You accuse Bush of lying after every word clinton uttered in the last eight years WAS A *BLEEP* EATING LIE!!!!!?Yes, I do. Clinton (it's still capitalized, whether you like the man or not) lying doesn't make everything Bush says true. That's absurd. Nor does his track record make Bush unassailable when he does lie. All politicians must be held accountable for their words. If they are lies, bringing up somebody else's lies does not change that fact (remember the "two wrongs don't make a right" principle?). Bush is a two-faced liar. He said anything he thought the swing voters wanted to hear just to get elected, and now is reneging on everything he said in order to get the swing votes. And all the lies you can dig up by Clinton and Tom Cruise and Mickey Mouse don't change that fact.
Proving what? How does snow in one place prove that global warming isn't real? Global warming is a matter of overall temperature of the atmosphere, not spot temperatures in one place. Even Republicans should know this.
I was just making fun of the global warming Chicken Little types. Lighten the hell up.
Sorry, I thought this was a serious discussion. How am I to tell which of your answers are mere sport, and which you want me to take seriously? They all look the same to me. Would you please label your absurd sarcasm so I can tell it from your absurd serious claims? It would really help. Thanks.
Did it ever occur to you (assuming you know about dissolved gases) that rising global temperatures cause rising seawater temperatures and hence lessen the ability of the oceans to contain CO2???
Lacking evidence to the contrary (which you have not provided) I would likely assume it would lessen the ability of the oceans to contain any and all dissolved gasses, at roughly the same rates, so it wouldn't change the CO2 levels -- which are percents of all atmospheric gasses -- a bit.
Oh, and by the way, starting sentences with "did it ever occur to you" is extremely rude. If you want your self-righteous high moral ground to really be unassailable, you would be better served not to use such rude and offensive mannerisms in your posts.
If the democRATS have anything to do with it, it's not good for the country. Than't why bi-partisanship sucks.
You really have stopped thinking. As I said before, not terribly surprising.
McCain is a Republican.
Well, the Republican voters didn't seem to think so, did they?
Huh? Are you saying that electing one person over another is evidence that you don't think the person not elected is in the same party? Just because the Republicans elected Bush rather than McCain as their party's candidate in the 2000 election doesn't mean they don't think McCain is a Republican. That's silly.
Well, at least I didn't screw up a massive meaningless post like you did.
I don't write meaningless posts. Nor do I call yours meaningless. Screwing up HTML sometimes happens. I admitted it and went on. Wish you could.
I don't capitalize democRAT because there is no democracy in the democRAT party, just marching orders.
Can we have proof of this? Or is this just more of your mudslinging?
Opposing anything clinton stood for is perfectly logical.
No, it is not. Opposing anything any one person "stands for" is emotionalism, not logic. A logical person would look at each issue on its own terms, not simply look at whether one person is for it or against it. No matter how much you dislike Clinton, and it is apparent that your dislike for him knows no bounds (and no rationality), not everything he said and did is 100% deplorable. Your inability to see or admit this is simply childish.
The opposite position makes you represent support for perjury, lying, immoral and perverted behavior (including rape) disdain for the Constitution, no respect for the rule of law, marriage, women or the English language (like the White House lawn pep rally after IMPEACHMENT).
No, it does not. The opposite position makes me support looking at the issues one by one, and not at whether or not somebody I'm irrationally peeved with supported it. Just because clinton was a perjurer, liar, immoral, pervert, rapist, constitution-hating, law-bashing, etc. etc. (assuming this is all true, which of course I am not beholden to agree with), doesn't mean that everything he said was false, every action he took was immoral, every sexual act he committed was perverted or rapine, and so forth. This is fallacious reasoning.
I don't remember this. I remember Newt Gingrich shutting down the government (not allowing the budget to be voted upon, if I recall)
(A little typo there? Or is that the Republicans' fault?)
If you would be a little more civil, you probably would get fewer people calling you things like gobshite. Then again you probably revel in that, because they're democRATS, and anything they say (according to your bleary-eyed "logic") must be false. Nevertheless you really should try to be polite, if only because it's the right thing to do.
Did Dan Rather tell you that Newt shut down the government? Oh wait, he just confessed to being a MAJOR CommucRAT Operative from the Ministry of Propaganda.
I don't watch television. I never heard anything Dan Rather said. You're once again diverting attention from your inability to counter the real argument made. Throwing sand in your opponent's eyes is great sport when you're Captain Kirk wrestling with the alien bad guy for the alien bimbo. When you're presenting yourself as an intellegent observer and commenter upon things political, however, it's very bad form, and makes your observers and/or opponents wonder if you really have anything to say.
Back to the issue: the president doesn't choose what the congress votes on. The speaker of the house does. If the congress is gridlocked, it's not the president's fault.
So far you haven't said anything that really shows you are thinking about these issues at all. It's all been rudeness, and propaganda, and knee-jerk contrarian emotional responses. If I were a conservative, I'd be embarassed to have you on my side.
TTFN,
Alex