gc1765

So, agnostics get off scot-free?

The title of the thread is "Al Gore"...at least we are keeping somewhat on topic

Then shouldn't it be up to homosexuals to question homosexuality?

And Michael Bluth tops the list with three times as many posts as anyone else... Where are the cries from sharkman that Michael Bluth is monopolizing this thread?

No, I'm suggesting there are people on this forum who, it appears to me, don't think that the church should be questioned on this issue...unless of course those people wish to correct me and state that it's perfectly acceptable for people on this message board to question why the church might discriminate against gays.

Does that mean we are not allowed to be critical of PETA for being against the seal hunt? Are we not allowed to question why PETA even cares about seal hunting in the first place?

You think you know exactly how the government acted (or didn't act) in response to terrorism better than someone who was actually on the inside, working for the government as the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counterterrorism?

Read the book.

And if a group of people who happens to believe that thinking homosexuality is a sin is wrong, wishes to post on an internet message board about this, that is their business. Most people in the church don't want to be homosexuals, so why do certain members of the church care about it?

Nor would we have a problem with antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

The simple answer is that it is the most energetically favourable. For what purpose would elements in a tennis ball roll down a hill when they could stay at the top of the hill?

Kimmy, that was a hilarious post. Thanks.

So, are the people on the show dimwitted fools or not? I'm confused because earlier you said they were, but after I brought up George Bush, you seem to be saying that they aren't.

This is exactly what the fearmongers do with facts. I said nothing of the sort. You took it and added your bias and made it into something it is not. Then answer my question...

So I take it that you agree with me that a "lie" is different from an "overrepresentation of facts"

sharkman is a brillant poster sharkman is a brilliant poster sharkman is a brilliant poster sharkman is a brillant poster sharkman is a brilliant poster sharkman is a brilliant poster Would you call that a lie, or an over-representation of facts? Or both?

Well, what is your answer? Is he a dimwitted fool or not? If your answer is no, that would seem to suggest that even relatively smart people make stupid mistakes. I know I make a lot of them...heck, you could make a pretty funny show out if it

Sounded to me like he was criticizing jdobbin for having a pro-Liberal/anti-Conservative bias. Perhaps I am misinterpreting here, but it seems strange for someone like sharkman to accuse another poster of bias.

see above

Yes, of course, "lie" and "factual" mean the same thing

Link Yushchenko! Yuschenko! I hope he wins.

What exactly is your criticism here? A lot of people post in federal politics. Some of them are Liberals, and some of them are Conservatives. If anything, the Conservatives outnumber the Liberals. So, if you have no problem with people posting anti-Liberal comments, why should it be a problem to post anti-Conservative comments?

I recommend This Book , which thorougly debunks that myth.

With all those criticisms against Al Gore, it makes me wonder why anyone would have to "invent" criticisms? Then again, considering how much of a blatant lie the criticism that Al Gore claimed to invent the internet is, it makes me wonder whether any of the above are not also more lies. Can you show me where Al Gore said it's ok to lie about global warming? And try to get actual quotes rather than changing words around as B. Max has done.

Are you suggesting that George Bush is a dimwitted fool?