On Dec 20, 9:23*am, Jack wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:53*am, Loogypicker wrote:





On Dec 20, 8:32*am, Jack wrote:

On Dec 20, 8:16*am, Loogypicker wrote:

On Dec 19, 9:44*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports

wrote:
"This is the problem with politicians trying to create a market for
something that the free market otherwise doesn't value," Schulz said.
"An emissions trading market is an artificially, politically-created
market...."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...s-cap-trade-re...

Huh - how about that...

It's amazing how your side can cherry pick people's thoughts and
present just that as fact and expect everyone to eat it up. I know
that many on the right will, afterall, they'll take some lie that
Hannity or Rush tells them and run with it as the truth too.

So instead of attacking the messenger, which is your side's MO, how
about addressing the quotation. *Specifically, what part of it isn't
true, and why?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Easy! First, if you read the whole article, not just the cherry picked
parts, you'll see that they are discussing Europe's cap and trade
problems saying that we will have the same problems. This without even
knowing how we are going to model our system. Pretty audacious if the
right wing thinks that their side can predict the future.

You're movving the goalposts. *You stated that a thought was cherry-
picked, presented as fact, and went on to try to smear it as a lie.

No I didn't. Show everyone where I said that the quote was a lie.

The quote you attacked as a lie was: "This is the problem with
politicians trying to create a market for something that the free
market otherwise doesn't value," Schulz said.
"An emissions trading market is an artificially, politically-created
market...."

Again, no I didn't. Show me where I attacked the quote as a lie.

What *specifically* in that quote is not true. *C'mon, you attempted
to smear it as a cherry-picked lie, so it should be easy to point out
the falsehood in the quote.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, show me where I said the quote was a lie.

On Dec 20, 9:39*am, Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 20, 9:23*am, Jack wrote:





On Dec 20, 8:53*am, Loogypicker wrote:

On Dec 20, 8:32*am, Jack wrote:

On Dec 20, 8:16*am, Loogypicker wrote:

On Dec 19, 9:44*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports

wrote:
"This is the problem with politicians trying to create a market for
something that the free market otherwise doesn't value," Schulz said.
"An emissions trading market is an artificially, politically-created
market...."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...s-cap-trade-re...

Huh - how about that...

It's amazing how your side can cherry pick people's thoughts and
present just that as fact and expect everyone to eat it up. I know
that many on the right will, afterall, they'll take some lie that
Hannity or Rush tells them and run with it as the truth too.

So instead of attacking the messenger, which is your side's MO, how
about addressing the quotation. *Specifically, what part of it isn't
true, and why?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Easy! First, if you read the whole article, not just the cherry picked
parts, you'll see that they are discussing Europe's cap and trade
problems saying that we will have the same problems. This without even
knowing how we are going to model our system. Pretty audacious if the
right wing thinks that their side can predict the future.

You're movving the goalposts. *You stated that a thought was cherry-
picked, presented as fact, and went on to try to smear it as a lie.

No I didn't. Show everyone where I said that the quote was a lie.



The quote you attacked as a lie was: "This is the problem with
politicians trying to create a market for something that the free
market otherwise doesn't value," Schulz said.
"An emissions trading market is an artificially, politically-created
market...."

Again, no I didn't. Show me where I attacked the quote as a lie.



What *specifically* in that quote is not true. *C'mon, you attempted
to smear it as a cherry-picked lie, so it should be easy to point out
the falsehood in the quote.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, show me where I said the quote was a lie.

Where you wrote: "...run with it as the truth too." The word "too"
indicates you also think this quote, to which you were responding, is
a lie also... "too".

Now, do you think the quote is the truth? Since you're now
backpedalling from calling it a lie, it must be true. So why did you
attack it, and it's messenger?

On Dec 20, 10:33*am, Jack wrote:
On Dec 20, 9:39*am, Loogypicker wrote:





On Dec 20, 9:23*am, Jack wrote:

On Dec 20, 8:53*am, Loogypicker wrote:

On Dec 20, 8:32*am, Jack wrote:

On Dec 20, 8:16*am, Loogypicker wrote:

On Dec 19, 9:44*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports

wrote:
"This is the problem with politicians trying to create a market for
something that the free market otherwise doesn't value," Schulz said.
"An emissions trading market is an artificially, politically-created
market...."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...s-cap-trade-re...

Huh - how about that...

It's amazing how your side can cherry pick people's thoughts and
present just that as fact and expect everyone to eat it up. I know
that many on the right will, afterall, they'll take some lie that
Hannity or Rush tells them and run with it as the truth too.

So instead of attacking the messenger, which is your side's MO, how
about addressing the quotation. *Specifically, what part of it isn't
true, and why?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Easy! First, if you read the whole article, not just the cherry picked
parts, you'll see that they are discussing Europe's cap and trade
problems saying that we will have the same problems. This without even
knowing how we are going to model our system. Pretty audacious if the
right wing thinks that their side can predict the future.

You're movving the goalposts. *You stated that a thought was cherry-
picked, presented as fact, and went on to try to smear it as a lie.

No I didn't. Show everyone where I said that the quote was a lie.

The quote you attacked as a lie was: "This is the problem with
politicians trying to create a market for something that the free
market otherwise doesn't value," Schulz said.
"An emissions trading market is an artificially, politically-created
market...."

Again, no I didn't. Show me where I attacked the quote as a lie.

What *specifically* in that quote is not true. *C'mon, you attempted
to smear it as a cherry-picked lie, so it should be easy to point out
the falsehood in the quote.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, show me where I said the quote was a lie.
Where you wrote: "...run with it as the truth too." *The word "too"

indicates you also think this quote, to which you were responding, is
a lie also... "too".

Uh, no. Now YOU are cherry picking. Read my whole paragraph, and maybe
you'll comprehend what was said.

Now, do you think the quote is the truth? *Since you're now
backpedalling from calling it a lie, it must be true. *So why did you
attack it, and it's messenger?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not backpeddling from ****. YOU accused me of saying something I
didn't say.

On Dec 20, 12:24*pm, Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 20, 10:33*am, Jack wrote:





On Dec 20, 9:39*am, Loogypicker wrote:

On Dec 20, 9:23*am, Jack wrote:

On Dec 20, 8:53*am, Loogypicker wrote:

On Dec 20, 8:32*am, Jack wrote:

On Dec 20, 8:16*am, Loogypicker wrote:

On Dec 19, 9:44*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports

wrote:
"This is the problem with politicians trying to create a market for
something that the free market otherwise doesn't value," Schulz said.
"An emissions trading market is an artificially, politically-created
market...."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...s-cap-trade-re...

Huh - how about that...

It's amazing how your side can cherry pick people's thoughts and
present just that as fact and expect everyone to eat it up. I know
that many on the right will, afterall, they'll take some lie that
Hannity or Rush tells them and run with it as the truth too.

So instead of attacking the messenger, which is your side's MO, how
about addressing the quotation. *Specifically, what part of it isn't
true, and why?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Easy! First, if you read the whole article, not just the cherry picked
parts, you'll see that they are discussing Europe's cap and trade
problems saying that we will have the same problems. This without even
knowing how we are going to model our system. Pretty audacious if the
right wing thinks that their side can predict the future.

You're movving the goalposts. *You stated that a thought was cherry-
picked, presented as fact, and went on to try to smear it as a lie.

No I didn't. Show everyone where I said that the quote was a lie.

The quote you attacked as a lie was: "This is the problem with
politicians trying to create a market for something that the free
market otherwise doesn't value," Schulz said.
"An emissions trading market is an artificially, politically-created
market...."

Again, no I didn't. Show me where I attacked the quote as a lie.

What *specifically* in that quote is not true. *C'mon, you attempted
to smear it as a cherry-picked lie, so it should be easy to point out
the falsehood in the quote.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, show me where I said the quote was a lie.
Where you wrote: "...run with it as the truth too." *The word "too"

indicates you also think this quote, to which you were responding, is
a lie also... "too".

Uh, no. Now YOU are cherry picking. Read my whole paragraph, and maybe
you'll comprehend what was said.



Now, do you think the quote is the truth? *Since you're now
backpedalling from calling it a lie, it must be true. *So why did you
attack it, and it's messenger?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not backpeddling from ****. YOU accused me of saying something I
didn't say.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of the words you use. I'm
sure I can't teach you in a few sentences.

Meanwhile, you are no better than the ones you rail against here.
Congrats.