BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 10:57 PM

I called GUEST,"Truther" for being selective in his excerpting of articles and it looks like pdq is doing the same thing. How about we finish the article from which pdq quotes (but rather than posting it all in red, I'll post it as it appeared on the source web site):

Laurin Easthom, a Democrat and town council member in nearby Chapel Hill, said Edwards has earned the right to build a large home.

"I see somebody who has come from a very humble background and with really hard work has gotten to the point where he is," Easthom said. "He's out there trying to do some good, and he's giving back both financially and by what he plans to do through his campaign."

Jennifer Palmieri, an Edwards adviser, dismissed the brouhaha as of little interest to voters.

But political consultant Bill Miller said the lavish estate could become a sore point for the candidate.

"Anything that appears to be extravagant or over the top is not the best card to play when you're running for president - especially when you're trying to differentiate yourself the way John Edwards is," said Miller, who has worked closely with the Republican Party.

After introducing their new home on her husband's campaign Web site, Elizabeth Edwards explained the couple had taken special precautions to make the house energy efficient - keeping in line with Edwards' environmental platform. But she spent the next week battling blog-based critics who wanted to discuss the building's size - and she suggested that one posting on the campaign's Web site may have come from a Republican or a rival Democrat.

"Did it come from the right? Did it come from another campaign? I have no idea," Elizabeth Edwards wrote. "What I do know is that it is no news bulletin that John and I have money. It is no news bulletin that he earned every cent."

Edwards and his wife live in the house with their two young children, Emma Claire, 7, and Jack, 5. Their older daughter, Cate, is a student at Harvard Law School.

Many of the other 2008 contenders also own expensive homes. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and husband Bill, the former president, own two homes: a Dutch Colonial house in Chappaqua, N.Y., that they purchased for $1.7 million in 1999, and a Washington home that went for $2.9 million in 2001.

On the GOP side, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the founder of venture capital and investment firm Bain Capital, owns three homes. Arizona Sen. John McCain also owns real estate worth millions of dollars.

In the interest of honesty and full disclosure.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: pdq
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 10:14 PM

You really can't see a connection between the energy needed to heat a 28,000 square foot house and global warming?

How about the hypocrisy of conspicuous comsumption while demanding that other people reduce their 'ecological footprint'?

That does not include the question ' how can this guy really claim to represent the poor people' when he lives in such opulence.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 09:47 PM

He STILL can't close italics!

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 09:22 PM

See? Still doing it.

I'll stick to saying what I have to say and letting people just read that and judge for themselves without their having to read something that resembles a ransom note made up of letters cut out of a magazine and pasted onto a blank piece of paper. Less distracting, and the content is easier to understand.

But be my guest. It if satisfies some inner need for artistic expression, then have at it!

Be aware, however, that it does tend to distract from what you're saying.

Don Firth

P. S. But then again, maybe that's the whole idea. . . .

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: pdq
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 08:51 PM

Feel Better now, eh Don?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 08:43 PM

pdq has discovered how to use HTML codes. It's a bit like giving a four-year-old a drum. The only way you can get the kid to stop driving you crazy with the damned thing is to hog-tie him and burn the freakin' drum! Then you have to listen to him bawl for the next two weeks. Then, someone gives him a set of bagpipes and you have to kill him.

It's his way of saying
LOOK AT ME!   LOOK AT ME!
Kinda sad, really. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 06:24 PM

What is all that supposed to mean? Edwards was a high-priced trial lawyer for years. He could afford a big house. Why is a description of it in large red type supposed to make him a bad..or good...candidate?

This is a typical conservative attempt to 'spin' the facts to make an issue out of a non-issue.

Now...you wanta discuss Edwards' policies, education or resumé? Or would you rather go on to his haircut, wife's dress length and the cost of his suits?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: pdq
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 11:01 PM

John Edwards Catching Heat for 'Monster' House

NewsMax.com Wires

Wednesday, Feb. 7, 2007

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. -- Two homes, two images, one candidate.

Democrat John Edwards, who has made an anti-poverty message the theme of his 2008 presidential campaign, is taking heat for the lavish home he has constructed in Orange County, N.C.

In December, Edwards chose the modest backyard of a New Orleans woman who had lost her home to Hurricane Katrina as the image that best underscored his campaign theme.

Now voters are seeing another, sharply contrasting image of Edwards: his own home.

Sitting on 102 secluded acres - surrounded by trees and defended by no-trespassing signs - the 28,000-square-foot estate that Edwards and his family call home has presidential privacy.

A main home has five bedrooms and six-and-a-half baths. It's connected by a covered walkway to a bright red addition known as "The Barn," that includes its own living facilities along with a handball court, an indoor pool and an indoor basketball court with a stage at one end. Nearby, the family has cleared space for a soccer field.

With a current building value of $4.3 million, the unfinished Edwards estate is already about $1 million more expensive than any other house in the county, according to tax records. It sits on land worth about $1.1 million.

Edwards first purchased the land in 2004, during his failed run as vice president. He recently sold his mansion in Washington's tony Georgetown neighborhood for $5.2 million.

Edwards, a former trial lawyer who made millions before winning a seat in the Senate representing North Carolina, has faced criticism regarding the estate. It also has become the subject of late-night jokes.

"Well, I think we know which America he's living in," Jay Leno quipped on NBC's "Tonight Show," a riff of Edwards' frequent mention of the "two Americas" - one for the wealthy and one for the poor.

Monty Johnson, a neighbor whose property sits directly across from the Edwards tract, recently posted a "Go Rudy Giuliani 2008" sign just 100 feet from Edwards' driveway.

"The home is a monster. It's way over the top," Johnson said. "There's no way that a normal family could ever need a house like that. It's only going to hurt him. I don't think he's going to be able to sell his story that he's for the poor people."

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: lennice
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 10:38 PM

Oh my god. I can only say this after reading this tragic string:

Clearly some people like to argue just because they enjoy it - and I see evidence of it on both sides. Ordinarily I just ignore such aimless arguing, but this is too serious to even watch people play badmitten with it.

re one of the early posts, I'm with you Bill, get the Raid. Or maybe the Glade - something smells fishy.   

All the deadly sins are often tarted up and renamed "Truth."

LH was right about people being backed into a corner being inclined to refuse to admit they are wrong.

No one ever thinks bad things will happen to them. The Romans thought their empire would last forever, and if the dinasaurs had brains bigger than peas they would have thought the same thing. Who would have ever thought that a big hunk of NYC, in particular that hunk where our financial world is concentrated, would vaporize in just a few minutes? We are constitutionally incapable of really believing our world can end. I think it's a survival thing, but in this case it's backfiring.

I have a friend who conducts every aspect of his life as if nothing bad can happen. He is a statistician, and he justifies this self-destructive behavior by citing probabilities. He once set off for a 3 hour drive to Boston with virtually no breaks, and cited statistics for how little he was likely to need them. I am not kidding. Would you ride with this guy? As people have said over and over again, what's the point of arguing how many Al's can dance on the head of a pin? Looks rocky ahead, lot's of good science INDICATES that even if you don't think it proves it, and as I am riding in this car, I prefer we fix the breaks.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 10:19 PM

"Truther," eh?

GUEST,"Truther" seems to be quite selective in what he, she, or it chooses to quote and post from articles. This particular article goes on to say,

But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the [Tennessee Center for Policy Research – a conservative propaganda organization] policy center and never gave it any information.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said: "Sometimes when people don't like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it's convenient to attack the messenger."

Kreider said Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs.

Gore, who owns homes in Carthage, Tenn., and in the Washington area, has said he leads a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To balance out other carbon emissions, the Gores invest money in projects to reduce energy consumption, Kreider said.

I'd say that changes the picture just a bit.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 09:11 PM

gee, 'truther'...you read that sentence in your own way, don't you? The spokesperson said nothing about "DOUBLE" usage...Gore has a big house. It does use more total electricity than mine. So what? He makes extra effort to get that energy from the best sources...and he is installing solar panels to further reduce his energy footprint.

What IS your real complaint? You just don't want a liberal getting credit for doing anything right?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,Truther
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 09:04 PM

The messenger. He's a whore. He's making a political buck. The sun's flaring so he cranks up his air conditioners and tells you that YOU are to blame. Messenger. Geez.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: kendall
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 08:50 PM

So, where does this "Rapture" thing come from? As far as I know, it is not mentioned in the Bible.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: kendall
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 08:49 PM

Sure. Shoot the messenger. That should stop global warming.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,Truther
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 08:43 PM

Probably Tipper's vibrator.

And then there's this sentence from the same article:

"Kreider said Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs."

So what the hell does that mean? They give the figure he uses according to the power company, then his spokeswoman says they purchase an EQUAL amount from other sources? So his actual energy use is DOUBLE what the power company reported? Damn Tipper's insatiable.

Your posterboy's a fraud, people.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: bobad
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 08:12 PM

Al was staying up late working on a movie.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,Truther
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 08:10 PM

Tell it to the Martians.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/27/D8NIGG3O0.html

The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 02:21 PM

Sure...we KNOW that there are natural cycles to Earth's climate changes....but this is the first time we have been able to exacerbate and hasten one. Just because we know something 'may' happen, it's not an excuse for helping it happen faster and making it worse.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,Truther
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 12:58 PM

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

AL: This is bad, Gorby. Now any idiot can see the temperature rise on earth is solar-related.

MIKHAIL: Nah. Just say it's the Martians abusing their environment. Americans'll buy it, if it's on TV. Tell them you're, uh...you're going to run for President of Mars so you can implement a planet-wide methane tax. You've built up the base for that kind of move.

AL: Yeah. And I could make another movie about it. On my next trip there.

MIKHAIL: You do that, Al. Gotta go.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 11:15 AM

Why? Are you short of breath?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 06:11 AM

wow. who took all the oxygen?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:50 PM

Yeah, well, it's all flim-flammery anyway. The fact that people buy into it is the really sad thing. We have the ability on this Earth right now to provide a good life and good opportunities to every man, woman, and child AND protect the natural environment at the same time, and it's not being done because a tiny elite wants it all for themselves. It's ludicrous.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,Truther
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:25 PM

Communism? Don't know. But it's incredible usury. The most extreme form imaginable. And they're loaning fiat money. Worthless. But more and more countries are starting to realize the debt they're in is non-existent. Collateral was put up for worthless fiat money, under false pretenses, and signed for by criminals. So in that case, what debt DOES the country have to the IMF/World Bank, which loaned the money? I'd say none. The Great Lakes in the U.S. were put up as collateral for a loan like Perkins describes, but it was a criminal transaction. The debt is null and void.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:12 PM

Yeah, I know what you mean, Truther. My guess is that he sees it that way partly because he IS an American, and also because the primary military and intelligence forces that are brought to bear when the Economic Hitmen fail to do the job for the multi-nationals are forces made in the USA...or are trained by forces made in the USA (at places like the School of the Americas).

Would you agree that the multi-national corporations are a lot like international communism in certain respects (but not in the way they market consumer goods to establish themselves)?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,Truther
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 08:19 PM

You know, Little Hawk, I read Confessions of an Economic Hitman, and it's good, but I didn't like the way Perkins harped on the U.S. as being the center of the economic machine. He rightfully pointed out over and over that it is the World Bank & International Monetary Fund, but then he'd go back to talking about "American" policy and "American" empire. Made me wonder if he wasn't still on the payroll, telling the truth that Joseph Stiglitz made public (former head of the IMF), telling the truth because Stiglitz made it public, but then focusing anger on the U.S. But Halliburton and KBR and the rest aren't American. Trans-national corporations. A truthful book, as far as I could tell, but it seemed like some spinning was going on.

And Bunnahabhain, there is a balance between freedom and dominance. Like most people I'd be somewhere in the middle. Govt is bad enough, but now there are new "regulatory" agencies everywhere.

Do you know about the International Property Maintenance Code? Most people don't. A 40-page PDF of it is located here:

http://www.talgov.com/dncs/neighborhood/pdf/intpropmaint.pdf

It outlines how you have to maintain your property. Drawn up by an international group and being used worldwide. In the northeast US last year some flood victims got low-interest govt loans to rebuild, then afterwards they found this Code in the fine print of their loans. They had agreed to abide by these rules. Problem is, no piece of real estate in the world could pass this inspection. And govts and agencies are starting to use it selectively to fine people. Crushing fines, too. Within a month or so you owe the value of your property in fines. This is one new way that agencies are seizing land. A discussion of this can be found here:

http://www.politicalhotwire.com/2125-international-property-maintenance-code.html

Private property ownership has been targeted for elimination in the U.S. The corporations are buying the govt and the govt is making it possible for environmental groups to claim more and more land. It'll all end up being administered by 1% of the elite, who will keep the other 99% of us off of their wilderness areas. I don't care for the arrangement.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 04:43 AM

Truther, is there any Governmental intervention in your property that you would not regard as threatening or overly restrictive?

For instance, would a ban on you building a replica Chernobyl in your back yard seem unreasonable?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 02:43 AM

He has since died but for years I had a wealthy friend who had a large farm (After he retired, he leased it to another farmer). He lved on a country road a few miles from town. Realizing that under the local land rules he was not able to chop off some of his land to build some homes to sell, he was very much against Oregon's strict rules.

Then one day I asked him that if his neighbor across the road wanted to build some condos would he like it? He grimaced. Of course not, he said, it would change everything about this area.

Our world, our country, our towns, our countryside, are all filling up. Without ground (ha!) rules we would have a chaotic hodge podge

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 12:28 AM

Not all that surprising, considering the general trend in the last few decades, Truther, but I don't think it's environmentalists that are your problem. I mean...I don't think it's real environmentalists who are your problem. I think it's big entrenched financial interests who don't care all that much about the environment. What they do care about is exercising control over just about everything.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,Truther
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 11:57 PM

All the links below open pretty quickly.

Agenda 21:

This global contract binds governments around the world to the UN plan for changing the ways we live, eat, learn, and communicate - all under the noble banner of saving the earth. Its regulations would severely limit water, electricity, and transportation - even deny human access to our most treasured wilderness areas. If implemented, it would manage and monitor all lands and people. No one would be free from the watchful eye of the new global tracking and information system.

Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 specifically calls for each community to formulate its own Local Agenda 21:

Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations, and private enterprises and adopt 'a local Agenda 21.' Through consultation and consensus-building, local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies. (Agenda 21, Chapter 28, sec 1,3.)

This tactic may sound reasonable until you realize that the dedicated "Stakeholder Group" that organizes and oversees local transformation is not elected by the public. And the people selected to represent the "citizens" in your community will not present your interests. The chosen "partners", professional staff, and working groups are implementing a new system of governance without asking your opinion.

http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/la21_198.html

The below from a site about the Wildlands Project (part of Agenda 21). Click on the top link, "Wildlands Project" for a map of what is targeted for restriction of use. I'm in a red zone:

http://propertyrights.org/headline2_frame.asp

Another program below. It adds a handful of new "Biosphere Reserves" each year. The "buffer" around each zone is 150 miles, as I recall:

http://www2.unesco.org/mab/br/brdir/europe-n/USAmap.htm

The "World Heritage" project:

What do the Statue of Liberty and a tropical rainforest in Australia have in common? What links the Grand Canyon and Yosemite to Stonehenge, the Great Pyramids, Machu Pichu, and Auschwitz Concentration Camp?

All these, along with hundreds of other scenic and cultural treasures around the world, have come under the "protection" of UNESCO through the World Heritage Convention. Signed by former President Nixon in 1973, this treaty gives the United Nations authority to guide the safe-keeping of international sites and monuments "considered to be of such exceptional interest and such universal value that their protection is the responsibility of all humanity." 1

What if some Heritage lands are privately owned?

It doesn't matter. In the eyes of UNESCO, private owners can't be trusted to guard "a World Heritage which belongs to all humanity"2 any more than parents can be trusted to raise their own children. The rights of the global collective must replace the old Western individual rights. To persuade the public, a new revolutionary way of thinking -- often called holistic, integrated, or "systems thinking" -- must replace the contrary old Western thoughts and ways.

http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/whpwans97.html

Below is a link to various biological treaties. Just some of them. All of them will be Private property-infringing, by their very nature:

http://sedac.ciesin.org/entri/TextsToc.jsp

Then on top of the land grabbing by the environmentalists just barely outlined above, we in Texas have to contend with the private investors who are being given ownership of the roads our taxes built. So it's the environmentalists grabbing land on the one hand, or the developers grabbing land on the other.

And yes, the Kelo Decision paved the way for private investors to start stealing privately owned land. The most stunning Supreme Court decision in modern history.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 10:24 PM

Imagine that a new snack food for children is introduced to the market. Soon, 90% of pediatricians agree that it is carcinogenic. DougR would be certain to advocate continued sales until 100% of pediatricians agreed.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: pdq
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 10:20 PM

GUEST,Truther -

Please keep that Supreme Court case in people's faces as much as possible. It is the most important case since Roe v. Wade, and it effectively ends the traditional US right to personal property. Socialists can always find a better use for your property than you can. Just ask them. It is called "04-108, Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al., (06/23/05)" or "Kelo v. New London" or just "Kelo".

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 07:50 PM

Ah...now you're onto something. You are absolutely correct that control of money, land, resources, and society in general is being shifted from public representatives (the government) to N.G.O.'s. (the corporations). The government is giving over its power to the N.G.O.'s because the N.G.O.'s unofficially run the government. Why? Because they have most of the money! He who controls the pursestrings controls the politicians and their political parties, and he controls who runs for office and who gets elected. The politicians become merely corporate servants. Note how many people in the Bush administration were highly placed in the oil industry. The oil industry runs the Bush administration.

Corporatism is Big Brother.

Whether or not they are using the current environmental issues to extend their control is not clear to me...but I'm sure they will do so if they can find a way to.

For an interesting read try: "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins. It explains the rise and activities of the Corporatocracy since the end of WWII in great detail, and it names names. Written by a man who served the Corporatocracy faithfully for about half his life, and then couldn't take it any longer and bailed out. 20 years later, he finally dared to publish a book about it.

If they kill him now, it won't do them any good, because the book is already out there. Matter of fact, it might increase sales of the book if they did.

The really weird thing is that mega-corporations are a lot like Communism...in this sense: they massively centralize power and control in the hands of an untouchable elite.

They are utterly unlike Communism in outer style, because they gain power mainly through aggressive, profit-driven marketing of consumer items. But they are very like Communism in their monolithic centralization of power, their love affair with military production, and their tendency to make everything everywhere exactly the same (like the fast food and big retail chains you see around every town now).

They are the antithesis of small-scale individually creative local capitalism, and they do not establish freedom, they establish slavery.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,Truther
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 07:28 PM

Let's see...Ebbie... I'll look that up. It's been a while. Agenda 21, all that stuff. I'll look it up later when I have time.

What should concern people is that control of property is being handed over to N.G.O.s. Non-Governmental Organizations. Look around your local community and your state at all the new "districts" and "boards" announcing new rules. Our corporate-controlled govt is now shuffling governmental duties onto non-elected organizations. Our elected leaders are becoming powerless. And our elected leaders are in on this power shift. Either through payoffs or for ideological reasons, our representatives are divesting themselves of power...giving it to NAFTA and... bah, hundreds of new NGOs. Most of them "environmental." But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if Halliburton or the Sierra Club took your land, it was still stolen by pirates. "Land rights advocates" are now on the list of "terrorists" in Virginia, and the Supreme court has ruled private businesses can take your land (New London Connecticut case), and everyone's being given a big environmental wedgy now by Al Gore and the likes. It's all about who owns the land.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 04:48 PM

I would regard 90% as fairly persuasive, Doug, were I trying to decide what to do about a problem...

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 03:47 PM

Doug R - I think 90% represents a majority. If you want to depend on the 10% who are uncertain, then I guess you think we should not act on the evidence. Its a probability, Doug, not a certainty.

Since its probable, according to 90%, we should act. To do nothing based on the uncertainty of 10% is to risk the future of your children and grandchildren.

Of course its much easier to blame it on God than it is to take any personal responsibility.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 03:15 PM

"The land I own is mine, yet the U.N. has claim over it through some treaty. So where's my government? Why did the U.S. govt sell me out? And how did so many Americans get duped into prizing the rights of snakes over the rights of people? The U.N. says it owns my land," Truther

Interesting. Since this is a new thought to me, Truther, please cite references to the United Nations owning your Texas land. I want to look it up.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: DougR
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 03:06 PM

Weather forcasters cannot guarantee their predictions for the following day are 100% absolutely unequivocally without a doubt correct. What makes you folks so certain that today's computers can predict with absolute certinty what the earth's temperature is going to be 100 years from now?

The latest report I heard was that the "experts" who released it predicted that they were 90% sure that global warming is caused by us humans. Ninety percent ain't 100%.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 02:24 PM

The traditions of private property ownership since the Renaissance have been adjusted by the restraint that the owner may not do harm to others through the use of his property. Every state in the Union, as a result, has zoning laws at the state or county level, and some smaller divisions such as planned communities go so far as to outlaw aesthetic offense be defining acceptable color schemes.

There is nothing about private property that justifies -- for example -- burning rubber tires in a lot near a nursery school, or near a populated office center. On the larger scale, private ownership fdoes not justify massive carbon emission if it is demonstrably harmful to the environment.

A

Don't be specious.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 02:10 PM

Truther - A sustainable economy is dependent on a sustainable environment.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,Truther
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 01:35 PM

The "environmental movement" is a scam. There is pollution, but giving all power to the likes of Gorbachev is NOT the solution. Stalin, Andropov, Gorbachev. Those weren't nice guys. A former leader of the Soviet Union is now holed up in the Presidio in San Francisco, fer chrissake, and he's applying the old Soviet control tactics to the environmental movement. He's just ratcheting up the level of control, increasing the number of people to be affected.

This is TRUE eco-terrorism...to make people think the problem is worse than it really is so they'll be willing to turn over other peoples' property in the name of 'protecting the environment.' If you don't own property you're in favor of it, if you own just a little you're in favor because they're talking about 'wilderness area,' and so on. It's always someone else's property. But read the article at the link above...Behind the Green Curtain. It gets interesting about 1/3 of the way down.

Big 'biodiversity' areas have been set up around the world. I live in one. The central Texas biosphere. The land I own is mine, yet the U.N. has claim over it through some treaty. So where's my government? Why did the U.S. govt sell me out? And how did so many Americans get duped into prizing the rights of snakes over the rights of people? The U.N. says it owns my land, and the new NAFTA superhighways are going to claim 10 miles on both sides of the roadbeds, so what will the effect be? To drive people off the land and into compact cities. Where our population can be controlled with managed kill-offs.

The Nazis won WW2, people. The Queen of England is a German Nazi. The Bushes are American Nazis. The eugenics program is going forward just like Hitler said it would. It's taking a roundabout course, but it's getting there. First, you have to put people into concentration camps (cities). How do you get them there? You make land off limits for "environmental reasons," and you build unnecessary highways and grant 20-mile wide easements so people have to give up their homes. You road-tax the hell out of people in the U.K. so they can't commute anymore and have to move into the cities, closer to their jobs (and if it works, do it in the U.S.). Just get those people concentrated in the cities so the bioweapons can do their stuff.

Private property ownership is the basis of a free society. Without the right to own property, you live in a dictatorial society. The environmental movement has been hijacked by virulent anti-private property fanatics. I just hope Gorby personally comes to boot me off my land.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 12:06 PM

'Truther' is well into truthiness.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 10:50 AM

You really have a problem, don't you? ;-)

Thought of getting counseling yet?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,Truther
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 11:18 PM

cont...

MIKHAIL: Look at me, Al. Al, look at me.

ALBERT: I can't. It's just so...beautiful. I'm jealous.

MIKHAIL: Don't be. I was born with it.

ALBERT: But do you know how many pounds of rouge I have to use to get that effect on my cheeks? I hate you.

MIKHAIL: No you don't, big boy. Look at me.

Albert looks at Mikhail. Electronic music starts to pulse.

CUT TO Sir Elton John in green spandex rehearsing a Busby Berkley dance number for the "Inconvenient Truth Show." Sir Elton sweats buckets.

Return to Mikhail and Albert, each smoking a cigarette. Albert is laughing.

MIKHAIL: Honest. We made the whole thing up. The Soviet Union, all that Philby and Burgess stuff, the whole thing. Now we're telling people the sky is falling. The earth is ending.

ALBERT: I know. I'm supposed to put on a concert about it. They put my name on a movie about it.

MIKHAIL: I think they put my name in some articles about the environment thing. Took some pictures, had me take off the tinfoil to show the...you know...for the picture. And they made me say things like "The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order." Things like that. I think that quote was in an article called "The Wildlands Project Unleashes Its War on Mankind," by Marilyn Brannan, Associate Editor of Monetary and Economic Review. Or was it Samantha Smith's "Gorbachev Forum Highlights World Government," The Patriot Press, Volume 3, Issue 1, page 8? Or was it quoted in "Behind the Green Curtain: The Globalist Radical Environmental Agenda," McAlvanly Intelligence Advisor, October 1997, page 7?   Or was it... Hey, Al, are you listening?

ALBERT: Hmm? Oh, sorry. It's just that it's so...purple.

Electronic music starts to pulse again. CUT TO Sir Elton having CPR performed rhythmically over his dead body. Wild applause rises.

ALBERT (voiceover): You th' beast, Gorby.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 12:08 PM

Gorbachev, as always, has something valuable and timely to say. He is a remarkable man.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Feb 07 - 11:05 PM

What Gorbachev REALLY says about the environmental crisis.

Most interesting in the light of the above "quote,"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 10 Feb 07 - 10:34 PM

>>"The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order." -- Mikhail Gorbachev, 1996<<

Truther, I am going to have to call you on this one. There is no such quote by Gorbachev.

The only one I could find where he alleges uses "new world order" in a sentence is the following from 1987:

"We are moving toward a new world order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road."

I got it here:

http://www.amerikanexpose.com/quotes1.html

Since this quote shows quite unequivocally that Gorbachev considered the new world order to be communism, it renders your phony statement entirely suspect because communism is clearly NOT what the spurious quote is referring to.

Where did you get that quote?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 11:36 PM

She is hot, hot, hot.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 10:24 PM

Question: Is there more than one Sarah Silverman video? I didn't see an audience of any sort but I did hear lots of laughter, addressing TWO issues. What did you guys see?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,Truther
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 09:06 PM

"The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order." -- Mikhail Gorbachev, 1996

"In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities effectively exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason." -- Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1971

http://www.911kemet.co.uk/nwoquotes.html

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,Truther
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 08:12 PM

CLIMATE CHANGE CONCERTS 'TO DWARF LIVE AID'

Judy Garland part played by Al Gore. Mickey Rooney part played by a gung-ho environmentalist.

MICKEY: Your cheeks look overly-rouged today, Al...I mean, Judy. Why're you dolled-up?

JUDY: Because we're gonna put on a big show in Mama Earth's barn, that's why. We'll have an "Inconvenient Truth" show.

MICKEY: You mean to promote the idea that the climate's in danger and all that?

JUDY: Right. We'll sew together some old flour sacks to make costumes, and build a stage out of old crates, and we'll pipe in about two billon godzilla-watts of precious electricity to show how much we care.

MICKEY: Great idea, Judy! We'll show those pricks how much we love humanity. By the way, how many pounds of rouge do you use on each cheek?

CUT TO MONTAGE of bulldozers gouging amphitheaters out of hillsides, forests being felled to make bleachers, etc.