"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:45:00 -0500, "mmc" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:54:01 -0500, "mmc" wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"mmc" wrote in message
g.com...

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On Dec 18, 10:09 am, "mmc" wrote:
"Loogypicker" wrote in message

...



And to think many on the right believe every word he utters....

Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He
made
a
statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the
climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that
global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was
supposed
to
be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of
AccuWeather
on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a
manner
that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was
asked
by
Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this
record
cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The
weather
guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean
anything
like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that
global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so
he
asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?"
The
weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that
man
has
NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data
suggesting
that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on
warming.
We
just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but
that
was
from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the
subject
of
course.

One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability
to
stick
together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line.

Copenhagen, not Geneva.

reply:

Typical lib not to even know the major details of the conversation.

Geneva. That's rich.

Steve

Details and facts don't matter to those on either far end of the
political stick.
Ron Paul 2012.



Ron Paul is absolutely at the far end of the political stick. He's an
ultra-libertarian, and he's irrational about what is right or even
possible politically. He's a joke.


--
Nom=de=Plume

The joke part is that he dosen't stand a chance as long as there are
bought
and paid for Republicans AND Democrats driving this screwed up train.
Paul
is far less a joke than many of the elected celebrities from the big 2.
Why are both sides so afraid of a third party? The closest we're allowed
to
have is Ralph Nader, who corporate America buries by pumping huge $$$
into
the Rep/Dem beauty contests.
I guess it's better sharing almost every elected office in this country
with
one other group instead of two.
Neither you nor the Reps want to see mainstream America calm and working
together. Like the cable news programs upon which you suckle, MSNBC and
FOX,
you'd rather see people divided than a strong group in the middle -
otherwise your collective BS would dry up and blow away.

i can report that your last statement is complete bull****.

I know, you must be right and they must be wrong!
Afraid of the competition? I like Paul because he's a real conservative,
not
what passes for conservative nowadays.

I'd welcome the competition, especially if it were truly from the left
since all these ****ers who occupy DC are patsies for business. No
one has the people's business in mind.

Second, you took the meaning of my response and twisted it. I was in
favor of Obama because he was so interested in using what we could all
agree on to break the partisan cycle. Evidently, anyone left of
Musolini didn't get the memo.

"Please sir, give me some more?"

Actually, if the Dem leaders are going to play against the Reps they
should
eat more red meat. As rare as possible. Reid and Pelosi are the definition
of wimps. Some have the testicular fortitude to stand up, like Grayson,
but
not the top dogs.

I don't agree on Pelosi, Reid I'd like to kick in the nuts to see if
it hurt. I don't think he has any. Grayson could certainly never get
anything done, given his polarizing rhetoric. I love him but he's not
the guy you want negotiating the deal.


I'm not talking about competition from the left, but from the cernter. I
think many Americans have a desire for a balance in Gov't but there is no
party to address this balance and they end up in the camp that comes closest
to thier own beliefs.
I voted for Obama, as much to break the Bush rut as because I liked his
message. Not having a moderate party I end up voting for the candidate I
like better, which is different than voting for my actual choice.
During the first Iraqi eletion I heard Americans laughing about there being
something like 60 candidates for president. My immediate response to that
was why can't we have this? Why do we have to choose between 2 mediocre guys
that barrage us with repetative speeches?
That's all we really get, the primaries are a popularity contest within the
top ******s in each party and a chance for them to get some publicity for
themselves. We really have no say in this so by the time it gets to us we
get a choice of beauty queen A or beauty queen B and the better lier/story
teller gets the job.
I think many Dems have a case for Grayson because he hasn't limited his
attacks to the Right, he's also gone after the Dems for being weak willed.