If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Republicans Go to Bat to Help Oil Companies Make More Money
In article , says...
In .net www.bobbarr2008.com wrote: They suck because Exxon funds junk science to discredit climate change, because the solution inevitably means buying less of what they sell. Well, you certainly don't want any other opinions offered but yours, do you? I want opinions that make sense, sure. All you seem to have is snarky comments. |
Ads |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Republicans Go to Bat to Help Oil Companies Make More Money
We have the oil, gas, & coal for all of our energy needs for a 100 years.
We just need to use it. We have had two ice ages & in between we had gloable warming. No one burned fossil fuels back then. So we need to get off AlGores scam & save the USA. Z "www.bobbarr2008.com" wrote in message . net... In article , says... "Eat the rich" wrote in message ... I wish you would do some research before posting. Only takes a second with the internet. The United States has in oil reserves at current consumption rates a little more than three years of oil, if you were to exclude oil from other countries. Remember when the genius Ronald Reagan ripped the solar panels off of the White House. Remember all of the Republicans and some Democrats who voted to keep subsidizing oil companies with tax breaks and who voted against funding the research and development of alternative energy sources? And all of you yahoos who can't do math or do a little research before barfing up your drill-more nonsense posts, you're partly to blame, too. Try including oil shale, nuclear and coal technology into the equation. New technology sounds fine but first something has to be developed, tested, improved upon and proven to be of a practical nature. Then the next huge step is a distribution, supply and maintenance system to support it. Hydrogen cars would be great except there are almost no places to refuel such cars. Of course, we could encourage thousands of refill stations be established but, hey, that would mean a few entrepreneurs would become quite wealthy and, well, we can't have some ******* actually make a lot of money. But then again, we could tax the hell out of him and his companies. Many new products are found to have unwanted consequences so we have to be careful. The creation of asbestos was great until we found out about health hazards of exposure. And the unexpected realization that discontinued use of the standard light bulb in favor of the new ugly bulb involves a hazardous waste problem. No more throwing your expired bulb in the trash can. Yes, by all means look to new technology to reduce consumption of oil but right now we use oil. We can't run our cars today on the promise of maybe something better ten years from now. The first thing we should do is promote conservation, instead of trying to drum up business for Exxon. Why are conservatives against conservation? If right-wingers were not oil company errand boys, they'd talking about mass transit, telecommuting, and higher CAFE standards, not drilling ANWR for oil. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming trends occur every 1500 years naturally
On Jul 7, 9:18*am, "Zeke" wrote:
We have the oil, gas, & coal for all of our energy needs for a 100 years. We just need to use it. We have had two ice ages & in between we had gloable warming. *No one burned fossil fuels back then. *So we need to get off AlGores scam & save the USA. Z"www.bobbarr2008.com" wrote in message . net... In article , says... "Eat the rich" wrote in message .... I wish you would do some research before posting. *Only takes a second with the internet. *The United States has in oil reserves at current consumption rates a little more than three years of oil, if you were to exclude oil from other countries. Remember when the genius Ronald Reagan ripped the solar panels off of the White House. *Remember all of the Republicans and some Democrats who voted to keep subsidizing oil companies with tax breaks and who voted against funding the research and development of alternative energy sources? *And all of you yahoos who can't do math or do a little research before barfing up your drill-more nonsense posts, you're partly to blame, too. Try including oil shale, nuclear and coal technology into the equation.. New technology sounds fine but first something has to be developed, tested, improved upon and proven to be of a practical nature. *Then the next huge step is a distribution, supply and maintenance system to support it. Hydrogen cars would be great except there are almost no places to refuel such cars. *Of course, we could encourage thousands of refill stations be established but, hey, that would mean a few entrepreneurs would become quite wealthy and, well, we can't have some ******* actually make a lot of money. But then again, we could tax the hell out of him and his companies. Many new products are found to have unwanted consequences so we have to be careful. * The creation of asbestos was great until we found out about health hazards of exposure. *And the unexpected realization that discontinued use of the standard light bulb in favor of the new ugly bulb involves a hazardous waste problem. *No more throwing your expired bulb in the trash can. Yes, by all means look to new technology to reduce consumption of oil but right now we use oil. * We can't run our cars today on the promise of maybe something better ten years from now. The first thing we should do is promote conservation, instead of trying to drum up business for Exxon. Why are conservatives against conservation? If right-wingers were not oil company errand boys, they'd talking about mass transit, telecommuting, and higher CAFE standards, not drilling ANWR for oil.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - the Global Warming Scare and Green Fad are just that, fads- and will go the way of the "No Nukes" fad of the 1970's, along with the CB radio, pet rock, and mood ring we can't have greenie tree huggers planning our national energy policy, otherwise our entire way of life and country will become emasculated and we'll go back to living in caves, and have a national population of about 500,000 people |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
new scientific findings completely debunks the Global Warming hoax
On Jul 7, 9:18*am, "Zeke" wrote:
We have the oil, gas, & coal for all of our energy needs for a 100 years. We just need to use it. We have had two ice ages & in between we had gloable warming. *No one burned fossil fuels back then. *So we need to get off AlGores scam & save the USA. Z"www.bobbarr2008.com" wrote in message . net... In article , says... "Eat the rich" wrote in message .... I wish you would do some research before posting. *Only takes a second with the internet. *The United States has in oil reserves at current consumption rates a little more than three years of oil, if you were to exclude oil from other countries. Remember when the genius Ronald Reagan ripped the solar panels off of the White House. *Remember all of the Republicans and some Democrats who voted to keep subsidizing oil companies with tax breaks and who voted against funding the research and development of alternative energy sources? *And all of you yahoos who can't do math or do a little research before barfing up your drill-more nonsense posts, you're partly to blame, too. Try including oil shale, nuclear and coal technology into the equation.. New technology sounds fine but first something has to be developed, tested, improved upon and proven to be of a practical nature. *Then the next huge step is a distribution, supply and maintenance system to support it. Hydrogen cars would be great except there are almost no places to refuel such cars. *Of course, we could encourage thousands of refill stations be established but, hey, that would mean a few entrepreneurs would become quite wealthy and, well, we can't have some ******* actually make a lot of money. But then again, we could tax the hell out of him and his companies. Many new products are found to have unwanted consequences so we have to be careful. * The creation of asbestos was great until we found out about health hazards of exposure. *And the unexpected realization that discontinued use of the standard light bulb in favor of the new ugly bulb involves a hazardous waste problem. *No more throwing your expired bulb in the trash can. Yes, by all means look to new technology to reduce consumption of oil but right now we use oil. * We can't run our cars today on the promise of maybe something better ten years from now. The first thing we should do is promote conservation, instead of trying to drum up business for Exxon. Why are conservatives against conservation? If right-wingers were not oil company errand boys, they'd talking about mass transit, telecommuting, and higher CAFE standards, not drilling ANWR for oil.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - no one with half a brain believes the Global Warming farce- it's been debunked by European scientists in the past year, the findings are in print, taken from polar and Greenland ice cores, ocean sediment cores, and the fossil history of the earth get the book- see it here http://www.pontiaczone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22044 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
new scientific findings completely debunks the Global Warminghoax
On Jul 8, 7:04*am, trippin-2-8-track wrote:
no one with half a brain believes the Global Warming farce- it's been debunked by European scientists in the past year, the findings are in print, taken from polar and Greenland ice cores, ocean sediment cores, and the fossil history of the earth get the book- see it here http://www.pontiaczone.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=22044- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - what do the folks over on the chrysler forum say? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
PoliSci Primer
Political Science for Dummies DEMOCRAT
You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You push for higher taxes so the government can provide cows for everyone. REPUBLICAN You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So? SOCIALIST You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor. You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow. COMMUNIST You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk. You wait in line for hours to get it. It is expensive and sour. CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows. BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE You have two cows. Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the other, and then pours the milk down the drain. AMERICAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one. You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses. Your stock goes up. FRENCH CORPORATION You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows. You go to lunch and drink wine. Life is good. JAPANESE CORPORATION You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains. Most are at the top of their class at cow school. GERMAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour. Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year. ITALIAN CORPORATION You have two cows but you don't know where they are. You break for lunch. Life is good. RUSSIAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You have some vodka. You count them and learn you have five cows. You have some more vodka. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have. TALIBAN CORPORATION You have all the cows in Afghanistan , which are two. You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts. You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons. IRAQI CORPORATION You have two cows. They go into hiding. They send radio tapes of their mooing. POLISH CORPORATION You have two bulls. Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them. BELGIAN CORPORATION You have one cow. The cow is schizophrenic. Sometimes the cow thinks he's French, other times he's Flemish. The Flemish cow won't share with the French cow. The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow's milk. The cow asks permission to be cut in half. The cow dies happy. FLORIDA CORPORATION You have a black cow and a brown cow. Everyone votes for the best looking one. Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote for the black one. Some people vote for both. Some people vote for neither. Some people can't figure out how to vote at all. Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is the best-looking cow. CALIFORNIA CORPORATION You have millions of cows. They make real California cheese. Only five speak English. Most are illegal. Arnold likes the ones with the big udders. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: 1-Day, Machinists Jacobs Drill Chuck, ½ inch Arbor, No. 6 | fishnet | General | 0 | April 19th 06 12:24 AM |
Boy dies choking on cent | John Stone | Coins | 0 | August 12th 04 12:51 PM |