On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:02:03 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 19, 2:13В am, Mike Smith
wt.net> wrote:
>>>>> The envirowackos are nothing but useful idiots.
>>
>>>Yeah, we *all* know that those wild claims that clean air, clean
>>>water, and all that other stuff are good for you is just a scare
>>>tactic used by the radical left.
>>
>> Thanks for posting proof that BrentP is correct.
>
>Heh. Looks as if even the bottom end of the bell curve can afford
>computers these days.
Heh heh heh ... You don't realize you've been bitch-slapped, do you...
>
>>>Anyway, Armageddon is going to be here soon, so it's no use saving
>>>anything up for tomorrow anyway.
>>
>> If we don't start drilling our own oil and don't start increasing our
>> refining capabilities, you are correct.
>
>Doofus, *everyone* -including the oil industry and John McCain- admits
>that we can't drill our way out of the oil crunch for several reasons:
>(A) there's a ten-year turnaround time before the first drop can flow
>into a gas tank,
Fuckin lie.
We can have oil pumping in about 1.5 years.
Are you really this misinformed?
>(B) our own untapped reserves simply aren't large
>enough to make a dent in our national consumption anyway, and,
Fuckin lie #2
Our untapped reserves are around 1.5 TRILLION barrels.
Are you really this gullible?
> (C)
>demand is still growing, not just here but all over the world. So no
>matter *how* you cut it, increased demand and a constantly shrinking
>supply will mean rapidly increasing oil prices for as long as the
>reserves hold out, and when it's gone, it's gone.
You do love your fantasies, don't you. But, in your defense, you did
get something right. Demand is growing and will continue to grow,
which means we need to get busy tapping into our own oil reserves and
building new refineries, right now.
>
>Alternative energy sources are going to be the only possible answer,
>and the longer we avoid moving in that direction the worse it's going
>to be for us.
Bullshit. The technology is not available now. Maybe in 30-50 years,
but not now. You really need to read more, and quit relying on the
kos/moveon/huffy kooks to get your info.
>
>> We do not need that anti-American socialist anywhere near our White House.
>
>(Hint: calling someone names doesn't advance your cause.)
Accurately describing someone is hard for you to understand, isn't
it...
That's OK, you appear to be a liberal, which means you are not very
intelligent.
>
>> No one wants a snooty Harvard lawyer as our President.
>
>At last count, roughly 50%% of Americans *do* want that "snooty Harvard
>lawyer" as our President. Would you know the truth if it bit you in
>the ass?
>
No, ya moron... 50%% of Americans do NOT want the Big Zero. The media
controlled sample is NOT "all" Americans. In fact, it is just a small
sampling of registered voters, not even likely voters.
This political stuff really confuses you, doesn't it.
You are easily fooled by the media and the liberal leaders, aren't
you...
Mike Smith
