Response to Al "Chicken Little" Gore

[beet1e]

IN

[BGBMAW]

yes lazs..you are complelty illogical


crazy ..crazy crazy

since my last post got deleted becuase of nannies..here you go...

Even with Clinton getting hummers, he was running on 5 years of boom and no war, no terror. That he lost, even with Florida irregularities, is ridiculous. Now, with nothing on the line he comes back for this film. So he has something, so he wont be forgotten.

Yes...Dos X..you are really smart..I guess Cobar towers 200 + dead marines..first WTC attack ect ....That was Peace and Harmony...



What Albright didn't say in her response to Kerrey was that back in the summer of 1998, at the time of al Qaeda's attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa, there were a lot of people talking — and talking and talking — about war. For example, when the U.S. retaliated by firing cruise missiles at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, one high-ranking Clinton-administration official said: "This is, unfortunately, the war of the future. This is going to be a long-term battle against terrorists who have declared war on the United States. That is what Osama bin Laden did. He basically made clear that all Americans and American facilities were potential targets, and he used the word 'war.'"

[BGBMAW]

Yes Dos X...you need to learn a bit more before you stand up behind the limpwristed linguine spinned socialist's.....

There was plenty of "Peace" during Clintons years....classic bury your head...

After the first World Trade Center bombing in March 1993, for example, Clinton warned Americans not to overreact, and, in an interview on MTV, described the bombing as the work of someone who "did something really stupid." That's not exactly tough talk.

The president had gotten the words down a bit better by June 1996, after the attack on the Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. "The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished," Clinton said the day of the bombing.

But the next day, Clinton stumbled a bit. "Let me be very clear: We will not resist," he said before quickly realizing he had said something wrong. "We will not rest in our efforts to find who is responsible for this outrage, to pursue them and to punish them."

Clinton got the rhetoric right by the time of the embassy attacks. "We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes," he said then. "We are determined to get answers and justice."

By October 2000, when al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole, Clinton had the routine down. "We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable," he said.

[Dos Equis]

Originally posted by BGBMAW
yes lazs..you are complelty illogical

crazy ..crazy crazy

since my last post got deleted becuase of nannies..here you go...

Yes...Dos X..you are really smart..I guess Cobar towers 200 + dead marines..first WTC attack ect ....That was Peace and Harmony...
 

I said 5 years. The first attack on WTC was in '93. From 95-00, we had the Cole in 98. We had Somalia. The attacks on the embassies in Africa in 98 that killed 228, many of the Americans.

A low hum compared to a major domestic attack, no? And, of course, you missed the major point about the economic boom of that time being able to carry an incumbent party through. You always ignore anything that you don't like or makes a point, huh?

You can't even define socialism. You think anybody who advocates the role of government in anything is a socialist. You couldn't pass a poli sci 101 test on the definition of the word. To you, all Democrats are 'Red'. Boring.

[Holden McGroin]

Rogue Scientist Has Own Scientific Method
 TALLAHASSEE, FL (ONION)—Only months after abandoning a tenured position at Lehigh University, maverick chemist Theodore Hapner managed to disprove two of the three laws of thermodynamics and show that gold is a noxious gas, turning the world of science—defined for centuries by exhaustive research, painstaking observation, and hard-won theories—completely on its head.
 
The brash chemist, who conducts independent research from his houseboat, has infuriated peers by refusing to "play by the rules of Socrates, Bacon, and Galileo," calling test results as he sees them, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
 
"If you're looking for some button-down traditionalist who relies on so-called induction, conventional logic, and verification to arrive at what the scientific community calls 'proof,' then I'm afraid you've got the wrong guy," said the intrepid 44-year-old rebel, who last month unveiled a revolutionary new model of atomic structure that contradicted 300 years of precedent. "But if you want your results fast and with some flair, then come with me and I'll prove that the boiling point of water is actually 547 degrees Fahrenheit."

Armed with only with a Bunsen burner, a modest supply of chemical compounds,  and a balance scale—the last of which Hapner has "yet to find any good reason to use"—this controversial nonconformist defies every standard definition of what a scientist should be. From his tendency to round off calculations, to his rejection of controlled experiments, Hapner is determined to avoid becoming "one of those cowardly sheep who slavishly kowtows to a tired old methodology."

"I'm sure my opponents would love to see me throw in the towel and start using empirical evidence to back every one of my theories," Hapner said. "They'd have a better chance convincing me that metals, like copper, are naturally strong conductors of electricity."
 
Shrugging off criticism as "self-limiting," Hapner says he plans to proceed with his study on the water-purifying properties of hydrocyanic acid.
"What my hopelessly pedantic colleagues fail to realize is that their scientific method is just that—their method," said Hapner, whose self-published 2004 thesis argued that matter exists in four states: solid, liquid, gas, and powder. "After all, would a chemist who closely observes a phenomenon, formulates a hypothesis, predicts a likely outcome, and then tests the hypothesis be capable of proving that photons, far from being subatomic particles, are actually the size of a child's fist?"

While his peers employ meticulous testing and protracted deliberation, Hapner often refuses to formulate a hypothesis until midway through an experiment. "Anyone who tells you that chemistry is an exact science is overthinking it," he said.

"Yesterday alone I solved Kauzmann's Paradox, improved Hund's Rule Of Maximum Multiplicity, and disproved what is known as the 'cage effect' of a molecule," Hapner added. "All without having to rinse out the one beaker I was using."

Had he used the outmoded scientific method, Hapner said, few of the scientific advancements he has made would have been either achieved or remotely interesting.
Despite his innumerable achievements, Hapner faces many experts who remain skeptical and have even declared his findings corrupt, irrational, irresponsible, and unscientific.

 "It's true that I've been condemned and ridiculed by the world's most prominent chemists, as well as by a good number of amateur hobbyists," Hapner said as he rubbed a balloon on his head to demonstrate a basic principle of hydrodynamics. "But then, wasn't Einstein ridiculed when he unveiled his theory of relativity, or Copernicus when he posited that the Earth revolved around the sun? True, I have since proved them both wrong, but at least they took risks."

Hapner is undoubtedly taking a great risk with his latest study, but the maverick scientist is confident his work will pay off.

 "Bombarding a plutonium nucleus with accelerated electrons, long believed to produce a nuclear fission reaction, has, in fact, no consequence at all," Hapner said. "I'm going to prove that if it's the last thing I ever do."
   

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by DiabloTX


Everything that guy just said is bull****... Thank you.


That's it in a nutshell.


Why don't you just read the book? [/B]

rofl awesome!

-Sik

[BGBMAW]

" a low hum"

yes..dead americans.."Lo hum"..

So whats your "death count" when its worth  killing the scum who did it/support...or even not call the death of hundreds...."lo hum"?

and yes Liberalism is a mental disorder

[Nash]

Originally posted by BGBMAW
...and yes Liberalism is a mental disorder

Then what, pray tell, is your excuse?

[lazs2]

dos ekk... are you now saying that because scientists cured polio that they can predict global climate changes decades.... even centuries into the future?  That they now have the ability to calculate the exact energy the sun will produce all through those years?   That they have modeled every possible effect on global climate with complete accuracy?

And.... haveing done that.... they can now tell us exactly what we need to do to adjust global climate changes?  How much of it can be affected by us?

lazs

[Dos Equis]

Originally posted by BGBMAW

and yes Liberalism is a mental disorder

Does that picture of Strom Thurmond over your bed talk to you at night?

[Dos Equis]

Originally posted by lazs2
dos ekk...
And.... haveing done that.... they can now tell us exactly what we need to do to adjust global climate changes?  How much of it can be affected by us?

lazs

lazy,

You're right. Science is bunk because it doesn't have every answer for every question any quack like you can propose. So, like you - we should give up and put our faith in prayer.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Dos Equis
You're right. Science is bunk because it doesn't have every answer for every question any quack like you can propose. So, like you - we should give up and put our faith in prayer.

LOL

[mietla]

"Bombarding a plutonium nucleus with accelerated electrons, long believed to produce a nuclear fission reaction, has, in fact, no consequence at all," Hapner said. "I'm going to prove that if it's the last thing I ever do."

Now this is a real faith in the correctness of his theory.

[BGBMAW]

Do Ted Kenedy and Slimstein ..Byrd talk to you?

Liberalism is a mental disorder

[lazs2]

dos ekk... I am not asking them to have the answer to every little thing but.....

before I decide to quit eating or start eating eggs or milk because of what they tell me or to stop driving cars because of what they tell me....

I expect em to have some pretty compelling evidence....  

They said they did about eggs... when they change their mind they say that they have new compelling evidence... they have a history of reversal. and... worse... a dismal history of predicting the future based on what they know....  

They also have a history of exaggeration and then backtracking.....  at first second hand smoke was suppossed to be 10 times worse than first hand smoke.... once they got the panic driven bans in place.... they backed off...

Doctors told of all the brain dead non helmet wearers.... once the panic driven helmet laws were in place they admitted that maybe there never were any...

So why would I believe that I should radicaly alter my lifestyle and grow government at my expense based on even more long range and even more flimsy data and predictions?

let's give a practical example shall we?

in 1960 most of the worlds scientists said that we were running out of many of the worlds vital resouces...  they named I think, 10 metals and resources that we would deplete in 10 or 20 years.... turns out than known amounts of every single one of those is more now than then.  

You can put all the faith you want into scientific predictions but if you had invested based on what they said.... you would be up crap creek...

If you had quit eating dairy products based on what they had said you might now be unhealthy.

so yes.... I want em to get it right before I let their predictions affect my life...  

Politicians of course and socialists are not driven by the same things tho.... their intent is simply to grow government so.....

Any prediction of doom is good enough for them.

lazs

lazs