benzene

Yes, that's nasty stuff as well, but you can't really blame the Americans for burning oil. That's the one thing they were careful not to bomb. Showering the country with freaking uranium dust, for cryin'out loud, that is us. And I'll never be convinced inhaling or drinking uranium dust won't make you very very sick.

Are you telling me that John Edwards is going to be an honest politician?

What's he lied about so far?

He hadn’t done a damn thing for NC

I think it's generally conceded that he has been one of the most effective freshman senators in his class. He's in the minority party - both legislative and executive - which does tie the hands a bit.

Dubya will most likely win the reelection

...unless the economy continues shedding jobs at the rate it has throughout his presidency so far. In that case, he'd be extremely vulnerable.

Did you just call me a Hitler-Loving Nazi? It would seem to me that you entirely missed the point, which is not at all surprising.
You should totally question my credibility, after all that is what the United States is founded on.Plus why would you believe I was credible on a blog...or do you automatically not believe anything I sau because I don't agree with you. Methinks that is more the point.

My point WAS and still IS that the credibility of everyone should be questioned. Including your beloved Democrats. Including the lying Republican.That is the part of either an EXTREME LEFT or EXTREME RIGHT argument that does not happen, you take the sources YOU accept as being truth and don't question them while completely ignoring the other sides point of view. That, my friend, is called a lack of empathy.

I reckon your post proved my point of "Neither extreme right nor extreme left will ever get anything accomplished because, like religion, everyone keeps missing the point".

And I certainly respect your right to freedom of speech, so calling me a Hitler-loving Nazi is cool--though laughable.
Maybe you can look me up at Snopes.com and see the truth...

The definition of 'Invent'... to produce (as something useful) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment.

The definition of 'Create'... to produce through imaginative skill.

Oh yeah, it is totally clear to me the difference now. I mean, how could I be so silly.

And even Snopes says...

"Despite a spirited defense of Gore's claim by Vint Cerf (often referred to as the "father of the Internet") in which he stated "that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it," many of the components of today's Internet came into being well before Gore's first term in Congress began in 1977, and it's hard to find any specific action of Gore's (such as his sponsoring a Congressional bill or championing a particular piece of legislation) that one could claim helped bring the Internet into being, much less validate Gore's statement of having taken the "initiative in creating the Internet."

Perhaps your first goal in life, 'The Clitorious R.I.C' would be to read without those rose-colored glasses.

Whoa... hold on there Steph. First, let me state for the record that the tone of my post was one of satire. It's a pretty safe guess that you've got no idea what I was talking about when I referenced Godwin’s Law.
From an earlier Apostropher post: “Godwin's Law, for those of you unfamiliar with the term, originally stated that "as a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." In actual usage, it has come to mean that if in the course of an argument, one side hurls the Hitler/Nazi slur, that side has pretty well lost the argument and it's time to draw it to a close.”
I would hope by knowing this, you may now understand my intended point. To use the inaccurate statement of “Gore said he invented the internet” as absolute proof that Gore is a liar weakens a person's argument so much, that it can be grounds for dismissing that person’s entire claim. In fact, you were using it in an even broader sense as proof that ALL politicians are liars. I only felt compelled to respond to your post to point out that it was not what he said, and if taken in context, it wasn’t even a claim he was trying to make. Was his actual quote awkward and self-serving? Yes. Was it a lie? I would say no.
I sincerely apologize that I called you a Hitler-loving Nazi. Taken with the knowledge of what I was referring to with Godwin’s Law, I hope that you understand that I was trying to make such an outrageous claim that it could only be seen for what it was, a completely ridiculous statement. To be honest (really I am being honest), I didn’t even mean it as an insult directed at you (or anyone for that matter), I was just trying to tie it all back into the original Godwin’s Law reference. (I was hoping the ;-) would also help show the facetiousness of the statement, but I guess not.)
As for the general point that you were making, I couldn’t agree with you more. I absolutely think EVERYBODY should be questioned… in every walk of life, not just political. For your sake though, in the future perhaps you could make a better argument of politicians being liars with a more factual statement. Peace. :-)

Color me Red-Faced.

Yes I "Godwin's Law" explained to me several hours after my hackles were raised. The post seems much more satirical now...and therefore not nearly as insulting...furthering your point that things should be read in their entirity before becoming "heated"