tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30316379.post3172920521306501817..comments2023-08-26T08:26:03.057-07:00Comments on Creating Orwellian World-view by Machiavellianism a blog by Alaphiah: The Twisted reality of Global WarmingAlaphiahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12634611245023890509noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30316379.post-50850622547464878872009-10-14T05:56:09.454-07:002009-10-14T05:56:09.454-07:00This post tells that disturbing is against a prepo...This post tells that disturbing is against a preponderance of evidence.Video Conference Locationshttp://www.eyenetwork.us.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30316379.post-29420941724767362922009-10-13T15:50:50.630-07:002009-10-13T15:50:50.630-07:00Ahhh, true paternal instincts or evangelical desig...Ahhh, true paternal instincts or evangelical designs to make me see the light. How sweet!<br /><br />Um,um Anon...the court ruling in smoker's favor is not the same as showing that the courts are in favor of cigarettes or in favor of smoking.<br /><br />Jeez I hope I'm not wasting my time on you. You do understand the difference don't you?<br /><br />Or maybe you're trying to force me to walk into the light... I see dead people (smile)Alaphiahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12634611245023890509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30316379.post-26317744896615117222009-10-13T15:42:36.952-07:002009-10-13T15:42:36.952-07:00Oh, I do like you. Especially when I can correct ...Oh, I do like you. Especially when I can correct the errors of your ways and make you see the light.<br /><br />And here are a couple of cases where courts ruled in the smoker's favor:<br /><br />http://howappealing.law.com/013108.html<br /><br />http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/218101-n.y.-court-rules-in-favor-of-tobacco-companies-in-20-mil-suitAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30316379.post-47769082954546923102009-10-13T15:00:36.333-07:002009-10-13T15:00:36.333-07:00Yeah that's why you like me! (wink, wink!!!)Yeah that's why you like me! (wink, wink!!!)Alaphiahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12634611245023890509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30316379.post-346555514377015992009-10-13T14:54:55.026-07:002009-10-13T14:54:55.026-07:00You're a hoot. Very entertaining.You're a hoot. Very entertaining.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30316379.post-36862125749433028712009-10-13T14:39:02.902-07:002009-10-13T14:39:02.902-07:00So you can't back up your statement! That says...So you can't back up your statement! That says it all anonymous poster. People like you ask for citations but don't give them when asked. You are a joke! You're an embarrasment to anonymous posters<br /><br />And don't think that your blowing smoke (pun intended) about rulings regarding private rights regarding smoking can be confused with the courts being in actual favor of smoking. <br /><br />It is obvious that you have confused the two. (You're not very good at this are you?)<br /> <br />The two are not synonymous and you have proven that not only do you not support your claims with proof, you are a very poor advocate for any position that you argue.(Boy you are one confused person!)<br /><br />You are an embarrassment to the word anonymous! LOL!<br /><br />And I repeat the British Court’s ruling was not, I repeat was not in favor of showing Inconvenient Truth. The Court said that Inconvenient Truth was full of error and partisanship and couldn’t be shown to innocent school children without a disclaimer warning the children of it’s incorrect and partisan material!<br /><br />And look a liar just called me a liar I suppose I’ll lose a lot of sleep over that. A guy who hides in obscure anonym with nothing to lose calls me a liar. Boy you’re a brave one aren’t you.<br /><br />Like I said an embarrassment to the word anonymous!Alaphiahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12634611245023890509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30316379.post-77359290562768844682009-10-13T14:06:38.644-07:002009-10-13T14:06:38.644-07:00-- My, I have never read that Courts are in favor ...-- My, I have never read that Courts are in favor of cigarette smoking. Please cite your reference... -- <br /><br />Have the courts ruled to outlaw private ingestion of tobacco? No. Are they in favor of it? At this point, obviously so. Can I cite a refererence of this, no, just as I can't cite a reference that they are in favor of breathing in oxygen or drinking tap water. <br /><br />You clearly stated: "And again the ruling was not in favor of showing the movie."<br /><br />That's patently false, blogger.<br /><br />Yes, I remember the Executive Order post. That's where you lied and said it sealed Obama's birth certificate. Remember that?<br /><br />By the way, how's that birth certificate thing working out for you? The head birther lawyer was slapped with $20,000 in sanctions today. Hope to see another birther post here real soon.<br /><br />Keep up the great work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30316379.post-34611837295755388482009-10-13T13:37:00.766-07:002009-10-13T13:37:00.766-07:00My, I have never read that Courts are in favor of ...My, I have never read that Courts are in favor of cigarette smoking. Please cite your reference...(This is me waiting) You do know that would make all courts prejudice in any case involving smoking and they would have to recuse themselves from any case involving smoking if what you say is true. LOL!<br /><br />You said:<i>If you call that a lie, it's certainly not much of one.</i><br /><br />You could have said, "You call that a lie but it isn't a lie" no you said "it's certainly not much of one."<br /><br />Suggesting that even it your mind there is room to consider what Gore said a lie!<br /><br />You're not a very good advocate for your side you'd better get some help 'cause you looking real foolish!!!<br /><br />You're just wrong on the court's ruling and don't think that I'm going to accept the word of someone that I've caught in a lie regarding the executive order that Soetoro signed!Alaphiahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12634611245023890509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30316379.post-37487159327575628412009-10-13T11:48:48.737-07:002009-10-13T11:48:48.737-07:00-- So you admit that it was a lie just not a big o...-- So you admit that it was a lie just not a big one! LOL! --<br /><br />No, not at all. I said if. You're the one saying it was a lie.<br /><br />--And again the ruling was not in favor of showing the movie.--<br /><br />Oh stop it. It certainly was.<br /><br />If Gore had made a stink that the court ruled that schools could no longer show the movie, now that would be a lie and you'd have a case.<br /><br />--What you're saying would be like saying the Courts are in favor of cigarette smoking the warning on the side is of no consequence.--<br /><br />Courts are in favor of cigarette smoking. Health officials are not. Cigarette smoking in private corners has not been outlawed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30316379.post-16767777140038185542009-10-13T09:10:00.509-07:002009-10-13T09:10:00.509-07:00If you call that a lie, it's certainly not muc...<i> If you call that a lie, it's certainly not much of one.</i><br /><br />It's certainly not much of one? Huh? So you admit that it was a lie just not a big one! LOL!<br /><br />I'll keep your line of thinking in mind when you answer any of my post. "Oh there's the attorney that defends little lies!"<br /><br />And again the ruling was not in <i>favor</i> of showing the movie. The ruling was that the movie was full of inaccuracies and partisanship and it needed to have a disclaimer on it.<br /><br />What you're saying would be like saying the Courts are in favor of cigarette smoking the warning on the side is of no consequence.Alaphiahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12634611245023890509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30316379.post-2827490232818521752009-10-13T08:54:15.617-07:002009-10-13T08:54:15.617-07:00Gore stated at the presser "The ruling was in...Gore stated at the presser "The ruling was in favor of showing the movie," which indeed it was. That's how the court ruled. Schools can show the movie. If you call that a lie, it's certainly not much of one.<br /><br />I'll keep your line of thinking in mind in the future when you make allegations of "Liar" in future blog posts. You seem to throw the word around often.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30316379.post-91893862248790872042009-10-13T07:39:24.394-07:002009-10-13T07:39:24.394-07:00Come on Anon you ought be better than that!
Gore ...Come on Anon you ought be better than that!<br /><br />Gore said, <i>“The ruling was in favor of the movie by the way the ruling was in favor of showing the movie, Inconvenient Truth that was really the bottom-line on that.”</i><br /><br />The ruling was not in <i><b>favor</b></i> of the movie as Gore stated. Neither was the ruling in <i><b>favor</b></i> of showing the movie as Gore pretends.<br /><br />The ruling allowed the movie to be shown with disclaimers that the movie was inaccurate and partisan and that's a big difference. <br /><br />Gore attempted to bottom-line his defense in the false impression that he received a favorable ruling in the British Court which is a lie because he did not.<br /><br />Hey, didn't you allude once that you are an attorney? If so you really disappoint me.Alaphiahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12634611245023890509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30316379.post-35383490846694437962009-10-13T07:09:47.546-07:002009-10-13T07:09:47.546-07:00The court ruled that British schools could show th...The court ruled that British schools could show the movie, albeit with a warning.<br /><br />Gore said "the court ruling was in favor of showing the movie."<br /><br />How is Gore lying?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com