|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Mar 17th, 2006 10:20 AM | |
| mburbank |
See now, when the dumb man without an education drinks a lot until they are even stupider, they say shit like you do. Environmentalism has NOTHING to do with nations, which are arbitrary human constructs. It has to do with codependent ecosystems that form a biosphere. By the way, those are scientiffic terms, not hippie liberal terms. The bioshphere has been around a good deal longer than any of our ancestors, and with any luck it all, it will survive our species. If you can't think of a single reason for preserving a wilderness than as a tourist destination, I'm sad for you. I don't really think you're the idiot you come across as. I think you are bullheaded and you suffer from a deep insecurity manifesting as a slavish need to belong (army, skinhead) and drinking way too much. You have to make as much noise as possible and roar about your great heart so no one sees how afraid you are. Listen. The kind of certainty you espouse about.... well, everything, is the hallmark of a small mind. I dare you to spend a month stone cold sober. |
| Mar 17th, 2006 05:04 AM | |
| Kulturkampf |
Not at all. I do not believe in racial superiority of anybody. But I hate commie scum. |
| Mar 16th, 2006 11:31 PM | |
| Big Papa Goat | seriously kultur, are you actually a nazi? |
| Mar 16th, 2006 05:52 PM | |
| Kulturkampf |
I love how this great paradise of nature is never visited, never admired by the overwhelming majority of Libs but for the sake of sticking to the bleeding heart principals, they try to block it. Tere are a lot of issues with the degredation of the environment, and I might even oppose drilling in this case, but I hate the left wing so muc that I want to call them hypocrites. Environmentalism should be out of love of nation and our natural glory of our ancestors, not out of something as dishonest as being a liberal. |
| Mar 16th, 2006 04:16 PM | |
| mburbank | Oh, man! I bet you want to bone Alaska too. |
| Mar 16th, 2006 03:43 PM | |
| ItalianStereotype | I'm a Republican! we're all liars :o |
| Mar 16th, 2006 03:39 PM | |
| mburbank | HEY!! you said LAST WORD!!! |
| Mar 16th, 2006 03:36 PM | |
| ItalianStereotype | HOT DVD ACSHUUUUN ONRY 9.99 THESE PIPELINS R HOT FOR U CALL NOW 1NCREASSSS PENIX 3" TODAY |
| Mar 16th, 2006 03:31 PM | |
| mburbank |
I've changed my mind. It's not about oil money. It's about all the coercive sex imagery. Virgin territory. Drilling. despoiling. Rape of the pristine wildenress. 'Oil'. 'Pipeline'. THAT BILL IS TOO HOT TO LET GO OF! |
| Mar 16th, 2006 03:23 PM | |
| ItalianStereotype |
with good reason :lastword |
| Mar 16th, 2006 03:22 PM | |
| mburbank | Alls I'm saying is, there's something unique about the near lust level of perseverence over penetrating ANWR. |
| Mar 16th, 2006 03:16 PM | |
| ItalianStereotype | the DPW deal is too limited in scope, but let's not make this another thread about that. |
| Mar 16th, 2006 03:12 PM | |
| mburbank |
I'd like to think that too, but I haven't seen any evidence of long term thinking from the current administration. And how can you say the ports deal doesn't have economic impact? The Bushies have a total woody for free trade with the UAE. This has GOT to make them less eager to deal with us. |
| Mar 16th, 2006 03:08 PM | |
| ItalianStereotype |
Harriet Miers? no economic impact on the future of our country. Social Security? a bit of a grey area LIV? no foreseeable economic impact on the future of our country manned Mars mission? no foreseeable economic impact on the future of our country. Dubai Ports deal? no real economic impact on the future of our country. but ANWR? your state alone stands to gain about 20,000 jobs from the development, max. besides, I'd like to think that our leaders aren't so short-sighted to pass up a long exploitable domestic resource for a comparatively small one time gain. |
| Mar 16th, 2006 03:01 PM | |
| mburbank |
Dude, name another loosing issue the Republicans have been so relentless on. Harriet Miers got one shot. Social secuirty bascially got one shot. Line item veto? It's come up once. Remember the manned mars mission? Less than one shot. Dubai Ports deal? Less than one shot. W, the leader of the GOP has yet to use a veto, in general these guys are not up for a lost cause. They only like battles they are going to win. The profit comes in kick backs from oil companies and oil lobbyists. They are going to loose this one again, they failed just recently (like a week and a half ago) to sneak it into the military supplemental. I don't know theres anything shifty about it, but it has to make you wonder. |
| Mar 16th, 2006 02:54 PM | |
| ItalianStereotype |
from what I understand, it will take 8-15 years before we'll see ANWR oil begin to make a noticeable difference. I'll bet it would be less if we had fewer roadblocks towards development. I notice that it's more than just a few people bringing up ANWR each year. whenever it gets blocked, it looks like it's done so by the more moderate Republicans in the northeast, people who go either way on the issue. and if it's going to take a long time to get a tiny amount of oil out of there, I guess I just don't see where profit comes into the equation. |
| Mar 16th, 2006 02:43 PM | |
| mburbank |
have you read any of the stuff on how many years to get how much oil out of there? It's tiny, an amount we could more than make up by mandating slightly better gas mileage. That's a debate tht can go back and forth quite a bit and undergo a great deal of cost benefit analysis. What I'm curious about is of all the things a particular segment (and it's not all, if it was all they would have had it ages ago) is so totally focused and dedicated on an issue they've lost on despite comitte control and majoritys in both houses. My cynical guess? Personal profits. |
| Mar 16th, 2006 02:32 PM | |
| ItalianStereotype | sacrificing a small portion of Alaskan wilderness in order to increase our economic wealth and decrease our dependance on foreign oil sounds okay to me. |
| Mar 16th, 2006 02:12 PM | |
| mburbank |
GOP Hardon for ANWR again rears it's ugly head Yep, they've attached ANWR drilling to a budget bill this time, about the twentieth time they've tried to sink their oil seeking weiner into that particular patch of wilderness. This time there's a funny twist, in that Alaska is in the midst of it's worst oil spill ever, a spill it took British Petroleum FIVE DAYS to become aware of. Thank god that kind of gross and dangerous incompetence could never take place at the rigs we'd be building in ANWR. I think it's cute how much more dedicated the hard core of the GOP is to this issue than other signature issues, like Social Security. Maybe it's because several of them stand to make billions in profits if it goes through. Or maybe that's just syncial. |
