Re: OT: Moron Global warning (sic sic)
- From: neil0502@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 09:13:32 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 3, 12:39 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@xxxxxx> wrote:
Even the NY Times?!?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/science/01tier.html?_r=1&ex=1356930...
Thanks for the topic! LOL
(PS: If you don't want to register for the Decaying Lady, try this:http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/01/01/nyt-takes-a...)
Would it be more palatable for you if we were simply to reduce our
emission of greenhouse gasses, and our use of fossil fuels, because
of:
- the devastating impact that they have on health and worker
productivity, and
- the geopolitical implications of our reliance on a commodity that is
largely controlled by people that our leaders would like us to hate,
and
- the apparent need of our government to kill thousands of ours
and ... anywhere between 70,000 and a MILLION of their CIVILIANS in
order to ensure its uninterrupted supply AND the control over its
pricing by OUR mafia-esque cartel, rather than THEIRS?
Let's just say, for argument's sake, that we are NOT contributing to
global warming.
There are still ENORMOUSLY powerful reasons to reduce the reliance on
fossil fuels.
Concede that, Jobst, for the sake of argument, and you effectively
neutralize the arguments from the conservatives.
This is yet another issue on which the Democrats are selling it all
wrong.....
.
- References:
- Out leader on "Global warning"
- From: jobst . brandt
- Re: OT: "Our leader" on Global warning
- From: twirling.head@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: OT: Moron Global warning (sic sic)
- From: Bill Sornson
- Out leader on "Global warning"
- Prev by Date: Re: ot bike tail light--help needed electronics
- Next by Date: Re: Proposed New Edition of MUTCD Published For Review
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: Moron Global warning (sic sic)
- Next by thread: Re: OT: A man walks into a bar...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading