Nay, not so! I'm merely having fun. I'm using my son's laptop, my PC being in the "shop," as it were, and my wife being up to her ears with work, using the other gizmo. My time here has been limited, lately, so forgive my flippant attitude. You have nothing to do with it. Sorry if you took my Dylan quote so seriously. I'll use a quote from the Great Man any time I can contrive an excuse. Hey, Thumbs put it better! D&D. Like a Rolling Stone.
It's not you, or me, it is just SamFisher... and his quest to ignore the cliche "as plain as the nose on your face." That... and the fact that he feels a sense of fulfillment in his life having the most posts or being "right" on a message board. Most of us grow out of it. No big deal.
All lawyers play semantics. Its what they get paid to do, but then so do politicians. Politics and law are all about semantics. It has nothing to do with who is right and everything to do with who argues better. Or have you never met one? But alas, you are doing the same thing so who's the hypocrite now?
But the level of going this far is silly. As has been pointed out on here, Bush is saying to fight terrorism, and that we have to sacrifice for the war on terror, but he is constantly surrounded by security, has multiple homes, and a huge ranch. He isn't sacrificing anything. He isn't out there fighting terrorists. The stretch here is amazing. The funny thing is that Bush said basically the same thing as Gore during his SOTU. Yet nobody calls him names for having all of his luxuries. Why is that?
Sam fences on the outskirts of truth, and his argumentative nature sometimes proves tiresome and certainly nettlesome. However, he generally is a fun read. However, your understanding of hypocracy seems a tad shallow and certainly stilted. Incidentally, did you find my entrendre? Alas, however, I'm not a lawyer. Hey, McMark -- you nailed it on this one! Good shot. M.
This shouldn't be a big deal. I mean, most people would see that the source is clearly just doing a partisan hit job. Most people would wonder how they got Gore's bill or why they couldn't even post a scan or something. Most people would say, "Why should I take a research center who's president is only 27 years old seriously?" Anyways, Olbermann had a little blurb about this, Countdown actually contacted Gore's utility company instead of "obtaining" a bill: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/28/olbermann-on-gores-energy-use-setting-the-record-straight/ Anyways, they confirmed what was already stated before. Gore uses Green Power Switch and pays twice as much for his power to get it from enviro friendly sources such as wind and solar. Another interesting tidbit, they told Countdown that smaller houses actually use similar amounts of power.
So what you're telling me is that you can not find any quote or implication that Edwards has ever encouraged Americans to "sacrifice" by living in smaller houses, and that rather his conservation measures, to the limited extent that he pushes them, focuses on energy star compliance and other simlar programs - exactly the way he has done in his own house -- correct? Is there anything about the previous sentence that is not true? I take it that since you have not disputed a single one of these sustantive points - you are not able to. Rather you are focused on the "non-semantic" point about generically labeling him a hypocrite because of the use of the word "sacrifice" LOL, again, talk about hypocrisy - you're showing us all how it's done.
So this thread was never about the environment. It was about partisanship and name-calling. Sad, really. No wonder nothing gets done.
Obviously at this point you are just having fun being an antagonist, of course its not like I didn't know that about you.
no I'm having fun being the protagonist. I take it that you couldn't dispute anything that I said right?
