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