Guthrie

Again, you are wrong about the symptoms occuring because of medication instead of without it. No, I am not wrong, you seem to not understand the black and white of your own sources. maybe you can understand this: CBS News Who's wrong now, Charlie???

Perhaps you should deal with the issue at hand instead of 10 year old recounts of other events. Is there anything in his book about that ad???

Actually, it's another lie. The symptoms he was displaying occured because of the medication he was taking. The stuff is difficult to accurately dose and can easily be influenced by body and mind conditions. once again, Rush viewers are more likely to hold incorrect views on news items and world events Guthrie, you are wrong, you'll have to take it up with Michael J. Fox. He reveals in his own book, Lucky man, that he appeared in front of a senate committe without medication so his appearance would have more impact. Those are the facts, in black and white. No, not even close. This dittoheaded pantload is even less credible than WMD.

We'd also all be job free. Do you not realise how much of Canada's economy is directly and indirectly attributed to fossil fuels? That's all we have going for us right now. It's not *cheap* to switch when you calculate the lost incomes, lost social programs (for you lefties), ect. ect.. How many buggy whip makers are there in Canada? - You managed to switch from buggy industries, eh? trying to stop progress by saying it's going to cost jobs is just the very definition of Luddite "lost income, lost social programs" - actually there will be a net job increase and no effect on social programs at all -

... Both Harrimans and Bush were partners in the New York investment firm of Brown Brothers, Harriman and Co., which handled the financial transactions of the bank as well as other financial dealings with several other companies linked to Bank voor Handel that were confiscated by the U.S. government during World War II. Union Banking was seized by the government in October 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act (search). No charges were brought against Union Banking's American directors. The federal government was too busy trying to fight the war, said Donald Goldstein, a professor of public and international affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. "We did not have the resources to do these things," Goldstein said. ...

World events? Fact is his ad was purposely influenced my medication manipulation. That manipulation was rightly pointed out by Limbaugh, and was overlooked elsewhere. Fact is, he points out manipulations and bias of the media all the time. As far as holding incorrect views, more likely the opposite. Tinfoil hat Alert!!!!

No, there are many more things wrong with GM foods. GM Soy beans produce a lower yield than non GM soy beans and the real problem is the GM crap is infecting natural crops GM is not a panacaea nor are the people studying it or peddling it nearly so careful as they should be.

Denver Post

Why have Bulgarians supported Naziism? they were forced into it? they were under the influence of the Imperius Curse?

Actually, it's another lie. The symptoms he was displaying occured because of the medication he was taking. The stuff is difficult to accurately dose and can easily be influenced by body and mind conditions. once again, Rush viewers are more likely to hold incorrect views on news items and world events

Boy, talk about your dry as dust sarcasm. Powerful friends like Russert But he will not get fired because he is liberal :D Actually, Imus is liberal

first, you should learn to read the dictionary

Wind power in Alberta is maxed out, anymore would risk system stability without additional import or fossil fuel generation capability. Building windmills is nice (well, not for the thousands of birds and bats they slaughter, but hey, who cares about the birds), but you need to build a coal plant at the same time for when the wind isn't blowing. There is no practical way to have 100% emissions free generation unless you go with nuclear... which is not feasible because of a limited fuel supply and the issue of how to get rid of waste that remains toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. between all the available alternative methods of producing electricity, OTEC, wave, geothermal, solar etc - we could be 70% emissions free in a matter of months -- Germany has a nice program for clean energy.

Dear Don, Welcome to Oblivion.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100474,00.html

If you had only emphasized the one you were using, I wouldn't have objected. However, you omitted the one that contradicted you altogether. Selective citing is as dishonest as making up facts. Bullroar -- that omission meant nothing - I offered the definition I was referring to, so what --- the only question is whether I used a legitimate definition or not --- and my definition is legitimate you poor whiney bast**ds need to get over yourselves - argue legitimate points or shut up - this kind of semantic drivel is not a discussion

This discussion on language, from Imus to Hip-hop, is important for society. Starting any significant discussion in society often means someone is taking a boot or two in the nuts. I can't think of a better guy to take those kicks than Don Imus.

Na·zi (nät'sē, nāt'-) Pronunciation Key n. pl. Na·zis 1. A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, founded in Germany in 1919 and brought to power in 1933 under Adolf Hitler. 2. often nazi An adherent or advocate of policies characteristic of Nazism; a fascist. and did you bother reading the other definitions from other reference books? I found it curious that you would exclude the first definition (you know why it's listed first, right?) but then bold the definition that suited your purpose. Just thought I'd point it out. I emphasized that definition because it is the one I was using. Is there something wrong with showing a definition that supports my position? get real

Link

yes this is interesting, you know I always thought the definition of Luddite was someone who was afraid of change. Isn't that what the argument is all about, we need to change our ways so exactly who are the luddites, the ones who want to keep the so called status quo. there are right wingers posting on this very forum who like to use big words, even when they really don't know what they mean aside from exposing them as not being as educated as they claim, it really kills a genuine debate when we are caught up in educating some moron about words he misuses and can't seem to understand, even when given clear explanations of his error Exempting yours of course. LOL Exempting? -- sure, you right wing clowns have granted me lots of exemptions --- I just can't think of any, right now perhaps you can pick up my slack on this

it's getting laughable in here too bad the issue is one of life and death for the planet

We can produce some power with with wind, however, wind power is unreliable and can never replace capacity generated from conventional sources. The supply of hydropower is limited and not sufficient to replace our current needs (nevermind the huge additional capacity that would be required to support electric cars).The bottom line is we cannot create enough electricity to meet our needs without creating pollution. So which do you prefer: GHGs from coal and gas, radioactive waste from nuclear plants or toxi waste from spent solar cells? again, flat out wrong --- the real bottom line is we can create enough electricity to meet our needs without causing pollution - and what is it that keeps us from doing so? fools who are trapped in backward thinking and luddite devotion to technologies that no longer serve, but in fact, hinder and hold back mankind

yes this is interesting, you know I always thought the definition of Luddite was someone who was afraid of change. Isn't that what the argument is all about, we need to change our ways so exactly who are the luddites, the ones who want to keep the so called status quo. there are right wingers posting on this very forum who like to use big words, even when they really don't know what they mean aside from exposing them as not being as educated as they claim, it really kills a genuine debate when we are caught up in educating some moron about words he misuses and can't seem to understand, even when given clear explanations of his error

http://www.energyvortex.com/pages/headline...ils.cfm?id=1525

A technical impossibility. All forms of energy generation produce pollution which means we have to choose our poison: toxic waste or GHGs. We are running out of natural gas in north america (the cleanest fuel used to create electricity). We can import what we need from Russia but that is politically dangerous. That means coal is the only practical option for electricity generation in the long term. Flat out wrong, top to bottom. We are currently producing a percentage of electricity without pollution. Denials of it are not just false but show a real ignorance of what is going on in the world.