Ann Coulter Article

[John McKenna]

The coming A** Age




No matter how much liberals try to dress up their nutty superstitions about global warming as "science," which only six-fingered lunatics could doubt, scratch a global warming "scientist" and you get a religious fanatic. These days, new religions are barely up and running before they seize upon the worst aspects of the God-based religions.

First, there's the hypocrisy and corruption. At the 1992 Democratic Convention in New York, Al Gore said: "The central organizing principle of governments everywhere must be the environment." The environment would not, however, be the central organizing principle of Gore's own life.

The only place Al Gore conserves energy these days is on the treadmill. I don't want to suggest that Al's getting big, but the last time I saw him on TV I thought, "That reminds me – we have to do something about saving the polar bears."

Never mind his carbon footprint – have you seen the size of Al Gore's regular footprint lately? It's almost as deep as Janet Reno's.

But I digress. As has been widely reported, Gore's Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the energy of the average home in that state. But it's OK, according to the priests of global warming. Gore has purchased "carbon offsets."

It took the Catholic Church hundreds of years to develop corrupt practices such as papal indulgences. The global warming religion has barely been around for 20 years, and yet its devotees are allowed to pollute by the simple expedient of paying for papal indulgences called "carbon offsets."

Americans spend an extra $2.2 billion on gas a year because they're overweight, requiring more fuel in cars to carry the extra pounds. So even with all those papal indulgences, Gore may have a small carbon footprint, but he has a huge carbon butt-print.



Read the rest of the article here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=54819

[Brian E. Kelly]

Cool John now you believe in Wicthcraft too.

[rhumphries]

Just read it. Very interesting. Emailed Ms. Coulter, too.

-R-

___

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

Cool John now you believe in Wicthcraft too.

Wicthcraft?

[Justo Mickey Rivera]

ooohhhh, I feel a strange presence in the room.....oooohhhhh

LOL

Mic

[rhumphries]

Originally Posted by jrivera

ooohhhh, I feel a strange presence in the room.....oooohhhhh

Must be Ms. Coulter

[jmichalski]

So environmentalists are now religious whackos as per her ad hominem lead sentance?

I personally find it amusing that the right is so worked up over global warming. Why spend the time, energy and dollars they do combating it?

Could reducing carbon emissions be a bad thing? Of course not. could it have a negative environmental impact? Certainly not.

So, why fight so hard against it? What? Oh, right, because they are beholden to big oil.....

[Michael Larson]

Welcome to the discussion.

Originally Posted by jmichalski

So environmentalists are now religious whackos as per her ad hominem lead sentance?

Not exactly, Ann is referring to the overzelous-the the facts be damned-you must believe attitudes of some.
"Enviromentalist" is far too broad a term.

Originally Posted by jmichalski

I personally find it amusing that the right is so worked up over global warming. Why spend the time, energy and dollars they do combating it?

The right is not "worked about about "global warming" that's the point. It's the "left" that is in froth mode. The dollars and time spent by the "right" are to combat the misinformation that the left, hollywood and the MSM are constantly pushing. Are you as amused by their antics?

Originally Posted by jmichalski

Could reducing carbon emissions be a bad thing? Of course not. could it have a negative environmental impact? Certainly not.

Ad hominem. CO2 is plant food. Proof please of you argument.

Originally Posted by jmichalski

So, why fight so hard against it? What? Oh, right, because they are beholden to big oil.....

This is not about Big Oil no matter how loud or many times you say it.

[jmichalski]

One sparsely watched documentary qualifies as "froth mode"? Hardly even close to the total air time as devoted by Rush, hannity and the other talking heads opposing it.

CO2 is produced by breathing. An adequate supply for sustainable plant growth is not at question in any of the studies or retorts I have seen. ARe you attempting to make the case that reducing carbon emissions will have a damaging effect on the environment?

Let's see, with no personal stake in whether or not carbon emissios are reduced, why would the SRM (slanted right media) spend so much time and energy on fighting the concept of global warming? It isn't going to cause any problems for them one way or another. It has to be conceded that it could improve the environment, and I am aware of no strudies showing it would harm the environment. So - why fight it?

Oh, yeah, I forgot....Bush and Co are in bed with big oil.

[Don Breen]

Probably better than in bed with Coulter, but not much.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jmichalski

One sparsely watched documentary qualifies as "froth mode"? Hardly even close to the total air time as devoted by Rush, hannity and the other talking heads opposing it.

You mean the same one that is being shown to school children?
Have you heard of advocate James Hansen of of NASA and his 1400 interviews on the subject.
How about the constant drum beat on the news programs.

Originally Posted by jmichalski

CO2 is produced by breathing. An adequate supply for sustainable plant growth is not at question in any of the studies or retorts I have seen. ARe you attempting to make the case that reducing carbon emissions will have a damaging effect on the environment?

No. Are you trying to make the case that the case that the increase is harming the environment?
How much CO2 in the atmosphere is the "right" amount?

Originally Posted by jmichalski

Let's see, with no personal stake in whether or not carbon emissios are reduced, why would the SRM (slanted right media) spend so much time and energy on fighting the concept of global warming?

Let see with no personal stake in whether or not carbon emissios are reduced, why would the MSM spend so much time and energy promoting the concept of global warming?

Originally Posted by jmichalski

It isn't going to cause any problems for them one way or another.

Is it going to cause any problems for anyone?

Originally Posted by jmichalski

It has to be conceded that it could improve the environment, and I am aware of no strudies showing it would harm the environment. So - why fight it?

On what grounds?
Why waste resources and reduce our standard of living?

Originally Posted by jmichalski

Oh, yeah, I forgot....Bush and Co are in bed with big oil.

And who is in bed with Al Gore and Co.?

[John McKenna]

Two things I like about Ann.
She makes me laugh.
and... I laugh watching people get mad at her....

[Michael Larson]

What's the problem Brian, conservative women to much to handle for you?

[Richard W. Washington]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

Two things I like about Ann.
She makes me laugh.
and... I laugh watching people get mad at her....

It's been quite a long day. Thanks for making me John.

[jwortham1]

What's the problem Brian, conservative women to much to handle for you?

Lights off, missionary only. Very conservative.