What is the Climate Change Movement Really All About?

Loading

“You don’t have to take my word, or [former Vice President] Al Gore’s word on it. You can wake up pretty much every day and listen to Mother Nature, who is screaming at us about [it].”
Secretary of State John Kerry, who served

o-CLIMATE-MARCH-6-570

Apparently 300,000-400,000 turned out for the People’s Climate March in New York City, Sunday.

NEW YORK — More than 300,000 people marched through the streets of New York City on Sunday in what organizers called the largest climate-change demonstration in history.

With banners, flags, floats and drums, protesters at the “People’s Climate March” overwhelmed midtown Manhattan in flocks of vivid color, demanding action ahead of the United Nations Climate Summit this week.

And as typically seems to be the case, the aftermath belies the message espoused.

Noah Rothman at Hot Air has the scoop:

“We live in a grotesque era where we have everything we want right now,” one protester told Foster, graciously packaging her entire movement up in one self-hating nutshell.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZlsKvOkHIY[/youtube]

There appear to be two strains of protesters who attended the People’s March. Some cling desperately to the ideals of Marx and who repeat rhetoric and slogans which have largely remained unchanged since the Rutherford B. Hayes administration. These folks ironically consider themselves “progressives.” The other strain of protester who spoke with Foster seemed lost, misplaced, left behind in a world which no longer made much sense.

It is a condition as old as time; the aimless in search of personal meaning complement the ranks of a movement which promises personal purpose. The revolution is over, but the tragically committed revolutionaries persist.

What Foster uncovered in New York City was what so many on the right have known for years, but the public rarely sees. The modern climate alarmism movement has been hijacked by the remnants of those who still adhere to the defunct tenets of revolutionary Marxism. It is no wonder, then, that so few climate change devotees in government and the media go out of their way to make sure you never hear from their grassroots supporters.

And today:

NEW YORK, Sept 22 (Reuters) – Hundreds of protesters plan to risk arrest on Monday during an unsanctioned blockade in New York City’s financial district to call attention to what organizers say is Wall Street’s contribution to climate change.

~~~

Flood Wall Street organizers said they wanted to use the momentum gained by Sunday’s march to “highlight the role of capitalism in fueling the climate crisis.”

I remember attending a couple of anti-war rallies in Los Angeles. These protests were full of fringies spouting all sorts of sideshow agendas that had little to nothing at all to do with what the rally was organized for.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
568 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@George+Wells:

I got a will that is good today. That is more than “zip.”

But at the time, you got a will that was not valid in Virginia, and Virginia was not required to honor the probate laws of another state. Even if you filed the will with the county court house, it still would not have been valid, by Virginia law.

The fact is you paid for something that was not valid in Virginia (although I know how you are hooked on stuff you don’t pay for, i.e. pro bono and getting the government to fund your health insurance) so it was not a legal and binding will at the time you obtained it because you were a resident of Virginia.

But hey, feel free to change the story as you so often do.

@George+Wells:

The will we had drawn up was valid in some states, and we planned to move to one of them if either of us got near death.

George, have you taken up comedy writing? You had a lawyer draw up a will that might be valid in some states so that you would know where to move to if one of you were near death? What planning. How close to death would one of you have to be to trigger the move? Did you have a current list of states that the will was registered in? Was the will 100% valid in all of those states or was it rated by percentage? Did you review the laws in all those states to see which was more favorable? That is such an important subject to change your whole life to have a valid will to match your state. I don’t even have a will. If you’ve got things set up correctly, a will is moot.

@retire05:This whole scenario is getting hilarious. Imagine having a will drawn up that you have to trigger a move to a different state if you get near death. I’m gonna guess it would have been useless unless the death was carefully planned to avoid it happening suddenly. Did he quit driving cars, you suppose, so that he would less his chances of ‘unplanned expiration’?
I’m beginning to think George is trying his hand at comedy writing.

#502:
You are correct that the will wasn’t worth the paper it was written on at the time we had it drawn up, as far as wills are concerned. But we had been advised by every legal source we asked that doing a will would establish a significant legal history of our relationship, and that if we encountered resistance to it’s successful probate in the future, that legal history would be valuable evidence that would support a claim against the State. Like Edith Winsor, we were prepared to go to court if necessary.

We also knew that if Virginia ever legalized gay marriage, we’d be prepared. We just weren’t expecting it to happen so soon. Happy days!

@George+Wells: Alrighty George, here it is:

Affirmative action or positive discrimination (known as employment equity in Canada, reservation in India and Nepal, and positive action in the UK) is the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who are perceived to suffer from discrimination within a culture.

just as I said.

the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who are perceived to suffer from discrimination within a culture.

I don’t see where that mentions college admission, employment hiring practices, etc. Seems as if it is just saying that ‘some groups’ are disadvantaged’ and need a little favoritism. Such as gays, for example. As I said, the police allow gay men to run around in public with assless chaps and they sure don’t let regular citizens to do that in public.

#503:
“I don’t even have a will. If you’ve got things set up correctly, a will is moot.”

You never get it, do you?
In Virginia, until today, “setting up things correctly” wasn’t possible for gay couples. Oh sure, they could have a will drawn up, but like Retire05 says, it was worthless as a will. That’s because the State constitutional amendment nullified such contracts between gay couples. It was a hateful law, but it WAS the law. Any other instrument would have suffered the same fate. How many times do you need to be told this? I’ve quoted the entire amendment and explained it at least three times… can’t you READ?

If you don’t have a will, good for you. It’s your right to not have a will, just like it is my right to HAVE a will that IS legal, which I finally got TODAY!
Why did I have to wait so long to get this right?

@Redteam:

To begin with, most lawyers are not proficient in the laws of states they don’t practice in. That is why they have to pass the Bar in each state they intend to practice in, an expensive and time consuming effort.

So how much would it cost to hire an attorney that was proficient in the laws of a number of states because they had taken the Bar in those states? Also, it would be highly unethical for a lawyer to advise a client on the laws of a state they are not allowed to practice in.

@George+Wells:

Yes, there IS a difference between a legal marriage and an illegal marriage.

I would guess that correct difference is known as being married or not being married. a ‘legal’ marriage would be that you are married. An illegal marriage would be that you are not married. So the correct term is that you were either married, or not married. I don’t need to be an expert on what gays go through. I just know that if I pretended to be married but had not gone through the correct legal procedure then I would not be married. I would not be illegally married.
It’s gotta be a tryout for comedy writing or rehearsing ‘stand up’. I guess it doesn’t matter which.

#504:

Comedy?
Hardly.
I had wills drawn up in Washington DC, essentially duplicated to be valid in both Virginia and Maryland. I live in Virginia, but the marriage was in Maryland. So I arranged with a licensed realtor in Maryland to buy a property in absentia if the word was given, and we would both move there if either of us became terminally ill. It did not protect us from automobile accidents, no. But both of us have chronic conditions that will likely be the causes of our eventual deaths, and these may be foreseen.
I see nothing comic about it, but I appreciate that you and Retire05 believe that gay peoples unique problems are laughing matters.

@George+Wells:

In Virginia, until today, “setting up things correctly” wasn’t possible for gay couples.

Are you now going to try to tell us that joint ownership was illegal in Virginia? That you could not put your home, your car, your boat, or any other titled or deeded property into two names? Are you going to tell us that designating a beneficiary on life insurance to someone you were not married to was illegal in Virginia?

I have researched and read the Virginia law that you keep referring to. You are misrepresenting it and that misrepresentation was started by a gay blogger in Virginia. He lied, and you propagate the lie. The law did not ban anyone from leaving their estate to the beneficiary of their choice, even if they wanted to leave to their dog.

@George+Wells:

I’ve quoted the entire amendment and explained it at least three times… can’t you READ?

I’ve never seen where you ‘quoted an amendment’.
You can’t telll me that if I write a will that says: in the event of my death, I leave my 1927 chevrolet to Sammy. That the state will say that I have to leave that 1927 chevrolet to someone else? I don’t believe that. So please direct me to your ‘quotation of a complete amendment and let me see how that is worded.

@Redteam:

It’s gotta be a tryout for comedy writing or rehearsing ‘stand up’.

Comedy of the absurd as his tale just keeps getting more absurd.

#506:
“As I said, the police allow gay men to run around in public with assless chaps and they sure don’t let regular citizens to do that in public.”

Tell me again how a policeman can tell that a man wearing ass-less chaps is gay.

I thought that you and Retire05 have been squawking that there is no way that a gay person can be distinguished by how they look.
How can the policeman tell that someone is gay?
Does wearing the chaps make the guy gay?
Do the chaps manufacturers know that their chaps have this effect?

@George+Wells:

Tell me again how a policeman can tell that a man wearing ass-less chaps is gay.

Heterosexual men do not participate in the Folsom Street Parade.

and Redteam:

Sure, laugh it up.
Enjoy your mirth.
Get it while you can.
Look at the news.
I won.
You lost.
Good night.

#515:
“Heterosexual men do not participate in the Folsom Street Parade.”

Tasted every one of them, did you?

@retire05:

I have researched and read the Virginia law that you keep referring to. You are misrepresenting it and that misrepresentation was started by a gay blogger in Virginia.

As you see, george has said that he has quoted the entire amendment 3 times on here. Have you seen it? I’ve asked him for a link to his posting. I don’t believe his contention that a gay person can’t have a will in Virginia. A will just says what to do with your property, as long as it doesn’t violate some rights of others, it has to be legal. In Louisiana for example, a joint property state. If I don’t leave a will, my half of our property goes 50% to my wife and 50% to my children. No children, all to wife. Will, I can leave it to whomever I please, boy or girl. I’m sure that for a man living alone or with a room mate, that he can also leave it to whom ever he pleases. I don’t believe all these states have laws that don’t allow people to do what they please upon their death.

!

@George+Wells:

I thought that you and Retire05 have been squawking that there is no way that a gay person can be distinguished by how they look.

You’re certainly incorrect. I’ve definitely never said that. I’d say 90% can be determined by how they look.

I won.
You lost.

tell us again what you won? And what did I lose? Seems as if you won the right to leave your car to somebody when you die. Hope He/She/It likes it.
If that’s what it is, I didn’t lose that right, I already had it and still do.

@George+Wells:

Tasted every one of them, did you?

I thought you said you didn’t go to assless chaps parades?

@George+Wells: 514

Do the chaps manufacturers know that their chaps have this effect?

I’m quite sure they do.

@Redteam:

George has mentioned the Virginia law he is now speaking of in the past. Did he post the entire text of the law? Not that I remember since I had to research it (if he had given the entire text of the law, there would have been no reason for my research as to the text of the law). Now, I’m sure George will come back with “Yes, I did. Yes, I did. You lie.” as is his standard retort.

Inheritance laws are pretty firm once place in a last will and testament. People do stupid things; leave their estate to a dog, to a friend, to a charity, etc. and those wills have been contested by family only to be held up in court. So if George wanted to leave his entire estate to the neighbor’s horse, that was his privilege.

The law George is talking about was fought by gays as being discriminatory. It was just another false flag. What the law did not allow was reciprocal beneficiaries that some states allow to those who are married. (A reciprocal beneficiary is a spouse who inherits everything without a will)

@James+Raider: Can you believe this. O5, RT and George–the threesome goes on and on and on. For what purpose?

@Richard+Wheeler:

O5, RT and George–the threesome goes on and on and on. For what purpose?

What’s it to you? If you don’t like the thread, don’t read it.

@retire05:

What’s it to you? If you don’t like the thread, don’t read it.

Richard loves the back and forth on this thread, gives his life meaning. He gets a little lost on the topic occasionally but does ok part of the time. But that’s to be expected from those Yalie’s that ended up on the West Coast. Actually Cornell, but little difference except Cornell was known for it’s racism back in the 60’s, about the time RW was there.

@George+Wells:

But both of us have chronic conditions that will likely be the causes of our eventual deaths,

HIV?

@Redteam: #500

A person has a right to be gay and has a right that every one that doesn’t like it should just modify their opinion and congratulate the lucky gays.

You reminded me of a saying I made up to explain how our freedoms work in the USA: I have the right to say and do anything I want, as long as it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s rights. People being gay, and gays being allowed to marry, doesn’t interfere with anyone’s rights. We agree on that.

#520:
“tell us again what you won? And what did I lose?”

Gays have now won the right to marry in thirty states. That’s what we’ve won so far. That number of gay-marriage states will soon grow to 35 when the 9th appellate court rules.

You might recall that when the number of states in which interracial marriage was legal reached around the same number, the Supreme Court went ahead and abolished the restrictions to that right in the remaining backward states.

What you lost is whatever you THINK you lost. I argued before that gay marriage wouldn’t cost straights anything at all, but YOU insisted that whenever someone GAINS something – including a right that had been previously withheld – then someone else has to be losing something that they previously had.
Perhaps what you were fearing was the loss of an exclusivity that heterosexuals had in an institution of marriage that barred gay participation, and perhaps you were referring to something else entirely. But if you now want to agree with me that you have lost nothing by this expansion of gay rights, that’s fine with me.

Redteam #527:
“But both of us have chronic conditions that will likely be the causes of our eventual deaths”
“HIV?”

Thanks for your concern, Dearly Beloved, but no.
I have diabetes that I inherited from my father. It lowers life expectancy by 10-15 years. Paul has sleep apnea which, if left untreated, will lead to an enlarged heart, congestive heart failure, heart attack and narcoleptic symptoms that cause lots of people to fall asleep while they are driving. So far, he has been unable to correct it. Since we are both already in our sixties, we don’t have a whole lot of years left to worry about, and so we are travelling a lot now while we can. And we have a lot to celebrate, thank you very much!

#512:
“I’ve never seen where you ‘quoted an amendment’.”

Well, I did. Several times. The first was back in May of 2103:

“Copied from the 2006 statute:
“This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage.”

This obtuse jargon is approximately one half of the amendment to the Virginia constitution I am refering to. The other half is virtually indistinguishable from this statement. While it was widely agreed by both sides of the debate that the purpose and effect of this amendment was to prevent homosexuals from using powers of attorney and other contracts to secure some of the protections and rights that convey automatically upon marriage, some opponents of the measure held that it also had the unintended effect of placing the same restrictions on unmarried heterosexuals.

The Real End Game of the Gay Marriage Debate [Reader Post]

(#89)

I also supplied this:

“What rights are denied?”
“One example: The Commonwealth of Virginia enacted a constitutional amendment a few years back that was intended to exclude homosexuals from the institution of marriage. The Commonwealth of Virginia was within it’s states’ rights to enact such a measure. However, it went further, rendering void any powers-of-attorney, wills, or any other contractual agreements between homosexuals which had the effect of arranging any of the rights and/or priviledges which automatically confer upon lawful marriage. In this instance, a homosexual may give power of attorney to a perfect stranger but may not do the same to a loving partner. (That’s a right denied…) Hospitals can obay directions given by a total stranger holding a medical power of attorney but are forbidden to honor the medical power of attorney held by a homosexual lover. I experienced this latter discrimination first hand when a hospital refused my partner’s instructions (he already had a medical power of attorney) when I had been rendered unconscious by morphine after a back injury – he wasn’t a “member of the family.””

This was from post #85 of the same “Gay Marriage End Game” thread.

Both you and Retire05 have said that this conversation did not exist. It did.
In the quote RESUBMITTED ABOVE, the second half of the amendment was considered redundant and was not included to save space. Here is the ENTIRE amendment, so that you can see this for yourself:

“Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”

Anything different there?
I thought not.

The conclusions reached concerning the legal implications of the wording of the above quoted amendment were not mine.

Writing in The Washington Post, Jonathan Rauch argued that:
“Virginia appears to abridge gay individuals’ right to enter into private contracts with each other. On its face, the law could interfere with wills, medical directives, powers of attorney, child custody and property arrangements, even perhaps joint bank accounts. If a gay Californian was hit by a bus in Arlington, her medical power of attorney might be worthless there.[7]”

“Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell issued a 2006 opinion stating that the amendment does not change the legal status of documents such as contracts, wills, or advance health care directives between unmarried people.[8]” Bob McDonnell is a Republican, the one who later became Governor and was recently convicted of felony fraud. His “opinion” was reiterated by his subsequent attorney general – Ken Cuccinelli – who also ran for governor but lost to a hapless Democrat who none-the-less appealed more to Virginia’s voters than did Cuccinelli.

Later, Democrat Attorney General Mark Herring disagreed with the Republican assessment of the amendment’s legal significance, stating that the amendment DID infringe upon the rights of gay couples (and any other pairs of persons not married) to construct valid legal documents.

Ultimately, Federal Judge Arenda Wright Allen agreed with Herring, as did the appellate court in Richmond, and evidently, the Supreme Court saw no reason to reverse them.

If it matters, my retained legal counsel had reached the same conclusion that Herring reached, and that firm had no conflict of interest, as it was not the firm that did our wills.

That the same interpretation was also reached by a “gay blogger in Virginia” (Retire05) is irrelevant.

@George+Wells:

Both you and Retire05 have said that this conversation did not exist. It did.

You’re a liar. I never said the conversation did not exist. Here is exactly what I said:

George has mentioned the Virginia law he is now speaking of in the past.

You are the most dishonest and deceitful person to have ever disgraced the pages of this website, George.

Writing in The Washington Post, Jonathan Rauch argued that:
“Virginia appears to abridge gay individuals’ right to enter into private contracts with each other.

Of course, Jonathan Rauch is a homosexual and gay activist. No bias there, I’m sure.

Mark Herring (Democrat and gay panderer) and Arenda Wright Allen, Obama appointee (Democrat and gay panderer) simply played to the loudest voice.

That the same interpretation was also reached by a “gay blogger in Virginia” (Retire05) is irrelevant.

That gay “blogger” was at the Lambda Legal website.

#533:

“Mark Herring (Democrat and gay panderer) and Arenda Wright Allen, Obama appointee (Democrat and gay panderer) simply played to the loudest voice.”

And the Republican-dominated 4th circuit court of appeals in Richmond?
And the Right-leaning Supreme court?
To whom are THEY pandering?

In the courts that mattered most, the logic employed by the opponents of gay marriage simply failed.

@George+Wells:

And the Right-leaning Supreme court?

The SCOTUS is neither right, nor left, leaning. It is equally split with Alito, Thomas, Scalia and (sometimes) Roberts on the right; Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer solidly on the left. Kennedy is the justice who settles a split vote.

@George+Wells:

The first was back in May of 2103:

Wouldn’t that be 90 years in the future?

@George+Wells:

Paul has sleep apnea

I had that back in the 90’s but it doesn’t bother me anymore. It did raise hell for a while, C pap and all that crap. What turned it all around for me was sleeping on a Wedge, ie., elevating my upper body. Made a huge difference. Breathing probs, including heavy snoring is one of the things that can cause apnea, the wedge almost totally cured that. Has he tried that? My sister was also helped by an elevated bed.

@George+Wells:

Both you and Retire05 have said that this conversation did not exist. It did.

Don’t believe I said that. Not recalling it is not the same thing as saying it didn’t exist.

#532:

I stand corrected.
I had assumed that you and Redteam were one and the same persons, and that you used the “Redteam” moniker to make your most outrageously illogical statements, while you used the Retire05 label to spit insults.

Also note:
“I have researched and read the Virginia law that you keep referring to.” (Retire05 post #511)
and:
“George has mentioned the Virginia law he is now speaking of in the past. Did he post the entire text of the law? Not that I remember since I had to research it” (Retire05 #523)

Both of those quotes were associated with your rebuttal of my discussion, and as you (intentionally?) loaded the “George has…” line with ambiguous wording (Did George mention the law IN THE PAST, or is he NOW SPEAKING of a law IN THE PAST, or is he NOW SPEAKING IN THE PAST?) I wasn’t sure whether you were really agreeing with me, or if you were simply trying to confuse the issue further.

But as I now see what you were trying to state, I apologize.
I’m also sorry that I failed to make my point clear the first time.
The interpretations of the Virginia Constitutional Amendment from various quarters were obviously in conflict, even among Republican-appointed justices. That’s a red flag that indicates when a law is too ambiguous to be worth the paper it’s written on. AS I noted before, it’s reversal was widely anticipated, and this event DID occur as predicted. But don’t give me credit for having correctly predicted the outcome of these gay marriage contests. Any fool can see where this is going, crystal ball or not.

Noticed that you can’t refute my rebuttal of your “Justice Kennedy’s states’ rights support” statement. LOL.
Your “Kennedy” statement amounted to a prediction, although you avoided using that word. I guess that without having that crystal ball (Did you break it? Drop it in your eye-of-newt kettle?) you have no way of logically anticipating future events. How SCARY!

@George+Wells:

Both of those quotes were associated with your rebuttal of my discussion, and as you (intentionally?) loaded the “George has…” line with ambiguous wording (Did George mention the law IN THE PAST, or is he NOW SPEAKING of a law IN THE PAST, or is he NOW SPEAKING IN THE PAST?) I wasn’t sure whether you were really agreeing with me, or if you were simply trying to confuse the issue further.

My statement was so simple that even a 3rd grader should have been able to understand it. So I will make it even more simplistic so even you can understand it:

George has mentioned the Virginia law he is now speaking of in the past.

#Redteam #537:
“Wedge… Has he tried that?”

Thanks for the concern. Good of you to care. He tried elevation, and always ended up tied up in a knot at the lowest point. Gravity is his worst enemy.
They have improved CPAP options now that don’t cover the whole face. You must be able to breathe through the nose to use them, but Paul is fighting it for other reasons that aren’t good ones.
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.

#538:
“Both you and Retire05 have said that this conversation did not exist. It did.”
“Don’t believe I said that. Not recalling it is not the same thing as saying it didn’t exist.”

Would it make you feel better if I had used the word “IMPLIED” instead of “SAID”?
But thanks for nit-picking a semantics error instead of acknowledging that your RECOLLECTION was faulty. It’s always nice to be ignored when you’re right.

#540:
That’s so very much cleaner… no ambiguity at all. Don’t you agree?

Please remember that I haven’t been a third grader for… 56 years.

And thanks for accepting my apology!

#536:
“The first was back in May of 2103”
“Wouldn’t that be 90 years in the future?”

You caught my typo. Thanks. But I think that I DID give you enough for you to find the post that you said you did not recall.
You’re welcome.

@George+Wells:

And thanks for accepting my apology!

I purposely did not accept your apology because:

a) it will only be a matter of time before you, again, misrepresent what I have said
b) flatly lie about what I said
c) call me, again, a liar and
d) I do not find it sincere

: #545:

That’s funny.
I started calling you a liar when you misspoke, because you had developed the habit of calling ME a liar.
You never say right out that I am right about anything, as if I was smart enough to get things wrong 100% of the time. I’m just not that clever.

I DO make mistakes. I admit that. I have admitted to making mistakes in the past, here on flopping aces, and I have apologized for them. I am genuinely sorry for every last mistake that I make, in part because they reflect poorly on me and on the effort I put into representing my points of view, and in part because they reflect poorly on the other people who share my beliefs, as I represent them here as well.

If you don’t appreciate my apologies, that’s your problem, not mine. Anyone else who reads them will understand that they are genuine and will see that I am reasonably acknowledging my imperfections, something others on this site rarely do.

It is also useful to note that I began my discussions here in the most civil tone possible. I called no one a liar, or a bigot, or any of the other derogatory terms that I have used of late. I only began using such language after I was repeatedly insulted by you, Redteam, Kraken, and that other fellow who likes to talk about the “collective.” I have repeatedly remarked that insults only serve to dilute the essential components of an argument and cheapen the value of the entire conversation, but I find it necessary to return rebuttals in kind. If at any time you would like to return to conducting these discussions in a civil tone, please let me know, and I will gladly follow suit.

@George+Wells: 541″Thanks for the concern. Good of you to care. He tried elevation, and always ended up tied up in a knot at the lowest point. Gravity is his worst enemy.” Did it work? yes the gravity thing is a problem, but it really doesn’t require that much elevation. but it really made all the difference in the world for me. Stopped the breathing prob and snoring prob.

@George+Wells:

I started calling you a liar when you misspoke, because you had developed the habit of calling ME a liar.

So in your mind, what you consider a wrong on my part becomes a right on your part? Got it!

You never say right out that I am right about anything, as if I was smart enough to get things wrong 100% of the time. I’m just not that clever.

If you are right, I don’t dispute what you said. There is no need to admit, constantlty, when you are although your insecurity seems to want me to.

I am genuinely sorry for every last mistake that I make, in part because they reflect poorly on me and on the effort I put into representing my points of view agenda, and in part because they reflect poorly on the other people who share my beliefs, as I represent am an activist for them here as well.

There, fixed it for you, George.

@George+Wells: 539

I had assumed that you and Redteam were one and the same persons, and that you used the “Redteam” moniker to make your most outrageously illogical statements, while you used the Retire05 label to spit insults.

Really? I don’t actually believe that.

@George+Wells:

If you don’t appreciate my apologies, that’s your problem, not mine. Anyone else who reads them will understand that they are genuine and will see that I am reasonably acknowledging my imperfections, something others on this site rarely do.

Ah, dragging others into our debate again, George? Nasty habit, that. Bottom line; you have no clue as to how many will find your apology sincere, or not.

If at any time you would like to return to conducting these discussions in a civil tone, please let me know, and I will gladly follow suit.

Why? You have already proven that you [willfully] misrepresent what people say in order to drive your agenda, even sans the name calling. I doubt that you’re capable of anything else, no matter the arena.

@Redteam:

Really? I don’t actually believe that.

Nor should you as only a privileged few are allowed to use more than one moniker here at FA.