OPEN THREAD: Al Gores Says He Could Become Catholic After Pope Joins Global Warming Band Wagon

Consider this the weekend’s open thread, but first…..

Al Gore just proved that global warming is a religion, not science. After the Commie Pope seemed to have jumped on the global warming band wagon last week, Gore claimed that he could now become a Catholic because apparently the Church has joined the Gore religion.

Many of us out here have said it for years. Global Warming is a religion, not science, and now we see Gore essentially admitting just that.

So, what do you all want to talk about today.

Personal note: My participation here has really been falling off, as you have all seen. The new writing jobs I took on have even tended to prevent me from writing on my own personal blog, I hate to say. I will be farther and fewer around here unless I lose a few of these writing jobs. Just to let you know what is going on with me.

Pollster Bias
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • Brucehenry

    Don’t leave us. If you leave Wizbang will be as good as dead.

    • Retired military

      If Wizbang goes down then that will be a shame. You know times are tough when Bruce wants Warner to post stuff.

      • Brucehenry

        Warner posts a lot of over-the-top stuff that it’s fun to dispute, but he’s an entertaining writer and isn’t so full of himself that he holds a grudge against dissenters, like Jay Tea, Drummond, and that godawful “Rick” guy were.

        • LOL. Sure I get mad and spout off… everyone does. But I do try to remember that this IS just “duh web” and not the end of the world. It is also why I don’t try to get people here banned for anything they post. I leave that to others. I don’t want that power here.

          And I am not getting ready to quit posting here, just letting everyone know why I have not been doing as much as I had been. I’d rather everyone know rather then have needless speculation.

          Besides, I HAVE to spout off here. After all, my wife stopped listening to me years ago! 😉

          Finally, one of the reasons I don’t get too into the comments, really, is because I mostly say what I had to say in the main post! Plus if I stay out of the comments I don’t say anything I thought was *funny* but everyone else just thinks is mean. My sense of humor is sometimes too sharp for the written word, I have to admit.

          • Commander_Chico

            Warner, you suck but I appreciate your efforts.

            I hope to convert you from neocon to Old Republic Burkean conservatism.

            In other news, my bet on oil is paying off well.

            Also, the Second Circuit ruled against mass surveillance. Life is good.

    • Commander_Chico

      David Robertson is just too damned Sooner reasonable. Virtue elsewhere vice on the internet.

  • Retired military

    Al, Dont become Catholic. We have enough hypocrits as it is with Biden, Pelosi and the Kennedys.
    Besides arent you supposed to go see the North Pole this year since it is ice free.

  • jim_m

    Warner, Just keep posting as you can, it’s appreiated.

  • Scalia

    Warner, your efforts are appreciated. I hope you’re able to keep posting as time permits.

  • Brucehenry
    • jim_m

      Yes, the 7 toss up states are probably correct, however, that presumes a toss up election and that is by no means certain (in either direction) this far out.

    • Retired military

      Bruce
      I don’t think the next election will be “normal”. Especially if Hill and Jeb are the nominees. Plus Obama has about 20 more months to screw the country up more and piss off more folks than he already has.
      If republicans don’t nominate Jeb I think they will walk away with it providing Hillary doesn’t play her maverick card and have McCain as her VP pick.

      • Brucehenry

        I have no idea why you think 69 year old Hillary would want to have 70something Republican McCain as a running mate. It’s not a ticket that would appeal to many Democrats that’s for sure. Probably wouldn’t make them vote for a GOP loony like Cruz or even a semi-loony like Rubio but it would tend to make them stay home election day IMO.

        • Retired military

          Bruce

          a. If Hillary is the nominee then dems are going to vote for her no matter what. That means she needs the moderate vote. This gives the great “undecided, moderates” a reason to vote for her.

          b. McCain being old is exactly a good reason to put him on the ticket. I didn’t say he would be VP for 4 years (maybe 1 if he is lucky before Hillary decides he needs to retire due to “health”

          c. McCain would be HIlllary willing to “reach across the aisle. Never mind that it means nothing and she wont act any differently but the MSM would tout the bipartisianship from here to doomsday.

          d It will give McCain a last chance to screw the republicans and get his name into the headlines which is about the only thing that matters to him.

          e. It gives Hillary a better chance at victory even with Obama’s lousy policies and overreaches for the next 20 months.

      • Brucehenry

        BTW I read where Jeb is polling in single digits in Iowa and around 10% in New Hampshire. I don’t think he’ll be the nominee. At this point I’m thinking Walker.

        • Commander_Chico

          Walker sucks for them. Mobilizes unions big time.

          Best GOP nominees are Jeb, Rubio or Kasich for path to victory.

          Kasich the best, watch him. Could be a good president, too.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s early yet, but at this point I think Jeb missed his chance when Dumbass George jumped the gun and ran in 2000 instead of him. Now the Bush brand is poison, not only to Dems and Independents but to Republicans as well.

            He might not be so bad as president, really, but as of now I think he will never have the chance.

            Kind of a shame, really. I didn’t vote for his father, but in retrospect his handling of world affairs during the dissolution of the Soviet Empire was very very adroit. If Junior had been president then the world would be in ashes today.

          • Why thank you for providing the clucker view on the matter.

          • jim_m

            Funnny how “the Bush brand is poison” but the Clinton brand somehow is not. You’re a dumbass.

          • Brucehenry

            Well maybe I’m wrong about the Bush brand being poison, but, like I say, he ain’t polling well, and Hillary is.

          • jim_m

            Dems would vote for anyone that will continue their criminal undertaking. Hillary will do that.

          • Brucehenry

            Even if that were true it doesn’t make me wrong about the Bush brand. But I will concede anyway that I could be.

          • jim_m

            I’m not denying that the Bush Brand sucks. I’m just pointing out that it isn’t the only one.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Walker could do well, he mobilized the hell out of the union crowd, but in the end it didnt help them much, because he also mobilized the right.

          • Retired military

            Unions are mobilized no matter what. That is like saying republican X would mobilize the proabortion vote .

          • jim_m

            Yeah, the unions were so mobilized that they drove Walker right out of office. Oh wait…

            But you lurch into the truth on Kasich.

        • Retired military

          Jeb hasn’t actually announced yet.

  • JWH

    With eleventy billion candidates declared, is there any chance the GOP could winnow the field with a season of Big Brother: Political Edition?

  • LiberalNightmare

    I’ve been watching the response to the Texas shooting with a lot of interest lately.

    Apparently the more ‘leftish’ among us (and an embarrassing number of those on the right) think that the whole thing is actually Pamela Geller’s fault for sponsoring the draw mohamed contest in the first place.

    I guess the feeling is that the statement made by the contest was too provocative, and perhaps irresponsible.

    So I was hoping we could take a look at this example, and maybe someone could explain to me why Geller’s statement is irresponsibly provocative, but this one isn’t?

    https://youtu.be/J_t3XIdEvxs

    • Brucehenry

      I didn’t see anyone left OR right saying the “whole thing was Pamela Geller’s fault.” Just about everybody had the same reaction as did Jon Stewart. (Bonus takedown of the nuts who think Obama is going to invade Texas):

      http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-it-is-not-okay-to-shoot-other-people-because-you-are-offended/

      • Just about every media talking head said that it was Geller’s fault.

        • Brucehenry

          Many said that it was rude and inconsiderate. Many said it was pandering to xenophobic jingo-shouting bigots, and it was.

          But nearly everyone agreed that she and the Islamophobic bigots she pandered to had a right to say whatever it was they wanted to say, and nearly everyone said, like Stewart did, that it’s not fucking ok to shoot them.

          However it IS ok to call them mouth-breathing bigots who are making their point inappropriately, just as we all felt back in 1977 about the dumbass Nazis who marched in Skokie. Yes, even dumbass bigots like Nazis and Pam Geller’s followers must be tolerated and have the right to say whatever it is they wish to say without fear of being shot.

          • jim_m

            Left wing media, and some right, have taken the position of, I believe in free speech, but…” and then condemning Geller.

            This isn’t about bigots and stop your bulls hit claim that it is. This is about Islamic intolerance and anyone who says, “I believe in free speech, but…” is voting to allow Muslims to silence dissent by threatening death to anyone who thinks differently from them.

            I like the cartoon at the end of this article by Mark Stein . Ironically from the winner of Geller’s, contest.

            Remember, stay quite and you’ll be okay. Didn’t work out so well on 9/11.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s ridiculous to say that the phrase “I believe in free speech but…” is voting for anything. I can think of many endings to that sentence that don’t connote what you say it connotes.

            “I believe in free speech but there is such a thing as good manners” is one.

            “I believe in free speech but the Nazis who marched through Skokie were rude, inconsiderate bigots and deserve to be called the same” is another.

            “I believe in free speech but some who exercise that right unfortunately say some offensive things.”

            “I believe in free speech but this Mapplethorpe guy is an asshole.”

            “I believe in free speech but just because you have the right to say something doesn’t mean you should say it, as a matter of etiquette.”

            “I believe in free speech but people who say offensive things just to be offensive are assholes.”

          • jim_m

            It is the opinion of Salman Rushdie that these people are silently supporting the quashing of free speech. Read the Stein article.

            I know that you will hide behind the, strict literal interpretation of words and ignore the context, actions and intent of their authors, but the fact is that you and others saying but… are not supporting free speech at all and simply are too cowardly to admit that fact.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s Steyn, not Stein, and Steyn is a long-time purveyor of anti-Muslim propaganda. I read his whole book, America Alone. several years ago and found it to be hair-on-fire alarmism as is most of the rest of what he writes.

            The fact is that, as in the examples I gave above, “I believe in free speech but…” is not endorsing anything.

            “Free speech” in a Western context means the government can not use prior restraint or punishment to prevent the dissemination of ideas of which the government or the majority doesn’t approve. But it doesn’t mean that writers, TV talking heads, and regular folks like me can’t express disapproval of what has been said by others exercising that right. OF COURSE that expression of disapproval can’t include violence but it can include criticism of the content of the speech in question.

          • jim_m

            The point is that as members of the media they are united in the denunciation of Geller and the truth is that this is only another way of limiting dissent. There is always the next thing that will be unacceptable. You say that peoplle should be discrete in this case and try to silence them and then it will be the next, and the next and the next.

          • Brucehenry

            Nonsense. In 1977 millions who believed absolutely that the government may not prevent the Nazis from marching through Skokie as was their First Amendment right also “denounced” the march. They denounced the march because it was a pointless expression of bigotry and a finger in the eye to a population of Holocaust survivors who lived in that community. Luckily, no JDL types took matters into their own hands to “punish” the marchers.

            Similarly many would have denounced Geller’s publicity stunt of a “cartoon contest” even if violence had not occurred there. I would have. Of course I might not have heard of it had these two jihadi wannabes not tried to murder others over it.

            In any event, as I said “free speech” is a right recognized by and limiting government, not something all of us have to practice every day. We can all support the idea of the government NOT restraining hateful speech but that doesn’t mean we can’t recognize and call out hateful speech when we see it.

          • jim_m

            Fact is that you are just bent because Geller criticized a group you want to defend because islamists hate America too. You are afraid of offending muslims and the violence that brings. There is no moral imperrative to be siensitive to muslim feelings. If these lunatics get upset the go kill people.

            Comparing this to the Nazi’s march in Skoie is disgusting. Name one Jew who threatened to murder anyone on account of the march?

            In fact the whole point is that the muslims are preemptively stating that they will murder people for this offense. You are stating that we should all give in to that threat. You are in favor of the heckler’s veot on free speech. DOn’t lie to me and tell me this is about not offending people. Muslims are offended by every breath we take. Muslims will stop being offended by you when they have finished cutting your head off. Not before and certainly not if you stop drawing cartoons of mohammad.

            This is about pointing out muslim hate and violence and intolerance. You won’t put a stop to those things by givcing in to them. You will put a stop to them by showing them that they have no choice but to take it.

            Or maybe we swhould start murdering lefties who insult Christ and Christianity? DOn’t ask me to stand up and defend you when a Christian guns you down. Just saying. You will have done something to provoke it and you will have deserved it. I’m only judging you by your own standards.

          • Brucehenry

            Easy big fella. LOL.