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?

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?

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.

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

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!!!!

"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.

"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

"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

"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

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