"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$4eotnh$1a$1@news.ipinc.net...

> Basically what it boils down to is that everyone wants everyone else to
think the same way that they do...... So, if your goal is real peace, and
real goodwill among most people, just get everyone to think, act, talk, walk
and dress alike, and use the same products, drive the same models of cars,
work the same jobs, etc. etc. Nirviana. <

Now you understand the goals of Socialists, the far right and Osama as
well!
>
> Ted
>
>

 

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$4eotnh$1a$1@news.ipinc.net...

> Basically what it boils down to is that everyone wants everyone else to
think the same way that they do...... So, if your goal is real peace, and
real goodwill among most people, just get everyone to think, act, talk, walk
and dress alike, and use the same products, drive the same models of cars,
work the same jobs, etc. etc. Nirviana. <

Now you understand the goals of Socialists, the far right and Osama as
well!
>
> Ted
>
>

 

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$4eotnh$1a$1@news.ipinc.net...

> Basically what it boils down to is that everyone wants everyone else to
think the same way that they do...... So, if your goal is real peace, and
real goodwill among most people, just get everyone to think, act, talk, walk
and dress alike, and use the same products, drive the same models of cars,
work the same jobs, etc. etc. Nirviana. <

Now you understand the goals of Socialists, the far right and Osama as
well!
>
> Ted
>
>

 

> 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.

> 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.

 

> 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.

> 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.

 

> 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.

> 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 <3FA7E78C.86AAC220@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>That's fine in an uninhabited environment. But if you're building
>housing developments in a freakin' desert, you'd better do some human
>intervention on nature's natural tendencies so as not to lose lives and
>houses. Fact is the enviro-regulations would not let them even clear
>out the pine trees that died from an infestation of beatles - and that
>contributed greatly to these latest fires. Nor would they allow
>clearing of trees from around at-risk houses. Use some common sense!
>

So don't build houses near forests that are supposed to be preserved.

>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 <3FA7E78C.86AAC220@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>That's fine in an uninhabited environment. But if you're building
>housing developments in a freakin' desert, you'd better do some human
>intervention on nature's natural tendencies so as not to lose lives and
>houses. Fact is the enviro-regulations would not let them even clear
>out the pine trees that died from an infestation of beatles - and that
>contributed greatly to these latest fires. Nor would they allow
>clearing of trees from around at-risk houses. Use some common sense!
>

So don't build houses near forests that are supposed to be preserved.

>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 <3FA7E78C.86AAC220@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>That's fine in an uninhabited environment. But if you're building
>housing developments in a freakin' desert, you'd better do some human
>intervention on nature's natural tendencies so as not to lose lives and
>houses. Fact is the enviro-regulations would not let them even clear
>out the pine trees that died from an infestation of beatles - and that
>contributed greatly to these latest fires. Nor would they allow
>clearing of trees from around at-risk houses. Use some common sense!
>

So don't build houses near forests that are supposed to be preserved.

>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 <duSpb.77564$275.206280@attbi_s53>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bo8jlm$3lv$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
>
>>>I am sure parker will just call it a 'right-wing' publication
>>>or something to dismiss it all.
>
>> Why not read something a real scientific group says? IPCC, or EPA, or
>> National Academy of Sciences? Afraid?
>
>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.

Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind real
scientists publish in.