Gore made it

[1948berg]

Originally Posted by cp1969
Thomas Sowell wrote a book called "The Vision of the Anointed" which describes perfectly what is taking place right now with this thing that has seemingly taken on a life of its own that we know as "Global Warming."

First, the politicians (or whomever stands to gain from it) begin clammoring for action against a "crisis" of some sort without bothering to show how this situation is either uniquely bad or threatening to get worse.

Second, when enough people have bought into the notion that a crisis exists, then solutions are proposed in which a beneficial result is promised. Usually the people sold on the crisis have bought into the idea not because it was a well thought, reasoned argument but rather because of the prominence of the presenter. Al Gore is a perfect example of this. He isn't a scientist; nor does he himself lead by example by minimizing his own contribution to this "crisis."

Third, the proposals are instituted and negative results occur.

Fourth, any one who dares criticize the negative results are deemed to be unable to understand the complexities of the problem, or an explanation is offered something along the lines of "Think how bad things would have become had we not acted when we did!"

There is no better example than the "War on Poverty" which was a total, abysmal failure yet it continues to this day despite the fact that poverty was actually decreasing before the War on Poverty was instituted and has done nothing but increase since.

If we can't win the war on poverty, what chance do we have against Mother Nature?

"Very well said."

Eddie

Will you use this setup on the war in Iraq?

 

[shvl73]

Will you use this setup on the war in Iraq?

The question posed is likely to receive varied responses that will most likely get this thread closed.
Does this really seem like the place to have such a discussion?

 

[AndyMA]

Didn't I just read an article that Al Gore "Algor" uses over $20,000 worth of electricity at his house?
He's such a hypocrit.

Andy
.

 

[cp1969]

In response to Gunnar's question

Will you use this setup on the war in Iraq?

, the blunt, honest answer is 'Yes.' The technique described by Thomas Sowell knows no party lines and George Bush is, by definition, one of the 'Anointed'.

But given that, there has been at least some positive benefit from the Iraq war. First, in GW's defense, he was fed some incredibly bad intelligence. I might add that members of Congress saw and read the same intellegence and bought it hook, line, and sinker as well. (My opinion is that the Intelligence gathering community in our government needs a complete overhaul. Plus, what makes us think the intelligence we're getting now is any better?? Such as, do we REALLY know what's going on in Iran or is this just an instant replay of the garbage we got on Iraq? It is almost as if Iran is baiting us to make us act like the World bully it claims we are. Can you imagine if we invade Iran and find....nothing? Or bomb Natanz and it turns out to be an empty concrete box?

But here is a question for you: Is there anyone on this board that feels that once we found out our intelligence was wrong, we should have said, "Ooops! Our mistake! Here, let's reinstall Mr. Hussein in power." Would the world be a better place with Hussein in control of Iraq today? I don't know but I doubt it. It seems to me that the Iraq war is used by many simply as a convenient tool to bash the President because they hate his guts which was no different that what was done to President Clinton when he was in office. Turn about is fair play, I guess is the mode of the day. If my guy doesn't get elected, I am obliged to hate the other party's guy's guts.

While I am rambling about Iraq, am I the only one who feels that the number of troops in Iraq is the military's business and not Congress OR the President's? My concept of how this should work is that once the military is given a job to do, THEY decide how many troops it will take to finish that job, not some bunch of fat, bald, suit-with-shiny-butt-from-being-sat-upon in incessant meetings pack of slobs. By denying any increase in numbers, are we not saying to those troops already over there that "You can't have any help?"

Enough about Iraq. Bottom line is, yes, the same flim-flam bill of goods was sold in Iraq. The difference is the flim flam men, in my opinion, were the intelligence agencies. Bush is stuck with trying to make their recommendation work. Either that or pack up and get out which will lead to who knows what kind of government taking root in Iraq. Bad situation that can only be made worse by Congressional tinkering.

What's this all got to do with The Crisis Known as Global Warming? Nothing. And please don't respond here to any of my ramblings. Let's start a different thread about them.

edit: shvl73, I agree completely. Your post wasn't there when I hit submit on this one.

 

[Jstpssng]

The question posed is likely to receive varied responses that will most likely get this thread closed.
Does this really seem like the place to have such a discussion?

Agreed. That's why I didn't respond to the question.