A Jim Lahey Christmas

Yes! My wife has given me my Christmas drinking privileges!!!

Best Demonoid Substitutes

Well, since Demonoid disappeared I've been frantically searching for it's substitute. I am not sure it exists, so here are the next best things:

1. Fr333dom.net


2. bitsoup


3. seedmore.org


4. zamunda.net *Would be The Best Of The Lot, But too much in Russian)


5. arenabg


6. Pisexy


7. Aradi Tracker

and of course the old favorites:

Piratebay.org

mininova.org

btjunkie.org

If you can find some better, write them in the comments & I'll add them.

A Vary Gary Christmas

A Vary ScGary Christmas

http://Go.To/GaryTheSpot

MST3K is Back??? Or Cinematic Titanic

http://cinematictitanic.com/wpmu/

http://www.rifftrax.com/

Shock & Awe In the GOP!!!!!

Believe me, unless you're a die-hard libertarian (like myself) you've never seen a REPUBLICAN answer the tough question like Ron Paul did on Glenn Beck's CNN show last night. Seems like Glenn Beck , who recently put Dr. Paul down, is a convert now.

Believe me, this is a MUST SEE!!!!! This country is doomed and "Dr. NO" lays it right out in the open honestly and brutally. The only HONEST candidate and the only one who'll save this country from "slipping and sliding into third-worldism" (Bob Grant).

Glenn Beck asks tough questions and gets honest answers from GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul.

"Dr. No," our ONLY hope.

Gotta watch this all the way to the end to see the list of things Dr. No has NEVER voted for!

Gun Control

The Godfather of Shock Jocks!

The Godfather of Shock Jocks,
and HE'S BAAAAAAACK!!!!!!!


Bob GrantWeekdays: 8:00 PM - 10:00 PM ON WABC RADIO 77.

Controversial, opinionated and wildly popular, Bob Grant has truly earned the title "King of Talk Radio".

After leaving the University of Illinois, Bob landed his first radio job at WAOK in Oak Park, Illinois. He moved on to WBBM in Chicago as a newsman. While in Chicago he also performed as a television actor. Ten years later he moved to Los Angeles to work at KNX as a radio personality and television talk show host.

Bob was hired by KABC radio as Sports Director where he met the legendary Joe Pine. After substituting for Pine on several occasions, Grant was chosen to take over The Joe Pine Show at KABC. For Bob Grant and his loyal listeners, the rest would be history.

Bob moved to New York in 1970 to host a talk show on WMCA where he spent seven years steadily building his audience. Leaving WMCA in 1977, Grant worked his first stint at WOR, and later moved to WWDB in Philadelphia before returning to New York as the cornerstone of WABC’s brand new talk format in 1984. He remained at WABC until his much-publicized firing in 1996.

Ten days later, Bob was again hired by WOR to be heard locally in New York and nationally on The WOR Radio Network.

He is the author of the best-selling book, "Lets Be Heard".

In 1996 the National Association of Radio Talk Show Hosts (NARTSH) honored Bob Grant with its Freedom of Speech Award. In 2002, radio industry magazine Talkers ranked him as the 16th greatest radio talk show host of all time. In 2007, Bob Grant was nominated for induction into the National Radio Hall of Fame.

Ron Paul - You Gotta See This!

The Good Ole Daze

CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL THE KIDS WHO WERE BORN IN THE 1930s, 1940s, 50s, 60s

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a tin, and didn't get tested for diabetes.

Then after that trauma, our baby cots were covered with bright colored lead-based paints.

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking .

As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags.
Riding in the back of a van - loose - was always great fun. We drank water from the garden hosepipe and NOT from a bottle.

We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.
We ate cakes, white bread and real butter and drank pop with sugar in it, but we weren't overweight because......

WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!!

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.
No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem .

We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 99 channels on cable, no video tape movies, no surround sound, no mobile phones, no text messaging, no personal computers, no Internet or Internet chat rooms..........WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits/legal from these accidents .
We played with worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.

Made up games with sticks and tennis balls and although we were told it would happen, we did not poke out any eyes.
We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just yelled for them!

Local teams had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!
This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!

The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned
HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!

Doomed!

Evel

Glue & Wine, What Else To Do?

FileFactory.com

The SlA's

All Broke Down &

Glue & Wine!

Click Here!!!!

The Whole Album!!!

Here, in ONE zip file!

http://www.filefactory.com/file/291ced/

Thunders, Wit & Wisdom...

A lot of people don't think they can count on me, but I've never missed a gig in my life.
Johnny Thunders

A lot of people take me seriously because of the things they read about me. Maybe they wanted to sell more records.
Johnny Thunders

A lot of people want to die for a lot of reasons.
Johnny Thunders

Heroin doesn't affect my musical life at all.
Johnny Thunders

I always get harassed by the police.
Johnny Thunders

I don't eat cereal actually... Frosted Flakes... that's as close as I can get.
Johnny Thunders

I met Sable when she was 15 and I was 18. I sent her home to New York while we carried on the tour. When we got back the police were looking for her at the airport and everywhere!
Johnny Thunders

I take smack because I enjoy it. I enjoy all it makes me feel. I don't do it to be in with the in crowd. I can rock out with it.
Johnny Thunders

I was in Sweden for 10 days. They put me on the front page of the daily papers eight days in a row. I did nothing to warrant any of the attention. It was ridiculous.
Johnny Thunders

I wouldn't change a thing - except my bank balance.
Johnny Thunders

I'm gonna try to be cured. I've been on heroin eight years and I want to try a different style of life. It made me split up from my wife. It ruined a lot of things for me.
Johnny Thunders

I've got three boys. They look like me. They're called Dino, Guido and Little Johnny. They're my whole life. They mean more to me than music.
Johnny Thunders

I've never been so happy in my life.
Johnny Thunders

It went out in Paris that I died three times. It was in all the papers. Your guess is as good as mine where it came from.
Johnny Thunders

It's something I have no regrets about, but it's not something that I'll do forever.
Johnny Thunders

Many people love me, many people hate me - there's nobody in between. That's the way I prefer it.
Johnny Thunders

Me and Jerry left because we felt we weren't getting anywhere playing our old songs in tiny clubs. The group was getting stale and staying behind the times.
Johnny Thunders

No one really knows me. People think they know me.
Johnny Thunders

The Dolls were an attitude. If nothing else they were a great attitude.
Johnny Thunders

The Lower East Side is really heavy nowadays. A lot of murders, people getting ripped off and knifed. It's really dangerous.
Johnny Thunders

We did a TV show and they thought I was too messed up and wouldn't show it. That started the ball rolling with the press. They started following me.
Johnny Thunders

We get picked up in these Rolls Royces and get three miles down the highway and five cop cars pull us over.
Johnny Thunders

We'll establish ourselves here, get a reputation, and then go back to the States and see if they've grown up a little.
Johnny Thunders

What does the industry understand?
Johnny Thunders

Source: here.

Global Warming's A SCAM!!!!

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
Intro by Joe D’Aleo, Icecap, CCM
I was privileged to work with John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel in the year before it became a reality and then for the first of the 6 years I was fortunate to be the Director of Meteorology. No one worked harder than John to make The Weather Channel a reality and to make sure the staffing, the information and technology was the very best possible at that time. John currently works with KUSI in San Diego. He posts regularly. I am very pleased to present his latest insightful post.

By John Coleman

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend. See John’s full blog story here.

Source:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JC_comments.doc
http://icecap.us/index.php

Take Off All My Clothes & Live In The Jungle Like An Apeman... (Ray Davies)

The One Minute Case Against Environmentalism

June 6th, 2007

Environmentalism versus humanity

The premise behind the environmentalist movement is the belief that nature untouched by human influence has inherent moral value independently of its benefit to mankind, and therefore the influence of man, and especially that of industrial civilization, is immoral. What leading environmentalists oppose is not the threat to human life posed by environmental destruction, but man’s exploitation of nature to improve its ability to sustain human life.
In the words of popular environmentalist Bill McKibben, “The problem is that nature, the independent force that has surrounded us since our earliest days, cannot coexist with our numbers and our habits. We may well be able to create a world that can support our numbers and our habits, but it will be an artificial world. . . .” The environmentalist attack on the “artificial” extends to all human manipulation of the environment. While few advocates of environmentalism recognize it as such, the ultimate goal of the environmentalist movement is the total destruction of industrial civilization, and the vast majority of the human race whose existence is made possible by it.

Environmentalism versus the mind

Human beings have evolved over millions of years to survive by using their reasoning mind. There is nothing “unnatural” about this. It is human nature to think and use technology to enrich our lives. We are as much a part of the “natural world” as any other creature. Instead of claws, fangs, or the heightened senses of animals, we have our minds and hands. The difference between our comfortable lives and the short, dangerous, and miserable existence that our ancestors eked out in trees, caves, and caverns is continually made possible by application of reason to the problem of survival.

Shackling man’s mind by preventing him from applying it to improve his condition would ultimately lead to our extinction. The genetic and biochemical tools which made the Green Revolution possible feed billions of people today. Farming machinery feeds billions more. Undoing the industrial revolution would eliminate the vast majority of productivity improvements in agricultural production and distribution. To the extent that we cripple technology, we cripple our ability to exist as human beings.

Capitalism is the solution to environmental destruction

The usual response to environmental destruction is a call for more government controls of industry. However it is the lack of property rights, not capitalism which is responsible for environmental destruction, as the history of socialist states aptly demonstrates.1
According to Roy Cordato2,
Environmental problems occur because property rights, a requirement of free markets, are not being identified or enforced. Problems of air, river, and ocean pollution are all due to a lack of private property rights and/or protection. Since clarifying and enforcing property rights is the basic function of government in a free society, environmental problems are an example of government failure, not market failure.

In a free society, environmental problems should be viewed in terms of how they impinge on human liberty. Questions should focus on how and why one person’s use of resources might interfere with the planning and the decision making abilities of others. Since, legitimately, people can only make plans and decisions with respect to resources that they have “rights” to, environmentalism that has human wellbeing as the focus of its analysis, must center on property rights.

Even if some environmental dangers are real, we would be much better equipped to deal with them by embracing prosperity and technological progress than surrendering to the indisputable danger of nature to those who give up their primary means of survival. As Ayn Rand put it,3
City smog and filthy rivers are not good for men (though they are not the kind of danger that the ecological panic-mongers proclaim them to be). This is a scientific, technological problem—not a political one—and it can be solved only by technology. Even if smog were a risk to human life, we must remember that life in nature, without technology, is whole-sale death.

References:
Thomas J. DiLorenzo. “Why Socialism Causes Pollution” The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, March 1992.
Roy E. Cordato. “Market Based Environmentalism vs. the Free Market” June 4, 1999
Ayn Rand. “The Anti-Industrial Revolution,” Return of the Primitive, 282. 1971

Further reading:
The One Minute Case Against Global Warming Alarmism
The Objectivism Wiki: Environmentalism
The Ayn Rand Institute: Environmentalism and Animal Rights
“Environmentalism as Religion” by Michael Crichton
Earth4Man: Save The Earth From The Environmentalists
JunkScience.com

Source:
http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/environmentalism/

Kaptain's Arcade Machine

Kaptain's Arcade Machine, Resurrected from beyond.

More Global Warming Ranting

To attribute global warming to man is a big leap. To accept this theory the following things need to be proven:


1. It must be determined if Co2 is a MAJOR green house gas in our atmosphere. Oh yeah, but this has already been established, it isn't as it only occupies less than 2% of our troposphere but don't believe me, this is from Nasa. And also, it must be proven that man contributes in a significant way to its abundance. Oh yeah, and it's already been established he contributes approximately 1/2 of 1% by Nasa.

1. There must be a CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP (not just a correlation) PROVEN linking co2 with and increase in temperature. This has never been proven and in fact, there is a reverse relationship, temp increases are FOLLOWED by increases in co2.

2. There must be a causal relationship proven linking mans activity to this rise in co2 and the alleged rise in temperature. This has never been proven and in fact increases have not generally followed the industrial revolution as would be expected if this were true.

3. There must be proof that rules out other likely variables, such as the activity of the sun, sunspots, and the ocean currents as causes of climate change and experts like the world's leading hurricane forecaster William Gray and Nasa's chief have recently publicly supported. Maybe, and just maybe, Temperature fluxuations are normal and will exist w/or w/out man. I know this may be hard for some to believe, but it just may be true!!!!

4. We must realize that the ulitmate goal of the environmentmentalists is to have the most "natural" and "healthy" earth possible, at any costs. This really means an earth as far removed from the effects and activities of man as can be. For them the actions of other animals are "natural" while man and his activities are considered unnatural. We will be considered unnatural only until man wipes himself out, or a meteor does, then we will be considered natural. Thus, the ultimate goal of the greens really is to establish an earth void of the effects of man, or simply put, void of man himself. So, if you really want to help the earth, don't have kids, let your house and material possessions revert back to nature, take off all your closes and commit suicide.

Global warming is a scam used by those who want to create a crisis and become the saviors for power and money.

Global warming and cooling was going on before man, and will go on after man's existence.

Global warming and cooling was going on before the industrial revolution and went on after it.

The earth's temperature today is well below the average temperature for the past few BILLION years.

http://go.to/inconvenientfacts

Vermont To Secede!!!!

Rob Williams, is the volunteer editor of VERMONT COMMONS which is the online voice of Vermont Independence. The organization has been working for some time to establish The Second Vermont Republic which is a peaceful, democratic, grassroots, libertarian populist movement opposed to the tyranny of the U.S. Government, corporate America, and globalization and committed to the return of Vermont to its rightful status as an independent republic, as it was between 1777 and 1791. More of the history of Vermont and the Independence movement can be read at the VT Commons website.



CB: Please explain the Vermont secessionist movement and why many Vermonters support it. Why do you support it? What do you think might happen to Vermont if secession does not happen?

RW: The Vermont secession impulse is born out of our understanding that the United States - once a great republic - has become an unsustainable Empire governed by a very few. Beyond massive (and bipartisan) national electoral fraud, 9/11's unanswered questions, a "war on terror" (that will not end, we are told, in our life times), the collapse of the U.S. Constitution, the erosion of civil liberties, and the practicing of "disaster capitalism" on a massive scale by political and economic elites, the U.S. is simply too big to function as a democratic republic in its current state. In other words, as astute observers from across the political spectrum have pointed out, the Empire is essentially ungovernable, unsustainable, and un-reformable.

We in the Vermont independence effort are a growing group of citizens who have moved beyond frustration with the current imperial system and are championing a more honest and hopeful paradigm - that of "small is beautiful" sustainability and, if need be, peaceable secession from the Empire, and the re-invention of Vermont as an independent republic, as it was from 1777 to 1791. Contrary to popular belief, New England was the first region of the country to openly call for secession - not once but several times - during the early 19th century, for similar reasons as our own in the 21st: concern about growing corporate and commercial power, and legitimate fears of a centralized federal/statist apparatus that trumps local decision-making and state sovereignty. Given expansive federal regulatory power over our food (USDA), our airwaves (FCC), our animals and livestock (NAIS), our educational endeavors (NCLB), and every other aspect of our lives, it makes sense to take a good hard look at some legitimate alternatives that exist as a forgotten part of the U.S. political tradition - this is what we are doing here at Vermont Commons newspaper.

The Rest Here:

Atlantic Free Press
More Here:
http://www.vtcommons.org/

The War On SOME Drugs

Only One Justification Needed to End the Insane War on Drugs

by Rick Gee

When New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson announced on CBS’s 60 Minutes that he had used marijuana and cocaine in his younger days and – gasp! – liked it, a cacophonous uproar ensued. Elected and appointed officials from both major parties knocked each other over in the rush to denounce the governor for this unpopular and dangerous stance and vowed to oppose any decriminalization or legalization schemes.

Of course, Johnson waited until after he was reelected to drop this bombshell on the public, but who could blame him? Politicians, even a maverick like Johnson, live for the next election. If he had publicized his controversial views before the election, Marty Chavez would now be the governor of New Mexico instead of settling for his old job as the mayor of Albuquerque.

Drug prohibition is a recent trend, historically speaking. Most of the laws originated during the “Reefer Madness” era of the early 1900s. The unmitigated failure of alcohol prohibition should be a model for the legality of all mood-enhancing substances. Alas, the War on Drugs is really a War on Some Drugs. Alcohol and nicotine are legal for adults of a certain minimum age despite the fact that those legal drugs kill far more people than all illegal drugs combined.

Self-medication has been a hallmark of human civilization since man first pulled himself out of the primordial swamp. So why are marijuana and other drugs verboten? The obvious answer is that the ruling elite love to control the rest of us. In 2000, over 730,000 Americans were arrested for the heinous act of simply possessing or using marijuana. Our prisons are so full of drug users (most of them marijuana users) that the United States now houses 25% of the world’s prison population.

Drug-legalization proponents have offered many common-sense reasons to reform our nation’s destructive drug laws. One of the most common arguments is that drug dependence is a health issue rather than a crime issue, i.e., treatment makes more sense than incarceration. Others point out that rates of illicit drug use bear no meaningful relationship to enforcement efforts. Most reasonable people recognize that smoking a bowl is not tantamount to armed robbery or rape. Therefore, those individuals who are inclined to try mind-altering drugs are not likely to abstain from doing so just because a bunch of corrupt politicians pass some laws.

Some argue that illegal drugs are not nearly as dangerous as the government and media would have you believe. After all, far more people die as a result of taking legal prescription and over-the-counter drugs each year than die from ingesting all illegal drugs put together.

Civil libertarians decry the loss of privacy and Constitutional protections. “Know Your Customer” regulations forced upon banks are ostensibly designed to ferret out drug dealers. Asset forfeiture – the despicable practice in which government thugs with guns are permitted to seize private property upon the slimmest suspicion that the property in question might be remotely connected to illegal drugs – has rendered the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure impotent. And forget the presumption of innocence; victims must prove they are not guilty to regain their property, despite the fact that in the majority of such cases, no charges are filed.

Civil rights spokesmen expose the racist dimensions of prohibition: blacks are incarcerated at a rate grossly disproportionate to their population, and penalties for crack cocaine use are harsher than those for the powdered variety.

Critics of bloated government point out that the War on Drugs is a massive waste of tax dollars. Realists maintain that even successful interdiction operations make only the slightest dent in the volume of drugs coming across the country’s extensive borders and into its countless ports. Armchair economists recognize that supply will always meet demand.

All of the above arguments (definitely not a complete list) for ending The War on Some Drugs have merit. Some are practical, some are self-serving. But none of them carries the moral weight of the single most important reason for complete drug legalization: If I am the owner of myself and my body (and surely I am), nobody may tell me what I may ingest into it.

In a free society that recognizes private property rights, the right of the individual to determine what he will ingest, smoke or inject into his own person should be paramount. What right does the politician or bureaucrat have to tell one otherwise?

An exchange with a do-gooder nanny wannabe typically goes something like this:

“If drugs were legal, we would experience an epidemic of drug addiction.”

“So, if drugs were legal, would you use them?”

“No, of course not.”

“Why then do you assume everyone else will?”

“Well, I can control myself, but some people can’t.”

So what? In a free society, some individuals will make poor decisions about a whole host of things: what to eat, what to drink, what college to attend, what career to pursue, whom to marry, or whether or not to ingest “illegal” drugs. None of these decisions should be usurped by government. Each and every one of them must be left to the sovereign individual.

If you are over the age of twelve, you very likely either have smoked pot yourself or know someone who has. Did it ruin your life or the life of those you know? Did smoking pot reduce to rubble the lives of the two men who vied for the presidency in the contested election of 2000? Did you ever hear one of the talking heads who lobs softballs at the candidates in presidential debates ask, “Do you believe you would be better off now if you had spent ten years in prison for your youthful indiscretions?”

The War on Some Drugs is really The War on Some People. If you want to drink a fifth of Scotch a day and die from cirrhosis of the liver, that’s OK as far as the government is concerned. But if you want to relax after a hard day at work with a few puffs on a joint, you are a criminal and may go to jail.

This assault on free men and women must end, and it must end for one reason: your person and your body are your property, and you should allow no one, least of all some politician in the statehouse or in Washington, to get away with dictating what you do with your property.

* * * * *

A version of this column originally appeared in the February 2002 issue of The Valley News.

Is Mytur There???

I am placing an order for my brother,
Mytur





M-I-T-U-R B-I-N-E-S-D-E-R-T-Y

Photo of the Day

The Garbageman

You ain't no punk, you punk.
You wanna talk about the real junk?
If i ever said (Bleep) i'll be banned 'cause i'm your garbageman.

Well, if you can't dig me you can't dig nothin'.
Do you want the real thing, or are you just talkin'? Do you understand? i'm your garbageman.

Yeah, somethin' from the garage and down the driveway. Now get outta your mind and get outta my way.

Now do you understand? do you understand?


Louie, louie, louie, lou-i the bird's the word and do you know why?
You gotta beat it with a stick. you gotta beat it 'til it's thick. You gotta live it until you're dead. you gotta rock 'til you see red.

Now do you understand? Do you understand? I'm the garbageman.

Aw, jump on and ride... (fuzz guitar solo).

Yeah it's just what you need when you're down in the dumps. one half hillbilly and one half punk. big long legs and one big mouth. the hottest thing from the north to come out of the south.

Do you understand? do you understand?

Woo, i can't lose with the stuff i use, and you don't choose no substitutes. so stick out your can 'cause i'm the garbageman.

(another guitar solo)

Louie, louie, louie, lou-i, the bird's the word and do you know why?
You gotta beat it with a stick. you gotta beat it 'til it's thick. you gotta live it until you're dead. You gotta rock 'til you see red.

Now do you understand? do you understand? do you understand? all right, hop on.

Live Earth Sux!

This Live Earth Shit just really pisses me off 'cuz it wreaks with hypocrisy. The climate nazis know no bounds, and if Gore calls us global warming deniers, I have every right to call them climate nazis.

Making this argument as short and brief as possible, let's look at some simple facts.... co2 makes up less than ONE HALF of ONE PERCENT of the atmosphere, and according to NASA, 98% of it is there due to NATURAL causes. And about Co2 CAUSING rises in temperature, COMPLETE CRAP. Rises in CO2 FOLLOW rises in temperature, or at least have throughout the history of the earth itself.

An EXCELLENT presentation by Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, State Geologist and Director of the Kansas Geological Survey showing information gathered by Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V. 2006 shows that spikes in CO2 in the atmosphere FOLLOW rises in the climate temperature, and DO NOT PRECEED it! and this chorus being sung by the environmental nazis about unanimous consent among the scientific comnunity about global warming, that is complete horseshit.

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard is not the only one who "denies" the global warming myth. Both the head of NASA, Michael Griffin, and The worlds top hurricane forecaster, William Gray, say Gore does not know what he is talking about.

One of the most heavily publicized "proof" of scientific consensus in the last decade concerning climate change has been the Oreskes Study [Oreskes, Naomi. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” Science Vol.306, 3 December 2004 Vol. 1686] as stated by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, when results of a surveys used in these study are looked at IN DETAIL, they suggest just the OPPOSITE.

For example, one question on the survey asked “To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes? This question had a mean score of 3.62 (on a scale of 1 to 7 with 1=strongly agree and 7=strongly disagree). THIS is NOT consensus especially when you find out that ONLY 9.4% of the respondents “strongly agree”. with that statement. In other words, LESS than 10% is consensus as far as the Oreskes study has been represented. Detailed results of the (above/Oreskes) study published in Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686 , 3 December 2004 the IPCC is not a scientific entity, it is simply a political body of the UN. There is NO science there and never was.

Let's see how quick this gets negative comments. Just remember, I QUOTE FACTS AND PEOPLE. I did not make any of this up off the top of my head like someone's whose electric bill is 20X the national average, lives in a mansion w/a heated pool, flys around in jets, and tells others to take coffee cups from home when they go to starbucks.

Check out this video if you don't believe me, HERE or here.

UPDATE!!!!!!!!


Only a week after Live Earth, eco-warrior Al Gore didn't do much for his green credentials when he shocked fellow environmentalists by serving up an endangered fish at his daughter's wedding rehearsal dinner.
The former US vicepresident provided 75 guests with Chilean sea bass - one of the world's most threatened fish species.
Gore, 59, who created the climate change documentary An Inconvenient Truth, sampled a sixcourse tasting menu at Beverly Hills' Crustacean restaurant which included the sea bass - also known as Patagonian toothfish.


Here for more...



Cold Hard Facts From Nasa:

Composition of the Atmosphere (According to NASA):

The atmosphere is primarily composed of Nitrogen (N2, 78%), Oxygen (O2, 21%), and Argon (Ar, 1%). A myriad of other very influential components are also present which include the water (H2O, 0 - 7%), "greenhouse" gases or Ozone (O, 0 - 0.01%), Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 0.01-0.1%),

Source is Nasa's Education Page - Here.

It could be anybody!