Obama: Rejects Clark's Comments about McCain.

[Parkbandit]

Is this worse\same\better than your "I only saw one hippy protest at a condo board meeting, thus no environmentalists care about the environment anywhere but Alaska"?

Reading comprehension ftl... but not unexpected from you.



The above mentioned quote and I can vouch for this statement.

I said "Gigantic ass" not "Gigantic asshole". I apologize if you thought I was referring to you.

[Daniel]

Reading comprehension ftl... but not unexpected from you.



Did you not say that environmentalists are not concerned with any place else than Alaska?

Then, when confronted with the idiocy of that statement, did you not use some horseshit antecdotal account of how it must be true because you went to some condo builders meeting and only one hippy stood up to protest and he was "laughed out of the place"?

Whatever, I think I'm just going to start making non sensical rebuttals to statements as well.

[Gan]

I would like to offer up a toast to all the left wing environmentalists who wou would rather watch the economy tank rather than preparing for the eventuality that oil from the middle east will either become so expensive that it cripples our transportation infrastructure or just shut off completely, all the while denying us the opportunity to prepare for stop gap measures (like ANWR exploration or gulf drilling) while alternatives to petrolium based transportation are still being developed and perfected.

:cheers:

[CrystalTears]

If it won't lower oil prices... why not use it for America when we really need it? There's a 50/50 chance we'll be in Iran.
Good grief. First it was always posting about the war in Iraq. Now every other post is about the potential war in Iran. Can you let it go already?

[Daniel]

Good grief. First it was always posting about the war in Iraq. Now every other post is about the potential war in Iran. Can you let it go already?

Uh...Sure. Maybe when it's over.

[Gan]

Thank God Obama respresents change then.

[Daniel]

Thank God Obama respresents change then.

okayy

[Warriorbird]

It's funny, Gan. Get this! There are actually OTHER alternatives to deal with our problems. The Republicans are just pushing this one because their base hates environmentalists. It won't do a damn thing for the economy either. It might help China's. Are you some sort of secret closet China supporter?

CT... when people constantly ignore things I repeat them. When the longest lasting war in American history is still continuing I have a hard time not talking about it either. When people don't seem to care one way or another if we waste trillions on that yet whine about things like student loans for soldiers and insurance for kids I point out the hypocrisy.

[CrystalTears]

It's funny, Gan. Get this! There are actually OTHER alternatives to deal with our problems. The Republicans are just pushing this one because their base hates environmentalists. It won't do a damn thing for the economy either. It might help China's. Are you some sort of secret closet China supporter?
Oh yeah, I'm in agreement that it's a very conservative move. Because we want the country to be closer to oil independence. We'd rather live off our own than leech off others. We don't believe in the status quo either, not when we can do something. I see no harm in us being proactive, rather than waiting for the last moment when we're down to the bare minimum.

Yes we have other alternatives. Seek those out too. Seek them all out!


CT... when people constantly ignore things I repeat them/
And since the members of the PC can't do anything about the current war, it doesn't need to be repeated. Especially the drum of Iran.

[Warriorbird]

The thing is... we haven't hit bottom right now. I don't think being "proactive"(IE, wasteful) and using our supply too early is wise. The irony is it wouldn't even be us using it. I'd be more comfortable if it was definitely going to go to America. It isn't.

You and Gan seem to thinks folks who oppose this are against seeking our other alternatives. Obama is for more alternative energy proposals than I even am. ANWR is just McCain's attempt at a wedge issue.

[Clove]

When the longest lasting war in American history is still continuing...It's only propaganda when the other guy uses it...

The Revolutionary War was about 9 years. We've occupied Iraq about 5 years. And it's not much of an "occupation" considering we are there with current government's permission.

[CrystalTears]

Well for me, I need to start seeing some action rather than a lot of talk. If McCain is able to make it happen, then he's doing more than Obama from the start.

I don't want to see energy proposals as much I want to see something being done to existing energy options and expanding on them, such as coal, solar and wind energy.

As much as I admire Obama for his ability to reach out and bring together the people, he needs to start doing more and talking less.

[Parkbandit]

The thing is... we haven't hit bottom right now. I don't think being "proactive"(IE, wasteful) and using our supply too early is wise. The irony is it wouldn't even be us using it. I'd be more comfortable if it was definitely going to go to America. It isn't.

You and Gan seem to thinks folks who oppose this are against seeking our other alternatives. Obama is for more alternative energy proposals than I even am. ANWR is just McCain's attempt at a wedge issue.


Wow.. you really suck today at assumptions. McCain is actually against drilling in ANWR.. he's for giving states the option of drilling off their own coasts.

[Parkbandit]

Well for me, I need to start seeing some action rather than a lot of talk. If McCain is able to make it happen, then he's doing more than Obama from the start.

I don't want to see energy proposals as much I want to see something being done to existing energy options and expanding on them, such as coal, solar and wind energy.

As much as I admire Obama for his ability to reach out and bring together the people, he needs to start doing more and talking less.

You keep this propaganda up and you'll be stripped of the "former" label.

[Warriorbird]

Gosh, Clove. You're right. It only beats WW2, WW1, Korea, 1812, and The Civil War. My apologies. I was wrong.

McCain hasn't made anything happen. While he's stated that he's opposed drilling in ANWR... his camp has critiqued Obama on energy and cited Obama's opposition to it. Kinda odd... but I know Presidential race politics can function on a very tricky level (I don't believe Wesley Clark said what he did before talking to Obama).

I think McCain would be wise strategically to have a public change of heart in Alaska.

[Gan]

It's funny, Gan. Get this! There are actually OTHER alternatives to deal with our problems. The Republicans are just pushing this one because their base hates environmentalists. It won't do a damn thing for the economy either. It might help China's. Are you some sort of secret closet China supporter?
How about having a candidate present those OTHER alternatives? Are those OTHER alternatives ready for mass production? What contingency plans do you have available if these OTHER alternatives fail and our supply from the middle east gets cut off for some unexplained reason?

And your "it wont do a damn thing for our economy" argument has been disproven by the effect noted on speculation as well as the impact it will have on jobs, etc. Quit being stupid.

And please describe how it will benefit China?

I fail to see why you're assessing this as purely a partisan matter when there are reasonable people looking long term at this issue for other (more important) reasons.

[Clove]

Gosh, Clove. You're right. It only beats WW2, WW1, Korea, 1812, and The Civil War. My apologies. I was wrong.At least you can admit it. And it only beats the Civil War, Korean, WW II, etc. if you include our entire presence there as "occupation". Considering Iraq has a legitimate goverment that is allowing our armed forces to operate there legally, I call this designation a stretch.

[Ashliana]

all the brownskinned people on the CNN (I know, that conservative soapbox network it is) were for it. And the Alaskan Legislature is for it, which is voted for and representative of the people.

Sure, not 100%, and obviously you can find small groups against any and every change. There were large groups against the emancipation of the slaves and yet Lincoln still freed them.

Yes, that's true. But this is not one of the many groups who will benefit from, but not be negatively affected by, the proposed drilling. I tend to take the group who will be negatively impacted most seriously.


The fact that you've found one small group is not indicative of a majority opinion.

Also true. But they're not the only people opposing it--obviously this is a very controversial issue, with many people on both sides. I just offered up a voice of those people whom live there.


ANWR is baby out with the bath water environmentalism. Too many are too quick to act without thinking about the consequences, (yes, this includes Bush in Iraq, but also most environmentalists). Sometimes the solution causes more harm than the problem. DDT was made illegal despite relatively weak environmental scientific evidence, but the greens pushed for it, and made the US refuse aid to countries that use it, so poor countries in Africa don't use it and millions of people die each year from preventable malaria.

Don't know enough about this to comment. I'll take your word for it.



and despite what people might say, there is not yet conclusive scientific proof that human CO2 production warms the planet in any extent greater than a natural occurence, you can't even prove the planet is warming, at all, on a large scale....

It's no longer in contention that we've had an impact on global temperature.. but to the degree, hard to determine, according to nearly everything I've read.


and yet there are these big pushes to use lower electricity using CFL bulbs, which contain mercury and which, when thrown away, have the potential to pollute our environment and cause real verifiable harm to humans and wildlife.

They have to be disposed of properly, just like lithium batteries. I don't really see why this is a negative, other than the education required for the end-user.


People hate oil, people wanted ethanol. Despite the fact that it takes tons of land, fertilizer, water, soil, and yes, energy running tractors, to farm it. Despite the fact that it provides lower MPG ratings and overall the net energy gain is almost nil. Despite the fact that it creates food inflation which contributes to worldwide hunger. Despite the fact that the lost of forest to cropland is a worse blow to the environment in terms of CO2 than all the emmissions from all the cars on the road.

This is an example of how people want to do whatever it takes to reduce the cost of GAS, while ignoring the fact that greater damage might be done to the environment, than the potential benefit. Ethanol is one example. Drilling in ANWR is another.


No one hates the environment, we all like the environment. We like clean air, and clean water. Some people just take a more practical standpoint, try to make sure the trees don't get in the way of the forest, and want to make sure we're not costing people their jobs and a way to support their family by unnecessary regulations.

No one may "hate" the environment, but lots of people couldn't care less about the damage they do to it as long as they can make even a cent of extra profit.


Don't think that tree hugging is a noble pursuit. Oil companies are billion dollar companies, they stand to benefit from increased drilling, although not as much as one may think.

Not as much as one might think? Besides being a subjective point, how much would one think? The greatest profits of any corporation in history, and more than all but the top countries' GDP totals? I'd say that's as much as I think.


But you realize there are billion dollar solar panel manufacturers that benefit like crazy from government subsidies and renewable energy mandates. Same with wind turbine companies, and geothermal companies.

Just like oil companies receive massive tax breaks and receive their product--oil--from federal or state-owned lands? The difference is that these green technology companies are working, while also for profit, to deliver the solution of being so utterly dependent on the oil of foreign nations. As well as the fact that green technology, while expensive outright, can pay for itself numerous times over, whereas oil must be continually purchased.


The makers of CFL lightbulbs more or less paid for all the public aware advertisng for those things. Huge agribusiness is benefiting from the ethanol mandate, the Ag sector has been one of the hottest in the stock market for the last couple years. You have oilmen like T Boone Pickens buying up water rights & building wind farms... not for social reasons, but because he knows which way the political winds are blowing.

Yes, profiteers will exist in anything we choose to subsidisize..


Money taints everything, you may want to call pro-drilling people shills for the oil companies, but you're just a shill for others.

I'm a shill for the cause of reducing our ecological footprint (whether or not it affects global warming), becoming completely energy independent and conserving our non-renewable natural resources for essentials.


Get this, I don't own stock in a single oil company, though I do have some oil service companies (companies that provide equipment/construction for the oil industry). Most of my portfolio is alternative energy companies and ag. Nevertheless, I'm against ethanol and pro drilling and pro mining, despite the fact that I do directly materially benefit from ethanol subsidies and alternative energy mandates. How do you like them apples?

No opinion.

[Warriorbird]

Obama's already said a fair bit about ethanol. McCain's said actually cool shit about wind and solar.

McCain's said stuff about nuclear. Obama's said stuff against nuclear.

Why isn't the media talking about those speeches?

Hmm...

This will not stop oil speculation. This will not even likely cut heavily into it. Even if it does gas prices will still be god damn high. When a real crisis shows up we'll have run through this for a temporary fix and not have it.

China will likely buy it all if we put it on the market.

The jobs will not be long term if they exist. Most multinational oil companies are dodging taxes as quickly as they can and Alaskan state taxes aren't terribly high. Not much in the way of government revenue.

When gas prices climb higher one imagines the Alaskans will be even more appreciative of the work. After all... all of that "non real" global warming has decimated their fishing industry.

[Ashliana]

Have you actually found a source where every one of these indigenous people of ANWR are asked, or are you taking a biased source and extrapolating it to speak for the entire state?

A source with an opinion is not necessarily "biased." A party directly affected by something can be objectively opposed to something. If the matter was as universally accepted, we wouldn't be debating it right now, would we? It would be happening as we speak. As I said before, the people most directly affected by it should be given the greatest weight.


And how would you know I've been laughed at for 15K posts if you just got here last month? Really? All 15K? Do you have that sourced or are you once again pulling bullshit from your gigantic ass and claiming it to be a fact?

Because anyone with half a brain can see your trainwreck history of posting with a magical little "search" button. Almost everything I've seen spew out of your mouth has been the mindless ramblings identical to Rush. You need to look up the word "hyperbole."


I would like to offer up a toast to all the left wing environmentalists who wou would rather watch the economy tank rather than preparing for the eventuality that oil from the middle east will either become so expensive that it cripples our transportation infrastructure or just shut off completely, all the while denying us the opportunity to prepare for stop gap measures (like ANWR exploration or gulf drilling) while alternatives to petrolium based transportation are still being developed and perfected.

:cheers:

Our economy is still growing, albeit slowly. The growing pains we'll experience while switching between power sources as they're developed will serve to fuel the political will to make the necessary changes.

Will our economy suffer? Yes, but you didn't see the republicans doing barely ANYTHING about this despite 6 YEARS of control of the executive and legislative branches.

[CrystalTears]

I'd be all over McCain if he can do more for wind and solar energy like white on rice.

[Warriorbird]

Well. Both he and Obama have made a lot of talk. There's a lot stacked against either one doing anything, however. The petrochemicals industry has many many lobbyists and Congress creatures are very weak minded. What they're in favor of isn't terribly different... McCain has more antagonists within his own party though. If Obama would switch his pro ethanol stance for a pro nuclear stance I'd be happier with him... but he's a member of Congress from Illinois. It isn't likely.

Either one could get farther if President Bush didn't have his leash held firmly by the petrochemicals industry... and they both weren't campaigning. There will be a lot of talk before the election.

[CrystalTears]

As I said before, the people most directly affected by it should be given the greatest weight.
Not if they represent such an insignificant amount, unfortunately.

[Ashliana]

Not if they represent such an insignificant amount, unfortunately.

Dangerous argument to make. Those people from the greater Alaskan area might benefit (although the effect of ANWR drilling is hotly contested and even by the most generous estimates, wouldn't solve our oil problems), while those indigenous people's way of life itself could be threatened.

[Ashliana]

Well. Both he and Obama have made a lot of talk. There's a lot stacked against either one doing anything, however. The petrochemicals industry has many many lobbyists and Congress creatures are very weak minded. What they're in favor of isn't terribly different... McCain has more antagonists within his own party though. If Obama would switch his pro ethanol stance for a pro nuclear stance I'd be happier with him... but he's a member of Congress from Illinois. It isn't likely.

Either one could get farther if President Bush didn't have his leash held firmly by the petrochemicals industry... and they both weren't campaigning. There will be a lot of talk before the election.

Agreed, completely. People need to be massively re-educated about the safety and reliability of nuclear power. The fact that we spend any oil on energy production is really shameful.

[CrystalTears]

They can move if necessary. The caribou aren't going anywhere. Their culture nor their way of life is going to be threatened.

[Ashliana]

They can move if necessary. The caribou aren't going anywhere. Their culture nor their way of life is going to be threatened.

Can you say that with certainty? The caribou populations have been seriously affected by previous drilling efforts, and accidents. The "they can move" argument is incredibly insensitive.

[CrystalTears]

Can you say that with certainty? The caribou populations have been seriously affected by previous drilling efforts, and accidents. The "they can move" argument is incredibly insensitive.
Uh, the caribou population has risen in the thousands.

And I'm going to be incredibly insensitive right now:
If we didn't do anything because of indignant little tribes, we wouldn't even be here.

[Ashliana]

Uh, the caribou population has risen in the thousands.

And I'm going to be incredibly insensitive right now:
If we didn't do anything because of indignant little tribes, we wouldn't even be here.

Now the population might be healthy, but the impacts of oil drilling have negatively impacted the populations in the past--that's what these locals are afraid of.

Why would you call them "indignant"? How is this any different than people living anywhere else having their habitat or environment threatened by outside parties?

[Ashliana]

And I'm going to be incredibly insensitive right now:If we didn't do anything because of indignant little tribes, we wouldn't even be here.

This is the arrogance and elitism that republicans are always accusing liberals of. Somehow your way of life, your interests are more valid than these people whom have lived in this area for far longer than your family's lived here?

[CrystalTears]

My family didn't live here. :tongue:

Heh, anyway, expansion and growth is important to me. I feel badly for tribes such as those who try hard to keep their culture and heritage alive. But they need to also learn to adapt. If moving or changing means it's going to collapse, then it wasn't a strong culture to begin with.

[Warriorbird]

It is kind of a slick deal for oil companie. Due to the wildlife preserve designation there's no way any of the tribe even has mineral rights. Sacrifices do have to be made... I just think that we should save this one for an actual emergency. Suzy Soccer Mom can still fill her H2.

[Ashliana]

My family didn't live here. :tongue:

Heh, anyway, expansion and growth is important to me. I feel badly for tribes such as those who try hard to keep their culture and heritage alive. But they need to also learn to adapt. If moving or changing means it's going to collapse, then it wasn't a strong culture to begin with.

The point is that who are you to determine when any other group of people (especially one that has most likely existed for longer than yours, and been in this area longer than yours) should "adapt," "move on," or "change,"? Self-determination is an important quality that the constitution strives to give us all; it's sad to see that you couldn't care less about it.

[Warriorbird]

People might've crowed about how horrible Kelo V. New London was... but a whole lot of people are comfortable with the idea as long as it doesn't apply to them.

[Parkbandit]

Yes, that's true. But this is not one of the many groups who will benefit from, but not be negatively affected by, the proposed drilling. I tend to take the group who will be negatively impacted most seriously.

You mean to say that you take the group that closely mirrors your own opinion most seriously. Here's a site you might want to look at... it tells a different story.

http://www.anwr.org/people/people.htm



Also true. But they're not the only people opposing it--obviously this is a very controversial issue, with many people on both sides. I just offered up a voice of those people whom live there.

Again.. not really offering up a voice for everyone who lives there.. just the ones you agree with.




Don't know enough about this to comment. I'll take your word for it.


Finally.. something we can agree on. You should take this stand more imo.




It's no longer in contention that we've had an impact on global temperature.. but to the degree, hard to determine, according to nearly everything I've read.


When all you read is from liberal rags, I imagine that would be correct. It is very much in contention that man has increased global temperatures... as evidenced by the recent cooling trend of the past 12 years and of the dropping ocean temperatures.



They have to be disposed of properly, just like lithium batteries. I don't really see why this is a negative, other than the education required for the end-user.


How do you suggest we dispose of mercury properly? You do realize that most people just throw their lithium batteries right in the trash can. For someone who is so pro-environment.. sounds to me you don't care that much. Obviously, you must be getting paid by the Mercury and Lithium Battery consortium somehow.



This is an example of how people want to do whatever it takes to reduce the cost of GAS, while ignoring the fact that greater damage might be done to the environment, than the potential benefit. Ethanol is one example. Drilling in ANWR is another.


Ethanol is one example. Drilling in ANWR is a not.



No one may "hate" the environment, but lots of people couldn't care less about the damage they do to it as long as they can make even a cent of extra profit.

Lots of people couldn't care less.. like those people who don't care about mercury in lightbulbs for example?


Not as much as one might think? Besides being a subjective point, how much would one think? The greatest profits of any corporation in history, and more than all but the top countries' GDP totals? I'd say that's as much as I think.


They also paid the greatest tax bill of any corporation in history and spend more money on a daily basis than all but the top countries. I'd say you know shit about business if you think 8.5% profit is big.



Just like oil companies receive massive tax breaks and receive their product--oil--from federal or state-owned lands? The difference is that these green technology companies are working, while also for profit, to deliver the solution of being so utterly dependent on the oil of foreign nations. As well as the fact that green technology, while expensive outright, can pay for itself numerous times over, whereas oil must be continually purchased.

Green companies are working for the same exact reasons that big oil companies work... to make money... don't kid yourself little girl.




Yes, profiteers will exist in anything we choose to subsidisize..


Agreed... which is why we should do away with 90% of them imo. If a business isn't profitable, why is it in business?



I'm a shill for the cause of reducing our ecological footprint (whether or not it affects global warming), becoming completely energy independent and conserving our non-renewable natural resources for essentials.

I agree.. it's the matter on how we get there that we differ. You would have no problem forcing people to make changes by widespread economic ruin... I just think there's a better way.

And why, pray tell, would we need to conserve our oil resources if we actually get off our oil addiction? What are we conserving it for if we no longer use it?

[Warriorbird]

So... anwr.org isn't the site you most agree with, PB? A website run by the people that want to drill in ANWR contains data that suggests everybody wants to drill in ANWR? Shocking! Run by a group of oil energy lobbyists? Boy. You really got her there.

http://anwr.org/power.htm

[Clove]

The point is that who are you to determine when any other group of people ... should "adapt," "move on," or "change,"?I'll take a stab. The majority?

[Warriorbird]

And why, pray tell, would we need to conserve our oil resources if we actually get off our oil addiction?

Maybe because... John McCain aside... people don't think that a magic battery will instantly solve all our problems with energy?

[Ashliana]

You mean to say that you take the group that closely mirrors your own opinion most seriously. Here's a site you might want to look at... it tells a different story.

http://www.anwr.org/people/people.htm


Again.. not really offering up a voice for everyone who lives there.. just the ones you agree with.

Pretty much as your site is putting up a voice for the ones that agree with them? I never said mine was an exhaustive list. Some of the residents who will be most directly impacted vehemently oppose drilling. It's important to consider them.



When all you read is from liberal rags, I imagine that would be correct. It is very much in contention that man has increased global temperatures... as evidenced by the recent cooling trend of the past 12 years and of the dropping ocean temperatures.

The problem with your statement is that you're essentially saying that the greater scientific community is composed of all "liberal rags." There is no real contention on whether or not man HAS affected global temperatures, but how MUCH. Dropping ocean temperatures are a sign that the ice from the caps is cooling the oceans off as it breaks up and falls in.


How do you suggest we dispose of mercury properly? You do realize that most people just throw their lithium batteries right in the trash can. For someone who is so pro-environment.. sounds to me you don't care that much. Obviously, you must be getting paid by the Mercury and Lithium Battery consortium somehow.

There are numerous drop-off points around areas where you can safely dispose of mercury, lithium, etc. My last three communities have had a box you can dispose of dangerous metals in and the trash department picks it up.


Ethanol is one example. Drilling in ANWR is a not.

I disagree. Drilling in ANWR is shortsighted.


Lots of people couldn't care less.. like those people who don't care about mercury in lightbulbs for example?

Except I'm not one of those people? Thanks.


They also paid the greatest tax bill of any corporation in history and spend more money on a daily basis than all but the top countries. I'd say you know shit about business if you think 8.5% profit is big.

And despite paying all that tax, they somehow make more profit than the majority of sovereign nations on this planet. What is your point? They're essentially being GIVEN the product to sell by leasing the land from the federal government; they're investing work in producing and refining it, but on federal lands, they're essentially contractors making an enormous fee.


Green companies are working for the same exact reasons that big oil companies work... to make money... don't kid yourself little girl.

I said that they are out to make money. On the whole, I think the average green company CEO is drastically different from an oil executive, but in any case, as I stated (but you ignored), the end result of a successful solar or other renewable energy company is self-sustaining equipment that is good for the environment and pays for itself in the long term, versus an oil company which potentially wrecks the environment and wastes a non-renewable resource. Sorry you don't see the difference.


Agreed... which is why we should do away with 90% of them imo. If a business isn't profitable, why is it in business?

Scientific research and the development of new technologies can be probhibitively expensive and not profitable, but still necessary, which is why subsidized research exists. Similar to NASA. But they often end up with useful, commercial applications that no independent company would have invested in.


I agree.. it's the matter on how we get there that we differ. You would have no problem forcing people to make changes by widespread economic ruin... I just think there's a better way. And why, pray tell, would we need to conserve our oil resources if we actually get off our oil addiction? What are we conserving it for if we no longer use it?

We're still going to need oil for non-gasoline consumption, for the production of plastics/etc. It's a valuable resource, even if not used for energy production or gasoline.

[Ashliana]

I'll take a stab. The majority?

Really. So you think that the majority should be able to dictate everything that a minority does. Their culture, method of living, etc. This is just so unbelievably ridiculous, especially for a so-called conservative.

You are a PERFECT example of how traditional conservative values have gone down the TOILET. How fucking ignorant can you possibly get?

It is not the place of the majority to dictate how the minority live their lives. It's exactly ignorant pieces of shit like you that want to tell women they can't determine their own actions, people born of a different sexual orientation they can't consensually be with whom they want, people can't worship the god they choose, etc. Just amazing. Absolutely amazing.

[Parkbandit]

So... anwr.org isn't the site you most agree with, PB? A website run by the people that want to drill in ANWR contains data that suggests everybody wants to drill in ANWR? Shocking! Run by a group of oil energy lobbyists? Boy. You really got her there.

http://anwr.org/power.htm

I'll let her answer your stupid question:


A source with an opinion is not necessarily "biased." A party directly affected by something can be objectively opposed to something. If the matter was as universally accepted, we wouldn't be debating it right now, would we? It would be happening as we speak. As I said before, the people most directly affected by it should be given the greatest weight.

[CrystalTears]

Really. So you think that the majority should be able to dictate everything that a minority does. Their culture, method of living, etc. This is just so unbelievably ridiculous, especially for a so-called conservative.

You are a PERFECT example of how traditional conservative values have gone down the TOILET. How fucking ignorant can you possibly get?

It is not the place of the majority to dictate how the minority live their lives. It's exactly ignorant pieces of shit like you that want to tell women they can't determine their own actions, people born of a different sexual orientation they can't consensually be with whom they want, people can't worship the god they choose, etc. Just amazing. Absolutely amazing.
I think there's a big difference between helping a tribe move location for the better of the nation, and telling people what they can or can't do.

People have to adapt. If you think my family was happy to have to move from Cuba, you're sorely mistaken. But the sake of making lives better was priority, and it meant relocating. Our culture is well preserved.

Location does not dictate culture nor heritage. Moving does not prohibit it.

[Ashliana]

I'll take a stab. The majority?

You are now level 94!
Class: Neo-Conservative Hypocritical Asshole

Statistic Stat Gain Bonus Gain
Arrogance (ARR) : 93 +1 ... 52 +1
Stupidity (STP) : 86 +1 ... 42
Hypocrisy (HYP) : 95 +1 ... 24 +1
Logic (LOG) : 17 +1 ... 2 +1
Thoughtlessness (THL) : 89 +1 ... 29 +1
Wisdom (WIS) : 4 +1 ... 1 +1
Influence (INF) : 88 +1 ... 21

[Ashliana]

I think there's a big difference between helping a tribe move location for the better of the nation, and telling people what they can or can't do.

People have to adapt. If you think my family was happy to have to move from Cuba, you're sorely mistaken. But the sake of making lives better was priority, and it meant relocating. Our culture is well preserved.

Location does not dictate culture nor heritage. Moving does not prohibit it.

If they're amicable, and extremely good sports, perhaps. But these Indian/Eskimo groups often operate removed from the nation as sovereign states. Your family probably left of their own accord. There's a difference between people voluntarily (or having no choice) to leave a horrible situation, and a stronger power demanding that a weaker one leave, for their benefit. We've done things like that before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_tears

[RichardCranium]

Really. So you think that the majority should be able to dictate everything that a minority does. Their culture, method of living, etc. This is just so unbelievably ridiculous, especially for a so-called conservative.

You are a PERFECT example of how traditional conservative values have gone down the TOILET. How fucking ignorant can you possibly get?

It is not the place of the majority to dictate how the minority live their lives. It's exactly ignorant pieces of shit like you that want to tell women they can't determine their own actions, people born of a different sexual orientation they can't consensually be with whom they want, people can't worship the god they choose, etc. Just amazing. Absolutely amazing.

You're retarded. You took a huge leap to get that out of what he said. And you're doing ( and have been doing ) exactly what you've been accusing PB and Gan of doing to you.

[Ashliana]

You're retarded. You took a huge leap to get that out of what he said. And you're doing ( and have been doing ) exactly what you've been accusing PB and Gan of doing to you.

I disagree. I specifically asked--who are we to tell a small group of people living in this area how they should live their lives, should move so we can exploit resources, etc. And he said: "the majority."

It's not a huge leap. I'm not saying he said "all" of what I just went on about. But it's the same unbelievably ignorant attitude.

[Warriorbird]

So your whole commentary about her source was pointless, PB? Gotcha. Check.

[Clove]

Really. So you think that the majority should be able to dictate everything that a minority does. Their culture, method of living, etc. This is just so unbelievably ridiculous, especially for a so-called conservative.

You are a PERFECT example of how traditional conservative values have gone down the TOILET. How fucking ignorant can you possibly get?I believe in a democratic system of government that the majority decides and I believe that requires minority opinions to comprimise. Thanks for exaggerating. As for a being a "so-called conservative" the reality is, I exhibit conservative and liberal points of view depending on the topic. Of course you can consider me conservative if you like, but I don't claim to speak for conservatives.

[Ashliana]

I believe in a democratic system of government that the majority decides and I believe that requires minority opinions to comprimise. Thanks for exaggerating. As for a being a "so-called conservative" the reality is, I exhibit conservative and liberal points of view depending on the topic. Of course you can consider me conservative if you like, but I don't claim to speak for conservatives.

Democracy is extremely vulnerable to a little something called "tyranny of the majority." It is why we are a constitutional, demoratic Republic rather than a true democracy.

It is not up to the majority to dictate how the minority lives, which is essentially what you claimed. I said: who are we to decide where and how these people should live, whether their culture should adapt/change/"move on" and you said: the majority. It's exactly a mindset like that that created this country in the first place--to get AWAY from people like you.

[Parkbandit]

So your whole commentary about her source was pointless, PB? Gotcha. Check.

0-6...

I guess I should just read more of your posts... I guess I didn't realize how often you are more wrong than right.

Hey.. for a benchmark.. can you quote one of your posts that was actually factually accurate?

[Gan]

Our economy is still growing, albeit slowly. The growing pains we'll experience while switching between power sources as they're developed will serve to fuel the political will to make the necessary changes.

Will our economy suffer? Yes, but you didn't see the republicans doing barely ANYTHING about this despite 6 YEARS of control of the executive and legislative branches.

Your version of economics, both short and long term, is really scary. Doubly since I know you actually vote.

:(

[Daniel]

Your version of economics, both short and long term, is really scary. Doubly since I know you actually vote.

:(

Well maybe when you grow up and get into the real world you'll understand that providing for your well being in the future requires some sacrifices today.

[Gan]

Agreed, completely. People need to be massively re-educated about the safety and reliability of nuclear power. The fact that we spend any oil on energy production is really shameful.

Its the same environmentalist movement that pickets, protests, and raises all kinds of sand whenever we need to isolate a location for the storage of nuclear waste from the nuclear power plants we do have.

I'm heartened that you appreciate nuclear power. Now what is your stance on increasing that production and dealing with the existing and increasing nuclear waste from those very plants?

(No I'm not proposing we bury it in ANWR...)

:wtf:

[Ashliana]

Its the same environmentalist movement that pickets, protests, and raises all kinds of sand whenever we need to isolate a location for the storage of nuclear waste from the nuclear power plants we do have.

I'm heartened that you appreciate nuclear power. Now what is your stance on increasing that production and dealing with the existing and increasing nuclear waste from those very plants?

(No I'm not proposing we bury it in ANWR...)

:wtf:

Any number of possibilities exist, to deal with nuclear waste. Some of it can be reprocessed, other parts need to be stored. (half-joking) What's the ideal, "sci-fi" solution? Developing some kind of space elevator to cheaply move all of it off-world. Not even close to that, yet.

I'm a huge supporter of nuclear power.

[Clove]

Democracy is extremely vulnerable to a little something called "tyranny of the majority." It is why we are a constitutional, demoratic Republic rather than a true democracy.

It is not up to the majority to dictate how the minority lives, which is essentially what you claimed. I said: who are we to decide where and how these people should live, whether their culture should adapt/change/"move on" and you said: the majority. It's exactly a mindset like that that created this country in the first place--to get AWAY from people like you.Only if you assume that allowing development in an area despite the protests of indiginous people is equivalent to dictating to their culture or impeding the continuance of it. It's very comforting to the ignorant to live in a binary world.

[Warriorbird]

Right Clove. You're totally an independent.

[Ashliana]

Only if you assume that allowing development in an area despite the protests of indiginous people is equivalent to dictating to their culture or impeding the continuance of it. It's very comforting to the ignorant to live a binary world.

What if allowing development in that area literally destroyed their way of life? You're imposing your will on them, forcing them to pick up and move, change their way of life for your convenience.

I asked: who are we, to dictate to this small group, how they should live their lives and practice their culture? Ignoring the fact that they've likely been there longer than we have.

You replied: "the majority."

So the majority has the right to dictate how a minority should live, according to you. We've done the same thing before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_trail_of_tears

[Gan]

Any number of possibilities exist, to deal with nuclear waste. Some of it can be reprocessed, other parts need to be stored. (half-joking) What's the ideal, "sci-fi" solution? Developing some kind of space elevator to cheaply move all of it off-world. Not even close to that, yet.

I'm a huge supporter of nuclear power.

You need to come up with something more substantial if you're presenting an argument NOT to explore in ANWR and drill off the Gulf/West coast for oil and yet support nuclear power while not addressing the waste storage issue, especially if nuclear power is part of your solution as a replacement/alternative to fuel oil.

[crb]

Isn't there a video from the 1960s showing a nuclear waste storage bin being hit by a train, literally, and not leaking? And this was the 60s.

That place in Nevada is perfectly safe and secure for storing nuclear waste.... and its already built. All that is left is red tape.

[Daniel]

You need to come up with something more substantial if you're presenting an argument NOT to explore in ANWR and drill off the Gulf/West coast for oil and yet support nuclear power while not addressing the waste storage issue, especially if nuclear power is part of your solution as a replacement/alternative to fuel oil.

Talk about a red herring.

If you want to have a discussion of whether or not nuclear power is a good\bad thing, fine. However, don't lump it into the discussion of whether or not drilling in ANWR is either.

You don't see me sitting here asking you how you plan to diminish the demand for Fossil Fuels from the US Military* to support your position of off-shore drilling. The two issues, while related, are completely independent of each other.


*(The US military accounts for something ridiculous like 60% of the energy consumption in the US, and that's the *main* reason why we didn't want anything to do with the Kyoto protocol)

[Ashliana]

You need to come up with something more substantial if you're presenting an argument NOT to explore in ANWR and drill off the Gulf/West coast for oil and yet support nuclear power while not addressing the waste storage issue, especially if nuclear power is part of your solution as a replacement/alternative to fuel oil.

I'm referring to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste_disposal#Transmutation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste_disposal#Space_disposal

[Clove]

Right Clove. You're totally an independent.Awww. WB thinks I'm too right. And PB thinks I'm too left. Where does that actually put me...

:thinking:

[Daniel]

Awww. WB thinks I'm too right. And PB thinks I'm too left. Where does that actually put me...

:thinking:

former Semi Conservative?

[Clove]

former Semi Conservative?I knew you'd come through!

[Gan]

If you want to have a discussion of whether or not nuclear power is a good\bad thing, fine. However, don't lump it into the discussion of whether or not drilling in ANWR is either.
Who says I cant? Is there some debate god who sets the rules?


You don't see me sitting here asking you how you plan to diminish the demand for Fossil Fuels from the US Military* to support your position of off-shore drilling. The two issues, while related, are completely independent of each other.
I dont see those as independantly related, and its your loss that you have not asked that, not mine. I would consider that a reasonable question.



*(The US military accounts for something ridiculous like 60% of the energy consumption in the US, and that's the *main* reason why we didn't want anything to do with the Kyoto protocol)
And here we were all told that its because the KYOTO protocol did not address the pollution efforts of countries such as China and India...
:puzzled:

[Clove]

So the majority has the right to dictate how a minority should live, according to you. We've done the same thing before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_trail_of_tearsAt least we have you around in case any of us forget our high-school American History to point us to wiki crib notes.

In addition to drilling I hear there are proposals to inject some blankets with small pox and offer them as consolation gifts.

Drama queen.

[Gan]

I'm referring to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste_disposal#Transmutation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste_disposal#Space_disposal

Both of which dont seem to be readily applicable. Space disposal? What about all that pristine untouched space environment we would be polluting? What about the other worlds who would get bombarded with our waste? What if you set off some wild chain reaction that caused our Sun to blow up? And how the hell do you plan on funding the shipment of thousands of tons of nuclear waste into outerspace? Not to mention what about the risk of an accident on liftoff and the explosion of such waste into our own atmosphere?

To think that you would support polluting other worlds over the preservation of the sanctity of your own astounds me. You almost sound like a Republican...

[Ashliana]

At least we have you around in case any of us forget our high-school American History to point us to wiki crib notes.

In addition to drilling I hear there are proposals to inject some blankets with small pox and offer them as consolation gifts.

Drama queen.

Why thank you. Because apparently all that you were supposed to learn about American history and culture, you never did. Pretty much explains the current death of traditional conservatism in America.

[Daniel]

Who says I cant? Is there some debate god who sets the rules?

I dont see those as independantly related, and its your loss that you have not asked that, not mine. I would consider that a reasonable question.

You're more than welcome to do what you want, but one way is disingenuous and one isn't. I believe we've had this discussion before.




And here we were all told that its because the KYOTO protocol did not address the pollution efforts of countries such as China and India...
:puzzled:

There were actually two major sticking points for the Kyoto protocol.

There was that, and the other was getting a general exception to the utilization of military assets. The IC made it clear that this would only be the case for *sanctioned* military operations.

Imagine Iraq costing about a trillion dollars more.

Of course, it's conjecture to say which one was more important. So, I'll let you make that determination.

[Ashliana]

Both of which dont seem to be readily applicable. Space disposal? What about all that pristine untouched space environment we would be polluting? What about the other worlds who would get bombarded with our waste? What if you set off some wild chain reaction that caused our Sun to blow up? And how the hell do you plan on funding the shipment of thousands of tons of nuclear waste into outerspace? Not to mention what about the risk of an accident on liftoff and the explosion of such waste into our own atmosphere?

So basically, you're looking for reasons to shoot down answers to handling nuclear waste? Interesting.

Transmutation was abandoned by both parties in the US, while it's continued in Europe. Nuclear power is widely used in Europe (OMG LIBERALS USE NUKYULAR POWAR), and almost exclusively used in France and much of Scandinavia.

I said originally, half-joking, that a space elevator would be an ideal situation. It would. Allows the cheap transportation of mass off of Earth. The "what-if" reaction is just silly.

[Daniel]

I knew you'd come through!

I'm like Ray Allen in the clutch baby!

[Sean]

Originally Posted by CT
People have to adapt. If you think my family was happy to have to move from Cuba, you're sorely mistaken. But the sake of making lives better was priority, and it meant relocating. Our culture is well preserved.

Thats kind of a goofy parallel. Your family chose to move to the States from Cuba and unless they are defectors they could move back at any time. Cuba, the origin of their culture, still exists now as it did then. Once they start drilling in ANWR there's really no going back.

[crb]

The problem with your statement is that you're essentially saying that the greater scientific community is composed of all "liberal rags." There is no real contention on whether or not man HAS affected global temperatures, but how MUCH. Dropping ocean temperatures are a sign that the ice from the caps is cooling the oceans off as it breaks up and falls in.

No, it isn't. You've just only been exposed to the propaganda, any serious scientific research shows that data is inconclusive. Any scientist, and there are MANY out there, including a guy who considered the "Father of Climatology", who says that it isn't true, gets drum beat out of a job by psychos and accused of working for oil companies.

This is the typical global warming debate.

Douche: The earth is warming, and it is all our fault.
Scientist: Actually if you look here...
Douche: scream yell scream yell scream yell, you work for the OIL COMPANIES!

It is sad.

The north pole is warming, the south pole is cooling. The warmest decade of the past 150 years was the 1930s, before trillions of tons of CO2 entered the atmosphere. The NASA argo experiment showed a decrease in the ocean temperatures, and don't blame floating icecubes, that is ignorant. Like saying the heat put off by all the overclocked pentium 4's in the world is what is causing global warming. Sea levels have not been rising. Temperature has been rising, if you only look at a microcosm of history from 1970 onwards, if you look at say the last 200 years and draw a mean line it is even. In cities where populations have increased it is usually up, slightly, or even (urban heat island effect) in cities with constant populations or population decreases it is even or down. You can look that shit up.

You cannot even reliably establish that the earth IS warming, you can show certain regions are warming, but not the whole thing. Then, if you do establish that, you need to show that the whole thing is caused by humans.

Methane is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2, and tons of frozen methane exists on the sea floor and it sometimes bubbles up and goes into the atmosphere. Not to mention all the methane from animal waste.

In the middle ages europe was so warm that Britain had a mediterranean like climate. Thousands of years ago there was glaciers where I am now. In the past hundreds of millions of years the only constant about Earth's climate has been change. Long before we were driving SUVs, the Earth's climate was changing, and so even if you can show a change, you have a hard time showing it is caused by humans.

http://seoblackhat.com/images/co2-vs-temp.jpg



The double graph, reproduced below lists CO2 concentration above temperature: but, if the two graphs were superimposed at sufficient scale, as is customary when comparing such similar curves, changes in temperature would be seen to precede changes in CO2 concentration by 400 to 4,000 years.



While correlation does not equal causation (contrary to what these global warming shysters would have you believe) the logical conclusion is NOT that higher CO2 Levels cause an increase in Global Temperatures, but rather that global temperature increases cause a rise in CO2 levels. These graphs also show that CO2 in and of itself is incapable of sustaining temperature growth.

If their “CO2 causes significant global warming” theories were correct we should see temperature levels increasing after rising CO2 levels - not the other way around.

It looks more like CO2 is what the planet uses stunt temperature upsurges and cool back off after an interglacial period.


How about this:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html



Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.




Check out this book:

http://www.amazon.com/State-Fear-Michael-Crichton/dp/0061015733/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215027558&sr=8-1

It's fiction, but the author's style is to use actual scientific research, and the book is full of citations and notations, and has a great afterword about the integrity of scientific research.

[CrystalTears]

Thats kind of a goofy parallel. Your family chose to move to the States from Cuba and unless they are defectors they could move back at any time. Cuba, the origin of their culture, still exists now as it did then. Once they start drilling in ANWR there's really no going back.
And I seriously don't believe that them being relocated is going to destroy their culture and heritage. Sorry, I'm not buying that story of doom.

[Gan]

So basically, you're looking for reasons to shoot down answers to handling nuclear waste? Interesting.
If you cant see the irony in your argument against ANWR and costal water exploration/drilling and your argument for increasing nuclear power without taking measures for the waste produced... then I cant help you.



Transmutation was abandoned by both parties in the US, while it's continued in Europe. Nuclear power is widely used in Europe (OMG LIBERALS USE NUKYULAR POWAR), and almost exclusively used in France and much of Scandinavia.
I bet they have no issues with oil exploration or production either. ;)



I said originally, half-joking, that a space elevator would be an ideal situation. It would. Allows the cheap transportation of mass off of Earth. The "what-if" reaction is just silly.
Who said my reaction was not half-joking?

[Warriorbird]

Citing Michael Crichton... prime global warming apologist... in any serious argument is hilarious, crb. Kudos.

The evil environmentalists are conspiring to get you!'

Your "highly scientific graph" is from a site that has a link entitled "What to do if the inside of a girl gets wet."

Monte Hieb "source" of your other "scientific" paper is a retired mining safety engineer. He has no degree in climatology. He's a prime contributor to the "Creation Museum."

Does your wife know about your taste for pseudoscience?

[Daniel]

Citing Michael Crichton... prime global warming apologist... in any serious argument is hilarious, crb. Kudos.

The evil environmentalists are conspiring to get you!

It's liberal conspiracy team. kthx.

[Gan]

You're more than welcome to do what you want, but one way is disingenuous and one isn't. I believe we've had this discussion before.
We have had that discussion and it was deduced that it boiled down to all being your 'opinion'. So, thanks for sharing your opinion. :)





There were actually two major sticking points for the Kyoto protocol.
And yet you conveniently left off the other in your previous quote...


There was that, and the other was getting a general exception to the utilization of military assets. The IC made it clear that this would only be the case for *sanctioned* military operations.

Imagine Iraq costing about a trillion dollars more.

Of course, it's conjecture to say which one was more important. So, I'll let you make that determination.
From the material I read I was under the impression it was for the pollution non-standards being applied to China and India. Obviously you have a different 'opinion'. Good for you.

[Ashliana]

If you cant see the irony in your argument against ANWR and costal water exploration/drilling and your argument for increasing nuclear power without taking measures for the waste produced... then I cant help you.

Drilling inevitably means damaging the environment to some degree; nuclear power does not necessarily mean so. Nuclear power is currently our best option for generation of electricity. We do need a better way to dispose of it; increasingly large amounts of money will be invested in disposal research along with solar/wind/etc as the oil crisis becomes more and more of an issue in the coming decades.

[crb]

Not as much as one might think? Besides being a subjective point, how much would one think? The greatest profits of any corporation in history, and more than all but the top countries' GDP totals? I'd say that's as much as I think.

They're already large established companies, and existing reserves run dry all the time. So it helps them, but it isn't going to change their profit margin and their overall revenue will only be a blip.

A solar company though, even a large one, First Solar for instance. Solar is like less than 1% of our energy. What if the government mandated it be 10%, you're looking at a 10 fold or more increase. All the corporate officers would literally instantly make billions as their stock increased in value, all the big venture capitalists who did the initial funding would as well. That is a pretty big carrot for them to encourage global warming propaganda.



The jobs will not be long term if they exist. Most multinational oil companies are dodging taxes as quickly as they can and Alaskan state taxes aren't terribly high. Not much in the way of government revenue.

Defeatest attitude much? Try telling that to the people who are unemployed and would like a job. "Oh... I don't want that job, constructing derricks in Alaska for good pay during the summer, no, WarriorBird on a forum said it wouldn't be a good job to have. I'll just lose my house and go live in a trailer instead."

[crb]

Citing Michael Crichton... prime global warming apologist... in any serious argument is hilarious, crb. Kudos.

The evil environmentalists are conspiring to get you!'

Your "highly scientific graph" is from a site that has a link entitled "What to do if the inside of a girl gets wet."
Are you like 2 years old? Or do you just suck that bad at reading comprehension?

I cited the scientific studies you can find mentioned in his book. NASA, NOAA, etc. These places are biased then? Or, are you just a little prick?

Oh, and the graph, dipshit, has it's source in the image file (small print at the bottom), where it is hosted is irrelevant.

[waywardgs]

Seems to me this conversation about energy has one major flaw, in that the discussion has been boiled down to the choice of either nuclear power or drilling for more oil. The world's energy problems aren't going to be solved with one solution. It'll take a variety of approaches, from the varied field of alternative energies- solar, wind, hydroelectric, battery technology, hydrogen, etc- to more traditional types- nuclear, better oil resource management, even better coal technology. There is no one "best" solution, i.e. ONLY nuclear or ONLY oil. There are, however, a multiplicity of good solutions, all of which need to be explored.

The one good thing about the rising fuel prices recently is that they have absolutely opened the floodgates for research and development dollars. The market, by its very nature, will find ways around skyrocketing oil prices simply because that's what it does. All that r and d money wouldn't be coming out if it weren't for high fuel prices. My only concern is whether it will be a quick enough response, considering the dire straights of the environment.

Oh, and as for all the people who have a "let's die fat and happy and leave a smoking husk of a planet for future generations" attitude... well, go fuck yourselves.

[crb]

Seems to me this conversation about energy has one major flaw, in that the discussion has been boiled down to the choice of either nuclear power or drilling for more oil. The world's energy problems aren't going to be solved with one solution. It'll take a variety of approaches, from the varied field of alternative energies- solar, wind, hydroelectric, battery technology, hydrogen, etc- to more traditional types- nuclear, better oil resource management, even better coal technology. There is no one "best" solution, i.e. ONLY nuclear or ONLY oil. There are, however, a multiplicity of good solutions, all of which need to be explored.

The one good thing about the rising fuel prices recently is that they have absolutely opened the floodgates for research and development dollars. The market, by its very nature, will find ways around skyrocketing oil prices simply because that's what it does. All that r and d money wouldn't be coming out if it weren't for high fuel prices. My only concern is whether it will be a quick enough response, considering the dire straights of the environment.

Oh, and as for all the people who have a "let's die fat and happy and leave a smoking husk of a planet for future generations" attitude... well, go fuck yourselves.
actually, that is what most conservatives (aka realists, and pragmatists) say. Do it all. No one is against alternatives (except ethanol)

[Ashliana]

No, it isn't. You've just only been exposed to the propaganda, any serious scientific research shows that data is inconclusive. Any scientist, and there are MANY out there, including a guy who considered the "Father of Climatology", who says that it isn't true, gets drum beat out of a job by psychos and accused of working for oil companies.

This is the typical global warming debate.

Douche: The earth is warming, and it is all our fault.
Scientist: Actually if you look here...
Douche: scream yell scream yell scream yell, you work for the OIL COMPANIES!

It is sad.

The north pole is warming, the south pole is cooling. The warmest decade of the past 150 years was the 1930s, before trillions of tons of CO2 entered the atmosphere. The NASA argo experiment showed a decrease in the ocean temperatures, and don't blame floating icecubes, that is ignorant. Like saying the heat put off by all the overclocked pentium 4's in the world is what is causing global warming. Sea levels have not been rising. Temperature has been rising, if you only look at a microcosm of history from 1970 onwards, if you look at say the last 200 years and draw a mean line it is even. In cities where populations have increased it is usually up, slightly, or even (urban heat island effect) in cities with constant populations or population decreases it is even or down. You can look that shit up.

You cannot even reliably establish that the earth IS warming, you can show certain regions are warming, but not the whole thing. Then, if you do establish that, you need to show that the whole thing is caused by humans.

Methane is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2, and tons of frozen methane exists on the sea floor and it sometimes bubbles up and goes into the atmosphere. Not to mention all the methane from animal waste.

In the middle ages europe was so warm that Britain had a mediterranean like climate. Thousands of years ago there was glaciers where I am now. In the past hundreds of millions of years the only constant about Earth's climate has been change. Long before we were driving SUVs, the Earth's climate was changing, and so even if you can show a change, you have a hard time showing it is caused by humans.

http://seoblackhat.com/images/co2-vs-temp.jpg





How about this:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html



Check out this book:

http://www.amazon.com/State-Fear-Michael-Crichton/dp/0061015733/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215027558&sr=8-1

It's fiction, but the author's style is to use actual scientific research, and the book is full of citations and notations, and has a great afterword about the integrity of scientific research.

I can respond individually to each point, taking up probably an hour or more, but it boils down to: if you disagree with the wikipedia page on global warming, which is meticulously and painstakingly cited, referencing a vast number of highly reputable scientific sources, then probably absolutely nothing I can say will change your opinion.

[CrystalTears]

Alaska doesn't have a sales tax (I kinda hate that I know that).

[Warriorbird]

I'm not a prick when I don't have to be, crb. Your study was by a mining safety engineer. Crichton's issues are well documented. He pulled the exact opposite of what Parkbandit did to liberals who want to buy carbon offsets. He profited off head in the sand conservatives.

Are the evil environmentalists getting you now? Up with pseudoscience!

I know some folks who live near the Creation Museum. I might be able to get you some free tickets.

[crb]

I can respond individually to each point, taking up probably an hour or more, but it boils down to: if you disagree with the wikipedia page on global warming, which is meticulously and painstakingly cited, referencing a vast number of highly reputable scientific sources, then probably absolutely nothing I can say will change your opinion.
I'm sure most of this stuff exists in the discussion page about global warming.

And I'm sure that in 2005 the wikipedia page on kitrina blamed it on global warming because the head of the NOAA said so. Then maybe in 2007 it was removed because the same guy said he was wrong.

Statistics can usually be shown to say whatever you want, see an Inconvenient Truth for that. It is very easy to manipulate data to influence perceptions. And there are also verifiable scientific evidence that non-double-blind research is always prone to bias, and no climate research is such.

Just again, with the NASA Argo project, all the global warming alarmists, the same people probably cited on the wikipedia page, were predicting a rise in ocean temperatures, they were wrong.

What the fuck do I care though? Like I said before, I'm long alternative energy. I've made a shit load of money investing in alternative energy stocks, mandates and subsidies are coming, and I'll make more money. I'll laugh all the way to the bank. I know which way the wind is blowing, I know public opinion, and despite no reasonable scientific debate for now the social-evironmental zealots are winning, and I want to share their spoils.

It sucks for the little guy, the unemployed auto worker who isn't financially savvy and can't get a job because of and overburdence of government regulations, but I'm not him, and so the global warming alarmism doesn't hurt me, just him. I just feel sorry for the guy.

[Gan]

I can respond individually to each point, taking up probably an hour or more, but it boils down to: if you disagree with the wikipedia page on global warming, which is meticulously and painstakingly cited, referencing a vast number of highly reputable scientific sources, then probably absolutely nothing I can say will change your opinion.

I'm quoting this for later use when someone throws a Wiki page back in the face of one of your arguments and you cry that Wiki is not a reputable source (as many others here have done in the past...)

[crb]

I'm not a prick when I don't have to be, crb. Your study was by a mining safety engineer. Crichton's issues are well documented. He pulled the exact opposite of what Parkbandit did to liberals who want to buy carbon offsets. He profited off head in the sand conservatives.

Are the evil environmentalists getting you now? Up with pseudoscience!

I know some folks who live near the Creation Museum. I might be able to get you some free tickets.
Oh fuck... how about a fucking expert then?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/global-warming/father-of-climatology-calls-manmade-global-warming-absurd/

I suppose he doesn't know what he is talking about? Hmm?

[Warriorbird]

The unemployed autoworker can't get a job because of "government regulations?"

Man. You're comedy gold, crb.

[Ashliana]

I'm quoting this for later use when someone throws a Wiki page back in the face of one of your arguments and you cry that Wiki is not a reputable source (as many others here have done in the past...)

Do as you please. I am not claiming that wikipedia is the ultimate source of information. There is general scientific consensus on this issue.. the scientists speaking out against it are few and far between, and very much in the minority.

My point was that the massive group of people who have contributed to the page do a much better job of articulating the argument and have a much greater collective knowledge and ability to advocate than I do by myself here.

[Clove]

Thats kind of a goofy parallel. Your family chose to move to the States from Cuba and unless they are defectors they could move back at any time. Cuba, the origin of their culture, still exists now as it did then. Once they start drilling in ANWR there's really no going back.Cubans chose to move from Cuba after political changes created personally intolerable conditions for them. Then they brought their culture with them (to this country). Because they were allowed to own their own property, use their language, assemble, create art etc. etc. freely they retained enough of their culture be both distinctly Cuban and distinctly American.

[Ashliana]

The unemployed autoworker can't get a job because of "government regulations?"

Man. You're comedy gold, crb.

Warriorbird, he's probably talking about how government mandated fuel economy standards are making American car companies less competitive, and pushing out jobs.

The American manufacturers need to get with the program--like Honda and Toyota did 5 years ago--and start really, really working on alternatives.

Edit: I should change that to, American companies have been less responsive to consumer demand in developing hybrid alternatives than Toyota and Honda, which were forward thinking and are now paying off for it.

[Gan]

Drilling inevitably means damaging the environment to some degree; nuclear power does not necessarily mean so. If you ignore waste disposal for material that has half life(s) of hundreds if not trillions of years.
http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_waste_types/nuclear_waste_types.html



Nuclear power is currently our best option for generation of electricity.
I've never argued this. In fact I'm on record here of supporting it. HOWEVER - I'm using the same end result (affecting our environment) as means of disputing your proliferation of drillling/exploration and ironic support of increased nuclear production. Again, irony...


We do need a better way to dispose of it; increasingly large amounts of money will be invested in disposal research along with solar/wind/etc as the oil crisis becomes more and more of an issue in the coming decades.
Who's to say that the same benefit would not be obtained by opening up ANWR and the gulf/west coast to exploration and drilling respectively?

Since you obviously cant source any data points supporting the overall benefit over cost of nuclear production as compared to cost over benefit of oil exploration... lets just suffice to say that its your opinion (as hypocritical as it may be).

Thank you for participating.

:clap:

[Warriorbird]

Bryson was quite old and had left laboratories behind a long time before. He actually advanced the issue of manmade global warming in his youth. He got trotted out a lot by various energy interests in his old age. I imagine it funded a nice retirement. He was a nice man (I heard him speak twice) but I wouldn't say he was exactly on the forefront of research at that point.

[Ashliana]

If you ignore waste disposal for material that has half life(s) of hundreds if not trillions of years.
http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_waste_types/nuclear_waste_types.html

The nuclear waste can be stored safely with no ill effects until we fully develop a solution to reprocessing or permanently disposing of it.



I've never argued this. In fact I'm on record here of supporting it. HOWEVER - I'm using the same end result (affecting our environment) as means of disputing your proliferation of drillling/exploration and ironic support of increased nuclear production. Again, irony...

This is where you stumble. Drilling in a federally protected wildlife refuge and endangering an indigenous people is very different than the storage of potentially dangerous, but managable waste byproduct. One has a definite environmental repercussion, with a debatable amount of impact. The other has no "definite" repercussion and can be stored in an absolutely desolate area until such time we can find a permanent solution.




Massively increasing our nuclear generation of electricity massively decreases our consumption of oil for the generation of electricity, except drilling has definite environmental consequences.

Since you obviously cant source any data points supporting the overall benefit over cost of nuclear production as compared to cost over benefit of oil exploration... lets just suffice to say that its your opinion (as hypocritical as it may be).

Thank you for participating.

:clap:

Can you find any sources which specifically state drilling in ANWR makes more sense than investing in the expansion of nuclear facilities?

:golfclap:

[Gan]

The nuclear waste can be stored safely with no ill effects until we fully develop a solution to reprocessing or permanently disposing of it.
Tell that to all of your environmentalist buddies. They seem to have missed the memo. Hence why we DONT have more nuclear plants today.



This is where you stumble. Drilling in a federally protected wildlife refuge and endangering an indigenous people is very different than the storage of potentially dangerous, but managable waste byproduct. One has a definite environmental repercussion, with a debatable amount of impact. The other has no "definite" repercussion and can be stored in an absolutely desolate area until such time we can find a permanent solution.
Desolate: devoid of inhabitants and visitors (webster online)
I would hardly say that storage locations for nuclear waste are as desloate as ANWR. But if it suits you to use that description for one and not the other - go ahead. Just dont get mad when we call you on it.




Massively increasing our nuclear generation of electricity massively decreases our consumption of oil for the generation of electricity, except drilling has definite environmental consequences.
We use oil for the generation of electricity? I thought that was dominated by natural gas and coal? In fact, nuclear power would have very little impact on our oil consumption unless you started putting reactors in cars...



Can you find any sources which specifically state drilling in ANWR makes more sense than investing in the expansion of nuclear facilities?

:golfclap:

I dont need to. Someone with your position should be consistent if you're using the pollution/environment position to refuse exploration and drilling in these areas. This is where Daniel would say you're being disingenuous. ;)

[Clove]

The American manufacturers need to get with the program--like Honda and Toyota did 5 years ago--and start really, really working on alternatives.

Edit: I should change that to, American companies have been less responsive to consumer demand in developing hybrid alternatives than Toyota and Honda, which were forward thinking and are now paying off for it.Five years ago the Ford F-150 was the most popular selling vehicle in the United States and Ford did a very good job of meeting that demand.

Honda and Toyota risked by investing more in a product that didn't have nearly as much consumer demand, speculating (correctly) that demand would build.

Ford has offered a hybrid Escape since 2005 and has delayed production of its 2009 F-150 model. GM currently has 5 hybrid models available and Ford has 2. It sure looks like American vehicle manufacturers are responding to consumer demand.

[Daniel]

From the material I read I was under the impression it was for the pollution non-standards being applied to China and India. Obviously you have a different 'opinion'. Good for you.

An obviously more informed one.

[Gan]

An obviously more informed one.

3 snaps for you then.

[Daniel]

I can't get a whirl?

[Parkbandit]

Right Clove. You're totally an independent.


Far more than you or I.

[Gan]

I can't get a whirl?

maybe next time

[Ashliana]

Tell that to all of your environmentalist buddies. They seem to have missed the memo. Hence why we DONT have more nuclear plants today.

That's what you get for lumping me with "environmentalists."


Desolate: devoid of inhabitants and visitors (webster online)
I would hardly say that storage locations for nuclear waste are as desloate as ANWR. But if it suits you to use that description for one and not the other - go ahead. Just dont get mad when we call you on it.

We've been over this. ANWR is home to large populations of caribou that the local residents rely on for sustenance. There are huge tracks of uninhabited, virtually lifeless desert in the western states where we can, and do, store nuclear waste.



We use oil for the generation of electricity? I thought that was dominated by natural gas and coal? In fact, nuclear power would have very little impact on our oil consumption unless you started putting reactors in cars...

You're right. We only have around 300 oil-burning power plants in the US. I learned something new!


I dont need to. Someone with your position should be consistent if you're using the pollution/environment position to refuse exploration and drilling in these areas. This is where Daniel would say you're being disingenuous. ;)

I simply disagree. You're trying to say that because both have environmental consequences (I disagree), that it makes no sense for me to support one and not the other. Drilling has absolute consequences. Nuclear power doesn't necessarily have any. Drilling in ANWR specifically has consequences for the environment and the nearby inhabitants. Nuclear power doesn't have to affect anyone negatively.

[Parkbandit]

*(The US military accounts for something ridiculous like 60% of the energy consumption in the US, and that's the *main* reason why we didn't want anything to do with the Kyoto protocol)

Something rediculous would be someone who supposedly works for the State Department saying that the US Military accounts for 60% of the energy consumption of the US. Hell, I would expect someone who graduated the 7th grade to realize that 60% is way the fuck off. I'll even let you say "Oops, I meant 6%", and you would still be as dumb as Ashliana. That doesn't even make logical sense, let alone common sense.. two senses you clearly lack.

Might want to check your secret US Rangers sources on that one fool... you know, the ones you can safely access now that you've changed your name here from Ranger to Daniel on this forum.

[Parkbandit]

I can respond individually to each point, taking up probably an hour or more, but it boils down to: if you disagree with the wikipedia page on global warming, which is meticulously and painstakingly cited, referencing a vast number of highly reputable scientific sources, then probably absolutely nothing I can say will change your opinion.

You shouldn't put all of your eggs in the wikipedia basket. You do realize that wikipedia can be edited and is constantly edited by people all the time right?

You should respond to each point, taking your time.. your entertainment value is unmatched currently.

[Parkbandit]

I'm not a prick when I don't have to be, crb. Your study was by a mining safety engineer. Crichton's issues are well documented. He pulled the exact opposite of what Parkbandit did to liberals who want to buy carbon offsets. He profited off head in the sand conservatives.



You shut your filthy carbon dioxide hole bitch. Carbon offsets are the only way to have a zero carbon footprint. In fact, if you buy enough of them.. you can essentially remove all the nasty polluting carbon your entire family shamefully throws into our pristine atmosphere.

[Parkbandit]

Do as you please. I am not claiming that wikipedia is the ultimate source of information. There is general scientific consensus on this issue.. the scientists speaking out against it are few and far between, and very much in the minority.

My point was that the massive group of people who have contributed to the page do a much better job of articulating the argument and have a much greater collective knowledge and ability to advocate than I do by myself here.


Oops.. once again your complete and utter ignorance is showing through and through. There is no consensus, there is no end to the debate... no matter what you and Gore (who is actually my hero.. that guy is a genius making people like you believe in global warming.. and making a FORTUNE doing it) may tout.

Global warming is the '70's version of global cooling and acid rain combined. Nothing more. The same stupid people who believed in man-made global cooling had stupid kids who now believe in man-made global warming.

[Parkbandit]

An obviously more informed one.


Is this the secret US Ranger source that claims the Department of Defense consumes 60% of all US energy?

:rofl:

[Ashliana]

You shouldn't put all of your eggs in the wikipedia basket. You do realize that wikipedia can be edited and is constantly edited by people all the time right?

You should respond to each point, taking your time.. your entertainment value is unmatched currently.

I stated twice that wikipedia isn't the ultimate source of information. However, "you do realize that wikipedia" pages that are high-profile are subject to strict scrutiny by people on both sides of the fence? Thanks.


Oops.. once again your complete and utter ignorance is showing through and through. There is no consensus, there is no end to the debate... no matter what you and Gore (who is actually my hero.. that guy is a genius making people like you believe in global warming.. and making a FORTUNE doing it) may tout.

And once again, you dismiss actual scientific consensus whenever it suits your political purposes. Regardless of whether you personally acknowledge it, there is general consensus on this issue. You disagree? Have fun wallowing in your pit of blind, willful ignorance.

[Gan]

That's what you get for lumping me with "environmentalists."
Your rhetoric did all that without my help.l




We've been over this. ANWR is home to large populations of caribou that the local residents rely on for sustenance. There are huge tracks of uninhabited, virtually lifeless desert in the western states where we can, and do, store nuclear waste.
I believe we store nuclear waste in more places than just the desert. Thank GOD we're saving that environment for caribou (who are migratory) and the small group of individuals who subsist off of them. This is obviously where the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.





You're right. We only have around 300 oil-burning power plants in the US. I learned something new!
You're welcome. I dont know about 300, but oil burning power generation only represents 1.6% of overall power generation in the US (as of 2006). Great example to bolster your claim there... (not really)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.html



I simply disagree. You're trying to say that because both have environmental consequences (I disagree), that it makes no sense for me to support one and not the other.
You can lead a horse to water...


Drilling has absolute consequences. Nuclear power doesn't necessarily have any. Drilling in ANWR specifically has consequences for the environment and the nearby inhabitants. Nuclear power doesn't have to affect anyone negatively.
Great ambiguousness there. At least you're learning something in lawschool.

[Parkbandit]

I stated twice that wikipedia isn't the ultimate source of information. However, "you do realize that wikipedia" pages that are high-profile are subject to strict scrutiny by people on both sides of the fence? Thanks.

You were the one that inferred the only thing you've read about global warming was on Wikipedia. Perhaps you should put that PhD to use and check some other sources?




And once again, you dismiss actual scientific consensus whenever it suits your political purposes. Regardless of whether you personally acknowledge it, there is general consensus on this issue. You disagree? Have fun wallowing in your pit of blind, willful ignorance.

I actually count on ignorant people like you to continue to buy into the global warming hysteria. I quit my job 3 years ago and started 2 green companies to take full advantage of it. And please.. for one post.. stop the moveon.org talking points. There is no consensus as much as you would like to claim there is.

[Warriorbird]

Earlier you were arguing they made you an enviromentalist.

Kinda funny.

[Parkbandit]

Earlier you were arguing they made you an enviromentalist.

Kinda funny.

0-7.

Way to keep up streak alive.

Actually, I'm going to help you out here. Earlier, you made the 0-1 retarded comment that I was against every environmentalist cause... to which I proved you wrong (not that it's a big deal mind you.. you are usually more wrong than ever right). This in no way should be implied that I am now an environmentalist.

Kinda funny is right. 0-8 is right around the corner.

[Warriorbird]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3120/2631804963_0532bcdc96.jpg

[Parkbandit]

0-8.

Make way for 0-9!!


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/You-Are-Fucking_Retard.gif

[Warriorbird]

http://pics.ohlawd.net/img/SEGWAY.jpg

[Stanley Burrell]

^ LOL. He'll be back up in action fighting terrorists/liberals on a mythology-gaming inspired vBulletin in no time.


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/You-Are-Fucking_Retard.gif

I mean, seriously,

http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/9636/responsetoparkbanditni8.png

.

[Warriorbird]

Ha ha ha. Awesome.

[Ashliana]

You were the one that inferred the only thing you've read about global warming was on Wikipedia. Perhaps you should put that PhD to use and check some other sources?

I inferred nothing of the sort. Thanks. And that's not what I said.



I actually count on ignorant people like you to continue to buy into the global warming hysteria. I quit my job 3 years ago and started 2 green companies to take full advantage of it. And please.. for one post.. stop the moveon.org talking points. There is no consensus as much as you would like to claim there is.

Again, any time something contradicts your pre-determined conclusion, the source is either biased or liberally slanted. Now, instead of a scientific consensus, it's "hysteria."

Actually, it's the entire scientific community trying to get something done about the problem. What stands in their way? People like you.

[Warriorbird]

Conservative idiots...combining politics and science ever since at least Galileo.

[Keller]

Recognize PB as the resident forum troll. Laugh at him. But don't waste your time arguing with him. His style is: Hyperbolic conclusion presented as fact + personal attack for you not agreeing with the conclusion + ROFL.

[Warriorbird]

True enough, Keller. It gets formulaic.

[Gan]

Actually, it's the entire scientific community trying to get something done about the problem. What stands in their way? People like you.

Are you representing that its the entire scientific community that is behind global warming?

Please clarify - because that is patently false if thats what you mean.

[Warriorbird]

Right... there's a mine inspector in West Virginia who disagrees!

;)

[Gan]

Right... there's a mine inspector in West Virginia who disagrees!

Quit being stupid. We've posted thread after thread, post after post of the increasing number of scientists who are either did not buy into Global Warming from the beginning or who are now backing out saying that its inconclusive at best. The list has gotten quite large.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Global_warming_skeptics

Enjoy!

[Warriorbird]

:)

Spending a couple seconds researching your threads and you begin to see that you're sort of like a proponent of "Intelligent Design." You only post the ones that are anti global warming or make fun of Al Gore. I scrolled down one of the sites you used and pulled up countless pro global warming articles.

I continue to think that anti global warming nuts (like you and Parkbandit) are just as far off the deep end as the "sky is falling" Al Gore types.

[Parkbandit]

I inferred nothing of the sort. Thanks. And that's not what I said.




Again, any time something contradicts your pre-determined conclusion, the source is either biased or liberally slanted. Now, instead of a scientific consensus, it's "hysteria."

Actually, it's the entire scientific community trying to get something done about the problem. What stands in their way? People like you.

WE HAVE CONSENSUS! WE HAVE CONSENSUS!!

No matter how often you post it.. it still doesn't make it a fact.

And if people like me question the validity of some scientists.. good. Unlike you, I just don't stand there with my mouth open, drool running out.. waiting for someone to spoon feed me something that I'll just automatically believe.

[Gan]

:)

Spending a couple seconds researching your threads and you begin to see that you're sort of like a proponent of "Intelligent Design." You only post the ones that are anti global warming or make fun of Al Gore. I scrolled down one of the sites you used and pulled up countless pro global warming articles.
Surely you're not refuting the expertise of Wikipedia. Afterall - Ashwhatever uses them and you have no problem with it. You tell me how that looks... :whistle:


I continue to think that anti global warming nuts (like you and Parkbandit) are just as far off the deep end as the "sky is falling" Al Gore types.
Thats fine by me. I have some carbon offsets you can buy if you're feeling especially guilty.

And you already know what I continue to think about your participation in the politics folder. ;)

[Ashliana]

WE HAVE CONSENSUS! WE HAVE CONSENSUS!!

No matter how often you post it.. it still doesn't make it a fact.

And if people like me question the validity of some scientists.. good. Unlike you, I just don't stand there with my mouth open, drool running out.. waiting for someone to spoon feed me something that I'll just automatically believe.

Except for Rush Limbaugh, apparently. Because you've been spoon-fed the same bullshit he spews on a daily basis.

[Ashliana]

Are you representing that its the entire scientific community that is behind global warming?

Please clarify - because that is patently false if thats what you mean.

"Entire"? No. Just like there is not "entire scientific community" consensus on something as basic and readily apparent as EVOLUTION.

There is enormous agreement in the scientific community. How about that? That ought to placate your desperate search for validation.

[Parkbandit]

:)

Spending a couple seconds researching your threads and you begin to see that you're sort of like a proponent of "Intelligent Design." You only post the ones that are anti global warming or make fun of Al Gore. I scrolled down one of the sites you used and pulled up countless pro global warming articles.

I continue to think that anti global warming nuts (like you and Parkbandit) are just as far off the deep end as the "sky is falling" Al Gore types.

What is just as far off when you say "I don't believe that man is the main factor in the earth getting warmer (except for the past 12 years) by .7 degrees over the past 35 years"?

Seriously, you couldn't be fucking dumber today if you tried.

[Gan]

"Entire"? No. Just like there is not "entire scientific community" consensus on something as basic and readily apparent as EVOLUTION.

Lets take a look at what you posted earlier...

Actually, it's the entire scientific community trying to get something done about the problem. What stands in their way? People like you.



There is enormous agreement in the scientific community. How about that? That ought to placate your desperate search for validation.

Getting close. I bet the more you tone down the rhetoric the closer you'll get to the actual truth. ;)

[Warriorbird]

Parkbandit formula check

1. hyperbolic answer
2. insult

::

Just as far off?

The immediate response that just because a few scientists think one thing that the majority are completely wrong?

Viewing Al Gore as 'The Great Satan?'

Putting your politics into your views of science?

It isn't even as if you have being a religious nutjob to fall back on.

[Ashliana]

Lets take a look at what you posted earlier...




Getting close. I bet the more you tone down the rhetoric the closer you'll get to the actual truth. ;)

Congratulations! You've discovered the long lost, secret art of hyperbole! Let that sink in for awhile.

[Clove]

You need to come up with something more substantial if you're presenting an argument NOT to explore in ANWR and drill off the Gulf/West coast for oil and yet support nuclear power while not addressing the waste storage issue, especially if nuclear power is part of your solution as a replacement/alternative to fuel oil.This has been interesting to me too.


So basically, you're looking for reasons to shoot down answers to handling nuclear waste? Interesting.

Transmutation was abandoned by both parties in the US, while it's continued in Europe. Nuclear power is widely used in Europe (OMG LIBERALS USE NUKYULAR POWAR), and almost exclusively used in France and much of Scandinavia...It's interesting that you point that out because Norway (a Scandinavian country) doesn't happen to have a nuclear power program, but does have extensive offshore oil drilling operations; but I don't think anyone considers Norway an ecologic disaster.

From that example alone it certainly seems possible to exploit oil resources without destroying the environment. Just as it is possible to engage in nuclear power without destroying the environment.

Both pose potential risks to the environment when managed poorly, and ultimately a Chernobyl isn't more desirable than a Valdez.

I can respect the point of view that oil drilling and nuclear power are worthwhile enough despite their environmental risks. I can respect the point of view that oil drilling and nuclear power pose too much of an environmental risk to undertake (even if I don't share it). What I can't respect is the point of view that one endeavor is dramatically less risky than the other and should be preferred for that reason alone. It's ridiculous. Both pose terrible risks if undertaken poorly, just as both pose acceptable risks if undertaken wisely.

You're welcome to call me an ignorant neo-conservative now, Ashliana, if it makes you feel better. :D

[Parkbandit]

Parkbandit formula check

1. hyperbolic answer
2. insult

::

Just as far off?

The immediate response that just because a few scientists think one thing that the majority are completely wrong?

Viewing Al Gore as 'The Great Satan?'

Putting your politics into your views of science?

It isn't even as if you have being a religious nutjob to fall back on.

Warriorbird Formula check

One liner, usually off topic and usually a poor attempt at an insult, or just something wrong. When called out for being wrong or stupid, he rinses, repeats.

[Parkbandit]

Congratulations! You've discovered the long lost, secret art of hyperbole! Let that sink in for awhile.

This taught by the Drama Queen herself. Congrats!

[Warriorbird]

Parkbandit formula check

1. Just an insult

I'm sorry that you're just as rabid as the Gore fanatics. It probably doesn't feel too good deep down. Are you getting tired?

It boils down to this. If you saw a study that said global warming was occurring and it was caused by man your first response would be to laugh and dismiss it offhand. If you saw a study that said 'Global Warming not real!' or 'Al Gore r stupid hoo hoo head!' your first response would be to post it.

[Parkbandit]

Parkbandit formula check

1. Just an insult

I'm sorry that you're just as rabid as the Gore fanatics. It probably doesn't feel too good deep down. Are you getting tired?

Tired of your stupidity... yes. Seems you never get tired of spewing it though. How often was it illustrated in this thread alone? JUST today!?

So, where do you actually stand on this global warming theory? Do you want to actually discuss it.. or are you just more comfortable posting stupidity?

[Gan]

Congratulations! You've discovered the long lost, secret art of hyperbole! Let that sink in for awhile.

Yes! Thats your secret to all of your posts and quotes when they dont match up. ITS A HYPERBOLE!!! At least its a far cry better than going back and deleting them.

:lol:

[Gan]

This has been interesting to me too.

It's interesting that you point that out because Norway (a Scandinavian country) doesn't happen to have a nuclear power program, but does have extensive offshore oil drilling operations; but I don't think anyone considers Norway an ecologic disaster.

From that example alone it certainly seems possible to exploit oil resources without destroying the environment. Just as it is possible to engage in nuclear power without destroying the environment.

Both pose potential risks to the environment when managed poorly, and ultimately a Chernobyl isn't more desirable than a Valdez.

I can respect the point of view that oil drilling and nuclear power are worthwhile enough despite their environmental risks. I can respect the point of view that oil drilling and nuclear power pose too much of an environmental risk to undertake (even if I don't share it). What I can't respect is the point of view that one endeavor is dramatically less risky than the other and should be preferred for that reason alone. It's ridiculous. Both pose terrible risks if undertaken poorly, just as both pose acceptable risks if undertaken wisely.

You're welcome to call me an ignorant neo-conservative now, Ashliana, if it makes you feel better. :D

ITS A HYPERBOLE DAMNIT!!! HY-PER-BOL-E got it!?!

:rofl:

[Warriorbird]

Parkbandit formula check

1. insult
2. hyperbolic response
3. potential actual discussion


I think humanity plays a role in global warming. I don't think the sky is going to fall or there'll be tremendous global flooding but we're serving to heighten natural processes. Acting like we do nothing at all is as foolish as acting like the end draweth nigh. We should act to minimize our impact where logical while not coming out to watch Al Gore's next movie quite so often. Politics shouldn't get in the way of actual inquiry.

[Parkbandit]

At least it was more than one line. Now we just have to work on the stupid and wrong parts.. but hey.. we can't expect miracles. Baby steps.

And it shouldn't surprise you that we agree on Global Warming. You just try to be stupid TO BE stupid instead of actually discussing the topic at hand.

[Ashliana]

Yes! Thats your secret to all of your posts and quotes when they dont match up. ITS A HYPERBOLE!!! At least its a far cry better than going back and deleting them.

:lol:

Or you're frequently incapable of understanding or properly interpreting written English?

[Paradii]

yawn. This thread can die now.

[CrystalTears]

Yes! Thats your secret to all of your posts and quotes when they dont match up. ITS A HYPERBOLE!!! At least its a far cry better than going back and deleting them.

:lol:
:lol:

But wait! You have to give her a chance to post her explanations to her hyperbole/blanket statements! It was just to get her started!

A few weeks posting and we've already figured out her ammo. Awesomeness.

[Gan]

yawn. This thread can die now.


psssh. This thread is just getting fun now.

[Gan]

Or you're frequently incapable of understanding or properly interpreting written English?

HYPERBOLE!!!

[Ashliana]

:lol:

But wait! You have to give her a chance to post her explanations to her hyperbole/blanket statements! It was just to get her started!

A few weeks posting and we've already figured out her ammo. Awesomeness.

No matter how many trolls gather up and blather the same nonsense, they remain a group of trolls. Sorry, CT.

[CrystalTears]

No matter how many trolls gather up and blather the same nonsense, they remain a group of trolls. Sorry, CT.
Since you've been the one with the blanket statements, constant insults and all around nasty attitude, I wouldn't be going around calling people trolls. You don't want to add hypocrite to your laundry list of posting traits.

[Gan]

Since you've been the one with the blanket statements, constant insults and all around nasty attitude, I wouldn't be going around calling people trolls. You don't want to add hypocrite to your laundry list of posting traits.

I've already pointed out her being a hypocrite - so thats been added. ;)

[Ashliana]

Since you've been the one with the blanket statements, constant insults and all around nasty attitude, I wouldn't be going around calling people trolls. You don't want to add hypocrite to your laundry list of posting traits.

I've responded to hostility with hostility, that's true. But if you think I'm the source of the hostility, rather than "their" group's general hostility to anyone whom disagrees with them, you're reading different threads than I am.

I posted my opinion. Civily. PB attacked me for it, I responded, then Gan, Crb, you and the rest of his "backup" showed up and having been belligerently arguing ever since.

[Clove]

I'll take a stab. The majority?


Really. So you think that the majority should be able to dictate everything that a minority does. Their culture, method of living, etc. This is just so unbelievably ridiculous, especially for a so-called conservative.

You are a PERFECT example of how traditional conservative values have gone down the TOILET. How fucking ignorant can you possibly get?

It is not the place of the majority to dictate how the minority live their lives. It's exactly ignorant pieces of shit like you that want to tell women they can't determine their own actions, people born of a different sexual orientation they can't consensually be with whom they want, people can't worship the god they choose, etc. Just amazing. Absolutely amazing.


You are now level 94!
Class: Neo-Conservative Hypocritical Asshole

Statistic Stat Gain Bonus Gain
Arrogance (ARR) : 93 +1 ... 52 +1
Stupidity (STP) : 86 +1 ... 42
Hypocrisy (HYP) : 95 +1 ... 24 +1
Logic (LOG) : 17 +1 ... 2 +1
Thoughtlessness (THL) : 89 +1 ... 29 +1
Wisdom (WIS) : 4 +1 ... 1 +1
Influence (INF) : 88 +1 ... 21


I believe in a democratic system of government that the majority decides and I believe that requires minority opinions to comprimise. Thanks for exaggerating. As for a being a "so-called conservative" the reality is, I exhibit conservative and liberal points of view depending on the topic. Of course you can consider me conservative if you like, but I don't claim to speak for conservatives.


Democracy is extremely vulnerable to a little something called "tyranny of the majority." It is why we are a constitutional, demoratic Republic rather than a true democracy.

It is not up to the majority to dictate how the minority lives, which is essentially what you claimed. I said: who are we to decide where and how these people should live, whether their culture should adapt/change/"move on" and you said: the majority. It's exactly a mindset like that that created this country in the first place--to get AWAY from people like you.


Only if you assume that allowing development in an area despite the protests of indiginous people is equivalent to dictating to their culture or impeding the continuance of it. It's very comforting to the ignorant to live in a binary world.


What if allowing development in that area literally destroyed their way of life? You're imposing your will on them, forcing them to pick up and move, change their way of life for your convenience.

I asked: who are we, to dictate to this small group, how they should live their lives and practice their culture? Ignoring the fact that they've likely been there longer than we have.

You replied: "the majority."

So the majority has the right to dictate how a minority should live, according to you. We've done the same thing before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_trail_of_tears


I've responded to hostility with hostility, that's true. But if you think I'm the source of the hostility, rather than "their" group's general hostility to anyone whom disagrees with them, you're reading different threads than I am.

I posted my opinion. Civily. PB attacked me for it, I responded, then Gan, Crb, you and the rest of his "backup" showed up and having been belligerently arguing ever since.You're quite the martyr.

[Parkbandit]

Assliana finally stated something with facts... I was the first one to call her out for what she is: a completely hypocritical cunt.

Thank you for that credit and acknowledgement.

And FU Gan for trying to take it.

[RainyDay2080]

This is a horrible argument.

You're saying that people might see that the small footprint is a success and not an environmental hazard and then be okay with a larger footprint so long as it is the same?

Isn't that democracy? Do you know better than the will of the people?

Y'all really outpaced me on this thread. Wanted to mention though, I wasn't making an argument. I was asking a question. The question was, why should we believe any government entity when they say "this is all we're gonna do, there will be no more" when history indicates that once they say yes they keep saying yes. Not just about the environment, but all kinds of things.

RD

[Ashliana]

You're quite the martyr.

I never said I was above responding to the hostile stupidity that you, PB, Gan and CT have shown. But I certainly didn't start it.


Assliana finally stated something with facts... I was the first one to call her out for what she is: a completely hypocritical cunt.

Thank you for that credit and acknowledgement.

And FU Gan for trying to take it.

And the Massive Troll King arrives! You were the first to throw your ability--yes, you're able--to argue or debate without being hostile right out the window. You chose to be a dumbass, because you enjoy riling people up. Which makes you the troll that I'm calling you.

[CrystalTears]

I never said I was above responding to the hostile stupidity that you, PB, Gan and CT have shown. But I certainly didn't start it.
That's interesting because I don't recall ever insulting you in this thread either.

[Clove]

I never said I was above responding to the hostile stupidity that you, PB, Gan and CT have shown. But I certainly didn't start it.You may have considered my point stupid, but my initial posts (on majority decisions over the will of minority interests) didn't contain insults or hostility at all.

You're not responding in kind; you're responding with insults and hostility because in other threads, or in other arguments we traded insults. That's your perogative, but please don't try to convince anyone that you're just "responding". YOU initiated the insults and hostility in the example argument. Period.

[Ashliana]

That's interesting because I don't recall ever insulting you in this thread either.

You're definitely better than Gan or PB.

[Ashliana]

You may have considered my point stupid, but my initial posts didn't (on majority decisions over the will of minority interests) didn't contain insults or hostility at all.

You're not responding in kind; you're responding with insults and hostility because in other threads, or in other arguments we traded insults. That's your perogative, but please don't try to convince anyone that you're just "responding". YOU initiated the insults and hostility in the example argument. Period.

What I said was that I definitely didn't start the hostility in this thread. You're right, though, that my hostility specifically towards you probably originates from the other thread.

[Clove]

What I said was that I definitely didn't start the hostility in this thread. You're right, though, that my hostility specifically towards you probably originates from the other thread.So there's no point me attempting to have a civil argument with you, because you'll respond with hostility because you don't like how another thread or another argument went. Physician, heal thyself.

[Ashliana]

So there's no point me attempting to have a civil argument with you, because you'll respond with hostility because you don't like how another thread or another argument went. Physician, heal thyself.

This thread has been a constant stream of attacks from Gan and PB, with you occasionally joining in the argument side. If you actually want and intend to be civil, then I'll show you the same respect and courtesy.

[CrystalTears]

You're definitely better than Gan or PB.
And yet you lumped me in with the hostile stupidity.

And unless calling you a hypocrite regarding an issue is deserving your hostile responses, Gan shouldn't be lumped in with that group either.

[Clove]

This thread has been a constant stream of attacks from Gan and PB, with you occasionally joining in the argument side. If you actually want and intend to be civil, then I'll show you the same respect and courtesy.Are you saying my example posts in which I responded to you without insults (despite the blatant hostility in your own posts) was unintentional?

The bottom line- you didn't show me courtesy, when I extended it to you and focused on the argument. Repeatedly.

We all know how PB is, but you're not showing us much better thus far.

[Ashliana]

Are you saying my example posts in which I responded to you without insults (despite the blatant hostility in your own posts) was unintentional?

The bottom line- you didn't show me courtesy, when I extended it to you and focused on the argument. Repeatedly.

We all know how PB is, but you're not showing us much better thus far.

Okay, then. I apologize for being overly harsh. I will ignore PB, assume you're not trying to "gang up" and stick to the argument.

[Parkbandit]

And the Massive Troll King arrives! You were the first to throw your ability--yes, you're able--to argue or debate without being hostile right out the window. You chose to be a dumbass, because you enjoy riling people up. Which makes you the troll that I'm calling you.


Oops... you should have stuck with that I was the first one to call you out for being a dumb bitch. Looking back at your brief, but entertaining contributions here, it wasn't I that first threw the first stone. While I would LOVE to take full credit for forcing you into your current hostility (Damn, I must have some special powers..) you might want to take a peek back in time.. 3-4 days is all it will take.. for you to realize it wasn't me.

BUT.. the fact remains that I called you out for what you are.. a gigantic hypocritical cunt. I demand and expect full credit for this.

[Parkbandit]

And yet you lumped me in with the hostile stupidity.

And unless calling you a hypocrite regarding an issue is deserving your hostile responses, Gan shouldn't be lumped in with that group either.


To be fair, you threw the first stone, calling her assinine for deleting a post. From there, it quickly went downhill. Obviously calling her an ass is something that she quickly gets upset about.

[Ashliana]

Oops... you should have stuck with that I was the first one to call you out for being a dumb bitch. Looking back at your brief, but entertaining contributions here, it wasn't I that first threw the first stone. While I would LOVE to take full credit for forcing you into your current hostility (Damn, I must have some special powers..) you might want to take a peek back in time.. 3-4 days is all it will take.. for you to realize it wasn't me.

BUT.. the fact remains that I called you out for what you are.. a gigantic hypocritical cunt. I demand and expect full credit for this.

You were definitely the very first in this thread, and are probably the least civil, most blithe troll I've come across in my days. That is your special power.

[Parkbandit]

This thread has been a constant stream of attacks from Gan and PB, with you occasionally joining in the argument side. If you actually want and intend to be civil, then I'll show you the same respect and courtesy.

LOL.. Page 1 from the "How to be an effective dumb liberal".. make yourself a victim.

[Ashliana]

LOL.. Page 1 from the "How to be an effective dumb liberal".. make yourself a victim.

Page 1 from the "how to service Rush Limbaugh" handbook--label anything, legitimate or not, that you disagree with "liberally slanted and biased." Because a party actually has first-hand knowledge or experience dealing with an issue, they definitely are.

[Ashliana]

Page 1 from the "how to service Rush Limbaugh" handbook--label anything, legitimate or not, that you disagree with "liberally slanted and biased." Because a party actually has first-hand knowledge or experience dealing with an issue, they definitely are.

Page 2! The "Ann Coulter Strategy." If someone disagrees with you, whether their claims have merit or not, call them a faggot (or cunt, for females!). It's most effective in changing the focus of the discussion.

[Fallen]

Could we get back to either one of the topics on this thread? It was at one point very informative.

[CrystalTears]

To be fair, you threw the first stone, calling her assinine for deleting a post. From there, it quickly went downhill. Obviously calling her an ass is something that she quickly gets upset about.
Heh, but that wasn't in this thread, so point taken.

[Stanley Burrell]

faggot

I may or may not have 2 Pond's blackhead removal strips on my Jew nose so as to impress the ladies later on today. With my nasal shininess and Pagan worship.

Also, if anyone wants to join me, I want to try getting everyone to be as friendly as possible and agree with ParkBandit's constant opinions, because... I mean come on, you'll all be dead eventually, LET'S DO THIS SHIT.

[Parkbandit]

You were definitely the very first in this thread, and are probably the least civil, most blithe troll I've come across in my days. That is your special power.

OOPS again! Might want to refer to this post by you... it quotes my response (which was very civil btw).

So now that the facts are all corrected (you are welcome) should I now paint myself as a victim of your relentless assault! I feel like being a victim too!!!


You do realize that your beloved McCain, before he became epically Flip-Flop McCane, opposed this very drilling? He said it would be short-sighted, and provide only a temporary band-aid to the greater problem: the US's addiction to oil. I agree with McCain. The original.

No, it doesn't make sense to wreck an area declared a national wildlife preservation--by a Republican president. We won't see any of this oil, even if we started today, for 5+ years, and it wouldn't even be sold exclusively in the US. It would be sold on the global market, supposedly lowering the price of oil globally. Except that the demand for oil will continue to grow in the next five years and this would have almost zero impact except destroying a wildlife preservation.

BRILLIANT! About what I'd expect from you. :club:

Sucks that it was quoted.. or you could have gone back and edited or deleted it. THEN maybe you would have been correct in your self righteousness!

[Stanley Burrell]

LOL.. Page 1 from the "How to be an effective dumb liberal".. make yourself a victim.

I swear to God, it's like they know how to pull the passive-aggressive treehugger into flaming feminazi card. I say you just ignore that liberal rhetoric, PB. You know how the real world works once you get past high school and stealing your parents' money.

[Gan]

What I said was that I definitely didn't start the hostility in this thread. You're right, though, that my hostility specifically towards you probably originates from the other thread.

In other words: YOU MISSED MY HYPERBOLE!!!

[Stanley Burrell]

OOPS again! Might want to refer to this post by yours.. it quotes my response (which was very civil btw).

So now that the facts are all corrected (you are welcome) should I now paint myself as a victim of your relentless assault! I feel like being a victim too!!!

^ LOL.

Spot on, my man. Good shit, etc.

[Ashliana]

OOPS again! Might want to refer to this post by yours.. it quotes my response (which was very civil btw).

So now that the facts are all corrected (you are welcome) should I now paint myself as a victim of your relentless assault! I feel like being a victim too!!!

No. I posted about the topic, you replied, calling me Assliana. Try again.

[Gan]

Okay, then. I apologize for being overly harsh. I will ignore PB, assume you're not trying to "gang up" and stick to the argument.

Thats just it. Any argument that does not support your argument is construed as 'ganging up' on you.

Noob.

[Stanley Burrell]

BUT.. the fact remains that I called you out for what you are.. a gigantic hypocritical cunt. I demand and expect full credit for this.

Something tells me she is a gigantic hypocritical cunt. And believe you me, I am talking about the alien race shaped like female reproductive organs that hover just a few feet above the ground and flap around, quick-quick-quick like great flying egret, using their liberal labia lips.

It is amazing how spot on PB is and how none of these idiots can even see this. God.

[Stanley Burrell]

It's not JUST ANWR or JUST off shore drilling or converting shale to oil or using coal... but a combination of everything. Increasing the supply will have a positive impact on cost of energy.

Granted, this is merely a band aid. Without real progress and investment in alternative energy, we will be in the same exact place some 30 years down the road. Problem is.. once gas prices start to drop, people will go back to their own little problems and it will once again be forgotten.

Heh, you sort of forgot about the minorities (ooh, wow, I can't say the "m" word as a conservative, or you filthy libs accuse me of posting pictures to prove an argument), but this is sooo true. PB is on a roll today. Awesomeness.

[Ashliana]

Thats just it. Any argument that does not support your argument is construed as 'ganging up' on you.

Noob.

If you say so. I don't agree. I'd say you've been intentionally belligerent.

[Parkbandit]

Something tells me she is a gigantic hypocritical cunt. And believe you me, I am talking about the alien race shaped like female reproductive organs that hover just a few feet above the ground and flap around, quick-quick-quick like great flying egret, using their liberal labia lips.

It is amazing how spot on PB is and how none of these idiots can even see this. God.

Someone is on his meds finally. After 2 years of your stupidity, you finally get one right.

Then again, a broken watch is correct twice a day...

[Gan]

You're definitely better than Gan or PB.
/Agreed.


If you say so. I don't agree. I'd say you've been intentionally belligerent.

I simply respond in kind. Sound familiar?

[Stanley Burrell]

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/4223/responsetoparkbanditkx4.png

[Stanley Burrell]

See what else I got here.

[Ashliana]

/Agreed.



I simply respond in kind. Sound familiar?

I apologized for any unjustified behavior towards you. What more do you want? Harping on and on is exactly the kind of belligerent behavior to which I'm referring.

[Parkbandit]

Dear Ganalon:

The use of the liberal handbook against a liberal is expressly forbidden. Please use another line of reasoning.

Thanks

Captain of the "R" team.

[Parkbandit]

I apologized for any unjustified behavior towards you. What more do you want? Harping on and on is exactly the kind of belligerent behavior to which I'm referring.


I'm certain an apology for me is right around the corner, since it's been clearly demonstrated that you started it (well, after CT actually started it).

[CrystalTears]

This is the same kind of argument we've had with other people around here who feel that being insulted in the past is enough to insult all the time and then turn around and say it was a response done in kind and they never start it.

[Stanley Burrell]

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/1263/alsoinresponsetoparkbanwb6.png

?

[Ashliana]

I'm certain an apology for me is right around the corner, since it's been clearly demonstrated that you started it (well, after CT actually started it).

Here you go: I'm sorry that you're the biggest douche~ in the Universe~ as far as this forum is concerned.

[Stanley Burrell]

Omfg,

http://www.nataliedee.com/012607/paid-for-by-lemon-growers-to-foster-lemon-awareness.jpg

Etc.

[Ashliana]

This is the same kind of argument we've had with other people around here who feel that being insulted in the past is enough to insult all the time and then turn around and say it was a response done in kind and they never start it.

Fair enough. I told Clove that I'd not lump you all together, despite it seeming exactly the case right now, and respond individually. How long are we going to be going on about this?

[Fallen]

Random Thought: The Senior member threshold needs to be raised to something like 2000 posts.

[CrystalTears]

Random Thought: The Senior member threshold needs to be raised to something like 2000 posts.
Agreed

[Parkbandit]

Here you go: I'm sorry that you're the biggest douche~ in the Universe~ as far as this forum is concerned.

Worst apology ever.

I will not accept it.

PS - And it's factually inaccurate since you haven't read every post by every member on this forum since it's inception.

[Parkbandit]

Random Thought: The Senior member threshold needs to be raised to something like 2000 posts.


Why?

If it bothers you so much, I will give her 1800 of mine.

[Stanley Burrell]

The truth.

That IS the truth. Thank you. PB is pwning this thread hardcore 3 penii in a hairy midget bukake-style.

[Ashliana]

Yay! MOAR POSTS!

[Stanley Burrell]

^

http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/5060/anotherfuckinglemonforplx9.png

[Stanley Burrell]

/threadclose

[Parkbandit]

Something rediculous would be someone who supposedly works for the State Department saying that the US Military accounts for 60% of the energy consumption of the US. Hell, I would expect someone who graduated the 7th grade to realize that 60% is way the fuck off. I'll even let you say "Oops, I meant 6%", and you would still be as dumb as Ashliana. That doesn't even make logical sense, let alone common sense.. two senses you clearly lack.

Might want to check your secret US Rangers sources on that one fool... you know, the ones you can safely access now that you've changed your name here from Ranger to Daniel on this forum.

I'm still hoping Danny shows back up for this... Ashliana's recent niceness is nothing but a downer (even though she has yet to apologize correctly to me)

[Ashliana]

I'm still hoping Danny shows back up for this... Ashliana's recent niceness is nothing but a downer (even though she has yet to apologize correctly to me)

Almost as ridiculous as failing to spell ridiculous correctly.

[Parkbandit]

Almost as ridiculous as failing to spell ridiculous correctly.


Now now.. rule #1 of an Internet forum: We don't point out occasional words that are not spelled correctly.. otherwise, you'll get it shoved back in your face.. and then probably claim the other person started it.

PS - I purposely didn't use the term "misspelled" because I never know if it's 1 or 2 "s"

[Gan]

Almost as ridiculous as failing to spell ridiculous correctly.

Yes, because spelling is oh so important on a bbs. Not to mention that when you lack substance you can always fall back on grammatical attacks.

Grats - you've exhibited traditional behavior from typical flash in the pan noobs that jump into the politics folder thinking you can swim in the deep end.

Let me be the first to give you a hearty welcome to the politics folder here on the PC.

:clap:

[Parkbandit]

Way to gang up on her Gan. You fucking prick.. you are still mad she uses the term "PB and Gan" instead of "Gan and PB"

Get over yourself.

[Ashliana]

PS - I purposely didn't use the term "misspelled" because I never know if it's 1 or 2 "s"

How astute! That's actually the exact reason I didn't use that word.


Yes, because spelling is oh so important on a bbs. Not to mention that when you lack substance you can always fall back on grammatical attacks.

Grats - you've exhibited traditional behavior from typical flash in the pan noobs that jump into the politics folder thinking you can swim in the deep end.

Let me be the first to give you a hearty welcome to the politics folder here on the PC.

:clap:

Aww. I love you too. :love:

[Parkbandit]

Stop hitting on me.

[Ashliana]

How astute! That's actually the exact reason I didn't use that word.


I should clarify--the number of Ss wasn't the issue--it was the hyphen. I was too lazy to consult google, so I re-wrote the sentence.

[Gan]

Way to gang up on her Gan. You fucking prick.. you are still mad she uses the term "PB and Gan" instead of "Gan and PB"

Get over yourself.

:lol:

[Parkbandit]

Dear Ashliana,

You are a bitch. Why don't you make something of it.

Thanks,

PB


PS - This fucking cease in hostilities sucks.. I'm not being entertained today IN THE FUCKING LEAST.

PPS - Anyone guilty liberals out there looking to buy some carbon offsets? I will sell mine at HALF of what Gore is selling his for.

[Ashliana]

Dear Ashliana,

You are a bitch. Why don't you make something of it.

Thanks,

PB


PS - This fucking cease in hostilities sucks.. I'm not being entertained today IN THE FUCKING LEAST.

PPS - Anyone guilty liberals out there looking to buy some carbon offsets? I will sell mine at HALF of what Gore is selling his for.


Dear Parkbandit,

Thank you for the lovely letter. You represent a dying creed of philosophy that is thirty years behind the times and is responsible for the complete death of the traditional conservative in favor of the neo-conservative, reactionary evangelist.

Please die more quickly.

Sincerely,
Ashliana

[CrystalTears]

So when are we kicking the indians out of the way to start drilling? :D

[Gan]

THINK OF THE CARIBOU!!!

SAVE THE CARIBOU!!!

[Parkbandit]

This thread quickly took a wrong turn and is now headed to Grouphugville.

This is my stop.. let me off. I think I'm going to puke.

[Sean of the Thread]

Sincerely,
Ashliana

Okay guys ... let's get back on track.



You're a dumb cunt.

Sincerely,
Sean

[Ashliana]

Okay guys ... let's get back on track.



You're a dumb cunt.

Sincerely,
Sean


Belushi sucks almost as much as you do.

Sincerely,
Ashliana

[DeV]

Could we get back to either one of the topics on this thread? It was at one point very informative.QFT

Worthless fucking moderators (not Snapp).

[Ashliana]

QFT

Worthless fucking moderators (not Snapp).

This forum is moderated? :P

[CrystalTears]

Belushi sucks almost as much as you do.

Saying something like that deserves an insult. Belushi rules.

[Clove]

Belushi sucks almost as much as you do.

Sincerely,
AshlianaAshliana you ignorant slut, Belushi was a genius.

[Clove]

That reminds me, where's Daniel been lately? Good times. Good times.

[Ashliana]

Ashliana you ignorant slut, Belushi was a genius.

Go live in a van down by the river.

[Clove]

QFT

Worthless fucking moderators (not Snapp).Well if this thread is utterly demolished it won't bother anything if I post once again...

I <3 DeV.

[Gan]

Go live in a van down by the river.

Wrong comedian!

:(

(Chris Farley)

[Ashliana]

Wrong comedian!

:(

(Chris Farley)

I know that. And "you ignorant slut" refers to Dan Akroyd. So what?

[CrystalTears]

Wrong SNL generation. :(

[Daniel]

Something rediculous would be someone who supposedly works for the State Department saying that the US Military accounts for 60% of the energy consumption of the US. Hell, I would expect someone who graduated the 7th grade to realize that 60% is way the fuck off. I'll even let you say "Oops, I meant 6%", and you would still be as dumb as Ashliana. That doesn't even make logical sense, let alone common sense.. two senses you clearly lack.

Might want to check your secret US Rangers sources on that one fool... you know, the ones you can safely access now that you've changed your name here from Ranger to Daniel on this forum.


I'm still hoping Danny shows back up for this... Ashliana's recent niceness is nothing but a downer (even though she has yet to apologize correctly to me)

I do apologize. I meant to say *73%* of all emissions or 14.6% of the global total.

"THE KYOTO PROTOCOL: PROBLEMS WITH U.S. SOVEREIGNTY AND THE LACK OF DEVELOPING COUNTRY PARTICIPATION" 105th Congress 2nd Session 1998.


"Chairman GILMAN. I would like to ask, with regard to the effect on our military, as you know, the Federal Government is our largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the United States. The DOD is the largest emitter of the government, 73 percent of all Federal emissions. The Under Secretary of Defense, Sherri Goodman, originally argued that all DOD should be exempt from Kyoto limits, noting that a small 10 percent cut in emissions could have serious effects. For example, armor training could be cut by some 300,000 miles a year, naval steaming days cut by 2,000 days a year, and Air Force flying hours cut by some 200,000 hours.
"

Also: You do realize, Rangers are a combat unit right? Consider yourself informed.

Also: It's ridiculous.

[Ashliana]

Wrong SNL generation. :(

Not "wrong." "Different." :argue:

[Clove]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNjcuZ-LiSY

[Ashliana]

Cake > Pie.

[CrystalTears]

Not "wrong." "Different." :argue:
It's WRONG when you cite someone that wasn't in the same SNL generation.

I swear, you can ruin a wetdream.

[Ashliana]

It's WRONG when you cite someone that wasn't in the same SNL generation.

I swear, you can ruin a wetdream.

Wrong according to what rules or conventions? :club:

[Daniel]

That reminds me, where's Daniel been lately? Good times. Good times.

Just been busy.

[CrystalTears]

The rules of FUCKING UP A GOOD JOKE!

It's called a sense of humor. You should one. They're nice.

[Ashliana]

The rules of FUCKING UP A GOOD JOKE!

It's called a sense of humor. You should one. They're nice.

Shaddap.

[g++]

*(The US military accounts for something ridiculous like 60% of the energy consumption in the US, and that's the *main* reason why we didn't want anything to do with the Kyoto protocol)

the Federal Government is our largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the United States. The DOD is the largest emitter of the government, 73 percent of all Federal emissions

Woops??

[Gan]

Sounds like the first really good step to getting rid of 'green house gasses' in the US (aside from farting cows) is to get rid of the Federal Government...

:whistle:

[Clove]

Cake > Pie.Depends on whose pie.

[Ashliana]

Depends on whose pie.

SOME CAKE > ALL PIE!

[CrystalTears]

First dissing Belushi and now pie. There's something seriously wrong with you. :(

[Ashliana]

First dissing Belushi and now pie. There's something seriously wrong with you. :(

Shaddap shaddap shaddap! :hitwithrock:

[Parkbandit]

I do apologize. I meant to say *73%* of all emissions or 14.6% of the global total.

"THE KYOTO PROTOCOL: PROBLEMS WITH U.S. SOVEREIGNTY AND THE LACK OF DEVELOPING COUNTRY PARTICIPATION" 105th Congress 2nd Session 1998.


"Chairman GILMAN. I would like to ask, with regard to the effect on our military, as you know, the Federal Government is our largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the United States. The DOD is the largest emitter of the government, 73 percent of all Federal emissions. The Under Secretary of Defense, Sherri Goodman, originally argued that all DOD should be exempt from Kyoto limits, noting that a small 10 percent cut in emissions could have serious effects. For example, armor training could be cut by some 300,000 miles a year, naval steaming days cut by 2,000 days a year, and Air Force flying hours cut by some 200,000 hours.
"

Also: You do realize, Rangers are a combat unit right? Consider yourself informed.

Also: It's ridiculous.

1) So the government doesn't consume 60% of all US energy like you first tried to claim? Didn't think so. I accept your acknowledgement that you were retarded to think you were right... because you were seriously fucking wrong. Actually, it's more like 1% for future reference. Still a big number, but no where near what you were trying to pass off as a fact.

2) And do you even bother to read your own fucking links? I don't blame you.. I blame the public school who clearly just let you go through without actually forcing you to learn. YOUR LINK doesn't claim that the US Government emits 73% of "all" emissions.. it says (and I'll quote your source) "The DOD is the largest emitter of the government, 73 percent of all Federal emissions." I bolded the part you clearly didn't or couldn't grasp.

3) I know the Rangers are a combat unit.. I was making fun of you thinking you are so important that you had to change your login ID here for national security. That's still a source of comedy gold. Thanks.

4) Well, you got ONE thing right.. you and Ashliana had to fall back to a spelling correction to make a point. Grats!

5) I like how you go from "The US Government consumes 60% of all US energy" to "Oops, I meant that the Government emits 73% of all emissions". Even though you were still wrong, we both know that's not what you meant since consumption and emissions are two completely different things. Nice try to CYA though.. really.

Thanks for putting the final :rofl: in this thread. I knew you could do it if pressed, and you delivered like a pizza boy. Well done.

[crb]

Why won't this thread die?

[Warriorbird]

I got bored. You got bored. Ashlianna vs PB is eternal though.

[Clove]

I got bored. You got bored. Ashlianna vs PB is eternal though.Yeah but she toned down the insults. Daniel and Keller need to show her how to properly execute a 10 page flame war with PB. Good times. Good times.

[Gan]

:lol: