OT: DISGUSTING!

DI said:

"G.T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

.

"THEY'RE ALREADY HERE IN THE US AND THEY DON'T WEAR HEADSCARVES."

Sounds sort of like the Ft. Dix Six.

Yep, just like Eric Rudolph.

Greg

It's interesting how the Left is always trying to compare Terrorists with
Domestic Criminals, the big difference is Criminals don't have a huge
network of other Criminals as support. Yes there are religious criminals.

And it's funny that the right only blames the non-Christian religious
criminals of the world. It's the typical Christian hypocrisy. But,
wait, Christians stopped following the word of Christ almost 2000 years ago.

Greg
--
The ticketbastard Tax Tracker:
http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html

Dethink to survive - Mclusky

Bill Sornson said:

MattB said:

?Slack said:

On Thu, 10 May 2007 13:06:52 -0700, Ride-A-Lot
<mitchell@[nospam]schnauzers.ws> wrote:

>I'm going off-topic and probably a little political, but this just
>made me so angry that I had to rant.
>
>

>
>This is what they are teaching their children. There's going to be
>a big fight brewing and we are not going to be on level ground if
>they are starting with the kids.
>
>And we are liberating Irag for what reason?
>

Really disappointed, I wanted to see Mickey holding a AK47.

Ok, I'll say it, Islam needs to outlawed, period. And don't give me
no stupid [censored] about banning a faith / religion
because it aint one; it's a worldwide military movement hell bent on
one [violent] mission.

I think it's extremism that's the threat, from any faith or ideology.
I personally know some Muslims who are peaceful, loving, "normal"
people. They are just as disgusted by the things done in the name of
their religion as we are. They have as much in common with the
terrorists as your Methodist neighbor does with people blowing up
abortion clinics.

Quoted message said:

And if we did make it illegal, do you think that would change anything
except maybe turn some of the moderate Muslims into haters too?

The problem is that moderate Muslims are often too afraid (and for good
reason) to speak out against violence and for peace.

Unfortunately, comparing truly fringe Christian Nuts who blow up abortion
clinics or protest soldier funerals with "God Hates [censored]" signs to the
Radical Islam Movement doesn't fly. The numbers and percentages aren't even
close; nor are the methodologies of their atrocious acts. (The former,
while reprehensible, don't kidnap, torture, taunt, and then videotape the
gruesome executions of their innocent -- or even "guilty" in their minds --
victims.)

The only valid comparison is that both vile groups "justify" their horrid
acts in the name of their "religions". Despicable. But the gap in numbers
and levels of brutality is huge...and growing.

Double Standard: say anything you want about (against) Christians, but draw
a cartoon about Muhammad...

BS

I'm not saying any one is better or worse than the other. It's true
there are a lot more militant Muslims out there, but that doesn't make
the Militant Christians (or any other religion - I only pick on
Christians because I think they hold/abuse a lot of power here) good or
even acceptable to me. It's all varying degrees of bad.
There was a time when the Christians, even the mainstream ones /were/
doing those kinds of atrocious acts, so it's not unfathomable that
Christians are capable of this sort of thing.

Anyway, my point was that just like when the Romans outlawed
Christianity, outlawing Islam would only backfire.

Matt

G.T. said:

DI said:

"G.T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson wrote:
> .
>
> "THEY'RE ALREADY HERE IN THE US AND THEY DON'T WEAR HEADSCARVES."
>
> Sounds sort of like the Ft. Dix Six.
>
>
Yep, just like Eric Rudolph.

Greg

It's interesting how the Left is always trying to compare Terrorists
with Domestic Criminals, the big difference is Criminals don't have
a huge network of other Criminals as support. Yes there are
religious criminals.

And it's funny that the right only blames the non-Christian religious
criminals of the world. It's the typical Christian hypocrisy. But,
wait, Christians stopped following the word of Christ almost 2000
years ago.

What I find funny is how the left tries to defend or justify or minimize one
group's atrocities by pointing to another's. Yet when someone points out,
for example, that Bush is doing the exact same thing that Clinton did before
him, those same people cry foul. Hypocrisy indeed.

BTW, 99.9% of the "right" deplores violent acts by Christians or in the name
of Christianity. Your first sentence above ("the right only blames the
non-Christian religious criminals of the world"😉 is flat-out wrong. But I
suspect deep down you know this, and are only trolling. Or not.

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

G.T. said:

DI said:

"G.T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> .
>>
>> "THEY'RE ALREADY HERE IN THE US AND THEY DON'T WEAR HEADSCARVES."
>>
>> Sounds sort of like the Ft. Dix Six.
>>
>>
> Yep, just like Eric Rudolph.
>
> Greg
>
It's interesting how the Left is always trying to compare Terrorists
with Domestic Criminals, the big difference is Criminals don't have
a huge network of other Criminals as support. Yes there are
religious criminals.

And it's funny that the right only blames the non-Christian religious
criminals of the world. It's the typical Christian hypocrisy. But,
wait, Christians stopped following the word of Christ almost 2000
years ago.

What I find funny is how the left tries to defend or justify or minimize
one group's atrocities by pointing to another's. Yet when someone points
out, for example, that Bush is doing the exact same thing that Clinton did
before him, those same people cry foul. Hypocrisy indeed.

BTW, 99.9% of the "right" deplores violent acts by Christians or in the
name of Christianity. Your first sentence above ("the right only blames
the non-Christian religious criminals of the world"😉 is flat-out wrong.
But I suspect deep down you know this, and are only trolling. Or not.

No, I'm not trolling. Perhaps I've been exposed to too much hatred and
violence from Christians and I'm a little cynical these days. I've seen
plenty of un-Christ-like behaviour from those who profess to be
"Christians", and these folks didn't even appear to be fanatics.

Greg
--
Ticketbastard tax tracker:
http://ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html

Dethink to survive - Mclusky

G.T. said:

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

G.T. said:

DI wrote:
> "G.T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> .
>>>
>>> "THEY'RE ALREADY HERE IN THE US AND THEY DON'T WEAR HEADSCARVES."
>>>
>>> Sounds sort of like the Ft. Dix Six.
>>>
>>>
>> Yep, just like Eric Rudolph.
>>
>> Greg
>>
> It's interesting how the Left is always trying to compare Terrorists
> with Domestic Criminals, the big difference is Criminals don't have
> a huge network of other Criminals as support. Yes there are
> religious criminals.

And it's funny that the right only blames the non-Christian religious
criminals of the world. It's the typical Christian hypocrisy. But,
wait, Christians stopped following the word of Christ almost 2000
years ago.

What I find funny is how the left tries to defend or justify or minimize
one group's atrocities by pointing to another's. Yet when someone
points
out, for example, that Bush is doing the exact same thing that Clinton
did
before him, those same people cry foul. Hypocrisy indeed.

BTW, 99.9% of the "right" deplores violent acts by Christians or in the
name of Christianity. Your first sentence above ("the right only
blames
the non-Christian religious criminals of the world"😉 is flat-out wrong.
But I suspect deep down you know this, and are only trolling. Or not.

No, I'm not trolling. Perhaps I've been exposed to too much hatred and
violence from Christians and I'm a little cynical these days. I've seen
plenty of un-Christ-like behaviour from those who profess to be
"Christians", and these folks didn't even appear to be fanatics.

Greg

You are correct in your observation. But the key word is "profess." Even
Jesus
said that many will come to him and saying Lord - Lord, didn't we do this
or do that
in your name.... and he will say, "Depart from me, workers of iniquity, I
never knew you."

Nothing has changed. It was then, and is now [still] a very small qty of
professors that
are genuine.
--
Slack

Mike Vandeman said:

What did you say when you were taught mathematics without an opposing
point of view? Idiot.

Where did you get your Ph.D. from? Sears?

F.O.A.D. Already.

--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
www.schnauzers.ws

On Sat, 12 May 2007 22:31:45 -0700, Ride-A-Lot

[email protected] said:

Mike Vandeman said:

What did you say when you were taught mathematics without an opposing
point of view? Idiot.

Where did you get your Ph.D. from? Sears?

Damn, that was funny.
--
Slack

Bill Sornson said:

School kids are being forced (required) to watch Gore's farce of a
"documentary" (complete with animated fantasy sequences) with absolutely no
opposing viewpoint presented or -- even more telling -- tolerated.
"Religious", indeed.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

To quote Bill Maher: "You don't have to teach both sides of a debate,
if one side is a load of [censored]."

(Disclaimer: I haven't seen the move.)

CC

"Corvus Corvax" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

School kids are being forced (required) to watch Gore's farce of a
"documentary" (complete with animated fantasy sequences) with absolutely
no
opposing viewpoint presented or -- even more telling -- tolerated.
"Religious", indeed.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

To quote Bill Maher: "You don't have to teach both sides of a debate,
if one side is a load of [censored]."

I've been reading the articles there. Solid stuff. But hey, the earth
hating, exploitative right wing capitalists on the planet who can't see
beyond their relatively short-term profits will continue to ignore the
facts. Profit always trumps reality with them.

Greg
--
Ticketbastard tax tracker:
http://ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html

Dethink to survive - Mclusky

G.T. said:

"Corvus Corvax" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

School kids are being forced (required) to watch Gore's farce of a
"documentary" (complete with animated fantasy sequences) with
absolutely
no
opposing viewpoint presented or -- even more telling -- tolerated.
"Religious", indeed.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

To quote Bill Maher: "You don't have to teach both sides of a debate,
if one side is a load of [censored]."

I've been reading the articles there. Solid stuff. But hey, the earth
hating, exploitative right wing capitalists on the planet who can't see
beyond their relatively short-term profits will continue to ignore the
facts. Profit always trumps reality with them.

Greg

You should hear my Econ professor. The only evil any business can do is
not maximize profits... screw the polar bear, the penguin, the government
or anything else stupid enough to get in the way.
--
Slack

Corvus Corvax said:

Bill Sornson said:

School kids are being forced (required) to watch Gore's farce of a
"documentary" (complete with animated fantasy sequences) with
absolutely no opposing viewpoint presented or -- even more telling
-- tolerated. "Religious", indeed.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Should I post links saying man isn't causing or even contributing to GW?
There are LOTS of 'em.

Why did previous Ice Ages end?

Why are the polar ice caps melting...ON MARS?

Quoted message said:

To quote Bill Maher: "You don't have to teach both sides of a debate,
if one side is a load of [censored]."

Thanks for proving my point. If this was truly science, there would be no
need to flail to the "consensus" card, and no fear whatsoever of opposing
theories.

Gore won't even appear with people who differ from his religion.

(BTW, guess which presidential candidate in 2000 wore a "What Would Jesus
Do?" bracelet during the campaign? It /wasn't/ GWB.)

Quoted message said:

(Disclaimer: I haven't seen the move.)

Enroll in elementary school and you'll be FORCED to. HTH (but doubt it)

?Slack said:

On Wed, 16 May 2007 14:31:23 -0700, G.T. <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Corvus Corvax" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On May 11, 8:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> School kids are being forced (required) to watch Gore's farce of a
> "documentary" (complete with animated fantasy sequences) with
> absolutely
> no
> opposing viewpoint presented or -- even more telling -- tolerated.
> "Religious", indeed.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

To quote Bill Maher: "You don't have to teach both sides of a
debate, if one side is a load of [censored]."

I've been reading the articles there. Solid stuff. But hey, the
earth hating, exploitative right wing capitalists on the planet who
can't see beyond their relatively short-term profits will continue
to ignore the facts. Profit always trumps reality with them.

Greg

You should hear my Econ professor. The only evil any business can do
is not maximize profits... screw the polar bear, the penguin, the
government or anything else stupid enough to get in the way.

Yeah, so just make up [censored] to convince the stupid masses. (Hint: polar
bear population is INCREASING; they ain't drowning.)

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

?Slack said:

On Wed, 16 May 2007 14:31:23 -0700, G.T. <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Corvus Corvax" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On May 11, 8:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> School kids are being forced (required) to watch Gore's farce of a
>> "documentary" (complete with animated fantasy sequences) with
>> absolutely
>> no
>> opposing viewpoint presented or -- even more telling -- tolerated.
>> "Religious", indeed.
>
> http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
>
> To quote Bill Maher: "You don't have to teach both sides of a
> debate, if one side is a load of [censored]."
>

I've been reading the articles there. Solid stuff. But hey, the
earth hating, exploitative right wing capitalists on the planet who
can't see beyond their relatively short-term profits will continue
to ignore the facts. Profit always trumps reality with them.

Greg

You should hear my Econ professor. The only evil any business can do
is not maximize profits... screw the polar bear, the penguin, the
government or anything else stupid enough to get in the way.

Yeah, so just make up [censored] to convince the stupid masses. (Hint: polar
bear population is INCREASING; they ain't drowning.)

Cite please.

Or do you mean population on land is increasing because the ice is
disappearing???

"Some Native communities in Canada have been reporting increasing numbers of
polar bears on land. Traditional hunters believe this indicates an increased
population, although the increased presence on land may, in fact, be related
to shrinking sea ice and changes in the bears' distribution patterns."

Greg
--
Ticketbastard tax tracker:
http://ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html

Dethink to survive - Mclusky

â–€Slack said:

G.T. said:

"Corvus Corvax" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On May 11, 8:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> School kids are being forced (required) to watch Gore's farce of a
> "documentary" (complete with animated fantasy sequences) with
> absolutely
> no
> opposing viewpoint presented or -- even more telling -- tolerated.
> "Religious", indeed.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

To quote Bill Maher: "You don't have to teach both sides of a debate,
if one side is a load of [censored]."

I've been reading the articles there. Solid stuff. But hey, the earth
hating, exploitative right wing capitalists on the planet who can't see
beyond their relatively short-term profits will continue to ignore the
facts. Profit always trumps reality with them.

Greg

You should hear my Econ professor. The only evil any business can do is
not maximize profits... screw the polar bear, the penguin, the
government or anything else stupid enough to get in the way.

I don't feel that's an unreasonable position for a business to take.
The problem that has arisen in the US is that the necessary checks and
balances created by government regulation including a requirement for a
level playing field when it comes to international trade, and the
opposing pressure generated by unions, have largely disappeared in the US.

Shawn
not that I've thought about this sort of thing much ;-)

G.T. said:

"Corvus Corvax" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

School kids are being forced (required) to watch Gore's farce of a
"documentary" (complete with animated fantasy sequences) with
absolutely no
opposing viewpoint presented or -- even more telling -- tolerated.
"Religious", indeed.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

To quote Bill Maher: "You don't have to teach both sides of a debate,
if one side is a load of [censored]."

I've been reading the articles there. Solid stuff. But hey, the
earth hating, exploitative right wing capitalists on the planet who
can't see beyond their relatively short-term profits will continue to
ignore the facts. Profit always trumps reality with them.

Still working for GE?

Bill Sornson said:

G.T. said:

"Corvus Corvax" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On May 11, 8:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> School kids are being forced (required) to watch Gore's farce of a
> "documentary" (complete with animated fantasy sequences) with
> absolutely no
> opposing viewpoint presented or -- even more telling -- tolerated.
> "Religious", indeed.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

To quote Bill Maher: "You don't have to teach both sides of a debate,
if one side is a load of [censored]."

I've been reading the articles there. Solid stuff. But hey, the
earth hating, exploitative right wing capitalists on the planet who
can't see beyond their relatively short-term profits will continue to
ignore the facts. Profit always trumps reality with them.

Still working for GE?

Yep, gotta fight the [censored] from within.

http://ge.ecomagination.com/html/about/index.html

Greg
--
The ticketbastard Tax Tracker:
http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html

Dethink to survive - Mclusky

G.T. said:

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

?Slack said:

On Wed, 16 May 2007 14:31:23 -0700, G.T. <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>
> "Corvus Corvax" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> On May 11, 8:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> School kids are being forced (required) to watch Gore's farce of
>>> a "documentary" (complete with animated fantasy sequences) with
>>> absolutely
>>> no
>>> opposing viewpoint presented or -- even more telling --
>>> tolerated. "Religious", indeed.
>>
>> http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
>>
>> To quote Bill Maher: "You don't have to teach both sides of a
>> debate, if one side is a load of [censored]."
>>
>
> I've been reading the articles there. Solid stuff. But hey, the
> earth hating, exploitative right wing capitalists on the planet who
> can't see beyond their relatively short-term profits will continue
> to ignore the facts. Profit always trumps reality with them.
>
> Greg

You should hear my Econ professor. The only evil any business can
do is not maximize profits... screw the polar bear, the penguin, the
government or anything else stupid enough to get in the way.

Yeah, so just make up [censored] to convince the stupid masses. (Hint: polar
bear population is INCREASING; they ain't drowning.)

Cite please.

Or do you mean population on land is increasing because the ice is
disappearing???

"Some Native communities in Canada have been reporting increasing
numbers of polar bears on land. Traditional hunters believe this
indicates an increased population, although the increased presence on
land may, in fact, be related to shrinking sea ice and changes in the
bears' distribution patterns."

I found a bunch with a simple Google search; no doubt you'll reject any that
come from any non-liberal source, but go have a look.

Ask yourself this: why did Gore have to resort to /animation/ to depict
some of his oh-so-tragic scenarios?

Why were his film crews ARMED WITH GUNS while shooting (!) some footage?
(They were literally going to shoot any polar bears that got aggressive!)

Why did his film claim sea level increases of 20+ /feet/ while even the UN's
unfinished report's summary (how does that happen, anyway?) say 20 /inches/
at most. (And that's a wild, worst-case estimate itself.)

Why are PhD scientists (including leading climatologists and meteorologists)
being black-balled or just plain fired for daring to put forth anti-GW
articles and findings?

It ain't scientific, Greg. It's POLITICAL.

BS (really)

Bill Sornson said:

?Slack said:

On Wed, 16 May 2007 14:31:23 -0700, G.T. <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Corvus Corvax" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On May 11, 8:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> School kids are being forced (required) to watch Gore's farce of a
>> "documentary" (complete with animated fantasy sequences) with
>> absolutely
>> no
>> opposing viewpoint presented or -- even more telling -- tolerated.
>> "Religious", indeed.
>
> http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
>
> To quote Bill Maher: "You don't have to teach both sides of a
> debate, if one side is a load of [censored]."
>

I've been reading the articles there. Solid stuff. But hey, the
earth hating, exploitative right wing capitalists on the planet who
can't see beyond their relatively short-term profits will continue
to ignore the facts. Profit always trumps reality with them.

Greg

You should hear my Econ professor. The only evil any business can do
is not maximize profits... screw the polar bear, the penguin, the
government or anything else stupid enough to get in the way.

Yeah, so just make up [censored] to convince the stupid masses. (Hint: polar
bear population is INCREASING; they ain't drowning.)

IMHO, both extremes are just as evil.
--
Slack - save a polar bear, shoot a Gore

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

G.T. said:

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

?Slack wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 14:31:23 -0700, G.T. <[email hidden]>
> wrote:
>>
>> "Corvus Corvax" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:[email hidden]...
>>> On May 11, 8:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> School kids are being forced (required) to watch Gore's farce of
>>>> a "documentary" (complete with animated fantasy sequences) with
>>>> absolutely
>>>> no
>>>> opposing viewpoint presented or -- even more telling --
>>>> tolerated. "Religious", indeed.
>>>
>>> http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
>>>
>>> To quote Bill Maher: "You don't have to teach both sides of a
>>> debate, if one side is a load of [censored]."
>>>
>>
>> I've been reading the articles there. Solid stuff. But hey, the
>> earth hating, exploitative right wing capitalists on the planet who
>> can't see beyond their relatively short-term profits will continue
>> to ignore the facts. Profit always trumps reality with them.
>>
>> Greg
>
>
> You should hear my Econ professor. The only evil any business can
> do is not maximize profits... screw the polar bear, the penguin, the
> government or anything else stupid enough to get in the way.

Yeah, so just make up [censored] to convince the stupid masses. (Hint: polar
bear population is INCREASING; they ain't drowning.)

Cite please.

Or do you mean population on land is increasing because the ice is
disappearing???

"Some Native communities in Canada have been reporting increasing
numbers of polar bears on land. Traditional hunters believe this
indicates an increased population, although the increased presence on
land may, in fact, be related to shrinking sea ice and changes in the
bears' distribution patterns."

I found a bunch with a simple Google search; no doubt you'll reject any
that come from any non-liberal source, but go have a look.

Ask yourself this: why did Gore have to resort to /animation/ to depict
some of his oh-so-tragic scenarios?

Why were his film crews ARMED WITH GUNS while shooting (!) some footage?
(They were literally going to shoot any polar bears that got aggressive!)

Why did his film claim sea level increases of 20+ /feet/ while even the
UN's unfinished report's summary (how does that happen, anyway?) say 20
/inches/ at most. (And that's a wild, worst-case estimate itself.)

Why are PhD scientists (including leading climatologists and
meteorologists) being black-balled or just plain fired for daring to put
forth anti-GW articles and findings?

It ain't scientific, Greg. It's POLITICAL.

BS (really)

They're getting so desperate to prove GW, to the point of giving the first
Tropical Storm name of the season to a rainstorm off the North Carolina
coast, a storm that never formed in the Tropics.

DI said:

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

G.T. said:

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> ?Slack wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 May 2007 14:31:23 -0700, G.T. <[email hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Corvus Corvax" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email hidden]...
>>>> On May 11, 8:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> School kids are being forced (required) to watch Gore's farce
>>>>> of a "documentary" (complete with animated fantasy sequences)
>>>>> with absolutely
>>>>> no
>>>>> opposing viewpoint presented or -- even more telling --
>>>>> tolerated. "Religious", indeed.
>>>>
>>>> http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
>>>>
>>>> To quote Bill Maher: "You don't have to teach both sides of a
>>>> debate, if one side is a load of [censored]."
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've been reading the articles there. Solid stuff. But hey, the
>>> earth hating, exploitative right wing capitalists on the planet
>>> who can't see beyond their relatively short-term profits will
>>> continue to ignore the facts. Profit always trumps reality with
>>> them. Greg
>>
>>
>> You should hear my Econ professor. The only evil any business can
>> do is not maximize profits... screw the polar bear, the penguin,
>> the government or anything else stupid enough to get in the way.
>
> Yeah, so just make up [censored] to convince the stupid masses. (Hint:
> polar bear population is INCREASING; they ain't drowning.)

Cite please.

Or do you mean population on land is increasing because the ice is
disappearing???

"Some Native communities in Canada have been reporting increasing
numbers of polar bears on land. Traditional hunters believe this
indicates an increased population, although the increased presence
on land may, in fact, be related to shrinking sea ice and changes
in the bears' distribution patterns."

I found a bunch with a simple Google search; no doubt you'll reject
any that come from any non-liberal source, but go have a look.

Ask yourself this: why did Gore have to resort to /animation/ to
depict some of his oh-so-tragic scenarios?

Why were his film crews ARMED WITH GUNS while shooting (!) some
footage? (They were literally going to shoot any polar bears that
got aggressive!) Why did his film claim sea level increases of 20+ /feet/
while even
the UN's unfinished report's summary (how does that happen, anyway?)
say 20 /inches/ at most. (And that's a wild, worst-case estimate
itself.) Why are PhD scientists (including leading climatologists and
meteorologists) being black-balled or just plain fired for daring to
put forth anti-GW articles and findings?

It ain't scientific, Greg. It's POLITICAL.

BS (really)

They're getting so desperate to prove GW, to the point of giving the
first Tropical Storm name of the season to a rainstorm off the North
Carolina coast, a storm that never formed in the Tropics.

Just for Greg and Corvis (he offered pessimistically):
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=_