a poem for Al Gore

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Don't you realize this is all a scam?

Al Gore captured 90% of the global climate scientists, took them to a remote tropical island, and brainwashed them into fabricating data so he could get rich off of Cap and Trade.

He didn't even pay for travel expenses!

Haven't you seen the variable "AG911" in the computer source code downloaded from the credibleclimateuniv.edu?

Context??? We don't need no stinking context.

Al Gore is working for the UN, to suck the wealth from the Western nations in an attempt to destroy the world.

The ONLY thing that's in doubt is if he's working for al Qaeda or the Jews. We're not sure on that point yet, but we're sure it's not both.

Didn't you see Oakley's post about extra fancy wood trim? I've seen the man, he looks like a homeless person...How do you think he paid for his new house!!!

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

Don't you realize this is all a scam?

Al Gore captured 90% of the global climate scientists, took them to a remote tropical island, and brainwashed them into fabricating data so he could get rich off of Cap and Trade.

He didn't even pay for travel expenses!

Haven't you seen the variable "AG911" in the computer source code downloaded from the credibleclimateuniv.edu?

Context??? We don't need no stinking context.

Al Gore is working for the UN, to suck the wealth from the Western nations in an attempt to destroy the world.

The ONLY thing that's in doubt is if he's working for al Qaeda or the Jews. We're not sure on that point yet, but we're sure it's not both.

Didn't you see Oakley's post about extra fancy wood trim? I've seen the man, he looks like a homeless person...How do you think he paid for his new house!!!

-spence

The sad part is that if a different person posted this, there are people in this thread that would agree with it all.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The sad part is that if a different person posted this, there are people in this thread that would agree with it all.

Let's leave Brian out of this

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Don't you realize this is all a scam?

90% of the global climate scientists

-spence

90 % of global climate scientists, 90% of economists, 90% of all experts
everyone agrees, all the experts agree
noone can argue, noone can disagree
the science is settled, the debate is over
everyone recognizes

the language of dishonest shallow minded group speak employed by Spence, Obama and Gore, Reid and Nasty Pelosi on a daily basis, if you have to frame your arguements by declaring that "everyone" agrees with you and anyone that does not represents a tiny agendized minority, you are standing on shaky ground and most lkiely about to tell a Whopper if a Lie....

but...if this is true and everyone agrees and it so overwhelmingly obvious..then what's the F-ing hold up...

seems to me that everywhere these folks have claimed complete agreement on both their declaration of a problem or crisis and their hairbrained solutions there is utter chaos....

there is little if any honesty and integrity left in libterd land....

Global Warming

Calgary beats record set in 1893
Dominic Terry, Radana Suk, Kelly Turner and Lisa Grant 2009-12-14 20:02

Calgary has beaten a weather record set more than 100 years ago.

At about 7:00 Monday morning, Calgary dipped to minus 32.4 degrees beating the old record by .2 degrees.

And at least twelve low temperature records have been broken, with the coldest being Sundre coming in at minus 41.6C.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

90 % of global climate scientists, 90% of economists, 90% of all experts
everyone agrees, all the experts agree
noone can argue, noone can disagree
the science is settled, the debate is over
everyone recognizes

the language of dishonest shallow minded group speak employed by Spence, Obama and Gore, Reid and Nasty Pelosi on a daily basis, if you have to frame your arguements by declaring that "everyone" agrees with you and anyone that does not represents a tiny agendized minority, you are standing on shaky ground and most lkiely about to tell a Whopper if a Lie....

but...if this is true and everyone agrees and it so overwhelmingly obvious..then what's the F-ing hold up...

seems to me that everywhere these folks have claimed complete agreement on both their declaration of a problem or crisis and their hairbrained solutions there is utter chaos....

there is little if any honesty and integrity left in libterd land....

Global Warming

Calgary beats record set in 1893
Dominic Terry, Radana Suk, Kelly Turner and Lisa Grant 2009-12-14 20:02

Calgary has beaten a weather record set more than 100 years ago.

At about 7:00 Monday morning, Calgary dipped to minus 32.4 degrees beating the old record by .2 degrees.

And at least twelve low temperature records have been broken, with the coldest being Sundre coming in at minus 41.6C.

Question, are you intentionally working to reinforce RIROCKHOUND's point, or do you really not know much beyond what you'd heard pundits say and read on blogs?

As for the #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s, my wife works with developmentally disabled kids and adults. I'll be sure to have her ask if any are liberals.

-spence

[scottw]

I wrote l-i-b-t-"e"-r-d-s.."terds"....couldn't wait to pounce though...could ya???.......

so predictable

[buckman]

Originally Posted by scottw

I wrote l-i-b-t-"e"-r-d-s.."terds"....couldn't wait to pounce though...could ya???.......

so predictable

Maybe Spence had it right.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

I wrote l-i-b-t-"e"-r-d-s.."terds"....couldn't wait to pounce though...could ya???.......

so predictable

File this one under:

some "witty quip" or random insult that generally doesn't make sense.

Here are a few reasons why you aren't even beginning to support your opinion.
-You find a random collection of snapshots in time of locations to use as an argument and then choose to ignore global trending data. (See Equation Two)
-You choose random excepts from articles or quotes from people you think can be used to completely debunk the entire argument as opposed to posting a link for people to get the full context.(See Equation One)
-In one thread, you'll argue (well not argue, copy/paste something) about how global warming doesn't exist and is completely fabricated by liberals just so they can spend money. In another, global warming exists but is a natural occurrence not caused by humans.

There are some valid arguments on both sides of the coin for or against human-induced global warming (HIGW). However, I think you don't really understand any of the science on either side of the argument.

I think you've decided that everyone who agrees with the HIGW argument must be a liberal and as such, you're going to argue vehemently (whether it makes sense or not) to try and prove them wrong.

Hmmm... this also makes me think that you don't really understand what a liberal is either. You know that the definition of a liberal isn't "Everyone who disagrees with my narrow-minded view of the world" right?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

File this one under:


Here are a few reasons why you aren't even beginning to support your opinion.
-You find a random collection of snapshots in time of locations to use as an argument and then choose to ignore global trending data. (See Equation Two)
-You choose random excepts from articles or quotes from people you think can be used to completely debunk the entire argument as opposed to posting a link for people to get the full context.(See Equation One)
-In one thread, you'll argue (well not argue, copy/paste something) about how global warming doesn't exist and is completely fabricated by liberals just so they can spend money. In another, global warming exists but is a natural occurrence not caused by humans.

There are some valid arguments on both sides of the coin for or against human-induced global warming (HIGW). However, I think you don't really understand any of the science on either side of the argument.

I think you've decided that everyone who agrees with the HIGW argument must be a liberal and as such, you're going to argue vehemently (whether it makes sense or not) to try and prove them wrong.

Hmmm... this also makes me think that you don't really understand what a liberal is either. You know that the definition of a liberal isn't "Everyone who disagrees with my narrow-minded view of the world" right?

And maybe some of the biggest promoters and crisis advocates of Global Warming/ Cooling/ Change/ Whatever are also not helping by being the biggest hypocrites. I'm not saying they are wrong, just not ready to sell the farm yet.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

And maybe some of the biggest promoters and crisis advocates of Global Warming/ Cooling/ Change/ Whatever are also not helping by being the biggest hypocrites. I'm not saying they are wrong, just not ready to sell the farm yet.

Agreed. The above post *is* Al Gore. Today, he's nothing more than the Michael Moore of global warming - someone with too much money that makes films, while probably having some scientific basis, are slanted to further their opinion.

Your post does apply to the other side of the argument as well though.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

File this one under:

-You find a random collection of snapshots in time of locations to use as an argument and then choose to ignore global trending data. (See Equation Two)
-You choose random excepts from articles or quotes from people you think can be used to completely debunk the entire argument as opposed to posting a link for people to get the full context.(See Equation One)
-In one thread, you'll argue (well not argue, copy/paste something) .

"Everyone who disagrees with my narrow-minded view of the world" right?

JD...your constant whining about "cut and paste" and "sources" is really absurd, you will dismiss any "cut and paste" or otherwise that does not agree with your remarkably informed world view regardless of the source....the source will also be dismissed if it does not meet your "standards" (and honestly, who the bleep are you?)...so who is narrow-minded? Nothing more than another way for a libterd to say "shut up".

Merry Christmas (hope that's not offensive)

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

JD...your constant whining about "cut and paste" and "sources" is really absurd, you will dismiss any "cut and paste" or otherwise that does not agree with your remarkably informed world view regardless of the source....the source will also be dismissed if it does not meet your "standards" (and honestly, who the bleep are you?)...so who is narrow-minded? Nothing more than another way for a libterd to say "shut up".

Merry Christmas (hope that's not offensive)

Nice selective deletion.

Thank you for emphasizing my point - along with pointing out quite a bit of your own hypocrisy - by addressing one abstract part of a post (or two words in this case), ignore the rest and then declare victory.

My dismissal of you're "copy/paste" method of proving a point is because you don't add anything to it, nor give anyone the opportunity to look at the article by posting what the source is. Many of your 'points' are essentially "Read this..... see, you're wrong," with nothing added to it. Add in a couple backhanded insults and that sums up about half your posts.

I dismiss sources when they're commentaries, due to being opinions filled with little supported fact. I don't believe I have blindly dismissed *actual data* as you like to do.

When you get a chance, you're welcome to address the rest of that post, as opposed to just two words within it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

I wrote l-i-b-t-"e"-r-d-s.."terds"....couldn't wait to pounce though...could ya???.......

so predictable

Perhaps you just spelled it wrong...

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...-pagliuca.html

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Perhaps you just spelled it wrong...

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...-pagliuca.html

-spence

nope, spelled it twice as intended this morning....#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& referred to the voters of Mass. who display diminished mental capacity, brought on by the spread of liberalism and evidenced in their continuing to vote for the most loathsome people on the planet to represent them....

libterd, which you improperly referred to refers to a liberal who demeans and impunes the intelligence and motivations of those who disagree with them and attack the knowledege and comprehension of others while displaying little of their own...

both are scientific terms and neither is directed toward "developmentally disabled kids and adults", but don't let that stop you from making the inference, hope you were equally offended by Obama's callous Special Olympic's reference...

I asked your wife...she told me that she's married to a terd...

I know the difference between an a and an e...you appear to be struggling

you should refrain from quoting someone, then changing the spelling of one of their words, then taking them them to task for your new spelling...it's very dishonest...it's like manipulating climate data...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& referred to the voters of Mass. who display diminished mental capacity, brought on by the spread of liberalism and evidenced in their continuing to vote for the most loathsome people on the planet to represent them....

libterd, which you improperly referred to refers to a liberal who demeans and impunes the intelligence and motivations of those who disagree with them and attack the knowledege and comprehension of others while displaying little of their own...

By using "tard" you are in fact behaving as a "terd".

This is of course using your own definitions.

Sounds pretty hypocritical and inconsistent, which fits JD's analysis of your opinions on climate change.

-spence