WWTBAM Bored

cause. Like man-made global warming.

They have their conclusion (codeword for 'agenda') and damn the facts. Damn the results. It not really about the cause, but about manipulating control over the people.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 969413.ece

A government report that found old-fashioned reusable nappies damage the environment more than disposables has been hushed up because ministers are embarrassed by its findings.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has instructed civil servants not to publicise the conclusions of the £50,000 nappy research project and to adopt a “defensive” stance towards its conclusions.

The report found that using washable nappies, hailed by councils throughout Britain as a key way of saving the planet, have a higher carbon footprint than their disposable equivalents unless parents adopt an extreme approach to laundering them.

To reduce the impact of cloth nappies on climate change parents would have to hang wet nappies out to dry all year round, keep them for years for use on younger children, and make sure the water in their washing machines does not exceed 60C.

Whatever.

It has been several years ago, but John Stosil (I don't know how he spells his last name) had a report on 20/20 that showed just what a scam the whole environmental movement was.

It has been several years ago, but John Stosil (I don't know how he spells his last name) had a report on 20/20 that showed just what a scam the whole environmental movement was.

"Scam" is what they used to say about smoking, DDT, lead in paint, mercury in fish, the necessity of seatbelts, Xrays during pregnancy ...

I think there is a tendency towards hysteria on BOTH ends of the political spectrum.

dimmzy wrote: I think there is a tendency towards hysteria on BOTH ends of the political spectrum.

Ya think?

John Stossel is a scam. He should go back to acting in bad 1970s porn and reviewing bad movies.

No, wait... I'm thinking of the similar-looking Michael Medved.

Never mind!

Us Bored historians can't hear of Stossel and not think of the Morlock invasion......

Where have you gone FordPrefect982.....?

lb13

Hello, Mini! wrote:

dimmzy wrote: I think there is a tendency towards hysteria on BOTH ends of the political spectrum.

Ya think?

And in the middle, there is a tendency towards apathy.....

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote:Us Bored historians can't hear of Stossel and not think of the Morlock invasion......

Where have you gone FordPrefect982.....?

lb13

Present and accounted for, sir!

Dear Mr. Back in Texas:

I didn't even have to read your post. The subject line alone confirmed what I have seen all along.

You, sir, are a jackass.

I would say the same thing about someone who used any single article to prove the proposition "Why you can't trust a conservative." Or who would make such a blanket statement at all.

I respect the opinions of many conservatives because they actually think about what they believe. They don't simply look for easy ways to dismiss the opposition. But Safire and Will you ain't.

You have apparently bought into this whole idea that 'liberal' is a swear word. You would scoff at the notion that there are many kinds of people who would describe themselves as liberals, that not all liberals believe in the entire spectrum of beliefs you define as liberal, any more than all conservatives believe in the entire spectrum of beliefs that we define as conservative.

You clearly believe that anyone who doesn't believe as you believe is unworthy of respect. I'm not sure you believe that somebody who doesn't believe as you believe is even worthy of consideration as a human being.

You think it's enough to pin a label on somebody and thereby write them off. People of your ilk also think that you have a monopoly on knowing what those labels mean. In particular, people of your ilk think you have a monopoly on the label 'American.'

You are a jackass and you scare me because there are many of you.

I don't know who you actually are. Maybe I'd actually like you if I met you in person. I do have the capacity for liking people I disagree with.

However, I can safely say I loathe your bored persona. You are unworthy of the respect of any thinking person on the right or left.

And that is the last word you will get out of me.

BackInTex wrote:cause. Like man-made global warming.

They have their conclusion (codeword for 'agenda') and damn the facts. Damn the results. It not really about the cause, but about manipulating control over the people.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 969413.ece

A government report that found old-fashioned reusable nappies damage the environment more than disposables has been hushed up because ministers are embarrassed by its findings.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has instructed civil servants not to publicise the conclusions of the £50,000 nappy research project and to adopt a “defensive” stance towards its conclusions.

The report found that using washable nappies, hailed by councils throughout Britain as a key way of saving the planet, have a higher carbon footprint than their disposable equivalents unless parents adopt an extreme approach to laundering them.

To reduce the impact of cloth nappies on climate change parents would have to hang wet nappies out to dry all year round, keep them for years for use on younger children, and make sure the water in their washing machines does not exceed 60C.

Would this be similar to the times the Bush White House heavily redacted and/or held up scientific research reports from government departments because the reports didn't say what the Administration wanted them to say?

franktangredi wrote:Dear Mr. Back in Texas:

I didn't even have to read your post. The subject line alone confirmed what I have seen all along.

You, sir, are a jackass.

I would say the same thing about someone who used any single article to prove the proposition "Why you can't trust a conservative." Or who would make such a blanket statement at all.

I respect the opinions of many conservatives because they actually think about what they believe. They don't simply look for easy ways to dismiss the opposition. But Safire and Will you ain't.

You have apparently bought into this whole idea that 'liberal' is a swear word. You would scoff at the notion that there are many kinds of people who would describe themselves as liberals, that not all liberals believe in the entire spectrum of beliefs you define as liberal, any more than all conservatives believe in the entire spectrum of beliefs that we define as conservative.

You clearly believe that anyone who doesn't believe as you believe is unworthy of respect. I'm not sure you believe that somebody who doesn't believe as you believe is even worthy of consideration as a human being.

You think it's enough to pin a label on somebody and thereby write them off. People of your ilk also think that you have a monopoly on knowing what those labels mean. In particular, people of your ilk think you have a monopoly on the label 'American.'

You are a jackass and you scare me because there are many of you.

I don't know who you actually are. Maybe I'd actually like you if I met you in person. I do have the capacity for liking people I disagree with.

However, I can safely say I loathe your bored persona. You are unworthy of the respect of any thinking person on the right or left.

And that is the last word you will get out of me.

Oh

My

Goodness...

Frank-

I think you should go back and read BiT's post a little more closely before you attack him like that. Then you need to ask for his forgiveness.

I expect that crap from Nelly and BobJuch but not from you.

Tocqueville3 wrote:
My

Goodness...

Frank-

I think you shoud go back and read BiT's post a little more closely before you attack him like that. Then you need to ask for his forgiveness.

I expect that crap from Nelly and BobJuch but not from you.

Actually...not really.

BiT made a generalized negative statement about "liberal causes" from one piece of anecdotal evidence.

Maybe Frank came off a LITTLE strong...but BiT still was stereotyping.

franktangredi wrote:Dear Mr. Back in Texas:

I didn't even have to read your post. The subject line alone confirmed what I have seen all along.

You, sir, are a jackass.

I would say the same thing about someone who used any single article to prove the proposition "Why you can't trust a conservative." Or who would make such a blanket statement at all.

I respect the opinions of many conservatives because they actually think about what they believe. They don't simply look for easy ways to dismiss the opposition. But Safire and Will you ain't.

You have apparently bought into this whole idea that 'liberal' is a swear word. You would scoff at the notion that there are many kinds of people who would describe themselves as liberals, that not all liberals believe in the entire spectrum of beliefs you define as liberal, any more than all conservatives believe in the entire spectrum of beliefs that we define as conservative.

You clearly believe that anyone who doesn't believe as you believe is unworthy of respect. I'm not sure you believe that somebody who doesn't believe as you believe is even worthy of consideration as a human being.

You think it's enough to pin a label on somebody and thereby write them off. People of your ilk also think that you have a monopoly on knowing what those labels mean. In particular, people of your ilk think you have a monopoly on the label 'American.'

You are a jackass and you scare me because there are many of you.

I don't know who you actually are. Maybe I'd actually like you if I met you in person. I do have the capacity for liking people I disagree with.

However, I can safely say I loathe your bored persona. You are unworthy of the respect of any thinking person on the right or left.

And that is the last word you will get out of me.

Since you didn't read the post, you probably didn't know that the subject heading was continued in the post. What BiT was saying was that you can't trust a liberal cause. He didn't say that you couldn't trust a liberal. You might want to be informed before jumping all over someone...

danielh41 wrote:

franktangredi wrote:Dear Mr. Back in Texas:

I didn't even have to read your post. The subject line alone confirmed what I have seen all along.

You, sir, are a jackass.

I would say the same thing about someone who used any single article to prove the proposition "Why you can't trust a conservative." Or who would make such a blanket statement at all.

I respect the opinions of many conservatives because they actually think about what they believe. They don't simply look for easy ways to dismiss the opposition. But Safire and Will you ain't.

You have apparently bought into this whole idea that 'liberal' is a swear word. You would scoff at the notion that there are many kinds of people who would describe themselves as liberals, that not all liberals believe in the entire spectrum of beliefs you define as liberal, any more than all conservatives believe in the entire spectrum of beliefs that we define as conservative.

You clearly believe that anyone who doesn't believe as you believe is unworthy of respect. I'm not sure you believe that somebody who doesn't believe as you believe is even worthy of consideration as a human being.

You think it's enough to pin a label on somebody and thereby write them off. People of your ilk also think that you have a monopoly on knowing what those labels mean. In particular, people of your ilk think you have a monopoly on the label 'American.'

You are a jackass and you scare me because there are many of you.

I don't know who you actually are. Maybe I'd actually like you if I met you in person. I do have the capacity for liking people I disagree with.

However, I can safely say I loathe your bored persona. You are unworthy of the respect of any thinking person on the right or left.

And that is the last word you will get out of me.

Since you didn't read the post, you probably didn't know that the subject heading was continued in the post. What BiT was saying was that you can't trust a liberal cause. He didn't say that you couldn't trust a liberal. You might want to be informed before jumping all over someone...

Sorry. I should have clarified. I didn't have to read the post to come to the conclusion I did ... but I then went on to do so. [If your reading is correct, who is the 'they' he then goes on to refer to? The correct pronoun for 'cause' is 'it.']

I stand by everything else. (And my opinion was not based on just this one statement.)

franktangredi wrote:Dear Mr. Back in Texas:

I didn't even have to read your post. The subject line alone confirmed what I have seen all along.

It is too bad you didn't reat the post. Especially the first word. The subject line was 'bait'.

franktangredi wrote:
You, sir, are a jackass.

Sometimes, I can act like one. But I'm not one. But I don't think my post was any more offensive than other political posts here. Certainly not worthy of the response from the "great Tangredi".

franktangredi wrote: I respect the opinions of many conservatives because they actually think about what they believe. They don't simply look for easy ways to dismiss the opposition. But Safire and Will you ain't.

Believe me when I say, I do think about what I believe. I am probably among of the most logical and least emotional people here.

franktangredi wrote:
You have apparently bought into this whole idea that 'liberal' is a swear word. You would scoff at the notion that there are many kinds of people who would describe themselves as liberals, that not all liberals believe in the entire spectrum of beliefs you define as liberal, any more than all conservatives believe in the entire spectrum of beliefs that we define as conservative.

You clearly believe that anyone who doesn't believe as you believe is unworthy of respect. I'm not sure you believe that somebody who doesn't believe as you believe is even worthy of consideration as a human being.

You think it's enough to pin a label on somebody and thereby write them off. People of your ilk also think that you have a monopoly on knowing what those labels mean. In particular, people of your ilk think you have a monopoly on the label 'American.'


You are a jackass and you scare me because there are many of you.

I don't know who you actually are. Maybe I'd actually like you if I met you in person. I do have the capacity for liking people I disagree with.

However, I can safely say I loathe your bored persona. You are unworthy of the respect of any thinking person on the right or left.

And that is the last word you will get out of me.

You promise? Becasue YOU scare me. You remind me of the man who attacked the old lady in New York the other day for carrying a McCain Pailin sign. Complete and utter emotional over reaction.

I am thinking there is old incomplete stuff between the two of you.

peacock2121 wrote:I am thinking there is old incomplete stuff between the two of you.

If there is, I've missed it. Maybe it has just built up. Maybe he's not getting enough. I know I'm not.

Plus, I don't like getting called a jackass by a pompus mule.

BackInTex wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:I am thinking there is old incomplete stuff between the two of you.

If there is, I've missed it. Maybe it has just built up. Maybe he's not getting enough. I know I'm not.
Plus, I don't like getting called a jackass by a pompus mule.

made me laugh

FWIW, the whole cloth-versus-disposable diaper debate has been going on among environmentalists -- not just between them and their opponents -- for years now, at least in the USA. At least one major "green" manufacturer, Seventh Generation, started making disposable diapers a while ago after much deliberation on the subject. The environmental movement -- even among people further to the left -- is NOT monolithic and unthinking, much as some would like to think otherwise.

Stereotyping in ways like this is truly unhelpful, unless your real goal is to help yourself feel better.

JBillyGirl wrote: Stereotyping in ways like this is truly unhelpful, unless your real goal is to help yourself feel better.

I dunno. It seems to get lots of laughs on SNL, or Letterman. You can learn a lot by seeing who laughs, who simply rolls their eyes, and who takes a swing.

BackInTex wrote:

JBillyGirl wrote: Stereotyping in ways like this is truly unhelpful, unless your real goal is to help yourself feel better.

I dunno. It seems to get lots of laughs on SNL, or Letterman.

Their writers are funnier than you are. --Bob

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:John Stossel is a scam. He should go back to acting in bad 1970s porn and reviewing bad movies.

My favorite John Stossel moment was when Hulk Hogan (I think it was the Hulkster) body slammed Stossel after Stossel tried to "prove" wrestling was fake.

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

JBillyGirl wrote: Stereotyping in ways like this is truly unhelpful, unless your real goal is to help yourself feel better.

I dunno. It seems to get lots of laughs on SNL, or Letterman.

Their writers are funnier than you are. --Bob

You get what you pay for.

To my friend Frank:

I can assure you that BiT is NOT a raving right-wing lunatic. He's actually a nice guy (albeit misguided in his political philosophy, although I dare say he'd say the same about me!). He doesn't foam at the mouth, has (probably) not drowned any puppies, and doesn't sound ANYTHING like Tammy Faye Bakker crossed with "South Park's" chef.

To my friend BiT:

I can assure you that Frank is NOT a raving left-wing lunatic. He's actually a nice guy (albeit guided CORRECTLY in his political philosophy, and I'd HOPE he'd say the same about me!). He doesn't foam at the mouth, has (probably) not drowned any puppies, and doesn't sound anything like Ted Kennedy crossed with Ellen DeGeneres.



Complain all you will about someone's choice of words in this debate. Complain about their positions, or debate the issues all you want, if you like. Better yet, avoid reading all the political crap here (I so wish I could, but at least I've tried to stop commenting on them, except when they relate to the worst President in history), and come join the rest of us in the Moratorium Lounge. It's nice and warm there, and the food is wonderful.

But please, EVERYONE, don't attack anyone personally. It's counterproductive, no matter what side of the aisle you prefer.
I may not agree with BiT, or danielh, or SSS, or even some of the folks on the left of center, but I don't dislike any of them. I just pray for them, cuz they need it.