Barak Obama - Heir Apparant

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek "But isn't the message a noble one and, therefore, a worthy cause despite these few inaccuracies?" I suppose so. By the same token, there should be no criticism of George W. Bush and the War in Iraq. So what if he "exaggerated" the claims of WoMD? Isn't the goal of removing a tyrannical dictator who is slaughtering innocent citizens a worthy one? So let's just agree that the end justifies the means, even if the message is twisted and tainted to achieve that end? NO? I didn't think so.

But the difference here is he didn't exaggerate the claims, there were simply none. Now, if he said there were 20 WMD's and we found 10 i'd be like "Well, there weren't as many as he claimed, but we did find some and thank god we acted when we did". In the global warming case, despite the inaccuracies, most people still agree that it is an issue and acting on it would be prudent.

[robertthebard]

This just in:

Volcanoes are the cause of Global Climate Change!!! News at 11.



sorry, my meds made me do it.

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

ashes, ashes, we all get tumahs'!

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior But the difference here is he didn't exaggerate the claims, there were simply none. Now, if he said there were 20 WMD's and we found 10 i'd be like "Well, there weren't as many as he claimed, but we did find some and thank god we acted when we did". In the global warming case, despite the inaccuracies, most people still agree that it is an issue and acting on it would be prudent.

Saddam slaughtering innocent citizens was still an issue and it was prudent to act upon it.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek Saddam slaughtering innocent citizens was still an issue and it was prudent to act upon it.

But that wasn't the reason given to go in there, which is why most Americans are unhappy with the war etc because they were misled and only agreed on going in, with the condition that we find and destroy these WMD's. I think it is quite different, as there are many issues with Iraq and dictatorships, UN approval etc.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior But that wasn't the reason given to go in there, which is why most Americans are unhappy with the war etc because they were misled and only agreed on going in, with the condition that we find and destroy these WMD's. I think it is quite different, as there are many issues with Iraq and dictatorships, UN approval etc.

And Al Gore has admitted lying about the actual danger of global warming. Add to that the fact that the British court documented the 9 proven inaccuracies in his film.

Bush lied about WoMD because he felt the goal of removing Saddam Hussein was noble and worthy. Al Gore lies about the true danger of global warming for the same reason.

The point is the same in both cases. Nobody denies that removing Saddam Hussein was a worthy objective. Nobody denies being environmentally friendly is a noble endeavor. However, the message concerning both of these objectives was twisted and tainted for the "greater good" by the person delivering the message.

You earlier posted....
I don't understand it, what does it matter if all the smears are true? Isn't the overall message noble, selfless? Would it hurt to make people, our kids and our grandkids aware? Do we suddenly stop listening to that song we love if the artist says something we don't agree with?

You've stated directly and indirectly that it doesn't matter if Al Gore lied, his message is still noble overall. I'm merely pointing out another example of a misleading message being given to justify a noble cause. If the smears don't matter in one message, then they don't matter in the other. On the other hand, if the cause is damaged by the misleading message in one, the same is true for the other.

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

I feel you also overstated or overreacted to what I said earlier. I know you took offense and I apologized via PM. I don't know if you have looked it yet or not; you didn't respond. Then, in a later post you admitted that we should be "responsible". That's all I was saying. We would be foolish to think that there is no problem.

I've been upset about it since you posted your response. You could have at least accepted my apology and let us carry on. I feel we're close enough on this forum that we can express ourselves and even fall under rebuke and correction, but in the end we carry on as friends.
I know I don't need to tell you that forgiveness is seventy times seven time Matthew 18:21-35: and "Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you", from Colossians 3:13.

People get passionate about things are go to far, or overstate things. That's exactly what we're talking about here.

[Felix The Assassin]

Many cannot agree upon a few ideals. But few disagree with one scientific break through. Carbon dating.

Analytically speaking, if exhibit A is carbon dated to an era before man, then how does it arrive back to man? Have we disregarded plate tectonics in our search for global warming?

What about continental drift, as presented by the German geophysicist, Alfred Wegener, from his model called "Pangaea"? Furthermore, by following his hypothesis is not clear that South East Georgia, and North East Florida is in fact changing to match from it's jigsaw cut? Recall that this region was attached to Africa in the area of modern day Morocco and Western Sahara, which are home to the Sahara desert. IIRC, both of these areas have seen mass drought, deforestation from dry conditions and increased wildfire over the last several years.

Moreover, I feel the human effect has placed a demand on the total climate that may or may not be changeable in the foreseeable future. What I do have an interest in, and follow closely is what the Greeks are reporting about deterioration of their ancient historical relics. It appears that scientists over the years have recorded deterioration levels and have made some hypothesis that an increase can be traced to a significant event. The automobile, and man made pollutants. One such hypothesis is that over the last 50-60 years, the measurable increase of carbon dioxide has propelled the deterioration process into previously unrecorded stages. To me, this places man at the center of cause, and the effect is a change of climate that has only been rarely recorded in history. All of which is based upon, carbon dating.

I theorize that Al Gore is making bank on scare tactics and is selling a future called carbon credits that allow some to feel at ease because he received an award about publicizing previously documented historical research that many already are aware of. In fact, many movies of recent blockbuster status feature this phenomenon, could it be, we are headed into a historically documented but unpredictable change to the physical environment that many know as, an "Ice Age"?

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek And Al Gore has admitted lying about the actual danger of global warming. Add to that the fact that the British court documented the 9 proven inaccuracies in his film. Bush lied about WoMD because he felt the goal of removing Saddam Hussein was noble and worthy. Al Gore lies about the true danger of global warming for the same reason. The point is the same in both cases. Nobody denies that removing Saddam Hussein was a worthy objective. Nobody denies being environmentally friendly is a noble endeavor. However, the message concerning both of these objectives was twisted and tainted for the "greater good" by the person delivering the message. You earlier posted.... I don't understand it, what does it matter if all the smears are true? Isn't the overall message noble, selfless? Would it hurt to make people, our kids and our grandkids aware? Do we suddenly stop listening to that song we love if the artist says something we don't agree with? You've stated directly and indirectly that it doesn't matter if Al Gore lied, his message is still noble overall. I'm merely pointing out another example of a misleading message being given to justify a noble cause. If the smears don't matter in one message, then they don't matter in the other. On the other hand, if the cause is damaged by the misleading message in one, the same is true for the other.

But, he lied about one thing to get another thing entirely. What was untrue or inaccurate in Al Gore's movie, doesn't change the overall message. The message didn't for example, suddenly turn into "Let's attack Russia" from "Global warming is destroying our planet". People feel bush did a complete number on them. I feel Al Gore didn't, as the fact still remains that global warming is a huge threat.

The only way we could say that these situations are/were similiar is if I go back to my earlier example. If we were told there were 20 WMD's and we ended up with 10 I would say "Well, his info. had some inacuraccies in it but overall he was correct. There were WMD's and that's what we were told and that's what we got". Instead, we got none, but were told that Saddam was better off dead anyways. Can I get a 'Wtf was that about?'.

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior But, he lied about one thing to get another thing entirely. What was untrue or inaccurate in Al Gore's movie, doesn't change the overall message. The message didn't for example, suddenly turn into "Let's attack Russia" from "Global warming is destroying our planet". People feel bush did a complete number on them. I feel Al Gore didn't, as the fact still remains that global warming is a huge threat. The only way we could say that these situations are/were similiar is if I go back to my earlier example. If we were told there were 20 WMD's and we ended up with 10 I would say "Well, his info. had some inacuraccies in it but overall he was correct. There were WMD's and that's what we were told and that's what we got". Instead, we got none, but were told that Saddam was better off dead anyways. Can I get a 'Wtf was that about?'.

Yes, of course you can.

"Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) announced Wednesday the finding of over 500 munitions or weapons of mass destruction, specifically "sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles," in Iraq.

Reading from unclassified portions of a document developed by the U.S. intelligence community, Santorum said, "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.""