OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1


"Forty-six flag standards were found empty and another 33 flags were in
charred tatters Sunday in the cemetery, authorities said. Swastikas
drawn on paper appeared where 14 of the flags had been.

"Members of the American Legion on this island off Washington's
northwest coast replaced the burned flags with new ones Sunday
afternoon.

"The vandals struck again on Memorial Day after a guard left at dawn,
the San Juan County sheriff's office said. This time, the vandals left
33 of the hand-drawn swastikas."

Poor Ole Thom - a proud veteran living in a liberal haven. How sad!
How's it feel, Thom, knowing you put your life at risk so they could
spit on your grave when you pass?

Wilbur Hubbard

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in news:yPY6i.341896$JN6.190968
@newsfe17.phx:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1


"Forty-six flag standards were found empty and another 33 flags were in
charred tatters Sunday in the cemetery, authorities said. Swastikas
drawn on paper appeared where 14 of the flags had been.

"Members of the American Legion on this island off Washington's
northwest coast replaced the burned flags with new ones Sunday
afternoon.

"The vandals struck again on Memorial Day after a guard left at dawn,
the San Juan County sheriff's office said. This time, the vandals left
33 of the hand-drawn swastikas."

Poor Ole Thom - a proud veteran living in a liberal haven. How sad!
How's it feel, Thom, knowing you put your life at risk so they could
spit on your grave when you pass?

Wilbur Hubbard

Since when does vandals=liberals?

And where is the tie-in to alt.sailing.asa? Maybe try alt.crime?

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

On May 29, 2:19 pm, Fuzzy Logic wrote:

Since when does vandals=liberals?

And where is the tie-in to alt.sailing.asa? Maybe try alt.crime?

It is posted as off-topic. OT

It is a good assumption--the labeling of Veterans
as criminals is the common view of the liberals.

Who recently has called conservatives Nazi's?
Always it is the liberals who hate without logic
and use this label, unjustly on conservatives and
veterans. Most recently I heard Rudy Guiliani
called a Nazi. And he is a moderate Republican.

And who better to discuss Nazi's than a Jew.

************************************************** ********
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby010203.asp

Sliming conservatives as Nazis often seems to be the
first refuge of liberal hate-talkers.

There is never any uproar when a liberal uses hate
speech against a Republican.

No prominent Democrat spoke with equal bluntness
about Harry Belafonte, who described Secretary of State
Colin Powell's relationship to President Bush as that of a
bootlicking plantation "slave" who curries favor in order "to
come into the house of the master."

And no prominent liberal blasted Gerardo Villacres, the
head of the Hispanic American Chamber of Commerce,
when he likened California businessman Ron Unz to a
Nazi for financing ballot campaigns to end bilingual education.

************************************************** ***************
There is no debate any more between the left and the right.
The left attacks without offering a solution. The right is always
wrong, despite having the majority. I'm glad of all the kooks
on the left. They make it so easy for people to chose sides.
The few that go left, push more people to the right.

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

Bart wrote in news:1180468403.189828.125140
@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

On May 29, 2:19 pm, Fuzzy Logic wrote:

Since when does vandals=liberals?

And where is the tie-in to alt.sailing.asa? Maybe try alt.crime?

It is posted as off-topic. OT

It is a good assumption--the labeling of Veterans
as criminals is the common view of the liberals.

The post mentioned vandals which some may attribute to being liberals but it's a stretch. I saw no mention of
veterans as criminals?

Who recently has called conservatives Nazi's?

One person calling one other person a name does not necessarily reflect the opionions of the whole group.

Always it is the liberals who hate without logic
and use this label, unjustly on conservatives and
veterans. Most recently I heard Rudy Guiliani
called a Nazi. And he is a moderate Republican.

And who better to discuss Nazi's than a Jew.

************************************************** ********
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby010203.asp

Sliming conservatives as Nazis often seems to be the
first refuge of liberal hate-talkers.

There is never any uproar when a liberal uses hate
speech against a Republican.

No prominent Democrat spoke with equal bluntness
about Harry Belafonte, who described Secretary of State
Colin Powell's relationship to President Bush as that of a
bootlicking plantation "slave" who curries favor in order "to
come into the house of the master."

And no prominent liberal blasted Gerardo Villacres, the
head of the Hispanic American Chamber of Commerce,
when he likened California businessman Ron Unz to a
Nazi for financing ballot campaigns to end bilingual education.

************************************************** ***************
There is no debate any more between the left and the right.
The left attacks without offering a solution. The right is always
wrong, despite having the majority. I'm glad of all the kooks
on the left. They make it so easy for people to chose sides.
The few that go left, push more people to the right.

IMO partisan politics needs to go away. Why can't people run on a platform of their personal beliefs? Voters
would actually have to pay attention to what politicians are saying and vote accordingly.

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

"Bart" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 29, 2:19 pm, Fuzzy Logic wrote:

Since when does vandals=liberals?

And where is the tie-in to alt.sailing.asa? Maybe try alt.crime?

It is posted as off-topic. OT

Sailing-related items are now probably off-topic here, Bart.

Max

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

* Bart wrote, On 5/29/2007 3:53 PM:
On May 29, 2:19 pm, Fuzzy Logic wrote:
Since when does vandals=liberals?

And where is the tie-in to alt.sailing.asa? Maybe try alt.crime?

It is posted as off-topic. OT

It is a good assumption--the labeling of Veterans
as criminals is the common view of the liberals.

Common view of liberals? You have so much hate in you Bart, you need
a long vacation. seriously.

....

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby010203.asp

About 5 or 6 years ago I attended a breakfast where Jeff Jacoby was
speaking. He presented what seemed at the time to be an interesting
argument: If one Arab country in the Middle East could be turned into
a viable democracy, it would serve as an example for all of the
people. Gradually, the Palestinians would see what a proper
representative government could be capable of, and perhaps, given
maybe 20 years, the Palestinian people could learn to live in peace
with their neighbors. He went on to say that the only good candidate
for this was Iraq, but that it would be very difficult to to create a
democracy there, given the history and the internal divisions. His
talk was very convincing, and he left us with the impression that the
was hope, but only if this situation could be handled with great care.

A few years later it was clear that the Neo-Cons had sold this story
to the Republicans (and probably a lot of Democrats), but that the
administration only heard half the story. I actually thought the
invasion might be a good thing, until it became clear that Bush had no
plan for actually creating a democracy.

....
There is no debate any more between the left and the right.
The left attacks without offering a solution. The right is always
wrong, despite having the majority. I'm glad of all the kooks
on the left. They make it so easy for people to chose sides.
The few that go left, push more people to the right.

There is no debate any more between the left and the right.
The right attacks without offering a solution. The left is always
wrong, despite having the majority. I'm glad of all the kooks
on the right. They make it so easy for people to chose sides.
The few that go right, push more people to the left.

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

On May 29, 8:26 pm, Jeff wrote:

It is a good assumption--the labeling of Veterans
as criminals is the common view of the liberals.

Common view of liberals? You have so much hate in you Bart, you need
a long vacation. seriously.

No hate in me Jeff. If you want hate, look to kook liberals
like Swabby with his vile language.

I just stated I'm glad the liberals are kooks. It makes
their viewpoint less credible.

Who do you think has been calling the Conservcatives
Nazi's. Who regularly bash the military and those who serve?
Do you remember Vietnam and how Veterans were treated?
All because a traitor like Hanoi Jane convinced many people
our solders were baby killers.

Take the other issue global warming. The issue here
is whether the cause is man-made. There is lots of evidence
that climatic fluxuations are primarily caused by our
Sun and then things like volcanos. I agree there is evidence
that things are warming up. That does not mean man caused
it. What was the Sun doing during the Little Ice Age?
How many volcano eruptions occurred during that time period?

The Sun is much more massive than the earth and it is
undergoing nuclear fission, releasing uncountable amounts
of energy.

************************************************** **********
Excerpt from:
http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm

The editors of the journal Science (2002), however, comment
on the increasing number of publications that point to varying
solar activity as a strong factor in climate change: "As more
and more wiggles matching the waxing and waning of the sun s
how up in records of past climate, researchers are grudgingly
taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate change. They
have included solar variability in their simulations of the past
century's warming. And the sun seems to have played a pivotal
role in triggering droughts and cold snaps."
************************************************** *****************

When people express opposing viewpoints, there is major
bashing on those with opposing viewpoints.

That is what how Nazi's started, with hate talk, followed
beatings and by outright violence, then killing and crimes
against humanity.

This is what we are starting to see now. Look at all the
hateful talk by the liberals. Can you not doubt that it
is inflaming people to do disrespectful thing like this to
veterans. I am not hateful, but I will not stand by and say
nothing. Our Veterans deserve our respect.

How about Rosie O'Donnel? That woman is angry and
clearly has mental problems. Should she be allowed to
act in such a manner on TV? Apparently we have no
standards in this country. It is allowed to take place, just
for the ratings. How about Elizabeth Hasselbeck? Was
she every angry, hateful, or nasty? No. She tried her best
to be polite to that nasty woman O'Donnel.

The pattern is repeated over and over again. Angry Kook
liberals trying to inflame a small minority. They are angry
that there is a silent majority with enough common sense
to ignore their thoughtless viewpoint.

Nazi propaganda minster, Goebbles said that if you repeat
a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. This seems
to be the creedo of the kook fringe of Democratic Party.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goebmain.htm

Ask anyone in law enforcement. Hate starts with yelling and
vile language, then turns to smashing inanimate objects,
then to hurting people, then to killing people.

Now go back and look at all the threads on alt.sailing.asa
and see who is using the profanity the most often. And in
cases where flames go back and forth--who starts the
vile language. It is clear to me that the liberal kooks are
the ones with no tolerance for discussion.

Again, I'm glad the liberals are kooks. It makes their
viewpoint less credible. it is too bad they cannot open
their eyes to any other possibility, even such an obvious
factor such as fluxuations of the Sun.

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

"Bart" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 29, 8:26 pm, Jeff wrote:

It is a good assumption--the labeling of Veterans
as criminals is the common view of the liberals.

Common view of liberals? You have so much hate in you Bart, you need
a long vacation. seriously.

No hate in me Jeff. If you want hate, look to kook liberals
like Swabby with his vile language.

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?

I just stated I'm glad the liberals are kooks. It makes
their viewpoint less credible.

Well, you have to do something to combat the truth.

Who do you think has been calling the Conservcatives
Nazi's. Who regularly bash the military and those who serve?
Do you remember Vietnam and how Veterans were treated?
All because a traitor like Hanoi Jane convinced many people
our solders were baby killers.

I've never called conservatives nazis nor do I believe they are. I am quite
happy to call those in the current administration jerks, liars, and totally
corrupt, however.

Hate to tell you Bart, but the VN war ended long ago. We're fighting and
dying in Iraq. A totally unjustified war with no end in sight.

Take the other issue global warming. The issue here

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to global
warming. If you know anything about the subject, claiming that because it's
warmer or colder in a specific spot, you would know that's a fallacious
argument.

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

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

Bart wrote:

On May 29, 2:19 pm, Fuzzy Logic wrote:

Since when does vandals=liberals?

And where is the tie-in to alt.sailing.asa? Maybe try alt.crime?

It is posted as off-topic. OT

It is a good assumption--the labeling of Veterans
as criminals is the common view of the liberals.


There are no facts to support this inflammatory remark. You are a self
confessed conservative, you have posted this sort of fallacious remark
in the past, can one extrapolate from that that MOST conservatives are
liars?

I rather think that most vandals have no political philosophy what so
ever. They're too busy plotting their next anti-social act to apply
their cretinous little brains to such matters.

Cheers
Marty

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?

How come Halliburton, Bush, or Karl Rove didn't make it into that sentence?

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global warming.

I'll ask again: are all the scientists who dispute your claim disreputable?
Fact is, there are at least as many against as for in this issue.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear?" I'm sure you won't,
because you have no time for the opposing side, but it is rife with hard
evidence, all references provided and the original papers easily accessible
by anyone, that dispute the claims of the GW evangelista. Do yourself a
favor and begin to examine both sides of the issue, Jon. I did, and I came
to one glaring conclusion: neither side has definitive evidence that the
human race is the "prime contributor" to GW.

Max

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Bart wrote:

On May 29, 2:19 pm, Fuzzy Logic wrote:

Since when does vandals=liberals?

And where is the tie-in to alt.sailing.asa? Maybe try alt.crime?

It is posted as off-topic. OT

It is a good assumption--the labeling of Veterans
as criminals is the common view of the liberals.


There are no facts to support this inflammatory remark. You are a
self
confessed conservative, you have posted this sort of fallacious remark
in the past, can one extrapolate from that that MOST conservatives are
liars?

I rather think that most vandals have no political philosophy what so
ever. They're too busy plotting their next anti-social act to apply
their cretinous little brains to such matters.

Cheers
Marty

Boy, are you ever clueless. Conservatives just don't go around burning
flags and painting swastikas or otherwise defacing property in an
infantile display of liberalism. Nope, it's liberals, socialists,
leftists, anti-Semites etc. who engage in this type of behavior.

Conservatives, as a group, don't engage in public hate crimes because
they are educated enough and experienced enough to state their views in
a thoughtful, intelligent and responsible manner. That's why
conservative talk show hosts are popular and any and all liberal talk
show hosts are unemployed and their networks bankrupt. Even other
liberals can't stand listening to their sordid, infantile, anti-American
behavior for long.

So, you just don't have a leg to stand on trying to claim it wasn't
liberals who desecrated those graves. The far left-wingers hate America
first and the military is America at her best.

I hope this helps.

Wilbur Hubbard

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to global
warming. If you know anything about the subject, claiming that because it's
warmer or colder in a specific spot, you would know that's a fallacious
argument.

--
"j" ganz

Wrong Jon. The Sun is a million times more massive than the earth.
It is well proven that tiny fluxuation in its output directly effect
weather on earth.

When lies are repeated often enough people like you
will believe them like religion without question.

Use your head and think about it. Do some research
in SUN OUTPUT WEATHER

I Googled that just now and found this:

How can you doubt the Sun is the most significant
factor?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ut_030320.html

Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming

By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 02:30 pm ET 20 March 2003

In what could be the simplest explanation for one
component of global warming, a new study shows
the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent
per decade since the late 1970s.

The increase would only be significant to Earth's
climate if it has been going on for a century or
more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia
University researcher also affiliated with NASA's
Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The Sun's increasing output has only been
monitored with precision since satellite technology
allowed necessary observations. Willson is not
sure if the trend extends further back in time, but
other studies suggest it does.

"This trend is important because, if sustained
over many decades, it could cause significant
climate change," Willson said.

In a NASA-funded study recently published in
Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and
his colleagues speculate on the possible history
of the trend based on data collected in the
pre-satellite era.

"Solar activity has apparently been going
upward for a century or more," Willson told
SPACE.com today.

Significant component

Further satellite observations may eventually
show the trend to be short-term. But if the
change has indeed persisted at the present
rate through the 20th Century, "it would have
provided a significant component of the global
warming the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change reports to have occurred over
the past 100 years," he said.

That does not mean industrial pollution has
not been a significant factor, Willson cautioned.

Scientists, industry leaders and environmentalists
have argued for years whether humans have
contributed to global warming, and to what extent.
The average surface temperature around the globe
has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1880.
Some scientists say the increase could be part of
natural climate cycles. Others argue that
greenhouse gases produced by automobiles and
industry are largely to blame.

Willson said the Sun's possible influence has
been largely ignored because it is so difficult to
quantify over long periods.

Confounding efforts to determine the Sun's role
is the fact that its energy output waxes and wanes
every 11 years. This solar cycle, as it is called,
reached maximum in the middle of 2000 and
chieved a second peak in 2002. It is now ramping
down toward a solar minimum that will arrive in
about three years.

Connections

Changes in the solar cycle -- and solar output --
are known to cause short-term climate change
on Earth. At solar max, Earth's thin upper
atmosphere can see a doubling of temperature.
It swells, and denser air can puff up to the
region of space where the International Space
Station orbits, causing increased drag on the
hip and forcing more frequent boosts from space shuttles.

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

* Bart wrote, On 5/29/2007 10:50 PM:
On May 29, 8:26 pm, Jeff wrote:
It is a good assumption--the labeling of Veterans
as criminals is the common view of the liberals.
Common view of liberals? You have so much hate in you Bart, you need
a long vacation. seriously.

No hate in me Jeff. If you want hate, look to kook liberals
like Swabby with his vile language.

Frankly, I see far, far more hate coming from the conservatives than
from the liberals.


I just stated I'm glad the liberals are kooks. It makes
their viewpoint less credible.

Who do you think has been calling the Conservcatives
Nazi's.

Frankly, I don't like the use of the term; I think it should be
reserved for the true Nazis, so that we never forget who they were and
what they did.

However, there have been lots of cases where conservatives truly do
support the the Nazis and are worthy of the epithet. For example,
recall that Buchanan pushed Regan into giving the speech at Bitburg,
and even wrote the line about how SS troops were just victims. Even
Rudi Giuliani called him a Nazi when he tried to block the extradition
of a concentration camp guard.

And we shouldn't forget that a primary attribute of Nazis is that they
excluded anyone they didn't like from their society. Jews, Gypsies,
Gays, intellectuals and other groups were considered not worthy of
being Germans. Whenever I hear hate rhetoric, almost always from
conservatives, about how some people or group is "anti-American" or
"not worthy of being an American" the parallel to Nazi rhetoric is
clear. The most obvious case is the anti-gay rhetoric of the far
right, which could have been taken verbatim from Naxi literature.

Who regularly bash the military and those who serve?

I live in a hotbed of East Coast Liberalism, in fact I lived and/or
worked in Cambridge for most of my life, and I never once heard a
grownup "bash" anyone who served in the military (other than a general
or two). This is purely a fantasy of your sick imagination. The acts
of a few kids does not represent the feeling of half the country.

It is true that liberals bash the politicians who send kids off to die
in pointless wars. BTW, how many of the administration neo-cons ever
served in the real military? How many even remembered to show up at
their reserve meetings?

Do you remember Vietnam and how Veterans were treated?

Again, the misguided acts of a handful of kids 40 years ago. Get over it!

All because a traitor like Hanoi Jane convinced many people
our solders were baby killers.

Are your really going to tell us you don't feel hatred for Jane?

The pattern is repeated over and over again. Angry Kook
liberals trying to inflame a small minority. They are angry
that there is a silent majority with enough common sense
to ignore their thoughtless viewpoint.


The pattern is repeated over and over again. Angry Kook
conservatives trying to inflame a small minority. They are angry
that there is a silent majority with enough common sense
to ignore their thoughtless viewpoint.

Nazi propaganda minster, Goebbles said that if you repeat
a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. This seems
to be the creedo of the kook fringe of Democratic Party.

Nazi propaganda minster, Goebbles said that if you repeat
a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. This seems
to be the creedo of the kook fringe of Republican Party.

Now go back and look at all the threads on alt.sailing.asa
and see who is using the profanity the most often. And in
cases where flames go back and forth--who starts the
vile language. It is clear to me that the liberal kooks are
the ones with no tolerance for discussion.

You, Joe. You're the one who took a random news story about vandals
and labeling it as the act of "liberals." This is about as profane as
it gets. Your hatred fills your every post. If you claim to be a
spokesperson for the conservatives, then you're claiming that they are
all as filled with hatred as you are.

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
big snip

You, Joe. You're the one who took a random news story about vandals
and labeling it as the act of "liberals." This is about as profane as
it gets. Your hatred fills your every post. If you claim to be a
spokesperson for the conservatives, then you're claiming that they are
all as filled with hatred as you are.

No, what's profane is liberals like you claiming your vice is a
conservative trait. It's simply not so. Liberals have certain beliefs.
They believe in socialism. They hate the military. They think talking
and diplomacy is the solution to any problem. They don't believe in
capitalism. They loathe big business, big oil, big military, big
anything other than big government. They love big government and higher
taxes. They believe in a free ride. They believe in the power of a
ruling elite. They believe in a malleable Constitution. They believe in
protest, both peaceful and violent and they believe in demonstrations of
the same kind that disrupt and damage. Anybody who says liberals don't
desecrate the graves of fallen soldiers and conservatives do simply
refuses to believe reality.

Wilbur Hubbard

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global
warming. If you know anything about the subject, claiming that because
it's
warmer or colder in a specific spot, you would know that's a fallacious
argument.

--
"j" ganz

Wrong Jon. The Sun is a million times more massive than the earth.
It is well proven that tiny fluxuation in its output directly effect
weather on earth.

When lies are repeated often enough people like you
will believe them like religion without question.

Use your head and think about it. Do some research
in SUN OUTPUT WEATHER

I Googled that just now and found this:

How can you doubt the Sun is the most significant
factor?

Because he wants to. GW is his religion now. You shouldn't mess with one's
religion, Bart.

Max

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?

How come Halliburton, Bush, or Karl Rove didn't make it into that
sentence?

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global warming.

I'll ask again: are all the scientists who dispute your claim
disreputable? Fact is, there are at least as many against as for in this
issue.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear?" I'm sure you
won't, because you have no time for the opposing side, but it is rife with
hard evidence, all references provided and the original papers easily
accessible by anyone, that dispute the claims of the GW evangelista. Do
yourself a favor and begin to examine both sides of the issue, Jon. I
did, and I came to one glaring conclusion: neither side has definitive
evidence that the human race is the "prime contributor" to GW.

Max



So, according to you, there's no definitive evidence. Ok. So, I guess we
should just keep pumping tons of pollution into the air and water and take a
wait and see approach... according to you of course. I think I'll do what I
can to not pollute.

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

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global
warming. If you know anything about the subject, claiming that because
it's
warmer or colder in a specific spot, you would know that's a fallacious
argument.

--
"j" ganz

Wrong Jon. The Sun is a million times more massive than the earth.
It is well proven that tiny fluxuation in its output directly effect
weather on earth.



So the Sun is responsible for the hellatious increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere... ok.

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

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* Bart wrote, On 5/29/2007 10:50 PM:
On May 29, 8:26 pm, Jeff wrote:
It is a good assumption--the labeling of Veterans
as criminals is the common view of the liberals.
Common view of liberals? You have so much hate in you Bart, you need
a long vacation. seriously.

No hate in me Jeff. If you want hate, look to kook liberals
like Swabby with his vile language.

Frankly, I see far, far more hate coming from the conservatives than from
the liberals.


I just stated I'm glad the liberals are kooks. It makes
their viewpoint less credible.

Who do you think has been calling the Conservcatives
Nazi's.

Frankly, I don't like the use of the term; I think it should be reserved
for the true Nazis, so that we never forget who they were and what they
did.

However, there have been lots of cases where conservatives truly do
support the the Nazis and are worthy of the epithet. For example, recall
that Buchanan pushed Regan into giving the speech at Bitburg, and even
wrote the line about how SS troops were just victims. Even Rudi Giuliani
called him a Nazi when he tried to block the extradition of a
concentration camp guard.

And we shouldn't forget that a primary attribute of Nazis is that they
excluded anyone they didn't like from their society. Jews, Gypsies, Gays,
intellectuals and other groups were considered not worthy of being
Germans. Whenever I hear hate rhetoric, almost always from conservatives,
about how some people or group is "anti-American" or "not worthy of being
an American" the parallel to Nazi rhetoric is clear. The most obvious
case is the anti-gay rhetoric of the far right, which could have been
taken verbatim from Naxi literature.

Who regularly bash the military and those who serve?

I live in a hotbed of East Coast Liberalism, in fact I lived and/or worked
in Cambridge for most of my life, and I never once heard a grownup "bash"
anyone who served in the military (other than a general or two). This is
purely a fantasy of your sick imagination. The acts of a few kids does
not represent the feeling of half the country.

It is true that liberals bash the politicians who send kids off to die in
pointless wars. BTW, how many of the administration neo-cons ever served
in the real military? How many even remembered to show up at their
reserve meetings?

Do you remember Vietnam and how Veterans were treated?

Again, the misguided acts of a handful of kids 40 years ago. Get over it!

All because a traitor like Hanoi Jane convinced many people
our solders were baby killers.

Are your really going to tell us you don't feel hatred for Jane?

The pattern is repeated over and over again. Angry Kook
liberals trying to inflame a small minority. They are angry
that there is a silent majority with enough common sense
to ignore their thoughtless viewpoint.


The pattern is repeated over and over again. Angry Kook
conservatives trying to inflame a small minority. They are angry
that there is a silent majority with enough common sense
to ignore their thoughtless viewpoint.

Nazi propaganda minster, Goebbles said that if you repeat
a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. This seems
to be the creedo of the kook fringe of Democratic Party.

Nazi propaganda minster, Goebbles said that if you repeat
a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. This seems
to be the creedo of the kook fringe of Republican Party.

Now go back and look at all the threads on alt.sailing.asa
and see who is using the profanity the most often. And in
cases where flames go back and forth--who starts the
vile language. It is clear to me that the liberal kooks are
the ones with no tolerance for discussion.

You, Joe. You're the one who took a random news story about vandals and
labeling it as the act of "liberals." This is about as profane as it
gets. Your hatred fills your every post. If you claim to be a
spokesperson for the conservatives, then you're claiming that they are all
as filled with hatred as you are.



Far, far more. They're very good at... that and generating fear.

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

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

On May 30, 7:31 pm, Jeff wrote:
* Bart wrote, On 5/29/2007 10:50 PM:

On May 29, 8:26 pm, Jeff wrote:
It is a good assumption--the labeling of Veterans
as criminals is the common view of the liberals.
Common view of liberals? You have so much hate in you Bart, you need
a long vacation. seriously.

No hate in me Jeff. If you want hate, look to kook liberals
like Swabby with his vile language.

Frankly, I see far, far more hate coming from the conservatives than
from the liberals.



I just stated I'm glad the liberals are kooks. It makes
their viewpoint less credible.

Who do you think has been calling the Conservcatives
Nazi's.

Frankly, I don't like the use of the term; I think it should be
reserved for the true Nazis, so that we never forget who they were and
what they did.

However, there have been lots of cases where conservatives truly do
support the the Nazis and are worthy of the epithet. For example,
recall that Buchanan pushed Regan into giving the speech at Bitburg,
and even wrote the line about how SS troops were just victims. Even
Rudi Giuliani called him a Nazi when he tried to block the extradition
of a concentration camp guard.

And we shouldn't forget that a primary attribute of Nazis is that they
excluded anyone they didn't like from their society. Jews, Gypsies,
Gays, intellectuals and other groups were considered not worthy of
being Germans. Whenever I hear hate rhetoric, almost always from
conservatives, about how some people or group is "anti-American" or
"not worthy of being an American" the parallel to Nazi rhetoric is
clear. The most obvious case is the anti-gay rhetoric of the far
right, which could have been taken verbatim from Naxi literature.

Who regularly bash the military and those who serve?

I live in a hotbed of East Coast Liberalism, in fact I lived and/or
worked in Cambridge for most of my life, and I never once heard a
grownup "bash" anyone who served in the military (other than a general
or two). This is purely a fantasy of your sick imagination. The acts
of a few kids does not represent the feeling of half the country.

It is true that liberals bash the politicians who send kids off to die
in pointless wars. BTW, how many of the administration neo-cons ever
served in the real military? How many even remembered to show up at
their reserve meetings?

Do you remember Vietnam and how Veterans were treated?

Again, the misguided acts of a handful of kids 40 years ago. Get over it!

All because a traitor like Hanoi Jane convinced many people
our solders were baby killers.

Are your really going to tell us you don't feel hatred for Jane?

The pattern is repeated over and over again. Angry Kook
liberals trying to inflame a small minority. They are angry
that there is a silent majority with enough common sense
to ignore their thoughtless viewpoint.

The pattern is repeated over and over again. Angry Kook
conservatives trying to inflame a small minority. They are angry
that there is a silent majority with enough common sense
to ignore their thoughtless viewpoint.

Nazi propaganda minster, Goebbles said that if you repeat
a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. This seems
to be the creedo of the kook fringe of Democratic Party.

Nazi propaganda minster, Goebbles said that if you repeat
a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. This seems
to be the creedo of the kook fringe of Republican Party.

Now go back and look at all the threads on alt.sailing.asa
and see who is using the profanity the most often. And in
cases where flames go back and forth--who starts the
vile language. It is clear to me that the liberal kooks are
the ones with no tolerance for discussion.

You, Joe. You're the one who took a random news story about vandals
and labeling it as the act of "liberals." This is about as profane as
it gets. Your hatred fills your every post. If you claim to be a
spokesperson for the conservatives, then you're claiming that they are
all as filled with hatred as you are.

Hey Jeff who the f*%k are you talking too? What are you so full of
hatred?

I never said liberals are vandels, they are stupid jerks that can't
read who posted this crap but not vandels in general.

Joe

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?

How come Halliburton, Bush, or Karl Rove didn't make it into that
sentence?

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global warming.

I'll ask again: are all the scientists who dispute your claim
disreputable? Fact is, there are at least as many against as for in this
issue.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear?" I'm sure you
won't, because you have no time for the opposing side, but it is rife
with hard evidence, all references provided and the original papers
easily accessible by anyone, that dispute the claims of the GW
evangelista. Do yourself a favor and begin to examine both sides of the
issue, Jon. I did, and I came to one glaring conclusion: neither side
has definitive evidence that the human race is the "prime contributor" to
GW.

Max



So, according to you, there's no definitive evidence. Ok. So, I guess we
should just keep pumping tons of pollution into the air and water and take
a wait and see approach... according to you of course. I think I'll do
what I can to not pollute.

You obviously haven't read my posts very well. As for definitive evidence,
there is evidence on both sides, but neither is definitive. The smartest
people in the scientific community aren't jumping on either bandwagon,
simply because the issue is *not* definitive. You choose only to believe
what you wish to believe, not what is necessarily the truth. Your
objectivity has been replaced with evangelistic zeal for a bogus cause.

If you'd actually read my posts in the other thread, you'd know that I'm a
bit miffed at the GW folks for distracting from the real issues of global
pollution. GW caused by humans is likely minor at best, but since all the
rhetoric is now given to it, the issues of pollution have been swept aside.
While you GW fanatics are waving the co2 flag and getting all the lipservice
of the various media, the planet is up to its ears in refuse, polluted water
and air, and landfills. There is an estimated 50 billion metric tons of
refuse and garbage being dumped in the world's oceans annually, and you guys
are crowing about something that most likely will be laughed at 20 years
from now. Time will likely prove Al Gore and his minions to be buffoons at
best, and idiots who farted around while the planet was destroyed at worst.

Max

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

* Joe wrote, On 5/31/2007 9:08 AM:

Hey Jeff who the f*%k are you talking too? What are you so full of
hatred?

I never said liberals are vandels, they are stupid jerks that can't
read who posted this crap but not vandels in general.

Sorry Joe, I humbly apologize. I meant Bart of course - I don't know
why I momentarily thought it was you. I guess I'm as guilty as the
next guy of making blanket associations.

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

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

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?
How come Halliburton, Bush, or Karl Rove didn't make it into that
sentence?

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global warming.
I'll ask again: are all the scientists who dispute your claim
disreputable? Fact is, there are at least as many against as for in this
issue.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear?" I'm sure you
won't, because you have no time for the opposing side, but it is rife with
hard evidence, all references provided and the original papers easily
accessible by anyone, that dispute the claims of the GW evangelista. Do
yourself a favor and begin to examine both sides of the issue, Jon. I
did, and I came to one glaring conclusion: neither side has definitive
evidence that the human race is the "prime contributor" to GW.

Max



So, according to you, there's no definitive evidence. Ok. So, I guess we
should just keep pumping tons of pollution into the air and water and take a
wait and see approach... according to you of course. I think I'll do what I
can to not pollute.



I don't that that's what was said at all. Nice try, but a gross
exaggeration and manipulation of the discussion.

But you seem to have placed yourself on an undefendable position. I've
heard EXACTLY the same from others who blindly defend the unfounded
"man-made GW" hypothesis without looking at all the facts.

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...
Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global
warming. If you know anything about the subject, claiming that because
it's
warmer or colder in a specific spot, you would know that's a fallacious
argument.

--
"j" ganz
Wrong Jon. The Sun is a million times more massive than the earth.
It is well proven that tiny fluxuation in its output directly effect
weather on earth.



So the Sun is responsible for the hellatious increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere... ok.


Can you directly blame CO2 levels on GW or are CO2 levels the product of
increased bacterial and fungal activity due to the natural warming of
the earth?

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

Capt. JG wrote:



Far, far more. They're very good at... that and generating fear.


And the current fear and panic over GW is a product of conservatism?
Even though there is no firm foundation for GW being caused by man?

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...
Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors
to global
warming. If you know anything about the subject, claiming that
because it's
warmer or colder in a specific spot, you would know that's a
fallacious
argument.

--
"j" ganz
Wrong Jon. The Sun is a million times more massive than the earth.
It is well proven that tiny fluxuation in its output directly effect
weather on earth.



So the Sun is responsible for the hellatious increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere... ok.


Can you directly blame CO2 levels on GW or are CO2 levels the product
of increased bacterial and fungal activity due to the natural warming
of the earth?


The data shows CO2 levels rising as a CONSEQUENCE of global warming.
Not the other way around.


http://technocrat.net/d/2007/5/6/19282

and:

http://blog.tomevslin.com/2006/05/fact_and_theory.html

and:

http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html

"Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate
conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach
in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News
soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies,
published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006.
The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate
changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with
temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather
than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up-or
down-and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few
thousand years."



So, if higher levels of CO2 are an effect rather than a cause is it
possible that the sun cycles might have more to do with climate change
than humans? I think so.



Wilbur Hubbard

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?

How come Halliburton, Bush, or Karl Rove didn't make it into that
sentence?

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global warming.

I'll ask again: are all the scientists who dispute your claim
disreputable? Fact is, there are at least as many against as for in this
issue.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear?" I'm sure you
won't, because you have no time for the opposing side, but it is rife
with hard evidence, all references provided and the original papers
easily accessible by anyone, that dispute the claims of the GW
evangelista. Do yourself a favor and begin to examine both sides of the
issue, Jon. I did, and I came to one glaring conclusion: neither side
has definitive evidence that the human race is the "prime contributor"
to GW.

Max



So, according to you, there's no definitive evidence. Ok. So, I guess we
should just keep pumping tons of pollution into the air and water and
take a wait and see approach... according to you of course. I think I'll
do what I can to not pollute.

You obviously haven't read my posts very well. As for definitive
evidence, there is evidence on both sides, but neither is definitive. The
smartest people in the scientific community aren't jumping on either
bandwagon, simply because the issue is *not* definitive. You choose only
to believe what you wish to believe, not what is necessarily the truth.
Your objectivity has been replaced with evangelistic zeal for a bogus
cause.

If you'd actually read my posts in the other thread, you'd know that I'm a
bit miffed at the GW folks for distracting from the real issues of global
pollution. GW caused by humans is likely minor at best, but since all the
rhetoric is now given to it, the issues of pollution have been swept
aside. While you GW fanatics are waving the co2 flag and getting all the
lipservice of the various media, the planet is up to its ears in refuse,
polluted water and air, and landfills. There is an estimated 50 billion
metric tons of refuse and garbage being dumped in the world's oceans
annually, and you guys are crowing about something that most likely will
be laughed at 20 years from now. Time will likely prove Al Gore and his
minions to be buffoons at best, and idiots who farted around while the
planet was destroyed at worst.

Max



You just said the evidence isn't definitive. Now you're saying that man's
involvement is "minor at best." Which is it? You're very, very confused it
seems. Keep pumping those toxins into the environment and see what happens.
Tip: environment includes the air.

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

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?
How come Halliburton, Bush, or Karl Rove didn't make it into that
sentence?

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global warming.
I'll ask again: are all the scientists who dispute your claim
disreputable? Fact is, there are at least as many against as for in this
issue.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear?" I'm sure you
won't, because you have no time for the opposing side, but it is rife
with hard evidence, all references provided and the original papers
easily accessible by anyone, that dispute the claims of the GW
evangelista. Do yourself a favor and begin to examine both sides of the
issue, Jon. I did, and I came to one glaring conclusion: neither side
has definitive evidence that the human race is the "prime contributor"
to GW.

Max



So, according to you, there's no definitive evidence. Ok. So, I guess we
should just keep pumping tons of pollution into the air and water and
take a wait and see approach... according to you of course. I think I'll
do what I can to not pollute.



I don't that that's what was said at all. Nice try, but a gross
exaggeration and manipulation of the discussion.

But you seem to have placed yourself on an undefendable position. I've
heard EXACTLY the same from others who blindly defend the unfounded
"man-made GW" hypothesis without looking at all the facts.


The facts are the facts. We are pumping tons of toxins into the air. Do you
think this is net good?

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

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...
Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global
warming. If you know anything about the subject, claiming that because
it's
warmer or colder in a specific spot, you would know that's a fallacious
argument.

--
"j" ganz
Wrong Jon. The Sun is a million times more massive than the earth.
It is well proven that tiny fluxuation in its output directly effect
weather on earth.



So the Sun is responsible for the hellatious increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere... ok.


Can you directly blame CO2 levels on GW or are CO2 levels the product of
increased bacterial and fungal activity due to the natural warming of the
earth?



Well, gee, we now have how many millions of cars, trucks, factories, etc.
pumping carbon into the atmosphere... no way *they* could be responsible..

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

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:



Far, far more. They're very good at... that and generating fear.


And the current fear and panic over GW is a product of conservatism? Even
though there is no firm foundation for GW being caused by man?




It's a justified fear, and I don't see any panic. Just strong concern. There
is consensus that it is caused by man even if you don't want to believe it.

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

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate
changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with
temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather
than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up-or
down-and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few
thousand years."

Hmm, C02 concentration is rising *now*, temperature is rising *now*, not
"a few hundred to a few thousand years" apart. That doesn't mesh with
the hypothesis you are propounding.

I wonder if The Wisconsin Energy Cooperative has an agenda and if so
what direction it might lean?

Cheers
Marty
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------
For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption
upgrade to SurgeFTP
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...



I don't that that's what was said at all. Nice try, but a gross
exaggeration and manipulation of the discussion.

But you seem to have placed yourself on an undefendable position. I've
heard EXACTLY the same from others who blindly defend the unfounded
"man-made GW" hypothesis without looking at all the facts.


The facts are the facts. We are pumping tons of toxins into the air. Do you
think this is net good?



No. But facts are facts. And you're relating something that is FACT to
something that is NOT FACT.

Can you see the difference?

Pumping CO2 into the air may not be a good thing, but there is not
proven relationship between CO2 levels and GW except as a product, not a
cause.

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...
Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global
warming. If you know anything about the subject, claiming that because
it's
warmer or colder in a specific spot, you would know that's a fallacious
argument.

--
"j" ganz
Wrong Jon. The Sun is a million times more massive than the earth.
It is well proven that tiny fluxuation in its output directly effect
weather on earth.


So the Sun is responsible for the hellatious increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere... ok.

Can you directly blame CO2 levels on GW or are CO2 levels the product of
increased bacterial and fungal activity due to the natural warming of the
earth?



Well, gee, we now have how many millions of cars, trucks, factories, etc.
pumping carbon into the atmosphere... no way *they* could be responsible..


What are the numbers? How much does man contribute relative to natural
causes. Don't just irrationally bitch and whine. Show the numbers.

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:


Far, far more. They're very good at... that and generating fear.

And the current fear and panic over GW is a product of conservatism? Even
though there is no firm foundation for GW being caused by man?




It's a justified fear, and I don't see any panic. Just strong concern. There
is consensus that it is caused by man even if you don't want to believe it.


Puhleeeeeezze...

I've worked in the standards world for over 15 years (ANSI and ISO).
Consensus means that everyone has found common ground for agreement. In
this case, no consensus has been reached. The only common ground is
that the climate seems to be in a warming trend. Speculation as to the
cause is all over the map and hardly can be classified as "consensus" by
anyone with a remote understanding of the meaning of the word.

Period.

At this point, it doesn't even seem that the majority of the scientific
community even agrees that GW is man-made.

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

Martin Baxter wrote:
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate
changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with
temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather
than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up-or
down-and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few
thousand years."

Hmm, C02 concentration is rising *now*, temperature is rising *now*, not
"a few hundred to a few thousand years" apart. That doesn't mesh with
the hypothesis you are propounding.


Temperatures have been rising for about 18,000 years with a few minor
blips.


I wonder if The Wisconsin Energy Cooperative has an agenda and if so
what direction it might lean?

Cheers
Marty


I wonder whether there are those who would profit from GW research $$
that have an agenda to push.

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...



I don't that that's what was said at all. Nice try, but a gross
exaggeration and manipulation of the discussion.

But you seem to have placed yourself on an undefendable position. I've
heard EXACTLY the same from others who blindly defend the unfounded
"man-made GW" hypothesis without looking at all the facts.


The facts are the facts. We are pumping tons of toxins into the air. Do
you think this is net good?



No. But facts are facts. And you're relating something that is FACT to
something that is NOT FACT.

Can you see the difference?

Pumping CO2 into the air may not be a good thing, but there is not proven
relationship between CO2 levels and GW except as a product, not a cause.


According to you. Well, I'm glad you think CO2 being injected into the air
in huge quantities "may" not be a good thing. That puts my mind at rest. g


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

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Martin Baxter wrote:
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate
changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with
temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather
than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up-or
down-and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few
thousand years."

Hmm, C02 concentration is rising *now*, temperature is rising *now*, not
"a few hundred to a few thousand years" apart. That doesn't mesh with
the hypothesis you are propounding.


Temperatures have been rising for about 18,000 years with a few minor
blips.


I wonder if The Wisconsin Energy Cooperative has an agenda and if so
what direction it might lean?

Cheers
Marty


I wonder whether there are those who would profit from GW research $$ that
have an agenda to push.


Big oil is certainly profiting from GW research! Better them than people who
care about the environment!

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

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...
Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global
warming. If you know anything about the subject, claiming that
because it's
warmer or colder in a specific spot, you would know that's a
fallacious
argument.

--
"j" ganz
Wrong Jon. The Sun is a million times more massive than the earth.
It is well proven that tiny fluxuation in its output directly effect
weather on earth.


So the Sun is responsible for the hellatious increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere... ok.

Can you directly blame CO2 levels on GW or are CO2 levels the product of
increased bacterial and fungal activity due to the natural warming of
the earth?



Well, gee, we now have how many millions of cars, trucks, factories, etc.
pumping carbon into the atmosphere... no way *they* could be
responsible..


What are the numbers? How much does man contribute relative to natural
causes. Don't just irrationally bitch and whine. Show the numbers.



Do your own research... seems like you're the one bitchin about having to
pay a bit more for fuel.

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

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:


Far, far more. They're very good at... that and generating fear.

And the current fear and panic over GW is a product of conservatism?
Even though there is no firm foundation for GW being caused by man?




It's a justified fear, and I don't see any panic. Just strong concern.
There is consensus that it is caused by man even if you don't want to
believe it.


Puhleeeeeezze...

I've worked in the standards world for over 15 years (ANSI and ISO).
Consensus means that everyone has found common ground for agreement. In
this case, no consensus has been reached. The only common ground is that
the climate seems to be in a warming trend. Speculation as to the cause
is all over the map and hardly can be classified as "consensus" by anyone
with a remote understanding of the meaning of the word.

Period.

At this point, it doesn't even seem that the majority of the scientific
community even agrees that GW is man-made.

Uhhuh... well, according to you I guess.

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

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

Capt. JG wrote:


Big oil is certainly profiting from GW research! Better them than people who
care about the environment!


Glad to see you've taken up the lemming's run.

OT- liberals now defacing veteran's graves
 

Capt. JG wrote:



Do your own research... seems like you're the one bitchin about having to
pay a bit more for fuel.


What?? Find one reference I've made to fuel costs.

And I'm NOT the one claiming that man has dumped the most CO2 into the
air, you are. And I'm asking you to provide your numbers and the
reference to that research.

So the amount of your references supporting your position is directly
proportional to your credibility.