When the truth is inconvenient . . .

[gadgetlady 4]

After being the Original Poster to this nice right wing talking point and then this comment above. Following the article posts I can guarantee your not serious at all about your last reply.

You can't guarantee that at all. You don't know me and my thought process. I believe the hoopla about global warming is inaccurate and misdirected, but that doesn't mean I am unwilling to learn about both sides.

Don't let Bush fool you.

Bush's opinion on this matter does not inform mine and it never has.

Try getting both sides of the story before you copy/paste right wing propaganda.

I could say the same to you, changing "right", of course, to "left".

I suppose your one of those people who went around posting the "Gore said he invented the Internet" story years ago, before actually taking the time to see what he actually said.

What he said was, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet." What's your point?

[A lot less 1]

Green, I have been wondering where you were. I just happened to see this thread and read your post. I am so sorry to hear about your illness.

My prayers are with you and your family. I don't post often, but I'm always lurking and I read your posts often. You are such a reason of logic.

Please keep us updated with your progress. After reading this thread, I just related your name "green" with what it really meant:biggrin:. Eco-friendly.

I'm sorry but I can't ask you to take a spoon of ice cream for me cause I've gained a few pounds, but I can have sf ice cream or sherbet.

Be blessed.

[snuffy65 1]

You can't guarantee that at all. You don't know me and my thought process. I believe the hoopla about global warming is inaccurate and misdirected, but that doesn't mean I am unwilling to learn about both sides.

Well, I was looking at your posts and multiple articles and you can easily put 2 &2 together.

Also, I thought with your last you stated that you DO believe global warming and humans at fault. Wish is why I thought it was bull because of your other statements. Sorry my bad.

Bush's opinion on this matter does not inform mine and it never has.

Fine, but its obvious that you let right wing stories that prove to be inconsistent with your message inform you. That's sad.

I could say the same to you, changing "right", of course, to "left".

Point to one article I linked to from a "left wing site" or a left wing talking point?

{What he said was, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." What's your point?

This is Gore's full quote:

But it will emerge from my dialog with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

So if Gore meant initiative, the way your considering it. He then would have not only stated that he personally created the Internet but personally cleaned all those factories, personally designed every environmental invention, and single handily taught all teachers how to teach their children.

Or you can get your head out of all the right wing websites and stop listening to your local right wing blather and realized that Gore meant he worked in congress to promote and support the creators of the Internet. Which many communications and university leaders have stated themselves at the time.

It's sad cause Gore lost alot because he didn't think he had to defend himself on this issue. But he was wrong. There is tons of people blinded by their own party's/ideology's rhetoric.

I would never post stupid sound bites like these. Sure, if I was the same as you but a lefty, I could post comment from Dick Cheney when he said "so?" when asked what he thought about the 68% of Americans who are against the war.

Of course I could link tons of left wing articles that quote this and you could say "omg! Chaney hates the American people!". But I don't. Because I actually went back and read the whole article and saw he commented that decisions in war cannot be made on the swaying public opinion.

I still don't agree with him, but i ain't going to link crap when it's not true. Only people who can't think for themselves do that. Including the 100 spam emails i get from friends and family that read "omg Hillary is trying to kill someone!" or "Bush is tied to 9/11!".

Sorry, this should be its own R &R thread. But i just can't stand it when people link or email this kinda of rubbish. Not only cause they are false, but because alot of people believe them.

Hell, my own (Democrat for life) mother asked if "I would be comfortable voting for a Muslim because she was thinking about voting for Obama too.

I sat there with this look on my face:

Edited April 5, 2008 by snuffy65

[luluc 6]

Not to Hijack,- Green I had been missing you & just now read your story. Your in my thoughts & hope for a full recovery!!!!

Lulu

[gadgetlady 4]

So if Gore meant initiative, the way your considering it. He then would have not only stated that he personally created the Internet but personally cleaned all those factories, personally designed every environmental invention, and single handily taught all teachers how to teach their children.

Or you can get your head out of all the right wing websites and stop listening to your local right wing blather and realized that Gore meant he worked in congress to promote and support the creators of the Internet. Which many communications and university leaders have stated themselves at the time.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I can't recall ever posting saying I believe Gore invented the internet. When you said I did, I posted an actual quote from him on the subject. Beyond that, I'm just shaking my head here because I really don't get your point. I understand that you're upset at people that say Gore invented the internet, but I don't know why you're going off on me about that. :tongue:

But i just can't stand it when people link or email this kinda of rubbish. Not only cause they are false, but because alot of people believe them.

I agree with you. I do my best to confirm stories that I read before I speak about them or post them.

[snuffy65 1]

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I can't recall ever posting saying I believe Gore invented the Internet. When you said I did, I posted an actual quote from him on the subject. Beyond that, I'm just shaking my head here because I really don't get your point. I understand that you're upset at people that say Gore invented the Internet, but I don't know why you're going off on me about that. :tongue:

The point I first made was that stories like "Gore said he invented the Internet" are just like what you originally posted about Gore's house and the comment about Gore's financial (which is another topic I won't get into because apparently you just read off right wing headlines). You then quoted the one sentence to asked me what my point was.

I agree with you. I do my best to confirm stories that I read before I speak about them or post them.

Problem is you don't. What you originally posted about Gore's house was only on headlines on right wing websites and talk shows because it looks bad IF YOU DON'T RESEARCH IT AND SEE WHAT THE REAL DIFFERENCES OF THE HOUSES ARE.

Comparing those two houses would be like saying a family of 8 is not environmentally conscious because they use more energy then the family of 3's vacation home.

Problem I have now is I had respect for you in the other threads and thought you would be different then the other right wing fanatics out there. But now I see just because they say they are the "Party of God" you have go and drink their Koolaid.

Its so sad too. Good luck with stopping abortions. Never mind the fact that environmentally induced abortions happen often and are NOT the woman's choice but yours!

Edited April 5, 2008 by snuffy65

[gadgetlady 4]

What you originally posted about Gore's house was only on headlines on right wing websites and talk shows because it looks bad IF YOU DON'T RESEARCH IT AND SEE WHAT THE REAL DIFFERENCES OF THE HOUSES ARE.

Because it was only on right wing websites and talk shows, it therefore can't be true?

Problem I have now is I had respect for you in the other threads and thought you would be different then the other right wing fanatics out there. But now I see just because they say they are the "Party of God" you have go and drink their Koolaid.

I'm sorry you lost respect for me because I'm not an environmental wacko or because I posted something questioning the almighty Gore. I'm not drinking anyone's koolaid. I may reach many of the same conclusions as many on the conservative side, but not always and not always for the same reasons.

Never mind the fact that environmentally induced abortions happen often and are NOT the woman's choice but yours!

Now THAT one has me really scratching my head. Are you talking about women having miscarriages because of . . . I don't know, the heat? :tongue:

[snuffy65 1]

Because it was only on right wing websites and talk shows, it therefore can't be true?

The fact that you are trying to imply your comparing apples to apples, when in fact it's apples to oranges in your original post. Its been disproven many many times.

I'm sorry you lost respect for me because I'm not an environmental wacko or because I posted something questioning the almighty Gore. I'm not drinking anyone's koolaid. I may reach many of the same conclusions as many on the conservative side, but not always and not always for the same reasons.

Its not that you side with conservatives. Its your petty references to misleading stories that conservatives use that lost my respec. I don't play that game.

Now THAT one has me really scratching my head. Are you talking about women having miscarriages because of . . . I don't know, the heat? :tongue:

The environmental "wackos" also fight for clean drinking Water and fight for regulations against companies that pollute. Pollution that has been documented to cause cancer, birth defects,miscarriages, and other health problems. Environmental wacko's and "green" legislatures try and incorprate everything that is good for this world. These people get stopeed alot of time, get lumped into the global warming aint really happening thing and get booted out and called socialists by the very people you get your ideas from.

When you post misleading threads like this you hurt a man that fights for not just global warming but a overall clean planet. And for what? Your stance on global warming? Post your research on the subject, don't try and bring down a man with falsehoods.

Go ahead, argue that global warming is not happening and isn't the fault of ours. There's scientific evidence to support both theories. So from a scientific standpoint it could go either way.

Here's an arguement that had me thinking really hard on the abortion issue. It probably works well here too.

So given that life does in fact begin at some point (you would say as yet undetermined), is it not possible that it begins at conception and therefore we are deliberately ending over 1,300,000 lives every year in America? Add to this the fact that the average abortion is performed at 8-9 weeks, after significant fetal development has taken place (heartbeat, brain waves, all body systems present, some babies are even sucking their thumbs at this point), are you still OK with the possibility that we are committing mass genocide? I consider it a fact, but based on the above reasoning, isn't it at least a possibility for you?

With all the facts on global warming, not one scientist that is against this theory could prove it wrong. So:

Isn't it a least a possibility for you?

And if it is would you risk the entire planet?

One last comment. I lost even more respec for you after the wacko comment. It just proves that if my views aren't the same as yours we are "wackos". That mighty nice of you.

Calling people who believe in something that could save our lives and humanity and might just save our world "wackos" .

Oh wait, you just called every religious person who "Wanted to talk to me about Jesus" a wacko.

Edited April 5, 2008 by snuffy65

[gadgetlady 4]

When you post misleading threads like this you hurt a man that fights for not just global warming but a overall clean planet. And for what? Your stance on global warming? Post your research on the subject, don't try and bring down a man with falsehoods.

I think he's a hypocrite and a sell-out and I don't trust the man -- for a variety of reasons that I've developed over time. It's clear you have a very high opinion of him and that's fine -- I just don't agree.

Here's an arguement that had me thinking really hard on the abortion issue. It probably works well here too.

I'm glad it made you think. It has made me think on this issue, as well, and while I believe there are differences (one being that a person's death is irreversible, while many of the things that I've seen in my life being claimed as an environmentally disastrous have turned out not to be so -- and many of the things I've seen in my life that environmentalists claim will solve our problems only exacerbate them), I do see your point.

One last comment. I lost even more respec for you after the wacko comment. It just proves that if my views aren't the same as yours we are "wackos". That mighty nice of you.

I think we use the term "wacko" differently. I don't necessarily see it as derogatory, but rather defining a person who is completely sold on any given issue. I use the term to mean someone who has no room for shift in their position. And yes, I have used the term to describe myself. It is clear that you perceive it differently (and I can see how you would reach that conclusion because not everyone uses it the same way my family and I do). I apologize for my poor choice of words. I should have expected some people would take exception with the term.

[snuffy65 1]

It's not the fact I love the guy. I have problems with him too. And again the frustration isn't with likeing Al Gore or not, or if you believe in global warming or not. The frustration is whether i turn the TV to Fox news or MSNBC and when I turn the radio on Shawn Hannity or Air America nothing changes. I have to weed through all the BS stories like this house comparison, or Gore's financials, or Dick Cheney and Haliburton. I have to weed through those only to find out half of the stories ain't true.

Then everytime I argue with someone about something important they have to bring up these same stories and have to get by all that crap first just to get to the real issue.

Again, its the same on both sides. The other thread you stated yourself eloquently and didn't resort to petty misinterpreted information. If you stayed away from that and kept to the facts I woul be again another listener to the other side.

You will find not only me but alot more from "the other side" who will seek your audience rather then flame you, if you stayed away from this rubbish.

[gadgetlady 4]

Well, I don't know what you've been listening to on the radio or TV recently about this topic, but I'm wondering if you happened to notice the date of the ORIGINAL post in this thread?

[snuffy65 1]

Well, I don't know what you've been listening to on the radio or TV recently about this topic, but I'm wondering if you happened to notice the date of the ORIGINAL post in this thread?

Yes I did, that original post is just as much BS then as it is today. Yes, all news radio and TV still report stories LIKE that.

[BJean 16]

I can't for the life of me understand why people who say they love people and the earth (like G.W. Bush) on the one hand, are against environmentally friendly concepts and practices on the other.

For me it is as confounding as saying that you want to force women to carry their unplanned, unwanted fertilized eggs to full term because you want to save lives, yet being 100% for the death penalty.

No rationalization that they use in either case, makes any sense to me. :confused2::confused2:

[L8BloomR 1]

I can't for the life of me understand why people who say they love people and the earth (like G.W. Bush) on the one hand, are against environmentally friendly concepts and practices on the other.

For me it is as confounding as saying that you want to force women to carry their unplanned, unwanted fertilized eggs to full term because you want to save lives, yet being 100% for the death penalty.

No rationalization that they use in either case, makes any sense to me. :confused2::confused2:

I understand your confusion, since I feel the same way about groups like Earth First! and individuals like the Unibomber who claim to love the environment but have no problem with blowing up people and buildings. And I have never personally met a pro-abortion person who believed in the death penalty. Yet they can never give a good explanation as to why it is OK to kill a baby in the womb yet not OK to kill a convicted murderer. :regular_smile:

[gadgetlady 4]

I can't for the life of me understand why people who say they love people and the earth (like G.W. Bush) on the one hand, are against environmentally friendly concepts and practices on the other.

I think the problem here is perception. I do not consider myself an environmentalist, but that doesn't mean I believe we should rape and pillage the world around us. I believe in a common-sense approach to the environment. I don't like to swim in an ocean littered with debris or pollution; I don't like to give my children polluted Water to drink. I do my best to take care of my little piece of the world.

The problem is threefold, as I see it. One prong of the problem is when we subscribe to beliefs that haven't been tested or proven (like global warming), and we make dramatic and life-altering law based on these unproven beliefs. I can remember countless claims throughout my lifetime of scenarios that the earth would never recover from -- and yet the earth has recovered just fine, in record time.

The second prong of the problem is what results from making extreme environmental laws to protect certain species, which laws result in disastrous effects. Examples would be not cutting down dead trees to save a particular beetle, and causing an entire forest of dead trees to be more susceptible to forest fires which kill human beings (this happened not too far from my home). Another example would be droughts as a result of clams and mussels being protected. People's lives have been destroyed through environmental legislation that is aimed at protecting insects, frogs, owls, etc. It's foolish and foolhardy.

The third prong of the problem is environmentalists and/or animal rights activists who value animal and insect life over human life. For example, the president of PETA has been quoted as saying, "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." There is a Green Party activist in Finland who says he has more sympathy for threatened insect species than for children dying of hunger in Africa. I read an interview with a well-known environmentalist once (I can't remember his name right now) who said it's no secret that he's not very fond of the human race.

When you put these three prongs together, perhaps it might give you a little more insight into why I feel the way I do about environmental movements. I don't hate the environment and I don't believe we should treat it as if it were our trash can. But I also don't believe we should go to such extremes that we grasp at any current fad someone calls "green" and sacrifice human lives for the sake of animals and insects.

I believe in being good stewards of the world God gave us. He gave us the gift of a beautiful creation and we should take care of it using sensible and appropriate measures. On the other hand, what's always puzzled me is how evolutionists can be environmentalists: if human beings are the pinnacle of evolution, whatever they choose to do to the world around them is their right as granted through their evolutionary superiority.