| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Native American" |
| Date: |
30 Sep 2005 11:31:58 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Dems lack of concern for energy |
"Obwon" <obllOob@att.net> wrote in message
news:7ijqj1hg9c6om3jst5oh2eqj4129e7bpih@4ax.com...
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:36:48 -0400, Bob Curtin
<vze2y96y@verizon.net> wrote:
What's absolutely amazing about the Democrats is their total lack of
concern for future energy needs.
This is how you argue? Dems refuse to allow you to
drill for oil in a sensitive national wildlife refuge
that only arguably contains a years supply of oil at
best, that would take several years of damaging the
permafrost over a wide area, by the building of a
network of roads.
Your dishonesty is staggering.
(1) we're not talking a "sensitive wildlife refuge"; we're talking Alaskan
barrens
(2) "a year's supply of oil" (assuming you could even defend that claim,
which you can't) amounts to BILLIONS of dollars worth of gasoline, which is
not exactly chump change, except for rich people such as George Soros or
John Forbe$ Kerry
(3) no "damaging the permafrost" occurred with the Alaskan Pipeline, and it
wouldn't occur by drilling the Alaskan barrens of ANWR either
The Democrats' total lack of concern for future energy needs is disgusting.
.
|
|
| User: "SilentOtto" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems lack of concern for energy |
30 Sep 2005 12:19:22 PM |
|
|
Native American wrote:
"Obwon" <obllOob@att.net> wrote in message
news:7ijqj1hg9c6om3jst5oh2eqj4129e7bpih@4ax.com...
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:36:48 -0400, Bob Curtin
<vze2y96y@verizon.net> wrote:
What's absolutely amazing about the Democrats is their total lack of
concern for future energy needs.
This is how you argue? Dems refuse to allow you to
drill for oil in a sensitive national wildlife refuge
that only arguably contains a years supply of oil at
best, that would take several years of damaging the
permafrost over a wide area, by the building of a
network of roads.
Your dishonesty is staggering.
Not as staggering as yours.
(1) we're not talking a "sensitive wildlife refuge"; we're talking Alaskan
barrens
Lots of plants and animals live in the arctic tundra.
Why do you hate Caribu?
Extreme habitats are sensative by nature, as the flora and fauna must
be very specialized in order to survive. That makes them extremely
susceptable to even small changes.
That you don't happen to find it very appealing is beside the point.
(2) "a year's supply of oil" (assuming you could even defend that claim,
which you can't) amounts to BILLIONS of dollars worth of gasoline, which is
not exactly chump change, except for rich people such as George Soros or
John Forbe$ Kerry
Assholes like you would carve up your own mothers if you thought you
could make a few bucks.
If we won't protect places like ANWAR because we can make a few bucks
off of oil, why should people in Sumatra protect their rain forest from
loggers and preserve that habitat for Sumatran tigers?
It's the same logic at play.
Why do you hate tigers?
Don't you think people living today have a responsibility to ensure
that plants and animals survive for future generations?
It's always the same with people like you.
You're willing to destroy anything as long as you think you can make a
fast buck.
The list of enviromental disasters created in the name of a dollar are
endless, and you expect thinking people to believe that drilling in
ANWAR would be different?
ANWAR has value in itself as unspoiled habitat, no matter if an idiot
like you can see it or not.
(3) no "damaging the permafrost" occurred with the Alaskan Pipeline, and it
wouldn't occur by drilling the Alaskan barrens of ANWR either
Your claim that no enviromental damage has occured in connection with
drilling at Purdhoe Bay is an outright lie.
Such damage has been massive, and because of the sensative nature of
the enviroment, very persistant.
But don't take my word for it.
Google is your friend.
The Democrats' total lack of concern for future energy needs is disgusting.
It's Republicans who are denying the reality of our future energy
needs.
They keep trying to pretend that oil is an inexhaustable resource, when
anyone with a brain, which would not include you, can clearly see that
world demand for oil will soon outstrip supply.
Alternative sources of energy must be developed, and drilling in ANWAR
doesn't advance that goal or stave off the coming energy crisis in any
meaningful way.
The only thing drilling in ANWAR would accomplish is to make a few more
of Bush's croanies a bit richer.
Given a choice between the little bit of oil, and in the greater scheme
of things a little bit of oil is exactly what were talking about, and
maintaing a pristine wilderness habitat for future generations to
enjoy, I'll take the pristine wilderness habitat every time.
You?
Screw future generations, there's a few bucks to be made...
You're contemptable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Native American" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems lack of concern for energy |
30 Sep 2005 12:40:38 PM |
|
|
"SilentOtto" <silentotto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128100762.014285.191550@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
(1) we're not talking a "sensitive wildlife refuge"; we're talking
Alaskan
barrens
Lots of plants and animals live in the arctic tundra.
There are more plants in Brooklyn, NY than in the Alaskan barrens.
Probably more animals too, especially if you count all the dogs, cats, and
parakeets.
Maybe the Democrats think we should remove the natural gas pipelines that
run under the streets of Brooklyn?
Why do you hate Caribu?
Why are you such a stupid Democrat?
Extreme habitats are sensative by nature, as the flora and fauna must
be very specialized in order to survive.
The Caribu are thriving in the vicinity of the Alaskan Pipeline. They will
also thrive in the vicinity of the oil wells in ANWR.
That makes them extremely
susceptable to even small changes.
Liar. The Caribu are thriving in the vicinity of the Alaskan Pipeline.
They will also thrive in the vicinity of the oil wells in ANWR.
That you don't happen to find it very appealing is beside the point.
What I don't find very appealing is the Democrat Party's ongoing
obstructionism, especially in terms of new energy supplies for America.
The obstructionist Democrats need to be bulldozed aside.
And so they shall be.
(2) "a year's supply of oil" (assuming you could even defend that
claim,
which you can't) amounts to BILLIONS of dollars worth of gasoline, which
is
not exactly chump change, except for rich people such as George Soros or
John Forbe$ Kerry
Assholes like you would carve up your own mothers if you thought you
could make a few bucks.
Typical liberal Democrat intellectual failure - can't debate the issues so
he sinks to personally attacking the other poster.
What a LOSER you are, "Otto".
If we won't protect places like ANWAR because we can make a few bucks
There's no evidence we "won't protect ANWR". We're talking about drilling
oil there, not nuking the place.
Get a mental grip, "Otto" - you're hysterical.
(3) no "damaging the permafrost" occurred with the Alaskan Pipeline, and
it
wouldn't occur by drilling the Alaskan barrens of ANWR either
Your claim that no enviromental damage has occured in connection with
drilling at Purdhoe Bay is an outright lie.
Such damage has been massive, and because of the sensative nature of
the enviroment, very persistant.
But don't take my word for it.
Google is your friend.
But apparently Google isn't YOUR friend, else you would have had Google come
up with something to back up your claim of "damage". And you couldn't.
Google must not be your friend, "Otto".
Alternative sources of energy must be developed, and drilling in ANWAR
doesn't advance that goal
Sure it does - it increases the supply of oil available for our use.
or stave off the coming energy crisis in any
meaningful way.
Sure it does - in increases the supply of oil available for our use.
Given a choice between the little bit of oil, and in the greater scheme
of things a little bit of oil is exactly what were talking about, and
maintaing a pristine wilderness habitat for future generations to
enjoy, I'll take the pristine wilderness habitat every time.
You?
Me? I'll drill in ANWR, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
BTW, it's no longer pristine wilderness, because there are Caribou up there,
and they sh*t on the ground every day.
Screw future generations, there's a few bucks to be made...
You're contemptable.
You're a liberal Democrat *****, one who can't debate the issues, so you
call people names when they refuse to buy into the envirowacko bullsh*t like
you have bought into it.
You're an intellectual LOSER, "Otto".
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Democrats Embrace Clean and Smart Energy Technologies -- Hydro, Solar, Wind, Conservation, New and Improved Mass Public Transit, NO MORE WASTEFUL SUBURBAN SPRAWL! |
04 Oct 2005 11:38:47 AM |
|
|
Native American wrote:
"SilentOtto" <silentotto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128100762.014285.191550@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
(1) we're not talking a "sensitive wildlife refuge"; we're talking
Alaskan
barrens
Lots of plants and animals live in the arctic tundra.
There are more plants in Brooklyn, NY than in the Alaskan barrens.
Probably more animals too, especially if you count all the dogs, cats, and
parakeets.
The Arctic Refuge provides a home for more than 200 species of birds
and animals including Tundra swans, caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears
and wolves.
The presence of caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, migratory
birds, and many other species in a nearly undisturbed state has led
some to call the area "America's Serengeti." The Refuge and two
neighboring parks in Canada have been proposed for an international
park, and several species found in the area (including polar bears,
caribou, migratory birds, and whales) are protected by international
treaties or agreements.
http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/crs_anwr.shtml
It's pathetic that what you, presumably a human being, fail to
appreciate and understand the miracle of nature that enables your very
existence. Your denial is going to spell your end.
To enjoy obscene profits, Republicans sent citizens into the mines, but
it was the Democrats that went in with them with canaries.
http://magazine.audubon.org/features0109/arctic.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0924-01.htm
http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm
http://www.ktuu.com/features/washingtonreport/020303.asp
http://tapseis.anl.gov/guide/
http://www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/issues1.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/of02-119/figs.pdf
http://tapseis.anl.gov/guide/photo/Pump_Station_Locations.html
http://tapseis.anl.gov/guide/photo/Figure_2.1-6.html
http://tapseis.anl.gov/guide/photo/Drag_Reducing_Agent.html
http://tapseis.anl.gov/guide/photo/Tanker_Route_Map.html
http://www.anwr.org/photo.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Freedom Fighter" |
|
| Title: PROOF THAT LIBERALS HATE AMERICA ==> Democrats Embrace Clean and Smart Energy Technologies -- Hydro, Solar, Wind, Conservation, New and Improved Mass Public Transit, NO MORE WASTEFUL SUBURBAN SPRAWL! |
04 Oct 2005 02:51:09 PM |
|
|
On 4 Oct 2005 09:38:47 -0700, wrote:
Native American wrote:
"SilentOtto" <silentotto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128100762.014285.191550@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
(1) we're not talking a "sensitive wildlife refuge"; we're talking
Alaskan
barrens
Lots of plants and animals live in the arctic tundra.
There are more plants in Brooklyn, NY than in the Alaskan barrens.
Probably more animals too, especially if you count all the dogs, cats, and
parakeets.
The Arctic Refuge provides a home for more than 200 species of birds
and animals including Tundra swans, caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears
and wolves.
The presence of caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, migratory
birds, and many other species in a nearly undisturbed state has led
some to call the area "America's Serengeti." The Refuge and two
neighboring parks in Canada have been proposed for an international
park, and several species found in the area (including polar bears,
caribou, migratory birds, and whales) are protected by international
treaties or agreements.
http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/crs_anwr.shtml
It's pathetic that what you, presumably a human being, fail to
appreciate and understand the miracle of nature that enables your very
existence. Your denial is going to spell your end.
To enjoy obscene profits, Republicans sent citizens into the mines, but
it was the Democrats that went in with them with canaries.
http://magazine.audubon.org/features0109/arctic.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0924-01.htm
http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm
http://www.ktuu.com/features/washingtonreport/020303.asp
http://tapseis.anl.gov/guide/
http://www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/issues1.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/of02-119/figs.pdf
http://tapseis.anl.gov/guide/photo/Pump_Station_Locations.html
http://tapseis.anl.gov/guide/photo/Figure_2.1-6.html
http://tapseis.anl.gov/guide/photo/Drag_Reducing_Agent.html
http://tapseis.anl.gov/guide/photo/Tanker_Route_Map.html
http://www.anwr.org/photo.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dems lack of concern for energy |
01 Oct 2005 12:57:59 PM |
|
|
Native American wrote:
"SilentOtto" <silentotto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128100762.014285.191550@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
(1) we're not talking a "sensitive wildlife refuge"; we're talking
Alaskan
barrens
Lots of plants and animals live in the arctic tundra.
There are more plants in Brooklyn, NY than in the Alaskan barrens.
Not living in their natural, pristine habitat their aren't.
Probably more animals too, especially if you count all the dogs, cats, and
parakeets.
See above.
Maybe the Democrats think we should remove the natural gas pipelines that
run under the streets of Brooklyn?
Why would we think that?
Stop being an idiot.
Why do you hate Caribu?
Why are you such a stupid Democrat?
I'm not.
You're the one who wants to destroy their habitat.
Perhaps you suppose that they can move to Brooklyn?
Extreme habitats are sensative by nature, as the flora and fauna must
be very specialized in order to survive.
The Caribu are thriving in the vicinity of the Alaskan Pipeline. They will
also thrive in the vicinity of the oil wells in ANWR.
You're lying again.
Studies have shown that Caribu avoid both the pipeline and oil
infrastructure like the plagre.
ANWR is their calving ground.
Shouldn't they be allowed to calve in peace?
That makes them extremely
susceptable to even small changes.
Liar. The Caribu are thriving in the vicinity of the Alaskan Pipeline.
They will also thrive in the vicinity of the oil wells in ANWR.
Sorry, you're the one who is lying.
Besides, caribu aren't the only thing in ANWR.
That you don't happen to find it very appealing is beside the point.
What I don't find very appealing is the Democrat Party's ongoing
obstructionism, especially in terms of new energy supplies for America.
There is no way to drill outselves out of the energy crisis we're
facing.
Even stupid morons like you should be able to see that.
The obstructionist Democrats need to be bulldozed aside.
And so they shall be.
If you're victorious, we'll have another spoiled habitat to show for
your victory.
You're going to have leave a hell of a legacy for future generations.
They'll be shaking their heads, and wondering how people in this time
could be so stupid and shortsighted...
(2) "a year's supply of oil" (assuming you could even defend that
claim,
which you can't) amounts to BILLIONS of dollars worth of gasoline, which
is
not exactly chump change, except for rich people such as George Soros or
John Forbe$ Kerry
Assholes like you would carve up your own mothers if you thought you
could make a few bucks.
Typical liberal Democrat intellectual failure - can't debate the issues so
he sinks to personally attacking the other poster.
Your feigned outrage is noted.
Debate with *****-boys like you is pointless.
One has to be honest to debate, and that disqualifes you from the
start.
It's people like you who destroyed the Grand Banks fishery by over
fishing.
It's people like you who turned thousands of our rivers into cess
pools.
It's people like you who are pushing megafauna to the brink of
extinction.
It's people like you who think polluted air is fine because it's good
for business.
Why?
So you can make a few bucks.
Why leave a tiger skin on a tiger when you can make money selling it to
someone to use as a rug?
What a LOSER you are, "Otto".
Not as big a loser as you.
I'm not the one who's stupid enough to believe that drilling in ANWR is
the solution to our energy needs.
If we won't protect places like ANWAR because we can make a few bucks
There's no evidence we "won't protect ANWR". We're talking about drilling
oil there, not nuking the place.
There is no evidence that we'll damage the eco-system?
You must be joking.
What about all that oil that got dumped into Prince William Sound
because Exxon hired a drunk to drive an oil tanker?
They promised that there wouldn't be any enviromental damage in that
eco-system to, remember?
There are hundreds of oil spills in Purdhoe Bay every year.
Why on earth would one think that drilling in ANWR would be any
different?
Get a mental grip, "Otto" - you're hysterical.
As opposed to being blinded by dollar signs, like you are?
(3) no "damaging the permafrost" occurred with the Alaskan Pipeline, and
it
wouldn't occur by drilling the Alaskan barrens of ANWR either
Your claim that no enviromental damage has occured in connection with
drilling at Purdhoe Bay is an outright lie.
Such damage has been massive, and because of the sensative nature of
the enviroment, very persistant.
But don't take my word for it.
Google is your friend.
But apparently Google isn't YOUR friend, else you would have had Google come
up with something to back up your claim of "damage". And you couldn't.
An ideologue like you will lable any facts I post as propaganda, and
refuse to answer them.
Why waste my time?
I'm not trying to convince you your wrong.
I've long experience with dealing with lying losers like you.
I'm just here to tell you that you're full of *****.
Google must not be your friend, "Otto".
Alternative sources of energy must be developed, and drilling in ANWAR
doesn't advance that goal
Sure it does - it increases the supply of oil available for our use.
By sucn an insignificat amount that it's practically meaningless.
Far better to use our resources developing alternative sources of
energy.
or stave off the coming energy crisis in any
meaningful way.
Sure it does - in increases the supply of oil available for our use.
Lol...
Drilling in ANWR is like dumping a cup of gas into a 500 hp hot rod.
You might get the engine to rev once, but that's about it.
Given a choice between the little bit of oil, and in the greater scheme
of things a little bit of oil is exactly what were talking about, and
maintaing a pristine wilderness habitat for future generations to
enjoy, I'll take the pristine wilderness habitat every time.
You?
Me? I'll drill in ANWR, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Drilling in ANWR will reduce our dependence of foreign oil to such a
mall amount that it's meaningless.
You think were gonna get any extra clout with OPEC because we're only
buying 1.1 million barrels of oil a day instead of 1.2 million barrels
a day?
Not likely.
BTW, it's no longer pristine wilderness, because there are Caribou up there,
and they sh*t on the ground every day.
Caribu are part of the eco-system.
Oil rigs aren't.
Screw future generations, there's a few bucks to be made...
You're contemptable.
You're a liberal Democrat *****, one who can't debate the issues, so you
call people names when they refuse to buy into the envirowacko bullsh*t like
you have bought into it.
You're an intellectual LOSER, "Otto".
I'm not here to debate you, ya stupd *****.
I'm just here to tell you that you're an lying, ***** loser.
And, I'm telling you that because that's exactly what you are.
People like you lie and obtusificate so much that an attempt at debate
is pointless.
Don't think I didn't notice that you snipped all those uncomfortable
points about people destroying eco-systems in their quest for a buck.
Yet, you expect us to believe that drilling in ANWR would somehow be
different?
Not a chance.
I'm not as stupid as you are.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
