Gore Win: A Prize For Halfwits
Reading today's headlines (just on Drudge alone), you'd think there was a big breakthrough both in proving the seriousness of global warming and in galvanizing people to action. And in a sense that's true. I know that I'm taking it more seriously from now on, and I'm also going to act a lot sooner and with a lot more passion in cutting these morons off at the knees. Let me be perfectly clear: if you think that global warming is an imminent threat to our very existence you need to be euthanized. And to you lesser alarmists, fair warning... don't bring your nonsense here anymore, or if you do, you'd better be able to argue beyond your opening claims and have sensible answers to objections you encounter. Don't worry, I'll do my part to make it clear what it is you need to answer before going any further. I mean, I'm just sure everyone agrees that I've been too nice for too long, and if it's any consolation, I'm angrier at myself than at any of you absolute fools. Meanwhile, here's one of the easiest to understand columns on what's wrong with the warmorons' argument that I've read in a long time - so simple, even a caveman can do it* * Has not been tested on warming wackos.
Comments
So does this mean that we were wrong to go into Iraq when the overwhelming consensus was that he had WMD?
Good one!
I gotta admit you had me goin' there for a moment and it took awhile for me to recover from the shock that someone on "our" side would ask such a fatally flawed question.
Then I realized you were merely anticipating the sort of response I might get from leftist idiots by "thinking Snowy," so I decided to play along and answer the way I would if she had posed it herself... but I wanna be clear that I know you would never think (and I use the term in the loosest sense possible) like that.
Now, Snow-for-Brains, listen, you moron, not only does the question not flow logically from what I said above, it's not even a reason why we invaded Iraq, and yet here we are, three and a half years later, and you're still so caught up in liberal lies that you can't distinguish between fiction and reality.
What's worse is that your question stresses the wrong point, for even if we had invaded Iraq because of WMDs, it's yet another example (and a pretty good one) of why consensus is often not to be trusted.
And now to Dox... hey buddy, next time give me a sign, will ya, I almost took you seriously, and with good reason... because just before I read your comment, I had read this bit of idiocy from an insane Gore spokemoroness:
"Our strong feeling is that the debate about whether global warming is real is over," said (Kalee) Kreider. "Even the president of the U.S. agrees the debate is over. ... It's very 1980s to debate whether global warming is real. Should we be debating whether smoking causes cancer?"
You see what I mean? Now, isn't it the case that even people who watch wrestling think better than that?