Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#72
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:10:23 -0500, Tosk
wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:16:36 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote: In article , says... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor... So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than I, what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared to all other countries with the exception of Russia? Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal. Two things come immediately to mind. One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work on clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to be failing miserably. A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station, sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now and it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation. Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal of all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like new discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find it. Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce 1,000,000 BTUs. Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar results to fossil fuels. Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political front. What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is just fine... ![]() -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different from a solar array that is off of the ground. Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that plentiful in the desert. Actually, solar arrays do their best where there's lots of sunshine and cool temperatures. Then, you don't need any cooling. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8 Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push something else. They really don't want to solve the problem. Nuclear is a good idea. The French and the Brits use lots of it. They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich. Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction? Those pesky Nobel people. They'll never learn! You keep showing yourself for what you are. I'm sure those pesky, noble, Nobel people are getting their cut also. The Nobel is just a popularity contest, really has nothing significant to do or prove.. It's a joke, has been for decades... More and more I think it's a money making proposition for the AGW crowd. We know the Canadians are an honest bunch: http://www.canadafreepress.com/printpage.php I believe the scam is much, much bigger than shown there. Mo But not much has been heard about any scam investigation since 'Bama took office. I wonder why? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=17814838 http://www.nextgenpe.com/news/boliva...n-offset-scam/ Just type carbon offset scam and get your 24 million hits. Don't you think Gore, 'Bama, et al, have their fingers in that big pot they keep passing around? |
#73
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:10:23 -0500, Tosk wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:16:36 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote: In article , says... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor... So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than I, what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared to all other countries with the exception of Russia? Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal. Two things come immediately to mind. One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work on clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to be failing miserably. A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station, sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now and it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation. Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal of all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like new discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find it. Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce 1,000,000 BTUs. Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar results to fossil fuels. Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political front. What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is just fine... ![]() -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different from a solar array that is off of the ground. Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that plentiful in the desert. Actually, solar arrays do their best where there's lots of sunshine and cool temperatures. Then, you don't need any cooling. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8 Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push something else. They really don't want to solve the problem. Nuclear is a good idea. The French and the Brits use lots of it. They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich. Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction? Those pesky Nobel people. They'll never learn! You keep showing yourself for what you are. I'm sure those pesky, noble, Nobel people are getting their cut also. The Nobel is just a popularity contest, really has nothing significant to do or prove.. It's a joke, has been for decades... More and more I think it's a money making proposition for the AGW crowd. We know the Canadians are an honest bunch: http://www.canadafreepress.com/printpage.php I believe the scam is much, much bigger than shown there. Mo But not much has been heard about any scam investigation since 'Bama took office. I wonder why? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=17814838 http://www.nextgenpe.com/news/boliva...n-offset-scam/ Just type carbon offset scam and get your 24 million hits. Don't you think Gore, 'Bama, et al, have their fingers in that big pot they keep passing around? Not as big of a pot as the pig trough Bush and Cheney are feeding from. Remember Halliburton? |
#74
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:20:11 -0500, NotNow wrote:
Tosk wrote: In article , says... wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown) I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a truck. Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is this just another way to demonize oil companies? WHOOOOOSH....... So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes, wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush, because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately dise ase kills children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of their reach? The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19 million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any way at all? We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of people. ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it, villages. Seems almost every argument is being nailed here today. Wonder where the honest dems are, seems they can only act like harry and change the subject, or deny the facts all together cause Maddow, and Huffington told them to... Okay, I just don't understand, so please help me. Why does it seem to me that you and other conservatives don't want anything to do with creating and building new technologies and instead just want to keep using fossil fuels? It appears to me that if you all had your way, we'd still be using technology that damned near ruined areas of the United States until we got the pollution under control. Is nuclear energy based on fossil fuels? Loogy, you are sounding more and more flaky. You put words in the mouths of others, you flat out lie about what people say, and then you come up with the ridiculous **** above. |
#75
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:26:09 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:43:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Perhaps you'd like to flood Yosemite valley? Terrible thing natural beauty. We sure don't need it. I just got back from there. They don't have enough water to flood much of anything. It has all been stolen by San Francisco and the Central Valley. The big waterfalls you always hear about look like a kid ****ing off a bridge. We hiked 5 miles and 1000 vertical feet for this spectacular waterfall http://gfretwell.com/ftp/california/...0waterfall.jpg This one was on the horseshoe road, Also supposed to be spectacular http://gfretwell.com/ftp/california/...terfalling.jpg You did the same amount of hiking, with maybe a tad more vertical, as I did today, and you didn't even get to putt. Heartbreaker! |
#76
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:03:40 -0500, NotNow wrote:
John H. wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote: In article , says... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor... So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than I, what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared to all other countries with the exception of Russia? Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal. Two things come immediately to mind. One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work on clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to be failing miserably. A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station, sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now and it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation. Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal of all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like new discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find it. Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce 1,000,000 BTUs. Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar results to fossil fuels. Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political front. What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is just fine... ![]() -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different from a solar array that is off of the ground. Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that plentiful in the desert. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8 Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push something else. They really don't want to solve the problem. They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich. Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction? Probably much less than Haliburton shoved to Bush and Cheney. Well, gosh, if Bush did it then a little on the side is OK for Obama, right? (That's called the 'Bush Rationale', which you did quite well.) Is Haliburton not employed by Obama also? Perhaps there is more there than meets the eye. Could 'Bama be getting as much from Halliburton (aka 'KBR') as Cheney ever dreamed of (in your mind? http://www.crocodyl.org/wiki/kbr |
#77
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:05:31 -0500, NotNow wrote:
John H. wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown) I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a truck. Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is this just another way to demonize oil companies? WHOOOOOSH....... So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes, wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush, because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of their reach? There you go with the words again, Loogy. Go read his post. He said nothing of the sort. Saying, "You think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all" is a f'ing lie. You're doing a lot of that lately. Guess who it's reminiscent of? Uh, John, it wasn't a lie, it was a friggin QUESTION. I don't suppose you'll apologize for calling me a liar either. Guess who that's reminiscent of? Your throwing a question mark in there does not change the statement. You need to stop putting words in peoples' mouths, whether you throw a question mark at the end or not. You know damn good and well what he said, and it sure as **** wasn't what you said he said. Apologize - my ass. |
#78
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Nov 4, 3:38*pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:05:31 -0500, NotNow wrote: John H. wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown) I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. *Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches *on the *ridges. *By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a truck. Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is this just another way to demonize oil companies? WHOOOOOSH....... So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes, wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush, because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of their reach? There you go with the words again, Loogy. Go read his post. He said nothing of the sort. Saying, "You think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all" is a f'ing lie. You're doing a lot of that lately. Guess who it's reminiscent of? Uh, John, it wasn't a lie, it was a friggin QUESTION. I don't suppose you'll apologize for calling me a liar either. Guess who that's reminiscent of? Your throwing a question mark in there does not change the statement. You need to stop putting words in peoples' mouths, whether you throw a question mark at the end or not. You know damn good and well what he said, and it sure as **** wasn't what you said he said. Apologize - my ass.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I asked a ****ing question. If you aren't man enough to admit your mistake and apologize for it, so be it. |
#79
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:19:05 -0500, NotNow wrote:
John H. wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:10:23 -0500, Tosk wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:16:36 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote: In article , says... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor... So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than I, what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared to all other countries with the exception of Russia? Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal. Two things come immediately to mind. One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work on clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to be failing miserably. A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station, sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now and it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation. Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal of all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like new discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find it. Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce 1,000,000 BTUs. Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar results to fossil fuels. Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political front. What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is just fine... ![]() -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different from a solar array that is off of the ground. Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that plentiful in the desert. Actually, solar arrays do their best where there's lots of sunshine and cool temperatures. Then, you don't need any cooling. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8 Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push something else. They really don't want to solve the problem. Nuclear is a good idea. The French and the Brits use lots of it. They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich. Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction? Those pesky Nobel people. They'll never learn! You keep showing yourself for what you are. I'm sure those pesky, noble, Nobel people are getting their cut also. The Nobel is just a popularity contest, really has nothing significant to do or prove.. It's a joke, has been for decades... More and more I think it's a money making proposition for the AGW crowd. We know the Canadians are an honest bunch: http://www.canadafreepress.com/printpage.php I believe the scam is much, much bigger than shown there. Mo But not much has been heard about any scam investigation since 'Bama took office. I wonder why? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=17814838 http://www.nextgenpe.com/news/boliva...n-offset-scam/ Just type carbon offset scam and get your 24 million hits. Don't you think Gore, 'Bama, et al, have their fingers in that big pot they keep passing around? Not as big of a pot as the pig trough Bush and Cheney are feeding from. Remember Halliburton? Yeah, now 'Bama's feeding from the Halliburton pot also. You really should get your head out of the sand. Oh, and learn what the 'Bush Rationale' is. You keep using it to justify your boy, 'Bama. But he's still a loser. I like your attitude though. "Bush was a loser, therefore it's OK for 'Bama to be a loser also." Typical liberal ****. -- Loogy says: Conservative = Good Liberal = Bad I agree. John H |
#80
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:56:12 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote: On Nov 4, 3:38*pm, John H. wrote: On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:05:31 -0500, NotNow wrote: John H. wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown) I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. *Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches *on the *ridges. *By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a truck. Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is this just another way to demonize oil companies? WHOOOOOSH....... So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes, wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush, because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of their reach? There you go with the words again, Loogy. Go read his post. He said nothing of the sort. Saying, "You think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all" is a f'ing lie. You're doing a lot of that lately. Guess who it's reminiscent of? Uh, John, it wasn't a lie, it was a friggin QUESTION. I don't suppose you'll apologize for calling me a liar either. Guess who that's reminiscent of? Your throwing a question mark in there does not change the statement. You need to stop putting words in peoples' mouths, whether you throw a question mark at the end or not. You know damn good and well what he said, and it sure as **** wasn't what you said he said. Apologize - my ass.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I asked a ****ing question. If you aren't man enough to admit your mistake and apologize for it, so be it. So be it. Well, gosh, if Bush did it then a little on the side is OK for Obama, right? (That's called the 'Bush Rationale', which you did quite well.) Is Haliburton not employed by Obama also? Perhaps there is more there than meets the eye. Could 'Bama be getting as much from Halliburton (aka 'KBR') as Cheney ever dreamed of (in your mind? http://www.crocodyl.org/wiki/kbr -- Loogy says: Conservative = Good Liberal = Bad I agree. John H |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Well that was interesting... | General | |||
Well, that was interesting... | General | |||
A visit with an interesting guy who builds an interesting boat.... | General | |||
Interesting way to help the Bay... | General |