34 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Like a friend of mine said, "If your car won't run, beat on the engine with a sledgehammer. It won't help any but, at least you're doing something!"
Try maple syrup instead !!!!!!!!
Let the zealots give up their money and time.
"In the 1960s we were warned that the population explosion would lead to mass global starvation. In the 1970s we were warned that the planet was running out of natural resources and that world economic growth would grind to a halt within our lifetimes. When the planet's temperature, which had been gently rising for some 400 years, appeared to be falling again, scientists warned us that we were facing the disaster of a new ice age."
Yup, look at the age of those that swallowed the story hook, line and sinker. None remember the 1970's Ice Age.
Perhaps they have...
Perhaps they have. I ran across a story that said:
"Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, but the Magazine chose instead to focus on how skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades.".
The deniers are told that they are not credible !!!!!!!
Did you miss...
Did you miss my mention of it in the "Climate Change" thread? In that thread, I mentioned the "Newsweek Magazine published a story by Sharon Begley titled Global Warming The Truth About Denial in the magazine issue dated Aug 13, 2007.".
Are we to repeat the source for something every time we mention it? Or, should I say provide a link for you to everything we mention?
Tell you what, if you can't find a link to that story with that information tell us, and I 'll provide a link for you.
RE:Are we to repeat the source
Are we to repeat the source for something every time we mention it?
But only the first 10 times the subject is brought up in a 2 week period.
More than 10 times in 2 weeks it is not necessary, after 2 weeks sources will be cited every second time the subject is raised.
RE:Are we to repeat the source
I personally feel it unnecessary, although critic expressed himself in another thread, where he felt I needed to justify why I posed a question. I was unaware that even asking a question needed to be foot noted or otherwise supplied with research and documentation, but live and learn.
By such rationalization... I can understand why Critic and Ed both felt the need to keep commenting about thefact I asked where the article might be found that explained how the global warming crowd have spent $50 BILLION to market their agenda. Keep in mind that Big Tobacco never spent that much to push their agenda but then again, they only had tobacco profits to fund their efforts.
Kind of makes you sympathetic for all those tobacco industry people who didn't have the marketing savvy that the Global Warming crowd has.
Critic and Ed both felt the need to keep commenting about thefact I asked where the article might be found that explained how the global warming crowd have spent $50 BILLION... I didn't comment at all on that, beyond providing the link you sought (now expunged; good work Mods!) and which you ignored.
What I did comment on was the ancillary garbage you kept shoveling on.
Here it is again, BTW....
Newsweek reporter and editorial, uh, article co-author Eve Conant was provided, during her interview with Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., documentation of the overwhelming funding advantage enjoyed by those who promote fear of climate change. Newsweek chose to ignore it.
In a Sept. 25, 2006, Senate floor speech, Inhofe noted: "The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a 3-to-1 ratio."
Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter testified before Inhofe's Environment and Public Works Committee: "In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one."
RE:litany..........A repetitive or incantatory recital:
By the way... the tag line about "do nothing" is misleading
Indeed, what the title implies is that all we have to do is stay the course as far as industry and commerce is concerned. In other words... we allow industry to continue to pollute at an enormous pace.
One of the arguments used by the brownies is that following an environmentalist agenda will cause consumer prices to spin out of control. Hmmm... you mean that gas and food prices have been relatively restrained these past few years ? How about these past few months ? Just what environmentalist plot has caused these recent increases in the cost of living ? Hmm?
Sorry, but doing "nothing" is not actually involved here. What is involved is rising prices to maintain monolithic industries that are never going to be hard up for profits if we "do nothing" Prices will be going up anyway... if we "do nothing"
Yeah... doing nothing is gonna cost just as much, if not more, than is we start investing in newer (and cleaner) technologies. Of course the folks who are asking us to do nothing will still be doing what they do so well. Making money, and asking us... to do nothing.
Only if you don't understand it.
I think you are the one...
... who fails to understand.
That is just my opinion... however, for all your angry, accusatory bravado, it is difficult to really discern if that is really the case. Needless to say, you hurt your own credibility with many of your comments.
My credibility with you is hurt.
I feel so empty now
I feel your pain...
Lost my credibility with Grim long ago. Several times in fact. Scarred for life!
I have an acquaintance
.... who just cannot make a decision. Her husband never voted, but told her whom to vote for when she went to the polls. She had no input into any choices, whether as to material goods or opinions.
After a few years we came to the conclusion that she likes it that way.
If she has no part in the decision-making, when bad choices were/are made, or things went/go wrong, she could not/cannot be blamed.
Does that have any relevance?
Sounds like your acquaintance is just a pushover.
She did nothing...and she was a pushover?
Subject line of your OP
The COURAGE to do nothing
Doing nothing takes courage OR you are a pushover?
Which is it?
I really don't want
to play into your stupid tactics today, but here goes.
The point of the original post was that there is COURAGE in doing nothing when vast amounts of know nothings are screaming to do ?something?
There is a difference.
Try to learn it.
1. Unreasonably, often perversely unyielding; bullheaded.
2. Firmly resolved or determined; resolute. See synonyms at obstinate.
2. Characterized by perseverance; persistent.
3. Difficult to treat or deal with; resistant to treatment or effort: stubborn soil; stubborn stains.
The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution; bravery.
My point was that doing nothing
.... does not imply taking the courageous path.
Like in not answering a cry for help.
Like in not getting involved.
"I just didn't want to get involved."
But you did not see the relevance.
I should have known better.
Yes you should have known better
There is a vast difference between doing nothing because of cowardice and doing nothing because of courage. Your acquaintance would fall in the coward category.
You're doing better than Viscount Monkton of Brenchley
He's had 4 comments since July 18th.....
but at least those comments are of quality
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)