usual suspect wrote:

> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>> Nissan & Hyundai: Just say "no" to Auto Alliance
>

Which is paid for by Mittsubishi amonst other's you dolt!
>
> You've gone to a leftwing website and produced an activism form letter
> without understanding the real issue at hand. The Auto Alliance is not
> anti-environment.
>
> http://www.autoalliance.org/environment/
>
>> Automakers Nissan and Hyundai will be introducing their first hybrid
>> models in 2006, helping to expand this important emerging market.
>> However, just as these automakers are seeking to establish their
>> “green credentials” with hybrids, the Alliance of Automobile
>> Manufacturers (a.k.a. the Auto Alliance) is courting these two
>> companies. The Auto Alliance is the lobbyist group representing most
>> of the major automobile manufacturers. Its stated priorities include
>> blocking any increase in fuel economy standards, and overturning
>> California’s breakthrough global warming regulations on vehicles.
>> Please contact the CEOs of Nissan and Hyundai and let them know that
>> the reputation they are trying to develop with these hybrid vehicles
>> will be severely damaged by associating with the Auto Alliance, a
>> group pushing to keep American drivers out of the cleaner cars we
>> want and deserve.
>
>
> They're not trying to keep anyone out of any cars: they favor allowing
> freedom of choice, something you authoritarian leftists don't respect.
>
>> Personalize your letter: Increase the impact of your action by giving
>> it your own personal voice.
>
>
> Hahaha. They know that most of you morons will just send what they've
> written.
>
>> Here are some questions that may help you
>> quickly and easily increase your letter's resonance:
>>
>> * Are you in the market for a new car? Will you be in 2006?
>> * Do you own, or have you owned, either a Nissan or Hyundai
>> vehicle?
>> * Are you a current hybrid vehicle owner?
>> * Were you one of the over 20,000 people who took action and
>> filed a false advertising complaint against the Auto Alliance for
>> their "virtually emission-free" ad?
>> * Do you live on the West Coast and are currently being denied a
>> "clean air corridor?" because of the Auto Alliance's activities?
>>
>> Tell me more
>>
>>
>> Subject:
>>
>> Dear Mr. Ghosn and Mr. Cosmai,
>>
>> (Edit Letter Below)
>>
>> I am writing to applaud your planned 2006 introductions of hybrid
>> vehicles. As a consumer interested in cleaner, more fuel-efficient
>> car options, I am pleased that the Altima and Accent hybrids will
>> help push forward this emerging clean vehicle market. The fact that
>> the Altima hybrid will be assembled in the United States, and the
>> Accent hybrid may help make hybrid technology affordable to a larger
>> segment of the driving public are both very exciting developments.
>>
>> I have also read, however, that the DC-based lobbyist group for many
>> of the major automakers, the Auto Alliance, is courting both of you
>> to join its ranks. The Auto Alliance has continually used fear and
>> deception to prevent any meaningful improvements in vehicle
>> pollution, safety, and fuel economy standards.
>
>
> Bullshit.
>
>> For example, the Auto
>> Alliance recently ran advertisements calling today's autos "virtually
>> emission-free" -- deceptive language that resulted in over 20,000
>> false advertising complaints.
>
>
> None of which has resulted in adverse actions against them.
>
>> Now the Alliance is purportedly focused
>> on preventing higher fuel economy standards and overturning
>> California's breakthrough regulations on global warming pollution
>> from autos among its top agenda items.
>>
>> Your association with this group would severely undermine whatever
>> environmentally-friendly reputation you hope to develop through your
>> hybrid models, not to mention my interest as a potential customer. A
>> clear, public "no thank you" to this lobbyist group would, in turn,
>> give an indication that your hybrid models are not merely
>> "greenwashing," but a genuine step toward addressing the
>> environmental, public health, and gas saving needs of the American
>> consumer.
>>
>> I look forward to your reply.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> [Your name]
>
>
> Just sign it "another mindnumb activist following marching orders."
>
> BTW, note that you failed to address any points I made below.
>
>> usual suspect wrote:
>>
>>> Beach Runner wrote:
>>>

Yes I have, I've pointed out your "non profit organization" is paid for
by Mittsubisi and friends, and you ignore the responsible organizations
such as MIT and NOA amongst other's. You find a fringe scientist that
supports your contention. Big deal. Global warming is real.
>>>>>> http://www.commondreams....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From their "about us" page:
>>>>>
>>>>> Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization
>>>>> working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote
>>>>> *progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we
>>>>> are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet
>>>>> as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for
>>>>> internet *activism*.
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists.

There is nothing wrong with being a liberal. Ben Franklin would be
considered a liberal for example. When change is needed, then you need
it. Or do you favor a nation that only allows conservative views to be
expressed?

It's liberals that exposed things like the toxic love canal and Nixon's
election scandle. Thank God I live in a country that can have liberals
who express their views and conservatives. You actions insult every
liberal organization that is doing good.

Yes, the VEGAN movement is a liberal movement by and large. So expect
to find liberals here. We are here. In fact the majority of the nation
voted for a liberal candidate in 2000 and should have been president.
We'd be a lot better off now.


>>>>>
>>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> hat is correct. If IF the many models
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> SOME models...
>>>
>>>> that say global warming are correct,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There's no indication that they are.
>>>
>>>> and there is no doubt there are many models,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> SOME models.
>>>
>>>> than radical chance is necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Radical chance? You twit, you mean radical change. And it is NOT
>>> necessary.
>>>
>>>> If things were business as usual, it wouldn't matter, but of course,
>>>> they
>>>> are not business as usual except to the really blind conservative
>>>> people as yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Spoken as the elite leftist snob you really are. You want "radical
>>> change" on the basis of inconclusive evidence. Why? Because the
>>> "radical change" you advocate is consistent with your POLITICS. Such
>>> change is unwarranted by the SCIENCE, which doesn't show a clear-cut
>>> problem (and certainly not of the magnitude that would necessitate
>>> RADICAL change).
>>>
>>>> We are in the midst of a global change and you can't even see it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Neither can most studies.
>>>
>>> http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
>>> http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html
>>> http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294
>>> http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...2/seedsci.html
>>>
>>> Etc.
>>>
>>>> So you can correct some spelling or typos when I take medication
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Your drug abuse is your own problem, not mine.
>>>
>>>> You've still ignored
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, you ****. I've addressed the substance of your "radical" claims
>>> which you claim necessitate radical change. I don't think other human
>>> beings should be subjected to your radical politics on the basis of
>>> your irrational concerns which aren't substantiated by scientific
>>> discovery. And at the end of the day, that's precisely what you want
>>> to do: require every human being to adopt your political worldview.
>>> That's ALL this is about. You're an authoritarian zealot. You've been
>>> exposed.