Cite Please: CAP got Maroon Should Marks as punishment?

[Major Carrales]

OK...this is one of CAP's biggest myths.  I spoke with Gen Rich L. Anderson about it and he said that the move to make CAP more distinctive from the USAF in terms of appearance had been in the works long before any "incident" with the "Two Star Affair."

I get personally erked when I see people furthering that story as if it were FACT.

I am asking for something simple...a "put up, or SHUT UP."  If you can find a memo or directive stating that as FACT, I will stand down.  Since we cannot find "negative" evidence (some memo stating something that did not happen), I do not have the BURDEN of PROOF.

OK...there it is.  Make it happen...

[Major Lord]

Joe,

Indeed, as the Plaintiff in this matter, you do have the burden of proof! Your hearsay assertion of statements made by General  Anderson that USAF plans to make CAP more distinctive predate the infamous 2* incident, could be interpreted to lend weight to the argument that CAP was being punished for its sins. ( Which in fairness went far beyond mere self-aggrandizing self-promotion!) In my experience, when an organization takes steps to distance itself from a sub-echelon, the action is generally not considered an "award". ( By the way Barack Obama told me that Gen Coulter sold her soul to Satan in exchange for repeater funding: Please disprove this.)

Certainly the story is not beyond doubt, but its a very credible theory as to why we would be saddled with the "scarlet letter" ( or epaulet) to B-Slap the Girls-Gone-Wild behavior of the National organization. If anyone had any credible direct knowledge in support of either argument, they would probably be smart enough to keep it to themselves. People who know where the bodies are buried tend to end up with the buried bodies....

Major Lord

[NIN]

While I don't doubt General Anderson's statement that the Air Force had been considering ways to make us more distinctive for some time, it was basically the E.E. Harwell issue (the more or less self-promotion to MG) that served as the impetus to actually force the Air Force to pull the trigger.

I think the term "punishment" might be a bit over the top. Perhaps a better way to consider it would be that the AF felt that CAP's folks needed to be more distinctive to avoid confusion, and, well, what better time?

[Daniel]

post nuked.

[Major Lord]

We can't tell you until you are a senior member or old enough to buy us beer.....of course, your parents could buy it for us and we could tell them.....

Major Lord

[Daniel]

We can't tell you until you are a senior member or old enough to buy us beer.....of course, your parents could buy it for us and we could tell them.....

Major Lord

Ahhh its one of THOSE things, cadet out.

[Major Carrales]

Joe,

Indeed, as the Plaintiff in this matter, you do have the burden of proof! Your hearsay assertion of statements made by General  Anderson that USAF plans to make CAP more distinctive predate the infamous 2* incident, could be interpreted to lend weight to the argument that CAP was being punished for its sins. ( Which in fairness went far beyond mere self-aggrandizing self-promotion!) In my experience, when an organization takes steps to distance itself from a sub-echelon, the action is generally not considered an "award". ( By the way Barack Obama told me that Gen Coulter sold her soul to Satan in exchange for repeater funding: Please disprove this.)

No "strawman" arguments here...I never said I was presenting Gen Anderson's words as edivence.  So there is no heresay here, only an anecdote.

I am, however, calling for evidence to support what is presented as FACT here.  Theories are one thing...making a claim over and over again does not make it true.

I want evidence.  Some document which will show this to be true...that the Maroon Epaulets are a punishment for a CAP National Commander self-promoting.

Also, could you tell me why...if it was a punitive measure.  Why did that National Commander retain his rank?  One would think that punishing the entire organization and then leaving the cluprit intact would violate the story's viability?

Yes, I know some of you like to cling to these stories.  They justify your world views and make it somehow make sense.  But Washington never chopped down a cherry tree, threw a dollar over the Potomac nor was Zachary Taylor assisanted; same goes for this issue unless someone from that time provides written/signed documentation that this is true or some document from that time makes it so.

Many of you on CAPTALK, depending on your political leanings, would as the same en re documentation of the Bush and Obama administrations...why the demand for PROOF there and the undying FAITH in his story HERE?  Or even more to the point...demanding the REGULATIONS be CITED like scripture pasages at a seminary, but taking this story as gospel!!!  (yes...I went there!!!)

[Eclipse]

Why doesn't someone ask Harwell?

[Major Carrales]

Why doesn't someone ask Harwell?

I don't know the fellow, but am tempted to contact him on the matter if it will end this one way or the other.  Would that even work, Lord has said that such would be HEARSAY...and, most likely "Heresy" to subscribers of this long established myth.

Still, I am not the one making the claim this this story is true.  Let those who would support the story do the research.

[FARRIER]

I was on the the staff of then Col. Bobick, when he was Wing Commander of the Colorado Wing. In a staff meeting we were given, by Col. Bobick,  the reason for the loss of the hard rank and going to the Berry Boards was E.E. Harwell's self promotion to Major General. His word was then and is still gold with me. I answered your question directly.

Respectfully,

[PHall]

OK...this is one of CAP's biggest myths.  I spoke with Gen Rich L. Anderson about it and he said that the move to make CAP more distinctive from the USAF in terms of appearance had been in the works long before any "incident" with the "Two Star Affair."

I get personally erked when I see people furthering that story as if it were FACT.

I am asking for something simple...a "put up, or SHUT UP."  If you can find a memo or directive stating that as FACT, I will stand down.  Since we cannot find "negative" evidence (some memo stating something that did not happen), I do not have the BURDEN of PROOF.

OK...there it is.  Make it happen...

Hey Joe, prove it isn't the truth.

[spacecommand]

the reason for the loss of the hard rank and going to the Berry Boards

You mean blue shoulder marks instead of "hard rank"? 
I don't think CAP was using hard-rank by that time on service uniforms.

[spacecommand]

Not being in CAP back then I don't know. 
Was there any official explanation or was a memo released the next day after the promotion saying "from now on CAP members will wear maroon colored shoulder marks".

How long was it after the promotion before the changes were ordered?
Why didn't they just say "no we don't approve, you can't be a two star general, it's not approved etc etc?" 
If the USAF was so against his promotion why allow him to keep the grade anyway?  Punish the whole organization but leave the "wrongdoing" in place?

[SarDragon]

the reason for the loss of the hard rank and going to the Berry Boards

You mean blue shoulder marks instead of "hard rank"? 
I don't think CAP was using hard-rank by that time on service uniforms.

I have a gap in my available info, but here's what I do have.

In the 1987 39-1, the hard rank was worn on the service coat, shirts without epaulets, and most outerwear. The shoulder marks were worn on shirts with epaulets. I think this continued into/through 1989, because I have both Capt hard rank, and blue CAP shoulder marks. I was promoted to Capt in Apr 1989. My next version of 39-1 is from 1989.

[kd8gua]

When did the CAP maroon tabs for the service coat epaulettes (worn below the button on the epaulet) come into play then? Hard rank was being worn when these came out. It seems this was the immediate change before the Berry Boards were put on the service coat. I don't know if the Berry Boards were worn on the shirts at that time, though I would assume the change over was in progress.

[spacecommand]

Ok thanks for the clarification, I thought blue CAP shoulder marks were also worn on the the service coat.

[MSG Mac]

E.E Harwell wasn't stripped of his 2nd star, because at that time the USAF didn't have oversight of the CAP General grades. They do now. But Harwell's successor BG Barry, who received his BG as National Vice Commander,  did refuse to put on the second star, because of the problems caused by the self-promotion.

The Maroon epaulets came about in 1987 for the shirts, hard grade was still worn on the service coats, along with a red velcro strip which said CAP on it. The wear of the red epaulets on the service coat came about in 1991 or 92. The grey epaulets were introduced about in the mid-90's.

[FW]

^Gentlemen, let me restate the story, as told to me, by Gens. Bobick, Bowling, and Wheless (who was the NLO during Anderson's reign).  The story was "confirmed" by Col Len Blascovich, the National Historian.

Gen Harwell and the national board wanted 2 stars for the National Commander.  He went to the SECAF/MIR for approval.  Approval for the grade was granted.  HOWEVER, the CSAF was not consulted and, for some reason, was upset about the end run maneuver.  AS the SECAF was his boss, there was not much he could do about it.  Well, there was one thing.... "berry boards" to give us a more "distinct appearance".  (we first had maroon circlets over hard grade for a very short time.)

When Gen Barry became National Commander, he refused to take the second star.  This seemed to placate the CSAF and, when Gen Anderson became national commander, maroon changed to gray.  End of story.

That's what I've been told and, unless I see "proof" of another sort, I'm sticking to this interpretation of events....

[NIN]

The Maroon epaulets came about in 1987 for the shirts, hard grade was still worn on the service coats, along with a red velcro strip which said CAP on it. The wear of the red epaulets on the service coat came about in 1991 or 92. The grey epaulets were introduced about in the mid-90's.

Nope, sorry, not entirely accurate.

I came back to CAP after active duty in 1989 (January, actually) and we were in hard-rank on service coats and blue shoulder marks on the shirts.

My memory gets a tiny bit fuzzy here, but I got promoted to Captain in 1993 and I don't recall ever wearing blue shoulder marks as a Captain.  I think I even had 1st Lt in maroon, but like I said, my memory is fuzzy there.

Grey came out in the mid 1990s, like you said. I took a year "off" at some point in either late 1994 or early 1995, and when I came "back"  (late 1995 or early 1996) I had to get grey shoulder marks.

[LTC Don]

Being from North Carolina when this whole sordid affair went down, and the fact that Harwell was from North Carolina, it was pretty clear to the membership here that the move to the maroon boards was in fact a 'punishment' of sorts.  Now whether it was or not......really doesn't matter.  It was received by the membership that way, and for a great many, myself included, the respect meter for both the Air Force and CAP National-level fell to zero.  My meter for the Air Force is still pretty much there as painful as it is for me to say that.  That whole thing about 'letting' us put the US on the lapel was a joke, as if to make some kind of amends for the maroon epaulet episode.

As silly as it all really is, the blue epaulets, which CAP had worn for many, many years, made us feel a part of the Air Force Team.  That episode put us in our place, as second-class and that rub continues today, perceived or otherwise.

There were so many other options available to merely make the blue epaulets more distinctive and not move to a completely different epaulet would indicate someone decided a nuclear strike was the only thing to make the point loud and clear that the Air Force wanted a >clear< distancing of CAP from the Air Force.  The subsequent amendment with the Aux On/Aux Off changes was merely icing on the cake.

Discussion fodder...maybe so, but the fact that this issue keeps coming up just goes to show it is still a very open, festering wound that no one seems to want to step up and fix by restoring the blue epaulets (in whatever form they may take).

[Major Lord]

Joe, Joe, Joe,

Your post is a textbook hearsay statement; its evidence, but not necessarily excluded. Hearsay is not always bad. The hearsay you related did not exclude the possibility of the 2* incident being the proximate cause of the maroon epaulets. Yours is the only unequivocal statement that alleges that the incident was in retaliation for the UA promotion. I have never heard anyone say that they know for certain that this was the cause of the-Liberace style epaulets. I don't have direct knowledge that the bombing of Pearl Harbor was the proximate cause of Americas' involvement in WWII, but it certainly contributed to it.

I have heard CAP claims of sinking Submarines, none confirmed, yet they are taught as Holy Writ. You as a public school teacher have probably signed -on to Carbon Dioxide-as-the-scourge-of- mankind-theory,  primarily political propaganda and lacking any real evidence. Both of these things are probably resolvable by a scientific investigative process, but the facts don't really matter- they are a religious belief.

The consensus now seems to be  that it (the ceremonial blooding of  our shoulders) was the case, also derived from hearsay, allegedly from those in power with direct knowledge of the facts. You as the belligerent, seeking to deny presumed historical fact, have the obligation to provide contradictory evidence to your multiple allegations. Seeking to dispel the responses with misdirection is ineffective: Where is your evidence?

Comparison to those demanding documentation of Bush and Obama administration in a time line coincidental with the actions of concern are misdirection. A timely investigation is a cornerstone precept in all CAP investigations.

Major Lord

[Eclipse]

Restating the myth, arguing with the myth, or starting your post with "I heard..." isn't going to answer the question and just walks old road.

Trying to dig this up from 39-1 won't help, either, since a uniform manual isn't going to explain why a change was made (especially if it was political or punitive).

Either someone has the smoking gun memo, or they don't.  Alternatively, if Maj. Gen. Harwell were to answer, that would probably go a long way as well.

Otherwise we should probably just kill the notion and not use it as a constant discussion point regarding our relationship with the USAF.  Even if it were true, considering it was 20 years ago, CAP has redeemed itself and stepped on its own wee-wee 10x's over since then - we can point to much more recent nonsense then that for any relationship issues we may have.

[Flying Pig]

I was a cadet officer back then.  It was total chaos when that happened.  And it had a lot to do with, if not 100% to do with Harwell appointing himself as a Maj General, which he did without AF approval.  In a matter of months we/they went to maroon epaulets. 

Prior to that, CAP officers did wear metal ranks on their service uniform jackets.  Unless you really knew what to look for, a CAP officer looked exactly like an AF officer. Especially if they were wearing their military ribbons on their CAP uniform.  It actually looked really good.  Maroon epaulets may not have been a disciplinary measure per se, but it was definitely a way for the AF to separate our appearance from them. As I recall, there wasnt anything else going on at the time that would have caused the AF to just wake up one day and say, "You know what.....CAP needs maroon epaulets."

Eclipse
Even if it were true, considering it was 20 years ago, CAP has redeemed itself and stepped on its own wee-wee 10x's over since then - we can point to much more recent nonsense then that for any relationship issues we may have.    :clap:

[FW]

^Nahh, we've been perfect since then....

Ok, other than for historical arguments, this thread is pointless;  except to understand that the Air Force does have some influence in what we wear.

Seems to be the perfect CT discussion.

[shorning]

Personally, I don't think any of you exist....cite/proof please?

[Major Lord]

Cogito; Ergo Sum!

[Eclipse]

Ac proinde hæc cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum, est omnium prima & certissima, quæ cuilibet ordine philosophanti occurrat.

[Al Sayre]

Cogito; Ergo vos futurus  
or Vos futurus quoniam EGO reputo vos futurus

[shorning]

So you can claim...but that's still not "proof"...nice try though...

[davedove]

So you can claim...but that's still not "proof"...nice try though...

But why does he have to prove anything, since you're just a figment of a fevered imagination.

[shorning]

So you can claim...but that's still not "proof"...nice try though...

But why does he have to prove anything, since you're just a figment of a fevered imagination.

I never claimed I existed...for all you know I'm a bot...

[HGjunkie]

what the heck just happened?   

[DakRadz]

CAPTalk happened. This conversation isn't for us cadinks

It's for the SMs to show MIKE how much they want a locked thread. Again.


P.S. shorning isn't a bot. Eclipse and RiverAux are. How many real people have that much time??

[shorning]

...shorning isn't a bot...

But how do you know?

[arajca]

what the heck just happened?   

They came to the fork in the road and picked it up.

[DakRadz]

what the heck just happened?   

They came to the fork in the road and picked it up.

DakRadz has seen this happen. You joke. I don't.

...shorning isn't a bot...

But how do you know?

I'm not at liberty to discuss that.

[SarDragon]

The Maroon epaulets came about in 1987 for the shirts, hard grade was still worn on the service coats, along with a red velcro strip which said CAP on it. The wear of the red epaulets on the service coat came about in 1991 or 92. The grey epaulets were introduced about in the mid-90's.

It had to be later than that. I came back into CAP in '87, and was active through '89, and never saw any of the maroon stuff.

[davidsinn]

CAPTalk happened. This conversation isn't for us cadinks

It's for the SMs to show MIKE how much they want a locked thread. Again.


P.S. shorning isn't a bot. Eclipse and RiverAux are. How many real people have that much time??

If Eclipse is a bot, he's one of those frakkin skin jobs.

[shorning]

...shorning isn't a bot...

But how do you know?

I'm not at liberty to discuss that.

Oh....I wish you knew how ironic that statement was...

[Patterson]

hmm....

Thanks to those in CAP Leadership late 1980's early 1990's we are we we are.  PERIOD. 

I have to say we looked better without greeey anything.  Perhaps one day, in a hundred years the Air Force may allow us to go back to blue rank slides with CAP imprinted on them.  That would look so more professional!!

In fact, the fat and bearded of us were also allowed to wear the Air Force Style Uniforms minus any "grade insignia" if memory serves.

[DakRadz]

...shorning isn't a bot...

But how do you know?

I'm not at liberty to discuss that.

Oh....I wish you knew how ironic that statement was...

Witness Protection Program?
I hope you're an honest whistle-blower, and not a crook turning on another crook.

Wow. MIKE is feeling really generous today....

[Major Lord]

Has CAP in fact, redeemed itself, or have we just established an efficient mechanism for disposing of past trouble makers and replacing them? ( with fresh trouble makers)

Major Lord
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur

[lordmonar]

Restating the myth, arguing with the myth, or starting your post with "I heard..." isn't going to answer the question and just walks old road.

Trying to dig this up from 39-1 won't help, either, since a uniform manual isn't going to explain why a change was made (especially if it was political or punitive).

Either someone has the smoking gun memo, or they don't.  Alternatively, if Maj. Gen. Harwell were to answer, that would probably go a long way as well.

Otherwise we should probably just kill the notion and not use it as a constant discussion point regarding our relationship with the USAF.  Even if it were true, considering it was 20 years ago, CAP has redeemed itself and stepped on its own wee-wee 10x's over since then - we can point to much more recent nonsense then that for any relationship issues we may have.

The problem is that there is no smoking gun memo.

No one wrote out in a white paper or on letter head "I've had it with those CAP pukes....let's take away their hard rank!".

No....all of that stuff goes on in private (this being before E-mail) over the phone or at staff meetings.

The real discussion of why they wanted us to change will never be found.

Just like the back room discussion about the TPU.

We all know that the USAF had problems with it....but I challange anyone to find a memo from Gen X to Gen Y about "what are we going to do about that stupid CAP uniform."  But we all know that there was talk about it.  General Courter even said so at the last National Conference.

Was it "punishment"?  No.....I don't really think so.  Was it a solution to a problem from the USAF's point of view....you bet.

The USAF had a lot of problems with CAP back in those days....and (from what I understand) they were looking for solutions....When the National CC self promoted....the USAF had enough and acted.

Another myth I would like to ask about is where does it say that the USAF has control over our general ranks?

Either the USAF has control over all our ranks or they have control over none of them....I have looked at the AFIs and AFPDs and I can't find anything where is specifically says that CAP must get approval from CAP-USAF to change our rank structure.

[jayleswo]

Another myth I would like to ask about is where does it say that the USAF has control over our general ranks?

Either the USAF has control over all our ranks or they have control over none of them....I have looked at the AFIs and AFPDs and I can't find anything where is specifically says that CAP must get approval from CAP-USAF to change our rank structure.

AFI 10-2701 29 July 2005
1.3.1. CAP Grade. CAP uses military style grade for its membership at the discretion and approval
of the Air Force. CAP officer or noncommissioned officer grade does not confer commissioned or
noncommissioned officer status. CAP personnel have no authority over members of the armed forces.
CAP members who are active, reserve, and retired members of the armed forces will be treated
according to their CAP status when acting in a CAP capacity. The Air Force has authority over the
CAP grade structure.

CAPR 35-5
The language in this regulation changed between 2004 and 2010. In the 21 August 2004 regulation, the concurrence of the Chief of Staff, USAF, was required for promotion to Brig Gen and Maj Gen. That phrase is omitted from the current regulation dated 10 March 2010.

[added reference to CAPR 35-5 to original post]

[PHall]

Another myth I would like to ask about is where does it say that the USAF has control over our general ranks?

Either the USAF has control over all our ranks or they have control over none of them....I have looked at the AFIs and AFPDs and I can't find anything where is specifically says that CAP must get approval from CAP-USAF to change our rank structure.

AFI 10-2701, Para 1.3.1  (Dang it, jayleswo beat me to it!)

[Larry Mangum]

Another myth I would like to ask about is where does it say that the USAF has control over our general ranks?

Either the USAF has control over all our ranks or they have control over none of them....I have looked at the AFIs and AFPDs and I can't find anything where is specifically says that CAP must get approval from CAP-USAF to change our rank structure.

AFI 10-2701, Para 1.3.1  (Dang it, jayleswo beat me to it!)

Hmm, I don't think so:

CAP-USAFI 10-2701 3 AUGUST 2007

1.3. The SD is responsible for the following:
1.3.1. Organizing, administering, and managing the State Liaison Office. The SD will:


But then does this CAP-USAFI 10-2701 dated 3 August 2007 replace the USAFI 10-2701 dated 29 July 2005?

[MSG Mac]

i. Changes to CAP Grade Structure. The Air Force has authority over the CAP grade structure. Requests for changes to the CAP General Officer Grade Structure must be approved by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Requests for changes to the CAP Grade Structure for Colonels and below will be approved by the CAP-USAF/CC.

[jayleswo]

Col Magnum, you quoted CAP-USAFI 10-2701 which has a date of 3 AUG 2007. The regulation I quoted is an Air Force Instruction (AFI) dated 29 July 2005. The are different regulations. Hope that clears things up.  -- John

[PHall]

But then does this CAP-USAFI 10-2701 dated 3 August 2007 replace the USAFI 10-2701 dated 29 July 2005?

No it doesn't. The AFI is issued by HQ AF. The CAP-USAFI 10-2701 is a implements AFI 10-2701 in CAP-USAF and is issued by HQ CAP-USAF.

[Major Carrales]

Lord, You betray your own biases...assuming just because I am a public school teacher that I must hold some prescribed political or religious beliefs.  That is ridiculous...

PHall, I don't have to prove anything...I just want to know and have a true version of the events that can be pointed to factually.  I grow tired of people pointing to things as if they were the facts and having theory, drawn conclusions and agdenda colored as if they were in the "smoked filled room."

Laying to rest lies, distortions of the truth and myths is something you should all hope for.

Really...why do some of you guard this story with such vigor.

And nice try having the thread locked with "blarney." 

[lordmonar]

Well as I stated before....that will never happen.

The real story happened all behind closed doors...not that it was secret but because it is just standard buisness practice to no air dirty laundry in public.

When CAP changed the rules about golf carts and cadets driving the same...

The offical word was "we decided to make a change...therefore....." in real life we all know it was really "FLWG screwed up at their last encampment, with cadets un-supervised playing around on a four wheeler in the middle of the night".

Same story here.

USAF had problems with CAP, there was in incident that broke the camels back and we all ended up with maroon boards.

The situation changed over times and so did the boards.

On a different note....thanks for pointing out in the AFI about USAF controlling our ranks.  I find it intresting though that even with the maroon boards we got the second star anyways...which give credence to what Gen Andersen said about there being other underlying issues with CAP and the USAF about our ranks.

If it were just the 2-star issue then they would have pulled that as well as made us wear the maroon boards.

[BillB]

Florida Wing came out with a letter that cadets could not drive golf carts.  But they also published Florida Wing Operating Instruction 09-2, 10 Dec 2009 where Par 1-8 says: "At no time may a cadet operate or ride in a POV unless the vehicle has been approved for use in accordance with CAPR 77-1 and the ENC/CC or designee.

The fact that 52-16 says cadets can not operate POV, is ignored

[Major Lord]

Lord, You betray your own biases...assuming just because I am a public school teacher that I must hold some prescribed political or religious beliefs.  That is ridiculous...

PHall, I don't have to prove anything...I just want to know and have a true version of the events that can be pointed to factually.  I grow tired of people pointing to things as if they were the facts and having theory, drawn conclusions and agdenda colored as if they were in the "smoked filled room."

Laying to rest lies, distortions of the truth and myths is something you should all hope for.

Really...why do some of you guard this story with such vigor.

And nice try having the thread locked with "blarney."

Joe,

No, I am just familiar with your posts.(I noticed that you did not actually deny that you believe Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas though....) Of course I am biased, everyone is, I make no attempt to hide my biases (quote the contrary, actually) Your political views are as well known as your taste in hats and music. I just find your "mythbusting" efforts comically ineffective. Trying to foist the "If the glove don't fit you must acquit" argument and insisting that evidence be provided to you right here and now and that if that cannot be done, those holding opposing views should just shut up is a proposal so full of logical holes its hardly worth responding to. Nonetheless, people did, and the preponderance of evidence is that the "myth" is substantiated, not busted, although I will grant you not definitively so. As to my bias against public school teachers ( and I am married to one) I freely admit  they are for the most part a bunch of commie-lovin' anti American pinko hippies, dedicate to the destruction of the American way of life and holding freedom in open contempt, loathing, and disdain......although I am willing to grant an exception on a case-by case basis! Prove otherwise or never speak of it again, I challenge you!

Major Lord

[Major Carrales]

Major Lord,

I don't know how much your ticket to the "crazy train" cost you, but I suspect it has taxed your judgement.

Carbon Dioxide is a GREENHOUSE gas, its effects can be clearly seen on the planet Venus.  As for its effects and levels on the planet EARTH, I find it hard to believe that Carbon Dioxide...a natural exhalant of Animal Life and the result of naturally occuring forest fires going back to the beginning of time...would so suddenly, in the course of 150 years, suddenly doom the planet.

I think the current concept of GLOBAL WARMING smacks more of an attempt to promote SOCIAL ENGINEERING than of anything more than a theory.

Does Carbon Dioxide effect the temperature of the planet...the answer is YES.  However, I believe that we have come a long way in the US and industrialzed world to mitigate that.  New advancements in internal cumbustion, true envrionmentalism (not environmenal wacko-ism) and conseravtionism and the advancement of other technologies have greatly slowed any problem.

Furthermore, if Climate change is occuring...I believe it is the result of a delayed reaction from the Steam Era.  And I think that people like the Victorian British, who burned off forests of trees and created caverns of Coal out of coal mines from buring it to a point that Victorian Era poets even document the days with no sun have more to do with it than modern Detroit, Washington and CONSUS.

Do we sacrifice our economy, culture and political structures based on climate change?  NO.  We simply become the good stewards of the Environment people like Presidet Theodore Roosevelt advocated.   Radically chaning the society of the United States of America because of DOOM SAYERS?   NEVER.

I am a firm believe in the Constitution of the United States and its concepts of limited government, checks and balances and republicanism.  I am not, however, a blind follower of REPUBLICAN and DEMOCRATIC agendas.   I will not, like some, stand so close to the lantern of my political beliefs that I am blinded to any good by the other side.


What next...you gonna call me a RACIST?  TERRORIST?  LOYALIST? TRAITOR?  You already got COMMUNIST and ANTI-AMERICAN in there...why not go for the gold.

Now...

As for mythbusting, show me some evidence that the contentions mentioned in the above thread are TURE or FALSE beyond a reasonable doubt using some item of evidence....Prove one way or another or never speak of it again, I challenge you!

[High Speed Low Drag]

I volunteer to be someone's second.

Pistols at 10 paces, gentlemen?

Edit:  (Just can't do it in Arkansas, aginst the law to be a second in a duel in this state)

[Major Carrales]

I volunteer to be someone's second.

Pistols at 10 paces, gentelmen?

Swords at 50 paces!!!  Really I don't know why Major Lord is taking this position.  In anycase, I've said all the POLITICAL DRIVEL I intend to.  I generally try to avoid HIGH POLITICS on CAPTALK...but he asked my opinions after some "slings and arrows."  I will say no more about that.

Why people keep supporting these myths is beyond me.

[Major Lord]

Joe, Joe, Joe

Your disproportionate emotional response is just so typical of...... Mariachis....Just kidding! Like I said, I know you are not a communist. I have read every post you have written. I asserted that Public School Teachers are a bunch of commies, a widely perpetuated belief, and you failed to provide evidence that it was a myth. By your earlier logic, it must be the case. Your Ad Hominem attacks are typical of those losing polite disagreements badly, and I take no offense, even though you deemed to play the race card, the true last refuge of scoundrels. I will await your on-balance apology. As an aside, its pretty hard to be a "Racist" since there is only one race of Man, HomoSapiens...I suppose there may be some hold-outs out there who really have it in for Australopithecus, or Cro magnum, but the very word "racism" is one that signals a vast ignorance of taxonomy, humanity and genetics.

Terrorist? I am not sure, do you play the Accordian?

Major Lord

[Major Carrales]

Joe, Joe, Joe

Your disproportionate emotional response is just so typical of...... Mariachis....Just kidding! Like I said, I know you are not a communist. I have read every post you have written. I asserted that Public School Teachers are a bunch of commies, a widely perpetuated belief, and you failed to provide evidence that it was a myth. By your earlier logic, it must be the case. Your Ad Hominem attacks are typical of those losing polite disagreements badly, and I take no offense, even though you deemed to play the race card, the true last refuge of scoundrels. I will await your on-balance apology. As an aside, its pretty hard to be a "Racist" since there is only one race of Man, HomoSapiens...I suppose there may be some hold-outs out there who really have it in for Australopithecus, or Cro magnum, but the very word "racism" is one that signals a vast ignorance of taxonomy, humanity and genetics.

Terrorist? I am not sure, do you play the Accordian?

Major Lord

Major Lord,
Your humor did not come through in these posts.  These are the most "CHARGED" times, politically, I have ever studied.  I am pretty sure we are about 5 years from things like a renewed SEDITION act.  I already see all sorts of non-sense talk coming from elements of BOTH sides.

My "attacks" are merely the expected rebutals to what you posted. 

I am well aware of the attempt of many to "derail" this post and creat a LOCK.  Why should I fight it.

The last post to yours, while containing my true beliefs of Global Warming...is nothing more than what I believe to be one of the FINAL STRAWS to a LOCK.  The calls of "RACISM et al, is hyperbole designed to highlight the insipid nature of the discussion we were undertaking.

I, however, found some of your comments a tad bit "distasteful.  The "Crazy Train" stuff, was meant to be funny.  That may not have come through.

[SarDragon]