--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > [snip] > > > > (do.rflex speaking about Shemp:) > > > What a sick fuck. > > > And you, Bongo Brazil, exemplify perfect mental health. > > It's always so much fun dialoging with you.
I'm sure. Here's the key part of what Magoo snipped: > In our never-ending discussions on global warming on this forum, it > is inevitably brought up by those who believe in catastrophic man- > made global warming that "it is better to be safe than sorry"; that > we may not be 100% sure that global warming is going to cause the > destruction in the future that people like Al Gore are predicting but > when so much is at stake it's better to err on the side of safety. > > Well, is that not what Bush did with Iraq? No one could say with > 100% certainty that Iraq had WMD but why not err on the side of > safety? What we DID know was that Saddam had used them before, had > attempted to build a nuclear facility -- which the Israelis bombed > in '81 (and which I flew over on the very same day on return from my > Kashmir TM course) -- and was an all-out nasty character...and if he > wasn't letting people in and he did NOT have WMD, isn't Saddam to > shoulder SOME of the blame? > > So why is it okay to be safe than sorry with global warming but not > with Saddam Hussein? This is another clear example of Magoo's social pathology. Here he tries to compare working to stop polluting the earth to prevent massive deaths resulting from drastic climate changes in a globally agreed consensus that it's imperiative to address it - to invading a sovereign nation that has resulted in the deaths and injuries of millions of human beings. What a sick fuck.
