Who are you gonna listen to?
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:53:27 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Hillary's fairy tale about the immaculate generation of the missing
billing
records in the WH library is a much better story.

Maybe you can find some scientific backing for the notion.


Doubtful. It's all fantasy land for Karl (Actung) Rove and his minions.

So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately
generated billing records showing up in the library?


Keep at it Dave. Eventually, you'll be able to blame her for sun spots.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Who are you gonna listen to?
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote in message
rthlink.net...


"Capt. JG" wrote in message



So far, I haven't seen much in the way of facts from you.

(This from the guy who's been supporting his arguments with statements
like "science says it is so.")



You'll listen to big business, but not to scientists. Maybe you think
smoking doesn't cause cancer?

I listen to both sides. You don't. My only contention is that when some
scientists support the notion of GW, and others dispute it, the issue is
far from conclusive. You, of course, contend that any scientist who
disputes the notion of GW must be in the hip pockets of big business.
That is the hallmark of a closed mind.

Max




Really... you listen to both sides. So, what does science, real science
from scientists, actually say about GW? I contend that there are always a
couple of wackos who are unconvinced by the preponderance of evidence.
What do you believe in? So far, I have yet to see you cite any actual
facts on the subject.


YYou haven't got it yet...scince can look at thuings short term and draw
conclusions and science can lok at overall picutres and applyn the short
term and draw a conclusion. Your science is short-sighted...



Ummm... you're right. If science can look at the short term and draw valid
conclusion and science can look at the long term and draw valid conclusions,
then science is not short-sighted. Why don't you tell how the earth is only
10,000 years old. You need to give it up. You're not making any sense at
this point.


No...it's you who don't make sense...over the long term...the millions
of years that one can look at, the tests, based on core samplings, tree
rings, etc etc etc say that this is a cyclical and historical event...I
suppose yur contention os that there must have been ancient
civilisations of man that cuased it to happen before..if you look at
climate and weather patterns over short term, you lose track of the
previous cycles ..you cannot make conclusions based on the short erm
relative to earth climatic change...I really don't think you understand
this at all...

Who are you gonna listen to?
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...



And besides the World Trade Center, the capitol building, the US Postal
Service, the SuperDome, the Statue of Liberty, and Amtrak would no
longer exist and we'd all have anthrax or worse...



This was all on Bushco's watch... while he was on vacation probably.



N...it may have been tried on his watch but it didn't come to fruition,
except for the Trade Center...if Gore had been President we'd probably
all be bowing to the Mullah by now..



Huh? All this happened while Bush slept. But, feel free to blame Gore. He
did actually win the election.


No one won that election...



Gore won, and the Supremes voted him out. But, in any case, feel free to
blame Gore for Iraq if that makes your day.


You're really losing it, Jon. I didn't blame Gore for anything except
being an A hole...

Who are you gonna listen to?
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"katy" wrote in message
...



And Clinton! g


And that time they were correct!



The best pres we've had in a long time.


Get real...he was adequate at best and a sorry excise of a man...



I guess all those years of prosperity and relative peace just couldn't
have been so good for you.

No..they weren't good for me at all...Steelcase went down the tubes,
...the town north of us in MI, greenville, lost its major sources of
income and became a ghost town of sorts...prosperity was reserved for
isplated areas of the country..fortunate for you that CA was included..
He was more popular, if that's any judge, during and

after his impeachment for lying about a blow job than Bush is... the
worst polling numbers since Nixon.

Now that just goes to show you how warped the nation has become that
someone would be more popular because of their sexual prowess that for
their contributions as Presidnet...he was mediocre at best...



You're dreaming. You cite a couple of examples, claim that's the true
measure of a president, then claim all has been rosey under the current
screwed up administration. Clinton was one of the best presidents we've had
in a long time. Bush is by far the worst. But, feel free to keep saying it
isn't so.


Once again you are making things up out of whole cloth..never have I
claimed things have been rosey under the current administratio..in fact,
I have remained relatively silent on the ussie of GW Bish...you are
making things up now, so I', going to quit replying...

Who are you gonna listen to?
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Guess you didn't hear Bill say that he didn't need yet another tax
break. I don't hear Cheney saying that.

Cheney does--his investments earn him millions annually.
Bill doesn't--he doesn't work, and his investments are more in line with
Whitewater.

Max



Please show me where Cheney has said he doesn't deserve a tax break.

Why would he do that? He *does* deserve a tax break. We all ****ing do.


Oh, the old Whitewater thing... why don't you claim a Vince Foster
conspiracy again. I'm sure that'll get you some traction with the
right-wing nuts.

You have no sense of humor anymore, Jon.

Max

Who are you gonna listen to?
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

I wish it weren't, but I'm living in the real world.

The real world of make-believe science.

Max



Sure Max. Unlike your "real world" of religious belief and right-wing
certitude. I'm sure if you keep saying Bush is right over and over, it's
got to be true.

You haven't been paying attention at all, Jon. First: I've never indicated
any tendency toward or away from a personal belief in any religion. Ever.
Second: I'm not a right-winger at all, despite what that flaming liberal
Doug keeps saying. g Third: I strongly dislike George W. Bush and his
politics. When I take left-wing idiots to task, you simply interpret that
as a defense of W. It isn't.

If you'd been paying attention, rather than simply calling me names, you'd
know all that.

Max

Who are you gonna listen to?
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 22:45:56 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

I wish it weren't, but I'm living in the real world.

The real world of make-believe science.

Max



Sure Max. Unlike your "real world" of religious belief and right-wing
certitude. I'm sure if you keep saying Bush is right over and over, it's
got
to be true.

Max doesn't even trust mathmatics. It's a gray area as far as he is
concerned.
Ask him about Whitworth hardware. He things it matches up exactly with
Metric
and SAE hardware. If that were so, there would be no such thing as a
separate
system named "Whitworth".

LOL. The only important aspect of Whitworth tools is the money a few
British companies made by selling them to people who were too myopic to
realize that a combination of metric and SAE tools fit every single
Whitworth fastener so closely as to obviate the need for Whitworths. If
that weren't true, I have destroyed the nuts and bolts on my Gold Star.
After 4 years of racing, I never had to replace a single fastener due to
head damage. And that included at least five complete teardowns.
How you spend you money is your business. Thankfully we had some savvy
Britbike techs around here who knew that Whitworth spanners and sockets were
a waste of money.

Max

Who are you gonna listen to?
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message


I wish it weren't, but I'm living in the real world.

The real world of make-believe science.

Max




Sure Max. Unlike your "real world" of religious belief and right-wing
certitude. I'm sure if you keep saying Bush is right over and over, it's
got to be true.

Do you really read Max's posts? He has decried Bush on more than one
occasion. And is far from the religious rught wing Conservative you make
him out to be....


Occasionally putting Bush down in the most milk-toast way possible for all
the terrible things he's done doesn't quite cut it.

I don't see him as the villain you do, but I dislike his actions intensely.
I am on the opposite side of his so-called immigration amnesty stance. I
think his involvement in the Iraq war was poorly conceived and badly
executed. And I oppose his troop surges. I think he should stand up to the
Iraqi government, make some demands, and demand some oil as payment for our
sacrifices there, but of course he won't. I have other issues with him as
well. But I do believe he is basically a decent man, if an ineffective or
misguided President. You, OTOH, believe he'd rape your mother, murder you
father, and behead your local parish priest. Irrationality is a hallmark of
the Bush-haters.

Max

Who are you gonna listen to?
 

"Maxprop" wrote
Irrationality is a hallmark of the Bush-haters.

Irrationality's the hallmark of all liberals. Didn't the total failure of Air America
liberal radio prove it? Liberals are so irrational they can't even stand their own
irrationality.

Cheers,
Ellen

Who are you gonna listen to?
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Really... you listen to both sides. So, what does science, real science
from scientists, actually say about GW?

If you bothered to be circumspect, you'd realize that the
meteorological/geographical scientific community is almost evenly split on
the subject.

I contend that there are always a couple of wackos who are unconvinced by
the preponderance of evidence.

I see. When scientists disagree with your point of view, they are wackos?

What do you believe in?

I've made that clear in any number of posts. But since you seem to read
selectively: I believe that the global warming we are currently
experiencing is, to some unknown degree, influenced by the activities of
mankind. I also believe that the warming trend is at least party natural
and predictable, and would have occurred during this same period even if the
Earth had no human population. The net effect of human activity upon the
warming of the planet is unknown, albeit real. Until we actually know, any
attempts to correct the perceived problem will likely have one of two
outcomes: 1) it will achieve nothing substantive, or 2) it will cause
unforseen changes which could make the situation worse. Cleaning up
emissions is a laudable endeavor, if for no other reason than to clean up
the air we breathe.

So far, I have yet to see you cite any actual facts on the subject.

I've cited at least as many facts as you have. You spout vitriol and
platitudes, but offer up no evidence. You automatically assume that
*everyone* already knows all about GW, or at least your version of it. You
have a closed mind.

Max