In my house, the form is the form.
If ya dont like it, split.
This is not prop 8, so you can b*tch all you want.

Eric edits me constantly, I dont b*tch.
I shine it on, or rephrase it in the next comment

Whether you care about Gore or not is irrelevant, my point cancels out your BS claim that the rights pockets are being lined when its common knowledge that the majority of scientists and eviros working on the left aint doin it for free !!!!
Just about every darn green cause on the planet comes from the left, global warming is your little baby, dont forget it and dont think we will either.

“I don’t have any claim on understanding it all. ”

Very obviously, NOT !

Jeez.

And Micky, by any definition, damaging some stupid fur coat is most certainly NOT terrorism. To say otherwise demeans and devalues the the true victims of the horrific scourge that is truly terrorism. It’s really in poor taste.

As for what I said about demonstrations and violence and such - hey, I don’t have any claim on understanding it all. It’s just the way it is. There’s a big ol’ gray line there, and as Justice Potter Stewart once said, “I know it when I see it.”

JMJ

JMJ

Editing will be done at the sole discretion of the committee of one.

I am the Decider.

I do save the originals in my personal email in case any of you need an unredacted version in a court of law.

Unredacted may not be a word. Again it is my blog and I will use it.

It is also my party, and I will cry if I want to. You would cry too if it happened to you.

Off to Shabbos dinner. I trust my readers will not litter the blog with filth in my absence. Checking email during Sabbath dinner is not my preference.

Everybody keep the gloves up. I like all of you, editing notwithstanding.

eric

BS again !!!

You actually expect any intelligent person or pundit to believe that ?
How many carbon credits does Al Gore own ?

Millions buddy !

Jersey, you dont get to make up your own descriptions.
Many dictionaries hold the same description.
Is this what you guys on the left do ?
Make up the rules as you go along, change descriptions to suit your needs ? As “Democrats ” you cry for a majority but only when it suits your needs ?

The man who had his store front smashed was not subjected to terror as he was worried the place might get torched.
Or the missionary girl was justifiably smacked ? Or the old lady with the cross that got spat on ?

As far as your last post goes.
Its just a childish attempt to justify idiocy.
A long winded “NOTHING”

“Look. The way someone makes a point is not as important as the point itself. ”

Like if they blew my brains over a popsicle ?

Please,and then you backtracked at the last paragraph condemning the violence just to cover your butt, but ebeded up conradicting yourself.

” I don’t blame the gays at all. Good for them. I hope they raise holy h#ll over there. ”

“violence can never be tolerated in a civil society no matter what ”

You wana BS your way outta that one ?

I agree, by the way, if you’re saying that carbon trading is stupid. I think it’s extremely stupid. Most scientists think so as well. It’s a political shell game, but it has no real value, just moving money around pointlessly while accomplishing nothing and giving big polluters a perfect way to go on polluting. Meanwhile, no one is even monitoring or verifying the pollution in the fist place. Just plain stupid. It’s a politically convenient con to appease the naive Left while lining the pockets of the crooked Right.

JMJ

Look. The way someone makes a point is not as important as the point itself. I think it’s a cop-out to argue against the way an argument is made instead of making a counter-argument to the point. When I hear people complain about the way other people make a point, all I hear is, “I have no valid counter-point, so I’m just going to complain about the other guy’s tone, or appearance, or volume, or attitude, or behavior, or language - anything but make a valid counter-point.” It’s a cop-out. And it’s a convenient way of closing your ears to other point of view. Like a little child, you put your hands over your ears and simply tune out the argument with the excuse that it’s too loud, or profane, or colorful, or whatever. It’s a cop-out and it’s kinda childish and creepy.

Now, of course, violence can never be tolerated in a civil society no matter what and we have laws to deal with it, whether or not the “media” is covering it to your liking. And if one feels so strongly about something that one’s going to get violent about it, then one has to be willing to face the sanctions of law. Otherwise, one shouldn’t get violent. It’s the old, “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.” Otherwise, one’s a coward. Really, violence is very rarely acceptable. If there’s violence taking place in this case, I’m sure the law is on top of it. If not, they should be.

JMJ

Off topic, though, I just saw an interesting line over at NRO: http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/ talking about trade leaving Europe because of carbon cap and trade: “Pay no attention to the ceramic facilities in Spain shutting down because it was more profitable to go into the business of making nothing — and just selling their CO2 ration coupons”. That got me thinking. Is this whole cap and trade thing just another environmental attempt to put the brakes on trade? After all, nobody’s going to stop working because they have to earn money to eat and buy the next version of Rock Band (love that game, by the way). However, if they can make a living by doing absolutely nothing, why wouldn’t they? Buy my credits. I’ll take a nap and you pay me for it. The global economy has the brakes put on and countries with no industry get stuck in their current level of quaint folksiness and will become dependent on a limited number of businesses who actually make stuff. Sounds like the Democratic party gone global. I’d never thought about that motive for the cap and trade schemes before.