B. Max

It does fit your agenda doesnt it? Well good for you. I would think the truth would be better in your post, but obviously you dont. Oh well ...continue on then. Agenda of truth.

So, why use the word invent? Why not quote what he actually said? because it fits.

How would I know. I don't know that your claim is true. That you can't tell right from wrong doesn't add any credibility to anything you say, and your slander of those who do know right from wrong only diminishes you.

No it's not, because he never claimed to invent the internet. What you are trying to do is exactly what is written in your link: "What's really interesting is that everyone from blogs to respectable news organizations repeated the quote using the word "invented" which was misleading and inaccurate. It's like a huge game of Chinese Whispers (Telephone)." I'm not trying to do anything. He claimed to have invented the internet.

Sex is filth? I feel sorry for you. That aside, perhgaps you can tell me why countries like France, Germany and Holland, where sexuality is discussed openly and where comprehensive sex education is the norm fare better in all categories (teenage pregnancy, birth, and sexually transmitted diseases) than places where frank sex talk is a subject of controversy and political resitance (ie. England and North America). Inquiring cultural marxists want to know. No I never said that, and like the porn pushers and filth merchants you don't know the difference between sex, and what is just plain filth. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54708

Wow the church of reality and atheist religion.

No, not really. He wasn't claiming to invent the nuts and bolts but the idea. So it is legitimate to say he claimed to have invented the internet.

Carter worst president from Investor's Business Daily. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/5/...5026.shtml?s=ic

I've never heard that it was true that he made the claim. Perhaps you can show me where he said "I INVENTED the internet?" I never new how the story started but a little bit of looking turned up this. http://www.timberfish.com/blog/2007/03/al_...he_internet.php

Bush Orders Secret War Against Iran Not much of a secret. The NYT will be pissed that someone else beat them to the punch and divulged what seems to be national security matters.

I've heard the number since R.v W is thirty million and counting. As far as activist judges, I believe judicial watch would disagree with you on that. Not all activists judges who one would consider as none constructionist are in the supreme court and most cases never make it to the SC. It also goes beyond judges to congress and I believe the first attempt to undermine the constitution and republican form of government was committed by a state. I'm trying to think of the name of a book that details this, and I can't. So I'll just post this anyway and when I do remember it I'll tell you.

Are you telling me you didn't understand what he meant? I can't believe people still bring this up. There are a lot of things to criticize Gore for, no need to make stuff up. I've never heard that it wasn't true that he made the claim.

Does anyone actually believe that? Believe what, that he claimed he did, or believe that he did.

Yeah Gore the man who claimed to have invented the internet, made a science fiction movie which he tried to pawn off as reality. I guess one could say he knows something about deception.

Heaven forefend!!! What Canadian would ever want to be caught dead admiring anything about the US other than its northern border (Alaska's eastern and southern border)? It's a good form of government, unfortunately years of undermining the constitution by activist left wing judges and the likes of the ACLU have been harmful.

But those data sets, at least up to 05 which I have checked don't show rising temperatures. I have seen the paint job article before and if true and to what degree it only means temperatures are not as high as people believe and could explain the difference between ground temperatures atmospheric temperatures.

name='Figleaf' date='May 22 2007, 04:42 PM' post='221060'] Also, here is an analysis by one of America's foremost prosecutors: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi . This is just the sour grapes we've been putting up with from the Demorats since Bush won his second term. Bush was right to take it to court and the court was right to stop what was not a recount but was an attempt to decide how people hand voted when it wasn't obvious and change the outcome. Clintons surpus was just as phony. He raised taxes and cut the legs out from under the military. Eight years of Clinton almost detroyed the military, while the Islamic butchers ran around blowing up US interests killing Americans and ended with 911.

I think your bias has you confusing objective with subjective.

Biased and compromised by who.

It's hard to say who was the biggest embarrassment, Carter or Clinton.

Like I said, spin. The warming is natural, caused by sun spot activity. CO2 does not cause the warming and mans contribution of CO2 barely registers. However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively. http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html

First of all, saying "historically" is misleading, because Barton is actually talking about CO2 changes on very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales. On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. Real climate is quite the spin machine in the sense that they aren't very good at it.

name='Leafless' date='May 21 2007, 06:33 PM' post='220835'] I would go little further and say it is a sham. A constitutional republic with very restricted and well defined federal powers. Along with a proper bill of individual rights. Otherwise just scrap the whole thing and the provinces each go their own way.

How do you reconcile that with this? As a driver of temperature it is not. But nice try anyway. It seems to be typical of the alarmists.

I showed you why 98 is a bad year to start with if you want a correct answer. Global temperature is affected by many different factors, that work together to produce the end result. That's why we pay climatologists to do their analyses. On this page is a graph showing 5 of the factors. Climate change attribution We know that is wrong. We know that sun spot activity correlates nicely with temperature. http://www.friendsofscience.org/picture_text/causes2.gif