Bush Says Drill, Drill, Drill — and Oil Drops $9!

[Gan]

In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling. Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.

Now isn’t this interesting?

Democrats keep saying that it will take 10 years or longer to produce oil from the offshore areas. And they say that oil prices won’t decline for at least that long. And they, along with Obama and McCain, bash so-called oil speculators. And today we had a real-world example as to why they are wrong. All of them. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, McCain — all of them.

Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a single new drop of oil has been lifted. What does this tell us? Well, if Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. That’s the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime.

The congressional ban on offshore drilling expires September 30, so that becomes a key date. A new report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratorium were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. They’re talking about 10 billion barrels worth off the coast of California.

There’s also a “gang of 10” in the Senate, five Republicans and five Democrats, that is trying to work a compromise deal on lifting the moratorium. So it’s possible a lot of action on this front could occur much sooner than people seem to think.

So I repeat: Drill, drill, drill. Deregulate, decontrol, and unleash the American energy industry. Those hated traders will then keep selling oil as the laws of supply and demand and free markets keep working.

Bravo for Bush. Bravo for the traders.

http://kudlow.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjMyNDljNTQ5MThjNWE3YTAzYWYzMmZmNDVmMjA0ZWY=

[Daniel]

Someone didn't get the memo:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/16/news/economy/gas/index.htm?cnn=yes

"Fuel prices rose to new record highs overnight, a nationwide survey of gas station credit card swipes showed Wednesday."

[NocturnalRob]

Bravo for Bravo.

http://corporate.miniclip.com/images/bravologo.gif

[Clove]

We still have oil-future trading happening in an unmonitored, unregulated market and that needs to be addressed; however, more potential supply in the future can only help prices today (obviously).

[Stanley Burrell]

Bravo for Bravo.

http://corporate.miniclip.com/images/bravologo.gif

.
..
...

..!

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/upload/Image/Blog/2007/02/22/ifc.gif

Penis.

[Ashliana]

Oil "plunges" to a still near-record high of $136 a barrel! Republican rhetoric aside, what does this prove? That speculation has a significant effect on the price of gas? We knew that. The price of oil dropping because of this doesn't have anything to do with the time it would require to get oil out of, say, ANWR or off the coast of Florida. Specific sites may be faster, but if you're looking to return oil to the price level of early this century or the last, only a handful of sites isn't going to accomplish that on a global level.

[NocturnalRob]

Oil "plunges" to a still near-record high of $136 a barrel! Republican rhetoric aside, what does this prove? That speculation has a significant effect on the price of gas? We knew that. The price of oil dropping because of this doesn't have anything to do with the time it would require to get oil out of, say, ANWR or off the coast of Florida. Specific sites may be faster, but if you're looking to return oil to the price level of early this century or the last, only a handful of sites isn't going to accomplish that on a global level.

Tisket disagrees

[Seran]

Bush's feckless little announcement did nothing other than cause a few jeers in Congress.

It was Bernake's announcement that VERY MORNING that caused both speculators and producers to do a major selloff of their long positions.

[crb]

Someone didn't get the memo:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/16/news/economy/gas/index.htm?cnn=yes

"Fuel prices rose to new record highs overnight, a nationwide survey of gas station credit card swipes showed Wednesday."
Gas != oil.

Oil has to go through a refining process first, then it becomes gas. Gas prices tend to lag behind oil prices by about 3 weeks, additionally, because of varying costs of transporting gas from refineries to stations, different regions of the country can have different gas prices.

[Daniel]

Thanks for the lesson, but I was under the impression that the impetuous for this was lowering fuel prices.

[Clove]

Oil "plunges" to a still near-record high of $136 a barrel! Republican rhetoric aside, what does this prove?I don't think you need the quotes for plunges, a 7% drop in day is a plunge. It proves that news of even potential future supply increases has a lowering effect on present prices.

[crb]

Oil "plunges" to a still near-record high of $136 a barrel! Republican rhetoric aside, what does this prove? That speculation has a significant effect on the price of gas? We knew that. The price of oil dropping because of this doesn't have anything to do with the time it would require to get oil out of, say, ANWR or off the coast of Florida. Specific sites may be faster, but if you're looking to return oil to the price level of early this century or the last, only a handful of sites isn't going to accomplish that on a global level.
Except Pelosi and Reid and Obama et al (with their glorious 14% approval rating that makes Bush look like homecoming king) said that lifting the ban would not do anything to help oil prices today.

Whereas proponents of drilling acknowledge that oil will take awhile to come online, they mandate that since the oil futures market, is a futures market, there will be a retroactive psychological affect whereby the lowering of the future spot price would work its way back to today's price. This would seem to be true.

No, the second half of your post about supply. To that I say three things.

1. Every bit helps move down gas prices. Poll the public and ask if they'd rather have gas at $3.75 or $4, and they'll say $3.75.

2. Every bit of money we STOP sending to Chavez etc is good.

3. There is a lot of oil offshore. There is a lot of oil in Alaska. Good amounts but not enough to kick our habit entirely.... But, the estimated size of the reserve available in the oil shale in the Rockies is 3x Saudi Arabia and is the largest known source in the world. If we could tap that, that would literally kick our habit of foreign oil and maybe even let us be an oil exporting country.

Oil shale isn't quite oil, it takes time and money and technology to get out, but I believe the magic number is like $60 a barrel, at that point it becomes profitable, and well, we passed that point awhile ago. Worth pursuing I think.

[crb]

Thanks for the lesson, but I was under the impression that the impetuous for this was lowering fuel prices.
They will be lower, there is just a 3 week lag in most locations. Kinda like thunder & lightning. You see lightning, then you hear thunder. Just because they don't happen at the same time doesn't mean they aren't connected.

[Kranar]

No one knows why oil tanked 9 dollars over the 30 minute period. Statistically we just refer to this as an outlier.

The experts aren't making any conclusions; most of what I read was a vague "oil prices sink on world demand concerns."

Fact of the matter is that the information about the President lifting the executive ban was available before the news conference. No new information came out of the news conference so pinpointing a 9% drop in oil on it isn't exactly sound.

Oil is at $138 as I type this.

[crb]

Question....

If congress renews their ban before Sept 30th, can Bush veto it?

[Ashliana]

I don't think you need the quotes for plunges, a 7% drop in day is a plunge. It proves that news of even potential future supply increases has a lowering effect on present prices.

The point I was emphasizing is that despite the drop, we're at historic highs. What it proves is the detrimental effect of speculation that the topic was claiming didn't exist.


Except Pelosi and Reid and Obama et al (with their glorious 14% approval rating that makes Bush look like homecoming king) said that lifting the ban would not do anything to help oil prices today.

Don't you love people quoting this? "14% approval rating." Because a 49-51 split in the Congress since 2006, and the obstructionist efforts of Republicans, makes everything the fault of the Democrats.


Whereas proponents of drilling acknowledge that oil will take awhile to come online, they mandate that since the oil futures market, is a futures market, there will be a retroactive psychological affect whereby the lowering of the future spot price would work its way back to today's price. This would seem to be true.

Another conservative buzzword floating around. "Psychological." In other words, it affects the oil speculator's projections of potential profit. Less potential profit, less reason to invest. Dropping future prices mean "SELL NOW! SELL NOW!" and prices drop even more.


1. Every bit helps move down gas prices. Poll the public and ask if they'd rather have gas at $3.75 or $4, and they'll say $3.75.

True. But estimates vary of the potential effect of opening up drilling here from having absolutely no effect to having the 25c drop you're implying. Don't get me wrong--I don't disapprove of drilling where it won't drastically disturb the environment or a local populace. But drilling off-shore carries significant risk, and it means using our oil reserves when an enormous disaster could be looming in the distance.


2. Every bit of money we STOP sending to Chavez etc is good.

I agree. This is why we should be focusing on alternative energy rather than expanding oil. You've said in the past that we shouldn't take a single-faceted approach, and I agree, but not at the cost of our security and safety of our environment.


3. There is a lot of oil offshore. There is a lot of oil in Alaska. Good amounts but not enough to kick our habit entirely.... But, the estimated size of the reserve available in the oil shale in the Rockies is 3x Saudi Arabia and is the largest known source in the world. If we could tap that, that would literally kick our habit of foreign oil and maybe even let us be an oil exporting country.

Oil shale isn't quite oil, it takes time and money and technology to get out, but I believe the magic number is like $60 a barrel, at that point it becomes profitable, and well, we passed that point awhile ago. Worth pursuing I think.


I'm going to presume that know the difficulty of getting oil from shale. Not only does it take time and money and technology, it essentially requires strip mining or pit mining, which absolutely destroys the environment.

[CrystalTears]

The point I was emphasizing is that despite the drop, we're at historic highs. What it proves is the detrimental effect of speculation that the topic was claiming didn't exist.
So how far down does it have to go before you believe the speculation theory? Less than $100 a barrel? It's not going to happen. It doesn't make speculation any less true.

[Gan]

I'm curious to see how speculization will play if/when Congress renews the ban.

[Daniel]

So how far down does it have to go before you believe the speculation theory? Less than $100 a barrel? It's not going to happen. It doesn't make speculation any less true.

Huh? The only person here claiming that speculation isn't a major factor is CRB.

[Ashliana]

So how far down does it have to go before you believe the speculation theory? Less than $100 a barrel? It's not going to happen. It doesn't make speculation any less true.

As Daniel said, I was emphasizing the effect speculation has, not minimizing it. The article contradicts iself by highlighting the drop in price, which is due to speculators jumping ship at the news.

[CrystalTears]

Okay, my bad then. The way you stated it seemed like you weren't believing it was speculation at all.

[Clove]

I think everyone realizes we're still at record highs. And Kranar is right, nobody can prove for sure why there was a sudden drop. So I was using hyperbole. If you do believe the executive ban lift caused oil investors to move and lowered oil prices 7-9% suddenly- imagine what Congress lifting their ban might do. Imagine if a drilling company announced actual drilling plans, etc.

No, it isn't a lot, but it could be the beginning of several measures that could bring oil back to a reasonable price.

[crb]

I'm going to presume that know the difficulty of getting oil from shale. Not only does it take time and money and technology, it essentially requires strip mining or pit mining, which absolutely destroys the environment.

There was this thing where a mining company was trying to make a point and they showed a picture of pristine environment and said "Do you think we would destroy this?" And the environmentalists were all like "look at it, it is pristine and beautiful, don't destroy it." And the mining company said "Ahah, gotcha, this picture is of a former strip mine, restored by law at the mining company's expense." I wish I had saved the link.

The point being, ya, mining is bad. Strip mining makes an ugly eyesore, shaft mining makes dead miners. But... its all temporary. I have no problems with making the mining companies restore the land afterwards, and AFAIK that is the law already.



Huh? The only person here claiming that speculation isn't a major factor is CRB.

Don't forget Ben Bernanke, and I define speculation as malicious manipulation of the market to gain profits. I don't define speculation as normal investing and hedging within the normal and necessary functions of the market.

[Keller]

Uhhh, the drop in the price of oil has more to do with Bernake and Company coming out with a report indicating significant drops in US demand than it was with Bush supporting minor increased supply in 10 years.

Talk about fucking spin. C'mon, Gan.

[Clove]

Ashliana meant that strip-mining absolutely destroys the environment, non-literally.

[Clove]

Uhhh, the drop in the price of oil has more to do with Bernake and Company coming out with a report indicating significant drops in US demand than it was with Bush supporting minor increased supply in 10 years.

Talk about fucking spin. C'mon, Gan.Because oil investors didn't already know that. Reports of significant US demand drop have been out since June. For the record, I'm sure Bernanke and co. also had something to do with it. We'll never know if it was one, the other, both (or how much of each) effected it. That's part of the art of investing.

[Keller]

Oh and thank god the price of oil is going down. I was actually considering buying a hybrid.

All kidding aside, I actually was -- and probably wont. I know, I'm an ecological monster. Rawr.

[Gan]

SUV's are dirt cheap right now. ;)

[Keller]

SUV's are dirt cheap right now. ;)

http://www.tsrennsport.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/tamiya-MINI-Cooper-S.jpg

[Kranar]

Oil is getting crushed right now and the S&P is up 16 handles.

When I posted earlier it was at $138, now it's at $134.

This is looking pretty good.

[Clove]

Oil is getting crushed right now and the S&P is up 16 handles.

When I posted earlier it was at $138, now it's at $134.

This is looking pretty good.r0xor.

[ClydeR]

Oil is getting crushed right now and the S&P is up 16 handles.

Is a handle 1.00 points in the S&P 500 index? Or are you referring to futures?

[Ashliana]

Ashliana meant that strip-mining absolutely destroys the environment, non-literally.

Once again, Clove fails to make any substantive point whatsoever and chooses to be a troll. Damage can be mitigated and repaired, but it doesn't mean it doesn't have a negative impact in the interim.

[Clove]

Once again, Clove fails to make any substantive point whatsoever and chooses to be a troll. Damage can be mitigated and repaired, but it doesn't mean it doesn't have a negative impact in the interim.I think you need to learn what a troll is. I've always participated in oil discussions including this one. If you want to stop being called on your bullshit, stop making bullshit comments.

On a side note all the oil-sand oil recovery in Canada is a strip mining process and Canada is managing the ecological impact of that just fine.

[Ashliana]

I think you need to learn what a troll is. I've always participated in oil discussions including this one. If you want to stop being called on your bullshit, stop making bullshit comments.

On a side note all the oil-sand oil recovery in Canada is a strip mining process and Canada is managing the ecological impact of that just fine.

Except the only bullshit is the garbage spewing out of your mouth. Oil shale isn't widely mined specifically because it's difficult, incredibly damaging to the environment and there are easier alternatives. It's always been a last resort for a reason.

You just want to stick your head in the sand--or the shale, as it were--and be an obstinate asshole for the sake of contradicting people. That makes you a troll. Mitigating the damage that's done doesn't mean that there aren't consequences in the interim. There are many known detriments to strip mining.

[Kranar]

Is a handle 1.00 points in the S&P 500 index? Or are you referring to futures?


Was refering to the S&P futures. Some people go by the Dow, which I think is a God awful metric, I prefer to just go by the S&P, which is up 1.5%.

[Clove]

Except the only bullshit is the garbage spewing out of your mouth. Oil shale isn't widely mined specifically because it's difficult, incredibly damaging to the environment and there are easier alternatives. It's always been a last resort for a reason.

You just want to stick your head in the sand--or the shale, as it were--and be an obstinate asshole for the sake of contradicting people. That makes you a troll. Mitigating the damage that's done doesn't mean that there aren't consequences in the interim. There are many known detriments to strip mining.Oil shale isn't widely mined because it is expensive. Despite that Brazil, Russia, China all extract shale oil. There are environmental concerns and challenges in its mining and extraction (which also contribute to the cost) this fact does NOT equal "destroys the environment" as you originally (non-literally) stated.

If you want to be a non-literal, hyperbole-spouting, opinion parroting bitch- be my guest. Just don't flip out when you're confronted about it.

[Ashliana]

Oil shale isn't widely mined because it is expensive. Despite that Brazil, Russia, China all extract shale oil. There are environmental concerns and challenges in its mining and extraction (which also contribute to the cost) this fact does NOT equal "destroys the environment" as you originally (non-literally) stated.

If you want to be a non-literal, hyperbole-spouting, opinion parroting bitch- be my guest. Just don't flip out when you're confronted about it.

Brazil, Russia and China all extract shale oil because they don't give a shit about the environment, and neither do you. Brazil also burns down untold acres of rainforest to make way for ethanol production, China operates its economy with essentially no regulation whatsoever in regards to greenhouse gases, environmental damage, etc and Russia does much of the same. What exactly is your point? Strop mining DOES destroy the environment--whether you go out of your way to HELP correct the damage afterwards doesn't change that fact. It just makes the process even more expensive.

Once you stop looking at the world with your blind, rosy-colored, naive, ignorant outlook and stop being a typical "I can't look below the surface of any issue and blame other people for my ignorance" dumbass pseudo-conservative, then I'll welcome your input.

[Clove]

China executes people by the thousands and Russia rigs its own elections. What exactly is your point?What exactly is yours? We execute a fair number of people. We've had election frauds, none of this contributes to a discussion of the environmental impact of shale-oil mining.

[Clove]

Strop mining DOES destroy the environment--whether you go out of your way to HELP correct the damage afterwards doesn't change that fact. It just makes the process even more expensive.Strop mining damages the environment. Done properly it doesn't destroy the environment.

[Ashliana]

What exactly is yours? We execute a fair number of people. We've had election frauds, none of this contributes to a discussion of the environmental impact of shale-oil mining.

I changed it before you replied, since those aspects are irrelevant. You're using China, Russia and Brazil as examples the US should follow in regards to the pursuit of energy and protecting the environment? That's one of the most idiotic arguments I've heard on this forum.

[Ashliana]

Strop mining damages the environment. Done properly it doesn't destroy the environment.

Strip mining is incredibly destructive to the environment. Happy? Once again, you decline to address the issue at hand and focus on a particular word choice. Some of the damage can be repaired afterwards, as I said, which takes more time, more money and makes oil shale even less of an competitor.

Whining "but look! Russia, China and Brazil do it!" makes absolutely no sense since they have very little regard for their environment, from manufacturing processes to strip mining to burning down the rainforest for either timber or ethanol production.

[Clove]

Germany, Estonia and Israel also utilize shale oil, I'm told. I believe China and Estonia have the largest, best managed operations, however. You can knee-jerk react to the fact that some countries you don't like utilize this oil and assume they're "destroying the environment" all you want.

[Ashliana]

Germany, Estonia and Israel also utilize shale oil, I'm told. I believe China and Estonia have the largest, best managed operations, however. You can knee-jerk react to the fact that some countries you don't like utilize this oil and assume they're "destroying the environment" all you want.

Countries often have no choice what resources they're lucky enough to have. You can knee-jerk react to the reality that strip mining damages the environment and assume that every country is as responsible to it as the United States is, as a result of all the liberals whom you detest. Using China as a beacon of environmental responsibility is just laughable and shows you haven't even picked up a newspaper in the last ten years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China) and want to whitewash the impact of strip mining.

[Clove]

Strip mining is incredibly destructive to the environment. Happy? Once again, you decline to address the issue at hand and focus on a particular word choice. Some of the damage can be repaired afterwards, as I said, which takes more time, more money and makes oil shale even less of an competitor.Some day you'll learn that your word choice is important. There's a difference between "destroy" "damage" "incredibly damage" "temporarily damage" etc. A law student of all people should be aware of the difference words make in an argument.


Whining "but look! Russia, China and Brazil do it!" makes absolutely no sense since they have very little regard for their environment, from manufacturing processes to strip mining to burning down the rainforest for either timber or ethanol production.As I said other countries do it. You can assume that their process is incredibly damaging, but it's merely that- an assumption. Your expense argument is redundent- I already pointed out it was a very expensive process. I don't know if you've noticed, but recently, oil has been very expensive.

[Clove]

...as a result of all the liberals whom you detest...I think there is far more evidence that you detest anyone you perceive as conservative.

[Ashliana]

Some day you'll learn that your word choice is important. There's a difference between "destroy" "damage" "incredibly damage" "temporarily damage" etc. A law student of all people should be aware of the difference words make in an argument.

As I said other countries do it. You can assume that their process is incredibly damaging, but it's merely that- an assumption. Your expense argument is redundent- I already pointed out it was a very expensive process. I don't know if you've noticed, but recently, oil has been very expensive.

It's not that my word choice is so important. It's that it's basically the only thing you have to argue with. Strip mining in general is extremely damaging. You can assume that these other countries, well known for not being environmentally responsible, somehow choose to be responsible in this case, an already expensive process compared to traditional drilling.

You're asserting that these countries are good examples that justify our mining of shale. So back it up.

[Ashliana]

I think there is far more evidence that you detest anyone you perceive as conservative.

Actually, I sincerely mourn the death of traditional conservatives in favor of the mindless, I-don't-care-enough-to-look-at-the-facts, repeating-talking-points-is-good-enough-for-me pseudo-conservatives of today.

[crb]

Strip mining is incredibly destructive to the environment. Happy? Once again, you decline to address the issue at hand and focus on a particular word choice. Some of the damage can be repaired afterwards, as I said, which takes more time, more money and makes oil shale even less of an competitor.

Strip mining destroys the environment.

Afterwards strip mines are repaired and look good as new. Furthermore, they, like landfills, tend to become permanent green spaces.

It is expensive to strip mine, and expensive to repair the land, but that is all built into the cost of extraction, as I said, I've heard that the oil shale becomes economically feasible at $60 a gallon. There were articles back on 05 (or whenever it was) when we passed $60 a gallon that discussed how shale was now feasible. The cost to repair is built into that figure.

I will stand up for you and protest strip mining that does not refill and replant the land afterwards, but I have no problem with strip mining that does. All told, from starting a mine, to finishing the replanting, could be 30 years or whatever, seems like a long time. But in age-of-the-earth terms that is relatively minor. I for one do not have a problem with it.

[Clove]

Ashliana, there's no point. Strip-mining can be managed responsibly with minimal long-term environmental impact. Canada is doing it with their sand-oil mining. Any proof I post you'll attack or ignore (as you did my observation about Norway's ecologically friendly off-shore drilling).

The fact is, it's expensive because of both the extraction process and the cost of doing it without "destroying the environment", but when oil is over 100 a barrel, it's a viable source.

[Clove]

Actually, I sincerely mourn the death of traditional conservatives in favor of the mindless, I-don't-care-enough-to-look-at-the-facts, repeating-talking-points-is-good-enough-for-me pseudo-conservatives of today.Spin it however you like, you're the liberal equivalent of Parkbandit and you're far more shrill and insulting with anyone you perceive as too conservative than I am with liberals of all sorts (except maybe Backlash whom even the other libs can't stand).

[radamanthys]

So much for a discussion.

[Bobmuhthol]

Ashliana, as a moderate Democrat, I'd like to point out that you're fucking retarded and I agree with the most conservative posters in this thread. Fuck.

[Clove]

Ashliana, as a moderate Democrat, I'd like to point out that you're fucking retarded and I agree with the most conservative posters in this thread. Fuck.And god knows how many times Bob and I have traded insults. The unifying effect Ashliana has on the PC community astonishing.

[Ashliana]

Ashliana, there's no point. Strip-mining can be managed responsibly with minimal long-term environmental impact. Canada is doing it with their sand-oil mining. Any proof I post you'll attack or ignore (as you did my observation about Norway's ecologically friendly off-shore drilling).

The fact is, it's expensive because of both the extraction process and the cost of doing it without "destroying the environment", but when oil is over 100 a barrel, it's a viable source.

You keep bouncing around, ignoring one objection, then addressing another. Oil shale requires large amounts of areas to be turned upside down for a long period of time. Whether or not you repair it afterwards--as Crb, said, sometimes decades later--adds to the expense and there are direct impacts during the meantime. I find the part of your statement I bolded to be particularly amusing, considering it's almost all of what you do. You refuse to look at anything down the road or beneath the surface. I seem to remember a time when you posted about three pages worth of nonsense while refusing to address a very solid, simple point on one of our previous threads.


Spin it however you like, you're the liberal equivalent of Parkbandit and you're far more shrill and insulting with anyone you perceive as too conservative than I am with liberals of all sorts (except maybe Backlash whom even the other libs can't stand).

I may be more "shrill and insulting" (thanks), but you're by far, far--hands down, far more argumentative. You argue for the sole sake of contradiction, even if it's on a point you happen to agree with.


Ashliana, as a moderate Democrat, I'd like to point out that you're fucking retarded and I agree with the most conservative posters in this thread. Fuck.

Thanks, Bob. Because having, at best, a casual interest in not destroying our planet in the pursuit of making gas cheaper, is fucking retarded.

[Ashliana]

And god knows how many times Bob and I have traded insults. The unifying effect Ashliana has on the PC community astonishing.

Only among the most idiotic of contributors, however. I've seen Bob both here and in-game, albeit quite some time ago. I'll shed no tears over having you and him in agreement.

[Clove]

Strip mining destroys the environment.

Afterwards strip mines are repaired and look good as new. Furthermore, they, like landfills, tend to become permanent green spaces.

It is expensive to strip mine, and expensive to repair the land, but that is all built into the cost of extraction, as I said, I've heard that the oil shale becomes economically feasible at $60 a gallon. There were articles back on 05 (or whenever it was) when we passed $60 a gallon that discussed how shale was now feasible. The cost to repair is built into that figure.

I will stand up for you and protest strip mining that does not refill and replant the land afterwards, but I have no problem with strip mining that does. All told, from starting a mine, to finishing the replanting, could be 30 years or whatever, seems like a long time. But in age-of-the-earth terms that is relatively minor. I for one do not have a problem with it.And this is really the point whenever there is a discussion about oil development (regardless of type) as it relates to the environment. Will it be done responsibly with acceptably low risk to the environment? It's not a question "can" we know we can. It's a question of expense and with oil well over a 100 dollars a barrel- a good deal of expense can be justified to get it out of the ground.

[Tisket]

Tisket disagrees

haha, I stopped reading her bullshit. Ignore is a wonderful thing.

P.S. stop quoting her shit!

[Clove]

Only among the most idiotic of contributors, however. I've seen Bob both here and in-game, albeit quite some time ago. I'll shed no tears over having you and him in agreement.You'd have a point if we were the only two.

[Danical]

Jesus Titty Fucking Christ!

Ashliana has 18.5 posts per day; she must get up very early in the morning.

EDIT: Contribution to Thread - Oil is rad.

[Clove]

You keep bouncing around, ignoring one objection, then addressing another. Oil shale requires large amounts of areas to be turned upside down for a long period of time. Whether or not you repair it afterwards--as Crb, said, sometimes decades later--adds to the expense and there are direct impacts during the meantime.Nobody has argued that it wasn't expensive. You may have noticed that oil is being sold pretty high these days.
I find the part of your statement I bolded to be particularly amusing, considering it's almost all of what you do. You refuse to look at anything down the road or beneath the surface. I seem to remember a time when you posted about three pages worth of nonsense while refusing to address a very solid, simple point on one of our previous threads.I'm sure you do, psychotics often have distorted recollection of events.
I may be more "shrill and insulting" (thanks), but you're by far, far--hands down, far more argumentative.I didn't respond to a comment from you about my argumentative nature, I responded to your comment that I detest liberals. Arguing isn't really so indicative of detest as shrill and insulting comments are.

[Danical]

Why is being argumentative in a political folder . . . bad?

[radamanthys]

Meh, the environment gets in the way of a true and good free market. It'll survive.

I say we rev up the drills and get to work.

[Ashliana]

You'd have a point if we were the only two.

Or if the other people you're referring to were more of the same. Which they are, for the vast majority.


Jesus Titty Fucking Christ!

Ashliana has 18.5 posts per day; she must get up very early in the morning.

EDIT: Contribution to Thread - Oil is rad.

That's not really that much--it's because of how recently I joined. As time goes on and I feed less into these anti-liberal troll threads, it'll even out a bit more. Two other forums I've stuck with for awhile, my post average is less than 2/day.


Nobody has argued that it wasn't expensive. You may have noticed that oil is being sold pretty high these days.

It's still more expensive and more damaging than traditional oil drilling. I'd rather drill conventionally.


I'm sure you do, psychotics often have distorted recollection of events.

That's right, clove! As a mindless pseudo-conservative, brand anything you don't like as homosexual, "socialist," or crackpot/psychotic.


I didn't respond to a comment from you about my argumentative nature, I responded to your comment that I detest liberals. Arguing isn't really so indicative of detest as shrill and insulting comments are.

You claim that I detest conservatives. I detest today's brand of "I say one thing, but do another" pseudo-conservatives.


Why is being argumentative in a political folder . . . bad?

It's not a bad thing if you're arguing an actual point, or for your cause. He argues simply so he can be arguing with me.


Meh, the environment gets in the way of a true and good free market. It'll survive.

I say we rev up the drills and get to work.

That's right! Screw future generations, or the brown people two continents away. It's their fault for not being born yet, or on the wrong side of the planet.

[RichardCranium]

Or if the other people you're referring to were more of the same. Which they are, for the vast majority.

Almost everyone on this message board has taken the same stance on you yet you still believe it's not you, it's them.




It's not a bad thing if you're arguing an actual point, or for your cause. He argues simply so he can be arguing with me.

Hello pot, meet kettle.




That's right! Screw future generations, or the brown people two continents away. It's their fault for not being born yet, or on the wrong side of the planet.

That's the second time you've used that tactic. el oh el

[Ashliana]

Almost everyone on this message board has taken the same stance on you yet you still believe it's not you, it's them.

I've interacted with only a small group of the forum. I actually find that people (who would've thought?) outside the off-topic/political forums to be very reasonable. In any case, I've never been particularly concerned with what people who are judging me from a handful of posts or hearsay from a gossip-obsessed poster like Tisket, think.


Hello pot, meet kettle.

Not at all. He derailed a thread about five or six pages because he took enormous issue with my pointing out that he used a word that doesn't exist. It was a footnote at the end one of my posts, and tried like hell, using every obscure, poorly sourced site he could to refuse admitting it.


That's the second time you've used that tactic. el oh el

Because it's still relevant? This theme runs rampant, especially among callous pseudo-conservatives: "Who the fuck cares if we leave the planet a smoking, lifeless cinder? We were born first, and should do whatever the hell we want for immediate, shortsighted gain!"

[crb]

Democrats seem perfectly fine to kick the social security can down the road for future generations. Barack's "Raise Taxes" plan just kicks it down the road 20 or 30 years. Don't mean to go off on a tangent, just saying.

I imagine most of us are young right, younger? Under 40? No one posting here is near retirement age? You realize that at the rate things are going all the cash we're paying into SS we'll likely never get back. I realize of course that Obama leads among younger people, but I cannot fathom why, because of this issue. Private accounts, and I don't mean stock market, you could tell people to invest in bonds only if you want, are the solution. Wouldn't you rather have YOUR social security account that YOU pay into and that YOU get to withdraw from when you retire. Rather than you paying in now and then getting nothing when you retire?

Let current workers choose, if they want, to redirect a portion of their SS taxes into a private account. Then raise the retirement age (people are living longer and healthier and can work longer) AND add a need based component to SS (bone throw to liberals to get them on board).

Or, you know, kick the can down the road and delay the inevitable.

[Clove]

Or if the other people you're referring to were more of the same. Which they are, for the vast majority.That would be calling the vast majority of the PC community at large like me and Bob. It's comments like THIS that get you labelled as a crackpot.


That's not really that much--it's because of how recently I joined. As time goes on and I feed less into these anti-liberal troll threads, it'll even out a bit more. Two other forums I've stuck with for awhile, my post average is less than 2/day.A good deal of your most recent posting was in that "anti-liberal troll thread" you started about Tisket.


It's still more expensive and more damaging than traditional oil drilling. I'd rather drill conventionally.I'm sure everyone would rather more conventional drilling, but you're against that too. I don't think anyone is suggesting shale recovery to the exclusion of less-expensive and less environmentally impacting recovery solutions.


That's right, clove! As a mindless pseudo-conservative, brand anything you don't like as homosexual, "socialist," or crackpot/psychotic.See your first comment. I label you psycho, when you demonstrate psychotic perceptions.


You claim that I detest conservatives. I detest today's brand of "I say one thing, but do another" pseudo-conservatives.I claimed there was more evidence that you detested conservatives, than there was that I detested liberals. You came back with I was more argumentative. Way to stick to the point.


It's not a bad thing if you're arguing an actual point, or for your cause. He argues simply so he can be arguing with me.I argue with people who use bad arguments and bad language to support a point. You could have made a stronger argument without all the bullshit. You almost never do, unfortunately. For that matter nothing stops you from proving you know what you're talking about by posting sources that specify the type and degree of environmental damage occurs from these operations. Here, let me help you. Two concerns with shale-oil recovery are its incredibly extensive use of water and acid leeching. But that's all you get.

[Ashliana]

Democrats seem perfectly fine to kick the social security can down the road for future generations. Barack's "Raise Taxes" plan just kicks it down the road 20 or 30 years. Don't mean to go off on a tangent, just saying.

Both parties have neglected this issue. Obama might not have a perfect plan, but if we can account for the enormous amount of baby boomers until they pass away, the population disparity should correct itself and the only looming issue we'll have is healthcare.


I imagine most of us are young right, younger? Under 40? No one posting here is near retirement age? You realize that at the rate things are going all the cash we're paying into SS we'll likely never get back. I realize of course that Obama leads among younger people, but I cannot fathom why, because of this issue. Private accounts, and I don't mean stock market, you could tell people to invest in bonds only if you want, are the solution. Wouldn't you rather have YOUR social security account that YOU pay into and that YOU get to withdraw from when you retire. Rather than you paying in now and then getting nothing when you retire?

Well, we don't have a choice, do we? If I could opt out of social security and save my own money--believe me, I would. I hope that we'll be able to fix it, but there is never political will until there's a crisis. How many years did the Republican-controlled congress and Presidents claim they wanted energy independence without putting any effort towards alternative energy? It's only now that the issue has finally been made bipartisan and is effort going into it. Why? Because it's a crisis.


Let current workers choose, if they want, to redirect a portion of their SS taxes into a private account. Then raise the retirement age (people are living longer and healthier and can work longer) AND add a need based component to SS (bone throw to liberals to get them on board).

Or, you know, kick the can down the road and delay the inevitable.

I agree with this, except the "kick the can" reference. It's better than doing nothing.

[Clove]

I find the part of your statement I bolded to be particularly amusing, considering it's almost all of what you do. You refuse to look at anything down the road or beneath the surface. I seem to remember a time when you posted about three pages worth of nonsense while refusing to address a very solid, simple point on one of our previous threads.
Not at all. He derailed a thread about five or six pages because he took enormous issue with my pointing out that he used a word that doesn't exist. It was a footnote at the end one of my posts, and tried like hell, using every obscure, poorly sourced site he could to refuse admitting it.First of all I posted sentences about my use of rantings, not pages (psychotic perception?). Second of all, you had already derailed the thread at that point.

[RichardCranium]

Because it's still relevant? This theme runs rampant, especially among callous pseudo-conservatives: "Who the fuck cares if we leave the planet a smoking, lifeless cinder? We were born first, and should do whatever the hell we want for immediate, shortsighted gain!"

It's good to know that you're able to be reasonable and objective when you're debating.

[Ashliana]

That would be calling the vast majority of the PC community at large like me and Bob. It's comments like THIS that get you labelled as a crackpot.

I'm sorry, but your egotism aside--you and Bob are not the vast majority of the community. I never claimed to be loved around here. Nor do I care. However, the tin-foil hat or crackpot accusations have come from both you and Gan, regarding political topics, and over mainstream points of view. You're trying to dismiss what is politically inconvenient to you by labeling it "insane."


A good deal of your most recent posting was in that "anti-liberal troll thread" you started about Tisket.

The vast majority of my posts have come from this forum--not the other forum where that thread is contained. And most of that vast majority is from responding to Gan's, Clyde's or PB's anti-liberal troll threads.


I'm sure everyone would rather more conventional drilling, but you're against that too. I don't think anyone is suggesting shale recovery to the exclusion of less-expensive and less environmentally impacting recovery solutions.

I'm not against drilling--there are places to drill, believe it or not, that aren't in a wildlife reservation or out at sea. The oil companies don't want to do it because it would be less profitable.


See your first comment. I label you psycho, when you demonstrate psychotic perceptions.

See my first comment. You label as insane, or crack-pot, whatever you find inconvenient to respond to. As you've shown more than once.


I claimed there was more evidence that you detested conservatives, than there was that I detested liberals. You came back with I was more argumentative. Way to stick to the point.

I did stick to the point--that I don't detest conservatives. I detest pseudo-conservatives.


I argue with people who use bad arguments and bad language to support a point. You could have made a stronger argument without all the bullshit. You almost never do, unfortunately. For that matter nothing stops you from proving you know what you're talking about by posting sources that specify the type and degree of environmental damage occurs from these operations. Here, let me help you. Two concerns with shale-oil recovery are its incredibly extensive use of water and acid leeching. But that's all you get.

Are you kidding? Your arguments, at times, are mindless and you've used foul language in 10+ consecutive posts when talking to me. There are a plethora of well-known negative effects to strip mining, especially for shale. You've been asserting, repeatedly, that these effects aren't noteworthy if we "clean it up afterwards" and referred to China, Russia and Brazil as examples, while backing up absolutely nothing to that effect.

http://www.ott.wrcc.osmre.gov/library/hbmanual/epa530c/chapter3.pdf

Very concise, shows some of the major drawbacks to the type of mining shale requires.

[RichardCranium]

Are you kidding? Your arguments, at times, are mindless and you've used foul language in 10+ consecutive posts when talking to me.

Proof positive you're delusional and have an extremely distorted view of reality. How's the weather on your planet?

[Ashliana]

Proof positive you're delusional and have an extremely distorted view of reality. How's the weather on your planet?

A little hot. Just under 90 degrees. A planet called Earth. I'd highly suggest travelling there at some point--your planet seems to be pretty disturbing.

[Clove]

I'm sorry, but your egotism aside--you and Bob are not the vast majority of the community.That was the point, that Bob and I are not the majority of the PC community and most of them seem to share our opinion of your attitude and behavior.


You're trying to dismiss what is politically inconvenient to you by labeling it "insane."No, I dismiss YOU as insane. You dismiss whatever is politically inconvenient as "psuedo-conservative", "stupid" or "evil". Nice to meet you Kettle.


The vast majority of my posts have come from this forum--not the other forum where that thread is contained. And most of that vast majority is from responding to Gan's, Clyde's or PB's anti-liberal troll threads.It didn't stop you from focusing on your failed Tisket thread for a couple of days, proving that you're perfectly capable of a being a bitch in "non-anti-liberal-trolling posts" just as effectively as anywhere else.


I'm not against drilling--there are places to drill, believe it or not, that aren't in a wildlife reservation or out at sea. The oil companies don't want to do it because it would be less profitable.Really? I don't recall you ever suggesting any of these alternative drilling sites in any of your protests to expanded domestic drilling.


As you've shown more than once.The only thing you've shown anyone in the politics and off-topic folders is hostility.


I did stick to the point--that I don't detest conservatives. I detest pseudo-conservatives.The point is there isn't evidence that I detest liberals. You can label the objects of your own hatred little purple men for all any of us care.


Are you kidding? Your arguments, at times, are mindless and you've used foul language in 10+ consecutive posts when talking to me.Yup I called you a dumb bitch repeatedly. So what? I wasn't talking about insults or curses, I was talking about your penchant of exaggeration and hyperbole and "non-literal" designations.


There are a plethora of well-known negative effects to strip mining, especially for shale. You've been asserting, repeatedly, that these effects aren't noteworthy if we "clean it up afterwards" and referred to China, Russia and Brazil as examples, while backing up absolutely nothing to that effect.Germany and Israel are two other countries that also use it.


http://www.ott.wrcc.osmre.gov/library/hbmanual/epa530c/chapter3.pdf

Very concise, shows some of the major drawbacks to shale mining.[/QUOTE]Sure does and the Office of Technology Transfer also has a Best Practices manual for managing the environmental risks of mining.

http://mining.state.co.us/bmp.pdf

The argument isn't whether or not there's an environmental impact. It's whether it "destroys the enviroment" or whether it can be managed safely.

[Atlanteax]

So... Ashliana = chick on perma-PMS?

Lovely...

[Keller]

you're the liberal equivalent of Parkbandit

Wait, where has she posted jpegs?

[Sean of the Thread]

So... Ashliana = chick on perma-PMS?

Lovely...

Close! but no cigar.

She's just another dumb twat on the ignore list.

[Clove]

So... Ashliana = chick on perma-PMS?

Lovely... Goddam trolls!


Wait, where has she posted jpegs?Dammit Keller, my apologies. A second rate liberal version of Parkbandit.

[Ashliana]

That was the point, that Bob and I are not the majority of the PC community and most of them seem to share our opinion of your attitude and behavior.

Again, I've interacted with only a small amount, and the ones outside of the off-topic/political sub-forums have been very pleasant.


No, I dismiss YOU as insane. You dismiss whatever is politically inconvenient as "psuedo-conservative", "stupid" or "evil". Nice to meet you Kettle.

Count the amount of seperate times I've ever called anything "evil" and you'll come up with one, and I wasn't speaking literally. Whereas you've tried to label myself and others as "insane" or "crack-pot" because you found them inconvenient. I tend not to use the word "stupid," as it doesn't mean anything. Pseudo-conservative is relevant, and it applies to all of the hypocritical so-caled conservatives who want: the government involved in your daily life, government legislating morality, rampant defense spending (although "offense" would be more correct, these days) and then turning around and criticizing any use of tax dollars to help the needy as "wasteful."

And I don't use the word to dismiss your argument--I address your poorly constructed arguments.


It didn't stop you from focusing on your failed Tisket thread for a couple of days, proving that you're perfectly capable of a being a bitch in "non-anti-liberal-trolling posts" just as effectively as anywhere else.

When exactly did I imply that my focus in the political section precluded me from making a thread responding to Tisket's enormous, bitchy ego? You proved that you're equally capable of being a dumbass there, but that wasn't ever really in doubt.


Really? I don't recall you ever suggesting any of these alternative drilling sites in any of your protests to expanded domestic drilling.

Maybe if you hadn't been in such a rush to contradict whatever I say, we could have more amicable, interesting discussion.


The only thing you've shown anyone in the politics and off-topic folders is hostility.

Not true. At all. This is an absolutely delusional assertion. I was attacked for my opinions--neutrally stated, completely non-hostile positions and have been ever since.

Either you get to claim "L2PC NUB, DEAL WITH HOSTILITY" or don't bitch about it and act surprised when I give you the same hostility back. You can't have it both ways without being the enormous douchebag that you are, Clove.


Yup I called you a dumb bitch repeatedly. So what? I wasn't talking about insults or curses, I was talking about your penchant of exaggeration and hyperbole and "non-literal" designations.

"So what," nothing. Don't act surprised or like it's not your fault when you get shit back for talking nothing but shit. I don't use hyperbole that often, but you're so desperate for anything to contradict, you jump on it at every opportunity.


Germany and Israel are two other companies that use it.

http://www.ott.wrcc.osmre.gov/library/hbmanual/epa530c/chapter3.pdf


Very concise, shows some of the major drawbacks to shale mining.Sure does and the Office of Technology Transfer also has a Best Practices manual for managing the environmental risks of mining.

http://mining.state.co.us/bmp.pdf

The argument isn't whether or not there's an environmental impact. It's whether it "destroys the enviroment" or whether it can be managed safely.

Your point? I already stated--not all countries have all the resources that we have, to exploit. It hasn't been done to any great extent here, for reasons. Mostly because that we have better spots and methods to drill. Mitigation of damage doesn't prevent the damage in the first place or consequences of it.

I'm not sure why you keep mixing your personal vendetta and incapability of posting without emotion, together with the actual argument. Either continue making the drilling argument alone, and take up the argument with me personally in tells, or make another thread especially devoted to your love, because we're both doing the thread a disservice by going on about this in every thread.

[CrystalTears]

I'm not sure why you keep mixing your personal vendetta and incapability of posting without emotion, together with the actual argument.You're guilty of doing the same thing.
Either continue making the drilling argument alone, and take up the argument with me personally in tells...They are PMs, not tells. This isn't Gemstone. Although treating your posts like a game would make more sense since neither your posts nor the game are based on reality.

To stay on topic, I'm glad to see that there is movement with the offshore drilling. I think Bush is trying to gain back a point or two before his exit.

[Clove]

Not true. At all. This is an absolutely delusional assertion. I was attacked for my opinions--neutrally stated, completely non-hostile positions and have been ever since.This was my favorite.

I'm not sure why you keep mixing your personal vendetta and incapability of posting without emotion, together with the actual argument. Either continue making the drilling argument alone, and take up the argument with me personally in tells, or make another thread especially devoted to your love, because we're both doing the thread a disservice by going on about this in every thread.Followed by this.

[Ashliana]

You're guilty of doing the same thing.They are PMs, not tells. This isn't Gemstone. Although treating your posts like a game would make more sense since neither your posts nor the game are based on reality.

Except Gemstone doesn't have tells (for communication), either? Anyway, I'm aware I used the wrong term. And I already admitted that I did the same thing, which is why I suggested we take it elsewhere. Then again, why I would ever expect anything constructive from you.. Heh.


To stay on topic, I'm glad to see that there is movement with the offshore drilling. I think Bush is trying to gain back a point or two before his exit.

I don't know. While I don't agree with his policy decisions, he's clearly shown that he doesn't care what's popular. He does what he thinks is right. There's overwhelming support for stem cell research, which he vetoed.

[Ashliana]

This was my favorite.
Followed by this.

Surprise, surprise, Clove. You reject my offer to take it elsewhere, refuse to address any issue, and attack something else. And if you check my posting history--all it takes is two clicks--you can see that I plainly wasn't hostile in the beginning, before you and your clique zoomed in on another "liberal, fresh off the boat."

[Danical]

Where do you people find the time . . .

[Clove]

Oil "plunges" to a still near-record high of $136 a barrel! Republican rhetoric aside, what does this prove?

I don't think you need the quotes for plunges, a 7% drop in day is a plunge. It proves that news of even potential future supply increases has a lowering effect on present prices.

Ashliana meant that strip-mining absolutely destroys the environment, non-literally.

Once again, Clove fails to make any substantive point whatsoever and chooses to be a troll. Damage can be mitigated and repaired, but it doesn't mean it doesn't have a negative impact in the interim.

I think you need to learn what a troll is. I've always participated in oil discussions including this one. If you want to stop being called on your bullshit, stop making bullshit comments.

On a side note all the oil-sand oil recovery in Canada is a strip mining process and Canada is managing the ecological impact of that just fine.
Except the only bullshit is the garbage spewing out of your mouth. Oil shale isn't widely mined specifically because it's difficult, incredibly damaging to the environment and there are easier alternatives. It's always been a last resort for a reason.

You just want to stick your head in the sand--or the shale, as it were--and be an obstinate asshole for the sake of contradicting people. That makes you a troll. Mitigating the damage that's done doesn't mean that there aren't consequences in the interim. There are many known detriments to strip mining.
Oil shale isn't widely mined because it is expensive. Despite that Brazil, Russia, China all extract shale oil. There are environmental concerns and challenges in its mining and extraction (which also contribute to the cost) this fact does NOT equal "destroys the environment" as you originally (non-literally) stated.

If you want to be a non-literal, hyperbole-spouting, opinion parroting bitch- be my guest. Just don't flip out when you're confronted about it.I do seem like a vendetta driven emotionally poster, don’t I?

[Ashliana]

I do seem like a vendetta driven emotionally poster, don’t I?

Um.. Yes?


Ashliana meant that strip-mining absolutely destroys the environment, non-literally.

That would be you jumping on my word choice when you clearly understood my meaning, glossing over the argument in favor of that, and intentionally trying to annoy me, by implying that I speak with hyperbole constantly, when I don't.

[Tisket]

So... Ashliana = chick on perma-PMS?

Actually I think she is probably the most unhappy person I've ever encountered on the internet. She is so determined to one-up everyone else that it makes me believe there must be a lot of disappointment in her life.

But whatever, she is such a hellbent, raging cunt with anyone who disagrees with her that it is truly amazing. And entertaining, in a trainwreck-y way.

[Solkern]

yes!

[Clove]

That would be you jumping on my word choice when you clearly understood my meaning, glossing over the argument in favor of that.That would be sarcasm, aimed at the exaggerating effect of your choice of words, not an emotionally driven vendetta.

[Ashliana]

Actually I think she is probably the most unhappy person I've ever encountered on the internet. She is so determined to one-up everyone else that it makes me believe there must be a lot of disappointment in her life.

But whatever, she is such a hellbent, raging cunt with anyone who disagrees with her that it is truly amazing. And entertaining, in a trainwreck-y way.

Ooh, clever! I'm determined to one-up you (and by responding, I'm sure I'm "proving your point,") as evidenced by your going far out of your way to try and provoke me in numerous threads in numerous parts of the forum, and altering your signature.

For someone who doesn't actually care that much, you seem rather hellbent and raging, Tisket. Especially for dealing with someone you picked a fight with. And borrowing my use of the word "trainwreck" is also very, very clever.

[Solkern]

Ooh, clever! I'm determined to one-up you (and by responding, I'm sure I'm "proving your point,") as evidenced by your going far out of your way to try and provoke me in numerous threads in numerous parts of the forum, and altering your signature.

For someone who doesn't actually care that much, you seem rather hellbent and raging, Tisket. Especially for dealing with someone you picked a fight with. And borrowing my use of the word "trainwreck" is also very, very clever.

yup another one up

[Ashliana]

That would be sarcasm, aimed at the exaggerating effect of your choice of words, not an emotionally driven vendetta.

Again, perception. It was you firing another shot, being an asshole once again--and you knew it. This whole sub-forum seeks e-drama(OMG, HYPERBOLE ALERT)--it's why there are threads like "OBAMA: THE ANTICHRIST?" and "OBAMA: ABOUT TO FLIP FLOP?"

It's the most entertaining. It's my fault for giving in and posting in them, as I said three or four pages back.

[CrystalTears]

That would be you jumping on my word choice when you clearly understood my meaning, glossing over the argument in favor of that, and intentionally trying to annoy me, by implying that I speak with hyperbole constantly, when I don't.
It's rather hard to understand someone's meaning on a message board if not through words. If you don't express yourself correctly, it will be taken incorrectly.

And you DO use hyperbole constantly. It's why it's the running joke at the moment. A comment to your FIRST POST was that it was full of hyperbole. But that was someone picking on you for being a liberal... in a Gemstone thread... right?

And borrowing my use of the word "trainwreck" is also very, very clever.
:lol: Yes because you introduced that term to the boards.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Surprise, surprise, Clove. You reject my offer to take it elsewhere, refuse to address any issue, and attack something else. And if you check my posting history--all it takes is two clicks--you can see that I plainly wasn't hostile in the beginning, before you and your clique zoomed in on another "liberal, fresh off the boat."

Frankly, there are a ton of liberals on these forums. You just don't want to take responsibility for why none of them are defending you or your views.

That's because regardless of how "neutral" you think you've stated your opinion, in defending yourself you've insulted a whole slew of people who said/did absolutely nothing to you and might have even taken your side (roughly) in regards to this issue. All your talk about how much you HATE various things, your random use of hyperboles, and now self-martyring about being a picked-on liberal is, unsurprisingly, not winning you any friends or allies.

It really does say a lot when people across the political spectrum can agree that someone is being unreasonable and/or stupid. It happens more often than you seem to think, too, and it's pretty obvious that that makes you uncomfortable. Most of the posters here though don't think that just because you're a registered Democrat or a registered Republican you should feel inclined to spew your party's rhetoric or always agree point-for-point with people on the same "side" as you.

It's clear that you don't see how hypocritical a lot of what you've said is-- you condemn Republicans and the conservative view point as being generalized, narrow-minded and riddled by illogical thought. In doing so, you yourself are being the embodiment of what you're condemning.

Frankly, you don't have to believe an alternative view on things to actually consider it. And it's far more intelligent I think to actually try to consider something with an unbiased attitude rather than dismiss it as wrong simply because the other side believes it. People also aren't supporting you in part because it's obvious that you're not going to even hear another side of an argument if your immediate thought is to disagree with it.

[RichardCranium]

And borrowing my use of the word "trainwreck" is also very, very clever.

Congratulations on being the first person to ever use the word trainwreck on these boards you egotistical cunt.

[Ashliana]

It's rather hard to understand someone's meaning on a message board if not through words. If you don't express yourself correctly, it will be taken incorrectly.

There's a difference between making yourself unclear and speaking colloquially. He's desperate to find anything to contradict, and looks for any instance of it.

[Tisket]

Ooh, clever! I'm determined to one-up you (and by responding, I'm sure I'm "proving your point,") as evidenced by your going far out of your way to try and provoke me in numerous threads in numerous parts of the forum, and altering your signature.

For someone who doesn't actually care that much, you seem rather hellbent and raging, Tisket. Especially for dealing with someone you picked a fight with. And borrowing my use of the word "trainwreck" is also very, very clever.

I think I've had a little back and forth with you in like what, two threads? As has been pointed your penchant for exaggeration is second to none.

[Tisket]

And borrowing my use of the word "trainwreck" is also very, very clever.


You really believe you coined that word? Holy mother of god...

[Solkern]

There's a difference between making yourself unclear and speaking colloquially. He's desperate to find anything to contradict, and looks for any instance of it.

can you seriusly just stfu?


having a fucking conversation with you, is like putting gas in a car you've already wrecked.

[Some Rogue]

Did someone say
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/lrenzo2/trainwreck450b.jpg

[Tisket]

Did someone say
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/lrenzo2/trainwreck450b.jpg


Careful, Assliana is going to sue you for copyright infringement!

[Solkern]

better hire a lawyer quick!

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

And borrowing my use of the word "trainwreck" is also very, very clever.

http://www.spartan5.com/images/fail_boat.jpg

[Solkern]

http://www.spartan5.com/images/fail_boat.jpg


i'm in tears from laughing SO hard

[Tisket]

This thread reminds me of that scene from Airplane where the passengers are all lined up to slap the hysterical passenger.

[Ashliana]

Frankly, there are a ton of liberals on these forums. You just don't want to take responsibility for why none of them are defending you or your views.

Actually, they have, on numerous occasions. I don't believe any of them are on at the moment, and they don't always have an interest or opinion on the topic. Thanks, though?


That's because regardless of how "neutral" you think you've stated your opinion, in defending yourself you've insulted a whole slew of people who said/did absolutely nothing to you and might have even taken your side (roughly) in regards to this issue. All your talk about how much you HATE various things, your random use of hyperboles, and now self-martyring about being a picked-on liberal is, unsurprisingly, not winning you any friends or allies.

You're just wrong about this. I was completely neutral in the beginning, and was repeatedly attacked, in your words, "by those who I said/did absolutely nothing to." I've defended myself, and gotten more and more flak it. I don't mind it, but people shouldn't act surprised when they get the same treatment back.


It really does say a lot when people across the political spectrum can agree that someone is being unreasonable and/or stupid. It happens more often than you seem to think, too, and it's pretty obvious that that makes you uncomfortable. Most of the posters here though don't think that just because you're a registered Democrat or a registered Republican you should feel inclined to spew your party's rhetoric or always agree point-for-point with people on the same "side" as you.

I've read most of the threads on the first page completely, and don't see how you can support such a statement--the majority of talk ends up being very divisive, party rhetoric.


It's clear that you don't see how hypocritical a lot of what you've said is-- you condemn Republicans and the conservative view point as being generalized, narrow-minded and riddled by illogical thought. In doing so, you yourself are being the embodiment of what you're condemning.

What I've said is that they're not the conservative viewpoint, because the real conservative viewpoint is now basically dead. I also don't think I've generalized anything more--at least, here--than the "pseudo-conservative" movement that's been dominant since Reagan courted the religious right into politics in order to get elected.


Frankly, you don't have to believe an alternative view on things to actually consider it. And it's far more intelligent I think to actually try to consider something with an unbiased attitude rather than dismiss it as wrong simply because the other side believes it. People also aren't supporting you in part because it's obvious that you're not going to even hear another side of an argument if your immediate thought is to disagree with it.

I completely disagree. I consider whatever actual evidence is presented to me. Clove, on the other hand, as an example--immediately starts posting a contradiction whenever I respond to him. He doesn't take the time to consider anything I've said, so there's little point in saying in it in the first place.

There have been countless occasions where I've genuinely been interested in discussing the topic, only to be instantly dismissed by him, or people with the same mindset that you're accusing me of. If you don't see it that way, then there's not much I can do about that.



Congratulations on being the first person to ever use the word trainwreck on these boards you egotistical cunt.

Thank you for assuming I was being egotistical, asshole. I'm the only person I've seen use it in the threads I've read, and I've read through quite a many threads in recent times. Similarly, I also used the word "espouse" a few days ago and saw several other people start using it afterwards. I don't think it's egotistical, but you're welcome to your misguided, irrationally hostile opinion.


haha, I stopped reading her bullshit. Ignore is a wonderful thing.

P.S. stop quoting her shit!

Really. You ignored me, did you? You're such a dumbass, Tisket. The thing about ignore is that people who use it, don't go about broadcasting it. Another boring attention-grabbing-whore comment.


I think I've had a little back and forth with you in like what, two threads? As has been pointed your penchant for exaggeration is second to none.

You're absolutely right, that we had arguments in about one or two threads. And what did you do? Went out of the forum and tried to provoke me in about three or four other threads, created a thread based on me, and changed your signature, all in typical attention-whore-escque style. Now you act surprised? I honestly think you're the most deranged person I've ever unfortunately encountered here.


can you seriusly just stfu?


having a fucking conversation with you, is like putting gas in a car you've already wrecked.

Thank you, but no--I'm going to continue responding to people that intentionally give me something to respond to. apparently putting gas in your already-wrecked car is something you want to do very much.

[Xiandrena]

Have to admit, I rarely peek in the politics portion of the boards but it's been nonstop entertainment lately. Thanks guys!

[Solkern]

Thank you, but no--I'm going to continue responding to people that intentionally give me something to respond to. apparently putting gas in your already-wrecked car is something you want to do very much.

lol my already wrecked car?

[Tisket]

Haha! What a dumbass, Tisket! You're absolutely right, that we had arguments in about one or two threads. And what did you do? Went out of the forum and tried to provoke me in about three or four other threads, created a thread based on me, and changed your signature, all in typical attention-whore-escque style. Now you act surprised? I honestly think you're the most deranged person I've ever unfortunately encountered here.


Links please. Put up or shut up.

[Martaigne]

To quote Ismurii...

"WTF?"

I was hoping for an intellectual discussion and instead find this barrel of tripe. Christ.

[Ashliana]

Links please. Put up or shut up.

The prime examples are the "the worst thing you can call someone" thread, your signature and the thread you created just-for-little-'ol-me. I thought there were more, and there might be, but I'm at work and don't have time to search the entire forum.

[Tisket]

The prime examples are the "the worst thing you can call someone" thread, your signature and the thread you created just-for-little-'ol-me. There might be others, but I'm at work and don't have time to search the entire forum.


So that's like a total of four posts? Wow yeah, that IS huge. Poor little you.

[Tisket]

A very cursory search shows that you have mentioned me something like 38 times. I feel so special.

[Martaigne]

Can't we just have an Ashliana vs. World thread where everyone can point fingers and blame and call names and whatever the fuck else it is you all are doing that's so important it's overriding a legitimate topic?

[Tisket]

but I'm at work and don't have time to search the entire forum.

Your boss must be so proud.

Now, I DO work and must be off. Have a nice day everyone.

[Ashliana]

So that's like a total of four posts? Wow yeah, that IS huge. Poor little you.

Still went out of your way to pick a fight with me when I don't believe I'd ever said a word to you, did the same in another political thread, posted in other forum sections about it, changed your signature, created a thread just for me--etc.

Seems like an awful lot of work for someone that doesn't concern you, and whom you claimed to have put on ignore. So what exactly happened to that? Are you totally full of shit, or just slightly?

[radamanthys]

I bet you think 9/11 was a hoax, too.

[Ashliana]

Can't we just have an Ashliana vs. World thread where everyone can point fingers and blame and call names and whatever the fuck else it is you all are doing that's so important it's overriding a legitimate topic?

There's already a thread like that, that she created for me in off-topic. Feel free to post there. It didn't get as many responses as she'd have liked. In any case, random people choose to make any thread I post in about me, personally. Whether it's Clove, Tisket, Gan, etc. It's always someone.

[radamanthys]

Can't we just have an Ashliana vs. World thread where everyone can point fingers and blame and call names and whatever the fuck else it is you all are doing that's so important it's overriding a legitimate topic?


That'd be nice, but in doing so, we'd have to relegate her to that specific thread- which isn't happening.

[Ashliana]

That'd be nice, but in doing so, we'd have to relegate her to that specific thread- which isn't happening.

And that you in particular go out of your way to say things you think will get me to respond, like your immediately previous comment. If people wanted an on-topic discussion, they'd have one.

[Martaigne]

There's already a thread like that, that she created for me in off-topic. Feel free to post there. It didn't get as many responses as she'd have liked.

No, YOU feel free to post there. I don't want to read this shit anymore.


In any case, random people choose to make any thread I post in about me, personally. Whether it's Clove, Tisket, Gan, etc. It's always someone.

You're going to have a hard time convincing me that Clove overtly attacks someone without due cause. I've known the dude 13 years.

Just sayin'.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Actually, they have, on numerous occasions. I don't believe any of them are on at the moment, and they don't always have an interest or opinion on the topic. Thanks, though?

I seriously doubt a parade of Liberal PC posters is going to come charging into this thread to back you. I guess you can always hope though.


You're just wrong about this. I was completely neutral in the beginning, and was repeatedly attacked, in your words, "by those who I said/did absolutely nothing to." I've defended myself, and gotten more and more flak it. I don't mind it, but people shouldn't act surprised when they get the same treatment back.

Completely neutral is pretty much having no opinion-- if you have an opinion on something you can't be totally neutral because for one reason or another you've been swayed to agree with a position on the subject at hand. Your original posts weren't neutral, even if you didn't outright attack someone. It was a pretty staunch, strongly worded agreement with one side of an issue. Why you think you should be homefree of criticism simply because you didn't call someone a name is beyond me. People aren't surprised that you're "defending" yourself, they're making fun of you.



I've read most of the threads on the first page completely, and don't see how you can support such a statement--the majority of talk ends up being very divisive, party rhetoric.

Actually, there are a lot of people who will support various party rhetoric and there are plenty of divisive issues. But you're pretty thick headed if you think that the political stance of most politics posters can be derived reading some of the first page of this folder. It's been around for a long time and most of the posters who've also been around a while I'm sure can back me up when I say that quite a fucking few people have actually agreed on issues regardless of whether they're a Democrat or a Republican. Hell, off the top of my head gun control is an issue that I'd say a huge number of people on these forums agree with each other on.



What I've said is that they're not the conservative viewpoint, because the real conservative viewpoint is now basically dead. I also don't think I've generalized anything more--at least, here--than the "pseudo-conservative" movement that's been dominant since Reagan courted the religious right into politics in order to get elected.

Yeah, and Democrats used to be for slavery. It doesn't matter what a party "used" to be. If a party is a certain way right now, then that's the fucking party and wallowing in "OMG THATS NOT WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT" is just dumb. You have generalized and even in the above statement you've generalized some more. You're using (or trying to use) logical fallacies to disprove something.




I completely disagree. I consider whatever actual evidence is presented to me. Clove, on the other hand, as an example--immediately starts posting a contradiction whenever I respond to him. He doesn't take the time to consider anything I've said, so there's little point in saying in it in the first place.

Bullshit-- you just get pissed that he (or mostly anyone) calls you on something he disagrees with . You get enraged by it and you sling back any petty insults with petty insults of your own, which cancels out any argument you have of being "picked on" or innocent. You get pretty obviously hot-blooded any time someone disagrees with you, which makes me wonder why the fuck you continue to post in as volatile a place as this politics folder.


There have been countless occasions where I've genuinely been interested in discussing the topic, only to be instantly dismissed by him, or people with the same mindset that you're accusing me of. If you don't see it that way, then there's not much I can do about that.

It's not really about other people, it's about you. Welcome to the PC forums-- people are not going to blow rainbows out of their ass for you and if you don't have a thick skin, you're gonna get driven out eventually. You've set up a precedent of posting things that people find ridiculous so of course they're going to trail your posts just waiting to see if you continue in that vein.

The sad part is, you do continue to and don't seem to learn from your mistakes. Keep trying the same thing over and over again-- go ahead. Maybe it'll work this time!! Or maybe you can take a step back from being so self-righteous about everything and start taking a different approach to these kinds of situations.

[Ashliana]

No, YOU feel free to post there. I don't want to read this shit anymore.

You're going to have a hard time convincing me that Clove overtly attacks someone without due cause. I've known the dude 13 years.

Just sayin'.


Then have people stop making personal attacks they know I'm going to respond to, whenever I make an on-topic post. If you want someone to actually blame for these situations, all you have to do is look.

[RichardCranium]

You're going to have a hard time convincing me that Clove overtly attacks someone without due cause. I've known the dude 13 years.

Just sayin'.


Don't bother. She's always the victim. Always.

[radamanthys]

This thread is dead. Might as well wring some juice out of it. Plus, I was curious about it- seems well within your style to be a conspiracy theorist.



And that you in particular go out of your way to say things you think will get me to respond, like your immediately previous comment.

Oh noes! She found me under the bridge! Whatever am I to do!

Fuck you, bitch, I am a troll.


If people wanted an on-topic discussion, they'd have one.

Yes, we had plenty of them... back before you arrived. It's your fault. Seems you're here to stay though. I feel like the PC just got herpes. *sigh*

[Solkern]

Yes, we had plenty of them... back before you arrived. It's your fault. Seems you're here to stay though. I feel like the PC just got herpes. *sigh*

win

[Martaigne]

Don't bother. She's always the victim. Always.

Yeah. I'm seeing what you mean.

Someone let me know if this somehow manages to transform back into a viable topic.

[Ashliana]

I seriously doubt a parade of Liberal PC posters is going to come charging into this thread to back you. I guess you can always hope though.

It wouldn't matter, even if they did. My opinion is my own.


Completely neutral is pretty much having no opinion-- if you have an opinion on something you can't be totally neutral because for one reason or another you've been swayed to agree with a position on the subject at hand. Your original posts weren't neutral, even if you didn't outright attack someone. It was a pretty staunch, strongly worded agreement with one side of an issue. Why you think you should be homefree of criticism simply because you didn't call someone a name is beyond me. People aren't surprised that you're "defending" yourself, they're making fun of you.

Neutral, as in a lack of emotion. I simply stated my opinion. I've done so, several times and each time, a troll tries to bait me into a flame-war by attacking me personally, rather than the argument. I could neglect to respond, but I see this happening all the time, and I have no problem responding to people with the same treatment they give me.


Actually, there are a lot of people who will support various party rhetoric and there are plenty of divisive issues. But you're pretty thick headed if you think that the political stance of most politics posters can be derived reading some of the first page of this folder. It's been around for a long time and most of the posters who've also been around a while I'm sure can back me up when I say that quite a fucking few people have actually agreed on issues regardless of whether they're a Democrat or a Republican. Hell, off the top of my head gun control is an issue that I'd say a huge number of people on these forums agree with each other on.

Not the first page of each thread--all the threads on the first page, and some on the second. I've gotten a pretty good idea of where each person that regularly posts stands. Most of the threads I see that get a lot of responses are the most controversial or the obvious flamebait topics like "Obama: The Antichrist."




Yeah, and Democrats used to be for slavery. It doesn't matter what a party "used" to be. If a party is a certain way right now, then that's the fucking party and wallowing in "OMG THATS NOT WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT" is just dumb. You have generalized and even in the above statement you've generalized some more. You're using (or trying to use) logical fallacies to disprove something.

The party itself is irrelevant--Democrats used to be the more conservative bunch. It doesn't mean anything. What, exactly, am I using as a logical fallacy? Back up what you're saying. Since Reagan courted the religious right into politics, they've become increasingly more divided as they try to get the government to essentially enforce their religion. As a result, what are the most divisive political issues? Gay marriage. Abortion. To a lesser extent, the death penalty. I don't think I'm generalizing. The Republican party has lost its way--it's no longer about fiscal responsibility, no longer about small government, no longer about civil liberties or state's rights. That's why I call them "pseudo-conservative." You can disagree all you like. But act like an asshole, and I'll give it back to you.


Bullshit-- you just get pissed that he (or mostly anyone) calls you on something he disagrees with . You get enraged by it and you sling back any petty insults with petty insults of your own, which cancels out any argument you have of being "picked on" or innocent. You get pretty obviously hot-blooded any time someone disagrees with you, which makes me wonder why the fuck you continue to post in as volatile a place as this politics folder.

Exactly the opposite. Honestly, where are you getting this from? I can't count the number of times I've posted my opinion calmly and had either PB, Clove, Gan, and the rest "of the bunch" fly in and either contradict me for the sake of it, like Clove does, or personally insult me, rather than address the argument.


It's not really about other people, it's about you. Welcome to the PC forums-- people are not going to be nice and if you don't have a thick skin, you're gonna get driven out eventually. You've set up a precedent of posting things that people find ridiculous so of course they're going to trail your posts just waiting to see if you continue in that vein.

The sad part is, you do continue to and don't seem to learn from your mistakes. Keep trying the same thing over and over again-- go ahead. Maybe it'll work this time!! Or maybe you can take a step back from being so self-righteous about everything and start taking a different approach to these kinds of situations.



Yes, we had plenty of them... back before you arrived. It's your fault. Seems you're here to stay though. I feel like the PC just got herpes. *sigh*

And I just addressed this. The "L2PC" objection means absolutely nothing if you're going to turn around and whine about how threads get pulled off-topic. If "posting in the PC forums" means people aren't going to be nice, then obviously people aren't going to be nice back. If they can't handle that, and can't keep on-topic, please go have this conversation with them.


Don't bother. She's always the victim. Always.

And no one else is ever at fault. That's right! Before me, this forum wasn't full of pseudo-conservative trolls, threads never got de-railed, and it was a right-wing paradise.

[NocturnalRob]

haha, I stopped reading her bullshit. Ignore is a wonderful thing.

P.S. stop quoting her shit!

i just wanted to bring you into the thread...jeez!

edit: also, Ashliana...please stop trying to address everyone's points. even with 50 posts per page, this shit drags on forever because you quote every fucking minutiae and try to respond.

[Some Rogue]

Careful, Assliana is going to sue you for copyright infringement!
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/lrenzo2/untitled-3.jpg

[radamanthys]

Exactly the opposite. Honestly, where are you getting this from? I can't count the number of times I've posted my opinion calmly and had either PB, Clove, Gan, and the rest "of the bunch" fly in and either contradict me for the sake of it, like Clove does, or personally insult me, rather than address the argument.

The politics folder is an ongoing debate. If your teeny weeny little constitution can't handle being "contradicted"- told that you're an idiot, wrong, or any other permutation inherent to any intellectual disputation, then leave. It's just gonna get worse.

lrn2life, bitch.

[RichardCranium]

At this point I just feel like calling you Backlashliana is an insult to Backlash. Oh yes, it has gone that far.

[Martaigne]

At this point I just feel like calling you Backlashliana is an insult to Backlash. Oh yes, it has gone that far.

http://images.cafepress.com/image/12412695_400x400.jpg

[Ashliana]

The politics folder is an ongoing debate. If your teeny weeny little constitution can't handle being "contradicted"- told that you're an idiot, wrong, or any other permutation inherent to any intellectual disputation, then leave. It's just gonna get worse.

lrn2life, bitch.

It's not about contradicting. People are free to disagree. Just don't be surprised when, if you call someone an asshole, you get called one back. If you call someone an asshole, don't be surprised when the thread gets de-railed due to your starting a flame war. This isn't rocket science.

[waywardgs]

Yeah, and Democrats used to be for slavery. It doesn't matter what a party "used" to be. If a party is a certain way right now, then that's the fucking party and wallowing in "OMG THATS NOT WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT" is just dumb.

Now, I don't care much for any of these silly political threads because all they are is an excuse to toss personal insults around, but I found this funny. Part of why so many republicans have become disenfranchised with their own party is because the republican party is SUPPOSED to be about fiscal responsibility. Heh. The Bush presidency has presided over the most fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE presidency ever. His is the Big Government presidency.

Numbers, for those who care to look at weird things like facts, from a quick search of the Cato Institue (whose tagline is Invididual Liberty, Free Markets and Peace) and the Heritage Foundation:

National debt has increased 60%, from $6 trillion to $10 trillion.
-Iraq war has cost about $525 billion in "unanticipated spending".
-2001 and 2003 tax cuts reduced federal revenues by about $200 billion.
-Government spending exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since WWII. Compare this to just under $18,000 during the 90's. Also, consider that Americans paid about $16,780 per household. This is deficit spending on an unprecedented level.
-Biggest increases in spending were defense and social security, but others include:
1. Agriculture: 2002 farm bill increased spending 76% over 1990's levels, $23 billion.
2. Education surged 78% due to the no child left behind act- $34 to $58b between 2001 and 2003.
3. Health program spending, outside of medicare and medicaid, leaped 81%.

And most of the new spending is not, in fact, defense or war related. It's just spun that way. 34% was defense, 11% was 9/11 related spending, and the majority of new spending, 54%, was unrelated to defense.

In any event, when people start talking about what parties are "supposed" to be about or not "supposed" to be about, there is some substance to that- republican party has traditionally been small government, financial responsibility.

Bush and this new big-government republican party, seems to me, has turned it's back on its main constituency.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

http://uploads.neowin.net/forum/post-7103-1204801350_thumb.jpg

[Ashliana]

In any event, when people start talking about what parties are "supposed" to be about or not "supposed" to be about, there is some substance to that- republican party has traditionally been small government, financial responsibility.

Bush and this new big-government republican party, seems to me, has turned it's back on its main constituency.

I COMPLETELY agree. A possible trouble, at least on this forum, is that many are just too young to remember what the traditional Republican stance was. Reagan's was probably the first of these "big government, fiscally irresponsible" administrations, but the current so-called conservatives literally shower him with praise and remember his time nostalgically.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Now, I don't care much for any of these silly political threads because all they are is an excuse to toss personal insults around, but I found this funny. Part of why so many republicans have become disenfranchised with their own party is because the republican party is SUPPOSED to be about fiscal responsibility. Heh. The Bush presidency has presided over the most fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE presidency ever. His is the Big Government presidency.

Numbers, for those who care to look at weird things like facts, from a quick search of the Cato Institue (whose tagline is Invididual Liberty, Free Markets and Peace) and the Heritage Foundation:

National debt has increased 60%, from $6 trillion to $10 trillion.
-Iraq war has cost about $525 billion in "unanticipated spending".
-2001 and 2003 tax cuts reduced federal revenues by about $200 billion.
-Government spending exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since WWII. Compare this to just under $18,000 during the 90's. Also, consider that Americans paid about $16,780 per household. This is deficit spending on an unprecedented level.
-Biggest increases in spending were defense and social security, but others include:
1. Agriculture: 2002 farm bill increased spending 76% over 1990's levels, $23 billion.
2. Education surged 78% due to the no child left behind act- $34 to $58b between 2001 and 2003.
3. Health program spending, outside of medicare and medicaid, leaped 81%.

And most of the new spending is not, in fact, defense or war related. It's just spun that way. 34% was defense, 11% was 9/11 related spending, and the majority of new spending, 54%, was unrelated to defense.

In any event, when people start talking about what parties are "supposed" to be about or not "supposed" to be about, there is some substance to that- republican party has traditionally been small government, financial responsibility.

Bush and this new big-government republican party, seems to me, has turned it's back on its main constituency.


Oh, I definitely agree that there is subtance to the argument but not when you're trying to use it in a logical fallacy. In the scope of the argument I was referring to, it really doesn't matter if The Republican party is the same now as it was before-- that in and of itself doesn't make someone's viewpoint on an issue wrong simply because they identify as a Republican.

A discrepency in what the Republican Party was, and what it now is, does not automatically discredit someone of that party's opinion.

[Atlanteax]

Is it me, or can anyone else imagine how the potency of Ashliana's vitriol could make the most hardened of criminals move to the other side of the shared jail cell?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Is it me, or can anyone else imagine how the potency of Ashliana's vitriol could make the most hardened of criminals move to the other side of the shared jail cell?

I can mostly just imagine them getting annoyed and stabbing her in the neck with their toothbrush shank.

[Ashliana]

I can mostly just imagine them getting annoyed and stabbing her in the neck with their toothbrush shank.

Try to hold on to that bitterness, Narc. It'll serve you well in the future.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Try to hold on to that bitterness, Narc. It'll serve you well in the future.

I will if you promise to make a thread complete with a poll about it.

Just make sure it's a public poll ffs.

[Bobmuhthol]

This thread used to be cool until 9:20 (-4:00 from GMT) AM.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Is it me, or can anyone else imagine how the potency of Ashliana's vitriol could make the most hardened of criminals move to the other side of the shared jail cell?

What does Stratfor have to say on the matter?

[thefarmer]

http://www.osney.org/po/royalFail.jpg

[Apathy]

Actually, they have, on numerous occasions. I don't believe any of them are on at the moment, and they don't always have an interest or opinion on the topic. Thanks, though?


Actually no, they haven't. You could count the number of times you've been defended on this forum on one hand. Why? Because even when you start with a decent, relevant point, you decide to respond to EVERYONE and insult (rather than just argue your point) 4/5's of them, completely derailing every thread you've been in.

Do your parents know you are skipping school to post dribble on an internet forum all day? Quit wasting their money.

[Miss Ismurii]

11 thumbs up to Apathy! lmao

[diethx]

...Yes, we had plenty of them... back before you arrived. It's your fault. Seems you're here to stay though. I feel like the PC just got herpes. *sigh*

That made me giggle so hard I choked on my own saliva. Thanks for the sig-worthy bit, even if it made me cough for 30 seconds straight :heart:

And as for the rest of this thread (and Ashliana's miserable existence here, really), let me express how I feel:

http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10062/SiskoAnimated.gif

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h93/macdadymario/picardasain.gif

[Ashliana]

Actually no, they haven't. You could count the number of times you've been defended on this forum on one hand. Why? Because even when you start with a decent, relevant point, you decide to respond to EVERYONE and insult (rather than just argue your point) 4/5's of them, completely derailing every thread you've been in.

Do your parents know you are skipping school to post dribble on an internet forum all day? Quit wasting their money.

I do respond to everyone. I try to give people the same courtesy they give me, in responding. I wouldn't say I derail the thread myself; my presence might, because people are unable to control themselves. Thank you for the additional hostility (and for the record, you probably meant drivel).


That made me giggle so hard I choked on my own saliva. Thanks for the sig-worthy bit, even if it made me cough for 30 seconds straight :heart:

And as for the rest of this thread (and Ashliana's miserable existence here, really), let me express how I feel:

http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10062/SiskoAnimated.gif


While I think you're a stupid, worthless cunt, Diethx, and you know that--I will compliment you on choosing the Sisko facepalm.

[Sean of the Thread]

Ashliana
This message is hidden because Ashliana is on your ignore list.



Oh sooo nice.

[Ashliana]

For someone you supposedly ignore, you sure go out of your way to post in the threads that I post in, about the posts that I write. Who else was attention whoring like that just a few pages ago? Oh. Right.

[Sean of the Thread]

Unread 07-16-2008, 09:24 PM
Ashliana
This message is hidden because Ashliana is on your ignore list.

Rofl. This is so much more enjoyable than reading your fucking garbage.

[Ashliana]

Keep going, Sean. Show us how much free time you really have. =)

[RichardCranium]

Keep going, Sean. Show us how much free time you really have. =)

Says the chick who takes the time to respond to the guy that has her on ignore every time he posts.

[diethx]

Keep going, Sean. Show us how much free time you really have. =)

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i125/Blogger-Sandi/Misc/pot-kettle-black.jpg

[Ashliana]

What I'm doing:

Responding to someone talking to, or about me.

What he's doing:

Posting repeatedly about how he can't see someone else's post that he's claimed to ignore.

Which is the waste of time? Sorry you two can't see the difference. =)

[Solkern]

Whoa, i've been on these forums for YEARS, and Ashliana is the first person i've ever ignored, and damn, it's so much nicer

[Ashliana]

And yet you still managed to make your way in here for an obligatory attention-whore post, Solkern. :clap:

[Daniel]

Okay. You can seriously stop now. You're almost more annoying than Parkbandit.

[Clove]

Okay. You can seriously stop now. You're almost more annoying than Parkbandit.


Spin it however you like, you're the liberal equivalent of Parkbandit and you're far more shrill and insulting with anyone you perceive as too conservative than I am with liberals of all sorts (except maybe Backlash whom even the other libs can't stand).


Wait, where has she posted jpegs?


Dammit Keller, my apologies. A second rate liberal version of Parkbandit.

But we're all blind and she's just misunderstood.

[Ashliana]

But we're all blind and she's just misunderstood.

Very nice, Clove. How long have you been sitting, waiting for that one? No, you're not a troll at all.

[Sean of the Thread]

Whoa, i've been on these forums for YEARS, and Ashliana is the first person i've ever ignored, and damn, it's so much nicer

WERD

[Clove]

Very nice, Clove. How long have you been sitting, waiting for that one? No, you're not a troll at all.Yeah that's it, I've been waiting in the wings for hours for that ONE person to post something negative about Ashliana in this thread. You seriously need counselling and meds.

[Sean of the Thread]

Yeah that's it, I've been waiting in the wings for hours for that ONE person to post something negative about Ashliana in this thread. You seriously need counselling and meds.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/1601980330_03d8c698a3.jpg

[RichardCranium]

Yeah that's it, I've been waiting in the wings for hours for that ONE person to post something negative about Ashliana in this thread. You seriously need counselling and meds.

Or cock.

[Ashliana]

Yeah that's it, I've been waiting in the wings for hours for that ONE person to post something negative about Ashliana in this thread. You seriously need counselling and meds.

I really pity you.

[Clove]

Or cock.http://cdejarnatt.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/rooster.jpg

[Solkern]

Ashliana
This message is hidden because Ashliana is on your ignore list.


= win

[Apathy]

Ashliana, do you realize you have posted in this thread literally all day with only a couple hours off? It is a Wednesday. How are you not working, or not in class, or not studying, or not taking a test, or not socializing, or not going outside...?

Cool off for a bit, stop insulting people who disagree with you, stop feeding the fire when you get flamed. Just chill out. I'm not hostile, I'm helpful. Just ask Miss I.

[Back]

Spin it however you like, you're the liberal equivalent of Parkbandit and you're far more shrill and insulting with anyone you perceive as too conservative than I am with liberals of all sorts (except maybe Backlash whom even the other libs can't stand).

Ok, people make reference to me quite frequently. The same six or so people Clove being one of the top three. Possibly even one of the top two!

It would be a subjective number based on my own judgment on whether they were positive or negative responses. I’d have to go back to Jan. 2003 to really count, actually before that into the archives, and I really can’t be bothered... but I digress. (Are you as sick of this phrase as I am?)

Clove u nub, and I mean this in the most sincere way possible... you’re trying too hard. Ok, we get it, man. You can fence semantics on a message board. You aren’t the first, the last, or the best and not the worst. Never take it too seriously.

Try to trust yourself more often. Be creative instead of regurgitating what you copy/paste from other sources.

[Apathy]

Stop. Posting. Drunk. (unless its about beer, more beer posts plz)

[Sean of the Thread]

Beth

[Bobmuhthol]

Ashliana, you suck.

[Ashliana]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=759397&postcount=180

You suck more, Bob.

[Tisket]

I think she is insane. And not in a good way. I imagine her posting like this woman acts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfT5_CPkHfI&eurl=http://digg.com/people/Insane_Woman_You_re_NOT_ALLOWED

[Keller]

I think she is insane. And not in a good way. I imagine her posting like this woman acts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfT5_CPkHfI&eurl=http://digg.com/people/Insane_Woman_You_re_NOT_ALLOWED

Who is insane in a good way?

[Tisket]

Who is insane in a good way?

Got me there.

[Fallen]

Who is insane in a good way?


Angelina Jolie and The Joker.

[Back]

Stanley Kubrick?

[diethx]

Hahahahhaa, that video is still hilarious no matter how many times I see it. What a nutbag. And yes, much like Assliana's style. I've been saying for days though that she needs some psychiatric help, perhaps for some dissociative disorder that keeps her from seeing reality clearly.

[radamanthys]

It's more reminiscent of paranoid personality disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_personality_disorder). I like the ICD def for her better than the DSM, but whatever.

Doesn't matter... we're all aware that she's cracked.

[diethx]

Yeah, I guess. Although if I were to go with a personality disorder, i'd definitely go with borderline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder). Fits pretty damned well in fact.

[Tisket]

Congratulations on being the first person to ever use the word trainwreck on these boards you egotistical cunt.

It's funny that she keeps challenging people to do searches for various things yet will make such stupid comments without doing a search herself.

First use of "trainwreck" in regard to a thread dates back to 2003.

I used the word "trainwrecky" back in 2005, post number 125 of this closed thread: http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthrea...y#post 402179

So YOU'VE been stealing MY word! Dumbass bitch.



I also used the word "espouse" a few days ago and saw several other people start using it.

Once again...88 uses of this word in that form dating back to 2003. But oh no, people used YOUR word. How dare they. I mean really, they couldn't possibly have a vocabulary that might include such a special word...



I'm the only person I've seen use it, and I've read through quite a many threads in recent times.

Seriously? All 748,686+ posts? I'm astounded.

Fucking learn to use the search function, you ignorant ass. Backlash even tried to throw you a few clues on how to do a search. But I guess you'd rather make grossly exaggerated statements and hope noone else will bother to look it up than take the time to check your work first. Lazy fuck.

[Clove]

Clove u nub, and I mean this in the most sincere way possible... you’re trying too hard.The most ironic advice ever, coming from the boy who got himself banned and then made a zillion alts to circumvent it (and failed). Frankly, I think you take first-prize in regards to trying too hard.

[Ashliana]

It's funny that she keeps challenging people to do searches for various things yet will make such stupid comments without doing a search herself.

First use of "trainwreck" in regard to a thread dates back to 2003.

I used the word "trainwrecky" back in 2005, post number 125 of this closed thread: http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthrea...y#post 402179

So YOU'VE been stealing MY word! Dumbass bitch.



Once again...88 uses of this word in that form dating back to 2003. But oh no, people used YOUR word. How dare they. I mean really, they couldn't possibly have a vocabulary that might include such a special word...



Seriously? All 748,686+ posts? I'm astounded.

Fucking learn to use the search function, you ignorant ass. Backlash even tried to throw you a few clues on how to do a search. But I guess you'd rather make grossly exaggerated statements and hope noone else will bother to look it up than take the time to check your work first. Lazy fuck.

Wow. What a complete failure to read. I never claimed to be the first ever on the forum to use those words. I said, in all the threads that I'd read, and I had read all the ones from the last few months, I hadn't seen anyone use either word. Then, after I used them, a few other people started.


Seriously? All 748,686+ posts? I'm astounded.
....But I guess you'd rather make grossly exaggerated statements

Kind of like you did, and I didn't? You're such a dumbass cunt, Tisket. I said "quite a many threads" which turns into "750,000 posts" by your count, and I'm the one exaggerating. Please kill yourself.

Really, is this the only thing you have to go on now? That's the "lazy fuck" in you, I guess. I suppose you got too bored after claiming to have me on ignore, and wanted to look like the enormous cunt that you are for proving it was just another attention whore grab. :rofl:

[Nieninque]

I really pity you.

Holy-motherfucking-son-of-a-bitch-shit!

I hope that, by the inclusion of my post in your signature that you haven't mistaken my comments towards Diethx as some kind of defence of you? You make me want to stick rusty sporks into my eyes. My comments were aimed at her for what she said rather than who she was saying it to.

Please take note.

[Nieninque]

First use of "trainwreck" in regard to a thread dates back to 2003.

It would have been way before 2003 even, but that's when the forums moved to gsplayers.com.

[Nieninque]

http://cdejarnatt.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/rooster.jpg

That's not a cock, this is a cock (Watch the video) NSFW (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1435097.ece)

[Nieninque]

I hadn't seen anyone use either word. Then, after I used them, a few other people started.

That says more about your ability to read than your originality.

[RichardCranium]

That's not a cock, this is a cock (Watch the video) NSFW (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1435097.ece)

I can't believe they took legal action against that kid. Some people have no sense of humor.

[Shari]

Okay...I didn't read all the posts. (I actually only read like, 5) Mostly because I avoid political shit on these boards like the plague. So maybe I missed someone saying this already, but does this seem like a last ditch effort from Bush to help boost McCain's votablity for pres?

ZOMG, BUSH LOWERED GAS PRICES, REPUBLICANZ IZ OUR HEROEZ!

[Nieninque]

I can't believe they took legal action against that kid. Some people have no sense of humor.

Agree. They should have just castrated him.

[Ashliana]

That says more about your ability to read than your originality.

Or that the words simply hadn't been used recently.. I don't really have a desire to argue about such an inane point that she's desperately clinging to.


Okay...I didn't read all the posts. (I actually only read like, 5) Mostly because I avoid political shit on these boards like the plague. So maybe I missed someone saying this already, but does this seem like a last ditch effort from Bush to help boost McCain's votablity for pres?

ZOMG, BUSH LOWERED GAS PRICES, REPUBLICANZ IZ OUR HEROEZ!

I doubt they'll spin it like that, but since the Democrats gained the 51-49 majority in the senate, they'll be sure to blame all the high oil prices on them, even though the Republicans had control of both the congress and executive for years and years 06 and previously.

[RichardCranium]

Agree. They should have just castrated him.


Now that's comedy.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Now that's comedy.

Imagine you are walking across the stage to get your diploma, and out of the corner of your eye you see a guy dressed like a giant penis running at you...

[Nieninque]

Or that the words simply hadn't been used recently.. I don't really have a desire to argue about such an inane point that she's desperately clinging to.

The word "trainwreck" is used on a regular basis on these boards, notably for threads such as this. A simple search of the boards shows that your first use of the word here was on 2/7/08. The last person to use that before you was your little friend Diethx on 16/6/08. The fact that you were the first person to use that word in a two week timescale does not make it yours.

Your claims to the word "espouse" are as equally ridiculous.

[Nieninque]

Imagine you are walking across the stage to get your diploma, and out of the corner of your eye you see a guy dressed like a giant penis running at you...

You are such a killjoy.

[Clove]

Okay...I didn't read all the posts. (I actually only read like, 5) Mostly because I avoid political shit on these boards like the plague. So maybe I missed someone saying this already, but does this seem like a last ditch effort from Bush to help boost McCain's votablity for pres?

ZOMG, BUSH LOWERED GAS PRICES, REPUBLICANZ IZ OUR HEROEZ!I think it's one of several efforts Bush will make to help McCain, that's what members of a party do for each other. However, Bush didn't lower gas prices. It's suggested that his announcement may have helped lower oil prices although, as Kranar and CRB pointed out (and for that matter most media outlets) it probably had more (if not entirely) to do with Bernanke's testimony at the Senate. I'm of the opinion it was a bit of both.

[Ashliana]

The word "trainwreck" is used on a regular basis on these boards, notably for threads such as this. A simple search of the boards shows that your first use of the word here was on 2/7/08. The last person to use that before you was your little friend Diethx on 16/6/08. The fact that you were the first person to use that word in a two week timescale does not make it yours.

Your claims to the word "espouse" are as equally ridiculous.

I don't claim ownership of the words. All I said was that I haven't seen anyone else use the word--I'd used it directly to describe a few people, then others started using it. Same with the other.


I think it's one of several efforts Bush will make to help McCain, that's what members of a party do for each other. However, Bush didn't lower gas prices. It's suggested that his announcement may have helped lower oil prices although, as Kranar and CRB pointed out (and for that matter most media outlets) it probably had more (if not entirely) to do with Bernanke's testimony at the Senate. I'm of the opinion it was a bit of both.

People on CSPAN keep saying Bush is a hinderance rather than a help like he was in the 06 congressional elections. I wonder if we'll see much of him this campaign.

[Some Rogue]

You are such a killjoy.

I think that was his way of telling us he dreams of this very thing nightly...

[Tea & Strumpets]

I think that was his way of telling us he dreams of this very thing nightly...

I just would have liked to have heard the thoughts of the person walking across stage as it happened... "Whew, I'm finally gradua---is that a giant penis running at me!?"

[Apathy]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v448/ipalatt/die_thread_die.jpg

He may be going after that penis too, though. Kinda hard to tell.

[Parkbandit]

Spin it however you like, you're the liberal equivalent of Parkbandit and you're far more shrill and insulting with anyone you perceive as too conservative than I am with liberals of all sorts (except maybe Backlash whom even the other libs can't stand).


W

T

F

?

[Back]

W

T

F

?

I had the same reaction. How dare he call me a liberal. I’m a Communist damn it.

[Gan]

W

T

F

?

:rofl:


Luuuuucy! Joo hab som splainin to dooo!

[Clove]

No I don't PB brags about his ability to derail threads...

[Stanley Burrell]

Every species will become extinct eventually. We didn't nuke the North fucking Pole. Not only that, but this probably creates jobs. You NSF fucks, who aren't reading this, need to remember that human beings are animals too. I am an arch-liberal, but if I hear one more argument against the mathematical inevitability of our own animal instincts to sustain ourselves, I will visit the ANWR headquarters and choke baby seals.

[radamanthys]

If I were to open a nightclub, I'd so call it Club Baby Seal

[Stanley Burrell]

I'd call mine Toddler Rape.

[Back]

I’d call mine “The Purple Opalette”. Long story.

[Stanley Burrell]

Okay, let's hear the story.

[Stanley Burrell]

rofl

[Back]

“The Purple Opalette” came to me in a dream I had when I was a teenager. It was quite vivid. A small, dark, chill place. Victorian. Purple satin, velour, pillows... small brickfront building off some gaslit avenue. A hand-carved wooden sign hanging off a chain hooked to the brick. The logo a victorian lady sitting in a chair with a long purple dress.

[Stanley Burrell]

“The Purple Opalette” came to me in a dream I had when I was a teenager. It was quite vivid. A small, dark, chill place. Victorian. Purple satin, velour, pillows... small brickfront building off some avenue. A hand-carved wooden sign hanging off a chain hooked to the brick. The logo a victorian lady sitting in a chair with a long purple dress.

Ah.

[radamanthys]

I'd love to see the clientele of Club Toddler Rape. I mean... the whole place would be filled with dudes with 'staches just like yours! hehe


jk, who doesn't love the peder'stache?