A mutual friend forward an email from Justin who is a young passionate
believer of Al Gore's global warming. It's rare when a liberal opens up and
speaks in coherent sentences. In many way, Justin reminds me of me when I
was in my early twenties. That's why I wrote back to him.
He expended a lot of effort writing and deserves a careful answer. I hope
you also find it helpful. cb
Justin: I'm sure I'm going to regret this because you will feel the need to
defend yourself (which you have the right to do), sparking off yet another
political-based argument, but I can't sit back any longer and listen to this
slander about the environment any more. This is long, so please give it the
respect it deserves.
Justin: Of all the things I care about politically, the environment is
without a doubt the one thing I care the most deeply about - not because it
will immediately and directly affect you or me, but because of the
longstanding and future implications it has on our world. The world is
shrinking.
Ex-Liberal: I'm not sure I know what you mean by shrinking. but okay. You
sound like a "population bomb" theorist.
Justin: .and the ONE thing that will be there for our children and their
children and their children's children is the planet that we all inhabit.
Ex-Liberal: It is good that you care for our progeny. That is not usually a
leftist attribute. I also accept the evidence of global warming. I accept
that global warming has warmed the planet for 100,000 years, and will
continue to warm our planet for another 100,000 years, with minor 1,500-year
heating cycles that may occur.
Justin: To deny that the environment is not important and that "a far off
glacier melting" will have no impact is to deny that we don't need air to
breathe. Is terrorism and the threat to our lands a serious issue that must
be met? Most certainly. Is terrorism the most important issue we have to
worry about right now? Probably - it certainly is the most salient. However,
why must we play this game of black and white where one issue must be so
important to remain on the agenda that it doesn't allow room for other
important concerns, such as the environment?
Ex-Liberal: This is not an either/or black/white red/blue issue. This is an
apples/kangaroo argument - one that more closely resembles the "how do I
deal with the home-invasion robbers who are threatening to kill my family
right now?" argument versus the inane "boxers or briefs," or "Mac or PC"
arguments that preoccupy so many intellectually lazy Americans.
Ex-Liberal: There are also disingenuous and dangerous implications to your
arguments as well. The disingenuousness comes from liberal environmentalists'
1) irrational preference for fossil fuel over nuclear energy, 2) the
prevailing hypocrisy illustrated by Al Gore's energy bill, and 3) their
refusal to intellectually grasp facts like electric cars create MORE carbon
emissions than regular cars because of our present reliance of fossil fuels
to generate electricity (and the loss of electrical power due to electrical
resistance) before the electricity reaches the car, or the fact that we rely
on more fossil fuel to create the energy needed to create hydrogen to drive
hydrogen cars, and so forth. There's a huge disconnect between their
emotionally-driven passion and the effort expended to avoid their
intellectual grasp of reality.
Ex-Liberal: NOTE: Our reliance of emotionally-driven passion may stem from
youthful immaturity. Immature men love liberal women because they're easier
to have sex with. Immature and insecure women prefer liberal men because
they're "less judgmental" and, therefore, less of an emotional threat. But
as we mature, men grow up to prefer smart women who respect themselves,
while women prefer men who represent the virtues of emotional stability. It's
a good thing for America that liberals enjoy recreational sex
(un-reproductive sex). Europe's impending demise illustrates how liberal
ideas can be as genocidal as death camps - without the muss or fuss. But I
digress.
Ex-Liberal: The danger comes from liberal environmental disingenuousness.
ELF is America's most active terrorist group today. They use terror, arson,
and vandalism to enforce their disingenuousness as a pretext of their
"morally superior sensitivity" to protect the planet from those who do not
accept their drivel as fact. I'm not saying that all environmentalists
support terrorism but, rather, that liberal environmentalists assume that
conservative environmentalists who expose liberal disingenuousness are
anti-environment. I can look at the facts, use efficient cars, BBQ with
propane instead of charcoal, and be environmentally-sensitive without being
disingenuous. The danger comes from disingenuous liberals who want to impose
their irrational policies (that actually cause greater harm to the
environment) on those they ostensibly want to protect. Two examples: 1)
their irrational refusal to permit nuclear energy plants to be built in the
US (France gets 70 percent of their electricity from nuclear energy) in
favor of fossil fuels, and 2) their refusal to permit loggers from thinning
forests that would prevent millions of acres from being burned in wildfires
under the pretext of "preserving the habitat."
Ex-Liberal: Their reckless disingenuousness also leads to questions of how
they expect to enforce and impose their irrational hypocrisy on other people
of far dirtier nations. Because leftist (disingenuous) environmentalists are
promoted and supported by leftist teachers (by brainwashing our children)
who are supported by leftist politicians who create expensive and
meaningless laws that hurt our country, our economy, and our environment,
conservative environmentalists do more for the planet than liberal
environmentalists. These arguments undermine your following arguments.
Justin: The fact of it is this: the environment should not be a Red/Blue
issue (I *HATE* to quote Gore and those other "Hollywood Liberals" since
their claims were kind of corny and I'm not getting my facts or statements
from them); the environment should be something that everyone should
genuinely have concerns about.
Ex-Liberal: Most Americans, (I'd estimate 95%-plus) are either
environmentalists (defined) or at least sensitive to the environment. They
are represented by all Americans, not just liberals. I consider myself an
environmentalist not only because I have cleaned despoiled reefs from
fishing nets and promote ecologically-sound practices for sport divers, but
also because I pick up trash when I walk and turn off lights and appliances
that my left-leaning wife likes to leave on (the lights are pretty, the
sound of the TV is soothing, etc.). She'd consider herself as concerned for
the environment as I am, but has only recently begun to care enough to get
rid of her high performance MBZ 500 SL. We still have an SUV but I mostly
ride my motorcycle. (I'm still working on the lights and TV.) My liberal
Hollywood neighborhood is jammed with SUVs and muscle cars that they
purchase under the pretext of "child safety" (again, disingenuous).
Justin: Why should they have concern? Because the effect of global warming,
deforestation, air pollution, water quality, toxic waste, biodiversity, etc.
has enormous implications for us that cannot be ignored. Species are going
extinct at a faster rate than ever before recorded, less natural land is
available to provide the essential oxygen that we all need to breathe and
provide for the overall biodiversity of the world, we are depleting the
earth of its natural resources like oil and coal and an exponential rate,
and the list goes on.
Ex-Liberal: This is where Justin's thesis unravels: Anyone who challenges
hysterical and disingenuous leftist environmentalists either hate the planet
or are, at least, anti-environment partisans. Anyone who does not share
their hysterical passion of ecological paranoia threatens our planet.
Justin: Global warming IS happening.
Ex-Liberal: There is no argument. The planet has warmed for 100,000 years -
long before SUVs and the Industrial Age. Some evidence shows that our planet
gets hot every 1500 years before cooling again. Vikings once farmed on
Greenland!
Justin: Just because we do not see tropical weather on a daily basis and
because we still have blizzards and snow and cold doesn't mean it's not
happening.
Ex-Liberal: Again, Justin illustrates leftist disingenuousness: Lefties, who
so gratuitously antagonize conservatives for their Judeo-Christian
teachings, God, religion, and faith, are the first to genuflect before
alternative religions of global warming, UFOs, and cow farts.
Justin: Here's a piece of statistical fact for you: Over the last century
the average temperature has climbed about 1 degree Fahrenheit around the
world. During our last ice age 10,000 years ago the Earth's average
temperature was only 4 degrees colder annually than what its average annual
temperature is today (and those 4 degrees changed over the course of
thousands of years). Small variations in the Earth's climate can have
enormous effects - four degrees can be the difference between today and an
ice age. In fact, many physical anthropologists, scientists, and other
professionals have released data suggesting that prior to the Earth's ice
ages there was actually a general GLOBAL WARMING of the earth's climate
(this time by natural causes based on the sun and the position of the Earth's
orbit and celestial orientation rather than through the rapid enforcement of
climate change by the Earth's inhabitants).
Ex-Liberal: MANY other physical anthropologists, scientists, and other
professionals have refuted that data as well (1, 2, 3, 4). Leftist
theologians prevail by consensus, while scientists prevail with unassailable
evidence. Galileo knows what I'm talking about.
Ex-Liberal: This goes back to liberal disingenuousness: How do leftist
environmentalists have so much faith in the unproven quantification of
Humanity's contribution to global warming when they overwhelmingly fear,
refute, and antagonize faithful (spiritually-connected) conservatives?
Meteorologists and climatologists can barely forecast next week's weather.
The danger is not that the planet is getting warmer, but that disingenuous
liberals would impose their hysterical policies on ALL Americans while
ignoring the hypocrisy of Al Gore's energy bill or his zinc mine that still
pollutes the Tennessee River. (He sold it in 2003 when it threatened to
expose his inconvenient hypocrisy.) Again, we are not arguing about the love
of our planet and environment, but the difference between coherent and
disingenuous environmentalism.
Justin: The Earth is an extremely resilient thing, to a degree, and often
has ways of self-correcting for itself.
Ex-Liberal: I'm a jogger - I run the hills above Hollywood (Runyon Canyon).
I've seen and understand the oceans' ecosystems better than most as a scuba
divemaster who has worked and dived in many of the planet's oceans. The
preachy condescension of disingenuous environmentalists also grate.
Justin: What many of these experts have proposed, consequently, is that the
ice ages were a result - either because of or in part because of - the
warming trend of the Earth's climate.
Ex-Liberal: So you believe that global warming will cause the next Ice Age?
Justin: When enough of those "far off glaciers" melt, the icy cold,
de-salinated water that rushes out from glaciers or ice caps into the
warmer, salinated ocean currents can, theoretically (my emphasis), cause the
climate patterns of the Earth to self-correct, causing a general COOLING
trend: oceans become cooler, changing wind currents and causing them to cool
the land more rapidly and over a more expansive area for the effect of
self-corrrecting for the environmental change that has happened, but in much
grander and more extreme scale. This is serious and to deny it is just
wrong.
Ex-Liberal: Your argument unravels here. You proposes one THEORY before
concluding that this is serious and wrong to deny. This is why lefties rely
on bumper stickers to argue their positions. I described rooterspeak
before - a string of rational-sounding gibberish presented as undeniable
fact. This, again, returns to my remarks about disingenuousness and the
dangers that come with it. For such a secularly hostile group, liberals
express a lot of unexplainable faith. Those who do not believe in God must
create other theologies - but that's another essay.
Justin: And as to your claims about the "historic idiocy and inherent
irresponsibility of such a claim," can't you see that recent history should
not and can not apply here? No "idiocy" can apply because we are in an
entirely new world where the same rules do not apply. The past 50 years, and
especially the past 20, have seen the largest global boom in population,
technology, and pollution this world has ever seen. Some more facts for you
to chew on: in the year 1650 the world's population was at 500 million (with
a population doubling time - that is, the amount of time it would take the
world's population to double based on the birth/death rate ratio - of 1,000
years). By 1850 there was 1 billion people in the world (with a doubling
time of 200 years). By 1930, the Earth's population was at 2 billion (with a
doubling time of 80 years). Today, just 77 years later, the Earth's
population has jumped to an astronomical 6.6 billion with an estimated
doubling time of 53 years. So, even if the current population rate stays
steady, which is doubtful given the trend for decreasing doubling time, then
by 2060- when you are 81 years old and I am 75 years old, ages both of us
can live to - there will be about 13 billion people in the world, all of
whom will be contributing waste and pollution, depleting natural resources
and raw materials, and being affected on a daily basis by the status of the
Earth's environment.
Ex-Liberal: Paul Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" theories were disproved before
you were born.
Justin: So, the claim that history was "idiotic" and was an "inherent
irresponsibility" is moot. We are living in a much different world than our
parents and grandparents, and it's safe to say that our kids and
grandchildren will be living in a different world from us.
Ex-Liberal: This argument encapsulates all of the aforementioned
components - disingenuousness, rooterspeak, hysteria, and the question that
comes with those dangers - how do lefties (people that Orwell and I
characterize as fascist) intend to enforce the policies borne of their
hysteria? Do lefties plan to create a one-world government that forces
billions of people to die or abort? What does one leftist/fascist government
do to enforce their will against non-compliant (free) people? How do we get
Calcutta's million homeless residents to comply? Many scientists have
disproved your premises (1, 2, 3, 4). Mark Steyn explains projected
flattening demographics in countries like India and China, and the shrinking
populations of Europeans who are, coincidentally, dying because of the
policies borne from their social hysteria.
Justin: Terrorism was not a major domestic issue 30, 40, 50 years ago (at
least not to the same extent that it is today), and it's plausible to say
that it will not be the same threat in 30, 40, 50 years from now that it is
today.
Ex-Liberal: I would refute that as well. The media did not report or
characterize terrorism the way it does today and many publications, like the
New York Times, had no problem promoting propaganda that misrepresented
genocide.
Ex-Liberal: And because of Islamic, European, and generally accepted
anti-American bias (largely perpetuated by America's guilt-ridden liberals),
their historians would obviously portray "Jews, Christians, and Americans"
no differently than they already do if they prevailed in our present
conflict. History often depends upon who writes it - which by itself is why
America's freedoms are worth fighting for.
Ex-Liberal: This is also why spirituality is so important. It is harmful
enough if Americans do not believe in God. But if we substitute our faith
with something as preposterous as global warming AND then create policies or
make war upon non-believers of that fabricated mythology, we erode freedom.
Godless nations don't survive. America's strength is our Judeo-Christian
beliefs that encourage the freedoms necessary to be intellectually curious.
Our freedoms are threatened by godless and disingenuous people who grow
increasingly hysterical.
Justin: The environment, on the other hand, is here to stay whether we like
it or not. Our past generations never took the initiative to make changes,
not only in policy formation but also in cultural mindset, that can better
our environment's future. We have the knowledge, resources, and technology
to do so. so why don't we?
Ex-Liberal: Why don't we what? What is your plan? How do you execute it? On
what facts do you base your opinions and action plan and what are they,
EXACTLY? Again, your arguments are deeply flawed.
Ex-Liberal: Look, I'm an ex-liberal and an environmentalist. The grown-ups
of America (conservatives) have demonstrated a greater commitment to the
environment and freedom than liberals by looking at the science and offering
alternative energy sources that liberal environmentalists have refused to
consider. Yes, TMI and Chernobyl were disasters, but the technology is far
better understood than they were decades ago and other technologies (cars)
have killed or injured millions of people over the years - yet we still use
them.
Ex-Liberal: There are many MANY examples of this behavior of MANY different
liberal policies. Gun control, for example, actually creates more violence
wherever it is imposed; and yet, liberals continue to press for gun control
despite the facts. LA, controlled for decades by lefties, boasts the
dirtiest air, the worst crime, the worst schools, the worst traffic, and one
of the worst qualities of life in America. If you need a bigger example,
read Mark Steyn's book and see where social liberalism has taken Europe.
Ex-Liberal: Do you need an example of charismatic leaders who rise to power
from the hysterical and dissatisfied masses of uninformed disingenuous
people? Look at Hitler, Stalin, Castro - the planet is full of history
lessons.
Ex-Liberal: America's global warming arguments are not about
environmentalism, but of two arguments of scientific discourse and emotional
hysteria. Your assumption that one must join the consensus of one viewpoint
of an unproven science to be an ecologically-sensitive American; and pillory
global warming heretics provides the sincerity and competence of a witch
trial.
Justin: I guess the one thing that perplexes me to no end and to which I
cannot wrap my arms around is why both Liberals and Conservatives refuse to
cross party-lines on many issues that are traditionally "Red/Blue" issues,
including the environment.
Ex-Liberal: Ayn Rand explained that when good compromises with evil, evil
wins. There can be no cross-party acceptance between fact-based truth and
disingenuousness, just as there could be no compromise in America for
slavery or Jim Crow. There are some issues which do not deserve compromise
and Republicans had to kill Democrats to end it. And the end of slavery is a
good thing, I think.
Ex-Liberal: I'm a trained career investigator. I've conducted thousands of
investigations and I review other investigations routinely. I understand the
rules of evidence and why they are important to a thriving democracy.
Red/Blue is not environmentalist/anti-environmentalist, but of
coherence/incoherence that the global warming and other leftist social
pretexts illustrate.
Justin: Yes, Republicans in general want more restricted government and they
work for more pro-business ideals that conflict with environmental
progressivism. But why can't they see the inherent danger in our levels of
pollution, population growth, deforestation, consumption, and waste and
advocate ideals that protect the environment?
Ex-Liberal: I think I have described what most of us see. If you need more
examples, let me know.
Justin: The same goes for Democrats too. Democrats in general want more
peace and less war and don't necessarily care that the government might be
taking steps to protecting its nation's freedom and security (hence blaming
Bush, the policy initiator and public face, for any problems they may see
society to have).
Ex-Liberal: More peace - less war. I like that. My paternal ancestors fought
Democrats to free slaves in 1865. Sometimes war is necessary. It is most
often necessary when disingenuous fascists impose policies that ostensibly
benefit the people. Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, our
forefathers, FDR. all of these leaders went to war to create peace. I spent
nearly all of my active Marine Corps years in other countries. I was a
career police officer. I have fought people who tried to kill me and other
people. No one loves peace more than America's warriors, which is why they
fight for it - and most liberals do not.
Ex-Liberal: Blessed are the peacemakers. America's disingenuous don't want
more peace and less war, they want coerced compliance to enforce their
disingenuousness. The ONLY compromise they deserve is our patient nurturing
and leadership by example.
Ex-Liberal: Conservatives are far from perfect. But while we vilify,
condemn, and force the removal of Republicans like Duke Cunningham, Richard
Nixon, Bill Janklow, and Mark Foley, people like Alcee Hastings, Bill
Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and William Jefferson are still celebrated and
reelected. So much for the "party of corruption."
Ex-Liberal: Our differences are not red/blue or perfect/imperfect, but of
disingenuousness/virtuousness, which makes the argument for Good vs. Evil.
Good should never compromise with evil. When necessary, good must sometimes
make war with evil to secure our peace and freedom.
Ex-Liberal: I'm FAR from perfect, but I have made public service my life. I
look at the evidence and coherence people like you bring to the table. I'm
familiar with being hated by people who I expose as disingenuous. I'm
familiar with insecure people who need the comfort that comes with a
consensual fad. Global warming offers all the allure of a rock band. If Bono
and The Goracle love liberals, liberals will love themselves all the more.
Ex-Liberal: This is the problem with godless societies: Because they don't
believe in God they force themselves to believe in something else, otherwise
they become further isolated from the humanity (physically and spiritually)
that most people crave. Many of my former baby boomer friends have dropped
from my life over the years. Oh well, at least I can sleep at night.
Justin: Why can't Democrats cross over those party-lines as well and support
the war or the government's efforts to fight terrorism?
Ex-Liberal: To support our efforts in the Middle East, liberals would have
to suspend their hatred of George Bush, thereby becoming vulnerable by
appearing to support Bush. Such a move requires courage. Liberals don't have
courage, they have gall.
Ex-Liberal: Although I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004, I abhor some of his
policies and bureaucracies (TSA, Homeland Security are two). If you
understand that the Democrat/Republican partisanship comes from the rift
between dishonesty and honesty, you'll begin to understand many of the
tertiary issues that keep people like you chasing your tail.
Ex-Liberal: Remember John Adams' Thoughts on Government: The purpose of
government is to make people happy. To make people happy, government must be
virtuous. A government that is not virtuous is a tyranny. But if a
government is virtuous and succeeds in making people happy, they no longer
need government!
Ex-Liberal: This is the fundamental difference between Republicans and
Democrats. The Republican Party was created to end slavery and protect the
freedoms to pursue happiness, as long as they don't violate the rights of
others.
Ex-Liberal: The Democrat philosophy: the one that relied on slavery, the
KKK, Jim Crow, Disenfranchisement, and their disingenuous embrace of civil
rights, is one designed to make Americans dependent upon government so that
government will control people (remember the "Solid South"). My blog
provides many of the causes and effects of their policies and methods.
Ex-Liberal: Americans spend more money on education than any other country
on the planet and yet, every Democrat-controlled public school system has
deliberately retarded millions of children who must rely on prisons and
unions to clothe and feed them.
Ex-Liberal: Union bosses extort funds from those workers that feed the
Democrat politicians who empower the union bosses who retard our children
who rely on union jobs to. it is unfortunate that, when Republicans defeated
Democrats in 1865, that we didn't outlaw the Democrat Party (like the Nazi
Party) and kill or convert ALL of their remaining sympathizers. At the same
time, I'm glad the Party exists - it's a place for America's enemies to
congregate - otherwise they'd be hard to spot, like suicide bombers.
Justin: It's because both sides are often too stubborn to care or are afraid
to renege on the party's platforms.
Ex-Liberal: Not at all: I'm a voting member of the Republican Central
Committee in California. We have a platform that Schwarzenegger has largely
ignored. I'm leaving California because I see our state as becoming too
European. Europe is dying and California's disingenuous media, politicians,
educators, and unions are so preoccupied with political influence that they
care not about what Europe is telling them will happen. I'm still a
conservative Republican, but I will re-deploy my efforts in a friendlier,
safer, healthier, less polluted city.
Ex-Liberal: Rush Limbaugh has been very critical of Republicans. The
difference between Rush Limbaugh and Air America was not that one side was
stubborn or "afraid to renege," but because one pursued honesty and the
other disingenuous. People, even some liberals, get tired of being lied to.
The difference is that liberals will tolerate lies to be liked and
Republicans are generally too busy with careers, families, and friends to
worry about who likes them and who doesn't. Air America would have found
greater success if the mainstream media hadn't already cornered leftist
bias.
Justin: This is why I believe that the environment shouldn't be a Red/Blue
issue - it tends to fall that way, but it shouldn't.
Ex-Liberal: It isn't - Republicans are pro-environment, they can't stand
leftist drivel.
Justin: It sounds idealistic and rather corny, but we're all in this
together. To deny substantiated fact that global warming is happening, for
example, simply because of your political party preference or lack of
salience in today's society given other concerns is not only ignorant, but
more importantly, just plain stupid given the effects that it could have on
our not-too-distant future.
Ex-Liberal: Your biggest point was built on theories that were long ago
disproved. You need to catch up on your reading. Climate change is real,
blaming Humanity is less certain. Forcing Humanity to alter their lives
without any measurable understanding or expectation of the cause and effect
of climate change is silly.
Justin: It's time to stop playing the blame-game on both sides and look at
the big picture. Should we scale back our efforts in Iraq and elsewhere to
make room for the environment? Definitely not.
Ex-Liberal: You have more sense than many.
Justin: But should we completely disregard the effects on the environment
that global warming and a multitude of other environmentally-sensitive
issues have just because we are at war and the global warming effects aren't
being felt on a daily basis? Certainly not. It's time to wake up.
Ex-Liberal: As you can tell, I carefully read all of your comments and have
posted our discourse on this blog - your comments and mine, unedited except
for some minor grammatical errors. If you wish to explore further, I'll be
glad to participate. You've successfully illustrated why most liberals
prefer the facility of bumper stickers, slogans, sound bites, and
rooterspeak. Explaining your positions is an exhaustive process, one that
self-involved people rarely take the time to participate in - and for
obvious reasons. Global warming advocates, for the most part, only join the
movement to be liked by other global warming advocates. Bill O'Reilly
believes in it, and so do I. Ari, CJ, all of us believe that the Ice Age
ended 100,000 years ago and that the climate has been changing ever since.
Ex-Liberal: No thoughtful person (except maybe flat-earth people) doubts
that the climate has changed for thousands of years. But humanity's role is
less understood: and for anyone who believes in God or understands
ecosystems, human nature, and the environment from an honest and scientific
standpoint - AND the history of the Democrats' reliance of false positives
to control voter attitudes should be viewed more skeptically - especially
when considering their hostory.
Justin: Thanks for reading all this. I know it's a bit much to handle, but
obviously I feel strongly about this and have done my research (I could have
discussed more statistics and facts/figures, but I figured I'd spare you
more reading) and my time into this long-winded and in-depth response. So
there's that.
Ex-Liberal: I hope that many people read our arguments. Please send this
link to friends and ask them to write or post comments on my blog. I also
hope that you read more, practice the "scientific method" and don't revert
to the bumper-sticker-Bush-Lied-Kids-Died-Halliburton-No-Blood-For-Oil
arguments that so many of your peers rely on to keep this the red/blue issue
that you've described.
Mitch_A wrote:
> A mutual friend
So you have a friend. Big fucking deal.
We could try something different, we could just try to completely ignore
every single off-topic post from Mitch.
I'd like to see no replies to mitchs posts, but he seems to be able to
display such a devastating ingorance that a huge number of people cannot
help being pissed off enough to post a reply. I have fallen into this
trap many times myself, so I should know, hehehe
Mitch has so few and badly-formulated arguments that just a hint of
intelligence is enough to score huge points in a discussion with him.
---A---
On 01.03.2007 18:36, Albert Ross wrote:
> Mitch_A wrote:
>> A mutual friend
>
> So you have a friend. Big fucking deal.
Mitch is gay.
Asgeir Nesoen wrote:
Quoted text (21 lines)
> We could try something different, we could just try to completely ignore > every single off-topic post from Mitch. > > I'd like to see no replies to mitchs posts, but he seems to be able to > display such a devastating ingorance that a huge number of people cannot > help being pissed off enough to post a reply. I have fallen into this > trap many times myself, so I should know, hehehe > > Mitch has so few and badly-formulated arguments that just a hint of > intelligence is enough to score huge points in a discussion with him. > > ---A--- > > On 01.03.2007 18:36, Albert Ross wrote: > >> Mitch_A wrote: >> >>> A mutual friend >> >> >> So you have a friend. Big fucking deal.In article <m_DFh.1577$[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
>
>
>A mutual friend forward an email from Justin who is a young passionate
>believer of Al Gore's global warming. It's rare when a liberal opens up and
>speaks in coherent sentences. In many way, Justin reminds me of me when I
>was in my early twenties. That's why I wrote back to him.
[much crap snipped]
Wow.
You are one worthless sack of shit.
-Tim
Quoted text (8 lines)
>Ex-Liberal: I hope that many people read our arguments. Please send this >link to friends and ask them to write or post comments on my blog. I also >hope that you read more, practice the "scientific method" and don't revert >to the bumper-sticker-Bush-Lied-Kids-Died-Halliburton-No-Blood-For-Oil >arguments that so many of your peers rely on to keep this the red/blue issue >that you've described. > >[much ***snipped]
Wow.
You are one worthless sack of shit.
-Tim
