of keeping gas prices down. I was paying a little over a dollar per gallon before Bush took office. Now I pay an average of about 3+ bucks per gallon.

 

The good news is you can now elect Hillary Clinton and her cronies will raise your taxes too. Enjoy.

 

BTW - Do you agree that Capitalism is the best system in the world because it offers people incentive to take risk and increase wealth, which is good for the country? If so, you should be celebrating everytime Google, Haliburton, Exxon, etc. pronounce profits exceeding expectations.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Yeah, because George Bush and the Republicans did such a good job of keeping gas prices down. I was paying a little over a dollar per gallon before Bush took office. Now I pay an average of about 3+ bucks per gallon.

 

Lie

[Flashover 0]

This is a big one as you can tell by the lack of responses to this. This is the big problem with the theory of MMGW. They can't explain why every planet in or little solar system is warming, nor do the even attempt to. Because they would fail miserably.

 

There are plenty of scientific studies explaining why it's not just "the sun". Other planets temperatures are rising or lowering for various reasons. Just because everyone doesn't jump to respond to every little argument you try and bring up, doesn't mean that you're right.

[Flashover 0]

Lie

 

Really? I was paying anywhere from $1.20-$1.40 per gallon. Right now it's $3.08 per gallon.