Not that common sense matters to some here:rolleyes:

....that's why I love PPOT: the rapier wit; the cut and thrust of informed debate; curious minds looking for workable solutions to serious problems....

You don't like my avatar, but my facts are correct?

Try to lighten up. My new avatar is intended to rattle the lefties. It's the anti-Che Che image.

way to be 'open minded'
 

now that was not called for at all. just because someone doesn't 'worship' at the alter of liberal thinking doesn't mean he or she is stupid. It just means they have a different view.

I thought that Liberal's were open minded???

In my view an open minded person is a person who is 'big enough' to handle it when others don't share his/her views... more and more it is the Lib's on this board that I see blasting those that don't have a 'lock step' consistency with their views on this issue and others.


Oh and by the way, he was a lot smarter than he came across as, look at two terms with near landslide victory at the polls, defining the Soviets for what they were, restoring economic success to the country, etc.

I don't think he was the smartest leader we ever had, but he was far from the worst.

We are so far off why Algor got his political prize that maybe I can ask this, is there a chance the big oil companies are spending time and money on alternative energy sources? They sure aren't building new refineries.

I like your avatar. Don't get me wrong. I was trying to be humorous.

I did plow through Reagan's memoirs last weekend - and I recommend this to everyone regardless of political orientation.

It is truly amazing to see that a man in that office can see the world so two- dimensionally - and have so little feel for nuance. It was like reading a comic book. Sadly, I don't think whoever decided to publish this is doing Ronnie's posthumous reputation any favours.

Who knows? But in my experience liberals are open-minded about open minds - but fairly closed-minded about closed minds.

As for Ronnie - please see my previous post.

Peace.

which means, open minded when someone agrees with their interpretation of being open minded, but close minded about anything that doesn't agree.

Yeah, I think I agree with you on that.

His reputation will survive just fine. Being decisive is often more valuable than being "nuanced".

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/shirtsquare-lousy.jpg

Ok. Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize for lending his name recognition to a movement that perpetuates a mantra of lies and deception about global climate for the purposes of advancing a global communist agenda, which features one-world government and a centralized control of wealth and capital. I realize that for some of you educated types, this statement contains redundancies, as you already understand that such features are central to communism. However, for the well-meaning dupes that tow the leftist line, perhaps you don't realize where your support of such an agenda is leading this country.

Yes, big oil is spending billions on alternative energy to perpetuate their existence for centuries to come. Of course, our fascist government has created such obstacles to building new refineries in order to create a shortage of energy for political gain. This was necessary since there is no scarcity of oil.

I consider Al Gore one of the most influential and important people of our time. Nothing would bring me greater pleasure than to see him run for president, perhaps with Nancy Pelosi as VP.

Kind of like "The singer wasn't as bad as he sounded"?

Smarter? No, actually he wasn't - actually, he was not AS smart as he came across as. Carefully picked speech writers can be effective but are only able to revamp facades to a limited extent; Those who listened and watched closely saw through his easily.

Having been an actor, he was trained to speak well, so they (the speech writers) had that going for them.

Come to think of it, he was also a mundane actor.

I think that is really funny. Hillary will have his nuts in a fire before that happens. And Nancy?? ugh. Where is her head?

He hid that fact remarkably well in 784 pages of diaries...

There is no doubt in my mind that Dr. William Gray will be the next Nobel winner, assuming he can outline for the scientific community the rather startling assertion he has made. Apparently, he has found a way to use science to "prove" that a particular mechanism or causal connection CANNOT be made. Sure, he has found ways to predict hurricanes or at least estimate their upcoming numbers. That's easy. Scientists have been doing stuff like this for centuries. But here, he asserts certain knowledge that the millions of tons of pollutants we introduce into the atmosphere each day can certainly not impact the patterns of weather on Earth.

That, my friends, is a stunning announcement.

I wasn't aware of this. Thanks for pointing this out.

Lets think about this for a minute. Conservatives have Regan, Liberals have Jimmy Carter. DUHHH!

Then why are people posting as though they are certain that humans have had nothing to do with climate? Because Dubya said it?


Long before humans ever walked the Earth? Okayyyyyy.........

BTW, the ozone layer has been tracked for some years now. It is, indeed, going away. Coincidentally, at the same time skin cancer is rising sharply and global temperatures are increasing. But.....I guess your scientists know these facts are unrelated.

Interestingly, the scientist who discovered the problems of chlorofluorocarbons destroying the ozone layer.......he did that on a piece of paper. It is a fairly simple calculation. I don't even think he was a meteorologist. He just knew the compound "ozone" and compounds like Carbon Tetrachloride and Chlorofluorocarbons. A quick peek at what will happen when they are brought together shows that one chlorofluorocarbon molecule will innihilate a large number of ozone molecules. It was known, before they did the field research, that the ozone layer was dying (as long as the chlorofluorocarbons were coming into contact with it).

Oh, wait a minute. This is all voodoo science that cannot be trusted. Just a bunch of liberal educators, twisting the truth. Someone please post the Party's official position, so I will know what to believe.

As I said upthread, this guy has become an embarrassment even to the anti-Al Gore crowd that been paying the fees for his luncheon speeches. He is rambling and incoherent and offers no evidence for any of his assertions.

The guy has built his carreer by predicting hurricanes - and because he was right more often than wrong he gained some notoriety. A bit like a fortune teller that's a enjoying a good streak.

I don't think anyone takes him seriously today - certainly not on the topic of climate change.

you may not appreciate this, but you just proved my point about Liberals.

Do you hear me insulting Gore?

I don't need to insult him to debate my point of view or explain what about his point of view I don't find logical.