What an incredibly intellectual post. I am certainly glad not all who voted for Gore or Kerry are as bigoted and hateful as you appear to be. Any conservative or liberal who is that controlled by politics seriously needs counseling.

Peace.

What I can't figure out is, why is there still that 28% that's in favor of Bush? Isn't that somewhere around 100 million people? What would Bush have to do to lose these people's approval? Eat a baby in public?

oh.. they'd just find something in Revelations and interpret it to mean eating babies is ok as long as its not a white baby.

Looks like the only thing I could agree on with some of you is your affinity for Apple products. Gore is a moron and I'm glad he lost the 2000 election.

the country is in good shape... jobs.. growth.. stock market... no terrorist attacks. let gore keep doing what he's doing... nothing

lying our country into an illegal war... incompetent governance... unconstitutional domestic spying... using the Department of Justice to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters... rampant corruption... stealing elections... if you're not pissed off, then you don't know what the h*** is going on.

Good shape??? Jobs? Yes, Bush and his greedy capitalist globalist exploiting buddies are creating lots of inexpensive jobs in China. Growth only because oil is $70 a barrel and we all know why that is, i racken! And um...terrorist attacks, yes they happened whilst, no wait let me guess, oh Bush WAS president in 2001. So much for your ignorant theories aepple!

Jobs is usually right in the that old reality distortion field thing he has mastered, but.. Gore would loose so bad he comes off soo unintelligent with is slow and boring speech. Hillary or Obama will win even if Gore ran for prez. climacs-worried about the saving the planet, yet you need saving yourself.

Yes, Gore already won once. He also was honorable and didn't put up a big fuss when Cheney's fishing buddy from the Supreme Court handed Bush the election.

Gore is also a good speaker, which unfortunately he came across as a bit stuffy when running for President.

"He already won once in 2000. Too bad the Supreme Court pulled off a coup on behalf of the GOP."

Yeah, that whole Constitution totally got in the way of him being elected.

You might not like Gore, but to call him a moron suggests that perhaps it is you who is a bit mentally inept. At least he speaks in complete sentences, and actually has ideas. For what it is worth, I doubt you even know what the word moron means. In case you need help, it means:

" A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive."

I doubt this definition applies to Gore, but perhaps would explain Bush's inability to talk as educated folks do.

Name calling is always the tactic clueless people take to discredit others. They have no ideas or they cannot discredit somebody on the merits so they resort to name calling. Kind of like when the White House this weekend couldn't discredit Carter on the merits of his statements, so instead they merely called him irrelevant, which is funny since you normally wouldn't waste your time responding to somebody who is irrelevant.

As far as Gore losing the election goes, perhaps you weren't paying attention. Gore actually won the election, but the Supreme Court manipulated Florida's results on a technicality: namely there wasn't enough time to count the votes, which actually when they were counted turned out in Gore's favor. What do you expect when the judge writing the opinion is the Vice President's good friend.

Other then calling people names, I wonder what you've done to try to make the world a better place.

Hey Greeng4:

You talk about the Constitution as if you know it... could you please point out to me the case-law or Constitutional text where it is proper for the Court to rule on a political question relating to sovereignty in another co-equal branch?

There's a reason why most legal scholarship in this country is still shocked and awed that the High Court would so blatantly ignore precedent forbidding its involvement in delicate political questions and decide an election through a 9-judge panel. Interestingly, the same conservatives who decry "activist" judges also embrace the Bush v. Gore decision in all it's judicial activism.

I would be interested to see what would happen if Gore ran again. I couldn't vote for him then, but after this regime, and given his long hiatus from politics, he might be just the kind of change we need.

I really wish Jobs would layoff of the politics. Ok so Gore may have something right with the environment and global warming, but come on, no one wants to see Jobs or really any other CEO get political now do we. News flash... Jobs supports Bush and his war efforts... News flash... Jobs thinks Mitt Romney will win presidency in 2008. The Gore statement about becoming president and all of these sample statements sound completely ridiculous. I vote that Jobs stays out of politics, it does no good to his (and Apple's) cause.

You are such a typical left wing fanatic. If anything you said regarding illegal action by our current government was true, it would be all over the front page of the New York Times with evidence to back it up that did not rely on hearsay, conspiracy therory, and opinion blogs!

Seek psychiatric help please, you will be better off.

You are such a typical left wing fanatic. If anything you said regarding illegal action by our current government was true, it would be all over the front page of the New York Times with evidence to back it up that did not rely on hearsay, conspiracy therory, and opinion blogs!

Seek psychiatric help please, you will be better off.

First Steve's comment. He must have gotten to close to his own RDF or made a slip of the tongue and meant to use his own name.

Second, it's funny to read some of the posts of those who by their remarks proclaim to be progressive, liberal, whatever. . . Yet they are the first to sink to the lowest level by calling names, insulting others or attacking other, use profanity and then claim it's intelligent dialouge. Please learn some tolerance and accept that not everyone will or has to agree with you. Also, try getting your news from sources other than Jon Stewart, Air America, and Hollywood. That's like using Rush and Savage as hard hitting news.

Quote from climacs: "believes in science, reason and evolution -doesn't think Jeebus is going to magically beam us up into the skies so we don't have to give a s*** about trashing the planet"

I disagree on a few points here. Mixing science, reason and evolution into one sentence shows your naivety of believing the religion of evolution. Just because something is popular and a dominant way of thought in culture does not make it right (look at Microsoft as an example). There is more proof for creation than evolution ( http://www.allaboutcreation.org/ ). Evolution is merely the current explanation mankind has made up in their minds to explain away God. One day soon, probably immediately after your death, you will know. I hope you know sooner for your sake.

One simple question I have for evolutionists... (in a very simple breakdown) If we evolved from sludge, to amoebas, to fish, to somehow monkeys, cavemen, and then to what we are today, where in the world are all the mutations in between?? Did every one of the millions of supposed mutations before us just vanish?? There should be at least one or a few species in between monkeys and humans out of the millions of mutations. Shouldn't there?? If you don't understand what I'm saying, read up on the genetic differences between monkeys and man (how close our DNA is yet how far away as well - because of the millions of mutations).

I love science and believe in being responsible for our planet (God even commanded we take care of our planet). I've even done extensive research in converting the source of all our electricity consumption to solar. Cost would be in the ballpark of $10,000 - $15,000. We're using florescent bulbs wherever we can in the house. I shut off power to devices that still consume power while "off".

My point is this. There are Christians who are both intelligent and intent on helping the environment. Double check your beliefs in the "science" of evolution and your assumptions about Christianity before making such naive statements.

He's a learjet liberal. His movie tells everyone that they need to be more environmentally conscience and sensitive. Yet he flies around the world in a private learjet vs a commercial jet. He can run three 30" displays all at once in his home office, plus a flat screen TV, but the average person is suppose to ride a bike to work and unplug their cell phone charger when they aren't using them.

No this guy is all about one thing himself. He wants you to give up what you have so he can have more. He wants to take your hard earned money and give it to people less fortunate because he thinks you make to much money.

He is a whiny butt looser, a communist, a socialist, and could not think his way out of a paper bag. Like most liberals he has no clue as to what it means to be an American, what our forefathers did so he could have his communistic opinions, or what it takes to keep this country free so that our children can grow up with the same freedoms he has.

BTW can anyone tell me where on the November election ballot it said if the Democrats win we are voting to pull out of Iraq, because I sure as h*** didn't see it on there.

I agree wholeheartedly with Nice, and I quote

"Name calling is always the tactic clueless people take to discredit others. They have no ideas or they cannot discredit somebody on the merits so they resort to name calling."

But after over 6 years of GOP ineptitude and rabid hawk politics, I simply cannot come to any other conclusion than George Bush Jr. is an idiot. Steve Jobs may indeed operate within a reality distortion field, but at least his distorted reality has a vague semblance to the truth, unlike the right-wings xenophobic "shoot first and think later" way of running the U.S.. It's heart breaking to see the unlimited potential of such a great country and its ability to change the world for the good being pissed away by a gang of paranoid war-mongers who will go to any length to preserve their grip on power while quietly dismantling fabric of the multi-party state and the rights of individuals to due process.

The fall will be great, the fallen will be shamed.

I doubt any of you have read the constitution since you had to do it in 4th grade. I also am sure you do not understand what happened in Florida. Gore did not win the election, get out of your fantasy world. Every re-count of votes gave Bush a larger margin of victory Steve should stick to iPods and computers, Gore would have no chance of winning a national election.

Ignorance is Bliss.

Gore is the biggest fraud and a hypocrite. The best scientific data suggests that Global Warming is due to changes in the Sun cycles. Its the Sun stupid.

And all you Bush bashers. Yes, there is much to criticize Bush for, but I have not read very much of it hear. Be ignorant if you want but don't clutter up the forums and the internet with your trash. Bush's IQ is probably greater than the majority of readers and users of MacNN -- at least those who posted here, and greater than most of his critics.

I 100% agree with clevelandadv.

The liberals are what is going to bring the end of the United States not the conservatives. The conservatives are trying to preserve our way of life.

We were found on Judeo-Christian principles, we speak and write English and believe that every man, woman, and child has inalienable given to them by God.

Liberals believe that we are too dumb to rear our own children, feel that we should adopt Spanish as our first language, should let anyone into this country even if they are terrorists. Think we need to understand Islamic Terrorists and have sympathy for them. They want to redistribute the wealth of anyone making more than $75K a year to those who are too lazy to work and rather live off of welfare.

There were many things that President Bush wanted to do that were interrupted by 9/11. How many people took money he gave back to you in his fist year in office and told the government you didn't want it or gave it back. If you kept the money or spent it, then you need to rethink your arguments.

You are all happy when you are on the receiving end of something good. You think the US owes you something. No one owes you anything. You have the same rights as anyone else in this country to work hard and make something of yourself. If you don't like the way the government is being managed, run for office.

To smurfman, who does not believe in evolution. Thank you for writing one of the most comical text I've read in a long time. Surely you don't believe that the G4 processor came after G3, or else there would be G3.5 and G3.7 around. Anyway, enough joking. Bush is a moron and Steve Jobs is of course right. I don't think Gore would run but of course he would win. And America would regain some of its former respect which was totally squandered under Bush. Most countries have learned their lessons from bringing idiots to power. For Germany it meant 50 years of being divided. For us it meant an estimate of one trillion dollars, thousands of soldiers killed for oil we never managed to steal in the end, and a lower reputation that the country ever had before in history.

Can people discuss the cinema displays that Gore has in his office?

Give me a break the war is not over oil. Its a war on terrorism. I find it interesting that so many people think that this is over oil. Before you bring up the whole WMD argument and stating it is a lie.

Do you even know want a WMD is? A WMD is a weapon that can cause mass casualties. And yes Iraq is full of them. Like the Mig 29s that were hidden in the dessert. The chemical weapons used on the civilians in Northern Iraq, the car bombs being set off in the market places, and yes even the jets used to hit the WTC were weapons of mass destruction.

The only idiots that are out there are the ones that don't understand that we are fighting to keep the war over there not on our own soil. Would you rather have the IEDs on your streets, or the car bombs in your mall parking lots.

Wake up the Islamic Terrorists want to kill you. You mean nothing to them and nothing would make them happier than to behead you and your children. Is that what you want. You can show them all the sympathy in the world but they don't care they want to KILL YOU.

Get over the fact we are not pulling out of Iraq. We are going to stay there for many decades to come. Just like we are in Germany, Bosnia (Clinton/Gore put us in there), Korea, etc.... Its the only way to insure the safety of the US and its citizen. This includes your safety.

These soldiers are not dieing for Oil they are dieing for your freedom. The have given up their future so that you can have one.

Here's a picture of Al Gore's office. Looks real green to me (http://www.algore04.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/messy-office.jpg)

...it's amazing how many people are educated above their intelligence. How many people are so filled with self-hatred and self-satisfaction at the same time. They'd rather see their country and culture be overtaken by Islamic sharia law than see a republican in the White House. Black and white do exist, f.m. just because grey exists does not mean everything is a shade, of that any gradation is imperceptible. I suppose Bush is responsible for the shrinking of the Martian polar icecaps. Feh.

Are you really that stupid, rjpotts? Did you copy that argument verbatim from Rush's website?

Of course the war is about oil. Every war is over some resource... the taking or defending of it. But oh yeah, we went there to stop Hussein from bombing us again. Oh wait, he didn't have a damn thing to do with it. Almost all of the hijackers were Saudis, and none of them Iraqis. But hey, we can't piss off the Saudis, right? They're honorary Bush family members.

Middle eastern animosity for America and Britain have nothing to do with our "freedoms." It has everything to do with us meddling in their politics. You know, stuff like assassinating leaders who want to keep the profits from oil sales to bring their countries out of the stone age. Can't have that, can we? Sure as h*** didn't let it happen in South America. Use your connection to teh intarweb to look up what I'm talking about. Your sure as h*** won't hear Limbaugh or Hannity talking about it.

Wake the h*** up. This isn't some movie, and America doesn't have a mandate from God to run the world. We've done plenty of terrible, horrible things to other countries to keep ourselves dominant. It won't last forever. Pick up a history book, if you can read, and find out what happened to Britain and Rome's empires.

The Earth will correct itself. This may mean the end of human race as we know it, but the Earth will continue to exist. Other animals will continue to exist and will fill the gaps. New species will evolve filling the holes in the food chain. It may be better off without us.

...anything in particular. It's about hate. They'd be trying to kill us no mater what we did or didn't do. They're going to kill us because we won't be good little Muslims or dhimmis. Period. Notice, you don't see too many people worried about Lutherans or Methodists...

...to exist long after Earth is dust and the stars burn out, rjpotts.

That's why the individual is more important than the state.

The thing is, where are you going to spend that time? If I'm wrong, it won't matter. If you're wrong, you're going to have a long, long time to regret it. You might have heard of Pascals wager, if you didn't sleep through philosophy class...

he has a point (in addition to the one on his hat):

Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching”, looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now, Pope Benedict XVI)

who blow up abortion clinics and snipe doctors and nurses. Who's a terrorist?

How about the Northern Irish who've been killing each other for a hundred years over religion? Who's a terrorist?

Get your facts straight, and stop taking Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest of those evil people on Fox's word for it. Read a damn book.

moral equivalency. You're talking about individual criminals and madmen (mostly), comparing it to state-sponsored, culture saturated evil. cognitive dissonance. you're soaking in it.

Do you even know want a WMD is? >> Yes I do, do you? Iraq complied by the rules Bush Sr. set up after the first Gulf War. They were allowed to have weapons. Iraq was allowed to defend itself with conventional weapons, just not ICBMs, long range missles, chemical, etc. As far as the, "fight them there so they aren't here" argument, answer me this: THEN WHY THE h*** AREN'T THEY HERE NOW you moron? Can't answer, can ya.

Because we have taken the war to them. That's why. Are you disappointed that they didn't get the opportunity to launch a few missiles at us? Is that what its going to take to wake you up. Would you feel better if they had done that first. Truth be told they did hit us with tree missiles. One hit the Pentagon and two hit the WTC. I don't give a rip what country the came from in the Middle East. The were/are terrorists and I loose no sleep about pummeling them.

We gave Iraq the weapons not to defend itself but to align them with us against Iran. Or did you forget about the whole Iran Hostage Crisis during good old Jimmy Carter's presidency.

I agree that we have domestic terrorists that do blow up abortion clinics and they need to be dealt with also. I also agree that we need to go after gangs and organized crime. But that's not going to happen until we have neutralized the terrorists in the Middle East.

Hey Smurfman;

Your logic is typical of someone who has no clue how biological evolution works. The concept is very simple; what works lives, and what doesn't dies. Sometimes, a given set of mutations works for a long time, like Dinosaurs. The fossil record is replete with extinct species which, for a time, were successful. These represent but one just part of the "mutations in between" as you call them.

The fact that those mutations do not exist today in extant form is very easily understood if you remove your faith-based blinders; if a given set of adaptations or arrangement of genes is not suited to its environment, it ceases to exist because it cannot effectively reproduce (i.e, it gets eaten by some other more successful set of adaptations, or over-consumes its environment).

Biological evolution is nothing more than a change in gene frequency in response to myriad selection factors. I can prove to you over the course of several days that it occurs, whether you want to believe it or not. Viruses do it particularly well because their nucleic acid transcription is sloppy, and tends to introduce mutations (See Reverse Transcriptase in the HIV virus). You evolutionary non-beleivers claim to love science, but ignore one of its most fundamental and easily understood tenets with this brand of intellectual subterfuge.

Render unto the scientific methods those truths best discovered through empiricism, and unto faith those things that are not. I hate to break it to you, but if you understood evolution, and weren't flagellating about nonsense like "intermediate mutations," you would have a hard time defending any conception of macroevolution in which god's hand was there over the course of six days.

Hey Rjpotts

People like you make conservative and liberal moderates look bad. Do you really think that a bunch of barefoot islamic terrorists in Iraq You think they would start planting IED's wholesale on our soil if we didn't "take it to them?" That's puerile nonsense; if we wanted to keep those people out, we would secure our borders, tighten visa requirements, and inspect every package coming into this country. Since 9/11, we have done none of these things.

The war in Iraq was not for oil, but control of oil. With Chinese and Indian economies growing at breakneck pace, Washington attempted to take the long view, opting to control the source of energy both Asian giants would need to keep growing. Afghanistan is a vital corridor for a pipeline to Southern and Eastern Asia, and Iraq is a source commonly used by both India and China. Iran was on the Cheney-Wolfowitz-Perle hit-list, but given the Iraq debacle, Iran is probably safe from us.

Your terrorist theory is a rehash of vapid jingoism and fear-mongering. Less than 5% of the terrorist activity in Iraq is tied to Al Queda, and prior to our arrival there, Al Queda wasn't there because Saddam was not interested in religious fundos infringing on his secular, though brutal governance. It is foolish to believe that the real reason we shipped over 200,000 Americans, 9 million tons of equipment, and hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq is because we want to stop suicide bombers? Wrong country stupid... those terrorists were ALL Saudis.

You think a Mig-29 is a WMD? Have you lost your marbles? A Mig-29 is an air-superiority fighter with limited ground attack capability; it's no more a WMD than an F-16 carrying a pair of JDAMs. It is disingenuous of you to attribute that view to any of the planners of this war. Those guys were hoping to find chemical, biological, and nuclear agents, NOT their delivery systems.

Did you grow up in the Cold War? Do you remember the Warsaw Pact, the Soviet Union, and its military, which could deploy thousands of nuclear missiles against us via land, sea, or air? They had a nuclear device for every small town in America. That is a threat... those are WMDs. We spent less money "containing" the "evil empire" than Bush does "fighting terrorism." Reagan is turning in his grave seeing how big, inefficient, and self serving government has become. And we have brainless twits like you to mindlessly supporting this most egregious example of big government.

Did you know we have the technology to inspect any package or container entering the United States for chemical or biological content, but we don't screen more than 5% of such packages because there's no money in the budget?

It costs us billions MORE dollars sending young Americans to get shot and blown up in Iraq than it would to secure entry points to our borders. Yet those of you who would wear the mantle of "conservative" are more tha

Yet those of you who would wear the mantle of "conservative" are more than happy to fund the welfare state in Iraq through our military in the name of terrorism while leaving the home-front wide open to infiltration. You are an embarrassment to conservatism, and the Republican Revolution.

Oh, and RjPotts... you talk about the Iran hostage crisis. Do you know who installed Shah Pahlavi in Iran, who then proceeded to brutalize his own people with our blessing. That's right, the United States. Do you know whose guided missile cruiser shot down an Iranian jet-liner carrying over 300 civilians, men, women and children? That's right... the U.S.S. Vincennes. Your paranoid fantasy that our own government has not given these people cause to hate us is rooted in fantasy.

What would you do if an Iranian missile downed a plane that was carrying your sister, mother, or daughter? Would you hate the Iranians? Probably... you probably already do, though no Iranian has ever done anything to you. Yet the sanctions we placed on Iran affect the lives of every Persian, and the sanctions we placed on Iraq, along with Depleted Uranium residue from the first Gulf War, apparently killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis while having absolutely no effect upon Saddam's twisted regime.

Still think that our government doesn't do anything to earn the hatred of others?

Ron Paul is the only person in either party with the courage to note that foreigners hate us for what we do, yet love us for who we are. As one who has done a lot of traveling, I can assure you that everyone is interested in having the ear of an American, but they want it to share with us what they hate about our foreign policy. Only those of you on the Sean Hannity/Michael Savage xenophobia set can truly believe that our government is innocent of wrongdoing in the world. That's the kind of ignorance that will lead to America's decline, just as it did for Britain, Spain, and Rome before it.

"They'd be trying to kill us no mater what we did or didn't do. They're going to kill us because we won't be good little Muslims or dhimmis. Period."

This is an interesting thing for someone to say at the very same time as a brutal American occupation of Iraq which is now approaching the Mongol sacking of Baghdad in terms of the number of dead.

In 20 years, there will be some other terrorist attack, and at that time there will also be wilfully ignorant Americans saying things like, "They hate us for our freedoms," or, "They just want us to be dhimmis." Sure. It couldn't have been because, 20 years ago in Haditha or Samarra or Falluja, some American soldier shot his mom in the face.

So, how'bout some on-topic discussions...

Let's talk about those cinema displays:

http://www.algore04.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/messy-office.jpg

That's a pretty sweet setup. But what on earth does he need so much screen real estate for?

Zubir, neither comic books or Hollywood dropouts are a substitute for reading history and living in reality. How many friends do you have from the Middle East be they Jewish, Persian, Arab, Lebenese, etc...its gotta be zero.

Those that have hijacked the Islamic faith hate freedom since it leads to education and the sharing of ideas. Freedom breaks the control they can exercise over the populace. Their hatred is increased by our support of Israel. I suppose you believe the Holocaust didn't occur like Ahmadinejad, the current president of Iran if you're not sure.

Follow your own advice and search the web to learn what the Taliban did to women during their reign of terror. They couldn't work or go to school but they could be stoned in public for the most minor infraction. I bet you believe Fidel and Hugo are humanitarians who actually care about their citizens.

Finally open your mind as you tell others to do and compare the history of this country to any other in the world. While the US isn't perfect it is still the best place in the world to live and has the most generous citizens in the world. Can you name any other country that gives so much money to the citizens of nations that hates it?

"Those that have hijacked the Islamic faith hate freedom since it leads to education and the sharing of ideas. Freedom breaks the control they can exercise over the populace."

Al-Qa`idah and similar groups do not have control over any populace. This and the rest of your post make it clear that you have no idea what you're talking about, take reports from outlets like Fox News at face value, etc. You're the one who needs to read history and live in reality. Alternatively, if you don't have time to do all that (and, really, who does), you could simply not have strong opinions on things you know almost nothing about.

Holocaust? What the h*** does that have to do with anything? Nobody gave a damn about the Holocaust. Many Europeans and Americans at the time thought it would be a good idea to appease Hitler. Then WWII of course changed that somewhat. The allies could have bombed the concentration camps and/or the train lines leading to them as early as 1942 and they didn't do it. Why? Because nobody gave a damn about some eastern European Jews. We were worried about Hitler ruling Europe, but a couple million gassed Jews wasn't really anybody's concern.

The Taliban? What the h*** do they have to do with it? There are no Taliban in Iraq. Well, actually that's wrong, there never WERE any Taliban in Iraq before... Guessed it? Of course! ...before the US invaded. Thanks to the screwed up invasion of Iraq it's now become a magnet for every terrorist wacko in Europe, Africa, and Asia. And the best part is they seem to be winning: The coalition will eventually pull out, Iraqi civilians are being killed between the lines by the hundreds, Islamic fundamentalism is gaining supporters, and the US is going bankrupt. Does that indicate the world has become safer? Does that make me as an American feel safer?

WMD? Umm, the only WMD in Iraq were those brought there by the coalition forces during the invasion. The whole WMD baloney was nothing but a blatant lie to start a war with Iraq. The last president faced impeachment for a lie concerning a B*******. This time a lie dished out not only to the American public but to the entire world by an administration who was ready to sacrifice hundreds of young US lives without hesitation is to go unpunished? Talk about priorities. And then there's all this talk about how Saddam was such an awful dictator. Of course people don't usually mention that he became that dictator thanks to power and weapons given to him by his friends in Washington DC. Nobody ever gave a damn about the Iraqi civilians. Who cared about a few stalinist curds? And who would have wanted to help the Iranian-funded Shiites? Nobody gave a damn about all that. If anybody had cared, Saddam would have been removed years ago - ironically that could have been well before he got the chance to commit the worst atrocities.

The best part of all this is that since people don't like the facts and since history is ugly, people just tend to disregard it. Or even better claim it didn't happen. And no matter how this whole Iraq mess ends, you can be certain that we have just (once again) planted a seed that will come back and bite us in the a** a few decades later. It's difficult to imagine how by 2030 or 2040 terrorists will top 9/11, but they will eventually find a way and when they achieve it people will stare at their TV screens ins awe and wonder how this could have ever happened. And of course anybody who then dares to mention that we might consider our past actions will be called a traitor, liberal, communist... Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

What was this thread about originally???/

Jobs' statement regarding Gore IIRC. :-D

Steve's always been a lefty-I wonder if Steve has purchased his Carbon offsets like Big Al? Think Rudy ever be asked to be on the board? I love all these people who use this as an opptunity to TRASH the guy in the office now. If you look at the facts, GWBs school grades were higher then AG, What was Als major? Journalism? Do they let people with IQ's lower then their shoe size fly million $$$ fighter jets? Put your trash out on Huffington post not here on a TECH site...Please.

Bash Bush all you want, but he won't be running in 2008. Gore can. But he won't get past Hillary or Obama this time. Boy we got off topic real fast.

almost Impeached he was Impeached they just chose not to convict him.

Impeachment - Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it comprises only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and thus is only the first step towards possible removal. Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction via legislative vote, which then entails the removal of the individual from office.

As I said before a WMD is any weapon that can cause mass casualties. A Mig-29 or a F-16 is traditionally thought of as a payload delivery system. But just like a 747 or 737 with a bunch of terrorists behind the controls, designed for transporting people from one destination to the next, they can become WMDs. How many people do you think a weapon has to take out before it is considered a WMD?

I do have friends that are Christian, Jews, and Muslim. I even have friends who were originally from Iran. I have lived abroad so I'm well aware of what people from other countries think of our citizens and our government. I realize that they draw a line of distinction between the two.

What you don't understand is that terrorists do not draw a line of distinction between you and the government. Do you think that you could reason your way out from them taking your head. Not!!! They don't give a c*** about your point of view or even how much you defend them. They still want to KILL YOU, because you symbolize a threat to their way of thinking. Just voicing your opinion here like you have been is enough of a threat to them, to give them cause to kill you.

I don't want another President with an agenda. Global Warming has not been PROVEN to be caused by humans - it's just the "in cause" for today.

Maybe Steve should ask "Al": wouldn't ONE 30" Cinema display be a bit better for the environment?? This country is in "bad shape"? AAPL 114.143 - Dow nearing 14000 (13591.71) - 7 out of 10 Americans are invested on one form or another... Perhaps some folks should look at what is OMITTED while watching Leftist Idealogues posing as unbiased journalists feed you your news, your way.

that he has multiple 30" displays. If you do research and/or development its nice to be able to reference material you are working from on one display and develop your product on another display.

This issue I have with Gore is that he wants to tell people they should cut back, that they don't need multiple monitors, that they should reduce the amount of paper, electricity, and fuel they consume.

At the same time he feels that he is justified in doing the exact same thing he chastises others of doing. If he wants to lead then he needs to lead by example. Show people how he can do more with less.

Buy a Honda Insight or Toyota Prius and use that to travel to his speaking engagements. Build an energy efficient, monolithic dome house (http://www.monolithic.com/thedome/index.html) vs. a 4000 SQFT home(http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm).

If he's not willing to do this himself how can anyone be willing to take him seriously?

Steve Jobs said that the Segway Scooter would be the transportation of the future... Look how that has caught on.

Steve Just Knows...

http://ThunkDifferent.com

Well, guest, is it the future, yet?

Read the TIME article, and you'll read that he's trying to walk the walk while talking the talk.

"But just like a 747 or 737 with a bunch of terrorists behind the controls, designed for transporting people from one destination to the next, they can become WMDs."

So by your definition if a solider in iraq spots a 10 yr old child playing with some stones on the ground because the family cant afford any real toys, he can shot the boy in the head cause there's no telling how many people he can kill when he grows up. And by your definition all iraqis should be killed before USA can be truely rid of your imaginary WMDs.

The twin towers were brought down by thermite not 2 747s.

please end this tangential torture and kill off this article. This is MacNN, not a political forum.

I must admit, though, that it has been entertaining (translation "scary") to see my assessment of the state of things re-affirmed yet again... as a country, we couldn't be much more polarized unless this were, say, the 1860s.

Shut this thread down now. It's become a complete joke. It's hard enough trying to get over the fact anyone on the right has enough originality or indepenent thought to buy a Mac in the first place... they're not made in the U.S. you know, so be careful, they might be stuffed with germanium-turbanned nano-terrorists hoping to convert your virgins into emvironment-loving non-white fundamentalist Moslems. Run! Head for the hills... the foreigners are coming, and... (audible gasp) they have opinions that differ from ours. The end is surely nigh!

:-)

The whole world has realised that we all share a common problem. Out of the bunch, Al Gore seems best qualified to bring about a solution. Each presidential candadate has their own agenda. I am uncertain of the true nature of most, but Mr Gore wears his heart on his sleeve. I am certain that the primary motivation for making a film like "An inconvenient truth" is philosophy and not economics. In Gore, America has an opportunity to try to fix what we have broken. If I could, I would vote for him at the drop of a hat.

You are a typical liberal. You believe in the freedom of speech until someone disagrees with your point of view, then you want to shut them down. I believe in your freedom of speech and would die fighting to defend that right, no matter how wrong and twisted your point of view is. Can you say the same about me?

What the h*** was the justification for including this bit about Jobs on MacNN, anyway, unless it was simply to stir the pot? If Jobs remarked that he preferred tea to coffee, would that warrant mention in MacNN also?

We know Jobs is left-leaning, we know he likes Gore (as do I, fwiw). Let's just leave the political discussions on the political forums and let MacNN be dedicated strictly to Apple gear.

Smurfman is right on. Christians believe we are to be stewards of the earth. Trashing it is not acceptable.

BTW, can someone explain to me why liberals are willing to give dictators (like Ahmadinejad, Chavez & Sadam) the benefit of the doubt, but at the same time deny our own elected government that same benefit?

Also, why do liberals blame Bush for the war when Sadam literally had months to disprove our bad intelligence? All he had to do to avoid war was to let the inspectors into Iraq and let them go where they needed to.

I've read the article. I do not dispute that the planet is warming up. I do not dispute that we are contributing to some degree to the CO2 build up. But I do not agree that we a the soul source of the problem.

Especially since there is evidence that not only Earth is warming but other planets such as Mars is warming and that the majority of the experts who have been studying climate change much longer than Gore outright dispute the fact.

Can we rectify the problem by changing the way we consume energy I doubt it but we can help to alleviate the problem. Here's the rub. Gore could be giving his money to corporations, universities, and organizations that are developing solutions to the problem which many already accept exists. But he's not. He's flying around the country (yes he said he uses commercial jets when he can, but when is the last time you saw in the news that he traveled on a commercial jet. If he did you know the liberal media would be jumping all over it, patting him on the back saying what a great guy he is), he using the same gas guzzling SUVs to take him from the airport to his speaking engagements that he is telling everyone else not to use.

If he wanted to inform people so badly about the dangers of global warming why did he publish the book in paper and charge money for it. Instead why didn't he make it freely available in PDF on his web site? Why is it ok for him to live in the lap of luxury and tell everyone else they need to cut back. (I have nothing against someone living in luxury, just don't tell someone else they should be doing it either).

These are the things you have to ask yourself about? The fact that he does it is one thing. The fact that he does it and then tells other people they shouldn't be doing it is completely different.

What makes him any better than you? Did he do something that entitles him to do those things and you are not? You have just as much a right to bust your butt make a profitable living and spend your money on things you want to enjoy as he does, without feeling you have to explain to the world why you did it. Without having someone like him tell you, you are bad, you don't deserve those luxuries.

We don't need our schools brain washing our children into thinking they are bad because their parents can afford air conditioning, or own more than two cars, or because mommy and daddy make 100+K a year that they should have to pay more in taxes so someone who only makes 15K a year can live better.

This guy couldn't handle loosing an election gracefully, how do you think he would handle something as devastating as another WTC attack? He would roll over and let the enemy come right on in.

When Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, suggested Iraq's WMD program could be more fragmented and degraded, he was pilloried as naive or incompetent. When his inspectors talked of a more complex search for WMD, where components or precursors could be in the form of legal, dual-use chemical or biological agents that had to be monitored, they were dismissed as flatfooted and overcautious.

Throughout Dr Blix's reports to the Security Council he spoke of the need to track down the components of Iraq's old biological and chemical programs, the bits and pieces, and to monitor all activity at dual-use facilities.

Many international weapons experts believed that the threat from Iraq did not come from chemical-filled Scud missiles or aircraft, as sometimes cited in Washington. The threat was less direct. It was about whether Saddam was trying to maintain the core of a WMD program, both raw ingredients and scientific expertise, which he could reconstitute when the world got tired of containing him.

For arms control experts around the world that threat was a very real one. But it was far less dramatic and threatening than that presented by the US to justify a pre-emptive war.

How ABOUT those three 30-inch cinema displays AG has!

..not address rjpotts' misdirected xenophobia any further. Let 'em turn his own circles.

As for Gore running, yes, he would do better for our children's futures than Little Baby George is currently.

Here is what Bush has done to our Country:

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/4934/safenq8.jpg

...but, rjpotts, you apparently don't realize it (or won't acknowledge it) but Gore uses carbon offsets to completely negate his air travel and other fossil fuel use. The guy is dedicating his life to changing energy consumption on a national or global scale, and you're nitpicking at bullsh*t such as printing his book on paper? You have NO supporters here with c*** like that.

And if you are still willing to take the pitifully misguided position that anthropogenic global warming is still in any serious doubt, perhaps you should take a few minutes to read the latest reports from the IPCC, which are -- by FAR -- the most extensively researched reports ever produced on the subject.

But I suspect that this won't matter to you. You are so infatuated with straw men that you've drifted away from what's really being said and done by those you apparently have issues with. Rather than asking people what they think and considering their reasoning, you are telling them what they think. And that is the tactic of a LOSER.

Hey RjPotts;

By your definition of WMD, a truck transporting fuel is a WMD. Surely you don't suggest we invade countries that have those? I think not, though of course, that is what we did...

What you are posting is the worst example of hindsight justification; conflate ANYTHING to be a WMD to justify the fact that the weapons actually sought were never found.

Where it is a conservative value to hold government accountable for its actions and misjudgments, it is wannabe "security conservatives" such as yourself that give the rest of us a bad name by closing your mind, failing to criticize government when it renders a bad judgment, and whitewashing the evidence.

Have you been watching the degree of corruption, nepotism, and waste that is taking place in the administration of the Iraq war? $12 billion in cash unaccounted for... 373 tons of C4 looted from Iraqi military warehouses our forces declined to secure ... 16,000 American supplied assault rifles "disappearing" into thin air ... funding of sectarian militias to act as police forces ... is this the kind of government you support?

"Conservatives" like you would tow the line if so inefficient an operation were being conducted in Compton, Los Angeles, or Hyde Park, as a "liberal" handout / welfare policy.

But because it is happening in Baghdad, where you foolishly think all the terrorists lived, you are on board. Well let me tell you; you are much more likely to be killed by a member of the Crips than you are by Al-Queda. Yet you would take a classic liberal approach to dealing with Iraq (a massive and inefficient welfare state with no oversight or accountability), while letting American inner cities rot because "they don't deserve a handout." Your type of conservative is the worst form of hypocrite, and you do discredit to enduring conservative principles of small government, accountability, and personal freedom from government intrusion. As far as Iraq goes, you are nothing more than Lyndon B. Johnson in disguise (a democrat in Vietnam).

As for your critique of Gore's profiteering ways, be it known that he purchases carbon credits to offset every gallon of fuel he burns, and he has donated considerable amounts of money to his alma mater. Since when did one have to become a barefoot monk to be a true believer? There is a middle ground where you can enjoy your wealth while using it productively toward a cause you believe in. Bill Gates still lives in a house the size of an office complex, yet donates more money (and does more humanitarian work for the causes he cares about) than just about anyone in the world.

Al Gore has done a lot to inform people like you of the dangers our activities have on global climate. You refuse to believe it because it's easier for you to be wasteful than to think of the generations that follow you. That to me seems like another "conservative" value that is lost on you

following and then tell me how great your hero is. Yep he's a real class act. He pays himself money for the pollution he creates. The fact is he's still not cutting back on the activities that are creating the problem in the first place. He can pay all the money in the world to plant trees but until he is willing to take the same steps he has asked us to take he has no credibility.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

http://www.alternet.org/environment/49025

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/al_gores_inconv.html

http://billhobbs.com/2007/02/more_on_gore.html

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html

I'm all for wiping out the Bloods, the Crips, the Latin Kings, and any other domestic terrorist group. As far as I'm concerned round them up and send'em to Cuba with all the other terrorists.

Hey Rjpotts, how old are you? 12?

Do you understand what American values are? Are you familiar with writ of Habeas Corpus and the right to due process? They're in Amendment 5, and guaranteed to persons within American jurisdiction under Amendment 14 § 1 of the U.S Constitution.

Due process and an independent judiciary are a bulwark against tyranny that the founding fathers of this nation understood, and a fundamentally conservative principle limiting the power of government to incarcerate without basis. Nonetheless, false conservatives like yourself have chosen to deliberately ignore sacrosanct Constitutional protections for anyone who you "think" is a terrorist. It's easy when Jack Bauer is dealing with a made-up terrorist in 24, or when Sean Hannity mouths another of his mindless diatribes about primitive Sharia-practicing tribes, but in real life, we have to verify whether people are guilty of what we accuse them of in trials.

Whether suspected Crip or Al Queda, all people incarcerated by our government have a right to prove their innocence. Sending them to Cuba is an unconstitutional short-circuit to this process that the courts have already begun to break down, understanding that this nation's true conservative values, again, rely on small federal government, robust state enforcement powers, and individual liberty from unlawful government intrusion. False conservatives like yourself would give all of that up for the satisfaction of knowing that a bunch of "ragheads" that you are "pretty sure" are terrorists can't hurt you... As a conservative, and no doubt one that believes in Second Amendment rights, who do you fear more? A Government who can throw anyone it wants in jail on mere suspicion of terrorism, or a bunch of sandal wearing radicals half a world away who wouldn't know where America was if its foreign policy did not negatively affect their society.

As for emissions; while the system itself may be controversial, there is some merit to treating pollution as an economic commodity, presuming that there is proper oversight in place. People like Gore are not the only ones endorsing the system; many environmental organizations have come on board to endorse or promote improvements in the model.

Again, Gore need not practice everything he preaches, as long as he does his share in good faith. He has plenty of reasons for believing that paying for his carbon offsets will reduce or eliminate his carbon footprint. If his lecture schedule requires him to travel, what would you propose he do? Walk?

Clearly, his presentations have disseminated a lot of good information, and most warming indicators, whether cited by Gore or not, clearly indicate that we are facing a much changed world.

It's easy for people like you to proclaim that we humans aren't responsible, but if you've done the traveling you claim to do, and have seen the damage we are capable of doing to

think you could stick to the questions I asked vs. going off on a tangent. Why is it okay for Gore to ask you to give up your lifestyle when Occidental Petroleum, a company that he has hundreds of thousands dollars in stock, can continue to drill in ecologically sensitive areas?

If you read the second link I referenced you would see that the US produces 20% of the worlds greenhouse gases, who produces the rest?

As far as his lecture schedule is concerned he does not need to take a private jet. Why can't he fly coach on a commercial jet like the rest of us? When is the last time you saw him do that? Trust me it would make the news?

When he made the trip to Canada to talk up his movie and book he took his private jet and was picked up in a SUV, you know the kind he wants you and I to stop driving, but his pilots were given a Toyota Prius. Again why was it okay for him to ride around in the SUV, why didn't he also take a Prius? Is he too good to ride in one? Better yet, why didn't he just drive a Prius or one of his hybrid cars to his speaking engagement? It would have been much more environmentally friendly.

If you read the third article you will see that the average person cannot buy and invest in Carbon Offsets in the same way Gore does. Its designed to make him money. Who does he pay his Carbon Offsets to? He pays them to himself, Generation Investment Management. If you follow this link to the GIM team (http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html) you will see that Gore is the chairman of the board. Its not even an American based company, look under news, the very first press release (http://www.generationim.com/news/). If he cares so much about the United States then why couldn't he form his business in the US. vs the UK.? Don't you see how this might be a conflict of interests? I guess my warped mind is making all this up also?

Additionally purchasing Carbon Offsets is only effective if the companies you buy the offsets from actually use the money for doing environmental research and investment. What has GIM accomplished in respect to this?

I never said we were not responsible and I admitted that we do contribute to the CO2, but the global warming cannot be 100% accredited to humans, there is more at play here than this. I'd also be willing to bet that even if we reduced our CO2 production by 90% we will still see the Earth's temperature on the rise.

Do me a favor, refrain from the name calling and just answer my questions? And if you are going to make a point at least back it up with a reference to a link myself and others can read for ourselves.

I cringe when Jobs makes a statement such as this. Its too polarizing and hurts Apples image with 50% of their potential market. Make great products and stay out of the political opinion market! PLEASE!

rjpotts:

Fair enough... no name calling.

We produce between 20-25%; Europe produces another 20-25%, and between China, India, and the rest of the world, we come up with the other 50%. China and India's pollution problems are already bad enough that both countries have had to adopt measures to restrain pollution. Having travelled to some of the industrial regions of India, I won't argue that the U.S is the only source of greenhouse gases. But per capita, we are some of the worst polluters; one nation of 300 million people produces 20% of the world's greenhouse gases while two nations with a combined population of close to 2.5 billion still generates less than 20%; this is a staggering statement on American ability to generate pollution, and given that we have the technology, money, and incentive to develop intelligent solutions to fossil fuel dependency, it would be nice to see us take a lead on something other than invading sovereign nations.

You make a good case on the Carbon offsets that I don't have the time to research and rebut at the moment. I don't know much about the politics or economics of that area, aside from the fact that attaching economic incentives to pollute or not pollute, and making a market for environmental cleanup, is a potentially good solution for dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. That is, if it is properly structured.

I imagine the reason Gore doesn't fly coach like the rest of us is much the same reason that most former White House residents don't fly that way; it is potentially dangerous to his safety to do so, given his high profile. Have you seen what presidents fly around in? Air Force One is a heck of a private plane...

As for the SUV comment, I don't have an answer for you. Again, the substance of his message is more important to me than the particulars of his travel itinerary. My presumption is that he tries to offset what carbon he does emit in good faith, though your sources indicate otherwise. If what you post is the end of the story, I'll concede that he doesn't practice what he preaches as well as he could. That fact, however, does not necessarily diminish the importance of what he preaches.

As for the comment about human contribution to CO2... I don't think the jury is out on this issue anymore. There are countless independent reports indicating that the earth is warming at an unusual rate, and many of them were cited earlier in this thread. Even if human activity is responsible for 50% of that warming, it makes economic sense to slow that process. It is far more expensive to deal with insect-driven epidemics, powerful storms, crop failures, and water shortages than it is to down-regulate our own carbon emissions. If things continue the way they are going, the wars of the future will be fought not over oil, but water.

Maybe human caused, maybe solar flares. In any case there is more to the state of the world than what most people know or think they understand.

Found this thread and thought it would be beneficial if you read it with an open mind:

http://www.golivewire.com/forums/peer-easot-support-a.html#postNumber1

I do not dispute the importance of his message. Having been a life long Scout, the environment has always been important to me. It does sicken me to see it abused.

It sickens me even more to have someone like him use the situation for self profit and the robbing those that blindly put faith in to what he says.

I don't want anyone to take what I have to say at face value. Research it, dig into the information, learn from the resources that are out there and make informed decisions.

1. Jobs can choose almost anybody for Apple's Board of Directors. He picked Gore for a reason. He must think highly about him.

2. To be a friend does not make you a bad choice. On The contrary, a friend is someone that knows you and still loves you. On this line, if Jobs, knowing Gore still would vote for him says a lot.

3. I would never vote for Gore. I do not think he is a capable person to run the country.

Mario Ruiz

Visit www.oursheet.com

Quote: "Better to be an ultra left winger than a brain-dead ignorant Jesus-worshipping right-wing fascist a******."

That sure is a tall, bold, hateful and ignorant statement. Based on what you said, here is a verse for you:

"Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from the Lord. But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish." -2 Peter 2:11-12

The passage gets worse from there talking about the blackest darkness reserved people such as described above. Don't let yourself be so closed off to the Lord. Study for yourself the things in the bible. Don't think your intellect is higher than your Creator's.

Whatever your reason for such negative comments regarding God and Christians, let them go. Seek the truth about Christianity by reading the bible for yourself. Don't let preconceived notions or your own brain or what others have done against you get in the way.

I don't know your real name, but I'll be praying for you every day whether you mock me or continue to blaspheme God. God doesn't (and I don't as well) want anyone to live in utter darkness for all eternity. Read the gospel of John first and then Romans. Read it with an open heart. I know you, and others, may laugh me off, but I'll pray that you will be driven to read and understand God's word.

Take care.

If you want a neurotic cult leader who eats like a pig when things don't go his way (remember those post-defeat (and it WAS a defeat) photos? Classic.) then by all means vote Gore. He's Jim Jones with an eating disorder.

"No controlling legal authority" Al as President scares the daylights out of me, not to mention his role in the Y2K boondoggle.. Not likely, no money will be bet on this horse that has already lost several times. Besides, he is making too much money with his environmental scaremongering.. It is not that anything to the left is ultra-left, it is that anything to the right of ultra-left is "the vast right wing conspirancy" boogeyman..

Al may have saved Steve's butt re the back-dated options scandal. Of course I would expect Steve to suck up to Al with comment such as this..

It's easy to proclaim understanding of the universe when you think all the answers are in one book. The link you reference evidences fanaticism of the highest order, while you continue to demonstrate a real unwillingness to understand simple natural laws. Ask others to open their minds when you open your own, even if opening the mind means that you must put down the Bible and pick up Stephen Jay Gould for once.

Word.

Dude smurfman, you don't actually believe that some omnipotent being wrote the bible do you? It is all a yarn of old ideas and views. Egypt never had hebrew slaves. Maybe in homes of the wealthy, but the pyramids were deemed a sacred national project, slaves were forbidden to go near the sites. Bet your bible skipped over that part, or the part where people can walk on water, it's called rumor gossip, oh and if you like science, it's called ICE, ya ice is water, you can indeed walk on it i myself floated down a creek on some. People need to stop praying and start actually making changes and DOING things that have real impact and real effect and not something that can be summed up by the term "mental masturbation". And, heck, if i AM wrong and there IS a god, i don't think that god would like the way we treat the planet they created. Oh, god created, according to the bible, the earth in what, a day? No wonder, it's like fast food but on a cosmic scale. Here today gone tomorrow right? I don't think so. THis is our only life, and this is our only home, and as the most technologically advanced species on this chunk of rock we are responsible for its upkeep. Go back to school.

Wow, such Biblical slander. C'mon man, you can do better than that. Do another google search and regurgitate a bit more. And climacs, I feel where your coming from. You gotta remember though, many Christians seek their own understanding. They weigh the Bible against modern science and vice versa. I am a skeptic by nature. I don't walk blindly. I do my own research. The Bible stands up man. It can be a trip. Let it be said, I love my planet. On a side note, let's not pretend the President is running this country alone. National policy does not allow tyrannical decision making. And for those that love to spout conspiracy theory: terrorist activity is fierce. Our liberal media has made it clear these organizations hate us. Imagine what we don't know. Agree or disagree, we must respect our leaders. In-fighting has made us a global laughing stock.

just totally ignore this remaining 28% who support the worst president ever. All they do is go to the Rove talking point outlets and pick up a few catch phrases and repeat them. Anybody who can't see how the Iraq war was based on lies and can think this draft dodging rich frat brat is a leader is hopeless. There are other issues to be worked out among the 72% who are willing to deal with reality. Let's spend out time where we can do something instead of wasting it with the ditto heads.

Yea, google, that's it.. Yea, i can't be educated or intelligent or have my own original ideas and hypothesis which you probably sadly wouldn't understand. By the way, what is your point? President has veto power, and such an evenly divided congress will be hard pressed to overturn the vetos. The president has overstepped his powers and as a national leader not done nearly enough to stop your addiction to oil. As far as walking blindly, i would say that is what the bush administration is doing. Next time you try to be a troll realize the person you're bashing is one of the few genuine non-sh*t people on the net. I use ask.com for most searches, i only use google to find facts on obscure automobile and aviation/transportation technologies, and things such as the names of the bridges in St. Petersburg. Also i use it for images.. I would never waste my time restating or plagiarizing the stuff online, i'd link to it. Thanks for the baseless accusations though!

Ohh, and nothing i say online is made up or false, nor was any slander involved. Slander is spoken, in print its libel. In any case i don't lie, and i don't regurgitate anything. Thanks again for the baseless accusations.

"Better to be an ultra left winger than a brain-dead ignorant Jesus-worshipping right-wing fascist a******."

And people thought "yeah, them are some nappy headed ho's" was biggoted?

Albert Gore, if he were to run for president would NOT win, again. He will never win. Maybe in France, but not here.

Climacs, you're deluded. You also don't have your facts straight about Al Gore winning in 2000. Why don't you go back and do some research on this subject. IF you do (which I know you won't) you will find that months after the elections were over and final, final, final recounts were ALL in, in Florida, poor Al LOST fair and square. That's even with all of the military ballots that mysteriously "dissapeared." Tens ouf thousands of militart voters who were overseas fighting to save YOUR liberal a** were never counted and never found. Hmmmmmmmm. The Supreme court for E-Gore losing.

While I am a huge Apple fan and I happen to like Steve Jobs, I think his politics suck the big one. He's as crazy as Al Gore in that department. What's warming the planet are all of the lights Big Al has on at his mansion.

Why? Why is it better to be a left wing "loser?" Why do you like being a loser? Your power talk doesn't faze me in the least. You need to do better than that to make me fell "attacked." Wimp. You need to go visit www.patdollard.com

Where is Tetsudo?

Easy fast ibook. I was giving you a ribbing. Why is it that atheists and/or democrats are so darn defensive? The decision to go to war is (and was) congressional. It led to the capture of Saddam Hussein - executed for being a hater - which I think worked out in the world's favor as he was actively seeking nuclear armament. And now we're dealing with Al-Qaeda. Their philosophy is to kill until only they are left. Hitler had a similar philosophy and I know you gotta a problem with Hitler. If you're not sure we're actually dealing with a deadly problem in Iraq, ask a US soldier. Better yet, ask a US soldier what he or she thinks about Al Gore. By the way fast i book, all I was able to gather from your two posts was that your feelings were really, really hurt.

We all know the Democrats are going to win this Presidential election. The media outlets and their agendas have assured that. If Al Gore ran for President I wouldn't vote for him. I also won't vote for Hilary either. We need a person who thinks different. Oh fine, we'll elect Steve Jobs. On one condition: I can continue to be a republican. Tetsudo!!!!!!!

Deviztate:

How many U.S soldiers have you talked to? I work with a lot of military clients, and I hear a lot from them; what many officers realize is that Iraqis want most of the same things we do; electricity, water, sanitation, and security ensuring that their children and spouses will return home from work or school every afternoon. Under Saddam, believe it or not, they had that; while he did persecute people, at least Iraqis could understand and predict how to avoid being the "nail that sticks up;" political repression is always preferable to anarchy (what exists in Iraq today), because a police state acts on specific patterns of behavior, while anarchist thugs will kill you simply because you happen to have something they want, or because they hate you.

If you talked to more U.S soldiers, they would tell you that, while they do face enemies in Iraq, most of those enemies are not Al Queda or the imaginary bloodthirsty villains you speak of in your post, but angry people who feel that their country is occupied. Remember what Ron Paul had the courage to ask at the Republican debate? How would we Americans feel if the Chinese invaded our country and built an embassy larger than the vatican on our soil?

We Americans have the most peculiar logic nowadays. We presume that, since a regime might be unpopular, the subjects of that regime would welcome U.S intervention to blow that regime to h***. Think about the absurdity of this position; 72% of Americans are unhappy with the way this government is leading, but I would guess less than 1% would want a foreign power to solve that problem by bombing the country and imposing a John Bolton-esque "regime change."

Finally, neither Iraq nor Afghan wars were 'congressional.' Congress abdicated it's constitutional powers to the president through the Use of Force Authorization, passed on Sept 14, 2001. Bush has since abused that power to launch this most recent illegal and fruitless conflict. However, we can blame Congress for being so cowardly, and the White House for being so greedy, that both were willing to act out of accord with this nation's founding document to draft a response to barefoot terrorists in Afghanistan. Since you enjoy comparisons to Hitler, I invite you to look up how Chancellor Hitler was able to use a policy of fear to convince the Weimar parliament that he "required" emergency powers to defend Germany.

I don't know how many soldiers I've spoken to. Quite a few I suppose. The most common assessment floating in the ranks is that our hands are tied. Regardless, I completely agree that Iraqi civilians want resolution, but these people realize that Saddam Hussein is responsible for their bad situation. Their failed economy was a direct result of Saddam Hussein's agenda - a bigoted agenda not intended to better ALL Iraqis.

"If you talked to more U.S soldiers, they would tell you that, while they do face enemies in Iraq, most of those enemies are not Al Queda or the imaginary bloodthirsty villains you speak of in your post, but angry people who feel that their country is occupied." I have little response to this. You are incorrect. Al-Qaeda is more than a group. It is a movement and many fight on its behalf. The movement has had an interest in Iraq for some time. US efforts in Iraq are intended to secure a democracy resistant to Al-Qaeda and other sympathizing systems.

"We Americans have the most peculiar logic nowadays. We presume that, since a regime might be unpopular, the subjects of that regime would welcome U.S intervention to blow that regime to h***." We could certainly sit idly by and wait for evolution to sort things out. American soldiers would be safe and sound. With a little luck, things might just be okay.

"Finally, neither Iraq nor Afghan wars were 'congressional.' Congress abdicated it's constitutional powers to the president through the Use of Force Authorization, passed on Sept 14, 2001." True. However, this IS a congressional act and it was a response to September 11, 2001. It was intended to seek groups responsible for terrorism. Al-Qaeda home base was Afghanistan. They then set up shop in Fallujah which happens to be in Iraq.

Sorry sir, I forgot to respond to your Hitler reference.

I don't think your history is entirely accurate, but I understand your point. However, President Bush is not known for his ability to smooth talk, or in some cases, talk at all; but I certainly won't judge a man's intellect based on his ability to speak in public. That being said though, it seems unlikely he used his verbal prowess to convince the house and senate of anything.

There had to be an understanding that terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda operate from many locations, including domestic locations. A call to vote every time an action was necessary simply would have been impractical.

In 2002, President Bush wanted to use our military forces to enter Iraq and look for weapons. Congress once again voted in favor of US military intervention. I already know what you're thinking lordarka. The senate was jam packed with republicans, right? Well the American public put them there.

Gore would be a disaster for the planet. He is using consensus as science. Science has yet to prove the causes of global warming, yet he has all the answers. He is a know-it-all demagogue with hints of moral and intellectual superiority. If we trust his logic, we would all still think the earth is flat just because everything we see in front of us tells us it is. Science is truth. Consensus is dangerous. Just ask the Germans who's consensus was that Jews were the problem. It's really that dangerous. Think. Don't be fooled by this alarmist bull. We are not sheep!!!!!!!

ronjamin, you make as much sense as those guys in the Creation Museum in Ohio.