Pathological Liar Al Gore Afraid To Debate Global Warmng Expert.

[D2112]

http://users1.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkLogin?mg=wsj-users1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB116909379096479919-email.html


Will Al Gore Melt?

By FLEMMING ROSE and BJORN LOMBORG

January 18, 2007; Page A16
Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Today he is in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore's tune.

The interview had been scheduled for months. Mr. Gore's agent yesterday thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?

One can only speculate. But if we are to follow Mr. Gore's suggestions of radically changing our way of life, the costs are not trivial. If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.


He considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but again doesn't tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years. The U.N. panel estimates that Antarctica will actually increase its snow mass this century. Similarly, Mr. Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but don't mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing. Shouldn't we hear those facts?



Al Gore is on a mission. If he has his way, we could end up choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us, according to a U.N. estimate, $553 trillion over this century. Getting answers to hard questions is not an unreasonable expectation before we take his project seriously. It is crucial that we make the right decisions posed by the challenge of global warming. These are best achieved through open debate, and we invite him to take the time to answer our questions: We are ready to interview you any time, Mr. Gore -- and anywhere.

[HolmeZz]

But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones.

If he has his way, we could end up choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us...

Wait, are we talking about global warming or the war in Iraq?

[Rausch]

I can own up to the fact our climate has gone up and down the spectrum in a very short amount of time, but why?...

With our minimal research and knowledge I'd wait on a rush to judgement. We're still limited in many areas by C14 dating and even that has it's obvious limitations.

To say the world is changing is obvious, to say that you know why is hubris...

[noa]

Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.

and

Al Gore is on a mission. If he has his way, we could end up choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us, according to a U.N. estimate, $553 trillion over this century.


These quotes are wrong in so many ways. First of all, they claim "the average person will be 30% poorer" if Al Gore has his way. I guess they base this on a U.N. climate report and its estimates. So they are willing to commit our futures based on one U.N. report and treat it as if its the Gospel? I mean come on, if the average person is 30% poorer in the future, we have bigger problems than what Al Gore did.

Second, any changes in policy that cost "us" $553 trillion won't be imposed by Al Gore alone. Sure he has a big influence, but its not like global warming advocates wouldn't exist without Gore. The movement is bigger than one man, and any resulting changes will be due to a large group of people, not the "pathological liar Al Gore."

I get that they are pissed about Gore snubbing them, but they shouldn't just rest all of their beliefs on one U.N. panel report. They are doing the exact kind of doomsday predicting they hate Gore for, just from the opposite end of the spectrum.

[patteeu]

Wait, are we talking about global warming or the war in Iraq?

"[C]ostliest political project ever" is clearly not a reference to Iraq so I'm going to go with global warming.

[patteeu]

and




These quotes are wrong in so many ways. First of all, they claim "the average person will be 30% poorer" if Al Gore has his way. I guess they base this on a U.N. climate report and its estimates. So they are willing to commit our futures based on one U.N. report and treat it as if its the Gospel? I mean come on, if the average person is 30% poorer in the future, we have bigger problems than what Al Gore did.

Second, any changes in policy that cost "us" $553 trillion won't be imposed by Al Gore alone. Sure he has a big influence, but its not like global warming advocates wouldn't exist without Gore. The movement is bigger than one man, and any resulting changes will be due to a large group of people, not the "pathological liar Al Gore."

I get that they are pissed about Gore snubbing them, but they shouldn't just rest all of their beliefs on one U.N. panel report. They are doing the exact kind of doomsday predicting they hate Gore for, just from the opposite end of the spectrum.

I think a more fair way to characterize what is going on here is to say that they are presenting the "worst case" skeptic position not for the truth of it but to indicate why debate between that view and Al Gore's "worst case" climate change position are warranted.

[StcChief]

Only a real debate could expose big AL for what he is....

he better stick with his claim to fame. Inventing the Internet. :hmmm:

[banyon]

Only a real debate could expose big AL for what he is....

he better stick with his claim to fame. Inventing the Internet. :hmmm:

That's a total myth. There is no such quote.

[Radar Chief]

That's a total myth. There is no such quote.

:Poke: ROFL

[StcChief]

That's a total myth. There is no such quote.

Ok, So then big AL never did anything....

[patteeu]

Ok, So then big AL never did anything....

LMAO

[go bowe]

"[C]ostliest political project ever" is clearly not a reference to Iraq so I'm going to go with global warming.*edit* disregard my initial comments - i just got overexcited and i have no idea why i quoted patteu when i was talking about another poster's use of the phrase - *edit*

global warming is not a political project, and we have yet to spend any significant money in connection with global warming; ergo, that "project" has not begun and cannot be considered costly right now...

otoh, iraq has already happened (and continues on)...

imo, iraq is the most expensive political project of all time, hands down...

*edit: the rest is either so obvious as to be painful or just plain wrong *edit*
note: in my view, as well as several others more informed than me on the subject, the war in iraq will only stop (maybe) when a political solution is agreed on by the parties to the conflict...

the war in iraq can only be settled through a series of political compromises...
*edit* i'm actually addressing the following comments to vos, the poster who first brought up the phrase pathological liar, and those two misguided souls who appeared to agree with him *edit*
and, btw, what evidence do you have that al is a "pathological" liar?

do you even know what a pathological liar is?

al has some opinions on global warming that you apparently don't agree with...

so how exactly do you come to the conclusion that al is a pathological liar?

since not everybody agrees with your opinion about global warming or your unfounded opinion of al's honesty then maybe you are a pathological liar spreading falsehoods (according to the criteria you seem to be using in judging al)...

*edit* i'm still talking to vos, redbrian and my dear conservative friend, mlyon... *edit*

[Cochise]

Ok, So then big AL never did anything....

You mean he was not instrumental in the creation of anything.

[mlyonsd]

and, btw, what evidence do you have that al is a "pathological" liar?




Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Want me to keep going?

Bush gets called a liar for making statements like these.....does Al get a free pass?

[Pitt Gorilla]

It could be claimed that Al hasn't done anything. Noting that Al claimed that he invented the internet is simply lying.

FYI: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

[go bowe]

those quotes are assertions that some agree with and some don't...

i don't regard them as lies at all...

opinions aren't lies...

and i have never referred to the president as a liar...

misguided at times, but not a liar...

[go bowe]

[/size][/b]

[/size]

Want me to keep going?

Bush gets called a liar for making statements like these.....does Al get a free pass?no, and i don't think al is getting a free pass either...

certainly not from most republicans...

and, fwiw, i haven't heard the president described as a "pathological" liar...

but then i don't listen much to fox news... :p :p :p

[patteeu]

global warming is not a political project, and we have yet to spend any significant money in connection with global warming; ergo, that "project" has not begun and cannot be considered costly right now...

otoh, iraq has already happened (and continues on)...

imo, iraq is the most expensive political project of all time, hands down...

I don't get it. This is a joke right? :shrug:

Just in case it isn't, Iraq can't be the most costly political project ever because it isn't even the most costly current political project. Social Security cost $530 billion in 2005 (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html) alone.

note: in my view, as well as several others more informed than me on the subject, the war in iraq will only stop (maybe) when a political solution is agreed on by the parties to the conflict...

the war in iraq can only be settled through a series of political compromises...

All wars end with political settlements. Most of them end with political compromises. I have no doubt that this one will be the same, one way or the other. But to anyone who claims that political effort without military effort is a route toward a solution favorable to the US, I would strongly disagree. The only way the US can achieve a favorable solution in Iraq is with a combined military and political effort.

and, btw, what evidence do you have that al is a "pathological" liar?

do you even know what a pathological liar is?

al has some opinions on global warming that you apparently don't agree with...

so how exactly do you come to the conclusion that al is a pathological liar?

since not everybody agrees with your opinion about global warming or your unfounded opion of al's honesty then maybe you are a pathological liar spreading falsehoods (according to the criteria you seem to be using in judging al)...

:eek: You realize that these things were said by the author presented in the OP and that I didn't have anything to do with it, don't you?

[Radar Chief]

I'll hide behind a smile
And understanding eyes
And i'll tell you things that you already know
So you can say
I really identify with you, so much
And all the time that you're needing me
Is just the time that i'm bleeding you
Don't you get it yet?
I'll come to you like an affliction
And i'll leave you like an addiction
You'll never forget me
You wanna know why?
Cause i'm a liar
Yeah i'm a liar
I'll rip your mind out
I'll burn your soul
I'll turn you into me
I'll turn you into me
Cause i'm a liar, a liar
Liar, liar, liar, liar

I don't know why i feel the need to lie
And cause you so much pain
Maybe it's something inside
Maybe it's something i can't explain
Cause all i do
Is mess you up and lie to you
I'm a liar
Oh, i am a liar

If you'll give me one more chance
I swear that i will never lie to you again
Because now i see the destructive power of a lie
They're stronger than truth
I can't believe i ever hurt you
I swear
I will never to you lie again, please
Just give me one more chance
I will never lie to you again
I swear
That i will never tell a lie
I will never tell a lie
No, no
Ha ha ha ha ha hah haa haa haa haaa
Sucker
Sucker!

:rockon:

[patteeu]

no, and i don't think al is getting a free pass either...

certainly not from most republicans...

and, fwiw, i haven't heard the president described as a "pathological" liar...

but then i don't listen much to fox news... :p :p :p

Link (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3701565&highlight=pathological+liar+bush#post3701565)

[go bowe]

I don't get it. This is a joke right?

Just in case it isn't, Iraq can't be the most costly political project ever because it isn't even the most costly current political project. Social Security cost $530 billion in 2005 (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html) alone.



All wars end with political settlements. Most of them end with political compromises. I have no doubt that this one will be the same, one way or the other. But to anyone who claims that political effort without military effort is a route toward a solution favorable to the US, I would strongly disagree. The only way the US can achieve a favorable solution in Iraq is with a combined military and political effort.



:eek: You realize that these things were said by the author presented in the OP and that I didn't have anything to do with it, don't you?i should not have used the term "most expensive"...

of course you're right about social security being more expensive, my bad...

my only excuse is that i was thinking about the two projects and nothing else at that moment...

i'd could use the excuse that i've had too much of a good thing :bong:

but that's not what caused the mistake (i'm almost always high by this time of the day and i usually don't post inaccurate stuff, so why would this day any differrent from any other day?)...

wrt political settlements of war, sure all wars end with a political settlement...

but there are different flavors of political settlement...

sometimes the parties to the conflict will make peace as rougly equal players...

sometimes they might agree to a political settlement with no intention of keeping the agreement once the occupying force leaves...

sometimes the agreement itself can lead to problems (think iraqi constitution)...

i'm hoping for a political solution that is fair to all 3 sects and will lead to a lasting peace...

only the iraqis themselves can reach a political solution, though...

wrt to the necessity of military action in iraq, that horse is already out of the barn (so to speak)...

again you are no doubt correct that an outcome favorable to the u.s. cannot now be achieved without continued military action, together with political efforts...

it's obvious by now that we cannot end the military conflict in iraq without a military component...

and in the same vein, a miltary campain without a realistic political component cannot win in iraq (how long has it been now that we have been trying military action to win in iraq?)...

and the comments in my post were not aimed at you (i probably should have replied to the guy(s) who took that position and not quoted you...

but what happened is that your post triggered my thinking about this issue, and my post, once started just kinda rambled on all over the place...

again, my bad...

btw, how'd you get so smart without attending uva law school?

[redbrian]

$29 dollars a week can buy a lot of Diet Cokes
In his 2000 convention acceptance speech, Gore said the Bush tax cut would save the average family 62 cents a week ("enough for a diet coke"). He later clarified it and said 62 cents a day per family... which is still wrong. Even at 62 cents a day, that's only a little over $226 a year. Under the Bush tax plan, the average family would save $1500 -- $4.20 a day, which is almost $29 dollars a week.

Collecting cans for prescription drug benefits!
During the October 3, 2000 Presidential debate, Gore mentioned 79-year-old Winifred Skinner, who has become the campaign's mascot for his Medicare prescription-drug program. "In order to pay for her prescription drug benefits, she has to go out seven days a week, several hours a day, picking up cans ," Gore said. "She came all the way from Iowa in a Winnebago with her poodle in order to attend here tonight."
However, Skinner doesn't need to collect cans for her medication. Her son, Earl King, who formerly owned his own business and now lives on an 80-acre ranch and describes his lifestyle as "comfortable," has offered repeatedly to help her make ends meet. She continually declines his offers. In addition, the Winnebago Gore referred to, as well as the gas, was paid for by the Gore campaign. Five campaign workers accompanied Skinner, a longtime Democrat and former union organizer.
(Source: New York Post, October 5, 2000 "Gore's nose is growing again"; Washington Post, October 5, 2000, page A20)

I was there with James Lee Witt...oh, wait....
In the Presidential debate on October 3, 2000, Governor George W. Bush gave credit to the Federal Emergency Management Service (FEMA) for their work in Texas during fires and floods in Parker County. Vice President Al Gore said "I accompanied James Lee Witt down to Texas when those fires broke out." Carl Cameron, of Fox News first reported that Gore had not, in fact, been to Texas with Witt to look at the damage in Parker County. Gore WAS in Texas, but FEMA officials said Witt never went to Texas to deal with the 1998 fires.
To say that he was traveling with Witt implies strongly that Gore was traveling to a location in an official capacity. Gore was on his way to a fundraiser, and happened to run into FEMA people at the airport. The purpose of his trip was to attend a fundraiser, NOT to see the damage, as Gore implies. While Gore has accompanied Witt on other occasions, Gore didn't on this occasion, AND the purpose of this particular trip wasn't even connected with the disasters. Some claim Gore just "forgot" that Witt wasn't with him on this occasion... did Gore also forget the purpose of this particular trip?
"If James Lee was there before or after, then you know, I got that wrong then," Gore said on ABC's Good Morning America on October 4, 2000.
(Source: New York Post, October 5, 2000 "Gore's nose is growing again")

I was part of those discussions! Really!
At a Sept. 22 press conference, Gore stated "I've been a part of the discussions on the strategic reserve since the days when it was first established." However, President Ford established the Strategic Petroleum Reserves when he signed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) on December 22, 1975 — two years before Al Gore became a congressman
(Source: Washington Post, Sept. 24 2000)
(note: it was actually 13 months, not 2 years as the Post states)
Now, technically, 1975 was when it was declared U.S. policy to establish a reserve, but the reserve was not established (sites purchased or built, etc) until 1977, when Gore was in Congress. However, isn't this yet another case of "fuzzy wording"? Gore phrases the initial statement to give the impression that he was somehow responsible or "part of something" from the outset, but leaves wiggle room so that he can later justify the statement. And isn't saying he was part of "discussions on the strategic reserve" meant to leave the impression that he was was part of the planning process, prior to the sites being purchased, etc? Decide for yourself.

(One of my personal favorites)

A dog's health care costs less than my mother-in-law's!
Vice President Al Gore, reaching for a personal example to illustrate the breathtaking costs of some prescription drugs, told seniors in Florida that his mother-in-law pays nearly three times as much for the same arthritis medicine used for his ailing dog, Shiloh. "That's pretty bad when you have got to pretend to be a dog or a cat to get a price break" he stated. Gore's mother-in-law does pay more for her medication, but the generic brand of the drug, which 85% of Americans now use as a cheaper alternative, costs half as much, or one and a half times what it costs for the pooch - not three times. In addition, given the complexities of the marketplace, and the steps people take to get a better deal, it can work the other way around: Pets "pretending" to be humans. The Gore campaign also admitted that it lifted those costs not from his family's bills, but from a House Democratic study, and that Gore misused even those numbers: They represent the manufacturer's price to wholesalers, not the retail price of the brand-name product.
Drug costs often cost more for humans, though, because they are more heavily regulated. Jeff Trewhett, the spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America, said the higher costs for the human version of patented drugs is justified because the research, development, and approval costs can surpass $500 million per drug. But once the drug is approved for humans, the cost to test and approve it for animals is minimal, he said. Interestingly enough, Gore is proposing more regulations on on top of what we have now. Our food also costs 3 times as much as the dog's... will Gore say that we have to pretend to be dogs to get affordable food?
(Source: "Gore misstates facts in drug-cost pitch" Boston Globe, 9/18/2000 )

Dairy Farm Expert in a Day
Milwaukee, WI - "I'm very familiar with the importance of dairy farming in Wisconsin. I've spent the night on a dairy farm here in Wisconsin. If I'm entrusted with the presidency, you'll have someone who is very familiar with what the Wisconsin dairy industry is all about."
(Sources: Sunday, June 18, Atlanta Journal Constitution and The Washington Post, June 14, 2000)
Hey! I am an expert in hospital administration in NJ, and the hotel industry in several states - having spent more than one night there!


I can keep going if you like, Gore is an habitual liar and exaggerator, he weakens his points by utilizing lies and exaggerations.

[go bowe]

. . .

:eek: You realize that these things were said by the author presented in the OP and that I didn't have anything to do with it, don't you?short answer, yes...

[go bowe]

Link (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3701565&highlight=pathological+liar+bush#post3701565) ok some guy i've never heard of, on a site that is clearly either a joke or is at least an anti-bush, used those exact words...

again, i had never heard anyone calling the president a "pathological" liar before i read the article you linked to...

but that article is from a guy that is clearly out of touch with reality, who i'd never heard of, and whose credibilty apears to be pretty much zero...

color me thinking that although there may be some kooks who really belive that the president is a pathological liar, i still had not heard that phrase before...

and i don't view it as representative of mainstream voters in any way...

fwiw, it's mainly the use of the word pathological that really grinds my axe...

[redbrian]

ok some guy i've never heard of, on a site that is clearly either a joke or is at least an anti-bush, used those exact words...

again, i had never heard anyone calling the president a "pathological" liar before i read the article you linked to...

but that article is from a guy that is clearly out of touch with reality, who i'd never heard of, and whose credibilty apears to be pretty much zero...

color me thinking that although there may be some kooks who really belive that the president is a pathological liar, i still had not heard that phrase before...

and i don't view it as representative of mainstream voters in any way...

fwiw, it's mainly the use of the word pathological that really grinds my axe...



How about habitual liar when talking about Gore?

From my point of view pathological liar or habitual liar describes Gore to a T.

[noa]

How about habitual liar when talking about Gore?

From my point of view pathological liar or habitual liar describes Gore to a T.

To label him a liar implies that he knows he is wrong but is telling us his story anyway. I think Gore truly believes what he preaches. He might be wrong, but that doesn't make him a habitual liar.

[redbrian]

To label him a liar implies that he knows he is wrong but is telling us his story anyway. I think Gore truly believes what he preaches. He might be wrong, but that doesn't make him a habitual liar.

Go to post 22 and read some of his lies, they guy knew he was lying when he opened his mouth, if not then he is far dumber than Bush is perceived to be.

[noa]

Go to post 22 and read some of his lies, they guy knew he was lying when he opened his mouth, if not then he is far dumber than Bush is perceived to be.


Sorry, I hadn't read that post. I thought we were talking about his global warming statements. My bad.

[banyon]

These are pretty skewed analyses to use to try and brand someone a "liar". I'll address them one at a time.

$29 dollars a week can buy a lot of Diet Cokes
In his 2000 convention acceptance speech, Gore said the Bush tax cut would save the average family 62 cents a week ("enough for a diet coke"). He later clarified it and said 62 cents a day per family... which is still wrong. Even at 62 cents a day, that's only a little over $226 a year. Under the Bush tax plan, the average family would save $1500 -- $4.20 a day, which is almost $29 dollars a week.

As you probably know, there are several mathematical uses of "average". Did he mean "mean", "median" or "mode". Likely someone on his campaign staff prepared the figure for him, so he probably didn't know either, but any of the uses would be fair.

Collecting cans for prescription drug benefits!
During the October 3, 2000 Presidential debate, Gore mentioned 79-year-old Winifred Skinner, who has become the campaign's mascot for his Medicare prescription-drug program. "In order to pay for her prescription drug benefits, she has to go out seven days a week, several hours a day, picking up cans ," Gore said. "She came all the way from Iowa in a Winnebago with her poodle in order to attend here tonight."
However, Skinner doesn't need to collect cans for her medication. Her son, Earl King, who formerly owned his own business and now lives on an 80-acre ranch and describes his lifestyle as "comfortable," has offered repeatedly to help her make ends meet. She continually declines his offers. In addition, the Winnebago Gore referred to, as well as the gas, was paid for by the Gore campaign. Five campaign workers accompanied Skinner, a longtime Democrat and former union organizer.
(Source: New York Post, October 5, 2000 "Gore's nose is growing again"; Washington Post, October 5, 2000, page A20)

While a silly example on Gore's, it is still true that for Winifred Skinner (and not her son) to pay for her prescription drugs, she would have to earn extra income. The poor often refuse the charity of others. Surely there is someone like her without a fortunate relative. So, no. Not a "lie".

I was there with James Lee Witt...oh, wait....
In the Presidential debate on October 3, 2000, Governor George W. Bush gave credit to the Federal Emergency Management Service (FEMA) for their work in Texas during fires and floods in Parker County. Vice President Al Gore said "I accompanied James Lee Witt down to Texas when those fires broke out." Carl Cameron, of Fox News first reported that Gore had not, in fact, been to Texas with Witt to look at the damage in Parker County. Gore WAS in Texas, but FEMA officials said Witt never went to Texas to deal with the 1998 fires.
To say that he was traveling with Witt implies strongly that Gore was traveling to a location in an official capacity. Gore was on his way to a fundraiser, and happened to run into FEMA people at the airport. The purpose of his trip was to attend a fundraiser, NOT to see the damage, as Gore implies. While Gore has accompanied Witt on other occasions, Gore didn't on this occasion, AND the purpose of this particular trip wasn't even connected with the disasters. Some claim Gore just "forgot" that Witt wasn't with him on this occasion... did Gore also forget the purpose of this particular trip?
"If James Lee was there before or after, then you know, I got that wrong then," Gore said on ABC's Good Morning America on October 4, 2000.
(Source: New York Post, October 5, 2000 "Gore's nose is growing again")

This seems like a pretty detail oriented story, Gore may have forgotten that Witt himself was not with the FEMA personnel. Still, of the items you list, this is the most presentable as a "lie", though it certainly rings more of a "mistake" (which is a failing of memory and not bad intent).

I was part of those discussions! Really!
At a Sept. 22 press conference, Gore stated "I've been a part of the discussions on the strategic reserve since the days when it was first established." However, President Ford established the Strategic Petroleum Reserves when he signed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) on December 22, 1975 — two years before Al Gore became a congressman
(Source: Washington Post, Sept. 24 2000)
(note: it was actually 13 months, not 2 years as the Post states)
Now, technically, 1975 was when it was declared U.S. policy to establish a reserve, but the reserve was not established (sites purchased or built, etc) until 1977, when Gore was in Congress. However, isn't this yet another case of "fuzzy wording"? Gore phrases the initial statement to give the impression that he was somehow responsible or "part of something" from the outset, but leaves wiggle room so that he can later justify the statement. And isn't saying he was part of "discussions on the strategic reserve" meant to leave the impression that he was was part of the planning process, prior to the sites being purchased, etc? Decide for yourself.

On this one, he says he was there for discussions when the strategic reserve was first established. The author wants to make it sound like "established" would refer to the establishment of the policy as opposed to the actual implementation of the program. That's bizzare, IMO. That's like saying the US established the overthrow of Hussein when they came up with the idea rather than when they actually dismantled the Batthist regime. Also, besides discussions about whether or not to have a strategic reserve, surely there were discussions about the specific method in which to implement the reserve (which Gore could easily have been a part of). Lastly, of course, the phrase "early days" in a historical sense probably means that 13 months after the initial policy probably makes that term accurate no matter how the other language is interpreted or what happened. This one is weak.

(One of my personal favorites)

A dog's health care costs less than my mother-in-law's!
Vice President Al Gore, reaching for a personal example to illustrate the breathtaking costs of some prescription drugs, told seniors in Florida that his mother-in-law pays nearly three times as much for the same arthritis medicine used for his ailing dog, Shiloh. "That's pretty bad when you have got to pretend to be a dog or a cat to get a price break" he stated. Gore's mother-in-law does pay more for her medication, but the generic brand of the drug, which 85% of Americans now use as a cheaper alternative, costs half as much, or one and a half times what it costs for the pooch - not three times. In addition, given the complexities of the marketplace, and the steps people take to get a better deal, it can work the other way around: Pets "pretending" to be humans. The Gore campaign also admitted that it lifted those costs not from his family's bills, but from a House Democratic study, and that Gore misused even those numbers: They represent the manufacturer's price to wholesalers, not the retail price of the brand-name product.
Drug costs often cost more for humans, though, because they are more heavily regulated. Jeff Trewhett, the spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America, said the higher costs for the human version of patented drugs is justified because the research, development, and approval costs can surpass $500 million per drug. But once the drug is approved for humans, the cost to test and approve it for animals is minimal, he said. Interestingly enough, Gore is proposing more regulations on on top of what we have now. Our food also costs 3 times as much as the dog's... will Gore say that we have to pretend to be dogs to get affordable food?
(Source: "Gore misstates facts in drug-cost pitch" Boston Globe, 9/18/2000 )

So the manufacturer's price actually is 3 times higher for humans than animals? Then it does cost that. No lie. At best the number is 12-15% off.

Dairy Farm Expert in a Day
Milwaukee, WI - "I'm very familiar with the importance of dairy farming in Wisconsin. I've spent the night on a dairy farm here in Wisconsin. If I'm entrusted with the presidency, you'll have someone who is very familiar with what the Wisconsin dairy industry is all about."
(Sources: Sunday, June 18, Atlanta Journal Constitution and The Washington Post, June 14, 2000)
Hey! I am an expert in hospital administration in NJ, and the hotel industry in several states - having spent more than one night there!

Did he represent himself as an "expert" on dairy issues? No. He just said he was familiar with the issues and cited one personal example. He may have other less interesting examples like serving on certain Congressional comittee's etc. In any event, there's no "lie".

I can keep going if you like, Gore is an habitual liar and exaggerator, he weakens his points by utilizing lies and exaggerations.

Please, and did you come up with these yourself, or are they cut and pasted from a 2000 political website? I would guess so, since that's when all of the examples take place.

I'm no devotee of Gore, my biggest problem being the fact that he had 8 years in which to help shape American environmental policy while VP, but elected to hypocritically sit on his rear, pay lip service and do nothing. It's just that these examples are both petty and hardly indiciative of "lies". Good Christ if someone held Bush to this standard.

[Radar Chief]

To label him a liar implies that he knows he is wrong but is telling us his story anyway. I think Gore truly believes what he preaches. He might be wrong, but that doesn't make him a habitual liar.

Isn’t he a politician?
I thought be’n a liar was a prerequisite for the profession. :shrug:
Kinda like lawyers are self-serve’n ambulance chasers. ;)
And liberals are secretly French. ROFL

[patteeu]

i should not have used the term "most expensive"...

of course you're right about social security being more expensive, my bad...

my only excuse is that i was thinking about the two projects and nothing else at that moment...

i'd could use the excuse that i've had too much of a good thing :bong:

but that's not what caused the mistake (i'm almost always high by this time of the day and i usually don't post inaccurate stuff, so why would this day any differrent from any other day?)...

wrt political settlements of war, sure all wars end with a political settlement...

but there are different flavors of political settlement...

sometimes the parties to the conflict will make peace as rougly equal players...

sometimes they might agree to a political settlement with no intention of keeping the agreement once the occupying force leaves...

sometimes the agreement itself can lead to problems (think iraqi constitution)...

i'm hoping for a political solution that is fair to all 3 sects and will lead to a lasting peace...

only the iraqis themselves can reach a political solution, though...

wrt to the necessity of military action in iraq, that horse is already out of the barn (so to speak)...

again you are no doubt correct that an outcome favorable to the u.s. cannot now be achieved without continued military action, together with political efforts...

it's obvious by now that we cannot end the military conflict in iraq without a military component...

and in the same vein, a miltary campain without a realistic political component cannot win in iraq (how long has it been now that we have been trying military action to win in iraq?)...

and the comments in my post were not aimed at you (i probably should have replied to the guy(s) who took that position and not quoted you...

but what happened is that your post triggered my thinking about this issue, and my post, once started just kinda rambled on all over the place...

again, my bad...

LOL, Alrighty. I'm hoping for a political settlement that works for all 3 groups too. I think that would be best for the US.



btw, how'd you get so smart without attending uva law school?

LMAO Don't let Skye hear you talking like that.

[patteeu]

ok some guy i've never heard of, on a site that is clearly either a joke or is at least an anti-bush, used those exact words...

again, i had never heard anyone calling the president a "pathological" liar before i read the article you linked to...

but that article is from a guy that is clearly out of touch with reality, who i'd never heard of, and whose credibilty apears to be pretty much zero...

color me thinking that although there may be some kooks who really belive that the president is a pathological liar, i still had not heard that phrase before...

and i don't view it as representative of mainstream voters in any way...

fwiw, it's mainly the use of the word pathological that really grinds my axe...

There have been a lot of pretty annoying things that have been said about GWB (and even more importantly, Dick Cheney ;) ). I was actually surprised that GWB hadn't been called a "pathological liar" more often on this messageboard when I ran the search. I'm sure a google search would turn up quite a few hits, but I won't bother with it. I don't doubt you when you say you hadn't heard him called that before though. I'm sure you keep better company than that. :)

FWIW, I'm with you on the "Gore is a pathological liar" issue. He's a politician, but he's no more liar than the average politico and he doesn't rate the label "pathological" IMO. Don't ask me about Bill Clinton though.

[penchief]

There have been a lot of pretty annoying things that have been said about GWB (and even more importantly, Dick Cheney ;) ). I was actually surprised that GWB hadn't been called a "pathological liar" more often on this messageboard when I ran the search. I'm sure a google search would turn up quite a few hits, but I won't bother with it. I don't doubt you when you say you hadn't heard him called that before though. I'm sure you keep better company than that. :)

FWIW, I'm with you on the "Gore is a pathological liar" issue. He's a politician, but he's no more liar than the average politico and he doesn't rate the label "pathological" IMO. Don't ask me about Bill Clinton though.

I'm seriously beginning to wonder about Cheney, though.

[Ugly Duck]

Oh, please... Bjorn Lomborg? The guy has already been exposed as a fraud, nobody but the far right nutjobs take him seriously. He ain't no environmentalist... Greenpeace exposed him as a liar when he claimed to be a former member. Dr. Lomborg's degree is not in Environmental Science, its in Game Theory. Thats right... computer games. Real scientists may laugh at this phoney fraud, but righties love him cuz he sez wut they wanna hear. Geesh... Bjorn Lomborg - gimme a break!

[D2112]

Oh, please... Bjorn Lomborg? The guy has already been exposed as a fraud, nobody but the far right nutjobs take him seriously. He ain't no environmentalist... Greenpeace exposed him as a liar when he claimed to be a former member. Dr. Lomborg's degree is not in Environmental Science, its in Game Theory. Thats right... computer games. Real scientists may laugh at this phoney fraud, but righties love him cuz he sez wut they wanna hear. Geesh... Bjorn Lomborg - gimme a break!
I think ''ALGORE'' would now fit into the category of ''a far left wing nut job''..so..your nut job theory evens out in the end..

[Radar Chief]

Oh, please... Bjorn Lomborg? The guy has already been exposed as a fraud, nobody but the far right nutjobs take him seriously. He ain't no environmentalist... Greenpeace exposed him as a liar when he claimed to be a former member. Dr. Lomborg's degree is not in Environmental Science, its in Game Theory. Thats right... computer games. Real scientists may laugh at this phoney fraud, but righties love him cuz he sez wut they wanna hear. Geesh... Bjorn Lomborg - gimme a break!

Well, so much more to the point. If he’s such a fool, AG should’ve been able to easily school’im. But instead he shrunk from the challenge. Why? :shrug:

[noa]

Well, so much more to the point. If he’s such a fool, AG should’ve been able to easily school’im. But instead he shrunk from the challenge. Why? :shrug:


No one wants to get sandbagged in an interview, especially when you're touring to promote your book and movie. Its not a classy thing to do, but I'm sure Gore isn't the only politician who would back out of such circumstances.

[Radar Chief]

No one wants to get sandbagged in an interview, especially when you're touring to promote your book and movie. Its not a classy thing to do, but I'm sure Gore isn't the only politician who would back out of such circumstances.

True, but the article reads like AG knew all along what the deal was, that he’d be debate’n this other kook, and decided to back out at the last moment.

[pikesome]

FWIW, I'm with you on the "Gore is a pathological liar" issue. He's a politician, but he's no more liar than the average politico and he doesn't rate the label "pathological" IMO. Don't ask me about Bill Clinton though.

I'm beginning to wonder if you're listening to my conversations with my brother for the last 10 years. :) The kind of lying that Gore does is part of the toolbox for all politicians, its gotten more subtle over the years because its easier to nail the out right lies but this has been going on since the beginning of time.

[noa]

Pathological Liar Al Gore just got nominated for the Nobel Prize.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aitdeJI9Ezk0

[htismaqe]

You mean he was not instrumental in the creation of anything.

Well, there's the PMRC.

[kcfanintitanhell]

Pathological Liar Al Gore just got nominated for the Nobel Prize.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aitdeJI9Ezk0

I had a hunch this thread was gonna start dropping like a paralyzed falcon once this news was announced...who woulda thunk...the two presidential candidates in 2000...now, in 2007,one up for a Nobel Prize, and, an Academy Award.
The other?

[go bowe]

[/size][/b]

[/size]

Want me to keep going?

Bush gets called a liar for making statements like these.....does Al get a free pass?sure...

he's an unsuccessful candidate for president, also known as largely irelevant...

surely you wouldn't want to stoop to the level of a jaz or even worse (think meme), by mimicking their tactics...

now making fun of them is fun and praiseworthy, don't get me wrong...

but yeah, al gets a free pass, at least for now...

[BucEyedPea]

I had a hunch this thread was gonna start dropping like a paralyzed falcon once this news was announced...who woulda thunk...the two presidential candidates in 2000...now, in 2007,one up for a Nobel Prize, and, an Academy Award.
The other?
Yassar Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994!
Not one of our politicians but it doesn't do much to validate him for me.
They can be wrong sometimes.

And an Academy Award? Those guys are mostly liberal and political correctness does have something to do with who wins their movie awards. It's entirely subjective. Surely you'd know that by now.

[mlyonsd]

sure...

he's an unsuccessful candidate for president, also known as largely irelevant...

surely you wouldn't want to stoop to the level of a jaz or even worse (think meme), by mimicking their tactics...

now making fun of them is fun and praiseworthy, don't get me wrong...

but yeah, al gets a free pass, at least for now...

I never said Al and his followers weren't a great source of amusement.

Especially when he or his followers still pretend Bush stole the election. That tickles me to no end.

[mlyonsd]

I had a hunch this thread was gonna start dropping like a paralyzed falcon once this news was announced...who woulda thunk...the two presidential candidates in 2000...now, in 2007,one up for a Nobel Prize, and, an Academy Award.
The other?

When Al's up on the Oscar podium he'd better thank Katherine Harris.

[Radar Chief]

I had a hunch this thread was gonna start dropping like a paralyzed falcon once this news was announced...who woulda thunk...the two presidential candidates in 2000...now, in 2007,one up for a Nobel Prize, and, an Academy Award.
The other?

Uh, this topic was already pretty much dead. The last post before noa949 dropped this news was a week ago. So, before you go pat’n yourself on the back for those prognosticate’n skills, you should probably add that bit of information.
Another little inconvenient fact for you to ponder, the Nobel Association doesn’t announce who’s been nominated. So, where is this come’n from? Certainly not them. :hmmm:

But wait, look who else has been nominated.


Landmark Legal Foundation Nominates Rush Limbaugh for 2007 Nobel Peace Prize

Limbaugh called 'the foremost advocate for freedom and democracy in the world today'

Link (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-01-2007/0004518421&EDATE=)


:LOL: ROFL PBJ :thumb:

[mlyonsd]

Uh, this topic was already pretty much dead. The last post before noa949 dropped this news was a week ago. So, before you go pat’n yourself on the back for those prognosticate’n skills, you should probably add that bit of information.
Another little inconvenient fact for you to ponder, the Nobel Association doesn’t announce who’s been nominated. So, where is this come’n from? Certainly not them. :hmmm:

But wait, look who else has been nominated.



Link (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-01-2007/0004518421&EDATE=)


:LOL: ROFL PBJ :thumb:

ROFL

[D2112]

Uh, this topic was already pretty much dead. The last post before noa949 dropped this news was a week ago. So, before you go pat’n yourself on the back for those prognosticate’n skills, you should probably add that bit of information.
Another little inconvenient fact for you to ponder, the Nobel Association doesn’t announce who’s been nominated. So, where is this come’n from? Certainly not them. :hmmm:

But wait, look who else has been nominated.



Link (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-01-2007/0004518421&EDATE=)


:LOL: ROFL PBJ :thumb:
ROFL

[Ugly Duck]

If he’s such a fool, AG should’ve been able to easily school’im. But instead he shrunk from the challenge. Why? :shrug:Its kinda like when one of those idiots runs out onto the football field during a game. The real players don't actually let the nutcase play football, they just wait for security to cuff the kook & remove him.

[tiptap]

I don't find most of the people on this board well versed in science. To expect people to be able to resolve the merits of the science and not be confused by rhetoric on the subject.

The scientist that deal with climate, meterologists, geologists, etc are so overwhelmingly convinced of the science.

The recent meeting of Geophysicists in San Francisco put their reputations on the line voting overwhelmingly stating GW was real of of human action.

[go bowe]

[/size][/b]

[/size]

Want me to keep going?

Bush gets called a liar for making statements like these.....does Al get a free pass?oh, c'mon...

the president gets called lots of things (it is a fundamental part of being president, imo)...

ttbomk, i have never called the president a liar, let alone a pathological liar...

besides, clinton was impeached for lying (supposedly)...

should we impeach president bush also?

neither of them are pathological liars, imo...

and no al doesn't get a free pass, but is it right to use the same tactics against him that fringe elements of the democratic party have used for to attack the president over the past 6 years?

[mlyonsd]

oh, c'mon...

the president gets called lots of things (it is a fundamental part of being president, imo)...

ttbomk, i have never called the president a liar, let alone a pathological liar...

besides, clinton was impeached for lying (supposedly)...

should we impeach president bush also?

neither of them are pathological liars, imo...

and no al doesn't get a free pass, but is it right to use the same tactics against him that fringe elements of the democratic party have used for to attack the president over the past 6 years?

Just pointing out the facts man. Hypocrisy is amusing.

[go bowe]

I never said Al and his followers weren't a great source of amusement.

Especially when he or his followers still pretend Bush stole the election. That tickles me to no end.the president didn't steal the election...

he won the election...

with just a little help from the supremes...

the supremes actually elected the president...

if a democrat wins the next presidential election, i would expect to see a number of supreme court justices retire and be replaced with moderates (if rudy wins) or liberals (if obama is elected)...

if hillary actually got elected, she would probably nominate moderates who are pro-choice...

of course, this assumes that the democrats will hold on to the senate so they will have the votes to confirm new justices...

[mlyonsd]

the president didn't steal the election...

he won the election...

with just a little help from the supremes...

the supremes actually elected the president...

if a democrat wins the next presidential election, i would expect to see a number of supreme court justices retire and be replaced with moderates (if rudy wins) or liberals (if obama is elected)...

if hillary actually got elected, she would probably nominate moderates who are pro-choice...

of course, this assumes that the democrats will hold on to the senate so they will have the votes to confirm new justices...

Actually after all the votes were counted the people elected Bush and the SC just upheld the law.

I agree on your SC predictions though.

[BucEyedPea]

I don't find most of the people on this board well versed in science. To expect people to be able to resolve the merits of the science and not be confused by rhetoric on the subject.

The scientist that deal with climate, meterologists, geologists, etc are so overwhelmingly convinced of the science.

The recent meeting of Geophysicists in San Francisco put their reputations on the line voting overwhelmingly stating GW was real of of human action. Most of the voting public isn't either. It's true we have to defer to experts on certain things, but there is also a danger relying on altitude and authoritarianism by constantly citing the refrain of "scientists" as a generality think such and such.

What one can do is research or read to see that there are alternate views and one can see that there is no consensus among climatologists and meteorologists but there is one in academia, media, the left and enviro activists. The other thing that can be done is weigh the solutions and what groups are offering such solutions.

[go bowe]

Just pointing out the facts man. Hypocrisy is amusing.amusing is good...

but hypocricy is an overused term, imo...

people can change their minds based on better information...

but that doesn't equal hypocrisy...

imo, being able to change your mind shows a degree of intellectual flexibility/intellectual curiosity as opposed to adherence to any particular ideology no matter what it may be...

[bunnytrdr]

Wait, are we talking about global warming or the war in Iraq?I had a lady once claim that the bombs going off in Lebanon, of course it was on TV every day for 2 weeks at the time, was the cause of California's heat wave last summer.

Feeble sheep.

[bunnytrdr]

the president didn't steal the election...

he won the election...

with just a little help from the supremes...

the supremes actually elected the president...

if a democrat wins the next presidential election, i would expect to see a number of supreme court justices retire and be replaced with moderates (if rudy wins) or liberals (if obama is elected)...

if hillary actually got elected, she would probably nominate moderates who are pro-choice...

of course, this assumes that the democrats will hold on to the senate so they will have the votes to confirm new justices...If the Senate doesn't go 60 Dems to 40 R's, then they ought to fillibuster every single nominee just to pay the Dems back for doing it to us.

There is a reason that they never did that as a tradition of good will. Which party broke that tradition?

[pikesome]

If the Senate doesn't go 60 Dems to 40 R's, then they ought to fillibuster every single nominee just to pay the Dems back for doing it to us.

There is a reason that they never did that as a tradition of good will. Which party broke that tradition?

I would hope the Reps wouldn't stoop, I thought it was kind of chicken shit when the Dems did it. I'm not going to like it any better if the Reps do the same.

[Radar Chief]

Its kinda like when one of those idiots runs out onto the football field during a game. The real players don't actually let the nutcase play football, they just wait for security to cuff the kook & remove him.

Heh, that’s actually happened during a Chiefs game. Last time it happened, Tim Grunhard, IIRC, made sure he crossed paths with the guy, dropped a shoulder pad into’is chest and put the “nutcase” on’is ass. Then walked off laugh’n while security cuffed then marched said “nutcase” off the field.
Just because a “nutcase” doesn’t belong on the field doesn’t mean the real players run from’im either. ;)

[go bowe]

If the Senate doesn't go 60 Dems to 40 R's, then they ought to fillibuster every single nominee just to pay the Dems back for doing it to us.

There is a reason that they never did that as a tradition of good will. Which party broke that tradition?filibusters of supreme court justices started with the republicans when abe fortas was nominated for chief justice...

that was the first time, insofar as i know, that a filibuster was used against a supreme court nominee...

so, it was the republicans who broke the tradition first...

can you cite an example where the nomination of a supreme court justice was actually filibustered by the democrats?

please keep in mind that preventing a floor vote by tying a nomination up in committe is NOT a filibuster...