"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:11:39 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:35:51 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
m...
RCM only
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:18:34 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
I think we will. We have some very good people in this administration,
and
Got a list? Who do you like and why?
I don't keep "lists."
So, you can't/won't reel 'em off, or you have "a generally good
feeling" about the new administration? I see.
I just have no interest in arguing with you about who is good or bad.
Well, you could state them without arguing with me, eh?
I really don't care to get into a meaningless discussion about it. I have a
pretty good idea who most of those people are, and I'm not interested in
convincing anyone else about them. I also have made my own judgments about
which opinions will be consequential, and which will not. Fair enough?
I'd count them mostly as Clintonian retreads and previously discounted
failed advisors to the Liberals. ONe example is John P. Holdren (
advisor to Paul Ehrlich, failed author of "sky is falling" Liberal
books, all of which were disproven) Now he "advises" Obama about
science and technology. thud
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-science-advisor-called-for-planetary-regime-to-enforce-totalitarian-population-control-measures.html
Is this one of your "good people", Ed?
I know about Holdren from his days at Woods Hole. He's reputed to be one of
the world's top experts on environmental issues. I don't know any more
details than that, as I haven't read any of his articles for over 20 years
and I've never read his books.
The page comes up blank. But, Jesus Christ, Larry, are you reading Prison
Planet as one of your sources? No wonder you've been going through the
looking glass lately.
It works for me. It was the first link I found about Holdren. The guy
is just as bonkers as Ehrlich. Check him out. I dare you. 
Larry, did you read that book, or did you just read *about* the book, as
told to you by the likes of the Prison Planet freaks? Because if you haven't
READ the book, what good is your opinion about it?
It's tiresome to chase these claims all around the block, only to find
out -- usually after I've spent considerable effort to track down original
sources -- that the person I'm talking to is handing out second-hand
opinions, cherry-picked quotes taken out of context, and other nonsense.
I'm not going to chase this one. I never read _Ecoscience_ but my
understanding is that it contained the full range of potential policy ideas
relating to limiting population growth, as they were being discussed in
1969. You'd find a lot of people here who agree that there are too many
people in the US as it is. g I'm not going to comment on the book without
actually reading it, and I'm not going to read a book about science and
social science issues written in 1969. Did you?
Look, I spent days reading your anti-global-warming "authorities," at your
instructions, only to find out they were full of nonsense. I don't have
time
for another round of that.
there's no mystery about what's happening. The biggest risk, IMO, is
that
the recovery will get hung up in partisan politics. If that locks us
into
inaction, we could wind up with a decade like the one that Japan just
had --
and is still having, actually.
That's one risk. Another large risk is insert Arab sleeper theory
here.
What "risk" is that? Forty thousand people die here each year from car
accidents. An estimated 440,000 die each year from smoking-related
illnesses. Is a terror attack going to be worse than that? You can't
destroy
the US with terror attacks.
Oh, noooo, nothing has changed since 9/11, has it? Do you see, in
trainloads of money and degrees of freedom, our country changing
because of it?
Nope. But then, I'm not reading Prison Planet. Maybe they've dug up some
new
conspiracy theories.
Lose the wool, Ed.
Besides, a sleeper would turn our heads and eyes away from the reality
of our country being given away.
Paranoia strikes deep, eh?
East Coast blindness, eh?
With the EU's and Russia's help, the
Arabs are starting to redefine democracy around the world until, some
day, we won't even recognize it. It's not an attack, per se, but the
outcome would be the same. It can't be measured in numbers of lives
until it happens, when it goes from zero to beaucoup overnight.
Is that before or after the Trilateral Commission puts drugs in our water
supply?
Go ahead, play it up. Your (and our) leaders are doing things on a
daily basis which continue to sell us out. (It's not paranoia if it's
true, right?)
Enough of this crap. I'm doing no such thing. And this discussion is
ridiculous.
Another large risk is that the Democrats will give all our
country's offensive (and probably the defensive, too) weapons away...
Where in the hell did this one come from? Is that in your
global-warming-denial books? g
No, from the daily news: Obama's Moscow Summit, etc, etc. Dems are
historically disarmers by nature.
Right. That's how we got into Vietnam. sheesh
No, that's how Demonrats killed thousands of our soldiers in Nam. They
turned off the money while we were still deployed so when they ran out
of ammo, they died. No air cover, no resupply. Grrrrrrrrrr!
Oh, Jesus, you've been drinking that Kool Aid again. Yeah, we spent
ourselves into penury over that stupid war, and 58,000 soldiers all died at
the very end, when the ammo ran out. Do you listen to yourself writing this
stuff?
outlaw our guns, turn us into another Euro entity, and cause us to
self-destruct (if the bad guys in the world don't act first.)
There are anti-anxiety medications that will relieve those symptoms of
yours, Larry.
You're worried about the sky falling (AGWK) when the infrastructure is
melting. How savvy is that?
It looks pretty accurate, and it's not some little gaggle of conspiracy
theorists who are saying it.
Do you know why eight major glaciers in Alaska are growing, despite global
warming? You should look into it. You'd find out how the conspiracy
theorists are pulling the wool over your eyes.
? Isn't that contra-indicative of the sky falling? Who's pulling
whose wool?
Find out how it works, and why. It will give you some insight into how the
deniers play their shell games. And that's what most of it is: shell games,
like Crichton claiming that increased ice floating in the sea around
Antarctica is evidence of cooling -- when it was warming that broke the ice
off the shelves and set it afloat in the first place. That's a good metaphor
for the whole denier argument.
Gee, I wish I were more relevant in national economic and political
trends outside the newsgroup.
We can say a little prayer each night that the attitudes and beliefs of
hardly anyone here is relevant to anything going on in the real world.
d8-)
Yeah, we're all just a bunch of weirdos, aren't we, Ed?
Uh, there is a lot of that going around, especially since Banquer moved
back
for a visit. d8-)
Plonk him and forget him. I'm about to plonk Gunner again with all
his retorts to hot ham and sleeze, et al. Damn, that gets annoying to
have to hit the ignore key for 50 posts every day...well, Sundays,
anyway. vbg
--
Mistrust the man who finds everything good, the man who finds everything
evil, and still more the man who is indifferent to everything.
-- Johann K. Lavater