In article <newscache$xyntnh$u9$1@news.ipinc.net>,
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
>news:3FA46FF3.F7AB01D3@kinez.net...
>>
>>
>> The Ancient One wrote:
>> > ...until they are proven destroyed, which even the UN said they had NOT
>been,.
>> > (You need to read the news once in awhile Lloyd) then it must be assumed
>> > they still exist and are an imminent threat to US and World security.
>>
>> Lloyd was absent the day they taught the law of the conservation of
>> mass/matter.
>>
>
>Notice of course with Lloyd that he continues harping on the one solid
>lie in the mess - that Bush was lying about WMD - and uses the fact that
>Bush lied to make the claim that we should not have gone to war in Iraq.
>
>And notice how he completely ignores the moral reasons we had to go
>into Iraq,

Bush never gave those as reasons -- it was the threat against us.


>because those are not lies, and thus he cannot argue against
>them. Thus, since they prove that his conclusion - we shouldn't have gone
>to war in Iraq - is wrong, he ignores them.
>

So when are we going to overthrow the saudis? The Chinese? Does your
morality extend to all nasty regimes?

>This is how Lloyd argues, and it is very tiresome. He finds some verifyable
>facts out there, then builds an entire conclusion based on them and runs
>around
>spouting that his conclusion must be right because it's based on fact. Then
>when someone comes along and points out some other facts that are in
>conflict with his conclusion, he ignores this and just goes back to his
>first
>set of facts.
>
>Basically he gerrymanders the argument to prove his point. I really don't
>believe
>that he knows how to argue against any point that conflicts with his world
>view,
>I have never once seen him do so.
>
>Ted
>
>

 

In article <bo8c6302h0i@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>> No, that's not why...
>
>> > Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got
>creamed because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent
>him to Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green
>vote which he'd not convinced. > >
>
>> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
>stupid. <
>
>Well, a lot of them voted for Perot, which is why Clinton won in '92.
>Clinton never received as many votes as Gore or Bush did in '00 for that
>matter. That simple fact weas forgotten by the delusional leftists.

Clinton received more votes than any of his opponents. Bush did not. That's
the fact, dumbass.

>
>> A vote in the general election for Nader was a vote for George Bush. What
>happened was all the liberals out there talked themselves into believing
>that "it's only I that is voting for Nader, everyone else is voting for Gore
>so I'm free to vote my conscience without helping Bush" Then when the
>results of the
>general election came in all the liberal ----ups that voted for Nader
>realized they outsmarted themselves and realized they had just set the
>entire Democratic party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them
>seriously now. >
>
>Well, no, but I see your point. No one is taking them seriously because
>they've done the typical political knee-jerk of turning to their radicals
>for "leadership", appointing whiners like Daschle & Pelosi as leaders and
>cranking on their old "tax & spend, cut & run" themes. Anyone with memory
>remembers the mess they got us into when the liberals controlled the govt.,
>and anyone with a paycheck knows it's not the rich that get screwed on
>taxes, it's the poor slobs who actually try to hold & job & raise a family
>that get to pay for every idiotic leftist patronage-centered program.
>
>

 

In article <bo8c6302h0i@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>> No, that's not why...
>
>> > Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got
>creamed because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent
>him to Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green
>vote which he'd not convinced. > >
>
>> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
>stupid. <
>
>Well, a lot of them voted for Perot, which is why Clinton won in '92.
>Clinton never received as many votes as Gore or Bush did in '00 for that
>matter. That simple fact weas forgotten by the delusional leftists.

Clinton received more votes than any of his opponents. Bush did not. That's
the fact, dumbass.

>
>> A vote in the general election for Nader was a vote for George Bush. What
>happened was all the liberals out there talked themselves into believing
>that "it's only I that is voting for Nader, everyone else is voting for Gore
>so I'm free to vote my conscience without helping Bush" Then when the
>results of the
>general election came in all the liberal ----ups that voted for Nader
>realized they outsmarted themselves and realized they had just set the
>entire Democratic party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them
>seriously now. >
>
>Well, no, but I see your point. No one is taking them seriously because
>they've done the typical political knee-jerk of turning to their radicals
>for "leadership", appointing whiners like Daschle & Pelosi as leaders and
>cranking on their old "tax & spend, cut & run" themes. Anyone with memory
>remembers the mess they got us into when the liberals controlled the govt.,
>and anyone with a paycheck knows it's not the rich that get screwed on
>taxes, it's the poor slobs who actually try to hold & job & raise a family
>that get to pay for every idiotic leftist patronage-centered program.
>
>

 

In article <bo8c6302h0i@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>> No, that's not why...
>
>> > Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got
>creamed because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent
>him to Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green
>vote which he'd not convinced. > >
>
>> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
>stupid. <
>
>Well, a lot of them voted for Perot, which is why Clinton won in '92.
>Clinton never received as many votes as Gore or Bush did in '00 for that
>matter. That simple fact weas forgotten by the delusional leftists.

Clinton received more votes than any of his opponents. Bush did not. That's
the fact, dumbass.

>
>> A vote in the general election for Nader was a vote for George Bush. What
>happened was all the liberals out there talked themselves into believing
>that "it's only I that is voting for Nader, everyone else is voting for Gore
>so I'm free to vote my conscience without helping Bush" Then when the
>results of the
>general election came in all the liberal ----ups that voted for Nader
>realized they outsmarted themselves and realized they had just set the
>entire Democratic party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them
>seriously now. >
>
>Well, no, but I see your point. No one is taking them seriously because
>they've done the typical political knee-jerk of turning to their radicals
>for "leadership", appointing whiners like Daschle & Pelosi as leaders and
>cranking on their old "tax & spend, cut & run" themes. Anyone with memory
>remembers the mess they got us into when the liberals controlled the govt.,
>and anyone with a paycheck knows it's not the rich that get screwed on
>taxes, it's the poor slobs who actually try to hold & job & raise a family
>that get to pay for every idiotic leftist patronage-centered program.
>
>

 

In article <3FA7C895.22B3547F@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>>
>> ...People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
>> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
>> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
>> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
>> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
>> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
>> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
>> to protect it.
>
>Oh - you mean like in California where they are protecting the
>environment by not allowing the forests to be maintained properly

Nature maintains forests very nicely, as she has done for a very long time.


>- like
>you said - "The onus of proof should be born by the ones who may be
>destroying the environment not by the ones who try to protect it".
>Meanwhile, 20 people die, lives are destroyed, and 2000 houses are lost
>(not to mention the damage to the environment). Thank you to those who
>are "protecting our environment" but who curiously seem to be doing the
>most damage.
>
>How about first proving that you aren't going to throw everything out of
>balance and create an even worse nightmare by your efforts to tweak
>things that you have no way of understanding to adequate depth the full
>ramifications.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

In article <3FA7C895.22B3547F@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>>
>> ...People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
>> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
>> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
>> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
>> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
>> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
>> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
>> to protect it.
>
>Oh - you mean like in California where they are protecting the
>environment by not allowing the forests to be maintained properly

Nature maintains forests very nicely, as she has done for a very long time.


>- like
>you said - "The onus of proof should be born by the ones who may be
>destroying the environment not by the ones who try to protect it".
>Meanwhile, 20 people die, lives are destroyed, and 2000 houses are lost
>(not to mention the damage to the environment). Thank you to those who
>are "protecting our environment" but who curiously seem to be doing the
>most damage.
>
>How about first proving that you aren't going to throw everything out of
>balance and create an even worse nightmare by your efforts to tweak
>things that you have no way of understanding to adequate depth the full
>ramifications.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

In article <3FA7C895.22B3547F@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>>
>> ...People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
>> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
>> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
>> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
>> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
>> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
>> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
>> to protect it.
>
>Oh - you mean like in California where they are protecting the
>environment by not allowing the forests to be maintained properly

Nature maintains forests very nicely, as she has done for a very long time.


>- like
>you said - "The onus of proof should be born by the ones who may be
>destroying the environment not by the ones who try to protect it".
>Meanwhile, 20 people die, lives are destroyed, and 2000 houses are lost
>(not to mention the damage to the environment). Thank you to those who
>are "protecting our environment" but who curiously seem to be doing the
>most damage.
>
>How about first proving that you aren't going to throw everything out of
>balance and create an even worse nightmare by your efforts to tweak
>things that you have no way of understanding to adequate depth the full
>ramifications.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

> Then when someone comes along and points out some other facts that are in
conflict with his conclusion, he ignores this and just goes back to his
first set of facts.

> Basically he gerrymanders the argument to prove his point. I really don't
believe that he knows how to argue against any point that conflicts with his
world view, I have never once seen him do so. <

He'll therefore make an excellent leftist politician!
>
> Ted
>
>

 

> Then when someone comes along and points out some other facts that are in
conflict with his conclusion, he ignores this and just goes back to his
first set of facts.

> Basically he gerrymanders the argument to prove his point. I really don't
believe that he knows how to argue against any point that conflicts with his
world view, I have never once seen him do so. <

He'll therefore make an excellent leftist politician!
>
> Ted
>
>

 

> Then when someone comes along and points out some other facts that are in
conflict with his conclusion, he ignores this and just goes back to his
first set of facts.

> Basically he gerrymanders the argument to prove his point. I really don't
believe that he knows how to argue against any point that conflicts with his
world view, I have never once seen him do so. <

He'll therefore make an excellent leftist politician!
>
> Ted
>
>