Mike Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:02:03 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
>
gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 19, 2:13 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?
Cite? Or are you really this gullible?
>
>> (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.
>
Cite, again. You (whoever you are) saying it on usenet hardly makes it
true. OTOH, if it is, I'd like to see it on reliable authority.
> Are you really this gullible?
>
Not at all...especially not gullible enough simply believe a usenet
'expert' because he 'says so'.
>> (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.
>
Petroleum is such a valuable resource, it's a shame to see it simply
burned up by the billions of gallons. Wouldn't you like for your
grandchildren to have some of it left when they need it?
>> 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.
>
The only reason it's not available is because of cheap, subsidized oil.
Take that away, and the country which decided to put a man on the moon
in ten years--and did it--could likely develop that technology.
>>> 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.
>
You've not proven anything, except that you can sling insults.
Unattributed assertions do not win arguments except among the
ill-informed and uneducated.
>>> 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.
>
The 'big zero'? What's that? Will you publish a retraction if you're
proven wrong, come November?
> This political stuff really confuses you, doesn't it.
> You are easily fooled by the media and the liberal leaders, aren't
> you...
>
Less easily fooled by you....
> Mike Smith
Assuming that's your real name, you're still anonymous. There must be a
million 'Mike Smiths' in the country. I'll be there are a few thousand
within a 100 mile radius of me right now...and I doubt whether you are
one of them.
jak
