Left Wing Predictions that have been proven wrong

[deaddude]

Lib says something stupid.

Smart ppl call him/her on it.

How does that equate to bashing?

I could say the same thing about NBC

A conservative says somthing stupid

Smart people call him/her on it

How does that equate to bashing?

The problem comes from the fact that the stupidy of a statement is subjective. I think Bush has said some pretty stupid shit. You think that Kerry has said some pretty stupid shit. When the media outlets call them on their respective stupid statements, what one sees as bashing probably differs according to ideology.

 

[Avatar4321]

<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?

The war didnt last six months. In fact, Saddam didnt put up much resistance at all.

The people did greet us as liberators. They were pretty damn excited to pull those Saddam statues down.

Paul Wolfowitz's statements would have been true had the left in this country let us have Iraqis fund reconstruction through their oil sales. However, despite the fact that Wolfowitz advocated it, the position was rejected. You cant complain that as an unfulfilled prediction because it was conditioned on the Iraqis actually paying for their own reconstruction. Something Democrats and some weak moderate Republicans were completely against.

As for Andrew Natsios, no clue who he is. Dont really care but again his statements are based on the premise that Iraqis would bare the cost of their reconstruction through oil sales. Something that has been opposite by yours side. If we were using Iraqi Oil sales to rebuild then he would have been completely accurate. But then you would be complaining that this war was all about oil.

Same with the last guy. You cant ***** and moan about the war costing more money then we expect when the expectations were based on the idea that Iraqis would support their own reconstruction through oil revenues and your side has completely stood against allowing them to.

 

[KarlMarx]

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.

No one is saying that ANWR is the answer to everything. But the environmentalists and their supporters seem to stand in the way of any new domestic oil production, including ANWR.

Similarly, any other alternatives, e.g. nuclear energy is also verbotten. The only solutions that the environmentalists and the Left seem to be in favor of either requires that we embrace the ways of our Stone Age ancestors or increase the amount of government regulation (i.e., interference) with free markets and the expansion of government. Some of them think that the government is going to come up with a new technology and introduce it into the economy and, bingo, all of our energy problems will vanish!

Anyway, the world has been ready to run out of oil within 20 years since 1970.The DOE was created during the 1970s, during the so called "energy crisis". Which wasn't due to less oil, but by over regulation by the government. The fact that the DOE still says we're about to run out of oil any day now is more an indication that they're out to protect their phony baloney jobs than anything. By the way, how did the country ever manage to survive its first 200 years of existence without the Department of Energy? People that ***** about too much government spending and are looking for an area to cut... here's a clue (Department of Energy).

(By the way, if someone wonders what we should do about our public schools being in the state that they're in and cutting federal spending at the same time, here's another clue (get rid of the Department of Education)).

In addition, some scientists have painting doomsday scenarios about the world running out of oil "any day now" for the past 35 years. If someone is wrong about something for 35 years, don't you think it makes them less than credible?

 

[Mr.Conley]

No one is saying that ANWR is the answer to everything. But the environmentalists and their supporters seem to stand in the way of any new domestic oil production, including ANWR.

I'm glad you realize that ANWAR is nothing.

Similarly, any other alternatives, e.g. nuclear energy is also verbotten. The only solutions that the environmentalists and the Left seem to be in favor of either requires that we embrace the ways of our Stone Age ancestors or increase the amount of government regulation (i.e., interference) with free markets and the expansion of government. Some of them think that the government is going to come up with a new technology and introduce it into the economy and, bingo, all of our energy problems will vanish!

Really? Most people seem to be in favor of nuclear energy, but express a reasonable concern about the problem of having tons of weapons grade plutonium sitting across the country.

Anyway, the world has been ready to run out of oil within 20 years since 1970.The DOE was created during the 1970s, during the so called "energy crisis". Which wasn't due to less oil, but by over regulation by the government. The fact that the DOE still says we're about to run out of oil any day now is more an indication that they're out to protect their phony baloney jobs than anything. By the way, how did the country ever manage to survive its first 200 years of existence without the Department of Energy? People that ***** about too much government spending and are looking for an area to cut... here's a clue (Department of Energy).

Wrong the DOE doesn't say we are about to run out of oil, "any day now." They say will will peak around 2018 and will be totally out by 2052 at the lastest. Then factor in a annual decline after peak of approximately 3-8% and rising demand, and you see the problem.

In addition, some scientists have painting doomsday scenarios about the world running out of oil "any day now" for the past 35 years. If someone is wrong about something for 35 years, don't you think it makes them less than credible?

Exactly, some scientists, not the DOE. If some scientist are wrong, then yes it does hurt their case (although it does not preclude their ever being right) however the DOE isn't "somes scientists." You can't say that because some predictions from some people have been wrong all predictions from all people will be wrong.