Settled science? HA!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Dec 20, 8:34 am, HK wrote:
wrote:

But you don't know what we listen to, and even if you did, you would
not listen to it so you would still not know what you are talking
about. It's ok Harry, we have gotten kind of used to it."

I've seen a few "reich wing radio" types on TV interview shows. They are
without exception scum. Note that I am not talking about responsible
conservatives espousing their point of view. I see those folks and I
listen to what they have to say. Sometimes I agree with some of what
they say and sometimes I don't. But I don't believe them to be
irresponsible buffoons.

The "reich wing radio" types I am talking about the douche bags, like
Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, O'Reilly, et cetera. Scum of the
earth.

Are there any "douche bags" on the left?

Ms. Clinton comes to mind.

Settled science? HA!!
 

Settled science? HA!!
 

On Dec 20, 9:11 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:34 am, HK wrote:
wrote:

But you don't know what we listen to, and even if you did, you would
not listen to it so you would still not know what you are talking
about. It's ok Harry, we have gotten kind of used to it."
I've seen a few "reich wing radio" types on TV interview shows. They are
without exception scum. Note that I am not talking about responsible
conservatives espousing their point of view. I see those folks and I
listen to what they have to say. Sometimes I agree with some of what
they say and sometimes I don't. But I don't believe them to be
irresponsible buffoons.

The "reich wing radio" types I am talking about the douche bags, like
Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, O'Reilly, et cetera. Scum of the earth.

Are there any "douche bags" on the left?

Sure, but I don't spend any time listening to them, either. But there
are far more on the right, and they are far more successful, because
there is a large audience on the right for the sort of "put down crap"
delivered by the likes of Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, et al. The righties
apparently need their daily fix of hate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, who are they, name some names?

Settled science? HA!!
 

Settled science? HA!!
 

HK wrote:
wrote:


But you don't know what we listen to, and even if you did, you would
not listen to it so you would still not know what you are talking
about. It's ok Harry, we have gotten kind of used to it."

I've seen a few "reich wing radio" types on TV interview shows. They are
without exception scum. Note that I am not talking about responsible
conservatives espousing their point of view. I see those folks and I
listen to what they have to say. Sometimes I agree with some of what
they say and sometimes I don't. But I don't believe them to be
irresponsible buffoons.


What is your definition of a "responsible conservative?" What
characteristics do you use to identify a "responsible conservative?"


The "reich wing radio" types I am talking about the douche bags, like
Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, O'Reilly, et cetera. Scum of the earth.

Limbaugh is funny and entertaining.

Coulter is funny and entertaining.

Malkin is funny and entertaining.

Hannity is a pompous ass.

O'Reilly is a pompous ass.

Settled science? HA!!
 

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:22:00 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

Another qualified voice of reason.
Refreshing.

Now, if we can stop the madness before we all go broke trying to fix a
nonexistent problem.

Eisboch



Almost everyone who has the contrary opinion on our impact on global
warming is a Republican. That tells me what I need to know about the
"opposition."

And almost everyone who has joined the Al Gore "Send Your Money" bandwagon
is a Democrat. That should tell you something also.
--
John H

Settled science? HA!!
 

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Dec 19, 4:08?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

There is evidence as well as scientific opinion on both sides of the
human-influence factor. Neither your side or the other should trot out
a single study and say "see, that settles it." (Not that you are).

It's amazing the number of people who not only deny that many could
ever have any influence on his global environment, but also insist
that the climate is *not* changing at all...........

It's amazing the number of people who preach that man is solely responsible
for global warming and that many billions of dollars in the right pockets
will stop it.

*That's* what's amazing!
--
John H

Settled science? HA!!
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
HK wrote:
wrote:


But you don't know what we listen to, and even if you did, you would
not listen to it so you would still not know what you are talking
about. It's ok Harry, we have gotten kind of used to it."

I've seen a few "reich wing radio" types on TV interview shows. They are
without exception scum. Note that I am not talking about responsible
conservatives espousing their point of view. I see those folks and I
listen to what they have to say. Sometimes I agree with some of what they
say and sometimes I don't. But I don't believe them to be irresponsible
buffoons.


What is your definition of a "responsible conservative?" What
characteristics do you use to identify a "responsible conservative?"


The "reich wing radio" types I am talking about the douche bags, like
Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, O'Reilly, et cetera. Scum of the
earth.

Limbaugh is funny and entertaining.

Coulter is funny and entertaining.

Malkin is funny and entertaining.

Hannity is a pompous ass.

O'Reilly is a pompous ass.

Thank god Imus is back.;-)

Settled science? HA!!
 

On Dec 20, 1:02�am, WaIIy wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:26:31 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
I'm surprised you aren't seeing many folks in the "the earth isn't
even warming at all" category.

Duh, you see many folks, just not the ones that need government grants.

There's no proof of global warming, it doesn't even make sense.

There you go, JAFM. A good example of "there's no proof that earth is
even warming at all", and right here in the NG. I wouldn't be
surprised to find that almost 1/3 of Americans agree with that
sentiment.

I disagree, to the point where I believe the earth is in a warming
trend. I also believe that warming and cooling trends have long been a
part of the natural cycle. My concern is that we might warm too much
and too quickly; and *if* that's a possibility we should be concerned.
I don't subscribe to the "it's all man's fault" school of thinking,
but neither am I prepared at this point to say that we are unable to
screw up the climate just as we have screwed up much of the rest of
our environment.

Settled science? HA!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 7:08 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

I've got a question. Why do you take this article as gospel, the end
all of all ends? After all, everything Canadian you instantly **** on
right here in rec.boats. Then you glean one single article coming from
the great white north, and it's the greatest piece ever written!
Pretty selective, don't you think?


Every day 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty
A third of the planet doesn't have electricity.
A billion people have no clean water.
A half a billion people going to bed hungry every night.

Since almost every action called for by the global warming alarmists will
make life even worse for all these people, why do assholes like you care
more about what *may happen* a 100 years in the future instead of paying
attention to what's going on now?