| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Maaxx" |
| Date: |
17 Mar 2005 03:39:18 PM |
| Object: |
We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right or left, you
can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The 51-49 vote in the Senate
to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is causing Liberal
Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and conservative Republicans to get
more excited than the kid in that Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and liberals by
watching their reaction to ANWR.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start tapping
into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will take years to get
the crude flowing out of the ground. That means new jobs for Americans who
handle the drilling and build the pipeline to Alaska. It also means that
we're going to acquire more of the substance that powers our economy without
having to pay out our money to less than friendly countries like Saudi
Arabia & Venezuela. Best of all, the oil is in the absolute middle of
nowhere, so we don't have to inconvenience anyone to drill ANWR. To the
right, developing ANWR is all upside, all positive, an idea that is so
fantastic that they can hardly understand how any rational person could
oppose it.
On the other hand, liberals are enraged that it looks like we may be
drilling ANWR. Part of that is because of their free floating hostility to
the oil industry, but their real beef is that ANWR is such a remote area.
Conservatives may consider that a feature, but to liberals it's a bug. The
very fact that it's a godforsaken region that almost no one visits makes it
so rare and valuable to them that it's worth leaving billions of dollars
worth of oil in the ground and forsaking tens of thousands of jobs just in
case someone wants to ever see what the boonies are like in the future. Oh,
and we mustn't forget, they claim that the pipelines, roads, oilmen and
people going back and forth might -- and I say might because this is heavily
disputed -- disturb the animals. The fact that you could make the exact same
argument about every populated area in North America seems lost on them.
Now you tell me: who's looking out for everyday Americans on this issue?
Conservatives who want more jobs & oil for their fellow countrymen or
liberals who are concerned about future back-packing trips for an
infinitesimal percentage of the population and maybe happier caribou and
polar bears, maybe not. That's not a tough call.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
21 Mar 2005 11:36:34 PM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote in
Why don't we have a conservation paln AND drill off Jeb Bush's Florida
before we drill and build piplene in the high arctic ?
Conservation is far and a away the most economical way to make a
gallon of oil.
Give me one reason why we don't institute modest conservation ?
It would destroy the would economy.
Neocon *****. There is no evidence to suggest that conservation
would destroy any economy. The reality is that lower enegry costs
would only improve the world economy.
Fuel is just one of the products of oil.
What a typically idiotic non sequitur. You resort to stupid lies and
then the best you can do is try and change the subject.
You libs don't seem to realize that oil makes the world go 'round.
You neocon morons think that blatant dishonesty makes you right.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff_Relf" |
|
| Title: Control is the goal. |
21 Mar 2005 02:44:00 AM |
|
|
Hi Ray ( and Maaxx ),
Re: Your suggestion that conservation would only improve the economy,
Control is the goal.
It's not about how much the rich world consumes,
but rather it's about whether the rich world can control it's consumption.
Overconsumption is a problem for the rich world
just as obesity is a problem for it's inhabitants.
The rich world has a habit of importing slave labor
while, at the same time, exporting it's pollution.
It's also in the habit of using rather large sticks
and rather fat carrots to control the Middle East.
Is that what the rich world wants ?
Is it showing contraint and forethought ? I don't think so.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
20 Mar 2005 04:41:12 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:11:56 +0000, Maaxx wrote:
adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote in news:d1juqb$pc5$1@panix5.panix.com:
In article <423ceaff$0$13897$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1iea2$8au$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1htpt$kjp$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1gk4l$f1d$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the
right or left, you can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR
everywhere. The 51-49 vote in the Senate to open drilling in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is causing Liberal
Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and conservative
Republicans to get more excited than the kid in that Numa
Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and
liberals by watching their reaction to ANWR.
And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's
natural resources to oil companies than come up with a
long-term energy strategy.
The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.
"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better spend
it ALL!"
Non sequitur. Try harder next time.
It's an analogy, halfwit.
A false one. Money earns interest in the bank. Oil in the ground is
useless.
Oil in the ground also "earns interest" since it tends to become
more valuable over time.
Of course we don't want the oil to "earn interest" because that would
mean paying more money for gas and just about everything else.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to
start tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even
if it will take years to get the crude flowing out of the
ground.
Think of all the money to be made!
That's a good thing.
For oil companies.
And everybody else who uses oil.
Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result in
lower prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm
out a wildlife refuge.
Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would
*not* be out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.
I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.
Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of
South Carolina "no longer a wilderness."
How many oil rigs? Be specific.
But that's just your screwed up logic.
And your habitual dishonesty.
Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy
ANWR.
Unless you're lying and it's more than a "few".
Only 2000 acres out of 19.2 million acres can be developed.
The 2000 acre figure has been shown to be B.S. It doesn;t cover roads
and pipeline access.
Why don't we have a conservation paln AND drill off Jeb Bush's Florida
before we drill and build piplene in the high arctic ?
Conservation is far and a away the most economical way to make a gallon
of oil.
Give me one reason why we don't institute modest conservation ?
It would destroy the would economy.
Yes? So?
--
Rick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
20 Mar 2005 05:14:41 PM |
|
|
Rick <none@trollfeed.com> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.20.22.41.07.867181@trollfeed.com:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:11:56 +0000, Maaxx wrote:
adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote in
news:d1juqb$pc5$1@panix5.panix.com:
In article <423ceaff$0$13897$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1iea2$8au$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1htpt$kjp$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1gk4l$f1d$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the
right or left, you can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR
everywhere. The 51-49 vote in the Senate to open drilling
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is causing Liberal
Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and conservative
Republicans to get more excited than the kid in that Numa
Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives
and liberals by watching their reaction to ANWR.
And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's
natural resources to oil companies than come up with a
long-term energy strategy.
The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.
"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better spend
it ALL!"
Non sequitur. Try harder next time.
It's an analogy, halfwit.
A false one. Money earns interest in the bank. Oil in the ground
is useless.
Oil in the ground also "earns interest" since it tends to become
more valuable over time.
Of course we don't want the oil to "earn interest" because that
would mean paying more money for gas and just about everything
else.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to
start tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even
if it will take years to get the crude flowing out of the
ground.
Think of all the money to be made!
That's a good thing.
For oil companies.
And everybody else who uses oil.
Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result in
lower prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm
out a wildlife refuge.
Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would
*not* be out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.
I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in
the wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.
Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of
South Carolina "no longer a wilderness."
How many oil rigs? Be specific.
But that's just your screwed up logic.
And your habitual dishonesty.
Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy
ANWR.
Unless you're lying and it's more than a "few".
Only 2000 acres out of 19.2 million acres can be developed.
The 2000 acre figure has been shown to be B.S. It doesn;t cover roads
and pipeline access.
Why don't we have a conservation paln AND drill off Jeb Bush's Florida
before we drill and build piplene in the high arctic ?
Conservation is far and a away the most economical way to make a
gallon of oil.
Give me one reason why we don't institute modest conservation ?
It would destroy the would economy.
Yes? So?
Thanks for demonstrating why we shouldn't listen to you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
20 Mar 2005 06:26:48 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:14:41 +0000, Maaxx wrote:
Rick <none@trollfeed.com> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.20.22.41.07.867181@trollfeed.com:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:11:56 +0000, Maaxx wrote:
adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote in
news:d1juqb$pc5$1@panix5.panix.com:
In article <423ceaff$0$13897$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1iea2$8au$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1htpt$kjp$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1gk4l$f1d$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the
right or left, you can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR
everywhere. The 51-49 vote in the Senate to open drilling
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is causing Liberal
Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and conservative
Republicans to get more excited than the kid in that Numa
Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives
and liberals by watching their reaction to ANWR.
And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's
natural resources to oil companies than come up with a
long-term energy strategy.
The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.
"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better spend
it ALL!"
Non sequitur. Try harder next time.
It's an analogy, halfwit.
A false one. Money earns interest in the bank. Oil in the ground
is useless.
Oil in the ground also "earns interest" since it tends to become
more valuable over time.
Of course we don't want the oil to "earn interest" because that
would mean paying more money for gas and just about everything
else.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to
start tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even
if it will take years to get the crude flowing out of the
ground.
Think of all the money to be made!
That's a good thing.
For oil companies.
And everybody else who uses oil.
Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result in
lower prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm
out a wildlife refuge.
Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would
*not* be out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.
I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in
the wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.
Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of
South Carolina "no longer a wilderness."
How many oil rigs? Be specific.
But that's just your screwed up logic.
And your habitual dishonesty.
Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy
ANWR.
Unless you're lying and it's more than a "few".
Only 2000 acres out of 19.2 million acres can be developed.
The 2000 acre figure has been shown to be B.S. It doesn;t cover roads
and pipeline access.
Why don't we have a conservation paln AND drill off Jeb Bush's Florida
before we drill and build piplene in the high arctic ?
Conservation is far and a away the most economical way to make a
gallon of oil.
Give me one reason why we don't institute modest conservation ?
It would destroy the would economy.
Yes? So?
Thanks for demonstrating why we shouldn't listen to you.
No? Ok.
--
Rick
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
20 Mar 2005 01:32:11 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <d1juqb$pc5$1@panix5.panix.com>, Al Dykes pirouetted
gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
Why don't we have a conservation paln AND drill off Jeb Bush's Florida
before we drill and build piplene in the high arctic ?
There's apparently more oil to be had off the Florida coast than anywhere
else in the US.
But what Jeb wants, Jeb gets...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
19 Mar 2005 10:55:14 PM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would *not*
be out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.
I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.
Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of South
Carolina "no longer a wilderness."
How many oil rigs? Be specific.
No response.
But that's just your screwed up logic.
And your habitual dishonesty.
Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy
ANWR.
Unless you're lying and it's more than a "few".
Only 2000 acres out of 19.2 million acres can be developed.
Cite? You make a lot of claims that turn out to be *****.
Tell us:: What impact would a "few" oil rigs on "2000 acres" in the
middle of Yosemite valley have?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "ANWR Oil Worker Ready : Lets Roll Ready to drill ANWR@ Alaska .gov" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
20 Mar 2005 01:52:44 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d1ivnh$5a0$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Only 2000 acres out of 19.2 million acres can be developed.
Cite? You make a lot of claims that turn out to be *****.
Tell us:: What impact would a "few" oil rigs on "2000 acres" in the
middle of Yosemite valley have?
=================
You are not even comparing apples to apples . You are comparing Apples to
Space Shuttles.
More people scrub toilets in Yosemite outhouses than have ever seen ANWR in
person . It is totally inaccesable
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
20 Mar 2005 12:47:11 PM |
|
|
ANWR Oil Worker Ready : Let's Roll <Ready to drill ANWR@ Alaska .gov> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d1ivnh$5a0$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Only 2000 acres out of 19.2 million acres can be developed.
Cite? You make a lot of claims that turn out to be *****.
Tell us:: What impact would a "few" oil rigs on "2000 acres" in the
middle of Yosemite valley have?
You are not even comparing apples to apples .
Run away, moron.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
20 Mar 2005 04:12:37 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1kgff$hes$1@bolt.sonic.net:
ANWR Oil Worker Ready : Let's Roll <Ready to drill ANWR@ Alaska .gov>
wrote:
"Ray Fischer" < > wrote in message
news:d1ivnh$5a0$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Only 2000 acres out of 19.2 million acres can be developed.
Cite? You make a lot of claims that turn out to be *****.
Tell us:: What impact would a "few" oil rigs on "2000 acres" in the
middle of Yosemite valley have?
You are not even comparing apples to apples .
Run away, moron.
You have no room to make such claims.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian St. John" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
20 Mar 2005 02:16:29 AM |
|
|
ANWR Oil Worker Ready : Let's Roll wrote:
<snip>
More people scrub toilets in Yosemite outhouses than have ever seen
ANWR in person . It is totally inaccesable
Really. Then how can they go there?
I think you have solved the whole problem! Nobody can get to the ANWR so
they cannot drill there for any reason.
P.S Are you always this dumb or did you have to practice?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
21 Mar 2005 04:19:03 AM |
|
|
In article <foadnXnX7tZVtqDfRVn-2w@adelphia.com>,
"ANWR Oil Worker Ready : Let's Roll" <Ready to drill ANWR@ Alaska .gov>
wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d1ivnh$5a0$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Only 2000 acres out of 19.2 million acres can be developed.
Cite? You make a lot of claims that turn out to be *****.
Tell us:: What impact would a "few" oil rigs on "2000 acres" in the
middle of Yosemite valley have?
=================
You are not even comparing apples to apples . You are comparing Apples to
Space Shuttles.
More people scrub toilets in Yosemite outhouses than have ever seen ANWR
in
person . It is totally inaccesable
So? Most people can't go in the Oval Office either. Should we drill
there?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
20 Mar 2005 04:10:05 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1ivnh$5a0$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would
*not* be out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.
I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.
Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of
South Carolina "no longer a wilderness."
How many oil rigs? Be specific.
No response.
But that's just your screwed up logic.
And your habitual dishonesty.
Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy
ANWR.
Unless you're lying and it's more than a "few".
Only 2000 acres out of 19.2 million acres can be developed.
Cite? You make a lot of claims that turn out to be *****.
"The provision allows for drilling on up to 2,000 acres of the 1.5
million-acre coastal plain of the refuge, and supporters argued that doing
so would be good for Alaska's economy and for American energy
independence."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050316-114417-5777r.htm
Tell us:: What impact would a "few" oil rigs on "2000 acres" in the
middle of Yosemite valley have?
Not much if Yosemite was the size of South Carolina.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
21 Mar 2005 04:34:41 AM |
|
|
In article <423df4bd$0$13877$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1ivnh$5a0$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would
*not* be out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.
I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.
Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of
South Carolina "no longer a wilderness."
How many oil rigs? Be specific.
No response.
But that's just your screwed up logic.
And your habitual dishonesty.
Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy
ANWR.
Unless you're lying and it's more than a "few".
Only 2000 acres out of 19.2 million acres can be developed.
Cite? You make a lot of claims that turn out to be *****.
"The provision allows for drilling on up to 2,000 acres of the 1.5
million-acre coastal plain of the refuge, and supporters argued that doing
so would be good for Alaska's economy and for American energy
independence."
Now you've got to connect all those drilling sites with roads and
pipelines, build camps, build airstrips, etc.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050316-114417-5777r.htm
Tell us:: What impact would a "few" oil rigs on "2000 acres" in the
middle of Yosemite valley have?
Not much if Yosemite was the size of South Carolina.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Dykes" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
20 Mar 2005 04:23:52 PM |
|
|
In article <423df4bd$0$13877$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1ivnh$5a0$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would
*not* be out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.
I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.
Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of
South Carolina "no longer a wilderness."
How many oil rigs? Be specific.
No response.
But that's just your screwed up logic.
And your habitual dishonesty.
Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy
ANWR.
Unless you're lying and it's more than a "few".
Only 2000 acres out of 19.2 million acres can be developed.
Cite? You make a lot of claims that turn out to be *****.
"The provision allows for drilling on up to 2,000 acres of the 1.5
million-acre coastal plain of the refuge, and supporters argued that doing
so would be good for Alaska's economy and for American energy
independence."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050316-114417-5777r.htm
Tell us:: What impact would a "few" oil rigs on "2000 acres" in the
middle of Yosemite valley have?
Not much if Yosemite was the size of South Carolina.
Why don't we drill in 2000 acres of water off Florida?
Why don't we have any conservation measures?
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
20 Mar 2005 07:00:02 PM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would
*not* be out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.
I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.
Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of
South Carolina "no longer a wilderness."
How many oil rigs? Be specific.
No response.
But that's just your screwed up logic.
And your habitual dishonesty.
Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy
ANWR.
Unless you're lying and it's more than a "few".
Only 2000 acres out of 19.2 million acres can be developed.
Cite? You make a lot of claims that turn out to be *****.
"The provision allows for drilling on up to 2,000 acres of the 1.5
million-acre coastal plain of the refuge, and supporters argued that doing
so would be good for Alaska's economy and for American energy
independence."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050316-114417-5777r.htm
Since when is "drilling" synonymous with "developed"?
You neocon morons really do not know how to read.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
21 Mar 2005 02:16:41 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1l6ah$437$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would
*not* be out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.
I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in
the wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.
Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of
South Carolina "no longer a wilderness."
How many oil rigs? Be specific.
No response.
But that's just your screwed up logic.
And your habitual dishonesty.
Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy
ANWR.
Unless you're lying and it's more than a "few".
Only 2000 acres out of 19.2 million acres can be developed.
Cite? You make a lot of claims that turn out to be *****.
"The provision allows for drilling on up to 2,000 acres of the 1.5
million-acre coastal plain of the refuge, and supporters argued that
doing so would be good for Alaska's economy and for American energy
independence."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050316-114417-5777r.htm
Since when is "drilling" synonymous with "developed"?
Yet another game of semantics played by Ray.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
21 Mar 2005 11:34:34 PM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy
ANWR.
Unless you're lying and it's more than a "few".
Only 2000 acres out of 19.2 million acres can be developed.
Cite? You make a lot of claims that turn out to be *****.
"The provision allows for drilling on up to 2,000 acres of the 1.5
million-acre coastal plain of the refuge, and supporters argued that
doing so would be good for Alaska's economy and for American energy
independence."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050316-114417-5777r.htm
Since when is "drilling" synonymous with "developed"?
Yet another game of semantics played by Ray.
You got caught lying, and like a typical neocon *****, you try to
blame others.
Drilling on 2000 acres also means additional land for roads and
pipelines and support buildings and houses and landing strips.
Your claim that only 2000 acres would be developed was complete
*****, just like most of the other crap you write.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Dykes" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
20 Mar 2005 07:52:06 AM |
|
|
In article <d1ivnh$5a0$1@bolt.sonic.net>,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would *not*
be out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.
I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.
Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of South
Carolina "no longer a wilderness."
How many oil rigs? Be specific.
No response.
But that's just your screwed up logic.
And your habitual dishonesty.
Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy
ANWR.
Unless you're lying and it's more than a "few".
Only 2000 acres out of 19.2 million acres can be developed.
Cite? You make a lot of claims that turn out to be *****.
Tell us:: What impact would a "few" oil rigs on "2000 acres" in the
middle of Yosemite valley have?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Or off the coast of Florida ?
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kang" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
19 Mar 2005 04:40:47 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1gk4l$f1d$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result in lower
prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm out a
wildlife refuge.
You're out a wildlife refuge? Geez it's not like you can actually go to ANWR.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
19 Mar 2005 05:56:34 PM |
|
|
Kang <kang@cnn.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result in lower
prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm out a
wildlife refuge.
You're out a wildlife refuge? Geez it's not like you can actually go to ANWR.
Why not?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian St. John" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
18 Mar 2005 12:27:08 AM |
|
|
Maaxx wrote:
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right or
left, you can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The 51-49
vote in the Senate to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
You are not very good at dealing with facts. The vote did NOT open the ANWR
but instead blocked a fillibuster to delay or deny. They still have to get
the bill passed.
Refuge is causing Liberal Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and
conservative Republicans to get more excited than the kid in that
Numa Numa Dance video.
Hyperbole and probably good enough grounds to suspect a certain emotional
immaturity.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and liberals
by watching their reaction to ANWR.
Their are two kinds of people in the world. Those that believe that there
are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't. Nice to have
things so neatly split as you do.. but not very rational.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start
tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will take
years to get the crude flowing out of the ground.
Lie. There are no proven reserves in the ANWR.
That means new jobs
for Americans who handle the drilling and build the pipeline to
Alaska.
Haliburton and Roots/Brown are probably too busy carpetbagging in Iraq. This
is really a sop to the 'exploration' industry that is begging Bush for money
as they haven't found anything for decaded. A $5B giveaway that will come
out of consumers pockets. But hey, what is a few billion among Bush
supporters?
It also means that we're going to acquire more of the
substance that powers our economy without having to pay out our money
to less than friendly countries like Saudi Arabia & Venezuela.
No. That is the claim, but the reality is that no known reserves exist. The
entire game is to 'hypothesise' that there are massive oil reserves there to
ensure that they can get the rights to drill regardless of whether they find
anything or not.
Best
of all, the oil is in the absolute middle of nowhere, so we don't
have to inconvenience anyone to drill ANWR.
More lies. According to the 1987 treaty with Canada, the U.S. must NOT
disturb the caribou herds that are the source of food for thousands of
natives and which are very vulnerable to disturbance during calving season.
Although I don't see what Canada can do about it. All it will accomplish
will probably be a lessening of cooperation on other matters and a
continuation of the friction caused by the 'bullying tactics' of the U.S. on
trade and defense.
To the right, developing
ANWR is all upside, all positive, an idea that is so fantastic that
they can hardly understand how any rational person could oppose it.
And yet, a rational person has to deal with the facts. A practice that you
claim the Conservatives cannot do? I thiink that this is an insult to
conservatives everywhere.
On the other hand, liberals are enraged that it looks like we may be
drilling ANWR.
Mostly I suspect that it is people that are weighing the small chacne of
major reserves ( they have to be major to warrant the pipeline ) in an area
that is geologically much more likely to produce small uneconomical pools if
there are any at all.
Part of that is because of their free floating
hostility to the oil industry, but their real beef is that ANWR is
such a remote area.
You confuse the idea of wilderness preserve with 'remote' and suggest that
there is no value to preserving nature? This suggests that you belong to a
*third* group, neither liberal or conservative but merely wasters and
destroyers.
Conservatives may consider that a feature, but to
liberals it's a bug. The very fact that it's a godforsaken region
Yup. The 'everything is ***** and so worthless' psychology of the sociopath.
The group of people that value nothing and whose ultimate aim seems to be to
bring everyone down to their level of ruin.
that almost no one visits makes it so rare and valuable to them that
it's worth leaving billions of dollars worth of oil in the ground and
What oil are you talking about?
forsaking tens of thousands of jobs just in case someone wants to
So put them to work digging ditches. You can have one shovel it out and the
other shovel it in. Use the same amount of money and you can waste it just
as effectively, with thousands of jobs 'created'.
ever see what the boonies are like in the future. Oh, and we mustn't
forget, they claim that the pipelines, roads, oilmen and people going
back and forth might -- and I say might because this is heavily
disputed -- disturb the animals.
It is hardly disputed among the ecologists. Those who understand the
science. The calving herds are right on the land and very prone to abort if
disturbed ( a natural instince to allow the animal to be prepared to flee
predators ). The false comparison with the North Slope often forgets that
the calving grounds there are outside of the area being drilled and thus has
much less effect, along with the fact that the herds there do not migrate
the long long distances that the Porcupine herd do.
The fact that you could make the
exact same argument about every populated area in North America seems
lost on them.
The only thing lost here is common sense and a balance post.
Now you tell me: who's looking out for everyday Americans on this
issue? Conservatives who want more jobs & oil for their fellow
countrymen or liberals who are concerned about future back-packing
trips for an infinitesimal percentage of the population and maybe
happier caribou and polar bears, maybe not. That's not a tough call.
Dealing with reality is a tough call. Your type of fantasy fairy tale would
not be a tough call if it had any validity. As it is, it leaves the
questions unanwered.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JEDIDIAH" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
17 Mar 2005 03:44:10 PM |
|
|
On 2005-03-17, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right or left, you
can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The 51-49 vote in the Senate
to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is causing Liberal
Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and conservative Republicans to get
more excited than the kid in that Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and liberals by
watching their reaction to ANWR.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start tapping
into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will take years to get
the crude flowing out of the ground. That means new jobs for Americans who
handle the drilling and build the pipeline to Alaska. It also means that
we're going to acquire more of the substance that powers our economy without
having to pay out our money to less than friendly countries like Saudi
Arabia & Venezuela. Best of all, the oil is in the absolute middle of
nowhere, so we don't have to inconvenience anyone to drill ANWR. To the
right, developing ANWR is all upside, all positive, an idea that is so
fantastic that they can hardly understand how any rational person could
oppose it.
On the other hand, liberals are enraged that it looks like we may be
drilling ANWR. Part of that is because of their free floating hostility to
the oil industry, but their real beef is that ANWR is such a remote area.
Conservatives may consider that a feature, but to liberals it's a bug. The
very fact that it's a godforsaken region that almost no one visits makes it
so rare and valuable to them that it's worth leaving billions of dollars
worth of oil in the ground and forsaking tens of thousands of jobs just in
Who wants to work in such a forsaken wilderness? If this is the kind
of jobs that the conservatives want to give us does this mean that you are
some sort of liberal shill?
Of course you are not thinking things through or even thinking
clearly. If you were then you would realize that we should keep our own oil
and let everyone else use theirs up.
[deletia]
The current "energy crisis" as defined from that joker from South
Dakota is nothing like the one that is coming. We should be preparing for
THAT instead of pissing away our rainy day fund.
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Booth" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
17 Mar 2005 04:22:27 PM |
|
|
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:Ovidnd8Xk8K3Z6TfRVn-jw@comcast.com...
On 2005-03-17, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right or left,
you
can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The 51-49 vote in the
Senate
to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is causing
Liberal
Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and conservative Republicans to
get
more excited than the kid in that Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and liberals by
watching their reaction to ANWR.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start
tapping
into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will take years to
get
the crude flowing out of the ground. That means new jobs for Americans
who
handle the drilling and build the pipeline to Alaska. It also means that
we're going to acquire more of the substance that powers our economy
without
having to pay out our money to less than friendly countries like Saudi
Arabia & Venezuela. Best of all, the oil is in the absolute middle of
nowhere, so we don't have to inconvenience anyone to drill ANWR. To the
right, developing ANWR is all upside, all positive, an idea that is so
fantastic that they can hardly understand how any rational person could
oppose it.
On the other hand, liberals are enraged that it looks like we may be
drilling ANWR. Part of that is because of their free floating hostility
to
the oil industry, but their real beef is that ANWR is such a remote
area.
Conservatives may consider that a feature, but to liberals it's a bug.
The
very fact that it's a godforsaken region that almost no one visits makes
it
so rare and valuable to them that it's worth leaving billions of dollars
worth of oil in the ground and forsaking tens of thousands of jobs just
in
Who wants to work in such a forsaken wilderness? If this is the kind
of jobs that the conservatives want to give us does this mean that you are
some sort of liberal shill?
Of course you are not thinking things through or even thinking
clearly. If you were then you would realize that we should keep our own
oil
and let everyone else use theirs up.
[deletia]
The current "energy crisis" as defined from that joker from South
Dakota is nothing like the one that is coming. We should be preparing for
THAT instead of pissing away our rainy day fund.
Look....it is raining!
Let's drill for oil *and* find ways to conserve the resource.
JIM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
18 Mar 2005 09:00:33 AM |
|
|
In article <423a0288@news.acsalaska.net>,
"Jim Booth" <booth@alaska.net> wrote:
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:Ovidnd8Xk8K3Z6TfRVn-jw@comcast.com...
On 2005-03-17, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right or
left,
you
can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The 51-49 vote in the
Senate
to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is causing
Liberal
Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and conservative Republicans
to
get
more excited than the kid in that Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and liberals
by
watching their reaction to ANWR.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start
tapping
into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will take years to
get
the crude flowing out of the ground. That means new jobs for Americans
who
handle the drilling and build the pipeline to Alaska. It also means
that
we're going to acquire more of the substance that powers our economy
without
having to pay out our money to less than friendly countries like Saudi
Arabia & Venezuela. Best of all, the oil is in the absolute middle of
nowhere, so we don't have to inconvenience anyone to drill ANWR. To
the
right, developing ANWR is all upside, all positive, an idea that is so
fantastic that they can hardly understand how any rational person
could
oppose it.
On the other hand, liberals are enraged that it looks like we may be
drilling ANWR. Part of that is because of their free floating
hostility
to
the oil industry, but their real beef is that ANWR is such a remote
area.
Conservatives may consider that a feature, but to liberals it's a bug.
The
very fact that it's a godforsaken region that almost no one visits
makes
it
so rare and valuable to them that it's worth leaving billions of
dollars
worth of oil in the ground and forsaking tens of thousands of jobs
just
in
Who wants to work in such a forsaken wilderness? If this is the kind
of jobs that the conservatives want to give us does this mean that you
are
some sort of liberal shill?
Of course you are not thinking things through or even thinking
clearly. If you were then you would realize that we should keep our own
oil
and let everyone else use theirs up.
[deletia]
The current "energy crisis" as defined from that joker from South
Dakota is nothing like the one that is coming. We should be preparing
for
THAT instead of pissing away our rainy day fund.
Look....it is raining!
Let's drill for oil *and* find ways to conserve the resource.
JIM
OK, drill in the areas of Alaska already leased to oil companies -- there's
lots of it. Drill off the Florida coast -- oh, wait, Jeb Bush vetoed that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "soup" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
18 Mar 2005 06:51:02 AM |
|
|
JEDIDIAH popped their head over the parapet saw what was going on and
said
we should keep our
own oil and let everyone else use theirs up.
Nah keep your oil AND use up everyone elses.
Then when you are the only ones left with any oil
charge as much as you want for it.
--
yours S
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
18 Mar 2005 07:29:57 AM |
|
|
"soup" <1@slartibartfarst.com> wrote in
news:W8A_d.130$Ab.113@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
JEDIDIAH popped their head over the parapet saw what was going on and
said:
we should keep our own oil and let everyone else use theirs up.
Nah keep your oil AND use up everyone elses.
Then when you are the only ones left with any oil
charge as much as you want for it.
Or develop an alternative fuel that could realisticly replace petroleum
and finally kick OPEC and the ragheads to the curb.
I recently read that scientists have figured out how to make plastic from
orange peels. That's a good start in the direction of weaning ourselves
from oil.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arkansas Hillary Billarys" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
18 Mar 2005 09:16:20 AM |
|
|
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:423ad7d5$0$13896$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"soup" <1@slartibartfarst.com> wrote in
news:W8A_d.130$Ab.113@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
JEDIDIAH popped their head over the parapet saw what was going on and
said:
we should keep our own oil and let everyone else use theirs up.
Nah keep your oil AND use up everyone elses.
Then when you are the only ones left with any oil
charge as much as you want for it.
Or develop an alternative fuel that could realisticly replace petroleum
and finally kick OPEC and the ragheads to the curb.
I recently read that scientists have figured out how to make plastic from
orange peels. That's a good start in the direction of weaning ourselves
from oil.
=========================
And when Florida has another freeze destroying all it's Orange crops , then
what ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
18 Mar 2005 10:00:06 AM |
|
|
"Arkansas Hillary Billarys" <Clintons@trailertrash.com> wrote in
news:1L6dnYR7JKpZbaffRVn-ug@adelphia.com:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:423ad7d5$0$13896$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"soup" <1@slartibartfarst.com> wrote in
news:W8A_d.130$Ab.113@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
JEDIDIAH popped their head over the parapet saw what was going on and
said:
we should keep our own oil and let everyone else use theirs up.
Nah keep your oil AND use up everyone elses.
Then when you are the only ones left with any oil
charge as much as you want for it.
Or develop an alternative fuel that could realisticly replace petroleum
and finally kick OPEC and the ragheads to the curb.
I recently read that scientists have figured out how to make plastic
from orange peels. That's a good start in the direction of weaning
ourselves from oil.
=========================
And when Florida has another freeze destroying all it's Orange crops ,
then what ?
Florida isn't the only place you can grow oranges. You can always replace
oranges. Oil won't last forever.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ANWR Oil Worker Ready to Roll Ready to drill ANWR@ Alaska .gov" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
18 Mar 2005 10:03:11 AM |
|
|
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:423afb05$0$66974$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"Arkansas Hillary Billarys" <Clintons@trailertrash.com> wrote in
news:1L6dnYR7JKpZbaffRVn-ug@adelphia.com:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:423ad7d5$0$13896$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"soup" <1@slartibartfarst.com> wrote in
news:W8A_d.130$Ab.113@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
JEDIDIAH popped their head over the parapet saw what was going on and
said:
we should keep our own oil and let everyone else use theirs up.
Nah keep your oil AND use up everyone elses.
Then when you are the only ones left with any oil
charge as much as you want for it.
Or develop an alternative fuel that could realisticly replace petroleum
and finally kick OPEC and the ragheads to the curb.
I recently read that scientists have figured out how to make plastic
from orange peels. That's a good start in the direction of weaning
ourselves from oil.
=========================
And when Florida has another freeze destroying all it's Orange crops ,
then what ?
Florida isn't the only place you can grow oranges. You can always replace
oranges. Oil won't last forever.
===================
Guess what , we all won't last forever either. Guess we should just all kill
ourselves now then .
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
