| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
16 Sep 2007 03:32:45 PM |
| Object: |
2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=42
The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died
September 3, 2007
By Alan Caruba
When did the global warming hoax die? Historians are likely to
pinpoint 2007. It will take another decade to insure it cannot be
revived, but the avalanche of scientific studies and the cumulative
impact of scientists who have publicly joined those who debunked the
lies on which it has been based will be noted as the tipping point.
It took some forty years to unmask the Piltdown Man hoax that began in
1912 alleging that the skull of an ancient ancestor of man had been
found in England. Any number of British anthropologists unwittingly
contributed to the hoax by confirming the authenticity of the skull
until it was found that the jaw of an orangutan had been cunningly
attached. The unmasking of "global warming" has taken well under than
half that time.
The hoax has mainly been a creation of the United Nations
Environmental Program and took off in earnest with the 1992 Earth
Summit. It culminated in 1997 with the Kyoto Climate Control Protocol,
an agreement to reduce the generation of carbon dioxide, a
"greenhouse" gas (CO2) said to be the cause of an accelerated warming
of the earth. By 2005, 140 nations had ratified the pact, agreeing to
reduce CO2 emissions. Notably exempt from the pact were nations such
as China and India. Few, if any, nations have ever met the limits that
require reductions in CO2 production, primarily the result of the use
of so-called "fossil fuels" such as oil, natural gas, and coal.
The United States refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and, at one
point, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution rejecting it.
This has not kept the U.S. from spending billions on so-called
"climate research" intended to address climate change with the aim of
reducing or capturing CO2 emissions. Had that money been devoted to
maintenance of the nation's infrastructure, tragic events such as the
collapse of the Minnesota bridge over the Mississippi might have been
averted.
In August, it was revealed that NASA scientists had corrected an error
that resulted in 1934 replacing 1998 as the warmest year on record in
the U.S. Repeatedly the data put forth to justify the global warming
hoax has been debunked.
As Dr. David Wojick recently noted, "The real significance is that
such a small correction can make such a big difference. The reason is
that the much touted warming of the last three decades is merely a
return to earlier warm times, after an equally long period of cooling...
There is no way this pattern constitutes a warming trend...In short,
there is no evidence for human-induced global warming in the U.S.
temperature record."
"Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust," declared
astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing a new study that has been
accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research
authored by a Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. A
former Harvard physicist, Dr. Lubos Motl, said the new study has
reduced global warming fear-mongers to "playing the children's game to
scare each other."
The new research concludes that the Earth's climate is only about one-
third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as a series of reports by the
UN's International Panel on Climate Change has asserted for years. The
IPCC reports have been increasingly dismissed as deliberate
distortions of data that amount to little more than propaganda to
advance the "global warming" hoax.
Having testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment &
Public Works, paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter noted in a June 18,
2007 essay that global warming has stopped. There has been little, if
any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2
has increased by 17 percent. Thus, the connection between CO2 and
"global warming", the key to the claims that it is occurring and will
increase has been proven wrong.
Prior to and during 2007, one research study after another revealed
that the central premise of "global warming" lacks any scientific
merit. One by Dr. Tim Patterson concluded that, "The earth temperature
does respond to the solar cycle as confirmed by numerous studies." The
solar cycle is known to be about eleven years in length and reflects
increased or decreased sunspot (magnetic storms) activity. It is the
Sun that largely determines the Earth's temperature, which is never
the same throughout the planet, given seasonal and solar changes.
In 2007, meteorologist Anthony Watts who led a team of researchers
revealed that, "The U.S. National Climate Data Center is in the middle
of a scandal. Their global observing network, the heart and soul of
surface weather measurement, is a disaster." It had been discovered
that many of the measuring stations were placed in locations such as
on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels, beside heat exhaust
vents, and even attached to hot chimneys and above outdoor grills!
In May 2007, Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department
of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin dismissed fears of
increased man-made CO2 in the atmosphere. He called the "global
warming" argument "absurd." As to any increase in the Earth's
temperature, he said, "Of course it's going up. It has gone up since
the early 1800s, before the industrial Revolution, because we're
coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting carbon
dioxide in the air."
On August 15, 2007, meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, the first Director of
Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American
Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and
Forecasting, said, "If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our
annual anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contribution today would be
equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor."
When Newsweek magazine recently devoted a cover story calling the
growing international body of scientists debunking global warming
"deniers", it was forced to debunk itself when one of its own editors
called the article "highly contrived" and "fundamentally misleading."
Thus, it will be people like former Vice President Al Gore or actor
Leonardo DiCaprio, whose reputations are now heavily invested in the
"global warming" hoax, who will continue to fight a rear-guard action.
The mainstream media is likely to be supportive until it too is forced
to admit the truth of the science regarding the Earth's climate.
There will be dying gasps to this hoax, not the least of which is a
planned $100 million media blitz by Al Gore's Alliance for Climate
Protection, but the public is already far more concerned about
instability in the Middle East, the forthcoming national elections,
and shocks to the U.S. economy to accord such an effort much
credibility.
Hoaxes have a life of their own and "global warming" is now coming to
an end. Mark 2007 as the year it began to seriously bleed to death.
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Ward" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
19 Sep 2007 09:03:59 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:51:44 -0400, Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:16:35 -0700, Bill Ward
<bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:39:13 -0400, Geoff wrote:
Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:14:01 -0400, Geoff wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:11 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:23:29 -0700, mrbawana2u
<mrbawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have any solutions besides oppressive government
Everyone do what's necessary without government force. Of course
that won't work, but it's the kind of solution you want.
You seem to imply that the threat of violence is needed to deal
with global warming.
Violence? Al doesn't live in Bolivia. Government force does not imply
violence.
Could you explain a little more about force without violence? What if
the entity being forced gets violent?
Or were you being facetious?
Do corporations get violent when they break the law? We're talking
about governmental regulation here, not a traffic stop.
Is that your answer? Ever hear of Waco or Ruby Ridge? Those were just
governmental regulation enforcement, not a traffic stop.
You mean the government trying to enforce a ban on lethal weapons - which
were used on the government agents trying to enforce the law. Deadly force
is justified (and legal) when faced with deadly force.
If some company wants to fire on federal agents trying to enforce
pollution laws, the government is going to fire back.
Wasn't that violence? I was looking for an explanation of the "force
without violence" concept. It sounds like a strange new use of the words.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Talk-n-Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
19 Sep 2007 01:07:38 PM |
|
|
Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:14:01 -0400, Geoff wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:11 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:23:29 -0700, mrbawana2u <mrbawan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Do you have any solutions besides oppressive government
Everyone do what's necessary without government force. Of course that
won't work, but it's the kind of solution you want.
You seem to imply that the threat of violence is needed to deal
with global warming.
Violence? Al doesn't live in Bolivia. Government force does not imply
violence.
Could you explain a little more about force without violence? What if the
entity being forced gets violent?
Or were you being facetious?
every action has an opposite reaction, forcing implies resistance.
--
http://OutSourcedNews.com
It's what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "columbiaaccidentinvestigation" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
19 Sep 2007 12:24:45 PM |
|
|
On Sep 19, 9:59 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:14:01 -0400, Geoff wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:11 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:23:29 -0700, mrbawana2u <mrbawan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Do you have any solutions besides oppressive government
Everyone do what's necessary without government force. Of course that
won't work, but it's the kind of solution you want.
You seem to imply that the threat of violence is needed to deal
with global warming.
Violence? Al doesn't live in Bolivia. Government force does not imply
violence.
Could you explain a little more about force without violence? What if the
entity being forced gets violent?
Or were you being facetious?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I prefer a stout defensive line, one that plugs the holes so the
running back cannot get through, which usually starts with a massive
non moveable nose tackle, no violence necessary just the force from a
run stopper...
.
|
|
|
| User: "mrbawana2u" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
19 Sep 2007 07:58:11 PM |
|
|
On Sep 19, 1:24 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 19, 9:59 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:14:01 -0400, Geoff wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:11 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:23:29 -0700, mrbawana2u <mrbawan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Do you have any solutions besides oppressive government
Everyone do what's necessary without government force. Of course that
won't work, but it's the kind of solution you want.
You seem to imply that the threat of violence is needed to deal
with global warming.
Violence? Al doesn't live in Bolivia. Government force does not imply
violence.
Could you explain a little more about force without violence? What if the
entity being forced gets violent?
Or were you being facetious?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I prefer a stout defensive line, one that plugs the holes so the
running back cannot get through, which usually starts with a massive
non moveable nose tackle, no violence necessary just the force from a
run stopper...
Great metaphor, ya fucking tard.
You don't know anything about football or government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "columbiaaccidentinvestigation" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
19 Sep 2007 08:09:34 PM |
|
|
On Sep 19, 5:58 pm, mrbawana2u <mrbawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 19, 1:24 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 19, 9:59 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:14:01 -0400, Geoff wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:11 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:23:29 -0700, mrbawana2u <mrbawan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Do you have any solutions besides oppressive government
Everyone do what's necessary without government force. Of course that
won't work, but it's the kind of solution you want.
You seem to imply that the threat of violence is needed to deal
with global warming.
Violence? Al doesn't live in Bolivia. Government force does not imply
violence.
Could you explain a little more about force without violence? What if the
entity being forced gets violent?
Or were you being facetious?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I prefer a stout defensive line, one that plugs the holes so the
running back cannot get through, which usually starts with a massive
non moveable nose tackle, no violence necessary just the force from a
run stopper...
Great metaphor, ya fucking tard.
You don't know anything about football or government.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
well i really like the senate (appropriations process), and find its
workings quite interesting for instance the cbo (congressional budget
office), as this is this congressional response to the presidents
budget, (white house, omb) so na, i may not know a lot, but enough to
appreciate the federal budgetary process. And as for football thats
another story for another thread, but if youd like id would have a
discussion about anything football you want...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
19 Sep 2007 02:22:06 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:59:53 -0700, Bill Ward
<bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:14:01 -0400, Geoff wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:11 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:23:29 -0700, mrbawana2u <mrbawan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Do you have any solutions besides oppressive government
Everyone do what's necessary without government force. Of course that
won't work, but it's the kind of solution you want.
You seem to imply that the threat of violence is needed to deal
with global warming.
Violence? Al doesn't live in Bolivia. Government force does not imply
violence.
Could you explain a little more about force without violence? What if the
entity being forced gets violent?
What if the person stopped for speeding shoots the cop?
I guess we'd better repeal all laws, just to make sure that no one
being forced to obey one gets violent.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Ward" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
19 Sep 2007 02:57:22 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:22:06 -0400, Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:59:53 -0700, Bill Ward
<bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:14:01 -0400, Geoff wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:11 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:23:29 -0700, mrbawana2u <mrbawan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Do you have any solutions besides oppressive government
Everyone do what's necessary without government force. Of course
that won't work, but it's the kind of solution you want.
You seem to imply that the threat of violence is needed to deal
with global warming.
Violence? Al doesn't live in Bolivia. Government force does not imply
violence.
Could you explain a little more about force without violence? What if
the entity being forced gets violent?
What if the person stopped for speeding shoots the cop?
I guess we'd better repeal all laws, just to make sure that no one being
forced to obey one gets violent.
Or recognize that "all power comes from the barrel of a gun". I believe
that was from the socialist Chairman Mao, who could be considered
accomplished in his field. Earlier, our (USA) Founding Fathers
acknowledged the same principle with the Second Amendment.
Do you really want _all_ the laws to be enforced? Be careful what you ask
for.
I would be in favor of repealing all laws that aren't regularly enforced,
and putting sunset clauses into many of the others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Talk-n-Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
19 Sep 2007 05:20:35 PM |
|
|
Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:22:06 -0400, Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:59:53 -0700, Bill Ward
<bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:14:01 -0400, Geoff wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:11 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:23:29 -0700, mrbawana2u <mrbawan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Do you have any solutions besides oppressive government
Everyone do what's necessary without government force. Of course
that won't work, but it's the kind of solution you want.
You seem to imply that the threat of violence is needed to deal
with global warming.
Violence? Al doesn't live in Bolivia. Government force does not imply
violence.
Could you explain a little more about force without violence? What if
the entity being forced gets violent?
What if the person stopped for speeding shoots the cop?
I guess we'd better repeal all laws, just to make sure that no one being
forced to obey one gets violent.
Or recognize that "all power comes from the barrel of a gun". I believe
that was from the socialist Chairman Mao, who could be considered
accomplished in his field. Earlier, our (USA) Founding Fathers
acknowledged the same principle with the Second Amendment.
Do you really want _all_ the laws to be enforced? Be careful what you ask
for.
I would be in favor of repealing all laws that aren't regularly enforced,
and putting sunset clauses into many of the others.
I've been suggesting a sunset law as an amendment to the constitution,
every law should have a five year life. Then if there isn't enough
support to enact it again, kiss it goodbye.
--
http://OutSourcedNews.com
It's what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
20 Sep 2007 10:08:58 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:20:35 -0400, Talk-n-Dog
<WatchDog@talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
I've been suggesting a sunset law as an amendment to the constitution,
every law should have a five year life. Then if there isn't enough
support to enact it again, kiss it goodbye.
Do you understand the amount of legislation that would have to be
enacted every year, once all laws had a 5 year life? It would take
more than 5 years to pass all the laws that expired in any one year.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Talk-n-Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
20 Sep 2007 10:39:17 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:20:35 -0400, Talk-n-Dog
<WatchDog@talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
I've been suggesting a sunset law as an amendment to the constitution,
every law should have a five year life. Then if there isn't enough
support to enact it again, kiss it goodbye.
Do you understand the amount of legislation that would have to be
enacted every year, once all laws had a 5 year life? It would take
more than 5 years to pass all the laws that expired in any one year.
Yes that's my point, they wouldn't keep a zillion little useless laws on
the books, no time to pass them all. Finally a limit to government,
they'd have to prioritize their list wouldn't they.
Jefferson and a few others thought government needed limits.
Add in that it's a roll call vote and we might be free once again.
--
http://OutSourcedNews.com
It's what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
20 Sep 2007 01:57:32 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:39:17 -0400, Talk-n-Dog
<WatchDog@talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:20:35 -0400, Talk-n-Dog
<WatchDog@talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
I've been suggesting a sunset law as an amendment to the constitution,
every law should have a five year life. Then if there isn't enough
support to enact it again, kiss it goodbye.
Do you understand the amount of legislation that would have to be
enacted every year, once all laws had a 5 year life? It would take
more than 5 years to pass all the laws that expired in any one year.
Yes that's my point, they wouldn't keep a zillion little useless laws on
the books, no time to pass them all. Finally a limit to government,
they'd have to prioritize their list wouldn't they.
Au contraire (study some real governments), they'd first pass all the
little useless (but profitable to them) laws, and break for a recess
with all the important laws in limbo. (Check on which laws HADN'T
been passed at every Congressional break over the last 50 years or
so.)
Jefferson and a few others thought government needed limits.
Add in that it's a roll call vote and we might be free once again.
Or we might be lawless.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
20 Sep 2007 04:14:35 PM |
|
|
On Sep 19, 3:57 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:22:06 -0400, Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:59:53 -0700, Bill Ward
<bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:14:01 -0400, Geoff wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:11 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:23:29 -0700, mrbawana2u <mrbawan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Do you have any solutions besides oppressive government
Everyone do what's necessary without government force. Of course
that won't work, but it's the kind of solution you want.
You seem to imply that the threat of violence is needed to deal
with global warming.
Violence? Al doesn't live in Bolivia. Government force does not imply
violence.
Could you explain a little more about force without violence? What if
the entity being forced gets violent?
What if the person stopped for speeding shoots the cop?
I guess we'd better repeal all laws, just to make sure that no one being
forced to obey one gets violent.
Or recognize that "all power comes from the barrel of a gun". I believe
that was from the socialist Chairman Mao, who could be considered
accomplished in his field. Earlier, our (USA) Founding Fathers
acknowledged the same principle with the Second Amendment.
For members of the "well-regulated militia."
Do you really want _all_ the laws to be enforced? Be careful what you ask
for.
I would be in favor of repealing all laws that aren't regularly enforced,
and putting sunset clauses into many of the others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
21 Sep 2007 12:29:15 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:14:35 -0700, Lloyd <lparker@emory.edu> wrote:
Or recognize that "all power comes from the barrel of a gun". I believe
that was from the socialist Chairman Mao, who could be considered
accomplished in his field. Earlier, our (USA) Founding Fathers
acknowledged the same principle with the Second Amendment.
For members of the "well-regulated militia."
Nice try. Consistent with current gun-grabber dogma, even. However
the fact that "the right of THE PEOPLE to bear arms" is included in
this Amendment belies your interpretation. Had the Constitution
simply meant for militias to be armed the Framers would have written,
"The States may form and maintain militias for self-defense, who may
be armed when called upon for this duty."
or similar words. Instead the 2nd Amendment specifically says THE
PEOPLE shall have the right to keep and bear arms. If you're going to
argue that "the people" consist only of well-regulated militias, then
the First Amendment must be interpreted to mean that only groups
registered and regulated by the States have the right to assembly, and
"the press" consists only of those news-reporting organizations
recognized by the States as legitimate. Don't argue with me, argue
with every Federal Court that's heard the "collective vs. individual
right" argument.
--
John Conyers' comments about Bill Clinton pardoning convicted
terrorists:
"Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to what is clearly a
politically motivated and totally senseless resolution. We are a
Nation of laws, and if any matter is abundantly clear by our
Constitution, it is that the President has the sole and unitary power
to grant clemency. Is there any Member that does not understand that?
Every President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency. Now
the reason that he has the power to grant clemency is that it is that
the President is uniquely positioned to consider the law and the facts
that apply in each request for clemency."
[EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT
HAVE GRANTED CLEMENCY TO TERRORISTS] (House of Representatives -
September 09, 1999). Passed 311-41; 72 voted "present", Conyers voted
NAY)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
21 Sep 2007 10:17:20 AM |
|
|
On Sep 21, 1:29 am, wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:14:35 -0700, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
Or recognize that "all power comes from the barrel of a gun". I believe
that was from the socialist Chairman Mao, who could be considered
accomplished in his field. Earlier, our (USA) Founding Fathers
acknowledged the same principle with the Second Amendment.
For members of the "well-regulated militia."
Nice try. Consistent with current gun-grabber dogma, even. However
the fact that "the right of THE PEOPLE to bear arms" is included in
this Amendment belies your interpretation. Had the Constitution
simply meant for militias to be armed the Framers would have written,
"The obvious purpose of the second amendment was to assure the
continuation and render possible the effectiveness of state militia
forces." -- Supreme Court, US v Miller
"The purpose of the second amendment is to restrain the federal
government from regulating the possession of arms where such
regulation would interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the
militia." -- 8th circuit court, US v Hale
"The States may form and maintain militias for self-defense, who may
be armed when called upon for this duty."
or similar words. Instead the 2nd Amendment specifically says THE
PEOPLE shall have the right to keep and bear arms. If you're going to
argue that "the people" consist only of well-regulated militias, then
the First Amendment must be interpreted to mean that only groups
registered and regulated by the States have the right to assembly, and
"the press" consists only of those news-reporting organizations
recognized by the States as legitimate. Don't argue with me, argue
with every Federal Court that's heard the "collective vs. individual
right" argument.
--
John Conyers' comments about Bill Clinton pardoning convicted
terrorists:
"Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to what is clearly a
politically motivated and totally senseless resolution. We are a
Nation of laws, and if any matter is abundantly clear by our
Constitution, it is that the President has the sole and unitary power
to grant clemency. Is there any Member that does not understand that?
Every President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency. Now
the reason that he has the power to grant clemency is that it is that
the President is uniquely positioned to consider the law and the facts
that apply in each request for clemency."
[EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT
HAVE GRANTED CLEMENCY TO TERRORISTS] (House of Representatives -
September 09, 1999). Passed 311-41; 72 voted "present", Conyers voted
NAY)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Ward" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
21 Sep 2007 01:28:41 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:29:15 -0700, orionca wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:14:35 -0700, Lloyd <lparker@emory.edu> wrote:
Or recognize that "all power comes from the barrel of a gun". I
believe that was from the socialist Chairman Mao, who could be
considered accomplished in his field. Earlier, our (USA) Founding
Fathers acknowledged the same principle with the Second Amendment.
For members of the "well-regulated militia."
Nice try. Consistent with current gun-grabber dogma, even. However the
fact that "the right of THE PEOPLE to bear arms" is included in this
Amendment belies your interpretation.
Another point often missed is that the 2nd amendment doesn't even presume
to "give" the right for the people to bear arms, it assumes the right is
already there, and prevents infringement of it. The Constitution wasn't
intended to give people rights, it was intended to enumerate the powers
the people would allow to the government, as you explain below.
Had the Constitution simply meant
for militias to be armed the Framers would have written,
"The States may form and maintain militias for self-defense, who may be
armed when called upon for this duty."
or similar words. Instead the 2nd Amendment specifically says THE PEOPLE
shall have the right to keep and bear arms. If you're going to argue that
"the people" consist only of well-regulated militias, then the First
Amendment must be interpreted to mean that only groups registered and
regulated by the States have the right to assembly, and "the press"
consists only of those news-reporting organizations recognized by the
States as legitimate. Don't argue with me, argue with every Federal Court
that's heard the "collective vs. individual right" argument.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
21 Sep 2007 10:13:56 AM |
|
|
On Sep 21, 2:28 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:29:15 -0700, orionca wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:14:35 -0700, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
Or recognize that "all power comes from the barrel of a gun". I
believe that was from the socialist Chairman Mao, who could be
considered accomplished in his field. Earlier, our (USA) Founding
Fathers acknowledged the same principle with the Second Amendment.
For members of the "well-regulated militia."
Nice try. Consistent with current gun-grabber dogma, even. However the
fact that "the right of THE PEOPLE to bear arms" is included in this
Amendment belies your interpretation.
You ignore the first clause.
Another point often missed is that the 2nd amendment doesn't even presume
to "give" the right for the people to bear arms, it assumes the right is
already there, and prevents infringement of it. The Constitution wasn't
intended to give people rights, it was intended to enumerate the powers
the people would allow to the government, as you explain below.
Oh BS. If so, they wouldn't have enumerated any rights.
Had the Constitution simply meant
for militias to be armed the Framers would have written,
"The States may form and maintain militias for self-defense, who may be
armed when called upon for this duty."
or similar words. Instead the 2nd Amendment specifically says THE PEOPLE
shall have the right to keep and bear arms. If you're going to argue that
"the people" consist only of well-regulated militias, then the First
Amendment must be interpreted to mean that only groups registered and
regulated by the States have the right to assembly, and "the press"
consists only of those news-reporting organizations recognized by the
States as legitimate. Don't argue with me, argue with every Federal Court
that's heard the "collective vs. individual right" argument.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Ward" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
21 Sep 2007 12:56:58 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:13:56 -0700, Lloyd wrote:
On Sep 21, 2:28 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:29:15 -0700, orionca wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:14:35 -0700, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
Or recognize that "all power comes from the barrel of a gun". I
believe that was from the socialist Chairman Mao, who could be
considered accomplished in his field. Earlier, our (USA) Founding
Fathers acknowledged the same principle with the Second Amendment.
For members of the "well-regulated militia."
Nice try. Consistent with current gun-grabber dogma, even. However
the fact that "the right of THE PEOPLE to bear arms" is included in
this Amendment belies your interpretation.
You ignore the first clause.
Another point often missed is that the 2nd amendment doesn't even
presume to "give" the right for the people to bear arms, it assumes the
right is already there, and prevents infringement of it. The
Constitution wasn't intended to give people rights, it was intended to
enumerate the powers the people would allow to the government, as you
explain below.
Oh BS. If so, they wouldn't have enumerated any rights.
That would be another constitution.
Read the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. The use of the
phrase,"Congress shall make no law...", along with the the Declaration of
Independence, "We hold these truths to be self -evident...", should make
it clear civil rights are considered inherent, and the federal
government's powers are limited (or were intended to be) to those
enumerated. The 10th amendment specifically reserves any other powers to
the people, or to the States.
Had the Constitution simply meant
for militias to be armed the Framers would have written,
"The States may form and maintain militias for self-defense, who may
be armed when called upon for this duty."
or similar words. Instead the 2nd Amendment specifically says THE
PEOPLE shall have the right to keep and bear arms. If you're going
to argue that "the people" consist only of well-regulated militias,
then the First Amendment must be interpreted to mean that only groups
registered and regulated by the States have the right to assembly,
and "the press" consists only of those news-reporting organizations
recognized by the States as legitimate. Don't argue with me, argue
with every Federal Court that's heard the "collective vs. individual
right" argument. --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
22 Sep 2007 03:06:31 PM |
|
|
On Sep 21, 1:56 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:13:56 -0700, Lloyd wrote:
On Sep 21, 2:28 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:29:15 -0700, orionca wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:14:35 -0700, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
Or recognize that "all power comes from the barrel of a gun". I
believe that was from the socialist Chairman Mao, who could be
considered accomplished in his field. Earlier, our (USA) Founding
Fathers acknowledged the same principle with the Second Amendment.
For members of the "well-regulated militia."
Nice try. Consistent with current gun-grabber dogma, even. However
the fact that "the right of THE PEOPLE to bear arms" is included in
this Amendment belies your interpretation.
You ignore the first clause.
Another point often missed is that the 2nd amendment doesn't even
presume to "give" the right for the people to bear arms, it assumes the
right is already there, and prevents infringement of it. The
Constitution wasn't intended to give people rights, it was intended to
enumerate the powers the people would allow to the government, as you
explain below.
Oh BS. If so, they wouldn't have enumerated any rights.
That would be another constitution.
Read the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. The use of the
phrase,"Congress shall make no law...", along with the the Declaration of
Independence, "We hold these truths to be self -evident...", should make
it clear civil rights are considered inherent, and the federal
government's powers are limited (or were intended to be) to those
enumerated. The 10th amendment specifically reserves any other powers to
the people, or to the States.
Had the Constitution simply meant
for militias to be armed the Framers would have written,
"The States may form and maintain militias for self-defense, who may
be armed when called upon for this duty."
or similar words. Instead the 2nd Amendment specifically says THE
PEOPLE shall have the right to keep and bear arms. If you're going
to argue that "the people" consist only of well-regulated militias,
then the First Amendment must be interpreted to mean that only groups
registered and regulated by the States have the right to assembly,
and "the press" consists only of those news-reporting organizations
recognized by the States as legitimate. Don't argue with me, argue
with every Federal Court that's heard the "collective vs. individual
right" argument. --
So why does it enumerate rights if all rights are inherent anyway?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Ward" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
22 Sep 2007 04:42:08 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:06:31 -0700, Lloyd wrote:
On Sep 21, 1:56 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:13:56 -0700, Lloyd wrote:
On Sep 21, 2:28 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:29:15 -0700, orionca wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:14:35 -0700, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu>
wrote:
Or recognize that "all power comes from the barrel of a gun". I
believe that was from the socialist Chairman Mao, who could be
considered accomplished in his field. Earlier, our (USA)
Founding Fathers acknowledged the same principle with the Second
Amendment.
For members of the "well-regulated militia."
Nice try. Consistent with current gun-grabber dogma, even.
However the fact that "the right of THE PEOPLE to bear arms" is
included in this Amendment belies your interpretation.
You ignore the first clause.
Another point often missed is that the 2nd amendment doesn't even
presume to "give" the right for the people to bear arms, it assumes
the right is already there, and prevents infringement of it. The
Constitution wasn't intended to give people rights, it was intended
to enumerate the powers the people would allow to the government, as
you explain below.
Oh BS. If so, they wouldn't have enumerated any rights.
That would be another constitution.
Read the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. The use of the
phrase,"Congress shall make no law...", along with the the Declaration
of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self -evident...", should
make it clear civil rights are considered inherent, and the federal
government's powers are limited (or were intended to be) to those
enumerated. The 10th amendment specifically reserves any other powers
to the people, or to the States.
Had the Constitution simply meant
for militias to be armed the Framers would have written,
"The States may form and maintain militias for self-defense, who
may be armed when called upon for this duty."
or similar words. Instead the 2nd Amendment specifically says THE
PEOPLE shall have the right to keep and bear arms. If you're going
to argue that "the people" consist only of well-regulated militias,
then the First Amendment must be interpreted to mean that only
groups registered and regulated by the States have the right to
assembly, and "the press" consists only of those news-reporting
organizations recognized by the States as legitimate. Don't argue
with me, argue with every Federal Court that's heard the
"collective vs. individual right" argument. --
So why does it enumerate rights if all rights are inherent anyway?
Pay attention, Lloyd. The US Constitution _acknowledges_ the inherent
rights of citizens (the People), and _limits_ the powers of _government_
to those enumerated. It recognizes human rights as pre-existing, not
something a government can bestow. It constrains government, not
citizens.
Read the Constitution. It's not that long, and you'd learn a lot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul E. Lehmann" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
22 Sep 2007 05:45:33 PM |
|
|
Bill Ward wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:06:31 -0700, Lloyd wrote:
On Sep 21, 1:56 pm, Bill Ward
<bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:13:56 -0700, Lloyd
wrote:
On Sep 21, 2:28 am, Bill Ward
<bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:29:15 -0700, orionca
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:14:35 -0700, Lloyd
<lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
Or recognize that "all power comes from
the barrel of a gun". I believe that
was from the socialist Chairman Mao,
who could be
considered accomplished in his field.
Earlier, our (USA) Founding Fathers
acknowledged the same principle with
the Second Amendment.
For members of the "well-regulated
militia."
Nice try. Consistent with current
gun-grabber dogma, even. However the fact
that "the right of THE PEOPLE to bear
arms" is included in this Amendment
belies your interpretation.
You ignore the first clause.
Another point often missed is that the 2nd
amendment doesn't even presume to "give"
the right for the people to bear arms, it
assumes
the right is already there, and prevents
infringement of it. The Constitution
wasn't intended to give people rights, it
was intended to enumerate the powers the
people would allow to the government, as
you explain below.
Oh BS. If so, they wouldn't have enumerated
any rights.
That would be another constitution.
Read the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The use of the phrase,"Congress shall make no
law...", along with the the Declaration of
Independence, "We hold these truths to be self
-evident...", should make it clear civil
rights are considered inherent, and the
federal government's powers are limited (or
were intended to be) to those
enumerated. The 10th amendment specifically
reserves any other powers to the people, or to
the States.
Had the Constitution simply meant
for militias to be armed the Framers
would have written,
"The States may form and maintain
militias for self-defense, who may be
armed when called upon for this duty."
or similar words. Instead the 2nd
Amendment specifically says THE
PEOPLE shall have the right to keep and
bear arms. If you're going to argue that
"the people" consist only of
well-regulated militias, then the First
Amendment must be interpreted to mean
that only groups registered and regulated
by the States have the right to assembly,
and "the press" consists only of those
news-reporting
organizations recognized by the States as
legitimate. Don't argue with me, argue
with every Federal Court that's heard the
"collective vs. individual right"
argument. --
So why does it enumerate rights if all rights
are inherent anyway?
Pay attention, Lloyd. The US Constitution
_acknowledges_ the inherent rights of citizens
(the People), and _limits_ the powers of
_government_ to those enumerated. It recognizes
human rights as pre-existing, not
something a government can bestow. It
constrains government, not citizens.
Read the Constitution. It's not that long, and
you'd learn a lot.
I think this thread belongs in another usenet
group. Perhaps trimming the Group headers would
help.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Ward" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
22 Sep 2007 08:48:38 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:45:33 -0400, Paul E. Lehmann wrote:
Bill Ward wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:06:31 -0700, Lloyd wrote:
On Sep 21, 1:56 pm, Bill Ward
<bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:13:56 -0700, Lloyd wrote:
On Sep 21, 2:28 am, Bill Ward
<bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:29:15 -0700, orionca wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:14:35 -0700, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu>
wrote:
Or recognize that "all power comes from the barrel of a gun".
I believe that was from the socialist Chairman Mao,
who could be
considered accomplished in his field. Earlier, our (USA)
Founding Fathers
acknowledged the same principle with
the Second Amendment.
For members of the "well-regulated
militia."
Nice try. Consistent with current
gun-grabber dogma, even. However the fact that "the right of THE
PEOPLE to bear arms" is included in this Amendment
belies your interpretation.
You ignore the first clause.
Another point often missed is that the 2nd amendment doesn't even
presume to "give" the right for the people to bear arms, it assumes
the right is already there, and prevents infringement of it. The
Constitution wasn't intended to give people rights, it was intended
to enumerate the powers the people would allow to the government,
as you explain below.
Oh BS. If so, they wouldn't have enumerated any rights.
That would be another constitution.
Read the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. The use of the
phrase,"Congress shall make no law...", along with the the Declaration
of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self -evident...", should
make it clear civil rights are considered inherent, and the federal
government's powers are limited (or were intended to be) to those
enumerated. The 10th amendment specifically reserves any other powers
to the people, or to the States.
Had the Constitution simply meant
for militias to be armed the Framers
would have written,
"The States may form and maintain
militias for self-defense, who may be armed when called upon for
this duty."
or similar words. Instead the 2nd
Amendment specifically says THE
PEOPLE shall have the right to keep and bear arms. If you're
going to argue that "the people" consist only of
well-regulated militias, then the First Amendment must be
interpreted to mean that only groups registered and regulated by
the States have the right to assembly, and "the press" consists
only of those news-reporting
organizations recognized by the States as legitimate. Don't
argue with me, argue with every Federal Court that's heard the
"collective vs. individual right"
argument. --
So why does it enumerate rights if all rights are inherent anyway?
Pay attention, Lloyd. The US Constitution _acknowledges_ the inherent
rights of citizens (the People), and _limits_ the powers of _government_
to those enumerated. It recognizes human rights as pre-existing, not
something a government can bestow. It constrains government, not
citizens.
Read the Constitution. It's not that long, and you'd learn a lot.
I think this thread belongs in another usenet group. Perhaps trimming the
Group headers would help.
Right you are. I'm done.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
22 Sep 2007 03:12:40 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:06:31 -0700, in alt.atheism
Lloyd <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in
<1190491591.861548.272140@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
On Sep 21, 1:56 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:13:56 -0700, Lloyd wrote:
On Sep 21, 2:28 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:29:15 -0700, orionca wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:14:35 -0700, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
Or recognize that "all power comes from the barrel of a gun". I
believe that was from the socialist Chairman Mao, who could be
considered accomplished in his field. Earlier, our (USA) Founding
Fathers acknowledged the same principle with the Second Amendment.
For members of the "well-regulated militia."
Nice try. Consistent with current gun-grabber dogma, even. However
the fact that "the right of THE PEOPLE to bear arms" is included in
this Amendment belies your interpretation.
You ignore the first clause.
Another point often missed is that the 2nd amendment doesn't even
presume to "give" the right for the people to bear arms, it assumes the
right is already there, and prevents infringement of it. The
Constitution wasn't intended to give people rights, it was intended to
enumerate the powers the people would allow to the government, as you
explain below.
Oh BS. If so, they wouldn't have enumerated any rights.
That would be another constitution.
Read the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. The use of the
phrase,"Congress shall make no law...", along with the the Declaration of
Independence, "We hold these truths to be self -evident...", should make
it clear civil rights are considered inherent, and the federal
government's powers are limited (or were intended to be) to those
enumerated. The 10th amendment specifically reserves any other powers to
the people, or to the States.
Had the Constitution simply meant
for militias to be armed the Framers would have written,
"The States may form and maintain militias for self-defense, who may
be armed when called upon for this duty."
or similar words. Instead the 2nd Amendment specifically says THE
PEOPLE shall have the right to keep and bear arms. If you're going
to argue that "the people" consist only of well-regulated militias,
then the First Amendment must be interpreted to mean that only groups
registered and regulated by the States have the right to assembly,
and "the press" consists only of those news-reporting organizations
recognized by the States as legitimate. Don't argue with me, argue
with every Federal Court that's heard the "collective vs. individual
right" argument. --
So why does it enumerate rights if all rights are inherent anyway?
Because there was a large group of people who didn't trust the
government to keep their hands off of our rights. George W Bush has
proven, once again, how untrustworthy the government can be.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
19 Sep 2007 07:59:50 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:57:22 -0700, Bill Ward
<bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
Do you really want _all_ the laws to be enforced?
Of course. And I don't want unenforceable laws, or laws that
shouldn't be enforced, on the books. But all laws that ARE on the
books SHOULD be enforced. If they aren't it teaches contempt for the
law.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Ward" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
19 Sep 2007 09:07:32 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:59:50 -0400, Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:57:22 -0700, Bill Ward
<bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
Do you really want _all_ the laws to be enforced?
Of course. And I don't want unenforceable laws, or laws that shouldn't be
enforced, on the books. But all laws that ARE on the books SHOULD be
enforced. If they aren't it teaches contempt for the law.
Glad to see you agree with what you snipped.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ShortBus Driver" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
18 Sep 2007 06:20:40 PM |
|
|
Michael Ejercito wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:11 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:23:29 -0700, mrbawana2u <mrbawan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Do you have any solutions besides oppressive government
Everyone do what's necessary without government force. Of course that
won't work, but it's the kind of solution you want.
You seem to imply that the threat of violence is needed to deal
with global warming.
What got us this far? It will likely take more of that.
--
http://Talk-n-Dog.com
You must have me confused with someone who cares.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Ward" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
18 Sep 2007 06:41:37 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:20:40 -0400, ShortBus Driver wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:11 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:23:29 -0700, mrbawana2u <mrbawan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Do you have any solutions besides oppressive government
Everyone do what's necessary without government force. Of course that
won't work, but it's the kind of solution you want.
You seem to imply that the threat of violence is needed to deal
with global warming.
What got us this far? It will likely take more of that.
In order to threaten violence, you need to convince people there's an
emergency. AGW was it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
18 Sep 2007 08:30:54 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:40:46 -0700, Michael Ejercito
<mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:11 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:23:29 -0700, mrbawana2u <mrbawan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Do you have any solutions besides oppressive government
Everyone do what's necessary without government force. Of course that
won't work, but it's the kind of solution you want.
You seem to imply that the threat of violence is needed to deal
with global warming.
Is a speed limit a "threat of violence"? Is a stop sign a "threat of
violence"? Making laws isn't threatening violence.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "ShortBus Driver" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
18 Sep 2007 09:46:24 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:40:46 -0700, Michael Ejercito
<mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:11 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:23:29 -0700, mrbawana2u <mrbawan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Do you have any solutions besides oppressive government
Everyone do what's necessary without government force. Of course that
won't work, but it's the kind of solution you want.
You seem to imply that the threat of violence is needed to deal
with global warming.
Is a speed limit a "threat of violence"? Is a stop sign a "threat of
violence"? Making laws isn't threatening violence.
Tell that to the guy that got tasered in front of passivist John Carry.
--
http://Talk-n-Dog.com
You must have me confused with someone who cares.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
19 Sep 2007 07:52:44 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:46:24 -0400, ShortBus Driver
<Climb_Aboard@Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:40:46 -0700, Michael Ejercito
<mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:11 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:23:29 -0700, mrbawana2u <mrbawan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Do you have any solutions besides oppressive government
Everyone do what's necessary without government force. Of course that
won't work, but it's the kind of solution you want.
You seem to imply that the threat of violence is needed to deal
with global warming.
Is a speed limit a "threat of violence"? Is a stop sign a "threat of
violence"? Making laws isn't threatening violence.
Tell that to the guy that got tasered in front of passivist John Carry.
We were talking about the GOVERNMENT using violence. Using a taser to
control a violent protestor is the OTHER side of the coin.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
19 Sep 2007 09:12:33 AM |
|
|
On Sep 18, 6:30 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:40:46 -0700, Michael Ejercito
<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:11 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:23:29 -0700, mrbawana2u <mrbawan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Do you have any solutions besides oppressive government
Everyone do what's necessary without government force. Of course that
won't work, but it's the kind of solution you want.
You seem to imply that the threat of violence is needed to deal
with global warming.
Is a speed limit a "threat of violence"? Is a stop sign a "threat of
violence"? Making laws isn't threatening violence.
And what happens if people BREAK those laws?
Michael
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
