Previous  1 ... 5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Yes yes, we get it, you hate oil. Oil is evil and anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously evil too."

Try addressing the point. Seitz, Singer, Lindzen, Ball. I could give you the list of them, all were paid pushers of the mythology of the Tobacco industry. It is really rather pitiful that you would try to gull intelligent people by raging that stating this truth is because I hate oil.[/quote]
Dodge away all you want. Simple fact is, you're a fucking hypocrite. You enjoy all the benefits of oil while telling us all how evil we are so I'll say it again. Put your money where your mouth is or shut the hell up you loathesome little cur.
You sound like my old man telling me how bad alcohol is as he cracks open another 40ozer.
As if your double standard isn't bad enough, the fact you have the nerve to fucking preach about it to anyone shows what an absolutely despicable individual you really are.


I'm not arguing with you about that. Unfortunately, idiots like you want to get rid of oil, and here's the key part, BEFORE it can be fully replaced.

Comprehension isn't your strong suit is it. That's not anywhere near what I said. But feel free to strawman away.
As far as the lobbyists go, I could care less about 'em. I take them with about as much seriousness as I take shit-heads that have huge double standards.
Once again, I'll try and point you towards reality. This is NOT about politics, or lobbyists or big oil or green industry. It's about making the products we need with the resources we have available.
Yet for some reason, you still want to argue with me about how wrong I am about the whole thing. The end result is, it don't matter who did what or who said what. As of Feb.6, 2012 we still need oil and it doesn't matter how much you don't like it and it doesn't matter how accurate the climate data is. Neither one of those changes a damn thing.
And just in case you've missed the numerous times I've already said the following, I'll repeat it. I'm not pro-oil. The reality of what's current doesn't mean we shouldn't bother trying to find alternatives.
But I just don't see the point in punishing people for using something their gov'ts have forced them to be reliant upon. Which is why I'm hugely against large tax increases on petroleum products.

And to finish, since you want to bring up tobacco. Trust a Liberal gov't to be complicit in the distribution, sale and profit of tobacco and then turn around and sue the manufacturers. I guess the only real difference between the Libs and the Cons is, a Liberal will get all high and mighty about something obviously bad for us, only AFTER it ceases to be profitable to them. Oil sands? You betcha. But now that they're not in power, well obviously the oil sands need to be shut down. Health care costs eaten away all the profits from sales taxes on tobacco? Better sue the manufacturers to recoup some of the "losses". But of course, anyone 19 and over will still be able to buy tobacco products at the corner store. Curiously, not one the tobacco companies being sued are from Six Nation's.
Just like the oil sands. For 12 years your precious lefty gov't allowed the oil sands to be to exploited. And strangely, few said much about it. Now that the right is in power, all of a sudden those oil sands are a national embarrassment and morons like you continue to blame the Conservatives who have had a majority for what now, 2 years tops?
Yet, as I said, YOU still continue to enjoy the benefits of oil and all you could do to defend your disgusting double standard is throw up strawmen, ramble on about tobacco/oil lobbyists and justify your consumption with some pretty weak sauce about using only as much as we need.

But hey, at least you provide me with a source of cheap entertainment when I'm up late and bored. After a half dozen times of calling the Home shopping Channel and telling them "I'm just looking" and hanging up after they ask how they can help me, the fun is gone.

   

Jeezus, PA, are you really still coming out with the argument that anybody that's concerned about global warming has to live in a cave? You can't live in this society and not use oil. That doesn't mean you can't be in favor of us reducing our dependence on oil. For all sorts of reasons, not just climate change.

   

You are not only wrong, P.A., you are completely irrational. If you ever want to get to some point then feel free to make it. Ranting about the wonders of oil and the Liberals gets nowhere. screaming your hate for those who believe that the consensus of all researching climate scientists just might be right is not any sort of argument but a glaring example of the kind of people who are threatening scientists.

If you want to debate this I will be happy to oblige.

   

Even so, you provide more than the two Conservatives who posted before your rant.

   

   

Indeed.

   

Hey Gunny...honest question here...did you ever remember using sun screen when you were a kid? I was born in the early 70's and I fail to recall UV warnings and smog reports and having to lather up with 30 or 45 SPF before I could go out to the beach.

Now either we're being duped into using more sun screen, or something has changed in the last 30 years to make us a little more afraid to go out in the sun. Ha s the ozone not been diminished or is that a fairy tale?

   

Eureka is qualified to speak to matters of climate science given his record in the British Army circa 1950-1953, his work with Jonas Salk on a polio vaccine, his invaluable assistance to Marie Curie in her research on pitchblende, his valorous actions at the Battle of Thermopylae, his famous ascent of Mount Everest in 1947, his work as a medic in the Spanish Civil War, his invaluable consulting expertise in assisting Al Gore in the invention of the internet, and, most importantly, his presence of mind with the Rhodesian 17th Queen's Hussars when they raided the refreshment bar at the 22nd Annual Berkeley Hills Bicycle Race in 1998.

   

With what you're implying here Bart, none of us should be posting about climate change.

   

P a t h e t i c, Bart. You can't debate or even argue so you revert to your collaboration in stupidity with Gunnair and the dog.

   

I remember clearly having to put on sunscreen all the time I went out in the summer or risk returning home like some sort of land lobster. Of course that was in the mid 80s rather than the 70s. The climate has definitely changed in ways that are impossible to deny since then. One has only to see a few brown winters in Alberta to know something is wrong.

   

Sorry you missed it, but my only implication here is that Eureka is full of sh*t.

He's entitled to an opinion, of course, but his utter absence of credibility serves to vacate even the most profound statement.

Do note that he has quite seriously proposed that he served in Her Majesty's Royal Army starting in 1950. This make him to be around 80 years old.

And, utterly unlike any retired Royal Army gents I've ever known (and that is a large number) he won't let on what regiment he was in?

Excuse me?

Most gents of his alleged vintage will tell you what regiment they were in on an almost daily basis and they'll be sure to tell you of how they did so much with such crap kit and how us young folks are spoilt. Try stopping them from telling you what regiment they were in!

He's established his credentials as a liar and a fraud and that about does it for me right there.

   

First, Bart, as I have told you before, I have no intention of giving you personal information. One reason, but not the only reason, is that you are a prick of the very first standing.

Second, I don't believe that you have ever met a real veteran. If you had you would not [post such crap about them. Very few vets that I know and knew, ever talk about there service. I knew many who fought right through the war. I worked for twelve years with one and did not discover until recently that he was one of those who got out of Arnheim.

I worked as a youngster with a former squadron leader who won the VC and never heard of it until he died. His name was John Potts in case you want to check that with some one.

I also knew Speakman who won the VC in Korea and did not deserve it. He was one who, like you, would talk and brag of it.

I knew survivors of Japanese Prison camps - and served with a couple - who never spoke a word about them.

Two of my brothers were at El Alamein and onwards from there. One was wounded in Italy. They never talked of it even to family

I certainly would never confide in a peace time braggart.

You are a vile little man.

   

And that makes you an expert on climate science because...?

   

Telling us what regiment you were in is not in the realm of 'personal information' unless you were the only person in that imaginary regiment or unless you spent your entire term of service in the Colchester regiment.



No better friend and no better enemy.



Find where I've bragged of *any* award in nearly 30,000 posts. Just once.

Good luck with that.



I am not little. Vile, however? On occasion.

And you, dear sir, are in my estimation about 25 years old and a first class poseur.

Your claims of having served in the Royal Army starting in 1953 do not square with so much of what you write and how you write. You neither write like a veteran of any military or a gentleman of at least seventy-seven years of age.

You may as well have claimed to have lived in Paris for twelve years while demonstrating no knowledge of the city and no knowledge of French.

Because, to me, your claims of twelve years of military service and the advanced age of at least 77 are equally as plausible as one who claimed to have lived in Paris for twelve years while learning no French and demonstrating no casual knowledge of the city.

   

Previous  1 ... 5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next