Ah yes ...

Posted by: MattMac112

Ah yes ... - 07/06/08 03:34 PM

NBC has a new outlet to push their "global warming / sky is falling / polar bears are dying / going green" agenda. <br><br><blockquote>An investor group led by NBC Universal and two private equity firms clinched a deal for the Weather Channel on Sunday, after three weeks of negotiations over the sale of the weather news giant.</blockquote><br><br>Great. Look for more Matt Lauer weather hand-wringing on yet another cable outlet. <br><br>I love NBC's climate fear agenda where, on a regular basis, Brian Williams calls hot and humid summer days "extreme weather." <br><br>***************<br><br>nuttin'
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/06/08 04:01 PM

Global warming/climate change is not an agenda. It's a measurable phenomenon. Denying that is just ignorant.<br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/06/08 05:40 PM

Very true<br><br>But to think that we "puny humans" were the cause for global warming in the last 100 years - is sooooo completely ignorant as well.<br><br>Volcanos pump out cubic tons every day that make China a mere speck on the pollution scale.<br><br>
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/06/08 05:56 PM

There is reliable evidence and measurements that show a significant acceleration since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.<br><br>
Posted by: DLC

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/06/08 06:10 PM

Here's a reference.... <br> Humans accelerate Global warming <br><br> Polar Caps & Global warming <br>1979 and the present... <br><br>remember MacBozo.... some said Saddam had WMDs too... <br>and nuclear weapons .. and could hit us or our allies in 45 min !! <br><br>not to mention .,.. Iraqi oil would pay for the War, and they'd greet us with flowers.... <br><br><br>David (OFI)
Posted by: FSM

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/06/08 06:39 PM

jumping to that conclusions is clearly paranoia. <br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/06/08 06:51 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>Volcanos pump out cubic tons every day that make China a mere speck on the pollution scale.<p><hr></blockquote><p>That's an interesting point. I look forward to the forum scientists to weigh in on this discussion.<br><br> A quick google and scan of a few articles seem to indicate that volcanic activity emits pollutants into the atmosphere creating a greenhouse effect. The result of this activity of adding particulates into the atmosphere decrease the solar energy that can reach the surface, thereby reducing energy absorption on the surface, resulting in global cooling. The problem cited with manmade atmospheric pollutants is that it allows solar energy in to be absorbed by the surface (water) and decreases the amount of energy reflected back into space.<br><br>"Explosive eruptions can inject large quantities of dust and gaseous<br>material (such as sulphur dioxide) into the upper atmosphere (the<br>stratosphere , where sulphur dioxide is rapidly converted into sulphuric acid aerosols. <br>Whereas volcanic pollution of the lower atmosphere is removed within days by the effects <br>of rainfall and gravity, stratospheric pollution may remain there for several years,<br>gradually spreading to cover much of the globe.<br><br>The volcanic pollution results in a substantial reduction in the<br>direct solar beam, largely through scattering by the highly reflective<br>sulphuric acid aerosols. This can amount to tens of percent. The reduction,<br>is however, compensated for by an increase in diffuse radiation and by the<br>absorption of outgoing terrestrial radiation (the greenhouse effect).<br>Overall, there is a net reduction of 5 to 10% in energy received at the<br>Earth's surface."<br><br>. . . . . <br><br>edit: perhaps Matt Lauer emits a significant amount of hot gases that effects the climate too?<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/06/08 07:33 PM

You don't need to be a scientist to realize the type of pollution that volcanoes spew and what our cars and power plants spew are two entirely different things. As you point out, volcanoes cause global cooling, not warming. When Krakatoa blew it was cold for several years.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/06/08 07:46 PM

And you don't need to be a scientist to realize that pissing in the well is not such a good thing to do. Or turning on every light in your house for the entire evening to spite people who may advocate conservation and promote a Green lifestyle.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/06/08 07:46 PM

I think that the key point is that over the last so many millennia the planet has struck a balance. It gets banged up from time to time, either because there's a great deal of vulcanism or because the sun puts out more energy than usual or because the very long duration planetary wobble gets to one of its extreme points. But the balance is there. As is true of all delicate balances, though, a little interference from the puniest of things can easily throw it out of whack. That's what we're doing.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/06/08 07:51 PM

6.7 billion puny things and all the stuff they consume, build, destroy, discard and poop on.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: cope

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/06/08 08:07 PM

&[censored] of peak oil will be slamming down well before the most extreme consequences of man-induced climate change give me beach front property here in central Florida.<br><br>P.S. Why in the Sam Hill is this topic in the political soapbox forum? Anthropogenic global climate change is a fact of life, not beholding to any particular politcal point of view and certain to impact every living organism on the Earth, party affiliation notwithstanding. Those who fail to deal with it now will need to keep their reality distortion machines fully charged over the next 20 to 30 years.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by cope on 07/06/08 08:14 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/06/08 08:08 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Or turning on every light in your house for the entire evening to spite people who may advocate conservation and promote a Green lifestyle.<p><hr></blockquote><p>What kind of as[i][/i]shole would do that?<br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/06/08 08:29 PM

In good humor, no doubt.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/06/08 09:02 PM

Couple of years ago, I think it was Houston, TX, scientists reported that the air quality had improved significantly in the city, due to various clean up initiatives. The downside was that the city temperature had increased moreso than neighbouring cities. They cited the reduction in particulate pollution was allowing more sunlight to heat the city.<br><br>I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Posted by: garyW

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/06/08 10:47 PM

Going back to the original post for a moment ... I can understand the concern over the NBC Universal acquisition of The Weather Channel if you have the mindset that Global Warming is a farce and the climate fear agenda is concocted by a liberal media and Algore (ManPigBear, etc.), and that science is a big liberal lie. <br><br>On the other hand, it's only The Weather Channel. The place you may tune to for a few moments during the day to see what the local weather is, or how much worse the weather is where you aren't. <br><br>I think situations like Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. buying The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones & Company is a much bigger deal. The agenda there seems a lot more influencial than Matt Lauer could ever hope to be. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: MacBozo

Another thing - 07/07/08 07:01 AM

The polar ice caps reflect a lot of solar radiation. With the measurable and accelerating shrinkage of those ice caps, there is less reflective surface at the poles which equates to more warming. We passed the tipping point a while ago, so there is no stopping the current cycle of climate change. We might be able to slow it, but not stop it at this point. I hope our Canadian friends can start farming on a large scale as their climate begins to resemble the current climate now in our mid-west and plains.<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 07:05 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I think situations like Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. buying The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones & Company is a much bigger deal. The agenda there seems a lot more influencial than Matt Lauer could ever hope to be. <p><hr></blockquote><p>Ah Rupert Murdoch. One more entry on the liberal wheel of fear. Spin the wheel and to see what the liberal boogeyman of the day will be: Wal*mart? Rupert Murdoch? Evangelical Christians? Haliburton? Karl Rove? Fox News? Darth Cheney? <br><br>Meanwhile, NBC pushes their liberal agena programming across their many platforms: The DNC Nightly News, Today Show, their "in bed" partners at Newsweek, CNBC, Sunday Night Football (who could forget the moronic "turning off the lights" during the pre-game as NBC pushed "going green" week), MSDNC, where Olberblather might as well be hosting a show for Daily Kos or Moveon.org, into their primetime shows where they regularly attack anything not left-wing. And now it won't be long until we see "doomed" Polar Bears on The Weather Channel floating off to their deaths while Ann Curry hosts "going green on the 8s." <br><br>***************<br><br>nuttin'
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 07:31 AM

<br><br>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 09:13 AM

Sorry the doomed polar bears are already out there - during commercials, though if you watch TV using a DVR you can fast wind through that bit and miss it, if you're so inclined.<br><br>I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 01:32 PM

All that liberal leaning leftist bias and manipulating, regardless of it's truth is not close to a tenth as scary as the [censored] the other side has pulled in the last 10 plus years. I'll take the left cuz the right scares the [censored] [censored] out of me, it really does.<br><br>What is to be hurt by trying to make humans consume less and conserve more; even if it turned out it had nothing to do with climate change?<br><br>What is to be helped by not doing anything?<br><br>I read in a work my Asimov (years and years ago, so don't ask me where or for an exact quote) that finding new energy sources, however clean, is not anywhere near the only answer. He did some calculations and figured that even if scientists found a perfectly clean way to turn any kind of matter into energy, at current rates of increasing consumption, the entire earth would be used up in centuries.<br><br>We are STILL what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 01:45 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>P.S. Why in the Sam Hill is this topic in the political soapbox forum?<p><hr></blockquote><p>See the post from GaryW. Global warming is being pushed upon us by Algore (ManPigBear, etc.) and so it is political. That it is not political, at least not in any other first world country is a fact of life.<br><br>We live in a country where scientific fact, evolution, global warming, among other facts becomes a point of controversy. The stupidity boggles the mind. I think I'll go soak my head and watch a Pat Condell video.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 01:54 PM

As usual with the right wing nuts, Matt attacks by making it seem that the "left" is obsessed with a laundry list of individuals:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>spin the wheel and [sic] to see what the liberal boogeyman of the day will be: Wal*mart? Rupert Murdoch? Evangelical Christians? Haliburton? Karl Rove? Fox News? Darth Cheney? <p><hr></blockquote><p><br>To be sure there's some truth to that, but that sort of concern is just a mirror image of the right wing obsession with an equally focused laundry list of individuals:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The DNC Nightly News, Today Show, their "in bed" partners at Newsweek, CNBC, Sunday Night Football (who could forget the moronic "turning off the lights" during the pre-game as NBC pushed "going green" week), MSDNC, where Olberblather might as well be hosting a show for Daily Kos or Moveon.org, into their primetime shows where they regularly attack anything not left-wing.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>The trick is to presume that the right wing nut's list can be reified into a substantial "threat," usually presented as the MSM, which is monolithically concerned with advancing a left-wing agenda. As has been rehearsed over and over again, that perspective ignores the actual facts on the ground, for instance that there was not a single MSM outlet that challenged the imperative to go to war, or that much of the propaganda that led to the war was purveyed by the MSM.<br><br>More significantly, at least to me, is the right wing nut's bone-headed refusal to understand that the function of reporters is, or ought to be always to challenge the people in power. So, the right wing nut forgets that during the Clinton years, the media went after Clinton much as it has decided it needs to go after Bush.<br><br>But all of it has gotten so tiresome that it has no traction any more. Only a fool would defend the policies of the current president, and only a fool would think that a reporter who points out the constant, repeated failures of the current administration is somehow a left wing conspirator.<br><br>So sure, Newsweek attacks the president. My question: what's wrong with that?<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: Centercentaur

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 02:44 PM

"global warming / sky is falling / polar bears are dying / going green" agenda"<br><br> The really disgusting, sickeningly ignorant, unforgivable part of that is how you include polar bears as part of your mockery. IT IS ALREADY OBVIOUS that that species is in BIG trouble. Where the hell is your brain, anyway? Do you have any? <br> <br> How the right wing makes tools of foolish, gullible people like you, and you ally with them to RUIN this country, and despoil the very earth we need to survive.<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 02:47 PM

On the other hand, liberals have seen their long standing agenda driven monopoly in the MSM challenged over the last 10 or so years and it they've thrown a nearly decade long fit over it. It's not enough that liberal - socialist advocate journalism is spewed over the airwaves of NBC, CBS and ABC .. across the pages of The New York Times, LA Times, Boston Globe .. distributed by AP and redistributed by thousands of newspapers .. let a Fox News rise in the ratings and liberals collectively act like a the [sic - just for you, Al] frightened townspeople in The Crucible, screaming WITCH! at every turn. They get all pissy-pants about ONE (pay to watch) cable news channel that can't garner the ratings of the lowest rated, widely and freely distributed evening newscast. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>for instance that there was not a single MSM outlet that challenged the imperative to go to war, or that much of the propaganda that led to the war was purveyed by the MSM.<p><hr></blockquote><p>This is a growing myth perpetuated by the extreme left (or as Democrats like to call them Democrats) bloggers. Down in the fever swamps. It's vogue to say the MSM played kissy-poo with the President during the lead-up to Iraq. To them, while "Bush the Monkey" was announcing plans to invade and occupy Iraq in an illegal war, the MSM was asking where he bought his shoes or who gave him that tie. <br><br><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A20RagPirNo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A20RagPirNo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br><br>Then there's the myth, perpetuated by the "always under attack" Bill Clinton, that the media was just as hard on him in the 90s as they have been to George Bush today. That's as credible the "I did not have sex with that woman .." denial. <br><br>***************<br><br>nuttin'
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 02:59 PM

Lovely. You think one ought not to trust people like the one you quote in support of your own argument, except presumably when they support your argument. Lovely.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 03:22 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Lovely. You think one ought not to trust people like the one you quote in support of your own argument, except presumably when they support your argument. Lovely.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I remember the MSM hammering the President over going to Iraq, contrary to what's now being posted in far-left bloggy land. Gregory confirms. <br><br>***************<br><br>nuttin'
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 05:08 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I remember the MSM hammering the President over going to Iraq, contrary to what's now being posted in far-left bloggy land. Gregory confirms.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Wow... that's impressive. What else do you remember?<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 05:14 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Wow... that's impressive. What else do you remember?<p><hr></blockquote><p>That ... sarcastic pettiness is never in short supply 'round here. <br><br>***************<br><br>nuttin'
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 05:31 PM

Taking etiquette lectures from you is like getting lessons in democracy from Robert Mugabe.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: Geetaro

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 05:48 PM

ah no<br><br>as per usual, go stand on the corner of a busy intersection<br>breath deep<br>breath it for an hour or so...<br><br>tell me then<br>need I mention the mental pollution of all the 'old-breed'<br><br>: P<br><br>Nature is always ready to humble us. Actually every day.
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 05:56 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Taking etiquette lectures from you is like getting lessons in democracy from Robert Mugabe.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Among a liberal's most cherished devices:<br><br>a). Orwell or Orwellian references<br>b). "through the looking glass" mentions<br>c). obscure geopolitical "jokes"<br><br>**yawn**<br><br>***************<br><br>nuttin'
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 06:31 PM

You and Mojo are the only two people I know who use the acronym MSM. Why is that?<br><br>We are STILL what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 06:50 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>You and Mojo are the only two people I know who use the acronym MSM. Why is that?<p><hr></blockquote><p>I think I saw Mojo use it and it just seemed easier. <br><br><br>***************<br><br>nuttin'
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 06:52 PM

And ditto for the right wing nuts<br><br>1) MSM<br>2) unpatriotic<br>3) hysterical<br><br>Look in the mirror and what's right in reality seems left in the reflection.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 06:59 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>2) unpatriotic<p><hr></blockquote><p>Another myth: Republicans always challenging a lib's patriotism. How can we challenge it when libs go around constantly screaming:<br><br>YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CHALLENGE MY PATRIOTISM!!!<br>YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CHALLENGE MY PATRIOTISM!!!<br>YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CHALLENGE MY PATRIOTISM!!!<br><br>Uhhh .. shaddup willya?! No one is interested in "challenging your patriotism." <br><br>***************<br><br>nuttin'
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 07:06 PM

I'd responded in kind. Silly me. The roiling is what you like. I'll stop feeding the master baiter.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple> <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by yoyo52 on 07/07/08 07:07 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 07:21 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I'd responded in kind. Silly me. The roiling is what you like.<p><hr></blockquote><p> <br><br>No. What I like doing is posting here, espousing opinions just like everyone else. I forgot: only liberal policies shall be discussed and doomsday global warming topics are to be treated with the utmost dire seriousness. No other opinions allowed or welcomed. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I'll stop feeding the master baiter.<p><hr></blockquote><p>But hey, if you want to take it down this road, have at it Al. Knock yourself out .. No .. seriously .. knock yourself out. <br><br>***************<br><br>nuttin'
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 08:24 PM

[censored] too?". So yeah, patriotism of people who didn't like the way things were going was questioned by the right all over the place. Admittedly it's old news and probably doesn't work like it used to, so the right doesn't try it much these days from what I've seen. But oh did they. "Shut up and sing, " ain't just whistling dixie.<br><br>We are STILL what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 08:39 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>So yeah, patriotism of people who didn't like the way things were going was questioned by the right all over the place. Admittedly it's old news and probably doesn't work like it used to, so the right doesn't try it much these days from what I've seen. <p><hr></blockquote><p><br>These days? I don't recall a rash of it happening in those days either. <br><br>I recall when libs started carping endlessly about their patriotism being questioned, as if an alarming outbreak of patriotism questing was spreading through the world like a global warming wildfire. Spontaneous eruptions occurring everywhere. Kennedy, Daschle, Reed & Reid. Pelosi, Schumer, Leahy, Kerry & Edwards .. all demanding, over and over and over, that their patriotism was not to be questioned. And I remember thinking "who the hell are these people talking about?" <br><br>***************<br><br>nuttin'
Posted by: FSM

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 08:55 PM

Bush can win the presidential election in 2000 and 2004 yet you believe that the media is pushing an effective liberal agenda. that's funny. seriously.<br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 08:57 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I forgot: only liberal policies shall be discussed and doomsday global warming topics are to be treated with the utmost dire seriousness<p><hr></blockquote><p>You've been around here how many years? Have you been able to change anyone's opinion yet? Why do you keep trying? You know the definition of insanity, right?<br><br>State your opinion and move on, you know most aren't going to agree with it. I don't know what you're expecting to accomplish in one thread that you haven't been able to accomplish in what, 8 years or so?<br><br>I gave up on these liberal wackos a while ago. <---------- To all.<br><br>------>#1 - JD's Trivia game<br><br>------>#2 - MM-MCF Trivia game<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Reboot on 07/07/08 08:59 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Ah yes ... - 07/07/08 09:03 PM

"These days? I don't recall a rash of it happening in those days either. "<br><br>And I wonder why you didn't notice? Why would you have had any reason to? I heard such questioning of people's patriotism everywhere, including conservative family members and friends back home on a personal level. Has your patriotism every been questioned Matt? Mine has, to my face, and for the simple fact that I questioned what was going on in the Bush administration and our response to 9/11, most specifically the invasion of Iraq.<br><br>We are STILL what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle