White Coke Cans Fund Polar Bear Myths

white_coca_cola_canBy Paul Chesser

For years Coca-Cola has given millions of dollars to eco-extreme group World Wildlife Fund, whose alarmism and perpetration of falsehoods are unmatched among its cohorts in climate activism. Now Coke has initiated a new campaign with WWF that features its iconic advertising species in an effort to drive more funding to the international nonprofit group to “protect the polar bears’ Arctic home.” 

The promotion will include new packaging for Coke over the holiday season, changing its familiar red cans to white, and featuring an image of a mother polar bear and her cubs on the side. Coke says it will donate $2 million over five years to WWF for “polar bear conservation efforts,” and will also match donations made at iCoke.ca. Last year Coke gave WWF $1.64 million for its various activities globally.

“The planet is changing very quickly, and nowhere more quickly than in the Arctic,” says Gerald Butts, president of WWF-Canada.

“I’s really important that we all understand that they need our help,” he added. “Climate change is changing livelihoods, it’s changing migration patterns for species, and we want to plan ahead. We want a future for the Arctic where the communities of people who live there are vibrant and sustainable, and the iconic species,” in particular the polar bear,  “has a long-term future on the planet.”

Read the rest at the National Legal and Policy Center.

67 Responses to White Coke Cans Fund Polar Bear Myths

  1. Rob N. Hood October 31, 2011 at 4:51 pm #

    Yeah, wow, that commie socialist company Coke…!

  2. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD October 31, 2011 at 6:28 pm #

    What a waste of money!

  3. LLoyd Briggs October 31, 2011 at 6:44 pm #

    LMFAO Coke–get your REsearch dept together:

    http://tinyurl.com/yhx9juw The Great Glow-bal Vorming Scandal The Final Nail

    If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

    When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

    Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

    One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

    “In an odd way this is cheering news.”

    More below my quick paragraph:

    Coke you people are really showing your preponderance to deceiving,denying and propagandizing the public into buying your product. There is no way that a copy such as Coke has been in business 1886 and be DUPED into “Glow-ball Vorming”! But then there’s the angle of “Awwwwww, the pour Polar Bear. Who’s going to save the pour Polar Bear???” Coke, I got news for you I was, and I’m not kidding, a Coke Zero drinker to the tune of 4 cases a month! Yeah. I’m diabetic and it is a good product. But guess what. Stuff it with your new Polar Bear propaganda and make sure your have Herman Goebbles on all your TV commercials.. Oh, wearing a white military uniform of course and holding a tray with a white can of Coke. You people are unmitigated assclowns. I got over 3,000 activists as my base and touch up into the millions as we get our information out and we are going to boycott your ass big time. What asses.

    LLoyd Briggs (finish article below)

    But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

    Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

    Manipulation of evidence:

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

    Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

    Suppression of evidence:

    Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

    Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

    Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

    We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

    Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

    Next
    time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
    the crap out of him. Very tempted.

    Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

    ……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

    And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

    “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

    “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

    Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

    I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

    The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

    Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

    But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.

    • Dan McGrath November 2, 2011 at 1:08 pm #

      Bit long for a comment. Some of this looks very familliar. Couldn’t you just post a link to the article?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD November 4, 2011 at 5:45 am #

      As though anybody here has not heard of this? Come on Lloyd, this is global climate scam .com, we knew this when the story broke two years ago!

  4. Joe October 31, 2011 at 8:27 pm #

    Hey, good marketing for the people that believe Global Warming exists. There will always be an idiot born every minute. I assume they come in cans that are extremely cold to keep the extreme heat out?

  5. Chris November 2, 2011 at 12:54 pm #

    Commie socialist company????? Did you really use those words? What is this, the 1960s? Global change is happening and you are too stupid to read fair and balanced research about it. Instead you come to this website that just pools articles and stories from people and organizations that don’t believe it is happening? Wow, I feel bad for your three brain cells.

    • Jerk A. Knot November 3, 2011 at 1:21 pm #

      Chris,

      Do you hear that sound? It is the sound of the buzz saw you are walking into.

      ! your remark aimed at “Commie socialist company” and MR Hood is misplaced. If you took the time to look at any other posts before you aquired a target to shoot at you would have realized that RNH is being scarcastic. He is Jabbing at Dan, Joe, Neil strotyping us as mean hatefull out of touch ultra right wingers. This site reall does not post articals from entities that don’t belive “it” is not happening but focuses on the fact that man made warming (NOT all warming) is not a settled science. As a side care to that main discussion this site also enguages in calling thoes out that are scaming money and favor in the name of AGW. Most of us on here acknowledge that the globe has been in a warming cycle but are skeptical to the espoused man made causes…… Hence we mostly believe the Globe is warming as part of the natural cycles that the world has endured for as long as it has been around.
      The fact that you jumped to the conclusion that anyone who thinks there are still commies and Socilists around are stupid showed your hand as an uninformed plebicite that has drank the cooaid of the moderen socilist movemet that has born such movements as the current Occupy Wall Street hippy movement.
      Yet chris you did get one thing correct. RNH “AKA Robby Boy” does only have 3 brain cells.
      Now crawl back under the rock you came out from under untill you develop some critical anaylisis skills.
      Sir Knot

      • Rob N. Hood November 4, 2011 at 6:46 pm #

        “buzz saw” “robbie boy,” with his three brain cells, has more manners than you with your 3.5 brain cells.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD November 4, 2011 at 6:08 am #

      Gee Chris, Do you really think that anybody denies that the climate changes? The climate has been changing for, oh, about 4.5 billion years. And it will continue to change until our sun novas in about 5 billion years. Your first mistake was thinking that RNH’s comment was legitimate. RNH would love it if Coca Cola were communist, as he himself is one.
      And your second mistake was assuming that we are all a bunch of morons who come here to bask in climate change denialism. Nothing could be further from the truth. For many years I thought I was the only one on the planet who believed that the AGW theory did not pass the smell test. First I found the Friends of Science, and then I found this site. I am not going to waste anymore time on you as it it likely that you are just a drive by poster, and will not come back to look at comments, but I will just say that what I find here is confirmation of what I already believed. And not the other way around.

  6. Rob N. Hood November 3, 2011 at 5:59 pm #

    Ahh Jerk, ever the helpful website tour guide. Why not go after Dan for chastising a scintillating post by Lloyde Briggs? Isn’t that a bit more than a faux paux by big Danny boy? If I had posted the exact same thing Dan did you’d be all over it, and me, would you not, Sir Knot-head? Correct? Yes, I am that.

    • Jerk A. Knot November 7, 2011 at 3:08 pm #

      AHH Boy I surly didn not say they are not around…. For they are. What I eluded to is that thoes of us who know the truth are perscuted as stupid old geezers who are out of touch….. Sorry to inform you that What you read and what I wrote is very different.

  7. Rob N. Hood November 3, 2011 at 6:03 pm #

    Oh and speaking of booboos, Jerk old bean, you made another biggie. There ARE those around (closer than you think) who believe in spooks (and evil socialists, not to mention communists). Just sayin’.

  8. Joe November 3, 2011 at 10:12 pm #

    Mr. Briggs, you make one think. Others may differ. May be lengthy, but you stated what you have observed, read and believe.

  9. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD November 4, 2011 at 11:11 am #

    The whole reason that Coke is doing this is really very simple. They are paying the WWF protection money. They know that CO2 is the main target of the environleftalist wackos, and CO2 is one of the main ingredients in almost all of their products, so instead of becoming a target they have become proactive and are paying their pennance to the WWF. It actually makes business sense to do so. I am haveing a hard time faulting them for doing it.

    • Dan McGrath November 4, 2011 at 11:18 am #

      There’s more to it than that. I wrote about Coke’s faustian dealings two years ago: http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2009/11/coca-cola%e2%80%99s-bizarre-dichotomy/

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD November 4, 2011 at 4:50 pm #

        Thanks for the reminder Dan.
        Lance, are you still out there? I just read the response to my comment back on that post, that you posted 8 days after my comment. If you are, what is your problem? I was responding to someone that was criticising Dan and I for not using spellchecker, and you jump down my throat! I mean excuse the hell out of me for having an opinion!

  10. V November 4, 2011 at 4:06 pm #

    Heat retention is not steady across materials. Some materials retain heat better than others. This is simple physics.

    The so called “greenhouse gases” retain heat better than the rest of the gases found in the atmosphere. CO2 is one of these greenhouse gases. Its heat retention properties translate to higher temperatures when an increase of atmospheric CO2 is present, when CO2 content goes down temperature does as well.

    There has been extensive research conducted and data collected which supports this hypotheses. CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) have been found to correlate with temperature change.

    Anthropogenic practices have contributed to atmospheric greenhouse content.

    AGW is not a debatable issue. No amount of logical argument will change the laws of physics.

    AGW is supported by data.

    If you feel there is a failure in logic conduct your own experiments.

    1. Examine molecular compounds to find which gases have lower, and which gases have higher, heat retention rates.
    2. Take successive atmospheric samples for the next few decades and examine the concentration changes in the gases found.
    3. Using hard data you’ve collected make future climate projections.

    You’ll find that the current climate science is sound.

    There is no great conspiracy. Climate change is not a SCAM. It is a real phenomenon that has been taking place long before the time of man. It will take place after man is long gone. Today it is accelerated due to anthropogenic practices.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD November 4, 2011 at 4:52 pm #

      No it’s not.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD November 4, 2011 at 6:04 pm #

        http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Lead
        “The science of climate change is complex. Unfortunately, politics and the media has affected the science. Climate research institutions know that they must present scary climate forecasts to receive continued funding – no crisis means no funding. The media presents stories of climate disaster to sell their products. Scientific research that suggests climate change is mostly natural does not receive much if any media coverage. These factors have caused the general public to be seriously misled on climate issues resulting in wasteful expenditures of billions of dollars in an ineffective attempt to control climate.”

        “The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a political organization promoting a theory that recent minor temperature increases may be caused largely by man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. CO2 is an infrared gas, and increasing concentrations can potentially increase the average global temperature as the gas absorbs long-wave radiation from the Earth and emits the absorbed energy. However, the warming ability of CO2 is limited because much of the absorption spectrum is near or fully saturated. When CO2 concentrations were ten times greater than today the Earth was in the grips of one of the coldest ice ages. The climate system is dominated by strong negative feedbacks from clouds and water vapour which offsets the warming effects of CO2 emissions.”

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD November 4, 2011 at 6:13 pm #

          http://www.deneenborelli.com/commentaries/co2-and-the-law-of-diminishing-marginal-returns/
          First of all, what is the infrared absorption effect? It is usually mislabeled as greenhouse effect. Some sunlight that reaches the surface of the Earth is absorbed and increases the temperature of the Earth’s surface. But some of it is reflected back into space as infrared radiation. Atmospheric CO2 – as all other infrared absorption gases – absorbs this infrared radiation reflected from Earth and re-emits it in all directions. Some of the re-emitted radiation goes out to space and some of it warms the atmosphere.

          Although atmospheric CO2 is not the primary driver of air temperature but rather trails temperature increases, it is still true that CO2 through its infrared absorption capacity does have a warming effect – even if it is small.

          To put this warming effect of CO2 into the proper perspective it is essential to understand that the absorption of light follows an exponential curve when the amount of the absorbing substance increases. The absorbing substance in our case is carbon dioxide which absorbs light in the infrared bandwidth. This means that a little CO2 goes a long way in absorbing infrared radiation. The more CO2 is added after the initial amount of CO2 does not make a great difference in the absorption rate since most of the radiation has been absorbed already:

          The first 20 ppmv of CO2 operating as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere has the greatest effect on temperature. After about 200 ppmv, CO2 has done its job as a greenhouse gas and has adsorbed almost all the infra-red energy it can absorb. Once the atmosphere is at the present CO2 content … a doubling or quadrupling of the atmospheric CO2 content will have very little effect on atmospheric temperature. (Ian Plimer)

          Here is how Thomas Nelson describes it in “Cold Facts on Global Warming”:
          It is generally accepted that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already high enough to absorb virtually all the infrared radiation in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands over a distance of less than one km. Thus, even if the atmosphere were heavily laden with carbon dioxide, it would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption over current levels.

  11. Rob N. Hood November 4, 2011 at 6:47 pm #

    Now THAT’s a buzz saw…!

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD November 4, 2011 at 8:27 pm #

      I know. Right?

  12. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD November 4, 2011 at 8:49 pm #

    The webpage I posted above is probably the single greatest resource for the scientific arguments against the AGW theory. I’ve just been reading through it and it is fascinating stuff. Of course I have always had a soft spot in my heart for the friends of science website, and this is one reason why. I think anyone and everyone should put it in their favorites to be able to quickly reference the science, but that’s just a suggestion, though I highly recommend it.

  13. Joe November 5, 2011 at 12:26 am #

    Nice reads. See V is back?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD November 5, 2011 at 9:19 am #

      God bless him, he tries.

  14. Rob N. Hood November 5, 2011 at 7:39 am #

    Yes, we can see… and your point is?

  15. Joe November 5, 2011 at 7:00 pm #

    He tries.

  16. Rob N. Hood November 6, 2011 at 8:39 am #

    Oh, ok, just clarifiying. Do you bless me for trying too Neil?

    • Joe November 6, 2011 at 11:11 pm #

      At least you try? Or do you? Time will tell won’t it?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD November 8, 2011 at 11:17 pm #

      With your attitude? Come on RNH you have an agenda, and I say that because you have stated it several years ago that you want to bring about a socialist country. V, thinks he’s doing the right thing. Misled, and misinformed as he is, I don’t think he wants to bring about the end of America as we know it. So the answer to your question is a definate NO!!

  17. Rob N. Hood November 8, 2011 at 5:23 pm #

    Time… ?! Really? Are you Einstein reincarnated? Cool!

  18. Joe November 8, 2011 at 10:03 pm #

    Yeah, I have long gray hair. Cool!

  19. Rob N. Hood November 9, 2011 at 6:38 pm #

    Maybe V has an “agenda” too…? Such as truth and logic as he/she sees it. As do you. Your “intellectualism” such as it is, will not comprehend certain things, and I’m here to challenge that, and you. In turn you pretend to be open-minded, and logical, but you aren’t. No one is fully open-minded, but some people are more than others. Is socialism that bad or to be feared? No, of course not. Not logically it isn’t. Is this country socialist in some ways, and has been for a long time? Yes. And have you benefitted from that? Yes. Can you comprehend that? Apparently not. My fear is that if AGW is ever disproved, which is very difficult to predict, you and yours will only conclude that you possess superior mental skills, when you probably do not. In fact, even without irrefutable evidence (I know you think it exists already) you already assume superior attributes. Do I assume as much? No I do not. I am waiting for irrefutable evidence, although the logic makes me lean towards AGW. And I also believe irrefutable evidence about anything is somewhat rare.

  20. Joe November 10, 2011 at 10:05 pm #

    Cut to the chase, and your point is what? Your diatribes are fine with meaning which are sorely lacking. By the way, I am not on any “social programs” from the government period nor will I ever be. Pay in excess of 40++++in taxes. Finally, work seven day weeks. What say you, the “Intellectual one”?

  21. Rob N. Hood November 11, 2011 at 6:14 pm #

    Well, Joe, I believe I did… what is it about my post that is not my “point” or “cutting to the chase”? BTW- nice to see you use a new word besides “rant.” Where did you learn that other word? Nevermind, you answering the first question would be miraculous enough.

  22. Rob N. Hood November 11, 2011 at 6:18 pm #

    BTW, I work two jobs (for the nth time) which is not quite 7 days a week, I have evey other weekend off (one is full time). So your hard work does beat mine, I guess- although you seem to profit by it much more than I do. If that were the case for the rest of us we probably would be willing to work as “hard” as you do. but I know you will never believe that. You wing nuts are legends in your own minds.

  23. Joe November 13, 2011 at 10:50 pm #

    I have sensed for your numerous posts that you not even employed, or if so have no knowledge for which you speak. Rerad scripts/past posts from others and never post anything positive. If so, you would be more factual in your comments. You are boring me as others with your progressive/entitlements posts. Get with reality. I assume you are “real?,” for which I highly doubt.

  24. Rob N. Hood November 15, 2011 at 5:32 pm #

    Well Joe based on that your SENSE is wrong, and I’m not surprised by that- knew that a long time ago. Back to the sense store with you fella, and bring your coupons, you’re gonna need them!

  25. Rob N. Hood November 15, 2011 at 5:33 pm #

    Oh but you’re right about one thing… I’m not real…. I am a sinister (that’s evil) left-wing computer program run amok…. he he eheehehehhehehehe

  26. Joe November 15, 2011 at 11:39 pm #

    Confirmation accepted. (Sinister is very close I must say) By the way, you repeat yourself quite often. You may wish to check your posts going forward? Simply a suggestion to an avowed “Progressive” in the old days called (Liberal). I quess “Progressive or Regressive” sounds better?

  27. Rob N. Hood November 16, 2011 at 5:37 pm #

    so sad, so very sad

  28. Joe November 16, 2011 at 10:30 pm #

    I agree, your comments with no factual backup are “Sad.” I see you agree.

  29. Rob N. Hood November 17, 2011 at 5:56 pm #

    Uh yes, Joe… we agree….

  30. Rob N. Hood November 18, 2011 at 5:41 pm #

    Coke + sugar= communism.

  31. Joe November 18, 2011 at 10:36 pm #

    I guess we agree to disagree. Man, your type is very questionable at best.

  32. Rob N. Hood November 19, 2011 at 8:42 am #

    Coming from you that is a compliment.

  33. Joe November 21, 2011 at 10:59 pm #

    I’ve been know to say worse. Clean up your act.

  34. Rob N. Hood November 23, 2011 at 5:25 pm #

    And when my act is clean (which it has been for quite some time now) what will you do with your act?

  35. Joe November 25, 2011 at 10:29 pm #

    There is no time or space available here to comment on your statement.

  36. Rob N. Hood November 28, 2011 at 6:28 pm #

    Aww, shucks. What a tease!

  37. Joe November 29, 2011 at 10:04 pm #

    You know my wife?

  38. Rob N. Hood November 30, 2011 at 6:45 pm #

    …. I see you cleaned up your act…. but hey, I wasn’t holding my breath.

  39. Joe December 2, 2011 at 10:56 pm #

    Never hold your breath with me. I’m like the energizer Bunny that never gives up. Finally, I have no “act” to clean up. It is what it is. Moderate V: “Progressive” you now call yourselfs. Used to be left wing liberal. Ooops, similiar to “Global warming” now called “Climate change.” According to the leaked e-mails you are right on point aren’t you by a being a “Progressive”?

  40. Rob N. Hood December 3, 2011 at 8:21 am #

    I don’t know you, but you do not appear to be moderate about this subject, nor would I wager about anything else for that matter. And you are proud of that, which is fine I guess. But do not delude yourself about who or what you are. It doesn’t make sense to do so. I realize that people of your ilk, including good ol’Danny boy, believe that you are the backbone of the righteous, middle of the road , paragons of practicality and common sense. But the reality is something other than that. And that’s ok too… but delusion is never very helpful.

  41. joe December 6, 2011 at 12:04 am #

    No you don’t know me nor will you. I’m simply a common “Joe”, speaking for all my friends, the backbone of America. Guys like you energize me. I could care less who you are, where you live, what you do. It is what it is, period! It is your mindset that is growing with people that do not read, think by themselves, and follows their divine leaders that bothers me as well as others no matter whomever they may be and would walk over a cliff if asked by their leaders statements. Now that definitely bothers me as well as others. You have no plan, objective, alternate plan, na da. Talk is cheap. What precisely would you and your ilk do? Please entertain me as well as others. If you have an excellent plan? Kudo’s to you. With all due respect, I have not seen a definitive plan.

  42. Rob N. Hood December 6, 2011 at 6:30 pm #

    And you do? Please enlighten us oh wise and benevolent sage.

  43. Rob N. Hood December 7, 2011 at 10:35 am #

    Now’s your chance “common Joe”. Don’t be shy, now…!

  44. Rob N. Hood December 10, 2011 at 8:49 am #

    Awww, the cute little guy. Suddenly so bashful.

  45. Joe December 10, 2011 at 7:37 pm #

    My God, Aul would be proud of your “liberal” oops, “now “progressive” baiting. His book taught you well.

  46. Rob N. Hood December 13, 2011 at 11:16 am #

    Smile when you call me Liberal. You still missed your chance, but I’m not surprised. I’m proud to be a Liberal, or a Progressive. What do you like to be called politically?

  47. Joe December 13, 2011 at 9:53 pm #

    A realist.

  48. Rob N. Hood December 14, 2011 at 12:09 pm #

    Dodgy. As per usual.

  49. joe December 15, 2011 at 11:36 pm #

    Factual statement.

  50. Rob N. Hood December 16, 2011 at 8:28 am #

    Perhaps, but still dodgy.

Leave a Reply

A project of Minnesota Majority