Left Wing Predictions that have been proven wrong

[Avatar4321]

No, I can't tell you how happy I am to be in this country... so proud of it that I've served it for 18 years...

But, being the biggest and the best comes with some responsibility... some responsibility to not step on the throats of everyone else just because we can.

Who the heck is advocating that we step on everyone else's throats because they can?

I know I advocate only stepping on the throats of people who want to FREAKIN KILL US AND OTHERS!

For some reason the left refuses to acknowledge that these people exist. Unless of course a Democrat is in the Presidency or funds stop going to some place that no longer needs them.

 

[red states rule]

Who the heck is advocating that we step on everyone else's throats because they can?

I know I advocate only stepping on the throats of people who want to FREAKIN KILL US AND OTHERS!

For some reason the left refuses to acknowledge that these people exist. Unless of course a Democrat is in the Presidency or funds stop going to some place that no longer needs them.

As far as libs are concerned - 9/11 did not happen. They are in the same frame of mind they were on 9-10. They hate Bush and they hate the people who voted for him.
The ONLY thing libs care about is getting their political power back. Every other issue in secondary.

 

[KarlMarx]

Yes, libs have said some pretty stupid shit, so have conservatives. What exactly is your point, or is this just pointless lib bashing?

In the interests of equal time, that's why.

Pointless conservative bashing occurs everyday in the media and on this board. We've been subjected to a non stop liberal hissy fit since the 2000 elections, especially regarding President Bush....

now, to continue my list of liberal predictions that proved not to be true....

As a result of the Patriot Act, the government will start taking our liberties away. For instance, the government will be raiding our libraries.

Senator Russ Feingold declared that the Patriot Act has made Americans "afraid to read books, terrified into silence."

(excuse me... I have to stop posting now and return my library books! - Karl)

 

[KarlMarx]

Oh, it has a point... it makes them feel like they've "won" something. They run out and find some tired old piece of tripe and slap it up on a message board and it makes them feel like they're Kings of the World!

To that I only have one thing to say...

"We know where [the weapons of mass destruction] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

There is another benefit to this exercise.... it gets under liberals' skins.... and that's more fun for me!!!!!!

And, as a rebuttal to your charge, not just the Bush Administration, but intelligence agencies from other countries, believed that Iraq possessed WMDs.

 

[red states rule]

Please Karl, keep being the voice of the terrorists. Keep telling us our security measure will HURT Americancs. Please keep saying how inncoent Saddam was and how he did not have WMD's
You are making the Republicans job in November so much easier

 

[KarlMarx]

Please Karl, keep being the voice of the terrorists. Keep telling us our security measure will HURT Americancs. Please keep saying how inncoent Saddam was and how he did not have WMD's
You are making the Republicans job in November so much easier

You must have misunderstood my posts. Although, I admit that I can see how. I didn't word them very well and edited them to clarify what I meant.

What I posted about the Patriot Act and the WMDs were two of the liberal predictions that didn't come true.

 

[red states rule]

You must have misunderstood my posts. Although, I admit that I can see how. I didn't word them very well and edited them to clarify what I meant.

What I posted about the Patriot Act and the WMDs were two of the liberal predictions that didn't come true.

If I misunderstood your posts then please accept my apology

To the kook left who DO believe our security measure will HURT Americancs. and how Saddam was did not have WMD's; PLEASE keep it up

 

[deaddude]

In the interests of equal time, that's why.

Pointless conservative bashing occurs everyday in the media and on this board. We've been subjected to a non stop liberal hissy fit since the 2000 elections, especially regarding President Bush....

now, to continue my list of liberal predictions that proved not to be true....

As a result of the Patriot Act, the government will start taking our liberties away. For instance, the government will be raiding our libraries.

Senator Russ Feingold declared that the Patriot Act has made Americans "afraid to read books, terrified into silence."

(excuse me... I have to stop posting now and return my library books! - Karl)

In case you haven't noticed, lib bashing also occurs everyday in the media (see fox news). This board has a conservative majority and between the normal anti-lib sentiment expressed by most conservative members on these boards and the more aggressive anti-lib sentiment expressed by people like RWA I would say the lib-bashing more than drowns out the con-bashing on the boards.

 

[Mr.Conley]

-- In the 1970s, Americans were warned an "energy crisis" meant the world would soon run out of oil. Three decades later, no one predicts exhaustion of the petroleum supply --? ever.

You are wrong. The DOE predicts oil will peak sometime in the next 5-10 years and that will will be completly out by 2050. Unfortunately. between peak and 2050, we will see an annual decline in oil production of between 2 and 4 million barrels per day. That means that by abot 2027, we will have about half the oil supplies we have now. This is especially problomatic since demand is projected to grow by 50% over the same period.

 

[dmp]

In case you haven't noticed, lib bashing also occurs everyday in the media (see fox news).

Tells me you never watch the channel.

Fox doesn't decide FOR their viewers...Middle-of-the-road IS right-leaning to those on the far left.

 

[deaddude]

Tells me you never watch the channel.

Fox doesn't decide FOR their viewers...Middle-of-the-road IS right-leaning to those on the far left.

Bull, I do watch fox news and they do bash libs.

 

[KarlMarx]

You are wrong. The DOE predicts oil will peak sometime in the next 5-10 years and that will will be completly out by 2050. Unfortunately. between peak and 2050, we will see an annual decline in oil production of between 2 and 4 million barrels per day. That means that by abot 2027, we will have about half the oil supplies we have now. This is especially problomatic since demand is projected to grow by 50% over the same period.

I have heard this prediction in various incarnations for the past 35+ years... frankly, it merits a yawn and little else, in my opinion....

if the predictions of 1970 were true, we would all be riding bicycles and heating our homes with wood or cow dung by now....

No, it hasn't happened yet. The fallacy with this argument is that it bases its predictions on proven reserves and oil wells that are economically feasible to use ... once the price goes up, more oil is found, the supplies that aren't economically feasible now will become so...

And if the oil does run out (and will over a long time)... then we'll find an alternate fuel source....

and oh, by the way, there is always the nuclear option.... there is the ANWR and there is offshore drilling (and believe me, if we don't do it, Cuba, Venezuela and Mexico will and are already), there is coal....

 

[Mr.Conley]

I have heard this prediction in various incarnations for the past 35+ years... frankly, it merits a yawn and little else, in my opinion....

if the predictions of 1970 were true, we would all be riding bicycles and heating our homes with wood or cow dung by now....

No, it hasn't happened yet. The fallacy with this argument is that it bases its predictions on proven reserves and oil wells that are economically feasible to use ... once the price goes up, more oil is found, the supplies that aren't economically feasible now will become so...

And if the oil does run out (and will over a long time)... then we'll find an alternate fuel source....

and oh, by the way, there is always the nuclear option.... there is the ANWR and there is offshore drilling (and believe me, if we don't do it, Cuba, Venezuela and Mexico will and are already), there is coal....

This isn't some crazy loner scientist, this is the DOE. Bush's DOE I might add.

The problem with your argument is that new reserves are being found. We use 6 barrels for every new barrel of oil discovered to replace it. Over the past few years, despite the high price you oil, the amount of money the oil companies have spent searching for new reserves is greater then the value of the new field discovered. At $70 all oil reserves are viable.

Nukes are good, but we'd have to use breeder reactors. But they are expensive and produce more weapons grade fissionable material then you can throw a stick at. But we can hope.

ANWAR will produce about 500,000 barrels of oil per day in 2020 if developed now. We already use 20 million barrels per day and will probably use 30-40 million by that time. ANWAR would make a small contribution to our energy dependency. Only the right wing propanganda centers will tell you otherwise.

As for offshore, it should be done, but again it won't meet our energy needs.

And what alternative would that be (hint: it's not hydrogen)

 

[dmp]

Bull, I do watch fox news and they do bash libs.

Lib says something stupid.

Smart ppl call him/her on it.

How does that equate to bashing?

 

[red states rule]

Bull, I do watch fox news and they do bash libs.

Fox News has more libs on then Republicans on CNN and MSNBC combined. They give equal time to the libs and let them speak

More then I can say about the other liberal networks who are mostly liberal

 

[manu1959]

Yes, libs have said some pretty stupid shit, so have conservatives. What exactly is your point, or is this just pointless lib bashing?

no such thing as pointless lib bashing

hey i just remembered one.....ms. john roberts wasn't it?....there will be riots in the streets if bush is elected

 

[red states rule]

Libs provide us all the material we need. We do not have to make things up

 

[Bullypulpit]

<blockquote>The war “could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]</blockquote>

<blockquote>“We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly... (in) weeks rather than months.” – Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]</blockquote>

<blockquote>“The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” – Paul Wolfowitz, [Congressional Testimony, 3/27/03]</blockquote>

<blockquote>“In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries and Iraqi oil revenues…The American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.” – USAID Director Andrew Natsios, 4/23/03</blockquote>

<blockquote>Iraq will be “ an affordable endeavor ” that “ will not require sustained aid ” and will “be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion .” – Budget Director Mitch Daniels [Forbes 4/11/03, W. Post 3/28/03, NY Times 1/2/03, respectively]</blockquote>

Do I really need to go on? Chimpy McPresident's Administration has been wrong about everything with regards to the war in Iraq, From the reconstitution of a nuclear weapons program, the existence of biological weapons, the assertion of WMD's poised for use, the connections with Al Qaeda...How can ANYONE actually believe anything these Mayberry Machiavellis say?

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Add to the list "This is the worst economy since Herbert Hoover and the Depression." Some still proclaim this even though the unemployment rate dropped to a record low 4.6% last month.

It's not the worst economy since Herbert Hoover (yet), but it might just be the worst economy since Jimmy Carter. The problem is, federal government statistics are bunk.

Bill Bonner, with more rambling thoughts on this Monday morning...

*** Our good news, today, carries over from last week. We were delighted to discover - in the figures from economist Walter J. Williams - that the world really is going to hell in a handcart, just as we thought it was. If they did the numbers correctly, or even as they used to do them, unemployment would be twice today’s reported levels, inflation would be higher, and the GDP would be shrinking.

http://www.dailyreckoning.com/Issues/2006/DRUS032706.html

So, I asked, "What do you mean about 'sinking job prospects', Addison?" He answered, "If you use the real statistics to calculate unemployment, the way we used to calculate it back in 1980, the real unemployment rate is a much more devastating 12.5%." Yow!

http://www.dailyreckoning.com/Issues/2006/DRUS022706.html

The libs said the tax cuts would destroy the economy
Hey, if this is what libs call destrying the economy - give me more!!

The tax cuts won't destroy the economy, but they won't be enough to offset the ginormous tidal wave of money we've printed to pay the bills for several years now. Not that Bush is unique in that regard.

Also, inflation is much higher than the government admits, because they don't count such things as housing, food, and energy. For further reading...

http://financialsense.com/Market/puplava/2005/0307.html
http://www.safehaven.com/article-1458.htm
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/willie/2006/0523.html
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1998/12/11/bhead.htm
http://financialsense.com/editorials/weiss/2006/0522.html

Thank you for your service. It is because of vets like you we are the biggets and best nation
We are a responsible nation. we are killing those who would kill us
I found this in another chat room. It is fitting for this thread

Things that make you think a little:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the
month of January. That's just one American city,
about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, state the following:

a. FDR led us into World War II.

b. Germany never attacked us ; Japan did.
>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 112,500 per year.

c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us ..
>From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 18,334 per year.

d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.

e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
>From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.

f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us .
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
multiple occasions.

g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush
has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya , Iran, and, North
Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining
about how long the war is taking.
But
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno
to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51-day operation..

We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons
in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find
the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the
Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his
Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took
to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!
The Military morale is high!

FW: FW: FW: FW: RE: FW: IRAK CIRCA 2003

a, b, c, d, e, f : Yes, those were all shitty presidents, now that you mention it.

g. Two countries are under martial law and their citizens overwhelmingly want us to leave

There are no WMD's in Iraq.

Military morale is low, which is why so many generals detest this administration, and why the military is struggling to keep it's numbers up.

The fact that terrorist dont see us as liberators is irrelevant to the fact that Iraqis did.

The Iraqis saw us as liberators in 2003, and yet I remember seeing them on the news saying things such as "Thank you america, now please get out." The fact that some Iraqis saw us as liberators is irrelevant to the fact that very few do today, or that the invasion was a good idea to begin with.

This isn't some crazy loner scientist, this is the DOE. Bush's DOE I might add.

ANWAR will produce about 500,000 barrels of oil per day in 2020 if developed now. We already use 20 million barrels per day and will probably use 30-40 million by that time. ANWAR would make a small contribution to our energy dependency. Only the right wing propanganda centers will tell you otherwise.

As for offshore, it should be done, but again it won't meet our energy needs.

And what alternative would that be (hint: it's not hydrogen)

Bush's DOE may be sexing up the numbers to get access to ANWAR. Or, they could simply be wrong, just as so many other Malthusians have been wrong in the past. "Experts" have been predicting the end of oil since the late 1800's.

Half a million a day is quite significant compared to 20 million. It doesn't take much of a shortage to send gas prices rocketing skyward. A 2.5% decrease in supply will not yield a mere 2.5% increase in price. Another frequently heard idea I'd like to address: "It will take 10 years before we even see a drop of oil from ANWAR!" Yes, and if we'd ignored that advice during the last gas crisis 15 years ago, we'd have cheaper gas now.

Alternative fuel predictions: coal to diesel or butanol (gasoline substitute) since the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal; or if weren't so stupid, we could allow more LNG-capable shipping ports to be built, which would provide us with gobs of cheap energy.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Bush's DOE may be sexing up the numbers to get access to ANWAR. Or, they could simply be wrong, just as so many other Malthusians have been wrong in the past. "Experts" have been predicting the end of oil since the late 1800's.

Half a million a day is quite significant compared to 20 million. It doesn't take much of a shortage to send gas prices rocketing skyward. A 2.5% decrease in supply will not yield a mere 2.5% increase in price. Another frequently heard idea I'd like to address: "It will take 10 years before we even see a drop of oil from ANWAR!" Yes, and if we'd ignored that advice during the last gas crisis 15 years ago, we'd have cheaper gas now.

Alternative fuel predictions: coal to diesel or butanol (gasoline substitute) since the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal; or if weren't so stupid, we could allow more LNG-capable shipping ports to be built, which would provide us with gobs of cheap energy.

Oh no, I'm not saying that we shouldn't drill in ANWAR. I just find that a surprising number of people seem to think that it is the answer to all our energy problems. It's a myth that needs to be crushed.

As for the predictions. It is true that experts have been predicting the end of oil for sometime, but the DOE is a very conservative body and pretty heavily influenced by outsiders. If they say a figure, I'm willing to believe them, but expect it to happen sooner.