This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

In article 308fb8d2-553b-4e45-97aa-
,
says...

On Dec 18, 5:52*pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article m,
says...







"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.

As does the left... so what. Folks who believe in American Values stick
together, what's your point?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, yes, only the right wants whats good for the citizens and the
country. The left want to kill babies and hate the country. Same old
song and dance. (Aerosmith!)

Yup, I knew yesterday when I wrote this, you would jump in with both
feet and not read it. I never said "caring about the country was
exclusive to one party or the other". In fact if you read carefully I
suggested two groups of folks who care. Your defensiveness blinds you to
open mindedness all the time, you should calm down and read a bit more
carefully.

Either way, as I have noted before. Your biggest problem is always
assuming you are right and everyone who has an opposing point of view is
either lying, or wrong... It shows up all the time in your writing, It's
really frustrating to be dismissed for having a different point of
view...

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

In article m,
says...

"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.

"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.

Yeah, he really does call names better than most doesn't he? Is that
your number one concern in a pol?

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:02:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

" 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..."

Talk about stupid comments...

Depends on what's most important, job security or integrity.
Fox doesn't take kindly to those who disagree with the memo.
Accu-Weather can be replaced.
Plenty of other weather outfits.

--Vic

Yeah, when I want both sides of an issue I don't turn of FOX where there
are always representatives from both sides, I turn on MSNBC or NPR and
hear both sides from one point of view... That's funny Vic... So answer
the question Saran didn't, where do you get your news?

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

In article 6ca2a66c-7f16-442e-9346-
, says...

On Dec 18, 8:42*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"but does this mean that man is causing global warming?"

Didn't we just go through this a while back with the ozone layer?

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

THE SKY IS FALLING!

I can and do believe that there was some causality the ozone layer. *But
this thing about carbon dioxide is just a way to transfer wealth under the
guise of doing good. *Nothing is going to change. *We're just going to give
some poor countries money we don't have so they can have token pollution
control. *It's that simple.

Steve

And we will have higher taxes and more government agencies to handle
the transfer. There really are black helicopters out there.

Yeah, and they are carrying bags of cash..

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

In article be021516-08ac-4540-a4c5-8d81e741ab89
@n31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 18, 7:02*pm, John H wrote:

And we will have higher taxes and more government agencies to handle
the transfer. There really are black helicopters out there.


Oh, man! You got that right, John!

i see 'em all the time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSlutmu-xiI

Most likely DEA agents getting ready to descend upon a marijuana crop.

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

On Dec 19, 9:20*am, BAR wrote:
In article be021516-08ac-4540-a4c5-8d81e741ab89
@n31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com, says...



On Dec 18, 7:02*pm, John H wrote:

And we will have higher taxes and more government agencies to handle
the transfer. There really are black helicopters out there.

Oh, man! *You got that right, John!

i see 'em all the time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSlutmu-xiI

Most likely DEA agents getting ready to descend upon a marijuana crop.

Well BAR, I'm not discounting your idea, but you know that an olive
drab Huey at 1000 ft will always look black.

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:09:16 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:02:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

" 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..."

Talk about stupid comments...

Depends on what's most important, job security or integrity.
Fox doesn't take kindly to those who disagree with the memo.
Accu-Weather can be replaced.
Plenty of other weather outfits.

--Vic

Yeah, when I want both sides of an issue I don't turn of FOX where there
are always representatives from both sides, I turn on MSNBC or NPR and
hear both sides from one point of view... That's funny Vic... So answer
the question Saran didn't, where do you get your news?

Mostly cable TV. Fox, C-Span, CNN, MSNBC.
But I also read actual legislation and random political commentary on
the internet.
I leave the scientific stuff to the scientists.
They'll work it out.
You saying Fox is neutral on the global warming stuff?
I don't get that impression. The memo has been distributed.
Talking heads reading what they're told to read from the prompter.
Lots of blondes. Real climate scientists right there. Oh yeah.
And nobody here strikes me as a ****ing climate scientist either.
I don't care what side they take.
Bet some are lucky enough to keep their boats afloat.
Some real good cut-and-pasters though.
Sorry. That's how I see it. No offense.
But I won't go so far as to act like those Senators do to people they
despise, and say "My dear friend and colleague."
Hehe. You know what I mean.

--Vic

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

"Loogypicker" wrote in message
...
On Dec 18, 5:13 pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:52:58 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
No. There was no message.

LOL!! Dude - the Hannity screed was one huge blast against a
messenger.

No. Not at all. It was an actual dialogue between Hannity and the
Accuweather founder.

Look, you're on the wrong side of this issue - you know it, you just
don't want to accept it.

The "science" isn't "settled" because it's based on a fraudulent
premise with amateur data mining done by amateur programmers to fit an
agenda that created a job worth millions. Your guys have been proven
wrong on so many climate issues that it should be embarrassing.

And please don't do your usual prove a negative schtick - it's really
old.

Every time someone here shows you actual data that shows FOR A FACT
the direct correlation between CO2 levels and warming trends you sweep
it under the carpet, saying that the only "honest science" is that the
fits your right wing agenda.


Facts... those pesky things... darn them anyway!

--
Nom=de=Plume

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article m,
says...

"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.

"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.

Yeah, he really does call names better than most doesn't he? Is that
your number one concern in a pol?


He is a bit naive and honest. That's a good start.


--
Nom=de=Plume

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:46:10 -0800, jps wrote:


You'll wait for honest data while realists watch the polar caps melt.

See, that, in itself, is the political talking point. Nobody that has
crap for brains denies that is happening. The "WHY" is what is
important. Good science will tell us whether man is contributing 99%
or 1% to the temperature rise. Neither Hannity nor Gore are going to
give you good science, but if you are having an acute attack of
cognitive dissonance they probably have a temporary cure for that.
--
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are
enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
-Thomas Sowell

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm

Forté Agent 6.00 Build 1186


You certainly won't get good science from Hannity. He's not interested in
science. He's interested in fear-mongering.

Gore has the facts available, since he actually listens to scientists.

--
Nom=de=Plume

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:02:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

" 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..."

Talk about stupid comments...

Depends on what's most important, job security or integrity.
Fox doesn't take kindly to those who disagree with the memo.
Accu-Weather can be replaced.
Plenty of other weather outfits.

--Vic

Yeah, when I want both sides of an issue I don't turn of FOX where there
are always representatives from both sides, I turn on MSNBC or NPR and
hear both sides from one point of view... That's funny Vic... So answer
the question Saran didn't, where do you get your news?


Fox is a fraud. It's not a news channel.

--
Nom=de=Plume

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:09:16 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:02:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

" 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..."

Talk about stupid comments...

Depends on what's most important, job security or integrity.
Fox doesn't take kindly to those who disagree with the memo.
Accu-Weather can be replaced.
Plenty of other weather outfits.

--Vic

Yeah, when I want both sides of an issue I don't turn of FOX where there
are always representatives from both sides, I turn on MSNBC or NPR and
hear both sides from one point of view... That's funny Vic... So answer
the question Saran didn't, where do you get your news?

Mostly cable TV. Fox, C-Span, CNN, MSNBC.
But I also read actual legislation and random political commentary on
the internet.
I leave the scientific stuff to the scientists.
They'll work it out.
You saying Fox is neutral on the global warming stuff?
I don't get that impression. The memo has been distributed.
Talking heads reading what they're told to read from the prompter.
Lots of blondes. Real climate scientists right there. Oh yeah.
And nobody here strikes me as a ****ing climate scientist either.
I don't care what side they take.
Bet some are lucky enough to keep their boats afloat.
Some real good cut-and-pasters though.
Sorry. That's how I see it. No offense.
But I won't go so far as to act like those Senators do to people they
despise, and say "My dear friend and colleague."
Hehe. You know what I mean.

--Vic

Thanks Vic, my dear friend and colleague;)

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:09:42 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:46:10 -0800, jps wrote:


You'll wait for honest data while realists watch the polar caps melt.

See, that, in itself, is the political talking point. Nobody that has
crap for brains denies that is happening. The "WHY" is what is
important. Good science will tell us whether man is contributing 99%
or 1% to the temperature rise. Neither Hannity nor Gore are going to
give you good science, but if you are having an acute attack of
cognitive dissonance they probably have a temporary cure for that.

No cognitive dissonance. The "good science" argument is a delay
tactic. There's plenty of good science.

If we cannot conclusively prove man has XX% involvement in global
warming, should we simply sit back and do nothing?

That's cognitive dissonance.

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

On 12/19/09 1:19 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"I am wrote in message
...
In ,
says...

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:02:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

" 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..."

Talk about stupid comments...

Depends on what's most important, job security or integrity.
Fox doesn't take kindly to those who disagree with the memo.
Accu-Weather can be replaced.
Plenty of other weather outfits.

--Vic

Yeah, when I want both sides of an issue I don't turn of FOX where there
are always representatives from both sides, I turn on MSNBC or NPR and
hear both sides from one point of view... That's funny Vic... So answer
the question Saran didn't, where do you get your news?


Fox is a fraud. It's not a news channel.


Tosk is a fraud. He's not a thinking human.

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:03:26 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:33:22 -0800, jps wrote:

If we cannot conclusively prove man has XX% involvement in global
warming, should we simply sit back and do nothing?

That is like saying, "They didn't tell me where to go, so I don't know
where I'm going, but I've got to leave and hurry to get there..."

Cutting emissions, though, is a good idea, regardless....

Using your logic, we should sit on our hands until its positively
proven we have some net effect on the atmosphere.

In that case, why the hell should we cut emissions? I think we should
bring back all the flourocarbons. I miss 'em.

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:09:16 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

So answer the question Saran didn't, where do you get your news?

From the back of the Count Chockula cereal box.

Where do you get yours? :)

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:27:26 -0800, jps wrote:

Using your logic, we should sit on our hands until its positively
proven we have some net effect on the atmosphere.

Talking points again? Using my logic, we need to know WHAT to do,
unless just *anything* would make you feel better.....

In that case, why the hell should we cut emissions? I think we should
bring back all the flourocarbons. I miss 'em.

Thanks for making my point.....
--
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are
enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
-Thomas Sowell

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm

Forté Agent 6.00 Build 1186


Gene, we KNOW what to do. Knowing the exact % of humans on the environment
isn't the issue. It's a big %, and we need to act.

--
Nom=de=Plume

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:27:26 -0800, jps wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:03:26 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:33:22 -0800, jps wrote:

If we cannot conclusively prove man has XX% involvement in global
warming, should we simply sit back and do nothing?

That is like saying, "They didn't tell me where to go, so I don't know
where I'm going, but I've got to leave and hurry to get there..."

Cutting emissions, though, is a good idea, regardless....

Using your logic, we should sit on our hands until its positively
proven we have some net effect on the atmosphere.

No. Using my logic we would actually use science, rather than
political talking points, to determine what to do. I'm already on
record that we should be working toward less emissions... the fact
that we might actually induce a tipping point is quite scary. I'd
prefer to err on the side of safety, but Al Gore isn't "my daddy."

In that case, why the hell should we cut emissions? I think we should
bring back all the flourocarbons. I miss 'em.

Thanks for making my point.......
--
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are
enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
-Thomas Sowell

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm

Forté Agent 6.00 Build 1186


Al Gore is the spokesman for reducing greenhouse gasses. He's not a
scientist. Some on the right act as though he "runs" the enviromental
movement.

--
Nom=de=Plume

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:09:16 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

So answer the question Saran didn't, where do you get your news?

From the back of the Count Chockula cereal box.

Where do you get yours? :)

Pffftttt... Fruit Loops

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:31:24 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:


Thanks Vic, my dear friend and colleague;)

I'll answer that this way.
Guy and his wife- from NYC - are in Hawaii for the first time, on
vacation.
Problem is they are arguing about how to say Hawaii.
The wife says it should be pronounced Ha-Vy-ee.
Husband says it's Ha-Wy-ee.
It's spoiling their vacation, because that's just how they are.
They decide to get off the beach, find a native Hawaiian, and settle
it once and for all.
So they walk to a working class neighborhood in Honolulu, find
a big dark-skinned guy sitting on a stoop, and wearing the traditional
Hawaiian garb that looks like what saw when they'd see a native pork
roast beach party on Hawaii Five-0.
They know there's a Hawaiian word for native pork roast beach party,
but always dance around that, figuring that just saying native pork
roast beach party would keep the peace. And it's clear enough.
Even Hawaii Five-0 is called just Five-0 in their household.
Being big fans of Five-0 and Don Ho, and even knowing the words of
"Tiny Bubbles" by heart only exacerbates this disagreement about how
to pronounce Hawaii beyond their normal level of bickering.
They like Hawaii. Why let it come between them?
They could find plenty else to divorce over, so they both figure they
won't let it be Hawaii
So here they are actually in Hawaii, and it has come to a head.
They even agree on how the question will be asked, so as not to
influence the person they ask. Small victory right there.
Husband says to the guy, "Excuse me, sir. My wife and I are having a
slight disagreement about how to pronounce the name of these fine set
of islands that comprise the 50th state. How do you pronounce it?"
The guy says, "I say it Ha-Vy-ee."
Wife smirks at husband, say to him, "That settles that."
She turns to the guy and says, "Thank you sir! Thank you very much!!"
He replies, "You're velcome."

And so, my dear friend and rec.boats colleague, my reply to your most
generous thanks is "You're velcome!"

--Vic

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:15:55 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:31:24 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:


Thanks Vic, my dear friend and colleague;)

I'll answer that this way.
Guy and his wife- from NYC - are in Hawaii for the first time, on
vacation.
Problem is they are arguing about how to say Hawaii.
The wife says it should be pronounced Ha-Vy-ee.
Husband says it's Ha-Wy-ee.

Moku'aina o Hawai'i is the correct way.

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:09:51 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:58:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Al Gore is the spokesman for reducing greenhouse gasses.

Oh..... gawd.....

ROTFL!!!!!

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

Al Gore is the spokesman for reducing greenhouse gasses.

No, his new title is account executive in charge of carbon credits world
wide. He stands to make billions. That's with a B.

Steve

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

Moku'aina o Hawai'i is the correct way.

Don't know. Don't care. Just know that Kauai was the neatest place I have
ever been to. My wife asked me what I'd do if I hit the lottery. I said go
to Kauai for three months, maybe longer.

Really don't care where she goes.

Wife to hubby: Honey, pack yer bags, we hit the lottery.
Hubby to wife: Should I pack for the beach or the mountains?
Wife to hubby: I don't care, just pack your bags and go.

Steve

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

On Dec 19, 6:56*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Gene" wrote in message

...



On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:27:26 -0800, jps wrote:

Using your logic, we should sit on our hands until its positively
proven we have some net effect on the atmosphere.

Talking points again? Using my logic, we need to know WHAT to do,
unless just *anything* would make you feel better.....

In that case, why the hell should we cut emissions? *I think we should
bring back all the flourocarbons. *I miss 'em.

Thanks for making my point.....
--
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are
enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
-Thomas Sowell

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm

Forté Agent 6.00 Build 1186

Gene, we KNOW what to do. Knowing the exact % of humans on the environment
isn't the issue. It's a big %, and we need to act.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Amazingly stupid response from you."

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:56:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

It's a big %

Cite....?

Oh, forget it....
--
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are
enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
-Thomas Sowell

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm

Forté Agent 6.00 Build 1186


Good... look it up.

--
Nom=de=Plume

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:58:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Al Gore is the spokesman for reducing greenhouse gasses.

Oh..... gawd.....
--
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are
enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
-Thomas Sowell

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm

Forté Agent 6.00 Build 1186


You're saying he isn't? What's your point?

--
Nom=de=Plume

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

Al Gore is the spokesman for reducing greenhouse gasses.

No, his new title is account executive in charge of carbon credits world
wide. He stands to make billions. That's with a B.

Steve



According to you.

--
Nom=de=Plume

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:51:13 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Gene" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:58:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Al Gore is the spokesman for reducing greenhouse gasses.

Oh..... gawd.....
--
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are
enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
-Thomas Sowell

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm

Forté Agent 6.00 Build 1186


You're saying he isn't? What's your point?

Patience is not Gene's strong suit.

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

Gene wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:56:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

It's a big %

Cite....?

Oh, forget it....

A big % is her way of saying "I have no frikkin idea of what I am
talking about". But that never stops her from running her mouth.

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

TopBassDog wrote:
On Dec 19, 6:56 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Gene" wrote in message

...



On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:27:26 -0800, jps wrote:
Using your logic, we should sit on our hands until its positively
proven we have some net effect on the atmosphere.
Talking points again? Using my logic, we need to know WHAT to do,
unless just *anything* would make you feel better.....
In that case, why the hell should we cut emissions? I think we should
bring back all the flourocarbons. I miss 'em.
Thanks for making my point.....
--
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are
enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
-Thomas Sowell
Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.
Homepage
http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm
Forté Agent 6.00 Build 1186
Gene, we KNOW what to do. Knowing the exact % of humans on the environment
isn't the issue. It's a big %, and we need to act.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Amazingly stupid response from you."

This surprises you?

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:15:55 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:31:24 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:


Thanks Vic, my dear friend and colleague;)

I'll answer that this way.
Guy and his wife- from NYC - are in Hawaii for the first time, on
vacation.
Problem is they are arguing about how to say Hawaii.
The wife says it should be pronounced Ha-Vy-ee.
Husband says it's Ha-Wy-ee.

Moku'aina o Hawai'i is the correct way.

Is Primo still brewing?

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

On Dec 20, 8:36*am, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...







On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:15:55 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:31:24 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

Thanks Vic, my dear friend and colleague;)

I'll answer that this way.
Guy and his wife- from NYC - are in Hawaii for the first time, on
vacation. *
Problem is they are arguing about how to say Hawaii.
The wife says it should be pronounced Ha-Vy-ee.
Husband says it's Ha-Wy-ee.

Moku'aina o Hawai'i is the correct way.

Is Primo still brewing?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, they are.

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:16:55 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog
wrote:

On Dec 19, 6:56*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Gene" wrote in message

...



On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:27:26 -0800, jps wrote:

Using your logic, we should sit on our hands until its positively
proven we have some net effect on the atmosphere.

Talking points again? Using my logic, we need to know WHAT to do,
unless just *anything* would make you feel better.....

In that case, why the hell should we cut emissions? *I think we should
bring back all the flourocarbons. *I miss 'em.

Thanks for making my point.....
--
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are
enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
-Thomas Sowell

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm

Forté Agent 6.00 Build 1186

Gene, we KNOW what to do. Knowing the exact % of humans on the environment
isn't the issue. It's a big %, and we need to act.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Amazingly stupid response from you."

Another 'ah-ha' light comes on!

Soon there'll be enough for our own rec.boats Christmas tree.
--

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

John H

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

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.

Yeah, he really does call names better than most doesn't he? Is that
your number one concern in a pol?

I like him because he speaks his mind rather than wring his hands and worry
about his realationships in DC.
When I didn't support Bush in 04 I was part of a group that was called
"un-patriotic and "un-American" by the wacky Right. When I supported Obama
the group was renamed "socialist" and "communist" and "haters of America" by
the wacky Right.
So when a Republican whines and cries and snivels about being picked by by a
Democrat I find it frigging hillarious!!!!

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article m,
says...

"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.

As does the left... so what. Folks who believe in American Values stick
together, what's your point?

My point is that blind loyaty is stupid no matter what party, but the Reps
get my attention more than the Dems because you're louder.

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Gene wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:56:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

It's a big %

Cite....?

Oh, forget it....

A big % is her way of saying "I have no frikkin idea of what I am talking
about". But that never stops her from running her mouth.

Well, you know a friend of a hairdresser who does my sister-in-law's
hair's second ex husband told her ........................

Why do you even subject yourself to such crap? KF her. She has no active
brain cells.

Steve



Yes, please KF me. You'll be a lot happier!

--
Nom=de=Plume

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Gene wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:56:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

It's a big %

Cite....?

Oh, forget it....

A big % is her way of saying "I have no frikkin idea of what I am talking
about". But that never stops her from running her mouth.

Well, you know a friend of a hairdresser who does my sister-in-law's hair's
second ex husband told her ........................

Why do you even subject yourself to such crap? KF her. She has no active
brain cells.

Steve

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

"Steve B" wrote in message
...


Gene, we KNOW what to do. Knowing the exact % of humans on the
environment
isn't the issue. It's a big %, and we need to act.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Needing to act would mean installing technology to cope with the
situation. Needing to act means doing sensible things that involve
hardware and technology. It does not mean issuing what is essentially
Monopoly money to foreign governments. Carbon credits? Sounds like
transference of money to me, just under another name. All it's going to
cost is $100 billion a year. And where does that money come from? And who
gets a cut? ALGORE for one. Lord Moncton. Rothschilds. It goes on from
there. It's hypocritical to be talking about taking action when flying in
an obsolete GulfStream jet, and having a global warming conference in the
middle of a blizzard. Especially when you're spouting that Americans are
energy hogs and need to cut back the thermostat, wear more clothes while
indoors, and use less fuel in transportation. But that's only for the
little people. The lower class. Were you born this stupid, or were you
educated into it?

Steve

Technology is part of the answer, obviously.

Transfer of money... what a horrible thing. Western nations destroying 3rd
world countries' environments, then leaving them on their own to deal with
it. Yes, that seems fair.

Were you born or did you just fall out of the sky?

--
Nom=de=Plume

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

Gene, we KNOW what to do. Knowing the exact % of humans on the
environment
isn't the issue. It's a big %, and we need to act.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Needing to act would mean installing technology to cope with the situation.
Needing to act means doing sensible things that involve hardware and
technology. It does not mean issuing what is essentially Monopoly money to
foreign governments. Carbon credits? Sounds like transference of money to
me, just under another name. All it's going to cost is $100 billion a year.
And where does that money come from? And who gets a cut? ALGORE for one.
Lord Moncton. Rothschilds. It goes on from there. It's hypocritical to be
talking about taking action when flying in an obsolete GulfStream jet, and
having a global warming conference in the middle of a blizzard. Especially
when you're spouting that Americans are energy hogs and need to cut back the
thermostat, wear more clothes while indoors, and use less fuel in
transportation. But that's only for the little people. The lower class.
Were you born this stupid, or were you educated into it?

Steve