Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich

zzbunker@netscape.net · Guest

On Jul 27, 10:14 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]In article
789e4db6-905d-4972-b51c-f9063ba7e...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

"zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Jul 26, 6:25 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article
644ebd64-d1cd-4e8d-bee4-903b7528d...@x29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem.

Other than enviro-marxist no-growth obstructionism in the United
States, there>s no such thing as a "decreasing" supply of oil.

There is more oil available today than ever before in history. Yes, we
hear about "decreasing supplies" and "peak oil."

But there>s no empirical evidence to show that there are, in fact,
"decreasing supplies."

Well, that was never the claim. The claim was that supply of oil
is irrelevant, since the cost of recovering increases more than
exponentially
as you drill deeper.

Yes, but the fact of the matter is, the amount of oil reserves that are
practicably extracted--this amount is greater today than ever before in
history.

Party because there are better techniques for drilling, and partly
because there is more exploration than ever.

Either way, it>s too early to call "peak oil.'

Which is why the energy brains are still
working on robots, computers, Hologramns, Lasers, PV Cells,
Satellites,
Wind Energy, nanotech, electric SUVs, DU, and cCruise Missiles
rather than
any thing for oil idiots.

From what I>ve read, the most practical system will be with satellite
collection and transmission.

Most of the other things on your list aren>t where the "energy brains"
are looking at all.
[/quote]
Well, I meant people with engineerng brains, rather than
people who work for GM and MGM though.

[quote]
--
NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -[/quote]

Peace in the Middle East! · Guest

"Frank Ketchum" <nospamforme@thanksanyway.net> wrote in message
news:ye1jk.2571$QX3.1638@newsfe02.iad...
[quote]
"Peace in the Middle East!" <anyemail@myisp.com> wrote in message
news:488c116f$0$17509$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

WHAT BILLIONS OF $$$?

WHICH NATION?

SINCE WHEN ??? .... SHOW ME THE FIGURES YOU ARE REFERRING TO.

Here>s some more
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1022

[/quote]
Check Caps Lock - all ok

You said "....the enourmous government subsidies that solar recieves and has
been
[quote]recieving for years. Apparently the billions pumped into the solar
industry
by the government" ...
[/quote]
Your link shows a period of 1950 thru 2003, in 2003 $

Table 1 The Total Cost of Federal Incentives for Energy Development Through
2003 (Billions of 2003 Dollars)

Solar figures from 1950 show ....................... !!!!!!!

R&D $300million per yr avg
Tax breaks $220 million per yr avg
Govt services $32 million per yr avg

And yet u ignore the bloated Govt support for Oil

Tax Breaks of $3 BILLION PER YEAR FOR 53 YEARS = $155 BILLION

YOU IGNORE THE BILLIONS SPENT VIA VARIOUS GOVT OVERSEAS PROGRAMS INCLUDING
MILITARY FOR THE SUPPORT OF ISRAEL AND ARAB DICTATORSHIPS WITH OIL.

------------------------

Caps off - check! :)

So your statement was and is utter bullshit spin ... mouthing the opposiste
to the truth of the matter that Solar has received under 5% of the total
Govt supsidies and support for ENERGY sectors in the last 53 years --- no
wonder the development of that sector has been strangled of potential growth
and bringing to the market efficiency improvements and economies of scale.

THAT>s THE TRUTH of the matter, whilst Govt has poured 50% of what it has
spent on the Oil Sector is also true, and accurate.

Siobhan Medeiros · Guest

On Jul 28, 1:17 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
On Jul 27, 12:03 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
zzbun...@netscape.net wrote

Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote
Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote
Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem.
Other than enviro-marxist no-growth obstructionism in the United
States, there>s no such thing as a "decreasing" supply of oil.
There is more oil available today than ever before in history.
Yes, we hear about "decreasing supplies" and "peak oil."
But there>s no empirical evidence to show that there are, in fact,
"decreasing supplies."
Well, that was never the claim. The claim was that supply of oil
is irrelevant, since the cost of recovering increases more than
exponentially as you drill deeper.
No it doesnt.
Yes it does.

No it doesnt.
[/quote]
I>m citing common fucking sense, what are you citing, retard?

[quote]
Which is why the energy brains are still working on robots,
computers, Hologramns, Lasers, PV Cells, Satellites, Wind Energy,
nanotech, electric SUVs, DU, and cCruise Missiles rather than any
thing for oil idiots.

Wrong again, most obviously with shale oil and oil sands.

The Simon-Ehrlich wager is ignored far too often.[/quote]

Siobhan Medeiros · Guest

On Jul 28, 1:12 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
On Jul 27, 12:01 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
You believe that since we have never observed ourselves runnig
out of oil in the past then we can>t run out of oil in the
future? ?That is what "empirical" means, dimwit.
The state of denial of rightards is America>s ball and chain.
The only "denial" here is entirely yours - based on your total
ignorance of economics and the dynamics of markets.
Speaking of ignorance of markets, did you ever figger out why not
one single "market" economist at Hoover, Heritage, American
Enterprise, the Chicago School, etc., can answer the simple
question: "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

Pathetic.

(This of course assumes that markets are allowed to operate freely,
which unfortunately in energy production they are not - and *that*
is more the source of the problem than anything else).
True, taxpayers are massively subsidizing Dumbya>s
oil theft quagmire to the tune of $100 billion a year.
Its got nothing to do with oil theft.
Right, it was about WMDs. Oh wait, there were no WMDs.
It was about terrorists! Oh, right, Al Qaeda wasn>t there
until you invited them. Meanwhile Canadian soldiers are
dying because you aren>t pulling your weight in Afghanistan.
(20,000 troops in Afghanistan vs. 160,000 in Iraq)

Afghanistan clearly wasnt about oil, they have no oil, fool.
[/quote]
Never said it was, idiot. And the fact that the have no oil explains
why you have so few troops there, doesn>t it?

Quite frankly, we>re getting tired of defending your country for you
if you>re not interested in pulling your weight.

[quote]
It was about getting rid of a vile dictator! For some reason you
ignored the one in the Sudan who just finished killing hundreds of
thousands of people even though it would have been far easier.

Yes, there wasnt the excuse of WMDs with Sudan.

The US did however make a spectacular fool of itself in Africa where
there was no oil involved and Beirut in spades. And Haiti, etc etc etc.

It wasn>t about the oil, no sirreee. Which is why the first thing you
did when you invaded was occupying the oil fields, while letting the
enemy get their hands on thousands of tons of high explosives. How
many tanks were surrounding the oil ministry building again, I lost count.
Too bad Dubya forgot that it takes a $10 stick of dynamite and
one unguarded foot out of a hundred miles to take out a pipeline.

Same thing happened in the first gulf war in spades and it
wasnt about oil, it was about the invasion of Kuwait and the
US pulled out as soon a Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait.
[/quote]
On the other hand, Iraq was definitely about the oil which is why the
US is still there.

Neolibertarian · Guest

In article
<07859e4b-86aa-416c-a397-da3925729e70@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Lloyd <lparker@emory.edu> wrote:

[quote]On Jul 26, 6:25 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article
644ebd64-d1cd-4e8d-bee4-903b7528d...@x29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem.

Other than enviro-marxist no-growth obstructionism in the United
States, there>s no such thing as a "decreasing" supply of oil.

There is more oil available today than ever before in history. Yes, we
hear about "decreasing supplies" and "peak oil."

But there>s no empirical evidence to show that there are, in fact,
"decreasing supplies."

There>s just no excess production today, and in the next few years, we
will be producing less than the demand. Sure, you can get more oil
(tar sands, shale, e.g.), but it will be a lot more expensive.
[/quote]
Yes, there>s all that and more. But the facts of the matter are, we
haven>t reached peak oil yet.

And, besides:

Everything>s gonna be more expensive now that they>re monetizing the
debt. You think gasoline prices area skyrocketing, you ain>t seen
nothing yet--just wait till you see what they>re gonna do with taxes.

--
NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg

Neolibertarian · Guest

In article
<56e33586-d736-40c0-ad69-f4a2f9ee53f6@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
"zzbunker@netscape.net" <zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote:

[quote]On Jul 27, 10:14 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article
789e4db6-905d-4972-b51c-f9063ba7e...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

"zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Jul 26, 6:25 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article
644ebd64-d1cd-4e8d-bee4-903b7528d...@x29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem.

Other than enviro-marxist no-growth obstructionism in the United
States, there>s no such thing as a "decreasing" supply of oil.

There is more oil available today than ever before in history. Yes, we
hear about "decreasing supplies" and "peak oil."

But there>s no empirical evidence to show that there are, in fact,
"decreasing supplies."

Well, that was never the claim. The claim was that supply of oil
is irrelevant, since the cost of recovering increases more than
exponentially
as you drill deeper.

Yes, but the fact of the matter is, the amount of oil reserves that are
practicably extracted--this amount is greater today than ever before in
history.

Party because there are better techniques for drilling, and partly
because there is more exploration than ever.

Either way, it>s too early to call "peak oil.'

Which is why the energy brains are still
working on robots, computers, Hologramns, Lasers, PV Cells,
Satellites,
Wind Energy, nanotech, electric SUVs, DU, and cCruise Missiles
rather than
any thing for oil idiots.

From what I>ve read, the most practical system will be with satellite
collection and transmission.

Most of the other things on your list aren>t where the "energy brains"
are looking at all.

Well, I meant people with engineerng brains, rather than
people who work for GM and MGM though.
[/quote]
They>re not even involved.

--
NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg

Neolibertarian · Guest

In article <pan.2008.07.28.16.20.43.499760@verizon.net>,
The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:

[quote]On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:20:33 -0200, Neolibertarian wrote:

In article <pan.2008.07.27.04.21.44.602955@verizon.net>,
The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:25:04 -0200, Neolibertarian wrote:

In article
644ebd64-d1cd-4e8d-bee4-903b7528d343@x29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem.

Other than enviro-marxist no-growth obstructionism in the United
States, there>s no such thing as a "decreasing" supply of oil.

There is more oil available today than ever before in history. Yes, we
hear about "decreasing supplies" and "peak oil."

But there>s no empirical evidence to show that there are, in fact,
"decreasing supplies."

You believe that since we have never observed ourselves runnig out of oil
in the past then we can>t run out of oil in the future? That is what
"empirical" means, dimwit.

No, I believe that the "peak oil" date has been repeatedly moved back
since the early 1970>s. And I believe that it will continue to be moved
back for some time to come.

I think you MAY be right on the first, and that you are wrong on the
second. We are now at the peak and the mismatch between demand and supply
will continue to widen unless alternatives are employed. However!!! That
does not mean that the current price of oil is a reflection of anything
other than greed. And that if massive investments are made in alternatives
then those investments will be lost as the owners of oil manipulate the
prices to quash any competition.
[/quote]
There>s no empirical evidence that we>ve reached peak oil.

--
NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg

Neolibertarian · Guest

In article <pan.2008.07.28.16.15.49.499288@verizon.net>,
The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:

[quote]On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:14:51 -0200, Neolibertarian wrote:

In article
789e4db6-905d-4972-b51c-f9063ba7e1d3@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
"zzbunker@netscape.net" <zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote:

On Jul 26, 6:25 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article
644ebd64-d1cd-4e8d-bee4-903b7528d...@x29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem.

Other than enviro-marxist no-growth obstructionism in the United
States, there>s no such thing as a "decreasing" supply of oil.

There is more oil available today than ever before in history. Yes, we
hear about "decreasing supplies" and "peak oil."

But there>s no empirical evidence to show that there are, in fact,
"decreasing supplies."

Well, that was never the claim. The claim was that supply of oil
is irrelevant, since the cost of recovering increases more than
exponentially
as you drill deeper.

Yes, but the fact of the matter is, the amount of oil reserves that are
practicably extracted--this amount is greater today than ever before in
history.

Party because there are better techniques for drilling, and partly
because there is more exploration than ever.

Either way, it>s too early to call "peak oil.'

Well. At least you are making a rational argument.

Which is why the energy brains are still
working on robots, computers, Hologramns, Lasers, PV Cells,
Satellites,
Wind Energy, nanotech, electric SUVs, DU, and cCruise Missiles
rather than
any thing for oil idiots.

From what I>ve read, the most practical system will be with satellite
collection and transmission.

Most of the other things on your list aren>t where the "energy brains"
are looking at all.

I sorta like that orbital solar collection thing myself.
[/quote]
So do lots of people. It seems to be what>s next.

[quote]But I don>t know
how bad the loss is on the stuff being "beamed down".
[/quote]
FWIU, not much.

[quote]As far as the
collection stuff, it will be one hellova construction project and getting
the stuff up there will be real expensive.
[/quote]
Of course. Which is why it hasn>t already happened.

--
NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg

The Trucker · Guest

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:26:07 -0200, Neolibertarian wrote:

[quote]In article <pan.2008.07.28.16.20.43.499760@verizon.net>,
The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:20:33 -0200, Neolibertarian wrote:

In article <pan.2008.07.27.04.21.44.602955@verizon.net>,
The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:25:04 -0200, Neolibertarian wrote:

In article
644ebd64-d1cd-4e8d-bee4-903b7528d343@x29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem.

Other than enviro-marxist no-growth obstructionism in the United
States, there>s no such thing as a "decreasing" supply of oil.

There is more oil available today than ever before in history. Yes, we
hear about "decreasing supplies" and "peak oil."

But there>s no empirical evidence to show that there are, in fact,
"decreasing supplies."

You believe that since we have never observed ourselves runnig out of oil
in the past then we can>t run out of oil in the future? That is what
"empirical" means, dimwit.

No, I believe that the "peak oil" date has been repeatedly moved back
since the early 1970>s. And I believe that it will continue to be moved
back for some time to come.

I think you MAY be right on the first, and that you are wrong on the
second. We are now at the peak and the mismatch between demand and supply
will continue to widen unless alternatives are employed. However!!! That
does not mean that the current price of oil is a reflection of anything
other than greed. And that if massive investments are made in alternatives
then those investments will be lost as the owners of oil manipulate the
prices to quash any competition.

There>s no empirical evidence that we>ve reached peak oil.
[/quote]
There can never be any "empirical" evidence for peak oil till after you>ve
passed it. Prices should be an indicator and they say we are there. But
as I say above, I don>t trust these prices.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

Rod Speed · Guest

The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:26:07 -0200, Neolibertarian wrote:

In article <pan.2008.07.28.16.20.43.499760@verizon.net>,
The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:20:33 -0200, Neolibertarian wrote:

In article <pan.2008.07.27.04.21.44.602955@verizon.net>,
The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:25:04 -0200, Neolibertarian wrote:

In article
644ebd64-d1cd-4e8d-bee4-903b7528d343@x29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem.

Other than enviro-marxist no-growth obstructionism in the United
States, there>s no such thing as a "decreasing" supply of oil.

There is more oil available today than ever before in history.
Yes, we hear about "decreasing supplies" and "peak oil."

But there>s no empirical evidence to show that there are, in
fact, "decreasing supplies."

You believe that since we have never observed ourselves runnig
out of oil in the past then we can>t run out of oil in the
future? That is what "empirical" means, dimwit.

No, I believe that the "peak oil" date has been repeatedly moved
back since the early 1970>s. And I believe that it will continue
to be moved back for some time to come.

I think you MAY be right on the first, and that you are wrong on the
second. We are now at the peak and the mismatch between demand and
supply will continue to widen unless alternatives are employed.
However!!! That does not mean that the current price of oil is a
reflection of anything other than greed. And that if massive
investments are made in alternatives then those investments will be
lost as the owners of oil manipulate the prices to quash any
competition.

There>s no empirical evidence that we>ve reached peak oil.

There can never be any "empirical" evidence for peak oil till after you>ve passed it.
[/quote]
Yep, and we clearly havent.

[quote]Prices should be an indicator
[/quote]
Nope. We got those in the 70s and that was nothing like peak oil.

[quote]and they say we are there.
[/quote]
Like hell they do.

[quote]But as I say above, I don>t trust these prices.
[/quote]
Then you>d better let go of your dick before you end up completely blind.

Rod Speed · Guest

Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2006@shaw.ca> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 28, 1:12 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
On Jul 27, 12:01 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
You believe that since we have never observed ourselves runnig
out of oil in the past then we can>t run out of oil in the
future? ?That is what "empirical" means, dimwit.
The state of denial of rightards is America>s ball and chain.
The only "denial" here is entirely yours - based on your total
ignorance of economics and the dynamics of markets.
Speaking of ignorance of markets, did you ever figger out why not
one single "market" economist at Hoover, Heritage, American
Enterprise, the Chicago School, etc., can answer the simple
question: "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

Pathetic.

(This of course assumes that markets are allowed to operate
freely, which unfortunately in energy production they are not -
and *that* is more the source of the problem than anything else).
True, taxpayers are massively subsidizing Dumbya>s
oil theft quagmire to the tune of $100 billion a year.
Its got nothing to do with oil theft.
Right, it was about WMDs. Oh wait, there were no WMDs.
It was about terrorists! Oh, right, Al Qaeda wasn>t there
until you invited them. Meanwhile Canadian soldiers are
dying because you aren>t pulling your weight in Afghanistan.
(20,000 troops in Afghanistan vs. 160,000 in Iraq)

Afghanistan clearly wasnt about oil, they have no oil, fool.

Never said it was, idiot. And the fact that the have no oil
explains why you have so few troops there, doesn>t it?
[/quote]
Nope. Its a hell of a lot easier to just do what needs to be done from the air there, fuckwit.

[quote]Quite frankly, we>re getting tired of defending your country
for you if you>re not interested in pulling your weight.
[/quote]
It aint even my country, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.

[quote]It was about getting rid of a vile dictator! For some reason you
ignored the one in the Sudan who just finished killing hundreds of
thousands of people even though it would have been far easier.

Yes, there wasnt the excuse of WMDs with Sudan.

The US did however make a spectacular fool of itself in Africa where
there was no oil involved and Beirut in spades. And Haiti, etc etc
etc.

It wasn>t about the oil, no sirreee. Which is why the first thing
you did when you invaded was occupying the oil fields, while
letting the enemy get their hands on thousands of tons of high
explosives. How
many tanks were surrounding the oil ministry building again, I lost
count. Too bad Dubya forgot that it takes a $10 stick of dynamite
and
one unguarded foot out of a hundred miles to take out a pipeline.

Same thing happened in the first gulf war in spades and it
wasnt about oil, it was about the invasion of Kuwait and the
US pulled out as soon a Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait.

On the other hand, Iraq was definitely about the oil
[/quote]
Nope, which is why the shrub>s dad had enough of a clue to not invade it.

[quote]which is why the US is still there.
[/quote]
Nope. Once they have pissed that much money and so many lives against
the wall, they arent stupid enough to pull out now and make it obvious to
stupid ragheads all over the world that if you hold old long enough, the US
will just scuttle back to where it came from with its tail between its legs.

Thats only feasible with a tiny little operation like Somalia where hardly anyone will notice.

Rod Speed · Guest

Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2006@shaw.ca> wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
zzbun...@netscape.net wrote
Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote
Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote

Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem.

Other than enviro-marxist no-growth obstructionism in the United
States, there>s no such thing as a "decreasing" supply of oil.
There is more oil available today than ever before in history.
Yes, we hear about "decreasing supplies" and "peak oil."
But there>s no empirical evidence to show that there are, in
fact, "decreasing supplies."

Well, that was never the claim. The claim was that supply of oil
is irrelevant, since the cost of recovering increases more than
exponentially as you drill deeper.

No it doesnt.

Yes it does.

No it doesnt.

I>m citing common fucking sense,
[/quote]
You aint cited a damned thing, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.

[quote]what are you citing,
[/quote]
HE made that stupid pig ignorant claim.

HE gets to do the citing.

THATS how it works, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.

[quote]Which is why the energy brains are still working on robots,
computers, Hologramns, Lasers, PV Cells, Satellites, Wind Energy,
nanotech, electric SUVs, DU, and cCruise Missiles rather than any
thing for oil idiots.

Wrong again, most obviously with shale oil and oil sands.

The Simon-Ehrlich wager is ignored far too often.[/quote]

Bret Cahill · Guest

[quote]And when you do that, you dont get anything like 30% a year.

Well? ?What _do_ you get?

YOU made that claim.

Yes but that dodges the issue:

You claim it>s wrong.

You must have some other number.

What is that other number?

YOU made that stupid claim.
[/quote]
But _you_ made the stupid claim it>s stupid.

Now substantiate your stupid claim.

_That>s_ how it works.

Bret Cahill

Siobhan Medeiros · Guest

On Jul 29, 12:01 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
On Jul 28, 1:12 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
On Jul 27, 12:01 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
You believe that since we have never observed ourselves runnig
out of oil in the past then we can>t run out of oil in the
future? ?That is what "empirical" means, dimwit.
The state of denial of rightards is America>s ball and chain.
The only "denial" here is entirely yours - based on your total
ignorance of economics and the dynamics of markets.
Speaking of ignorance of markets, did you ever figger out why not
one single "market" economist at Hoover, Heritage, American
Enterprise, the Chicago School, etc., can answer the simple
question: "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

Pathetic.

(This of course assumes that markets are allowed to operate
freely, which unfortunately in energy production they are not -
and *that* is more the source of the problem than anything else).
True, taxpayers are massively subsidizing Dumbya>s
oil theft quagmire to the tune of $100 billion a year.
Its got nothing to do with oil theft.
Right, it was about WMDs. Oh wait, there were no WMDs.
It was about terrorists! Oh, right, Al Qaeda wasn>t there
until you invited them. Meanwhile Canadian soldiers are
dying because you aren>t pulling your weight in Afghanistan.
(20,000 troops in Afghanistan vs. 160,000 in Iraq)
Afghanistan clearly wasnt about oil, they have no oil, fool.
Never said it was, idiot. And the fact that the have no oil
explains why you have so few troops there, doesn>t it?

Nope. Its a hell of a lot easier to just do what needs to be done from the air there, fuckwit.
[/quote]
Yeah, which is why Osama Bin Laden is still at large. Moron.

You can>t win a war from the air, stupid. Sooner or later, you need
to put boots on the ground.

[quote]
Quite frankly, we>re getting tired of defending your country
for you if you>re not interested in pulling your weight.

It aint even my country, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.
[/quote]
And what country would that be?

[quote]

It was about getting rid of a vile dictator! For some reason you
ignored the one in the Sudan who just finished killing hundreds of
thousands of people even though it would have been far easier.

Yes, there wasnt the excuse of WMDs with Sudan.

The US did however make a spectacular fool of itself in Africa where
there was no oil involved and Beirut in spades. And Haiti, etc etc
etc.

It wasn>t about the oil, no sirreee. Which is why the first thing
you did when you invaded was occupying the oil fields, while
letting the enemy get their hands on thousands of tons of high
explosives. How
many tanks were surrounding the oil ministry building again, I lost
count. Too bad Dubya forgot that it takes a $10 stick of dynamite
and
one unguarded foot out of a hundred miles to take out a pipeline.

Same thing happened in the first gulf war in spades and it
wasnt about oil, it was about the invasion of Kuwait and the
US pulled out as soon a Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait.
On the other hand, Iraq was definitely about the oil

Nope, which is why the shrub>s dad had enough of a clue to not invade it.
[/quote]
Maybe he was smarter than Bush Jr. Idiot.

[quote]
which is why the US is still there.

Nope. Once they have pissed that much money and so many lives against
the wall, they arent stupid enough to pull out now and make it obvious to
stupid ragheads all over the world that if you hold old long enough, the US
will just scuttle back to where it came from with its tail between its legs.
[/quote]
Uh huh. Tell it to North Vietnam.

The world already knows that Americans talk bigger than they fight.

[quote]
Thats only feasible with a tiny little operation like Somalia where hardly anyone will notice.[/quote]

Bret Cahill · Guest

[quote]what are you citing,

HE made that stupid pig ignorant claim.

HE gets to do the citing.

THATS how it works, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.
[/quote]
Rod, they got yer goat. They are smarter than you. There>s only one
way yer>ll be able to fight back now.

Use the word "pathetic" for yer next 6,000 posts.

Bret Cahill


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Energy forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 5 of 7