I didn't buy into anything I am stating what Kerry has said on his vote against the $87 billion which coined the term "flip-flopper"

Ok, I'll take your word for it.  I take issue when someone calls the Bush tax cuts a "tax cut for the rich" as if only "the rich" got tax cuts.

My original point was a simply a lot of people dislike Bush.

A lot of people dislike every President.  Bush's average approval rating throughout his presidency has been much higher than most.  And you said yourself that even BEFORE 9/11, people in Europe disliked Bush.  How fairminded is that? What did Bush do to insight them before 9/11? Breath?

Ok I won't take it personal but if you say that something someone has said is ignorant most of the time they will take it personal.

Personal attacks, by definition, are attacks that target something inherent about that person.  If I called you an idiot or a moron or ugly or corrupt, that would be a personal attack.  I am ignorant on issues of poetry.  Someone pointing that out is not a personal attack.  If you claim that a viewpoint is inherently ignorant that's where it gets borderline.  The written word is a tricky thing. 

I do agree with your definition of personal attack though and once again I apologize for being overzealous.  I really do think there are extremes on both sides and there are those that claim to be superior on both sides.  For every Michael Moore this is a Rush Limbaugh, for every Howard Stern there is a Pat Robertson.  True the media is very liberal but propaganda goes both ways...

"For every Michael Moore there's a Rush Limbaugh.."  I disagree. I must have missed Rush Limbaugh's movie. 

What's the right wing equivalent to MoveOn.org? What's the right wing equivalent to the "Vote for Change" tour (featuring Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, Dave Matthews Band, Pearl Jam, R.E.M., the Dixie Chicks, John Mellencamp)?  What's the equivalent to Al Franken? Or Rosie O'Donald or Whoopi Goldberg and on and on and on? 

There are certainly nutty right wingers out there (Ann Coulter springs to mind) but they are obscure by comparison.  Where is the right wing equivalent of "Out Foxed"?  I don't recall seeing any right wing films about CNN's soft pedaling coverage of Saddam even though it later turned out that they had to give Saddam propaganda time in order to stay in power.  Where is the movie that covers the oil for food program corruption and how France and Russia's opposition to the US actions in Iraq were likely economically motivated?

Moral equivalence is an easy path. But it's not an honest path.  The left has been dominating the media and airwaves with their crap for months.  But a few pinpricks back from the right and they get all defensive.

this isnt a question of right vs left.

it is right vs wrong.  defending smear attacks from either side evidences ethical confusion at best.

nor is it liberal vs conservative. 

proponents of specious amendments to the constitution, deficit spending, preemptive strikes, imperial foreign policy and attaching to the executive powers specifically denied to it by the constitution are hardly conservatives.  

 

Kingbee: In that case I assume you're a Bush supporter now?

Not only has Kerry defended smear attacks from the left, he's made good use of them such as his using Moore's crap about Bush not taking action for 7 minutes. Or his praise of Whoopi Goldberg.  It was Democratic Chairman Terry McCollough (spelling) who accused Bush of going AWOL.

I don't think the Swiftboat ad even remotely rises to the level of nastiness we've seen from the left.  Is there something factually incorrect in the ad? If so, spit it out.

The general public supports Bush because the masses don't take time out to research things. For example the majority also started using the term "flip-flopper" because they heard that is what Kerry was. The majority of the public doesn't know that Kerry first said he would vote for the $87 billion dollar proposal if it was from rolling back tax cuts for the rich, that didn't happen so he voted against it being fully aware that his vote would make no difference. Also about 90% of the time I hold a political conversation with a conservative they end up trying to personally attack me without sticking to the debate and what I have said. I can understand being passionate but it speaks volumes about self-control. I really am disappointed when people lose their civility.

I shouldn't have generalized, I will say that, it is uncharacteristic of me and not neccesarily how I truly feel.

No problem.  Let's just go back to the discussion.

Basically in my view it boils down to this: The left is very keen on making full use out of the first amendment but they seem to flinch when others who disagree with them make use of it.

I think F9/11 was a lot more insulting, inflammatory, and slanderous against Bush than this little swift boat thing is against Kerry. And yet it's the Kerry campaign threatening to sue.  Bush never suggested sueing Moore.  And like I said, there's no right wing equivalent to MoveOn.org.

Kerry has had the benefit of 60+ million dollars in soft-money advertising, most if not all of which has been negaitve, anti-Bush propaganda. It's damn easy to run a "positive campaign" when others run the negative end of it for you.

Kerry put this target on himself when he made the focus of his campaign 4 months in Vietnam instead of his 20+ years in Congress. The Bush campaign has called time and again for an agreement to stop the soft-money advertising, and Kerry will have none of it. Why would he? He has a soft-money smear machine on a scale America has never seen before.

Exactly. The 527s have been pouring on the nastiness for months on Bush. Conservatives haven't made nearly as much inroads into putting together their own 527s and as a result Kerry has been able to get a free ride without getting his hands dirty.

I don't think it will ultimately make a huge difference as Bush himself has to talk up his record better. He has a lot to be proud of but if he can't manage to articulate that, then I don't think he deserves the job.

i didnt serve with kerry so i dont know who was present or able to observe the actions for which kerry was awarded his medals.  i've yet to see any evidence that anyone questioned the award at the time.  i have seen positive evaluation reports submitted by kerry's commanding officers.  if one or more of the people who served with kerry had a problem with his performance, it seems strange they waited 30 years to raise those objections. 

the only conservative senator commenting on the matter calls the ad 'dishonest and dishonorable'. 

bush/cheney is no more conservative than kerry/edwards. 

I think there are other things that play a key role in who supports who.  While I can easily state that the Washington Times and the New York Times are both influential on both sides there are other factors.  Bush appeals to the religious right in this country.  He is an established Born-again Christian, who admittedly talks to God before he reads the newspaper.  This demographic yields a large influence in voting.  I also think character assassination has been rampant considering how Gore's stating he moved on the initiative for the creation of the internet turned into him stating that he created it was something that was pushed by the right.

I got this from msnbc:

" "The right-wing media broadcast this attack and similar attacks relentlessly, in effect giving the GOP countless hours of free political advertising every day for months leading up to the election. “Albert Arnold Gore Jr. is a habitual liar,” William Bennett, a Cabinet secretary in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, announced in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. “...Gore lies because he can’t help himself,” neoconservative pamphleteer David Horowitz wrote. “liar, liar,” screamed Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post. The conservative columnist George F. Will pointed to Gore’s “serial mendacity” and warned that he is a “dangerous man.” “Gore may be quietly going nuts,” National Review’s Byron York concluded. The Washington Times agreed: “The real question is how to react to Mr. Gore’s increasingly bizarre utterings. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines ‘delusion’ thusly: ‘The apparent perception, in a nervous or mental disorder, of some thing external that is not actually present...a belief in something that is contrary to fact or reality, resulting from deception, misconception, or a mental disorder.’” Link

"bush/cheney is no more conservative than kerry/edwards.

Mmmmkay... did Elvis tell you this?

As for Gore, have you listened to any of his speeches in the last few months? Suggesting that he is nuts is not that big of a stretch. I, personally think he is hoping to "stand out" among moderate Democrats and turn it into some kind of political influence later...

The conservative ideology can be defined as believing freedom and rights cannot be compromised. A strong emphasis is placed on the individual and less on a strong Central government.  Or basically don't fix what is not broken.  As far as as Al Gore, my point was that information was skewed and misrepresented leading according to an exit poll done by ABC 74% of voters to think that Gore would "say anything" during the 2000 election.

As far as as Al Gore, my point was that information was skewed and misrepresented leading according to an exit poll done by ABC 74% of voters to think that Gore would "say anything" during the 2000 election.

So there are correct opinions and incorrect opinions in your view?

I believe and I think events have borne this out, that Gore will say whatever he thinks is political expedient.  His behavior since 2001 I think makes that pretty clear. 

Just because information doesn't agree with your opinions doesn't make it misrepresentative.

And this all ignores the fact that in terms of quantity of propaganda being spewed out, the left has the lion's share.

It's really hard to take this swift boat stuff seriously when theater after theater is showing Fahrenheit 9/11.  I don't recall any Democrats condemning that or suggesting it be taken off the air.

So there are correct opinions and incorrect opinions in your view?

Yes, of course, otherwise I wouldn't have ever bothered to apologize for anything.  I also have said that I think it is on both sides not only one. 

Just because information doesn't agree with your opinions doesn't make it misrepresentative.

Did you read the article from the link I posted?  The guy who wrote that article used to write for the Washington Times and was a commited Republican before.  These publications where stating that he was completely delusional, as if he needed to be seen by a psychiatrist.  He never said he created the internet which is what was said about him, but he said himself he moved on the initiative something that Newt Gingrich verified.  That is misrepresentation. 

 

This is very much off-topic. However, I work for Florida Fish & Game, and I saw something I'd like to comment on;

It's like extreme envoronmentalists that abhor taking timber in national forests. The trees die naturally, blow down, no one cleans them up, the forest builds up a thick layer of dead material, and eventually the whole damn thing burns. We are seeing the product of that in many areas right now. You can have great knowledge about a single aspect of something, but if you rely on that perspective alone you risk ignoring the unforseen eventualities.

-Periodic burning is natural and healthy for a forest, and it is also safer; when the Forest Service (or whoever) prevents all forest fires in an area, a massive firestorm will occur within a few seasons. The indiscriminate prevention of forest fires is most often due to concerns by the timber industry, or nearby developments (recreational or residential), when controlled burning would better prevent large blowback fires. As far as 'clean-up' is concerned, dead accretia is not supposed to be cleaned, it is a natural part of the forests' cycle. When a forest is clear-cut, massive amounts of energy are removed from the forest which cannot be replaced. Both burning and rotting debris unlock energy and nutrients in the forest where it can be used for new growth; totally removing trees promotes only a thin topsoil lair and desertification, but the impact can at least be lessened somewhat through responsible industry practices. In short, timber companies don't prevent forest fires... forest fires prevent forest fires.

As a matter of fact, the whole "global warming" thing is theory, anyway. There are a great many scientists that disagree on the whole or in part. When you stack that kind of uncertainty against the damage radical environmental policies can do to the economy, it becomes much less clear cut.

-Speaking of the timber industry, it has taken a serious hit in the Pacific Northwest, and particularly in southeastern Alaska and British Columbia, due to spruce beetles moving north, following warmer temperatures. Previously, they were largely confined to California and southern Oregon, where spruce species have evolved some defenses against them. The spruce stands farther north (ie., Sitka spruce) have no defense and are much older and larger (and thus more vulnerable), and millions of acres are now dead or dying, unusable, and dangerously dry, with the beetles attacking any trees reaching more than 15 inches diameter or so. This is not to say that the beetles were not present in the northern climates before, but the breeding season was too short and too sporadic for them to gain a foothold prior to the 1970's, and the problem is getting worse (and moving farther north) every year.
-The ground is beginning to thaw (for the first time in 17,000 years in some cases) under some portions of the Alaskan pipeline, causing the ground to move and shift. Much of the pipeline runs over fault lines and areas of intense seismic activity, and so is designed to take a significant amount of shifting. However, some of it is not, and the Alyeska Co. is worried that these portions will need to be replaced with the more flexible, but more expensive, type of housing used in the more unstable areas of the state in order to prevent stress fractures and damage to seals and secondary structures. They do not believe that the pipeline itself, through which oil is pumped at around 160 deg. to keep it at lower viscosity, is the cause of the thawing, since it is occurring across the state, and the pipeline itself it equipped with ammonia and brine coolant systems to keep this very thing from happening.

I've highlighted Alaska because so many jobs there depend directly on the environment, and because the problems are easily illustrated. I don't consider myself an 'extreme' environmentalist. I just believe that what is good for the environment is also good for industry in the long run.

@ Baker: I do not mean to be nitpicky, and I do not disagree with most of your posts, I just didn't want anyone to be left (so to speak) with the wrong impression.

Did you read the article from the link I posted?  The guy who wrote that article used to write for the Washington Times and was a commited Republican before.  These publications where stating that he was completely delusional, as if he needed to be seen by a psychiatrist.  He never said he created the internet which is what was said about him, but he said himself he moved on the initiative something that Newt Gingrich verified.  That is misrepresentation.

Again you prove my point: You rely on the analsysi of others instead of looking at the raw data.  Do you know exactly what Gore said? I do.

Here is the exact quote: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet"  Anyone who knows the history of the Internet knows that's an absurd statement.  The "Internet" was well on his way before Gore was elected to congress. 

People who aren't techies probably don't see that as a big deal. But as a techie, I found Gore's statement not just full of hubris but offensive. The Internet, as we know it today, would be here just like it is whether Gore had ever been elected to congress or not. He deserved to be mocked on that statement IMO.

You know, as far as I am concerned, anyone that believes anything that comes out of a book written by men that tells people that it's a sin to be merely human is wrong in itself. There are many things in the Bible that if all the things in the Bible were to be believed and obeyed, none of you would be safe from it's wrath. But because you pick and choose which ones offend you so much that most of those things have been put to the way-side. The Bible has alot of stuff in it that would make even a Muslim cringe. The old bottles must be broken so that the new age of man can begin. A place where PEOPLE, not people and their pets or people and anything else other than another human being can be in a legal marriage and have the full respect of the law. I hate when people try to confuse the issue and most Republicans do so well when you know damn well we are talking about PEOPLE here being able to love one another and marry each other despite whatever gender they may be. Why beastiality always pops up into your sick perverted twisted minds, I will never know. I am talking about the rights of 2 consenting adults to be married. So if you're going to use the Bible to dictate what people can or cannot do, as far as I am concerned you are no better than the Muslim's we are supposedly fighting in the Middle East. It comes from the same precise logic for doing whatever it is they think is right because some damn God awful book told them it was ok. Because of what someone told them in a book to believe. That to me is just as insane as any other religion and until people start using their hearts instead of their heads.... I'm afraid the human race will be doomed. Based on books, written by men that hated something so much, they decided to write it down and say it was inspired by God and those with like mindsets chose to believe it. That is what will destroy us all, amen.

I knew exactly what he said it was in the article whose link I posted.  It was my whole point, he was "personally attacked" for political gain.  Even if he didn't add that much to the progress of the internet they made him seem crazy and delusional, like he stated he created the internet himself.  They made him out to be a liar, which on the particular issue of the internet he wasn't.  What data is there to discern from his statement?  I personally think character defamation is wrong, raw data will not change how I feel about that. 

Again you prove my point: You rely on the analsysi of others instead of looking at the raw data.

I saw what he said and what was misconstrued and later used against him.  Personally I see it as wrong.  You are generalizing that I am like all Democrats something I did about Republicans earlier and you argued against that saying I can't call all Republicans misinformed.  I also took it back, but you're essentially doing the same now, again.  I think all character defamation and misrepresented facts are wrong.  I was not sitting in my theater chair soaking up everything Michael Moore said in that movie and believing it to be true.  As I stated earlier there has to be a balance between the two sides.  

 

I hit submit once and multiple replies posted sorry

 

phynhas: Do you think when primitive humans saw the glaciers retreating at the end of the last ice age, do you think they wondered if maybe their campfires were causing it?

Looking at weather data to prove this is backwards, like trying to prove the cause by showing the effect. You are ASSUMING that the current climate change is somehow unnatural, when historically there have been massive changes, and some in very short amounts of time.

No one is saying that the "globe" isn't "warming", the problem with "global warming" is that no one is bothering to prove that WE are causing it in any convincing way. They simply see us and the weather and correlate the two... why? Well, because we are MAN, and we are the cause of all evils, right?

Sorry for the offtopicitudeosity

The problem with global warming debates is that very few of the political junkies who like to argue about it actually know anything about atmospheric physics.

No one is saying that the "globe" isn't "warming", the problem with "global warming" is that no one is bothering to prove that WE are causing it in any convincing way. They simply see us and the weather and correlate the two... why? Well, because we are MAN

It is indisputable that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has a strong warming effect. This is basic physics--any senior undergraduate in a decent physics program could derive it with a bit of thought. We have greatly increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere--this is empirical fact, impossible to debate. These two facts *strongly* suggest that human activity contributes to warming.

The problems is that if you increase CO2 levels, you change things like cloud cover, vegetation, and so on, making accurate predictions difficult. And most of the scientific effort goes into modelling that. But it is highly suggestive that when CO2 levels began increasing, global temperatures began increasing as well. And right now climate models are getting to be sophisticated enough that they are making predictions about things like ocean temperature which can be measured, and observed to be correct. In short, they've gotten pretty good. And these models predict quite a bit of warming due to human activity.

Finally, a large majority of scientists agree that human activity contributes to warming. When I say this, I'm not citing the "trusted sources" that Brad loves to decry. I'm looking at what gets published in scientific journals.

Finally, a large majority of scientists agree that human activity contributes to warming. When I say this, I'm not citing the "trusted sources" that Brad loves to decry. I'm looking at what gets published in scientific journals.

Which is why 60 prominent scientists are protesting this administrations policies so vehemently.  It's incredible how science is being pushed to the side based on political agenda.  You can't just dismiss 48 Nobel laureates opinions as unimportant, I think the very fact they are protesting is significant and an indicator to what is going on with the policies that are undermining their research.  These are some of the brightest minds in the world...

We should perhaps start a different thread for this, but I'll post my reply here anyway because I'm lazy;

As Vincible said, there are two points which are difficult to refute; A) 'Greenhouse gasses' are aptly named, and cause a warming effect which increases in proportion with amount. Human activity has been shown to have increased the amount of these gasses by a significant amount.

Now, it is possible that this is all very natural. Geologic methane from vulcanism, CO2 emitting from calcium carbonate (limerock) in response to local climate change, massive plankton die-off, all are suspected of causing global climate changes in the past, long before the appearance of Man, and similar to what we are seeing now. In fact 17,000 years is about right for a normal interglacial warming period to run it's course, and perhaps the warming which we are experiencing now, the odd weather, the unusual migratory patterns of species, are simply the normal warm-up which occurs before the glacial period (ice age) returns. Perhaps this is all true. None of the usual suspects happen to be be in play in this case, of course, with the possible exception of die-off in phytoplankton (which could be caused by warming, rather than causing it), but there may be some natural mechanism for warming which is yet to be discovered.

You are right to say that noone really knows if this warming, which has been taking place for about the last century, and increasing exponentially, is natural, or the result of human activity. I personally do not take such a cavalier approach with the fate of all of civilization. I believe that when we place our heads in the sand, we are playing dice with not just our species, but all species. The earth is warming, that much is certain. There is good evidence that human activity has a large hand in it. But maybe not.

Is it sound business practice to pretend that everything is okay? Do they teach in business school that it's not a good thing to anticipate future consequences to certain actions? No, and with good reason. I don't believe industry is resisting these findings simply because they are worried about the economic impact of having to change our practices. Heavy industry interests routinely block funding for research in these matters. Not policy, not changes to law or codes which would affect them; just research. And yet these same 'conservative' business interests have no problem convincing the federal government to spend $180,000 in 'research' grants to measure the viscosity of ketchup in order to facilitate easier pouring. I think the problem goes deeper than mere disagreement on business matters.

I think it is an emotional issue for many. Noone wants to live next to a polluting factory. Noone can tell me that driving through northern New Jersey, or walking along an expressway in Los Angeles during rush hour, is a pleasant experience, at least not with a straight face. But we pretend that it's normal, even desireable, we make jokes about 'fresh air' and what's in the water. Everyone knows, deep down, that we are adversely affecting the entire natural world. It's just a matter of whether or not you care. I would respect someone more who said, honestly, 'Sure, things are bad, but I just don't care; it's too much trouble, or I'll lose too much money, to do anything about it.'

At what point will it be okay to be concerned about the environment, according to Rush Limbaugh, without being labeled a 'kook' or a tree-hugger? How hot will it have to get? How much smog will there be? How much of our forests will be gone? How will I know when I'm right? Well, maybe, hopefully, never. Maybe the talk show hosts, industry analysts, politicians, and purse-string 'scientists' are all right, and it's just a case of Chicken-Little hysteria. Maybe it's no more important that a drunken bar bet, and when someone finally wins, we'll just shake hands and be on our merry way.

I prefer that we preserve the status quo in regards to keeping the earth capable of sustaining life, rather than live on a greenhouse hellhole rock with surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead, ala' Venus. Call me old-fashioned... or maybe I'm just conservative.

Draginol I bow before you. I feel like I wrote that post! Wow! It is amazing how few people see that the mainstream media is biased to the point of exclusion to leftist philosophy. Thank you for pointing it out in a non-boisterous manner. In the end it is all about the issues baby!