The Great Global Warming Swindle

[HM]

So what is the over/under on the next "global" problem that will replace Global Warming?
One Hour Video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566)

[HM]

BTW - when you watch this video...you see the data the "sky is falling" people were looking at when they claimed global cooling.

[HM]

I will give you a quick synopsis of this film. Global warming causes green house gases to be produced and not the other way around. The majority of the green house gases come from the ocean as the earth warms. The earth warming trends FOLLOW solar activity. The global warming crowd will soon be running out of steam because it will become crystal clear their whole POLITICAL movement is based on lies...just like all the other "sky is falling" schemes they have been working on for decades....you know....global COOLING, running out of oil, acid rain, polution, over population and etc.
The film is very good and many of the scientist who's names are listed in "Inconvenient Truth" are not only supporting that CO2 does not cause global warming...they are suing to have their name removed from anything supporting global warming as they NEVER supported that theory.

[Old Texan]

You dare challenge Al Gore, "Blasphemy"........:eek: :2purples:
The next environmental issue will most likely involve an unnatural rise in fecal matter polluting the earth, especially around DC and state capitals......we are facing the "BullShit Age".:devil:

[centerhill condor]

......we are facing the "BullShit Age".:devil:
well stated...and up to our knees in it.
Nice avatar btw.
CC

[never_fast_enuf]

You dare challenge Al Gore, "Blasphemy"........:eek: :2purples:
The next environmental issue will most likely involve an unnatural rise in fecal matter polluting the earth, especially around DC and state capitals......we are facing the "BullShit Age".:devil:
Hate to contradict you but you are just a tad off base on your comments.
The future is now and the environmental crisis you describe is already upon us!! :2purples: :D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

The video link was posted here a while ago. It was a quality piece.
How many have actually seen An Inconvenient Truth?
Seems most of you on the right wouldn't waste your time on such Left Wing liberal garbage.

[Old Texan]

The video link was posted here a while ago. It was a quality piece.
How many have actually seen An Inconvenient Truth?
Seems most of you on the right wouldn't waste your time on such Left Wing liberal garbage.
We have a winner. :devil:
Believe it or not I haven't watched any Mikey Moore productions since Roger and Me either.
Al Gore is the 21st century version of "Mother Goose".
The environment, pollution, global responsibilty, etc. are all real issues needing attention and attention they are getting. Al Gore however is so far from reality he isn't part of the real effort, he just wants the credit for being the "Man Who Saves the Planet". He'd be better off doing a Flash Gordon remake as it would at least have satirical entertainment value.
Please step down from your soapbox and realize the majority of the "Evil Right" or whoever you label them, cares and they are actually advancing "real" technology and solutions to keep the planet safe. Not doom and gloom warnings based on shock value to push the carbon replacements industry Al wants everyone to buy into.
Question John: Do you believe the story the oil companies have bought the patent rights to the carburator or engine control system that facilitates 100+ mpg?
If so, why? If not, why?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

We have a winner. :devil:
Believe it or not I haven't watched any Mikey Moore productions since Roger and Me either.
Al Gore is the 21st century version of "Mother Goose".
The environment, pollution, global responsibilty, etc. are all real issues needing attention and attention they are getting. Al Gore however is so far from reality he isn't part of the real effort, he just wants the credit for being the "Man Who Saves the Planet". He'd be better off doing a Flash Gordon remake as it would at least have satirical entertainment value.
Please step down from your soapbox and realize the majority of the "Evil Right" or whoever you label them, cares and they are actually advancing "real" technology and solutions to keep the planet safe. Not doom and gloom warnings based on shock value to push the carbon replacements industry Al wants everyone to buy into.
Question John: Do you believe the story the oil companies have bought the patent rights to the carburator or engine control system that facilitates 100+ mpg?
If so, why? If not, why?
The difference between you and I is that I will listen to both sides of an issue, which, in the case is the climate change issue. You just know that An Inconvenient Truth has to valid information just because.
Hard to have an intelligent debate about this issue when you didn't listen to what both positions are prior to making your decision. I can't respect a view which is uninformed.
You guys just keep praising yourselves.
I don't claim to know all there is about this issue. I happen to accept that the amount of sh*t that we pump into the air could have a negative effect on many things, the climate being one of them. There is still a great deal to learn before it is a define ate yes or no.

[Schiada76]

The difference between you and I is that I will listen to both sides of an issue, which, in the case is the climate change issue. You just know that An Inconvenient Truth has to valid information just because.
Hard to have an intelligent debate about this issue when you didn't listen to what both positions are prior to making your decision. I can't respect a view which is uninformed.
You guys just keep praising yourselves.
I don't claim to know all there is about this issue. I happen to accept that the amount of sh*t that we pump into the air could have a negative effect on many things, the climate being one of them. There is still a great deal to learn before it is a define ate yes or no.
You don't even attempt to listen to both sides of an isssue.:rolleyes:
There is absolutely no evidence what so ever that pollution contributes to global warming. NONE
Answer a simple question, simple even for a liberal, why was Greenland GREEN during the Medieval Warming Period? Go ahead take a wild guess, the answer may shock you.:rolleyes:

[eliminatedsprinter]

I will give you a quick synopsis of this film. Global warming causes green house gases to be produced and not the other way around. The majority of the green house gases come from the ocean as the earth warms. The earth warming trends FOLLOW solar activity. The global warming crowd will soon be running out of steam because it will become crystal clear their whole POLITICAL movement is based on lies...just like all the other "sky is falling" schemes they have been working on for decades....you know....global COOLING, running out of oil, acid rain, polution, over population and etc.
The film is very good and many of the scientist who's names are listed in "Inconvenient Truth" are not only supporting that CO2 does not cause global warming...they are suing to have their name removed from anything supporting global warming as they NEVER supported that theory.
This movement will not run out of steam if thier man made global warming hoax is debunked, because their movement is based on their desire for global economic redistribution of wealth, not the evironment.

[Old Texan]

The difference between you and I is that I will listen to both sides of an issue, which, in the case is the climate change issue. You just know that An Inconvenient Truth has to valid information just because.
Hard to have an intelligent debate about this issue when you didn't listen to what both positions are prior to making your decision. I can't respect a view which is uninformed.
You guys just keep praising yourselves.
I don't claim to know all there is about this issue. I happen to accept that the amount of sh*t that we pump into the air could have a negative effect on many things, the climate being one of them. There is still a great deal to learn before it is a define ate yes or no.
I listen to both sides. I just don't listen to Al Gore or Mikey Moore neither of which have credibility.
Part of intelligent debate is separating the truth from the fiction. Both of the above clowns strive off fiction.
Here's an example of how I think. John Kerry during his campaign would come out and tell one of his big whoppers knowing fully well that is was BS. The whopper would hit the front page and everyone would ooh and aah about the statement. Next step after digesting the lie, it would be questioned. At this juncture JK would retract his statement and the retraction would be placed on the inside back page of section D. The intelligiencia would realize it to be what it was, BS but a great deal of folks would never see the retraction and file it away as fact. Thus JK always got a large percentage to fall for his tripe.
This is pretty much the way Moore and Gore work. I choose to not listen to their crap, therefore I don't have to sift through it to find the needle of truth in their BS haystack.
If you would read as well as you claim, you would stop dwelling on the same points of contention. You make no mention of my points about there being people advancing real technologies, but dwell on the point no one gives the Gore view any review. Gore is not a relevant source and has been culled from the debate.
Furthermore I don't believe you will ever get a firm answser either way on GW as there is much more involved than present day science can discern. That in and of itself is what the "real" scientists are trying to convey. Gore and his supporters on the other hand state in no uncertain turns that manmade means are causing the phenomenom "Global Warming" and it is 100% fact.
I don't buy the 100% and the vast majority of "real" scientists don't either. Therefore why isn't the media and others focusing on the facts? Facts that we are doing a lot of research and work to develop new and better technology to improve environmental conditions and to eliminate present day problems. This is the positive that isn't spectacular enough to turn on the media and doesn't do Gore any good because nobody needs his egotistical self serving asse mucking up the works for his personal gains.
Why will you not focus on what is really being done rather than what Al Gore "Claims"? That's my question.

[Schiada76]

Then it will be back to the global cooling hysteria that these same imbeciles were whining about in the 70's, then the population bomb, then silent spring, then nuclearwastecoalfiredrefinedoilwoodburning POLLUTION!
OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! MY HAIRS ON FIRE EEEEEKKKKKKKKK!!!!
Algore please help me!!!!:sqeyes: :D :D

[eliminatedsprinter]

The difference between you and I is that I will listen to both sides of an issue, which, in the case is the climate change issue. You just know that An Inconvenient Truth has to valid information just because.
Hard to have an intelligent debate about this issue when you didn't listen to what both positions are prior to making your decision. I can't respect a view which is uninformed.
You guys just keep praising yourselves.
I don't claim to know all there is about this issue. I happen to accept that the amount of sh*t that we pump into the air could have a negative effect on many things, the climate being one of them. There is still a great deal to learn before it is a define ate yes or no.
I've read plenty on the subject and I have actually taken climatology in college (back in 19#$:D ). In addition, my father is a Biology/geology/physics teacher who is currently working for an astro-physics research project at Caltech. I talk to him on this subject often and, suffice it to say, that he and the scientists he works with arn't all jumping on the Al Gore bandwagon, driving Priuses, or buying waterwings, so they can visit Manhattan.:)

[Old Texan]

I've read plenty on the subject and I have actually taken climatology in college (back in 19#$:D ). In addition, my father is a Biology/geology/physics teacher who is currently working for an astro-physics research project at Caltech. I talk to him on this subject often and, suffice it to say, that he and the scientists he works with arn't all jumping on the Al Gore bandwagon, driving Priuses, or buying waterwings, so they can visit Manhattan.:)
But did your Dad watch the movie? :devil:

[eliminatedsprinter]

But did your Dad watch the movie? :devil:
Nope. He does not get his scientific info from sleazy movies, by shifty politicians.:idea:
He and I have read "Earth in the Balance", because I have a friend who got a copy for ten cents at a yard sale.

[Old Texan]

Nope. He does not get his scientific info from sleazy movies, by shifty politicians.:idea:
I have only read "Earth in the Balance", because I have a friend who got a copy for ten cents at a yard sale.
Apparently doesn't subscribe to the Intelligent Debate theory either I take it.:D :devil:

[SmokinLowriderSS]

we are facing the "BullShit Age".:devil:
Close.
The Flush Toilet is destroying our supply of fresh water, and should be banned. This one started AT LEAST 5 years ago, Earth Summit 2002.
It must be replaced by the "dry composting toilet".
A female panelist from India complained at the Earth Summit that the flush toilet encourages excessive water consumption around the world and is not ecologically friendly.
This dry toilet is a contained unit that requires no plumbing. It collects urine and feces and must be emptied by humans on a regular basis (which can conveniently be used as compost, for those of you who live in homes that actually have a need and a space for such a thing).
Intl. Dry Toilet Conference (http://www.drytoilet.org/)
Composting Toilet .Org. (http://www.compostingtoilet.org/)
MSNBC environment page (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20038392/)
Also, electricity is evil.
Gar Smith, the editor of the Earth Island Institute's online journal "The Edge," lamented the introduction of electricity. (See story)
"I don't think a lot of electricity is a good thing. It is the fuel that powers a lot of multi-national imagery," Smith told CNSNews.com.
According to Smith, electricity can wreak havoc on cultures. "I have seen villages in Africa that had vibrant culture and great communities that were disrupted and destroyed by the introduction of electricity," he said.
Interesting quote from a FORMER GREENPEACE FOUNDER:
Patrick Moore said: "The environmentalists try to inject guilt into people for consuming, as if consuming by itself causes destruction to the environment. There is no truth to that. You have the wealthiest countries on earth with the best-looked-after environment."

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Then it will be back to the global cooling hysteria that these same imbeciles were whining about in the 70's, then the population bomb, then silent spring,
And Silent Spring turned out to be a huge DDT FRAUD. You never saw that tho I'll wager.

[Schiada76]

And Silent Spring turned out to be a huge DDT FRAUD. You never saw that tho I'll wager.
What's the big deal about a liberal DDT fraud?
Maybe we should ask the estimated 94 MILLION dead poor people from malaria since they banned DDT. How does the liberal mind juggle a fact like that?:rolleyes:
Oh I've got it!!!!
The same way they condone 100 million murdered by communisim!:D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I listen to both sides. I just don't listen to Al Gore or Mikey Moore neither of which have credibility.
Part of intelligent debate is separating the truth from the fiction. Both of the above clowns strive off fiction.
Here's an example of how I think. John Kerry during his campaign would come out and tell one of his big whoppers knowing fully well that is was BS. The whopper would hit the front page and everyone would ooh and aah about the statement. Next step after digesting the lie, it would be questioned. At this juncture JK would retract his statement and the retraction would be placed on the inside back page of section D. The intelligiencia would realize it to be what it was, BS but a great deal of folks would never see the retraction and file it away as fact. Thus JK always got a large percentage to fall for his tripe.
This is pretty much the way Moore and Gore work. I choose to not listen to their crap, therefore I don't have to sift through it to find the needle of truth in their BS haystack.
If you would read as well as you claim, you would stop dwelling on the same points of contention. You make no mention of my points about there being people advancing real technologies, but dwell on the point no one gives the Gore view any review. Gore is not a relevant source and has been culled from the debate.
Furthermore I don't believe you will ever get a firm answser either way on GW as there is much more involved than present day science can discern. That in and of itself is what the "real" scientists are trying to convey. Gore and his supporters on the other hand state in no uncertain turns that manmade means are causing the phenomenom "Global Warming" and it is 100% fact.
I don't buy the 100% and the vast majority of "real" scientists don't either. Therefore why isn't the media and others focusing on the facts? Facts that we are doing a lot of research and work to develop new and better technology to improve environmental conditions and to eliminate present day problems. This is the positive that isn't spectacular enough to turn on the media and doesn't do Gore any good because nobody needs his egotistical self serving asse mucking up the works for his personal gains.
Why will you not focus on what is really being done rather than what Al Gore "Claims"? That's my question.
I don't claim to know all there is about this issue. I happen to accept that the amount of sh*t that we pump into the air could have a negative effect on many things, the climate being one of them. There is still a great deal to learn before it is a define ate yes or no.
Please re-read the above.
Gore just happens to be advocate on one side of the coin that you folks love to dump on any time the GW issue is mentioned. Not a scientist just a speaker.

[Schiada76]

The Algore is nothing more than a carnival huckster selling snake oil from the back of his wagon. The world is full of suckers.
Why was Greenland GREEN when the Vikings settled there?
SUV emissions? Fer ****s sake.:rolleyes:

[SmokinLowriderSS]

The difference between you and I is that I will listen to both sides of an issue,.
Which issue? I haven't seen a single PET ISSUE of yours that you listen to ANYTHING that opposes your "unsupported gut feeling".
Which issue do you actually CONSIDER both sides of?
You just know that An Inconvenient Truth has to valid information just because.
WHAT "valid information"?
A tremendous ammount of the information is (at best) innacurate, At worst, flat out lies.
The scientists who support it, virtually none are climatologists.
The climatologists who are named on the UN report, ARE SUING TO HAVE THEIR NAMES REMOVED, BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE and the UN refuses to remove their names on demand.
What Valid Information?
Al Gore CLAIMS that temperature follows CO2 levels, but that is a lie. He is lying about the chart he shows, which shows that CO2 emmissions FOLLOW TEMPERATURE CHANGE, which is the exact diametric OPPOSITE of Gore's claim.
The GW pushers show temperature charts which have had the midevil warming period that occured durring the Maunder Minimum ERASED. WHY ERASE A HISTORICAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE??
WHAT VALID INFORMATION????????
There is still a great deal to learn before it is a define ate yes or no.
Not what you said the LAST time you "debated" this.
Based on the evidence, I believe that global warming is a matter of fact today. Because some argue scientific theory to the contrary doesn't make it any less real in my view.
ultra, 19 April, 2007 Post #20.
The orriginal "swindle" thread (http://www.***boat.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147273&highlight=global+warming+swindle)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Which issue? I haven't seen a single PET ISSUE of yours that you listen to ANYTHING that opposes your "unsupported gut feeling".
Which issue do you actually CONSIDER both sides of?
WHAT "valid information"?
A tremendous ammount of the information is (at best) innacurate, At worst, flat out lies.
The scientists who support it, virtually none are climatologists.
The climatologists who are named on the UN report, ARE SUING TO HAVE THEIR NAMES REMOVED, BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE and the UN refuses to remove their names on demand.
What Valid Information?
Al Gore CLAIMS that temperature follows CO2 levels, but that is a lie. He is lying about the chart he shows, which shows that CO2 emmissions FOLLOW TEMPERATURE CHANGE, which is the exact diametric OPPOSITE of Gore's claim.
The GW pushers show temperature charts which have had the midevil warming period that occured durring the Maunder Minimum ERASED. WHY ERASE A HISTORICAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE??
WHAT VALID INFORMATION????????
Not what you said the LAST time you "debated" this.
Based on the evidence, I believe that global warming is a matter of fact today. Because some argue scientific theory to the contrary doesn't make it any less real in my view.
ultra, 19 April, 2007 Post #20.
The orriginal "swindle" thread (http://www.***boat.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147273&highlight=global+warming+swindle)
Have you givin up reading big guy?
I don't claim to know all there is about this issue. I happen to accept that the amount of sh*t that we pump into the air could have a negative effect on many things, the climate being one of them. There is still a great deal to learn before it is a definite yes or no.
Smokin, you are a mechanic and a soldier. You're not an authority on climate. So stop acting like you are

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Apparently I'm more of an authority on reality and history than you are.

[Old Texan]

Please re-read the above.
Gore just happens to be advocate on one side of the coin that you folks love to dump on any time the GW issue is mentioned. Not a scientist just a speaker.
Anybody needs to read the above anything it's you. You are the one saying that Gore's BS is must watching in order to have a dog in this race. If I am to debate I need to consider his tripe you said?
Gore is at the forefront of pushing the GW issue onto the front page, making all the claims of the end of the world if it isn't stopped. He is the part we are against because he is so full of untruths. Reality is what WE are pushing and you won't admit there is work being done to improve environmental issues.
You don't want to debate or agree with anything, it seems you just want to argue.

[Old Texan]

Apparently I'm more of an authority on reality and history than you are.
It's like talking with a 3 year old......:rolleyes: :confused:

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I keep expecting to see "I know I am, but what are you!" :D

[mickeyfinn]

Can I jump in on the fun? If you accept global warming (Temp rising.....regardless of cause) then you are believing in "fact". Unless of course you begin to look at the source of the historical data. I work in the environmental field.I am not and do not claim to be an expert in this particular field. I do however review a good bit of data which relates to GW. When all of the facts are in I believe that there is only one conclusion that can be accurately derived. That is:
Temperatures on the planet may or may not be rising faster than in previous global climate changes. This increase (if it exists) may be due to human contribution, however this is not likely due to the sheer volumes of emissions involved. The human contribution is of such a small percentage that any increase in climate change may be calculated, but not measured since this increase will likely be so small that it will fall into the "noise" of measurement. Man may be able to reduce the speed of climate change but it will not come from worrying about methane emissions from cattle. If scientist could find a way of stopping one volcano from erupting they will prevent more emisions than humans will contribute over many years.In short we are not the culprit.It is mother natures way of periodically purging.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

That is pretty much my position exactly. There may well be WARMING occuring, but the tiny ammount of the emmissions certain groups wish to use to blame it on mankind pushes the claim of MAN-MADE G.W. into the realm of the rediculous.
6 billion humans cause 5% of the CO2 emmissions.
300 million Americans cause .0027% of the CO2 emmissions.
Once before, I noted .0027% compares to 35 feet from L.A. to New York City.
The earth's environment is not THAT precarious.
Add in the latest Al Gore claim that if we do nothing, we have 45 years to live.
Changing .0027% gets us what? Another 20 days, thats what.
MARS IS WARMING. Why???????
The earth's temperature has millinea of history of changing, both warmer AND COLDER, BEFORE man even came along, let alone before we invented the airplane, the power plant, and the SUV.
Who remembers the GLOBAL COOLING and "aerosols" crap from 3o years ago?
Polution is one thing.
Clean air is good.
Clean water is even better.
M.M.G.W. is idiocy.

[78Eliminator]

There was a good article in Newsweek about global warming and how disinformation is spread by scientists who are paid by oil companies including Exxon/Mobil . They followed paper trials where checks were written for tens of thousands paid to scientists for writing up short but sweet articles claiming that it does not exist. They also claimed that the disinformation strategy was modeled directly after the tobacco companies claims that smoking did not cause cancer and that nicotine was not addictive.
I understand that basically everything you hear and read is written by humans which by nature are subject to corruption, but I am doing my best to be green. With 9 billion humans on the planet and an estimated 15 billion by 2015, we kind of need to start making some drastic changes. The industrial revolution never took the environment into consideration, so we have to do some back tracking and rethink the way we do things.
I live in San Diego, and end up in Los Angeles every now and then. The air up there is rancid........and we did that. I went to the beach for an hour over the weekend and got completely burned. 20 years ago when I was younger, I could lay on the beach all day long and barely get a hint of red. These are changes I have seen on my own, just growing up in Southern California.
The bottom line is this: if global warming was a big hoax, who cares? Maybe it's time to start teaching people to take better care of the planet, REGARDLESS.
Would it kill you to be a little more environmentally friendly?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

No one believes polution is a good thing 78Eliminator, and LA, just exactly where it is, is especially sensitive to it from a lack of airflow reason. Then the temperature inversions that settle into that basin every year, just make things worse. If ANY city in this country should actually be all-electric as far as commuter cars go, it is LA.
Imagine what that city was like back in the horse & buggy days of the 1880's.
Catastrophic Climate Change (the now-prefered, more scary, term over Anthropologic Global Warming) which is ignoring scientific history (and actually lying about some of it), denies a great many scientific facts (like evidence that the polar ice caps are NOT in fact melting (as claimed) but GROWING BY 2.6 GIGATONS A YEAR), the "global warming" currently happening on Mars, etc.
Yet, the CCC crowd want hundreds of Billions of $$$ spent, and huge restrictions on businesses (and people), havoc wreaked on our and other economies, to "fix" something that the Catastrophic Climate Change people even say CANNOT BE FIXED, is INEVITABLE, etc.
The Anti-Capitolists who USED to live in the pro-communism camp, found the camp closed on them with the closure of the Soviet Union's failed experiemnt in "Socialist/Communist Utopia", as well as the proof of the experiences of the rest of the world.
They had to go somewhere.
Most of them went to the Environmentalist movement.

[never_fast_enuf]

There was a good article in Newsweek about global warming and how disinformation is spread by scientists who are paid by oil companies including Exxon/Mobil . They followed paper trials where checks were written for tens of thousands paid to scientists for writing up short but sweet articles claiming that it does not exist.
Actually, I am glad you brought that up. Do you have any idea how many BILLIONS of dollars scientists get when they come to a pro man made global warming conclusion?
Why don't you do yourself a favor and find out for yourself just what a pot of gold it is for these people to do just that...thousands of dollars for sponsored research vs millions and millions of bribes.
Reid Bryson, the father of scientific climatology had this to say about the subject...
""If you want to be an eminent scientist, you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh, global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"
Follow the money and report back....If you don't I will help you.

[never_fast_enuf]

78Eliminator....Just a couple of more points and questions for you.
I approach this issue like I do every issue. Dig through the noise and do some research, then apply common sense.
Can you tell me what scientist works for free?
Secondly, being environmentally friendly is a completely different argument than man made global warming. Making the decision to throw away a McDonalds bag into the trash instead of into the street isn't the same as deciding to give up half your paycheck to give to politicians to solve something we didn't create in the first place, if it even exists in the first place.
Personally, how much are you willing to give up to fix something that may or may not be a problem?
The final analogy is this...If you had a splinter in your finger and it began to get red and you went to the doctor, would you let him cut off your arm to fix it? Or how about this…I don't know if you are married or not but lets assume you are and happily :) Your wife has a period every month. Would you let the doctor perform a hysterectomy to stop something that is a natural cycle, just because the doctor scared you into thinking she would bleed to death?
That is exactly what the man made global warming crowd is asking us to do.

[Old Texan]

78E, I'd like to add a previously stated question, "What do you really know about the technologies being developed to improve the environmental conditions?"
Research how fossil fuel power and energy is being produced and all the technology being used to improve cleanliness and environmental impact. Newsweek and the bulk of the media ignore these advances mainly because it isn't "sensational" enough.
Kyoto and other pushes for major cutbacks are based on weak scientific evidence but will produce major ramifications in the world economic order.
Efficiency in energy usage is growing by the day and those in the media and "green groups" are just not acknowledging it, worse they are suggesting the exact opposite of what is really happening.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

There was a good article in Newsweek about global warming and how disinformation is spread by scientists who are paid by oil companies including Exxon/Mobil . They followed paper trials where checks were written for tens of thousands paid to scientists for writing up short but sweet articles claiming that it does not exist.
Actually, I am glad you brought that up. Do you have any idea how many BILLIONS of dollars scientists get when they come to a pro man made global warming conclusion?
Why don't you do yourself a favor and find out for yourself just what a pot of gold it is for these people to do just that...thousands of dollars for sponsored research vs millions and millions of bribes.
Reid Bryson, the father of scientific climatology had this to say about the subject...
""If you want to be an eminent scientist, you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh, global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"
Follow the money and report back....If you don't I will help you.
More on what the father of scientific climatology has said on the subject. Amazing that the the father of scientific climatology isn't as sure about this isse as you geniouses here on HB
Global Warming? Some common sense thoughts
By Reid A. Bryson Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr
6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon-dioxide-induced warming of the climate is a fact?
Probably wrong.
I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth.
So What Can We Say about Global Warming?
We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century. We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of "greenhouse gases" until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used.
We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question --- too important to ignore. However it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem.
What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting2 and was laughed at for suggesting that people could possibly change the climate!
Is the the father of scientific climatology ruling out the possibility of MMGW?
Doesn't sound like it.
That's all I'm tryin' to say

[Schiada76]

78E
Don't confuse the to separate issues of global warming hysteria and pollution which is real.
This is a tactic used by liberals when the facts on the global warming hysteria are presented.
Everyone agrees pollution is bad, anyone sane can understand that the current global warming hysteria is bullshit.
Hell, there is no consensus on whether or not we are going through a warming phase much less a man made one.

[Schiada76]

More on what the father of scientific climatology has said on the subject. Amazing that the the father of scientific climatology isn't as sure about this isse as you geniouses here on HB
Global Warming? Some common sense thoughts
By Reid A. Bryson Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr
6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon-dioxide-induced warming of the climate is a fact?
Probably wrong.
I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth.
So What Can We Say about Global Warming?
We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century. We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of "greenhouse gases" until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used.
We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question --- too important to ignore. However it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem.
What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting2 and was laughed at for suggesting that people could possibly change the climate!
Is the the father of scientific climatology ruling out the possibility of MMGW?
Doesn't sound like it.
That's all I'm tryin' to say
Oh yeah now there is a stinging rebuttal of everything we've posted here.
He says "most probably warmed" he can't even definitively state that the planet has warmed AT ALL much less that humans have caused a "warming".:rolleyes:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

78E
Don't confuse the to separate issues of global warming hysteria and pollution which is real.
This is a tactic used by liberals when the facts on the global warming hysteria are presented.
Everyone agrees pollution is bad, anyone sane can understand that the current global warming hysteria is bullshit.
Hell, there is no consensus on whether or not we are going through a warming phase much less a man made one.
Only those who belive GW is bullsh*t are sane? Anyone who believes in the posibility of MMGW are less than sane? I'm headed back to timeout as dealing with the likes of you and you narrow minded yet absolute opinions is boring. If you ever get your head out of your butt and realize that United States was intened to mean exactly that, then maybe then maybe we can talk. Until you get over your miscoception that anyone who doesn't think like you is a POS, I'm not going to waste my time.
Later

[Schiada76]

Only those who belive GW is bullsh*t are sane? Anyone who believes in the posibility of MMGW are less than sane? I'm headed back to timeout as dealing with the likes of you and you narrow minded yet absolute opinions is boring. If you ever get your head out of your butt and realize that United States was intened to mean exactly that, then maybe then maybe we can talk. Until you get over your miscoception that anyone who doesn't think like you is a POS, I'm not going to waste my time.
Later
I never said anyone that doesn't think like me is a POS but I think anyone who doesn't agree with his own expert that he quoted to support his position needs more than just a little therapy. Did you even read what you quoted?
Your own source doesn't even believe in "MMGW".:D :D
I agree with the quote, he's not even positive there is any global warming at all much less MMGW.:rolleyes: :D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I never said anyone that doesn't think like me is a POS but I think anyone who doesn't agree with his own expert that he quoted to support his position needs more than just a little therapy. Did you even read what you quoted?
Your own source doesn't even believe in "MMGW".:D :D
I agree with the quote, he's not even positive there is any global warming at all much less MMGW.:rolleyes: :D
Exactly. He, the expert, isn't sure, but of course, you are.
Have fun
BTW, there is nothing to be hysterical about.

[Schiada76]

Exactly. He, the expert, isn't sure, but of course, you are.
Have fun
BTW, there is nothing to be hysterical about.
He said he's not even sure there's been ANY warming.:D :D :D
He agrees with our position, not yours.:confused:
Hysterical??? HUH???:confused: :rolleyes: :D

[eliminatedsprinter]

I personally have no problem with people choosing to believe in MMGW. My problem is with people who want to impose laws, that will impact the lives of others, as a result of their belief.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

He said he's not even sure there's been ANY warming.:D :D :D
He agrees with our position, not yours.:confused:
Hysterical??? HUH???:confused: :rolleyes: :D
From the father of scientific climatology
"We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century."
"What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting2 and was laughed at for suggesting that people could possibly change the climate!"
And my position is what?
I personally have no problem with people choosing to believe in MMGW. My problem is with people who want to impose laws, that will impact the lives of others, as a result of their belief.
Other then requiring that auto makers build more efficient vehicles and power generators be mandated to run as efficently as possible, I believe that this matter should be dealt with on an individual basis.
There are way to many unknowns to start imposing laws.
However, we do know that pollution isn't good and everyone should do their part and be conscious of individual pollution.
I have made these exact point from the beginning of the GW discussion and have been labeled a liberal, lying hypocrite because I have a 26 ' Deckboat that gets towed by 3 days a month by a Lightning.
Most of the folks here are here to argue and to one up those with even a remotly opposing views.
He agrees with our position, not yours.:
This is exactly the type of one sided non-thinking BS that I refer to.
ES, While you and I don't always agree, you have an open mind and communicate like a mature adult. The PRF would be a much better place to discuss political issues if the masses dealt with Right and Wrong as opposed to Right and Left.
No need for me to continue, as I don't see anything or anyone changing here.

[Schiada76]

From the father of scientific climatology
"We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century."
"What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting2 and was laughed at for suggesting that people could possibly change the climate!"
And my position is what?
Read his quote for god's sake.
He says PROBABLY, that is not a definitive statement. He's not even sure it's warmed at all. You on the other hand keep saying man made global warming is real and must be dealt with, just listen to the Algore or we'll die!
OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! SAVE ME AL SAVE ME!
Note: Hysteria added for humorous purposes only.:D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Read his quote for god's sake.
He says PROBABLY, that is not a definitive statement. He's not even sure it's warmed at all. You on the other hand keep saying man made global warming is real and must be dealt with, just listen to the Algore or we'll die!
OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! SAVE ME AL SAVE ME!
Note: Hysteria added for humorous purposes only.:D
You on the other hand keep saying man made global warming is real and must be dealt with, just listen to the Algore or we'll die!
Where have I said this?
There is no point trying to comminucate with you. It's hopeless

[Old Texan]

The PRF would be a much better place to discuss political issues if the masses dealt with Right and Wrong as opposed to Right and Left.
No need for me to continue, as I don't see anything or anyone changing here.
Are all issues then Right or Wrong? There is no in between or gray area?
John you claim to want to debate but show no compromise what so ever many times and it's a general concensus you don't completely "read and comphrehend" a lot of points.
No one here doubts your efforts and intentions to help the environment by your choices of transportation and marine engines. But you will not admit anyone else seems to be making an effort and is completely ignoring the environmental issues.
You get stuck on points within statements and seem to take many things far out of context. I'm not flaming, ragging, etc. your points just stating an observation of how your responses come across.
Kyoto and other "Green Party" theories are viewed by many as false and unrealistic from a scientific standpoint. These views are not off the cuff but derived from study of the supplied concept and the sources of those concepts.
Once again I ask, do you believe there are real efforts to improve efficiency being made by those in charge of technological advancements in power, energy, and environmental protection, or do you support the theories of many "green groups" that the majority of industry is just trying to sweep all these issues under the carpet and exploit the world for financial gain?
Global Warming, or whatever it is called each time it is brought up, is probalby never going to be sufficiently proven "Right or Wrong".

[asch]

well stated...and up to our knees in it.
Nice avatar btw.
CC
y'all may be up to your knees, but out here in progressive-fornia, we're up to our eyeballs. :)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Are all issues then Right or Wrong? There is no in between or gray area?
John you claim to want to debate but show no compromise what so ever many times and it's a general concensus you don't completely "read and comphrehend" a lot of points.
No one here doubts your efforts and intentions to help the environment by your choices of transportation and marine engines. But you will not admit anyone else seems to be making an effort and is completely ignoring the environmental issues.
You get stuck on points within statements and seem to take many things far out of context. I'm not flaming, ragging, etc. your points just stating an observation of how your responses come across.
Kyoto and other "Green Party" theories are viewed by many as false and unrealistic from a scientific standpoint. These views are not off the cuff but derived from study of the supplied concept and the sources of those concepts.
Once again I ask, do you believe there are real efforts to improve efficiency being made by those in charge of technological advancements in power, energy, and environmental protection, or do you support the theories of many "green groups" that the majority of industry is just trying to sweep all these issues under the carpet and exploit the world for financial gain?
Global Warming, or whatever it is called each time it is brought up, is probalby never going to be sufficiently proven "Right or Wrong".
As I recall, in your words, Tex, talking to me is like talking to a 3 years old.
Take care

[eliminatedsprinter]

It is very hard to seperate out the right vs left aspects of this and other "environmental issues". Unfortunatly one of the main goals of all forms of "leftist" ideology is to gain as much collective/government control over business and industry as they can. Years ago the left learned that the environmental movement could be useful in this regard. It is a sad truth that the political left has largely usurped the environmental movement and is using it to pursue the above stated goal. This has naturally drawn strong opposition from the political right. As a result all people who are distrustful of fascist/socialist/communist style collectivism are forced to look at all "environmental issues" with a high index of suspicion.

[Old Texan]

As I recall, in your words, Tex, talking to me is like talking to a 3 years old.
Take care
So be it.
Good of you come back and confirm. Back to your time out or wherever your current pout takes you. Your decision.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

It is very hard to seperate out the right vs left aspects of this and other "environmental issues". Unfortunatly one of the main goals of all forms of "leftist" ideology is to gain as much collective/government control over business and industry as they can. Years ago the left learned that the environmental movement could be useful in this regard. It is a sad truth that the political left has largely usurped the environmental movement and is using it to pursue the above stated goal. This has naturally drawn strong opposition from the political right. As a result all people who are distrustful of fascist/socialist/communist style collectivism are forced to look at all "environmental issues" with a high index of suspicion.
The environment shouldn't be an issue of right or left. As I stated before it should be a matter of right and wrong. In general terms Democrats are far from communists, and I believe your view of the left is more representative of the extreme left. You speak of distrust. How many Americans trust the current Right wing administration? Not very many. IMO, the entire political arena both Right and Left are corrupt and undeserving of my trust. If you can say that you have trust in the current Right Wing Republican government, I would be surprised.
The reality should be that one political party should not influence what is good or bad for the environment, on a personal level. When it becomes environment vs. business, all of the issues from both sides must be given equal weight without political motivation.
If you want to clean up both sides of this issue, we must change the campaign process and eliminate the contributions from lobbyists. We need to designate a system in which each candidate receives equal campaign funds. The second most important thing that must go are earmarks.
I believe that until these two issues are remedied, we will have corrupt dishonest BS government from who ever is in power.
So be it.
Good of you come back and confirm. Back to your time out or wherever your current pout takes you. Your decision.
Exactly my point.
Have fun

[eliminatedsprinter]

The environment shouldn't be an issue of right or left. As I stated before it should be a matter of right and wrong. In general terms Democrats are far from communists, and I believe your view of the left is more representative of the extreme left.
Of course it SHOULD be a matter of right and wrong. All public policy SHOULD be a matter of right or wrong. The sad fact is, it's almost never is that simple. In addition, individualists, like myself, often have different views of right and wrong than collectivists on some issues.
What general terms are you referring to re Dems? All of the Democratic party leaders and all of the Democrats currently running for President are less than a whisker away from being straight up Socialists. Back when VP Gore was running for president he was actually to the left of that year's Socialist Party candidate on several issues (ie guns and evironmental regulation).
ON THE OTHER HAND,,,,,,
I am a registered Democrat.:jawdrop:
Go figure.:rolleyes: :)
In short, not all Democrats are far left wingnuts, but the parties leadership is.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Of course it SHOULD be a matter of right and wrong. All public policy SHOULD be a matter of right or wrong. The sad fact is, it's almost never is that simple. In addition, individualists, like myself, often have different views of right and wrong than collectivists on some issues.
What general terms are you referring to re Dems? All of the Democratic party leaders and all of the Democrats currently running for President are less than a whisker away from being straight up Socialists. Back when VP Gore was running for president he was actually to the left of that year's Socialist Party candidate on several issues (ie guns and evironmental regulation).
ON THE OTHER HAND,,,,,,
I am a registered Democrat.:jawdrop:
Go figure.:rolleyes: :)
In short, not all Democrats are far left wingnuts, but the parties leadership is.
Just curious if CA has changed the laws with regard to Primary Elections. Seems it used to be that a Dem could not vote Republican in a CA primary, wth regard to President

[Moneypitt]

OK, so we do all those "green" things.......That means Central/South America can destroy another 100 sq miles of rain forest, and everything remains the same ratio........It will not help to clean up our little corner of the world as long as 95% of the planet continues to do things as usual. How many other states/countries have banned the painting of boats with 2 stage paint?..Car's emissions, florocarbons???.........When all this is said and done the import/export ratio will be even further off kilter because those importing countries don't have to worry about polution.........Ah ha, maybe it is a plot to wipe out American factories by passing so many PANIC laws we can no longer manufacture anything...........Do you thing GM has to be Green friendly in their Mexican plants??.....Hell no...........MP

[Old Texan]

OK, so we do all those "green" things.......That means Central/South America can destroy another 100 sq miles of rain forest, and everything remains the same ratio........It will not help to clean up our little corner of the world as long as 95% of the planet continues to do things as usual. How many other states/countries have banned the painting of boats with 2 stage paint?..Car's emissions, florocarbons???.........When all this is said and done the import/export ratio will be even further off kilter because those importing countries don't have to worry about polution.........Ah ha, maybe it is a plot to wipe out American factories by passing so many PANIC laws we can no longer manufacture anything...........Do you thing GM has to be Green friendly in their Mexican plants??.....Hell no...........MP
Kyoto Treaty:idea: Kinda sounds like part of why the "Greenies" keep trying to cram it down our throat. Wonder how long it would take a Democrat to sign it?

[centerhill condor]

kyoto was the only sizeable Japanese city virtually untouched by the air campaign...:)

[eliminatedsprinter]

Just curious if CA has changed the laws with regard to Primary Elections. Seems it used to be that a Dem could not vote Republican in a CA primary, wth regard to President
We passed a voter initiative for open primaries, but it was challenged in court by the parties.
I understand we still can, but it wont be counted twards the primary vote by the party (a wasted vote). I honestly don't remember if my last primary ballot had names from both parties or just dems on it. I intend to stay a dem until after 2008 (so I can vote agianst Hillery twice). After that, I may re-register as "decline to state". Although I may keep my current registration until I retire, because my current polling place is right next to my work and it is very easy for me to vote during lunch.
As it is, I only vote for dems in primaries or local elections when I am forced to choose between 2 of them. I strongly disagree with the Democratic party platform as it is almost as bad as the Socialist, Communist, and Green party platforms, esp here in Ca.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

We passed a voter initiative for open primaries, but it was challenged in court by the parties.
I understand we still can, but it wont be counted twards the primary vote by the party (a wasted vote). I honestly don't remember if my last primary ballot had names from both parties or just dems on it. I intend to stay a dem until after 2008 (so I can vote agianst Hillery twice). After that, I may re-register as "decline to state". Although I may keep my current registration until I retire, because my current polling place is right next to my work and it is very easy for me to vote during lunch.
As it is, I only vote for dems in primaries or local elections when I am forced to choose between 2 of them. I strongly disagree with the Democratic party platform as it is almost as bad as the Socialist, Communist, and Green party platforms, esp here in Ca.
I'm sorry that your view the Democratic platform as anything near Communism. It's a sad state when Americans view other Americans as near communists. It's also sad that I view the Moral Christian Right in an equally bad light. A happy medium between the left and the right is how a view a successful and United America. United not divided

[centerhill condor]

I'm sorry that your view the Democratic platform as anything near Communism. It's a sad state when Americans view other Americans as near communists. It's also sad that I view the Moral Christian Right in an equally bad light. A happy medium between the left and the right is how a view a successful and United America. United not divided
To stay on topic...I've found this little link to be helpful.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20873
God forbid a bunch of Christians run this country...we just wouldn't do well with prayer in public school, mothers being married to the father of their children, kids that respect their elders, respect for the RESPONSIBILITIES not just the rights.
It wouldn't be soooo bad if you would keep all that California crap in Cali..but noooo we have to have atheists running schools, english as a second language, perpetually reduced standards so everyone can play, and gimme gimme gimme!
There's no happy medium. There's right and wrong in this world and a man either does one or the other. Right now the gov't is susbsidizing (enabling) bad decisions made by investors regarding high rates of return/risks...with your money. Were'd they learn that...?
Dems are commies. You would do well to read Mao's little red book. Spells out the dem programs for our country...in language that can easily be understood. The dems will only be stopped after they bankrupt the country morally, financially, and ethically.
Good for investigating insurance frauds...enjoy the runnup in business.
CC

[LOWRIVER2]

Common sense?
I'll just say if you (anyone) buys into global warming, then why would that person own a watercraft with no cat converter that will certainly pollute fresh water at some point, burn gas/emissions for non priority reasons (recreation), and, on top of that, tow the eco unfriendly machine with a truck or similar eight cylinder fossil fuels burning source that creates more emissions/burns more fuel.
In other words, you look like a hypocrite, go buy a kayak, get on a bike and practice what you preach. The power boat crowd does'nt need a dry stacks or I/O owner that feels guilty over what they do.
As for a Democrat living in Brea, that's a tough life. I guess there's that crowd of teenagers that used to demonstrate the war at Starbucks on Imperial/Brea Blvd. to hang out with.
I'd bet Democrats don't venture much into Yorba Linda much now, do they?/LOL
It's a joke, chill out.
To each their own.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

To stay on topic...I've found this little link to be helpful.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20873
God forbid a bunch of Christians run this country...we just wouldn't do well with prayer in public school, mothers being married to the father of their children, kids that respect their elders, respect for the RESPONSIBILITIES not just the rights.
It wouldn't be soooo bad if you would keep all that California crap in Cali..but noooo we have to have atheists running schools, english as a second language, perpetually reduced standards so everyone can play, and gimme gimme gimme!
There's no happy medium. There's right and wrong in this world and a man either does one or the other. Right now the gov't is susbsidizing (enabling) bad decisions made by investors regarding high rates of return/risks...with your money. Were'd they learn that...?
Dems are commies. You would do well to read Mao's little red book. Spells out the dem programs for our country...in language that can easily be understood. The dems will only be stopped after they bankrupt the country morally, financially, and ethically.
Good for investigating insurance frauds...enjoy the runnup in business.
CC
Guess I struck a nerve. Prayer has no business in public ENGLISH SPEAKING schools. People do not have to be Christian to be good people. The notion, that those who don't believe as you are going hell, is a laugh.
Reps and Nazis Makes about as much sense as your Dems are commies statement.
The dems will only be stopped after they bankrupt the country morally, financially, and ethically.
Seems to me that the Republicans have done more than enough damage themselves. Aren't you proud of the current administration?
There is always more than enough insurance fraud no more or less in the last 6 1/2 years. :D :D Interesting how the my line of work keeps being brought up. Not sure how it applies to this or any other political subject.
Sorry for going off topic
United not divided
Common sense?
I'll just say if you (anyone) buys into global warming, then why would that person own a watercraft with no cat converter that will certainly pollute fresh water at some point, burn gas/emissions for non priority reasons (recreation), and, on top of that, tow the eco unfriendly machine with a truck or similar eight cylinder fossil fuels burning source that creates more emissions/burns more fuel.
In other words, you look like a hypocrite, go buy a kayak, get on a bike and practice what you preach. The power boat crowd does'nt need a dry stacks or I/O owner that feels guilty over what they do.
As for a Democrat living in Brea, that's a tough life. I guess there's that crowd of teenagers that used to demonstrate the war at Starbucks on Imperial/Brea Blvd. to hang out with.
I'd bet Democrats don't venture much into Yorba Linda much now, do they?/LOL
It's a joke, chill out.
To each their own.
The dems will only be stopped after they bankrupt the country morally, financially, and ethically.
Thought about towing the boat with a Prius, but figured it wouldn't work.
Most of the anti-war demonstrators that used to hang on the corner of Brea and Imperial were bizzare. It even got more strange when their opposition started hanging out accross the street. I can remember going through that intersection more than once and seeing fights, and people throwing things at each other. Crazy sh*t
I think Brea PD finially had enough as I haven't seen anything going on there in years. (I hit this intersection every day on my way home from work)

[centerhill condor]

Guess I struck a nerve. Prayer has no business in public ENGLISH SPEAKING schools. People do not have to be Christian to be good people. The notion, that those who don't believe as you are going hell, is a laugh.
Reps and Nazis Makes about as much sense as your Dems are commies statement.
Sorry for going off topic
United not divided
only to the uneducated...if you don't know the difference there is no difference. If you'd care to start a thread regarding the comparison..feel free..but do some homework and pack a lunch.
CC

[eliminatedsprinter]

I'm sorry that your view the Democratic platform as anything near Communism. It's a sad state when Americans view other Americans as near communists. It's also sad that I view the Moral Christian Right in an equally bad light. A happy medium between the left and the right is how a view a successful and United America. United not divided
It is a sad state indeed that one of our major parties has embraced a platform that is so much like socialism/communisim. I would think that people who view themselves as liberal (free thinking, open minded, and in favor of social progress) would find less authoritarian and more inovative ideologies to borrow from when they form their platform.
Fascism is an ideology which was the result of an attempt to find a happy medium of Left and Right.
It featured the retention of private property rights and private business ownership (from the right) but strict government control of industry and commerce (from the left).
The reason I'm mentioning fascism is not to label anyone as fascist, but rather to point out, that just because something is a comprimise, it is not nessesarily good. After all, fascism is much worse than free market capitolism and equally as bad as communism or socialism. It seems that it only takes a few communist/socialist principles (ie too much govenrnment control) to spoil any compromise.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

only to the uneducated...if you don't know the difference there is no difference. If you'd care to start a thread regarding the comparison..feel free..but do some homework and pack a lunch.
CC
I think what bothers me the most is the hate that most Reps display for anyone who doesn't share their views. I guess you can attach this to the uneducated as well.
If want a thread started, feel free to start in yourself.
United not divided.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

It is a sad state indeed that one of our major parties has embraced a platform that is so much like socialism/communisim. I would think that people who view themselves as liberal (free thinking, open minded, and in favor of social progress) would find less authoritarian and more inovative ideologies to borrow from when they form their platform.
Fascism is an ideology which was the result of an attempt to find a happy medium of Left and Right.
It featured the retention of private property rights and private business ownership (from the right) but strict government control of industry and commerce (from the left).
The reason I'm mentioning fascism is not to label anyone as fascist, but rather to point out, that just because something is a comprimise, it is not nessesarily good. After all, fascism is much worse than free market capitolism and equally as bad as communism or socialism. It seems that it only takes a few communist/socialist principles (ie too much govenrnment control) to spoil any compromise.
I think you are way off on this one ES.
Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of Karl Marx[citation needed]. However, communism had a rich history of theory and practice for hundreds of years before Marx's attempt to think communism in the context of industrialization[citation needed]. Communism as a political goal is generally a conjectured form of future social organization, although Marxists have described early forms of human social organization as "primitive communism". Self-identified communists hold a variety of views, including Marxism Leninism, Trotskyism, council communism, Luxemburgism, anarchist communism, Christian communism, and various currents of left communism, which are generally the more widespread varieties. However, various offshoots of the Soviet (what critics call the "Stalinist", and supporters call Marxist-Leninist) and Maoist interpretations of Marxism comprise a particular branch of communism that has the distinction of having been the primary driving force for communism in world politics during most of the 20th century. The competing branch of Trotskyism has not had such a distinction
This hardly describes anyone or any politicion that I know.

[eliminatedsprinter]

I think you are way off on this one ES.
Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of Karl Marx[citation needed]. However, communism had a rich history of theory and practice for hundreds of years before Marx's attempt to think communism in the context of industrialization[citation needed]. Communism as a political goal is generally a conjectured form of future social organization, although Marxists have described early forms of human social organization as "primitive communism". Self-identified communists hold a variety of views, including Marxism Leninism, Trotskyism, council communism, Luxemburgism, anarchist communism, Christian communism, and various currents of left communism, which are generally the more widespread varieties. However, various offshoots of the Soviet (what critics call the "Stalinist", and supporters call Marxist-Leninist) and Maoist interpretations of Marxism comprise a particular branch of communism that has the distinction of having been the primary driving force for communism in world politics during most of the 20th century. The competing branch of Trotskyism has not had such a distinction
This hardly describes anyone or any politicion that I know.
The above discription of communism is only one of semantic theory and semantic history. It lacks any depth and analysis of elemental principles. It could not discribe any individual or politician (it dosen't even discribe the views of the individuals named in the above definitian).
For the sake of brevity I have been writing communist/socialist together since socialism and communisim are the nominative idiologies that define the historical basis of the phrase "political left". B. Obama, H. Clinton, H. Reid, N. Pelosi, all of the Dems in the Ca State legislature etc are but a tiny few of the Politicians that are currently out selling collectivist ideas, that are principle elements of those above ideologies. It is true that none of them are running around quoting Karl Marx or Vladimir llych Ulyanov (aka Lenin). But they are selling much of the same collectivist snake oil that those two and many others have sold in the past..I don't think they are doing it because they are commies. I just think they do it because it is an effective form of populist demogoguery. For me using collecivist/populist demogoguery to push for more government power/regulation/ taxation is the ultimate political turn off. And todays Democratic Party does it big time....(in my not always so humble opinion;) ).......
P.S. The "END IS NEAR"/"WE ARE DISTREOYING THE PLANET"/ "THE SKY IS FALLING" type of fear mongering is another form of demogoguery I'm not too fond of either...:idea:

[centerhill condor]

This hardly describes anyone or any politicion that I know.
proving once again, you're ignorant of the positions of the current dem leadership. Using bipartisnship, hate, and other lib labels is not the same as debating the issues and is not very good cover for bad policy or a lack of study....but I'm beginning to understand why you like Al Gore so much:)
ES has raised the bar...thanks,
CC

[Old Texan]

It is a sad state indeed that one of our major parties has embraced a platform that is so much like socialism/communisim. I would think that people who view themselves as liberal (free thinking, open minded, and in favor of social progress) would find less authoritarian and more inovative ideologies to borrow from when they form their platform.
Fascism is an ideology which was the result of an attempt to find a happy medium of Left and Right.
It featured the retention of private property rights and private business ownership (from the right) but strict government control of industry and commerce (from the left).
The reason I'm mentioning fascism is not to label anyone as fascist, but rather to point out, that just because something is a comprimise, it is not nessesarily good. After all, fascism is much worse than free market capitolism and equally as bad as communism or socialism. It seems that it only takes a few communist/socialist principles (ie too much govenrnment control) to spoil any compromise.
Well stated ES.
I personally see a correlation between the UAW (among others) and Socialism. And what party does the UAW "always" support?
It will be interesting in the next election on who carries MI if Romney gets the nod. He has a great background in the state from the days when the auto industry was booming. It would help that state get back on track from where they've digressed.
Trying to tie any form of practiced Socialism to the "ideal definition" isn't possible because human nature would never allow the "true" form to be practiced. We know how this grates on our friend Poser to no end. :rolleyes:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

The above discription of communism is only one of semantic theory and semantic history. It lacks any depth and analysis of elemental principles. It could not discribe any individual or politician (it dosen't even discribe the views of the individuals named in the above definitian).
For the sake of brevity I have been writing communist/socialist together since socialism and communisim are the nominative idiologies that define the historical basis of the phrase "political left". B. Obama, H. Clinton, H. Reid, N. Pelosi, all of the Dems in the Ca State legislature etc are but a tiny few of the Politicians that are currently out selling collectivist ideas, that are principle elements of those above ideologies. It is true that none of them are running around quoting Karl Marx or Vladimir llych Ulyanov (aka Lenin). But they are selling much of the same collectivist snake oil that those two and many others have sold in the past..I don't think they are doing it because they are commies. I just think they do it because it is an effective form of populist demogoguery. For me using collecivist/populist demogoguery to push for more government power/regulation/ taxation is the ultimate political turn off. And todays Democratic Party does it big time....(in my not always so humble opinion;) ).......
P.S. The "END IS NEAR"/"WE ARE DISTREOYING THE PLANET"/ "THE SKY IS FALLING" type of fear mongering is another form of demogoguery I'm not too fond of either...:idea:
Please ES point out to me where the current Dems are selling the same "snake oil" as Karl Marx or Vladimir llych Ulyanov (aka Lenin). The current administration has spent more than any administration in US history, yet it seems less distasteful for you to take aim at the Dems.
But you're OK the SKY IS Falling BS that we don't win in Iraq, the terrorists are coming to get us on US soil, at the cost of over a billion a day.
Your OK with the Drug lobby and the Oil lobby and billions in earmarks.
Seems the Republicans are OK with off the chart military spending, as it is today. It also seems that if this war was being funded by additional Fed Income Tax, or tax increases, you all would be crying the blues. It's obvious that you would rather borrow the money to fund this war and then blame it on those who will be left to clean up your parties financial mess. As long as your taxes aren't raised, it doesn't matter to you.
You can call the Dems what you would like as I can call the Reps what I like. It matters not. This Country has dug itself into a few big holes and it is going to take the best minds available to successfully begin the process of digging out. The sooner, we as a country can get over the political bigotry and unite as a country, the better.
ES, you are are an intelligent man and know that there is reality in what I'm saying.
I don't see positive in the future without serious change.

[Steve 1]

On Jan. 10, 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Jr. of Florida read a list of 45 Communist goals into the Congressional Record. The list was derived from researcher Cleon Skousen’s book “The Naked Communist.” These principles are well worth revisiting today in order to gain insights into the thinking and strategies of much of our so-called liberal elite.
1. U.S. should accept coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. should be willing to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
These encapsulate the Kennan Doctrine, which advocated for the "containment" of communism. Establishment figures supporting the amoral containment policy at least implicitly worked with the communists in scaring the wits out of the American people concerning atomic war.
President Ronald Reagan undid the doctrine when he took an aggressive stand against the Evil Empire by backing freedom fighters from around the world that were struggling against the left-wing communist jackboot. As a result, the Soviet Union and its satellites imploded, a considerable and unexpected setback to the international communist edifice.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the U.S. would be a demonstration of "moral strength."
The nuclear freeze advocates supported a freeze on American nuclear development only. Rarely were Soviet nukes or those of other nations mentioned in their self-righteous tirades. The same advocates now call for reducing American military might, claiming that there is something immoral about America preserving its military pre-eminence in the world.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
Today, there are calls to end the embargo on the slave island of Cuba, there were complaints about the embargo against Iraq, and the U.S., not Saddam Hussein, was blamed for the suffering of the Iraqi people. Would they have advocated for free trade with Hitler and his National Socialist regime?
5. Extend long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
Such aid and trade over decades contributed greatly to the left-wing communist liquidation of over 100 million people worldwide, according to the well-documented "Black Book of Communism."
This aid and trade marks a shameful chapter in American history. Without the aid and trade, the left-wing international communist behemoth would have imploded on its own rot a lot sooner and umpteen millions would have been saved from poverty, misery, starvation and death.
7. Grant recognition of Red China and admission of Red China to the U.N.
Not only did President Jimmy Carter fulfill this goal but he also betrayed America’s allies in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iran, Afghanistan, Angola and elsewhere.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the Germany question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the U.S. has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.
There are still American intellectuals, and elected members of Congress, who dream of an eventual one world government and who view the U.N., founded by communists such as Alger Hiss, the first secretary-general, as the instrument to bring this about.
World government was also the dream of Adolf Hitler and J.V. Stalin. World government was the dream of Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers.
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
While the idea of banning any political party runs contrary to notions of American freedom and liberty, notions that are the exact opposite of those held by the left-wing communists themselves, nevertheless these goals sought to undermine the constitutional obligation of Congress to investigate subversion. The weakening of our government’s ability to conduct such investigations led to the attack of 9/11.
It is entirely proper and appropriate for our government to expect employees, paid by the American taxpayer, to take an oath of loyalty.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the U.S.
In his book "Reagan’s War," Peter Schweizer demonstrates the astonishing degree to which communists and communist sympathizers have penetrated the Democratic Party. In his book, Schweizer writes about the presidential election of 1979.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
This strategy goes back to the founding of the American Civil Liberties Union by Fabian Socialists Roger Baldwin and John Dewey and Communists William Z. Foster and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn among others.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations that are under Communist attack.
The success of these goals, from a communist perspective, is obvious. Is there any doubt this is so?
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings," substituting shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. " Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24.Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural and healthy."
This is the Gramscian agenda of the "long march through the institutions" spelled out explicitly: gradual takeover of the "means of communication" and then using those vehicles to debauch the culture and weaken the will of the individual to resist.
Today those few who still have the courage to advocate public morality are denounced and viciously attacked. Most Americans are entirely unwitting regarding the motives behind this agenda.
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
This has been largely accomplished through the communist infiltration of the National Council of Churches, Conservative and Reform Judaism, and the Catholic seminaries.
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state"
Replacing belief in the creator with belief in the earthly man-controlled State.
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
And replace our nation of "laws, not men" with royal decree emanating from appointed judges and executive orders. Replace elected officials with bureaucrats.
30. Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
Obliterating the American past, with its antecedents in principles of freedom, liberty and private ownership is a major goal of the communists then and now.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
Public ownership of the means of production, the core principle of totalitarianism.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
Turn America into a socialist police state.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.
The Soviets used to send "social misfits" and those deemed politically incorrect to massive mental institutions called gulags. The Red Chinese call them lao gai. Hitler called them concentration camps.
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose communist goals.
Psychiatry remains a bulwark of the communist agenda of fostering self-criticism and docility.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
Done! The sovereign family is the single most powerful obstacle to authoritarian control.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
Outcome-based education, values clarification or whatever they’re calling it this year.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a "united force" to solve economic, political or social problems.
This describes the dialectical fostering of group consciousness and conflict, which furthers the interests of authoritarianism.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
The results of this successful campaign are increasingly obvious in the world today.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally Reservation so the U.S. cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.
This would mark a complete subversion of our Constitution and an end to representative sovereign government as we know it, which is the whole idea.

[Schiada76]

Steve, why does everything in your post seem to mirror the democrat party of today.
It just must be my imagination I guess.:rolleyes:

[Steve 1]

Steve, why does everything in your post seem to mirror the democrat party of today.
It just must be my imagination I guess.:rolleyes:
Birds of a feather.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Pure Garbage.
Gee Steve I Don't Shiada
Garbage

[centerhill condor]

Pure Garbage.
Gee Steve I Don't Shiada
Garbage
at least you're consistent...don't like it; call it bigoted, hate, criticize the funding or some other form of regressive.
You really should check to see if he's posting facts and then prove him wrong...oh, butt weight, that'd mean confronting reality...and then what come out of the commie closet? You've already cut your hair...grow it back.
CC

[Steve 1]

Pure Garbage.
Gee Steve I Don't Shiada
Garbage
Talking to yourself again??

[Old Texan]

Garbage because Herlong was a Democrat?
2 sides to everything unless it ain't your side?
Then again it could just be an inconvenient truth.........

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Interesting how the my line of work keeps being brought up. Not sure how it applies to this or any other political subject.
It continues to appear because you obviously can't be bothered to INVESTIGATE anything that you post, yet you claim to be such a fine one for a living.
It does NOT show.
As much homework as you NEED to do, pack both a lunch AND a dinner.

[Moneypitt]

As much homework as you NEED to do, pack both a lunch AND a dinner.
Don't forget the lanturn/flashlight, cause it'll be dark going home as well.........MP

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Pure Garbage.
Gee Steve I Don't Shiada
Garbage
Too bad ultra never got past the identification of the poster.
And ultra cannot be bothered to research things for factuality. "He hasn't got time to debate details".
Those ARE directly out of the source Steve mentioned. The "Communist Goals OF 1963".
The Communist Party, at the height of the cold war KNEW good and well that the USA could not be defeated from without. It would HAVE to be done FROM WITHIN.
This was how.
It's been working, they just went broke first spending 25% of their GDP on the millitary, against our normal 5 to 8% (currently below 2.5%).

[ULTRA26 # 1]

at least you're consistent...don't like it; call it bigoted, hate, criticize the funding or some other form of regressive.
You really should check to see if he's posting facts and then prove him wrong...oh, butt weight, that'd mean confronting reality...and then what come out of the commie closet? You've already cut your hair...grow it back.
CC
I don't doubt that some clown may have made these comments in 1963. The cooments to not apply to either party today.
You guys amaze me. Such narrow veiws. There can be no other way but yours, and so and so on. Both parties are corrupt money charged pieces of sh*t. You goofs can't see this?
Too bad ultra never got past the identification of the poster.
And ultra cannot be bothered to research things for factuality. "He hasn't got time to debate details".
Those ARE directly out of the source Steve mentioned. The "Communist Goals OF 1963".
The Communist Party, at the height of the cold war KNEW good and well that the USA could not be defeated from without. It would HAVE to be done FROM WITHIN.
This was how.
It's been working, they just went broke first spending 25% of their GDP on the millitary, against our normal 5 to 8% (currently below 2.5%).
Smokin,
Again, I will ask, ARE YOU STATING THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN SOME WAY COMMUNISTS? If the answer is yes, the you will understand that there is no need for further discussion. I will understand that you view Democrats as the enemy as others here do.

['75 Miller]

[QUOTE=LOWRIVER2;2735192]Common sense?
I'll just say if you (anyone) buys into global warming, then why would that person own a watercraft with no cat converter that will certainly pollute fresh water at some point, burn gas/emissions for non priority reasons (recreation), and, on top of that, tow the eco unfriendly machine with a truck or similar eight cylinder fossil fuels burning source that creates more emissions/burns more fuel.
In other words, you look like a hypocrite, go buy a kayak, get on a bike and practice what you preach. The power boat crowd does'nt need a dry stacks or I/O owner that feels guilty over what they do.
Well said. So how 'bout it demorats, any of you wanna comment on LOWRIVER2'S post? Ultra 26, I'd love to hear how you justify owning that monstrousity of a boat and the ferd you pull it with.

['75 Miller]

Would it kill you to be a little more environmentally friendly?
Strange, I don't remember seeing YOUR boat in the spam section, on epay, or in boat trader. What's it have...BBC...BBferd? Either way I'm sure it burns a buttload of fuel. Do you drag it to the lake or river with some pansy hybrid or a full-size truck?
When you look in the mirror do you see a hypocrite? You sure as shit sound like one.
Sick boat by the way...even if the guy who owns it sounds like a hypocritical ninny.
I grew up here in L.A. The sun DOES NOT burn my white skin ONE BIT more today than it did in 1975, 1985, or 1995. That comment was completely ridiculous.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I'd love to hear how you justify owning that monstrousity of a boat and the ferd you pull it with.
The boat has a "Ultra Efficiently Fuel Injected 496", which is good (I guess), especially compared to all the sloppy, uncontrolled, poorly tuned, non-efficient carbureted motors out there (like my 454).
The Ford Lightning "only drives 3 days a month", so it's OK too.
If you ever "investigated" anything ultra, you would EASILLY FIND that a great many things the Democrats WANT TO DO, HAVE DONE, AND ARE PUSHED BY THEIR SUPPORTERS (the environmentalists, the anti-millitary crowd, the anti-business crowd, the labor unions, etc, etc, etc,) ARE IN THAT LIST.
Hell ultra, Steve LISTED SOME OF THE OCCURENCES. There ARE MORE, lots more.
You're just too damn blindered and biASSed to look at them.
Just like your refusal to even LOOK at the warts, flaws, and outright lies being perpetrated to push "catastrophic climate change" on the world.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

The boat has a "Ultra Efficiently Fuel Injected 496", which is good (I guess), especially compared to all the sloppy, uncontrolled, poorly tuned, non-efficient carbureted motors out there (like my 454).
The Ford Lightning "only drives 3 days a month", so it's OK too.
If you ever "investigated" anything ultra, you would EASILLY FIND that a great many things the Democrats WANT TO DO, HAVE DONE, AND ARE PUSHED BY THEIR SUPPORTERS (the environmentalists, the anti-millitary crowd, the anti-business crowd, the labor unions, etc, etc, etc,) ARE IN THAT LIST.
Hell ultra, Steve LISTED SOME OF THE OCCURENCES. There ARE MORE, lots more.
You're just too damn blindered and biASSed to look at them.
Just like your refusal to even LOOK at the warts, flaws, and outright lies being perpetrated to push "catastrophic climate change" on the world.
Read what my position has been on climate change. I have said from my very first post on the issue that the jury is still out. I have looked at both side of the issue and I am not convinced by either, as I have said over and over. I have also said that I have been concerned about being more conscious about the amount of fuel that I burn and that I drive a Civic and have a more fuel efficient boat than I used to because of this. No more and no less.
BTW, I took that lame test that you were so proud of scoring 89000 and scored 62000. If it wasn't for my pool, which uses power to filter, I would have come in below 50000.
You seem to be proud of how much you personally pollute.
"A great many things the Democrats WANT TO DO, HAVE DONE, AND ARE PUSHED BY THEIR SUPPORTERS" is in some way wrong? And this isn't true of Republicans? Come on!
The list is garbage. Commiephobic at least. Talk about a nutbag conspiracy theory

[Old Texan]

Back in the "Hippy" days of the 60's and 70's, students and young adults got into the protesting of Viet Nam. This movement brought about a large number of people investigating the ways of Socialism and other forms of govenment. They were fighting the "establishment" and the US Government was their enemy especially the GOP. Socialism was the counterculture and they were seeking a better way for the direction of the country.
This was a time the works of Lenin and his ilk became almost required reading for this large group of people. Communes became the "in thing" for many with sex and drugs the focal point for most but the socialist culture the lasting emphasis for many.
Out of this era came a large group of activists who were educated and eventually grew out of the drugs, sex, "capitalism bad" portion but yet retained a great amount of the "philosophy". Listen to John Kerry, Jane Fonda, H. Rap Brown, and others, they still think and speak the "language" of the flower generation "revolution". Tom Hayden of Chicago 7 fame and Fonda's Ex is a legislator. As are many other less famous.
On campus during my college days I heard the featured speakers of the day including Jerry Rubin, Benjamin Spock, and William Counselor(sp). All revolutionaries and all part of the "new" system. People like this were at the roots of establishing the ways and means to work from within through envirionmental and other "social" help groups. They have been working hard and anyone that doesn't believe Hillary, Pelosi, and Feinstein don't have the beliefs brought forth by these "revolutionaries isn't looking at the true picture.
You won't find anything printed or in one place on the internet, but if you were to research the era and people mentioned, you can see the pattern and at least the possibility.
It is a reach to say the Democratic party is Communist but its rather apparent they are heavily leaning to Socilaist ways and would like nothing better then to put their plans it place as possible. And the American public in general doesn't see anything like this happening. The alarms are sounding not on the nightly news or the daily newspaper but through the Internet and Blogs which the Democrats and Left despise because they see the exposure and it's bringing of awareness to a lot of the population.
This is just my opinion and I believe it's happening.

['75 Miller]

Again, I will ask, ARE YOU STATING THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN SOME WAY COMMUNISTS? If the answer is yes, the you will understand that there is no need for further discussion. I will understand that you view Democrats as the enemy as others here do.
I'm not Smokin' but I have $.02 Demorats ARE commie-lite. Hell, commies are more respectable than the dimorats 'cuz at least they'll admit what they are. You American demorats (socialists) are too chickenshit to admit what you are or what you wanna do to our country. Demorats ARE THE ENEMY. PERIOD.
I hope one of your imbiciles wins in Nov. '08, hopefully hillary, because she'll keep pushing the treasonous lefty agenda, and likely provoke the push-back that's been building all these years. It won't be long before you socialists get what you deserve, and I, for one, am chomping at the bit.
Go hillary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
And you're right, there is no further need for discussion. Just keep pushing. PLEASE, just keep pushing.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Tex,
I grew up during similar times and will agree that some of what the modern day Democrat stands for was spawned by the, so called, hippie culture of the 60's. I find myself supporting conservative views with regard to less government and less spending, and liberal views with regard to war and the use of military force as a last resort. I would have little difficulty supporting a Republican or Democrat with similar views to those of Ron Pauls. I know we probably don't agree on this but I believe that President Bush, and his administration will be leaving giant mess for whoever wins the next election. Between Iraq and the Economy, whoever is elected will have their hands full. Based on the current electable offerings, I am afraid we will not see any cuts in govt spending or much change at all.
Your post was clear, generally accurate and very well written.
Thanks
I'm not Smokin' but I have $.02 Demorats ARE commie-lite. Hell, commies are more respectable than the dimorats 'cuz at least they'll admit what they are. You American demorats (socialists) are too chickenshit to admit what you are or what you wanna do to our country. Demorats ARE THE ENEMY. PERIOD.
I hope one of your imbiciles wins in Nov. '08, hopefully hillary, because she'll keep pushing the treasonous lefty agenda, and likely provoke the push-back that's been building all these years. It won't be long before you socialists get what you deserve, and I, for one, am chomping at the bit.
Go hillary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
And you're right, there is no further need for discussion. Just keep pushing. PLEASE, just keep pushing.
Where do you people come from? It's hard to believe that this mentality still exsists in this great Country.
Demorats ARE commie-lite
Demorats ARE THE ENEMY. PERIOD
Republicans have been running this Country for 6 1/2 years. WTF? Sounds like you should be heading North to join up with Butler's clan up there in North ID. Nothing but white folks. That sounds good now doesn't it?

[eliminatedsprinter]

Please ES point out to me where the current Dems are selling the same "snake oil" as Karl Marx or Vladimir llych Ulyanov (aka Lenin). The current administration has spent more than any administration in US history, yet it seems less distasteful for you to take aim at the Dems.
But you're OK the SKY IS Falling BS that we don't win in Iraq, the terrorists are coming to get us on US soil, at the cost of over a billion a day.
Your OK with the Drug lobby and the Oil lobby and billions in earmarks.
Seems the Republicans are OK with off the chart military spending, as it is today. It also seems that if this war was being funded by additional Fed Income Tax, or tax increases, you all would be crying the blues. It's obvious that you would rather borrow the money to fund this war and then blame it on those who will be left to clean up your parties financial mess. As long as your taxes aren't raised, it doesn't matter to you.
You can call the Dems what you would like as I can call the Reps what I like. It matters not. This Country has dug itself into a few big holes and it is going to take the best minds available to successfully begin the process of digging out. The sooner, we as a country can get over the political bigotry and unite as a country, the better.
ES, you are are an intelligent man and know that there is reality in what I'm saying.
I don't see positive in the future without serious change.
If you can't see the obvious similarities, between the Democratic Party's platform and that of the Socialists then it simply is not something you want to see.
As for the snake oil they are selling, perhaps you could pay a bit more attention when you hear Democrats demagogue the income gap between "the rich" and "the poor". :rolleyes:
Just like you apparently seem to have forgotten all the times I have ripped into President Bush for being such a weak President and not using his veto power to control his parties spending.
I'll tell you what, I'll go find one of the threds that I have started for this very purpose and then you can see just how OK I am with earmarks etc...:)
P.S. I mentioned "the Sky is Falling" teqnique (which I don't care for no matter who uses it) in order to bring it back to the subject of the thred.:)

[Old Texan]

[QUOTE=ULTRA26 # 1;2737043]Tex,
I grew up during similar times and will agree that some of what the modern day Democrat stands for was spawned by the, so called, hippie culture of the 60's. I find myself supporting conservative views with regard to less government and less spending, and liberal views with regard to war and the use of military force as a last resort. I would have little difficulty supporting a Republican or Democrat with similar views to those of Ron Pauls. I know we probably don't agree on this but I believe that President Bush, and his administration will be leaving giant mess for whoever wins the next election. Between Iraq and the Economy, whoever is elected will have their hands full. Based on the current electable offerings, I am afraid we will not see any cuts in govt spending or much change at all.
Your post was clear, generally accurate and very well written.
Thanks
Kinda had to rethink the original response eh?:D
When I think back to some of the "Revolutionaries" on campus it gives me chills to what they thought needed to be done to "improve" the country. Some pretty intelligent kids that had some very radical plans to "change the world". Some who would use "any means possible" and meant it.
Rubin was just an out of control freak that spoke in the fieldhosue to several thousand and was obviously "stoned " out of his mind telling the tale of the Chicago 7 during Bobby Seale's trail and their legendary feuding with Judge Julius Hoffman. This man was a hero to John Kerry and Jane Fonda not to mention a partner with Tom Hayden in their "revolution".
They influenced a lot of "confused" folks at a crossroads in their lives and some took the wrong "fork" in the road I'm afraid. Still a lot of hate emanates from the period of "Peace and Love".

[ULTRA26 # 1]

If you can't see the obvious similarities, between the Democratic Party's platform and that of the Socialists then it simply is not something you want to see.
As for the snake oil they are selling, perhaps you could pay a bit more attention when you hear Democrats demagogue the income gap between "the rich" and "the poor". :rolleyes:
Just like you apparently seem to have forgotten all the times I have ripped into President Bush for being such a weak President and not using his veto power to control his parties spending.
I'll tell you what, I'll go find one of the threds that I have started for this very purpose and then you can see just how OK I am with earmarks etc...:)
P.S. I mentioned "the Sky is Falling" teqnique (which I don't care for no matter who uses it) in order to bring it back to the subject of the thred.:)
The Clinton administration, as I recall, had little more to do with Socialism than the current adminsration. Has the income gap grown during the bush years?
Hilary and Obama are not Socialists they are politicians. They speak what they believe that the perople want to hear, just as those on the Right do.
If you believe that the one of the criteria in defining a Socialist is removing tax benifits given to the likes of Exxon, under Bush, then I think you need to look at this issue more closely.
FYI I listen the the Dem's very closely. I also listen to the Reps very closely. I believe that it is this countries best interest to get out of Iraq, as soon as possible. I don't hear the Republicans focusing much attention on this issue and while I hear focus from the Dems, they have lost some credibilty in this regard. The Dems are Socialists and the Reps are Neo-cons BS will go on as long as we are willing to waste time talking about it. IMO, it is time to get beyond the labels. It is also time for this Country to unite, and begin solving many of the serious issues we are facing. If this makes me a Socialist, by your defintion, then I guess that's what I am.

[Schiada76]

If the jury is still out on climate change why did they just bust the NASA climatologists for LYING OUTRIGHT about temperatures in the US for the last 100 years?:idea:
Why do liberals prefer to believe lies over facts?:rolleyes:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

If the jury is still out on climate change why did they just bust the NASA climatologists for LYING OUTRIGHT about temperatures in the US for the last 100 years?:idea:
Why do liberals prefer to believe lies over facts?:rolleyes:
Who busted NASA climatologists for lying? WHO IS THEY? And also tell us what NASA would have to gain from this.
Your question is about as lame as the rest of your post
Shiada, your comments never cease to amaze me.:sleeping: :sleeping:

[eliminatedsprinter]

The Clinton administration, as I recall, had little more to do with Socialism than the current adminsration. Has the income gap grown during the bush years?
Hilary and Obama are not Socialists they are politicians. They speak what they believe that the perople want to hear, just as those on the Right do.
If you believe that the one of the criteria in defining a Socialist is removing tax benifits given to the likes of Exxon, under Bush, then I think you need to look at this issue more closely.
FYI I listen the the Dem's very closely. I also listen to the Reps very closely. I believe that it is this countries best interest to get out of Iraq, as soon as possible. I don't hear the Republicans focusing much attention on this issue and while I hear focus from the Dems, they have lost some credibilty in this regard. The Dems are Socialists and the Reps are Neo-cons BS will go on as long as we are willing to waste time talking about it. IMO, it is time to get beyond the labels. It is also time for this Country to unite, and begin solving many of the serious issues we are facing. If this makes me a Socialist, by your defintion, then I guess that's what I am.
Like I said todays, Democratic party is just a hairs width away from being straight up socialist in it's professed platform. One of the things that really impressed this upon me, was in 2000, when I watched the Socialist Party candidate for president explain his and his party's platform and I realized he was to the right of VP Gore's platform on guns and the environment and the same as VP Gore and the Democratic Party's on most other issues. I knew they (the dems) were socialist-like but, I never until then realized just how far left they (the democrats) had swung. But hey, I'm the kind of guy who actually listens to the small off beat party candidates, even if they do have no chance. I am a proud right winger (anti-communist/socialist) yet I would have (held my nose) and voted for that socialist (I don't even remember his name now) if he was the main candidate opposing Gore. I am not going to try to convince you that Sen Clinton, Sen Obama, or Rep Pelosi are socialists, because you are operating under a much more narrow and specific definition of socialism than I (or any of my history and social studies professors) do. To argue the point from our seperate paradigms is pointless.:idea:
P.S. I still think the political left is over-hyping the possibility of MMGW for their own anti capitolistic purposes. Thus the right has no logical resort, but to oppose them. Because of this the issue has de facto become a right left issue. Is this how it should be?? Not in a perfect world led only by perfect people. But in the real world of flawed leadership, and over reaching governments, the seemingly constant divided bickering of opposition party politics may just be the least harmful of the available options.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Like I said todays, Democratic party is just a hairs width away from being straight up socialist in it's professed platform. One of the things that really impressed this upon me, was in 2000, when I watched the Socialist Party candidate for president explain his and his party's platform and I realized he was to the right of VP Gore's platform on guns and the environment and the same as VP Gore and the Democratic Party's on most other issues. I knew they (the dems) were socialist-like but, I never until then realized just how far left they (the democrats) had swung. But hey, I'm the kind of guy who actually listens to the small off beat party candidates, even if they do have no chance. I am a proud right winger (anti-communist/socialist) yet I would have (held my nose) and voted for that socialist (I don't even remember his name now) if he was the main candidate opposing Gore. I am not going to try to convince you that Sen Clinton, Sen Obama, or Rep Pelosi are socialists, because you are operating under a much more narrow and specific definition of socialism than I (or any of my history and social studies professors) do. To argue the point from our seperate paradigms is pointless.:idea:
P.S. I still think the political left is over-hyping the possibility of MMGW for their own anti capitolistic purposes. Thus the right has no logical resort, but to oppose them. Because of this the issue has de facto become a right left issue. Is this how it should be?? Not in a perfect world led only by perfect people. But in the real world of flawed leadership, and over reaching governments, the seemingly constant divided bickering of opposition party politics may just be the least harmful of the available options.
Well stated

[Schiada76]

Who busted NASA climatologists for lying? WHO IS THEY? And also tell us what NASA would have to gain from this.
Your question is about as lame as the rest of your post
Shiada, your comments never cease to amaze me.:sleeping: :sleeping:
You're on the internet, try a search on your own for God's sake.:rolleyes:
NASA's Backtrack on Warmest Year is Being Ignored, Critic Says
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
August 16, 2007
Excerpt:
(CNSNews.com) - NASA scientists this month corrected an error that resulted in 1934 replacing 1988 as the warmest year on record in the U.S., thus challenging some key global warming arguments, but the correction is being ignored, a conservative climate expert charged Wednesday.
Yet at the same time, announcements that support global warming are considered "front-page news," said H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).
For his part, James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has called the correction is "statistically insignificant."
Burnett challenged that assertion, saying the correction made it clear that NASA's conclusion -- that the majority of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 1990 -- is false.
The Algore is a blatent liar, there is no positive proof that we are in a warming period. There is absolutley ZERO evidence of MMGW. You're a liberal and will ignore the fasct though.:rolleyes:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

You're on the internet, try a search on your own for God's sake.:rolleyes:
NASA's Backtrack on Warmest Year is Being Ignored, Critic Says
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
August 16, 2007
Excerpt:
(CNSNews.com) - NASA scientists this month corrected an error that resulted in 1934 replacing 1988 as the warmest year on record in the U.S., thus challenging some key global warming arguments, but the correction is being ignored, a conservative climate expert charged Wednesday.
Yet at the same time, announcements that support global warming are considered "front-page news," said H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).
For his part, James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has called the correction is "statistically insignificant."
Burnett challenged that assertion, saying the correction made it clear that NASA's conclusion -- that the majority of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 1990 -- is false.
The Algore is a blatent liar, there is no positive proof that we are in a warming period. There is absolutley ZERO evidence of MMGW. You're a liberal and will ignore the fasct though.:rolleyes:
Got busted??
NASA scientists this month corrected an error
You're too much

[Schiada76]

:rolleyes: Blog: Science
Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
Michael Asher (Blog) - August 9, 2007 11:49 AM
An example of the Y2K discontinuity in action (Source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies)Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record
My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.
These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.
McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.
NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.
Nope no discrepency with the Algore here.:D :D
Do I need to find more or can you try on your own?

[Old Texan]

Who busted NASA climatologists for lying? WHO IS THEY? And also tell us what NASA would have to gain from this.
Your question is about as lame as the rest of your post
Shiada, your comments never cease to amaze me.:sleeping: :sleeping:
NASA didn't actually lie. As I understand the story from MIT review, their calculations were flawed and Canadian Scientists Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick provided correct calculations and it was shown that the 1930's decade had higher temperatures that the original claim of the current decade.

[Schiada76]

There is also eveidence taht the liberal liars are ignoring record highs in rural areas and using record highs in urban areas, covered in black asphalt and high rises with reflective glass, as their proof of temperature increases.
They've done it in my own neighborhood.:D

[Schiada76]

NASA scientists corrected an "error" when a blogger busted them.
Check the history of the NASA scientists it's interesting.:D
Try this little test kiddies, check the record highs, on any weather site, for small towns with little developement in the last one hundred years.
Try Parker AZ for starters.:D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

NASA scientists corrected an "error" when a blogger busted them.
Check the history of the NASA scientists it's interesting.:D
Try this little test kiddies, check the record highs, on any weather site, for small towns with little developement in the last one hundred years.
Try Parker AZ for starters.:D
... "blogger found a minor (but genuine) error in a NASA dataset, and how that error ... NASA recently corrected its climate figures after the discovery of ..."
That's what I call BUSTED :) :)
The changes aren't just about record highs. The changes include average highs and average lows as well. There doesn't seem to be much argument, among scientists that the climate is changing, the argument generally is whether or not man is in any way influencing the process.
But of course, you will argue that the world climate isn't changing at all.
I forgot Shiada, where was is that you received your Doctorate in Climatology?

[centerhill condor]

[I]...
I forgot Shiada, where was is that you received your Doctorate in Climatology?
same place you got yours?
CC

[Schiada76]

... "blogger found a minor (but genuine) error in a NASA dataset, and how that error ... NASA recently corrected its climate figures after the discovery of ..."
That's what I call BUSTED :) :)
The changes aren't just about record highs. The changes include average highs and average lows as well. There doesn't seem to be much argument, among scientists that the climate is changing, the argument generally is whether or not man is in any way influencing the process.
But of course, you will argue that the world climate isn't changing at all.
I forgot Shiada, where was is that you received your Doctorate in Climatology?
Oh really? Then why is it the most definitive statement you've been able to post is "most probably". Do you even know what probably means? It's from your post.:rolleyes:
So I need to have a Doctorate to discuss GW hysteria?
In the current "climate" of higher learning in all probabilty that would make me a leftwing moonbat.:D :D
The REAL debate is whether or NOT we are going through a natural warming stage or a long continued rebound from the last ice age, oh when was that 10,000 or 15,000 years ago?
What I have been and will continue arguing is we don't know, so I, not being a moonbat, refuse to run around in a panic screaming SUV'S!!! SUV'S!!! IT'S AUGUST I'M HOT WE'RE GONNA DIE ALGORE SAVE ME SAVE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!
ARRRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why won't you try to debate the fact that these exact same asshats were screaming ICE AGE!!!! IT'S THE NEW ICE AGE!!!!!!!!!!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA FREEZE!!!!! IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!! In the seventies.
Did you believe them then?
Liberals are lying scum.:jawdrop: :D

[eliminatedsprinter]

... "blogger found a minor (but genuine) error in a NASA dataset, and how that error ... NASA recently corrected its climate figures after the discovery of ..."
That's what I call BUSTED :) :)
The changes aren't just about record highs. The changes include average highs and average lows as well. There doesn't seem to be much argument, among scientists that the climate is changing, the argument generally is whether or not man is in any way influencing the process.
But of course, you will argue that the world climate isn't changing at all.
I forgot Shiada, where was is that you received your Doctorate in Climatology?
My climatology prof didn't even use the term "Global Warming" he referred to it as "still comming out of the last ice age"..But of course, that was back in 19#! ;), before politicians decided to play chickin little and make it an "issue"...

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Oh really? Then why is it the most definitive statement you've been able to post is "most probably". Do you even know what probably means? It's from your post.:rolleyes:
So I need to have a Doctorate to discuss GW hysteria?
In the current "climate" of higher learning in all probabilty that would make me a leftwing moonbat.:D :D
The REAL debate is whether or NOT we are going through a natural warming stage or a long continued rebound from the last ice age, oh when was that 10,000 or 15,000 years ago?
What I have been and will continue arguing is we don't know, so I, not being a moonbat, refuse to run around in a panic screaming SUV'S!!! SUV'S!!! IT'S AUGUST I'M HOT WE'RE GONNA DIE ALGORE SAVE ME SAVE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!
ARRRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why won't you try to debate the fact that these exact same asshats were screaming ICE AGE!!!! IT'S THE NEW ICE AGE!!!!!!!!!!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA FREEZE!!!!! IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!! In the seventies.
Did you believe them then?
Liberals are lying scum.:jawdrop: :D
No Shiada, you don't need a Doctorate to discuss GW hysteria. Seems you are the one getting hysterical. Do yourself a favor and read my comments. BTW do you thing that including "Liberals are lying scum" helps your point?
"The REAL debate is whether or NOT we are going through a natural warming stage or a long continued rebound from the last ice age, oh when was that 10,000 or 15,000 years ago?"
Well at least you are now accepting that we are experiancing a warming stage or sorts. Seems to be a contradiction.
same place you got yours?
CC
Well jump right on the wagon CC. Just what we need here is more one up ya sh*t. I've never claimed to be an expert in this area nor have I claimed that there is proof of MMGW. As I've said, the jury is still out.
THE JURY IS STILL OUT
My climatology prof didn't even use the term "Global Warming" he referred to it as "still comming out of the last ice age"..But of course, that was back in 19#! ;), before politicians decided to play chickin little and make it an "issue"...
"Global Warming" is a political term that is being tossed around as if it were similar to thunder storms.

[centerhill condor]

Well jump right on the wagon CC. Just what we need here is more one up ya sh*t. I've never claimed to be an expert in this area nor have I claimed that there is proof of MMGW. As I've said, the jury is still out.
[B
you get what you give.
CC

[Schiada76]

Well jump right on the wagon CC. Just what we need here is more one up ya sh*t. I've never claimed to be an expert in this area nor have I claimed that there is proof of MMGW. As I've said, the jury is still out.
THE JURY IS STILL OUT
"Global Warming" is a political term that is being tossed around as if it were similar to thunder storms.
No the jury is out on global warming period. MMGW is full on unadulterated liberl bullshit. That is a fact.

[Schiada76]

U26, What did you think when the asshats were screaming global cooling in the seventies. Too tough a question for you?:)

[eliminatedsprinter]

Well jump right on the wagon CC. Just what we need here is more one up ya sh*t. I've never claimed to be an expert in this area nor have I claimed that there is proof of MMGW. As I've said, the jury is still out.
THE JURY IS STILL OUT
"Global Warming" is a political term that is being tossed around as if it were similar to thunder storms.
CORRECTAMUNDO!!!
That is why I don't favor government stepping in and passing regulations that will cost billions to those industries that employ americians and no doubt cost many thousands of individuals their jobs and livelyhood.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

you get what you give.
CC
Then you don't deserve a response and I will remember that.
No the jury is out on global warming period. MMGW is full on unadulterated liberl bullshit. That is a fact.
The great and mighty SCHIADA has spoken.
U26, What did you think when the asshats were screaming global cooling in the seventies. Too tough a question for you?:)
I don't recall Global Cooling. I remember talk in the late 70's of the issues aerosol propellants and the ozone layer.

[eliminatedsprinter]

I don't recall Global Cooling.
I do and there is still a small minority of climatologists that are worried about it.
Between the 2 "Global Cooling" is by far the most distructive. In the past there have never been aything but positive effects (on humans and animal life in general) from past periods of "Global warming". However, even the mild "Mini Ice Age" of the 12th cent (it lasted longer, but that was the period of during which the drop occured) had devistating effects on much of Europe and the Northern hemisphere.

[Schiada76]

:rolleyes: Then you don't deserve a response and I will remember that.
The great and mighty SCHIADA has spoken.
I don't recall Global Cooling. I remember talk in the late 70's of the issues aerosol propellants and the ozone layer.
Well then educate yourself, you have the internet at your fingertips.
These exact same LIBERAl asshats were screaming it's the new ice age in the seventies. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.:rolleyes:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I do and there is still a small minority of climatologists that are worried about it.
Between the 2 "Global Cooling" is by far the most distructive. In the past there have never been aything but positive effects (on humans and animal life in general) from past periods of "Global warming". However, even the mild "Mini Ice Age" of the 12th cent (it lasted longer, but that was the period of during which the drop occured) had devistating effects on much of Europe and the Northern hemisphere.
ES,
Not disputing this, I just don't recall it.

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES,
Not disputing this, I just don't recall it.
Didn't mean to imply that you were. I was just being a bore (see my sig) and putting my $.02 in on the subject...:)

[Schiada76]

"The REAL debate is whether or NOT we are going through a natural warming stage or a long continued rebound from the last ice age, oh when was that 10,000 or 15,000 years ago?"
Well at least you are now accepting that we are experiancing a warming stage or sorts. Seems to be a contradiction.
For Christs sake read my post, it says "whether or NOT" I even capitalized the NOT for the reading imparied.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
That is the debate. MMGW is a crock of liberal sh it. You actually believe the lies of the ALGORE don't you. We have 45 years before we fry? The oceans are going to rise 20'? :rolleyes:
If you don't call that bullshit I have a blown injected fuel efficient motor I'll sell you, it'll make your boat go 150MPH on pump gas and you'll get 95 miles to the gallon.
It's August, we are experinecing a warming stage.
I predict a cooling stage by November. The great and powerful Schiada has spoken!:D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

"The REAL debate is whether or NOT we are going through a natural warming stage or a long continued rebound from the last ice age, oh when was that 10,000 or 15,000 years ago?"
Well at least you are now accepting that we are experiancing a warming stage or sorts. Seems to be a contradiction.
For Christs sake read my post, it says "whether or NOT" I even capitalized the NOT for the reading imparied.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
That is the debate. MMGW is a crock of liberal sh it. You actually believe the lies of the ALGORE don't you. We have 45 years before we fry? The oceans are going to rise 20'? :rolleyes:
If you don't call that bullshit I have a blown injected fuel efficient motor I'll sell you, it'll make your boat go 150MPH on pump gas and you'll get 95 miles to the gallon.
It's August, we are experinecing a warming stage.
I predict a cooling stage by November. The great and powerful Schiada has spoken!:D
You've been here claiming that there is no proof of any time of warming citing the so called experts "PROBABLLY".
Your words:
The REAL debate is whether or NOT we are going through a natural warming stage or a long continued rebound from the last ice age, oh when was that 10,000 or 15,000 years ago?"
Your own admission of warming. Is it not?
I have never claimed that the man made climate change was a fact. If you could think beyond Liberals are scum, you would know this. But then I don't think that can be expected. You don't debate you argue and rant. What a waste.
BTW fix your sig line it looks stupid
[quote=ULTRA26 # 1;2738319]The great and mighty SCHIADA has spoken.QUOTE]

[Schiada76]

You've been here claiming that there is no proof of any time of warming citing the so called experts "PROBABLLY".
Your words:
The REAL debate is whether or NOT we are going through a natural warming stage or a long continued rebound from the last ice age, oh when was that 10,000 or 15,000 years ago?"
I have never claimed that the man made climate change was a fact. If you think beyond Liberals are scum, you would know this. But then I don't think that can be expected. I'm not going to argue with you.
BTW fix your sig line it looks stupid
[quote=ULTRA26 # 1;2738319]The great and mighty SCHIADA has spoken.QUOTE]
Got it! Thanks!:D
I wouldn't want to look stupid in an internet pissing contest.:eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Got it! Thanks!:D
I wouldn't want to look stupid in an internet pissing contest.:eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D
Is that what you're doing?

[Old Texan]

CORRECTAMUNDO!!!
That is why I don't favor government stepping in and passing regulations that will cost billions to those industries that employ americians and no doubt cost many thousands of individuals their jobs and livelyhood.
John read that response very slowly. It is the whole point of the majority of arguments here.
Al Gore is the "Snake Oil" salesman. It's very counterproductive to jockey around all the points of much of this debate. Fact is there is less likelyhood of MMGW than there is proof. Environmental issues such as pollution are real and are being dealt with.
Admit to yourself or not, there are many on the DEM side of the aisle wanting the US to bow down and make all sorts of concessiopns such as signing on to Kyoto. That isn't a solution nor is it a positive for the US. John Kerry has repeatedly stated the US needs to heed world opinion and do what "they" think is right. That's BS.
The US has over the past 200 years established the fact that we are the model citizens of this planet. We are the moral guardians of this planet. We are indeed the most powerful, proud, and most successful nation in the history of this planet. Feel no guilt. It's not bragging John, it's fact.
You worry about our soldiers in Iraq and that's commendable. But please take the time to undersatnad what the US miltary is all about. It is made up of volunteers willing to give their very lives for the country they believe in. You hate GW but it's sad you can't realize that in his heart he is making hard decisions that are necessary and need to be made in order to preserve what so many have fought for and have died for through all the wars. The vast majority of our military view him in this manner and it's damn well good enough for me if it's what they respect and put themselves in harm's way for. The US military are warriors and warriors deserve better than what the Democratic party and out media give them. Hary Reid and Nancy Pelosi [play games with our military and show no respect what so ever. On that I'll never back down and never compromise. The Dem leadership is pure BS on this issue. Purely political and purely selfserving.
Please just think about this country and this time period you've been given to spend your stay on this planet. The only reason you are able to enjoy the fruits you've reeped are because of a bunch of warriors givng the hearts and souls for our freedom. What's Hillary or Harry given you?????
God Bless the USA!!!!!!

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I don't recall Global Cooling. I remember talk in the late 70's of the issues aerosol propellants and the ozone layer.
Another history lesson ultra. You really do leave a great deal to be desired as an "investigator".:idea:
Global cooling refers to a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis gained temporary popular attention due to press reports following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s.
Aerosols
Human activity — mostly as a by-product of fossil fuel combustion, partly by land-use changes — increases the number of tiny particles (aerosols) in the atmosphere. These have a direct effect: they effectively increase the planetary albedo, thus cooling the planet by reducing the sunshine reaching the surface; and an indirect effect: they can affect the properties of clouds by acting as cloud condensation nuclei. In the early 1970s some speculated that this cooling effect might dominate over the warming effect of the CO2 release: see discussion of Rasool and Schneider (1971).
The "Aerosols" you mentioned had nothing to do with "Aerosol" sprays (like paint, hairspray, etc.).
Orbital forcing
The other mechanism was orbital forcing (Milankovitch cycles): slow changes in the tilt of the planet's axis and shape of the orbit change the total amount of sunlight reaching the earth by a small amount and the seasonality of the sunshine by rather more. This mechanism is believed to be responsible for the timing of the ice age cycles, and understanding of it happened to be increasing rapidly in the mid-1970s.
The idea that ice ages cycles were predictable appears to have become conflated with the idea that another one was due "soon" - perhaps because much of this study was done by geologists, who use "soon" to refer to periods of centuries to tens of millennia or more. A strict application of the Milankovitch theory does not allow the prediction of a "rapid" ice age onset (rapid being anything under a century or two) since the fastest orbital period is about 20,000 years. Some creative ways around this were found, notably Nigel Calder's "snowblitz" theory,
At a conference on climate change held in Boulder, Colorado in 1965, evidence supporting Milankovitch cycles triggered speculation on how the calculated small changes in sunlight might somehow trigger ice ages. In 1966 Cesare Emiliani predicted that "a new glaciation will begin within a few thousand years." In his 1968 book "The Population Bomb", Paul Ehrlich wrote "The greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide... [this] is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants... At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump."
In 1972 Emiliani warned "Man's activity may either precipitate this new ice age or lead to substantial or even total melting of the ice caps".
By 1972 a group of glacial-epoch experts at a conference agreed that "the natural end of our warm epoch is undoubtedly near".
There was a paper by S. Ichtiaque Rasool and Stephen H. Schneider, published in the journal Science in July 1971. Titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate," the paper examined the possible future effects of two types of human environmental emissions:
greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide;
particulate pollution such as smog, some of which remains suspended in the atmosphere in aerosol form for years.
Greenhouse gases were regarded as likely factors that could promote global warming, while particulate pollution blocks sunlight and contributes to cooling.
In their paper, Rasool and Schneider theorized that aerosols were more likely to contribute to climate change in the foreseeable future than greenhouse gases, stating that quadrupling aerosols "could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 C. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!"
1975 Newsweek article
While these discussions were ongoing in scientific circles, more dramatic accounts appeared in the popular media, notably an April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine. Titled "The Cooling World", it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." The article claimed "The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."
Now, that last quote looks EXACLY (but in mirror image) like the current "Catastrophic Climate Change" crap being blamed on man.
30 years ago we were causing the next ice age.
Now, we are going to burn the world up in 45 years.
Another great set of quotes from the newsweek article. Do they look "Familiar" to anyone but me? :idea:
"But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies...
The longer the planners (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
The article emphasized sensational and largely unsourced consequences - "resulting famines could be catastrophic", "drought and desolation," "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded", "droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons," "impossible for starving peoples to migrate,"
This one is GREAT!!!!
"the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age
The entire Newsweek article text (http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm)
"Investigate" SOMETHING ultra. Good lord.
Next, Ultra's status as "unconvinced" about MMGW. :eek:

[centerhill condor]

don't give libs facts...they only become confused as to whom should be blamed.
Ultra...if you can't take it don't dish it out. Grown folks are discussing ideas. You're welcome to join the conversation with something more than, "I know you are but what am I".
invalid statements don't count. BTW liberals are communists.
CC

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I've never claimed to be an expert in this area nor have I claimed that there is proof of MMGW. As I've said, the jury is still out.
The MOTHER of All Bull-Shyte Flags!
Christ ultra, you really DO think everyone forgets?
Oh, yea, you have insisted we ignore history. History lesson upcoming.
19April 2007:
Based on the evidence, I believe that global warming is a matter of fact today.
Because some argue scientific theory to the contrary doesn't make it any less real in my view. I don't believe that the movement to slow negative atmospheric changes, is a selfish ploy or corporate scheme.
And when offered the details that make his position so ludicrous:
20 April 2007:
Smokin,
Don't have the time to debate details with you on the internet.
And:
Smokinevidencecontradicts can post all of the eveidence that he liikes, and as I said, he and I are both aware that are that I can post evidence to the contary.
Yet, he never does, or will.
Stil, 20 April 2007:
I surely don't think that Gore's movement isn't flawed. But I also see his visions has having some reality.
Again, 22 April 2007:
Smokin,
You and I both know that I can cut and paste evidence to the contrary,
But never does. :idea:
So, you forgot your OWN history ultra, and are doomed to review it.
You were solidly a convinced pro-man-made global warming Gorovite as of 4 short months ago.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Smokin,
I believe today that global warming or climate change is a fact. Nothing has changed
From the beginning I have stated that the jury is still out with regard to it's cause. You seem to have conveniently left that part out. I'm not surprised
Just look at the lengths you will go to be prove you internet manhood . A terminal case of OCD no doubt.
I don't expect that anyone has forgotten anything. It's funny, you seem to to live for moments like this. It's also funny how you run and hide when you get nailed.
You've been ragging on me about this issue from day one and I don't expect that to stop. The jury is still out Smokin. There are thousands of pages on data on both side of this issue and seems to me that the experts are much better equipped to debate that factual basis of both sides then you or I. So I will wait until the jury's in and, in the mean time, continue driving my Civic and my Ultra Low Emission boat. (but not wth an AFR of 16:1)
Get a life dude, damn!

[SmokinLowriderSS]

You're on the internet, try a search on your own for God's sake.:rolleyes:
He doesn't have time, nor the interest.

['75 Miller]

Tex,
I grew up during similar times and will agree that some of what the modern day Democrat stands for was spawned by the, so called, hippie culture of the 60's. I find myself supporting conservative views with regard to less government and less spending, and liberal views with regard to war and the use of military force as a last resort. I would have little difficulty supporting a Republican or Democrat with similar views to those of Ron Pauls. I know we probably don't agree on this but I believe that President Bush, and his administration will be leaving giant mess for whoever wins the next election. Between Iraq and the Economy, whoever is elected will have their hands full. Based on the current electable offerings, I am afraid we will not see any cuts in govt spending or much change at all.
Your post was clear, generally accurate and very well written.
Thanks
Where do you people come from? It's hard to believe that this mentality still exsists in this great Country.
Demorats ARE commie-lite
Demorats ARE THE ENEMY. PERIOD
Republicans have been running this Country for 6 1/2 years. WTF? Sounds like you should be heading North to join up with Butler's clan up there in North ID. Nothing but white folks. That sounds good now doesn't it?
Sorry Mr. hypocrite but I'm no racist. I don't hate black folks, hispanics, or any other ethnic group. I hate hypocritical leftists with a passion and personally can't wait till you degenerates push your treasonous agenda too far. You're closer to the edge than you might think. And once you get there all your powers to lie, cheat and manipulate the system WILL NOT be able to save you. Keep pushing, brother.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Sorry Mr. hypocrite but I'm no racist. I don't hate black folks, hispanics, or any other ethnic group. I hate hypocritical leftists with a passion and personally can't wait till you degenerates push your treasonous agenda too far. You're closer to the edge than you might think. And once you get there all your powers to lie, cheat and manipulate the system WILL NOT be able to save you. Keep pushing, brother.
Interesting coment since the majority of blacks and hispanics are Democrats. And your interests, are "boats and guns" Now that's a scary fockin thought. You're a bit over the edge for me.

['75 Miller]

Interesting coment since the majority of blacks and hispanics are Democrats. And your interests, are "boats and guns" Now that's a scary fockin thought. You're a bit over the edge for me.
Why would that qualify as "scary"? Both are good, clean AMERICAN fun. Over the edge...hardly. To me you and your kind are well past "over the edge".
I'm not into anything different than what 10's of millions of other Americans are into.
Better ban more guns I guess, then you'll have less reason to be scared, huh?
I'll leave you with a quote I've always appreciated...
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
Thomas Jefferson
p.s. KEEP PUSHING, FOR GOD'S SAKE, KEEP PUSHING.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Why would that qualify as "scary"? Both are good, clean AMERICAN fun. Over the edge...hardly. To me you and your kind are well past "over the edge".
I'm not into anything different than what 10's of millions of other Americans are into.
Better ban more guns I guess, then you'll have less reason to be scared, huh?
I'll leave you with a quote I've always appreciated...
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
Thomas Jefferson
p.s. KEEP PUSHING, FOR GOD'S SAKE, KEEP PUSHING.
You ever shoot another person?

['75 Miller]

You ever shoot another person?
Of course not. What kinda stupid question is that? Have you? I shoot paper, ceramic/porcelain/stone tiles, and steel targets. If backed into a corner and forced to defend myself, my loved ones or the things I hold dear I'd have no problem laying someone out, but until then I'm merely an avid TARGET shooter.
Is that really the impression you have of gun owners, or just me (a guy you've never met)?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

And your interests, are "boats and guns" Now that's a scary fockin thought. You're a bit over the edge for me.
So, your a pro-gun-controll person too. Figures.
You should look thru MY bio sometime.
You will find hunting (with guns), competition shooting (with guns, including handgunsm (oh those are soooooo bad)), and ... heaven-forbid, BOATING (with an evei, innefficient, polution-spewing, big-blocked, carbureted, jet-boat no less).
Gun-controll, is hitting what you want to hit, where you want to hit it, when you want to hit it.
Missing is a sign of poor gun controll. So are survivors. Survivors sue.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

You ever shoot another person?
What's your point if hew had? Or if anyone else had?
Oh, that's right, killing anyone is bad anyhow. 6th Comandment, YOUR version.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Of course not. What kinda stupid question is that? Have you? I shoot paper, ceramic/porcelain/stone tiles, and steel targets. If backed into a corner and forced to defend myself, my loved ones or the things I hold dear I'd have no problem laying someone out, but until then I'm merely an avid TARGET shooter.
Is that really the impression you have of gun owners, or just me (a guy you've never met)?
Not my impression of gun owners. My impression of a gun owner who exresses as much hate as yourself. Talk about a guy you never met??? Go back and read the posts you directed at me.
So, your a pro-gun-controll person too. Figures.
You should look thru MY bio sometime.
You will find hunting (with guns), competition shooting (with guns, including handgunsm (oh those are soooooo bad)), and ... heaven-forbid, BOATING (with an evei, innefficient, polution-spewing, big-blocked, carbureted, jet-boat no less).
Gun-controll, is hitting what you want to hit, where you want to hit it, when you want to hit it.
Missing is a sign of poor gun controll. So are survivors. Survivors sue.
If you regard gun control as meaning not selling automatic weapons to anyone who has the money, than the answer is yes. I'm not for additional controls on guns. I have read your profile and I am aware that you enjoy guns and hunting. I know many people that enjoy and collect guns, as I know many who enjoy hunting. . My comment to Miller was a result of a combination of his love of guns and the extreme hate he expressed.
What's your point if hew had? Or if anyone else had?
Oh, that's right, killing anyone is bad anyhow. 6th Comandment, YOUR version.
Everyone knows that "thou shalt not kill" was re-written or re-interpreted to "thou shalt not murder"
Oh, that's right, killing anyone is bad anyhow YOUR version
Your right that I don't see killing being a good.

[Schiada76]

Everyone knows that "thou shalt not kill" was re-written or re-interpreted to "thou shalt not murder"
This is another liberal lie, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew the proper translation is Thou Shalt Not MURDER.:rolleyes:
What kind of "investigator" are you again?:rolleyes:

[Schiada76]

BTW automatic weapons have been illegal to own since the thirties without a Federal License.
If you weren't to lazy to do a little research you would also find that since the sixties more than 20,000 new gun control laws have been passed yet gun crime has gone up.
Conversely every state that has passed right to carry legislation has seen a marked drop in gun related crime and all violent crime. Liberals can't stand this, just like they can't stand anything that works.
I know these facts like all the rest will make no sense what so ever to you though, as facts are anathema to a liberal.:rolleyes

[SmokinLowriderSS]

This is another liberal lie, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew the proper translation is Thou Shalt Not MURDER.:rolleyes:
What kind of "investigator" are you again?:rolleyes:
A pretty poor one.
At least I try to be GOOD at my chosen professions.

['75 Miller]

BTW automatic weapons have been illegal to own since the thirties without a Federal License.
If you weren't to lazy to do a little research you would also find that since the sixties more than 20,000 new gun control laws have been passed yet gun crime has gone up.
Conversely every state that has passed right to carry legislation has seen a marked drop in gun related crime and all violent crime. Liberals can't stand this, just like they can't stand anything that works.
I know these facts like all the rest will make no sense what so ever to you though, as facts are anathema to a liberal.:rolleyes
Mighty fine post, Sir. So how 'bout it Mr. Ultra, care to comment?
Why would you favor ONE more gun control law before it's proven ( impossible to do) that any of the unconstitutional crap laws we already suffer under have worked?

[Schiada76]

Smokin,
I believe today that global warming or climate change is a fact. Nothing has changed
Then take some time out of your busy schedule and post some FACTS to back up your "feelings". I haven't seen any data from anywhere that can't be refuted on warming alone much less the liberal bullshit of MMGW.:rolleyes:

[Schiada76]

Mighty fine post, Sir. So how 'bout it Mr. Ultra, care to comment?
Why would you favor ONE more gun control law before it's proven ( impossible to do) that any of the unconstitutional crap laws we already suffer under have worked?
SIR? What's with this SIR BS?:D :D
Why don't you drag that '75 Miller to Echo Lodge on Sept 22nd to 25th with the other 6 v-drives that are going to be there and I'LL BUY THE BEER?:D

[Schiada76]

On another note, even some liberal loons are having to admit that the "surge" in Iraq is working.
What will the rest of the libs with BDS do if Iraq doesn't turn out to quite such a FUBAR situation after all?
Will they have enough sack to man up and eat crow?
Yeah right.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

['75 Miller]

SIR? What's with this SIR BS?:D :D
Why don't you drag that '75 Miller to Echo Lodge on Sept 22nd to 25th with the other 6 v-drives that are going to be there and I'LL BUY THE BEER?:D
I dunno, Sir, just the way I talk...and type, I guess:) To those who deserve respect at least! Rest assured were I ever to meet Clown or Mr. Ultra I'd likely not refer to them in such a fashion. Well, maybe Ultra, as he seems SOMEWHAT reasonable. If only he could get over his Bush Derangement Syndrome!:rolleyes: Yeah, hell will likely freeze solid first, but we can hope for the best.
Where's Echo Lodge anyhow? My Miller's a jet...am I still invited

['75 Miller]

On another note, even some liberal loons are having to admit that the "surge" in Iraq is working.
What will the rest of the libs with BDS do if Iraq doesn't turn out to quite such a FUBAR situation after all?
Will they have enough sack to man up and eat crow?
Yeah right.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Sack...the libs....no, not a chance in hell, which, of course they don't believe in :D
On a similar note, I saw a bumper sticker in the parking lot @ Homer Depot today on some lefty's Saab.
It read "who would JESUS torture?" Nice, huh?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

A pretty poor one.
At least I try to be GOOD at my chosen professions.
That's all you have?
Not my impression of gun owners. My impression of a gun owner who exresses as much hate as yourself. Talk about a guy you never met??? Go back and read the posts you directed at me.
If you regard gun control as meaning not selling automatic weapons to anyone who has the money, than the answer is yes. I'm not for additional controls on guns. I have read your profile and I am aware that you enjoy guns and hunting. I know many people that enjoy and collect guns, as I know many who enjoy hunting. . My comment to Miller was a result of a combination of his love of guns and the extreme hate he expressed.
Everyone knows that "thou shalt not kill" was re-written or re-interpreted to "thou shalt not murder"
Quote Smokin
Oh, that's right, killing anyone is bad anyhow YOUR version
Your right that I don't see killing as being good.
You guys are getting more pathetic by the day. You can't even make a valid point in masses. 10:1 and this is the best you boys can do. :sleeping:

['75 Miller]

That's all you have?
You guys are getting more pathetic by the day. You can't even make a valid point in masses. 10:1 and this is the best you boys can do. :sleeping:
In masses? Why bother when Smokin' refutes every word of the nonsense you're spewing...and sources everything. Whether it's YOUR bogus so-called Bush quotes or your enviro-terrorist global warming crap, Smokin' shuts you down on a regular basis.
I think you know my position. I want your seditious agenda to move forward. I beg you to keep pushing...keep lying. It's essential to wake the sleeping giant.

[Steve 1]

Sack...the libs....no, not a chance in hell, which, of course they don't believe in :D
On a similar note, I saw a bumper sticker in the parking lot @ Homer Depot today on some lefty's Saab.
It read "who would JESUS torture?" Nice, huh?
Miller let the Ninny go it is evident he has never spent a day in the real world or had to carry a gun for protection from "freethinking democrats" who BTW populate most of our prisons also infest areas where Zoning demands the Boat builders to have factories located down here.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

In masses? Why bother when Smokin' refutes every word of the nonsense you're spewing...and sources everything. Whether it's YOUR bogus so-called Bush quotes or your enviro-terrorist global warming crap, Smokin' shuts you down on a regular basis.
I think you know my position. I want your seditious agenda to move forward. I beg you to keep pushing...keep lying. It's essential to wake the sleeping giant.
YOUR bogus so-called Bush quotes, Most were incorrect. We know all know. I'm over it it
"or your enviro-terrorist global warming crap," This is a real winner:D :D :D :D
I beg you to keep pushing...keep lying. It's essential to wake the sleeping giant. Should I be heading to Home Depot for plastic and duct tape??
keep lying,,,,,keep lying,,,,,,sleeping giant, :D :D :D
Like I said, if this is all you have, you're pathetic.
Miller let the Ninny go it is evident he has never spent a day in the real world or had to carry a gun for protection from "freethinking democrats" who BTW populate most of our prisons also infest areas where Zoning demands the Boat builders to have factories located down here.
There is real need to carry a gun to protection in this Country.
Been in the real world for 56 years and never once felt the need to carry a gun for protection. "Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself": What are you so afraid of ???
I'm done until there is something here to discuss.:sleeping:

[Steve 1]

There is real need to carry a gun to protection in this Country.
Been in the real world for 56 years and never once felt the need to carry a gun for protection. "Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself": What are you so afraid of ???
I am not afraid of much Giggles BTW when was the last time Democrats "Tried" to Rob you?? Or you were a couple hours late opening the plant because homicide detectives were raking the loading dock looking for shell casings around a puddle of red Goo where a couple of the DNC’s finest bodies were just removed?
How about spilling your coffee in the new Dually chasing a Good ole socialist around the parking lot that only wanted the money, truck and maybe my life..
Grow up nitwit !! Some of us have to be armed.

[Schiada76]

I dunno, Sir, just the way I talk...and type, I guess:) To those who deserve respect at least! Rest assured were I ever to meet Clown or Mr. Ultra I'd likely not refer to them in such a fashion. Well, maybe Ultra, as he seems SOMEWHAT reasonable. If only he could get over his Bush Derangement Syndrome!:rolleyes: Yeah, hell will likely freeze solid first, but we can hope for the best.
Where's Echo Lodge anyhow? My Miller's a jet...am I still invited
A jet?:sqeyes: Holy moly! Sure you're still invited it is a Miller.:D
Echo Lodge is on the Calli side of the Parker strip just below Big Bend. There's' a few guys from another site that are going to meet up in September, flats and a few 21's. River size boats.:D

[Schiada76]

[B][I]
Been in the real world for 56 years and never once felt the need to carry a gun for protection. "Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself": What are you so afraid of ???
This explains a lot, how does the saying go? "A liberal is just a conservative that hasn't been a victim yet"?
Ultra must be lucky he lives in LA and has yet to have a carload of gangbangers chase him on the fwy., waving a gun out the window for some perceived slight (carried for a couple of years after that), or have some scum bag black fcker walk on a job site and stick a .38 in his face ( worked with a handgun in my nail bags for the rest of that job), or have some fucing ass try to break in his backdoor in the middle of the night (almost pulled the trigger after jacking the 12 gauge, maybe the sound scared him off). Yup Ultra is right, nothing to fear but fear itself, that and all the subhuman filth that the liberal court system lets prey on innocent people.:rolleyes:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

This explains a lot, how does the saying go? "A liberal is just a conservative that hasn't been a victim yet"?
Ultra must be lucky he lives in LA and has yet to have a carload of gangbangers chase him on the fwy., waving a gun out the window for some perceived slight (carried for a couple of years after that), or have some scum bag black fcker walk on a job site and stick a .38 in his face ( worked with a handgun in my nail bags for the rest of that job), or have some fucing ass try to break in his backdoor in the middle of the night (almost pulled the trigger after jacking the 12 gauge, maybe the sound scared him off). Yup Ultra is right, nothing to fear but fear itself, that and all the subhuman filth that the liberal court system lets prey on innocent people.:rolleyes:
Now the court/legal system is liberal. :) Maybe you aren't aware of this but most people aren't victums of violent crime.
Ultra must be lucky As I recall, you were one of those who claimed there is no such thing as luck. :confused:

['75 Miller]

Seems to me you've been lucky, Sir. I'm only 35 and I've been carjacked or had someone attempt to carjack me at gunpoint 3 times, once in Long Beach, once in Marina Del Rey (attempted)and once in Culver City. I was also with some friends in Whittier when a degenerate "latino" banger tried to carjack my buddy. We didn't get out fast enough, so they shot my friend Cary Taus in his fukin' head & blinded him, spraying blood and little bits of his right eye all over my face.
What I'm scared of, if you care to know, is allowing someone OTHER than me to control whether I live or die.

['75 Miller]

[QUOTE=ULTRA26 # 1;2740552]YOUR bogus so-called Bush quotes, Most were incorrect. We know all know. I'm over it it
"or your enviro-terrorist global warming crap," This is a real winner:D :D :D :D
I beg you to keep pushing...keep lying. It's essential to wake the sleeping giant. Should I be heading to Home Depot for plastic and duct tape??
keep lying,,,,,keep lying,,,,,,sleeping giant, :D :D :D
Like I said, if this is all you have, you're pathetic.
No, sir forget THE DEPOT. You should be heading for your local gun store to aquire something to protect yourself and your family, should the need ever arise. What's better...to need & not have or to have & not need?
Frankly I don't care if you condone the carrying or firearms for personal protection. Until you've had some young punk put a gun in your face I don't think you're qualified to judge.
You want more laws to restrict law-abiding citizens' ability to level the playing field? The third time I was 'jacked at gunpoint (for my '59 ragtop BUG) it was by two TEENAGERS, 15 AND 17 years old. As I'm sure you know it's ILLEGAL for them to be in possesion of a firearm. In addition, the one with the gun (17 year old) was a felon. Again I'm sure you know that's ILLEGAL too. So just what do you think MORE restrictions will accomplish? wtf?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

No, sir forget THE DEPOT. You should be heading for your local gun store to aquire something to protect yourself and your family, should the need ever arise. What's better...to need & not have or to have & not need?
Frankly I don't care if you condone the carrying or firearms for personal protection. Until you've had some young punk put a gun in your face I don't think you're qualified to judge.
You want more laws to restrict law-abiding citizens' ability to level the playing field? The third time I was 'jacked at gunpoint (for my '59 ragtop BUG) it was by two TEENAGERS, 15 AND 17 years old. As I'm sure you know it's ILLEGAL for them to be in possesion of a firearm. In addition, the one with the gun (17 year old) was a felon. Again I'm sure you know that's ILLEGAL too. So just what do you think MORE restrictions will accomplish? wtf?
Miller,
Seems like you have had a more difficult time of that most. If I had been through the things you just talked about, I might feel the need to carry to protect myself. Just so your clear, I am in no way in favor of more gun control. My choice not to own a gun is personal and my right, just as it is your right to to own. Again, I am in no way in favor of changing this.
There was a discussion while back between most of the folks here and I about the existence of luck. Most took the position that there is no such thing as luck. I didn't agree then and still don't.
I'm just clarifying my previous post.

['75 Miller]

[QUOTE='75 Miller;2741562]
Miller,
Seems like you have had a more difficult time of that most. If I had been through the things you just talked about, I might feel the need to carry to protect myself. Just so your clear, I am in no way in favor of more gun control. My choice not to own a gun is personal and my right, just as it is your right to to own. Again, I am in no way in favor of changing this.
Okay, I thought you'd said that more restrictions should be in place. My mistake, I apologize.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Okay, I thought you'd said that more restrictions should be in place. My mistake, I apologize.
No need, but thanks :D

[Schiada76]

Now the court/legal system is liberal. :) Maybe you aren't aware of this but most people aren't victums of violent crime.
Ultra must be lucky As I recall, you were one of those who claimed there is no such thing as luck. :confused:
Well, umm, err, now that you mention it. No, I never said any such thing.:D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Well, umm, err, now that you mention it. No, I never said any such thing.:D
Sorry, I must be confusing you with Steel about this. Just about everyone here took the position that there is no such thing as luck, of course except me.
So did you have some Sushi?

[Schiada76]

Sorry, I must be confusing you with Steel about this. Just about everyone here took the position that there is no such thing as luck, of course except me.
So did you have some Sushi?
Why yes I did, it wasn't as good as the one in my avatar though.:D

[eliminatedsprinter]

You ever shoot another person?
I did........With a BB gun.;)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I did........With a BB gun.;)
Me too. Myself in the toe. :D :D

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I did........With a BB gun.;)
So did I, after I warned the dumbass not to shoot me, and he shot me in the leg, so I told him he BETTER run. :devil:
I must have nailed him 5 or 6 times before he got out of range.
Was a great learning experience, for him.

[eliminatedsprinter]

So did I, after I warned the dumbass not to shoot me, and he shot me in the leg, so I told him he BETTER run. :devil:
I must have nailed him 5 or 6 times before he got out of range.
Was a great learning experience, for him.
The boys on my block used to have BB gun fights. We used to use them like people today use paint ball guns. We had a rule that the kids who had pump type BB guns could only give them 2 pumps. That is one of the things I can never let my son know I did when I was young and stupid.:rolleyes:

[SmokinLowriderSS]

The boys on my block used to have BB gun fights. We used to use them like people today use paint ball guns. We had a rule that the kids who had pump type BB guns could only give them 2 pumps. That is one of the things I can never let my son know I did when I was young and stupid.:rolleyes:
Haha, yep. Some stories are best left forgotten. LOL.

[Steve 1]

The boys on my block used to have BB gun fights. We used to use them like people today use paint ball guns. We had a rule that the kids who had pump type BB guns could only give them 2 pumps. That is one of the things I can never let my son know I did when I was young and stupid.:rolleyes:
Same here we all had BB guns mostly Daisy’s, the standard gift given when we were around 10 years old at 12 we got .22's then Shotguns or old Military rifles for Deer hunting in our teens. Yes we had the BB war’s also what memories!
http://www.daisymuseum.com/

[Schiada76]

Oh crap! BB gun wars inside the house. Very, very bad idea!:devil: :sqeyes: :(

[eliminatedsprinter]

Oh crap! BB gun wars inside the house. Very, very bad idea!:devil: :sqeyes: :(
No we had these wars outside in the neighborhood. I only shot mine in the house once.
I was going to go outside and shoot my BB gun with my friend when my phone rang and it was one of my best friends.
As I was talkng to him on the phone and holding my BB gun I suddenly heard him yelp and start cussing at his brother.
I said: what happened?
He said: " Fred just shot my with a BB gun".
I said: "oh my god, do you need to go to the hospital?"
He said: "no it just stings".
So I said: "did it break the skin?"
He said: "no it never does".
I said "what do you mean it never does"?
He said: "we shoot each other with them all the time".
I said: "for real".
He said: "yep, try it out sometime, you'll see, it just stings for a while".
Imagine my friend's (who had just been standing there next to me not really paying much attention while I was on the phone) suprise when I calmly cocked my Daisy, lowered it, and shot him in the a$$, for apparently no reason. :eek:
After that.
It was on.
The whole neighborhoods boys got into BB gun wars.

[Schiada76]

No we had these wars outside in the neighborhood. I only shot mine in the house once.
I was going to go outside and shoot my BB gun with my friend when my phone rang and it was one of my best friends.
As I was talkng to him on the phone and holding my BB gun I suddenly heard him yelp and start cussing at his brother.
I said: what happened?
He said: " Fred just shot my with a BB gun".
I said: "oh my god, do you need to go to the hospital?"
He said: "no it just stings".
So I said: "did it break the skin?"
He said: "no it never does".
I said "what do you mean it never does"?
He said: "we shoot each other with them all the time".
I said: "for real".
He said: "yep, try it out sometime, you'll see, it just stings for a while".
Imagine my friend's (who had just been standing there next to me not really paying much attention while I was on the phone) suprise when I calmly cocked my Daisy, lowered it, and shot him in the a$$, for apparently no reason. :eek:
After that.
It was on.
The whole neighborhoods boys got into BB gun wars.
Oh, so you're saying you're smarter than me!!!!!:mad: :mad:
BB gun wars outside would have been a much better idea!:idea: :sqeyes: :D

[eliminatedsprinter]

Outside it was.:) Only the first shot was inside (the shot heard round Porter Ranch).
The rest of the story was that my friend ran/jumped/danced his a$$ home and got his BB gun and came back out after me. By then I had positioned myself behind a big rock in my front yard on the high ground (I lived up hill from his house). He had to try to get me from behind a planter down the street.
After that initial battle we got the other boys involved and had our BB gun shootouts better organized. Nobody ever got hurt and we never got caught by our parrents (mine would have killed me).:)