On Fri, 23 May 2008 16:15:53 -0700, Capt. JG wrote:

Which enviros? Do you have some documentation to support your arguments?

has he ever? why waste time with facts when a strongly held opinion will
do?

On Fri, 23 May 2008 20:47:43 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote:

Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental
movement is that it places human interest way to low and plant and
animal interest way to high. This is anti-human and therefore
malevolent.

thank god we have corporations like Exxon, GE and shill-boy Steve looking
out for us humans!! we wouldn't want anyone interested in the welfare of
the environment doing that would we..."anti-human"???

sorry Steve, but that laughing you hear in the back of your mind?
that's the smart people talking about twits like you

"mister b" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 23 May 2008 16:15:53 -0700, Capt. JG wrote:

Which enviros? Do you have some documentation to support your arguments?

has he ever? why waste time with facts when a strongly held opinion will
do?



I'm a liberal, so I like to give people the benefit of the doubt! LOL

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

"Edgar" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 23 May 2008 18:25:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400, said:

Which "enviros" are you talking about?
The ones he sees all around him when he closes his eyes.
Hey, it's at least as good a pejorative term as "neocons" g.

The "enviros" as you call them, at least mean well, unlike neocons, who
are
malevolent.

Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental
movement is that it places human interest way to low and plant and animal
interest way to high. This is anti-human and therefore malevolent.

Stephen


It is not the plants and animals that are hurting the environment...



Actually, cows produce a lot of greenhouse gasses. Of course, we eat them,
but not fast enough, apparently.

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

wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 20:47:43 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

wrote:
On 23 May 2008 18:25:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400, said:

Which "enviros" are you talking about?
The ones he sees all around him when he closes his eyes.
Hey, it's at least as good a pejorative term as "neocons" g.
The "enviros" as you call them, at least mean well, unlike neocons, who are
malevolent.
Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental
movement is that it places human interest way to low and plant and
animal interest way to high. This is anti-human and therefore malevolent.

Stephen

Who writes this material for you? The environmentalists (I qualify, but I'm not
a member of any "movement" that I'm aware of) I know all stress how important it
is to stop screwing up the planet for the benefit of all living creatures. What
they don't believe in is raping the planet recklessly to satisfy greed. Without
all those plants and animals, we ourselves end up in danger. It's all tightly
connected.

Just pretend for a moment that it's not so tightly connected. For
example, imagine that humans can invent solutions to problems and that
if something gets screwed up in the environment, humans can probably
create a way to fix it.

Now look at how the environmental movement is working to prevent energy
development in third world countries like Africa and what this does to
negatively impact human beings there.

Can you imagine the entirely unnecessary harm being done to humans?

Stephen

mister b wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 20:47:43 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote:

Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental
movement is that it places human interest way to low and plant and
animal interest way to high. This is anti-human and therefore
malevolent.

thank god we have corporations like Exxon, GE and shill-boy Steve looking
out for us humans!! we wouldn't want anyone interested in the welfare of
the environment doing that would we..."anti-human"???

Notice how instead of addressing my argument, you change the subject?
Don't you want to even think about how "Earth first" means "humans
last?" Of course you don't. You'd have to admit you were wrong.

sorry Steve, but that laughing you hear in the back of your mind?
that's the smart people talking about twits like you

Those who think they are smart but are actually dumb, are the dumbest of
all.

Stephen

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
ions...
"Edgar" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 23 May 2008 18:25:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400, said:

Which "enviros" are you talking about?
The ones he sees all around him when he closes his eyes.
Hey, it's at least as good a pejorative term as "neocons" g.

The "enviros" as you call them, at least mean well, unlike neocons, who
are
malevolent.

Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental
movement is that it places human interest way to low and plant and
animal interest way to high. This is anti-human and therefore
malevolent.

Stephen


It is not the plants and animals that are hurting the environment...



Actually, cows produce a lot of greenhouse gasses. Of course, we eat them,
but not fast enough, apparently.

I wonder if the number of cows in USA is greater than the number of
buffaloes that used to be there before global warming became an issue?

"Edgar" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
ions...
"Edgar" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 23 May 2008 18:25:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400, said:

Which "enviros" are you talking about?
The ones he sees all around him when he closes his eyes.
Hey, it's at least as good a pejorative term as "neocons" g.

The "enviros" as you call them, at least mean well, unlike neocons,
who are
malevolent.

Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental
movement is that it places human interest way to low and plant and
animal interest way to high. This is anti-human and therefore
malevolent.

Stephen


It is not the plants and animals that are hurting the environment...



Actually, cows produce a lot of greenhouse gasses. Of course, we eat
them, but not fast enough, apparently.

I wonder if the number of cows in USA is greater than the number of
buffaloes that used to be there before global warming became an issue?



Well, I don't know, but we kill most of them....


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

wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 07:54:24 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

mister b wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 20:47:43 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote:

Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental
movement is that it places human interest way to low and plant and
animal interest way to high. This is anti-human and therefore
malevolent.
thank god we have corporations like Exxon, GE and shill-boy Steve looking
out for us humans!! we wouldn't want anyone interested in the welfare of
the environment doing that would we..."anti-human"???
Notice how instead of addressing my argument, you change the subject?
Don't you want to even think about how "Earth first" means "humans
last?" Of course you don't. You'd have to admit you were wrong.


How does "Earth First" mean humans last?

Duh!!!

Enviromentalists want to put Earth
First, ahead of greed being first at the expense of the planet that we all
depend upon to sustain us.

So let me see if I'm understanding you. "Earth First" doesn't mean
environment first, other things second? It means humans first? Pretty
confusing. -No wonder you guys have to be so smart!

sorry Steve, but that laughing you hear in the back of your mind?
that's the smart people talking about twits like you
Those who think they are smart but are actually dumb, are the dumbest of
all.

Story of your life, I'm sure.

Well, maybe, but it certainly has been demonstrated here by the person
who was actually claiming to be part of the "smart people."

Stephen

wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 07:49:56 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 20:47:43 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

wrote:
On 23 May 2008 18:25:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400, said:

Which "enviros" are you talking about?
The ones he sees all around him when he closes his eyes.
Hey, it's at least as good a pejorative term as "neocons" g.
The "enviros" as you call them, at least mean well, unlike neocons, who are
malevolent.
Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental
movement is that it places human interest way to low and plant and
animal interest way to high. This is anti-human and therefore malevolent.

Stephen
Who writes this material for you? The environmentalists (I qualify, but I'm not
a member of any "movement" that I'm aware of) I know all stress how important it
is to stop screwing up the planet for the benefit of all living creatures. What
they don't believe in is raping the planet recklessly to satisfy greed. Without
all those plants and animals, we ourselves end up in danger. It's all tightly
connected.
Just pretend for a moment that it's not so tightly connected.

Pretending would be the only option for that.

For
example, imagine that humans can invent solutions to problems and that
if something gets screwed up in the environment, humans can probably
create a way to fix it.


More pretending. There are countless things, minor and major, that humans have
been unable to solve.

The point is not what we have been unable to solve so far, it's what we
have been able to solve. For example do you know how much more food per
resources humans are able to produce now than a hundred years ago? In
the blink of an eye, earth history wise, we have solved a massive
resource problem, the exact sort of solution that negates all the
massive fear mongering of the lefty greens. What? We're not running out
of resources?? We have virtually infinite capacity _create_ resources?????

Not only that, we're still getting better at creating solutions! Yet for
some reason the lefty greens assume not one more solution of this sort
will be solved and we are soon to run out of resources. As if there can
not be any good solutions to produce cleaner energy, or any possible
ways to clean up whatever we want to clean up, etc, etc.

Now look at how the environmental movement is working to prevent energy
development in third world countries like Africa and what this does to
negatively impact human beings there.


Please put the goal posts back in their original position.

Can you imagine the entirely unnecessary harm being done to humans?


???

Please read again what you ignored just above and explain how denying
energy technology to third world countries due to environmental concerns
is not malevolent. Remember, that is my original and main point, my
reason for entering this thread. You know, the point you have been
trying to divert from?

Stephen