Actually, I'm not a huge fan of Michael Moore. I've been watching South Park. :thumb: But again, I keep forgetting that people on message boards take everything verbatim. I need to remember the sarcasm face.

It would seriously help. How in the world am I supposed to know when you're being sarcastic or not since I don't know you from Adam? :idunno:

Did I read this correctly?

 

Someone who thinks "what harm can it do to believe", or basically that it can't hurt to NOT pollute and to take care of the earth, was compared to someone believing that 72 virgins will wait for you in heaven if you "blow up the infidel".

:confused:

:confused:

 

I agree with RM. I don't think there's any harm in believing it. There's no harm in believing 72 virgins await you in heaven if you blow up an infidel. The problems arise from the actions the beliefs lead to.

 

Maybe I took it the wrong way, which is why I was asking.

Maybe I took it the wrong way, which is why I was asking.

Gotcha, somehow I missed that.

Maybe I took it the wrong way, which is why I was asking.

 

 

It's OK...it's not the first time I've been compared in a similar manner. Let's see...Catholic=idol worshiper=going to Hades. "Liberal"=tree hugger=dangerously idealistic. "Anti-War"=un-patriotic=anti-troop=OK with the end of the world as we know it. Pro-gun-law-reform=anti-American rights.

 

I could go on, but you get the picture. :lol:

 

And....I'm 100% OK with people thinking those things about me.

If Barack Obama and this democratic Congress gets us into this, we'll never get out and it will be the end of America as we know it. You cannot agree to something that supersedes our own law and puts us at the mercy of the rest of a world that hates us.

 

Insane that its even possible.:idunno:

How's that "Hope and Change" working for you now?

 

Mind boggling that a relative handful of people in D.C. have the power to defeat the greatest nation in the world, that millions of soldiers, with untold weaponry, training and brilliant battleplans have not been able to bring down in more than 230 years.

It's OK...it's not the first time I've been compared in a similar manner. Let's see...Catholic=idol worshiper=going to Hades. "Liberal"=tree hugger=dangerously idealistic. "Anti-War"=un-patriotic=anti-troop=OK with the end of the world as we know it. Pro-gun-law-reform=anti-American rights.

 

I could go on, but you get the picture. :lol:

 

And....I'm 100% OK with people thinking those things about me.

 

:lol:

It's OK...it's not the first time I've been compared in a similar manner. Let's see...Catholic=idol worshiper=going to Hades. "Liberal"=tree hugger=dangerously idealistic. "Anti-War"=un-patriotic=anti-troop=OK with the end of the world as we know it. Pro-gun-law-reform=anti-American rights.

 

I could go on, but you get the picture. :lol:

 

And....I'm 100% OK with people thinking those things about me.

You little left-winger, tree huggin', Pinko hippie you.... :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

j/k, rockmom

It's OK...it's not the first time I've been compared in a similar manner. Let's see...Catholic=idol worshiper=going to Hades. "Liberal"=tree hugger=dangerously idealistic. "Anti-War"=un-patriotic=anti-troop=OK with the end of the world as we know it. Pro-gun-law-reform=anti-American rights.

 

I could go on, but you get the picture. :lol:

 

And....I'm 100% OK with people thinking those things about me.

 

That was not an attack on you. I was illustrating a point that when a person's beliefs lead to actions that are harmful, problems arise. The example of Islamic terrorists clearly accomplishes that goal.

 

I'm truly sorry that the majority of people in the P & R forum aren't intelligent enough to distinguish between the two...but, I expect no less.

 

Besides, it's easier to engage in a meaningless rant than actually address the substance of the post, which nobody has done.

 

:idunno:

 

We're only a trillion dollars in the hole...what could paying another 2 or 3 trillion to Africa for loss of opportunity and dignity due to our fossil fuel burning hurt?

How's that "Hope and Change" working for you now?

 

Mind boggling that a relative handful of people in D.C. have the power to defeat the greatest nation in the world, that millions of soldiers, with untold weaponry, training and brilliant battleplans have not been able to bring down in more than 230 years.

 

It's working about how I expected.

That was not an attack on you. I was illustrating a point that when a person's beliefs lead to actions that are harmful, problems arise. The example of Islamic terrorists clearly accomplishes that goal.

 

I'm truly sorry that the majority of people in the P & R forum aren't intelligent enough to distinguish between the two...but, I expect no less.

 

Besides, it's easier to engage in a meaningless rant than actually address the substance of the post, which nobody has done.

 

:idunno:

 

We're only a trillion dollars in the hole...what could paying another 2 or 3 trillion to Africa for loss of opportunity and dignity due to our fossil fuel burning hurt?

 

 

For the record, I didn't take it as a personal attack, and I understood exactly what you were saying. Shoot, I've even used the argument that it's the action, not the belief, that is the issue myself. I am guilty of trying to interject some levity, at my own expense.

 

As to the substance, I do believe exactly as I say. And, I think that there are a great number of people who may disagree with the enormous cost that global warming initiatives may cost, because like another hot-button issue I frequently debate, it's a matter of personal responsibility. Therefore, I don't greatly consider this issue when I decidemy votes.

It's working about how I expected.

I know friend... I know... I just had to ask... :lol:

For the record, I didn't take it as a personal attack, and I understood exactly what you were saying. Shoot, I've even used the argument that it's the action, not the belief, that is the issue myself. I am guilty of trying to interject some levity, at my own expense.

 

As to the substance, I do believe exactly as I say. And, I think that there are a great number of people who may disagree with the enormous cost that global warming initiatives may cost, because like another hot-button issue I frequently debate, it's a matter of personal responsibility. Therefore, I don't greatly consider this issue when I decidemy votes.

 

:thumb:

 

I'm glad you didn't take it any other way than I intended. I think we're in agreement...at least for the most part. We, as humans, need to be responsible, and part of that is taking care of the environment. (For example, we shouldn't dump toxic waste into a river.)

 

However, I do not believe in climate change. I think it's a myth and the people pushing it are using it to push an agenda. What they want has nothing to do with "saving the earth". It's a tool they're using to bring about certain policies that they want implemented.

 

Global warming was first. That was a lie. So, now it's climate change. They've managed to convince a large portion of the world that unless we stop CO2 it will bring about the end of the world.

 

Question: Do you use gasoline and feed people? Or do you use the corn as an alternative fuel source so we can stop something that doesn't exist while people go hungry?

 

This green policy is going to wreck the United States if they push it as far as they want to. Our economy isn't exactly rock solid right now, so what happens when cap-and-trade shuts down the coal industry or drives the price through the roof? People lose jobs...power shortage...insanely high power bills.

 

That's just one example of what it could lead to if somebody with some common sense doesn't stop the insanity.

 

I wonder how many of the "climate changers" will be happy the first time they get a power bill that's about 10 times what it used to be. Or, how many will be happy the first time the United Nations votes that we have to pay Africa a couple hundred billion dollars for loss of dignity, and the president has to raise taxes to try to compensate.

 

Can't see the forest for the trees...and by that time, we sure won't be able to cut one down.

:thumb:

 

I'm glad you didn't take it any other way than I intended. I think we're in agreement...at least for the most part. We, as humans, need to be responsible, and part of that is taking care of the environment. (For example, we shouldn't dump toxic waste into a river.)

 

However, I do not believe in climate change. I think it's a myth and the people pushing it are using it to push an agenda. What they want has nothing to do with "saving the earth". It's a tool they're using to bring about certain policies that they want implemented.

I don't think it's a myth at all. I also don't think ALL people that believe the theories of global warming/climate change are doing what you suggest. I do believe that there's a very visible minority that does so, but not that all people who believe the theories do.

Global warming was first. That was a lie. So, now it's climate change. They've managed to convince a large portion of the world that unless we stop CO2 it will bring about the end of the world.

 

Question: Do you use gasoline and feed people? Or do you use the corn as an alternative fuel source so we can stop something that doesn't exist while people go hungry?

I feel we do need to do both that you suggest, and I don't think there has to be a catastrophic conclusion on either part at the expense of the other. Speaking again of personal responsibility, there are ways to reduce consumption, transition to alternative fuels, AND produce enough food-stuffs.

 

This green policy is going to wreck the United States if they push it as far as they want to. Our economy isn't exactly rock solid right now, so what happens when cap-and-trade shuts down the coal industry or drives the price through the roof? People lose jobs...power shortage...insanely high power bills.

The simple truth is this: The answer lies somewhere between the extreme positions of the warring sides.

 

That's just one example of what it could lead to if somebody with some common sense doesn't stop the insanity.

 

I wonder how many of the "climate changers" will be happy the first time they get a power bill that's about 10 times what it used to be. Or, how many will be happy the first time the United Nations votes that we have to pay Africa a couple hundred billion dollars for loss of dignity, and the president has to raise taxes to try to compensate.

 

Can't see the forest for the trees...and by that time, we sure won't be able to cut one down.

 

I think that most people see the global warming/climate change issues as pushing RESPONSIBLE use of the enviornment, and forward-thinking development. Yet, the extremists on both sides of this issue seem to be digging their heels in the sand and intent on drawing the focus to only the direst of possible circumstances possible that support their side of the issue.

I apologize for not being intelligent enough to understand the complexity of your posts 5wide :lol:.

 

I asked a simple question about your two examples and not only did you question my intelligence, but you accused me of attempting to engage in a meaningless rant, which is false.

 

It was not an attempt to engage in a meaningless rant. However it was an attempt to discover whether or not you truly meant to compare that believing in terrorism and murder is OK, to believing that climate change is real.