usual suspect wrote:

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

Look who finances them you dolt. Includes ads by our friends at
Mitsubishi that brought us the Zero. They want to use hybrids without
sacrificing "performance". Guess what? Global warming is real and
changes are needed.
We may need to sacrifice some performance for the greater good.

You ignore MIT and NOA and only use a few organizations that agree with
you. I call MIT and NOA MUCH more authoritative. The effects of Global
Warmings are either an incredible coincidence or just happening while
we pump greenhouse gas into the air. Seems the secondary is much more
probable.

The time to take action against global warming is now instead of
sticking your head in the sand.
>
>> 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:
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.

Hardly, Zealot that uses MIT and MOA as such support. You're the man
with your head in the head in the sand.