- This topic has 1,004 replies, 42 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
urbanrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 1, 2011 at 1:41 PM #727515September 1, 2011 at 1:41 PM #727598
Aecetia
ParticipantGas and oil prices are a scam that the big corporations are involved in including Agrimoney. We do not need to impoverish ourselves for oil or create crappy electric cars with batteries that damage the environment.
“Many Russian geologists and petroleum researchers credit the rise of Russia over the past 50 years as the largest producer of oil and second largest producer of natural gas in the world to the successful application of the abiogenic theory of oil and gas formation. The Russians claim to have successfully drilled over 300 ultra deep (around 40,000feet) oil and gas wells through granite and basalt based on this theory.”
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/400230-vinod-dar/47079-abiotic-oil-and-gas-a-theory-that-refuses-to-vanishbe an oil “Truther”
September 1, 2011 at 1:41 PM #728057ParticipantGas and oil prices are a scam that the big corporations are involved in including Agrimoney. We do not need to impoverish ourselves for oil or create crappy electric cars with batteries that damage the environment.
“Many Russian geologists and petroleum researchers credit the rise of Russia over the past 50 years as the largest producer of oil and second largest producer of natural gas in the world to the successful application of the abiogenic theory of oil and gas formation. The Russians claim to have successfully drilled over 300 ultra deep (around 40,000feet) oil and gas wells through granite and basalt based on this theory.”
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/400230-vinod-dar/47079-abiotic-oil-and-gas-a-theory-that-refuses-to-vanishbe an oil “Truther”
September 1, 2011 at 1:49 PM #727525Arraya
Participant[quote=Aecetia]Gas and oil prices are a scam that the big corporations are involved in including Agrimoney. We do not need to impoverish ourselves for oil or create crappy electric cars with batteries that damage the environment.
“Many Russian geologists and petroleum researchers credit the rise of Russia over the past 50 years as the largest producer of oil and second largest producer of natural gas in the world to the successful application of the abiogenic theory of oil and gas formation. The Russians claim to have successfully drilled over 300 ultra deep (around 40,000feet) oil and gas wells through granite and basalt based on this theory.”
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/400230-vinod-dar/47079-abiotic-oil-and-gas-a-theory-that-refuses-to-vanishbe an oil “Truther”[/quote]
You mean the world has been finding smaller and smaller deposits for almost 50 years on purpose? All in a big elaborate ruse to pretend that oil is finite and jack up the price?
September 1, 2011 at 1:49 PM #727608Participant[quote=Aecetia]Gas and oil prices are a scam that the big corporations are involved in including Agrimoney. We do not need to impoverish ourselves for oil or create crappy electric cars with batteries that damage the environment.
“Many Russian geologists and petroleum researchers credit the rise of Russia over the past 50 years as the largest producer of oil and second largest producer of natural gas in the world to the successful application of the abiogenic theory of oil and gas formation. The Russians claim to have successfully drilled over 300 ultra deep (around 40,000feet) oil and gas wells through granite and basalt based on this theory.”
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/400230-vinod-dar/47079-abiotic-oil-and-gas-a-theory-that-refuses-to-vanishbe an oil “Truther”[/quote]
You mean the world has been finding smaller and smaller deposits for almost 50 years on purpose? All in a big elaborate ruse to pretend that oil is finite and jack up the price?
September 1, 2011 at 1:49 PM #728059Participant[quote=Aecetia]Gas and oil prices are a scam that the big corporations are involved in including Agrimoney. We do not need to impoverish ourselves for oil or create crappy electric cars with batteries that damage the environment.
“Many Russian geologists and petroleum researchers credit the rise of Russia over the past 50 years as the largest producer of oil and second largest producer of natural gas in the world to the successful application of the abiogenic theory of oil and gas formation. The Russians claim to have successfully drilled over 300 ultra deep (around 40,000feet) oil and gas wells through granite and basalt based on this theory.”
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/400230-vinod-dar/47079-abiotic-oil-and-gas-a-theory-that-refuses-to-vanishbe an oil “Truther”[/quote]
You mean the world has been finding smaller and smaller deposits for almost 50 years on purpose? All in a big elaborate ruse to pretend that oil is finite and jack up the price?
September 1, 2011 at 2:45 PM #727557Anonymous
Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: And, unsurprisingly, you proffer yet another strawman. Where, oh where, did I mention regime change in Iran?[/quote]
Just a few posts earlier:
[quote]Obama had a golden opportunity to drive a blade into the Iranian regime[/quote]
This whole interaction started with two sentences where I mentioned nothing about the Middle East except the word “Gaddafi.” You took that and went off into a tirade about Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. which led into some reference to a New York Times reporter…
And now you seem to be claiming that you didn’t mention any of this stuff?
Don’t bother trying to explain that you meant something else with the phrase “drive a blade.”
You’ve exceeded your quota on the “straw-man” claims.
September 1, 2011 at 2:45 PM #727641Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: And, unsurprisingly, you proffer yet another strawman. Where, oh where, did I mention regime change in Iran?[/quote]
Just a few posts earlier:
[quote]Obama had a golden opportunity to drive a blade into the Iranian regime[/quote]
This whole interaction started with two sentences where I mentioned nothing about the Middle East except the word “Gaddafi.” You took that and went off into a tirade about Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. which led into some reference to a New York Times reporter…
And now you seem to be claiming that you didn’t mention any of this stuff?
Don’t bother trying to explain that you meant something else with the phrase “drive a blade.”
You’ve exceeded your quota on the “straw-man” claims.
September 1, 2011 at 2:45 PM #728065Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: And, unsurprisingly, you proffer yet another strawman. Where, oh where, did I mention regime change in Iran?[/quote]
Just a few posts earlier:
[quote]Obama had a golden opportunity to drive a blade into the Iranian regime[/quote]
This whole interaction started with two sentences where I mentioned nothing about the Middle East except the word “Gaddafi.” You took that and went off into a tirade about Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. which led into some reference to a New York Times reporter…
And now you seem to be claiming that you didn’t mention any of this stuff?
Don’t bother trying to explain that you meant something else with the phrase “drive a blade.”
You’ve exceeded your quota on the “straw-man” claims.
September 1, 2011 at 2:50 PM #727576Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=pri_dk]
And how many casualties did the US suffer defeating him?[/quote]The more important question is how many millionaires will defeating him make?[/quote]
Arraya: Man, when you’re right, you ARE right. Excellent article over at Salon (you know, that bastion of right-wing extremism) explaining the “real” causes behind US and European intervention: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/09/01/libyan_fairy_tale
It is a VERY interesting read.
September 1, 2011 at 2:50 PM #727660Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=pri_dk]
And how many casualties did the US suffer defeating him?[/quote]The more important question is how many millionaires will defeating him make?[/quote]
Arraya: Man, when you’re right, you ARE right. Excellent article over at Salon (you know, that bastion of right-wing extremism) explaining the “real” causes behind US and European intervention: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/09/01/libyan_fairy_tale
It is a VERY interesting read.
September 1, 2011 at 2:50 PM #728069Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=pri_dk]
And how many casualties did the US suffer defeating him?[/quote]The more important question is how many millionaires will defeating him make?[/quote]
Arraya: Man, when you’re right, you ARE right. Excellent article over at Salon (you know, that bastion of right-wing extremism) explaining the “real” causes behind US and European intervention: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/09/01/libyan_fairy_tale
It is a VERY interesting read.
September 1, 2011 at 3:11 PM #727586Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: And, unsurprisingly, you proffer yet another strawman. Where, oh where, did I mention regime change in Iran?[/quote]
Just a few posts earlier:
[quote]Obama had a golden opportunity to drive a blade into the Iranian regime[/quote]
This whole interaction started with two sentences where I mentioned nothing about the Middle East except the word “Gaddafi.” You took that and went off into a tirade about Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. which led into some reference to a New York Times reporter…
And now you seem to be claiming that you didn’t mention any of this stuff?
Don’t bother trying to explain that you meant something else with the phrase “drive a blade.”
You’ve exceeded your quota on the “straw-man” claims.[/quote]
Pri: Now you feign ignorance on what is meant by “regime change”? Regime change is the US invading Iraq and ousting Saddam Hussein. Supporting a genuiune, homegrown uprising (which Iran was, by the way) is completely and totally different, which is what I meant by “driving a blade”. Obama was afforded the opportunity to provide priceless support for a populace that was desperately looking to America for a sign and that sign never came.
Pri, you simply cannot be this obtuse. You either feign ignorance of what certain words mean, or you completely misread what I meant and twist it into something entirely different.
Hey, how’s about talking on a subject you seem almost PATHOLOGICALLY averse to recognizing? That would be Obama’s policies (actually Dubya’s policies as continued by Obama, but you know what I mean – hopefully). Another very good article in Salon, that hopelessly retrograde Republican party organ on Obama’s CIA policies: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/barack_obama/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/09/01/obama.
Money shot from the article: “Frontline adds that while candidate Obama “promised a sweeping overhaul of the Bush administration’s war on terror” and “a top to bottom review of the threats we face and our abilities to confront them,” Rizzo explains that, in fact, Obama officials during the transition made clear to the CIA that they intended almost complete continuity.”
Any thoughts on this, pri? Anything? Bueller?
September 1, 2011 at 3:11 PM #727670Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: And, unsurprisingly, you proffer yet another strawman. Where, oh where, did I mention regime change in Iran?[/quote]
Just a few posts earlier:
[quote]Obama had a golden opportunity to drive a blade into the Iranian regime[/quote]
This whole interaction started with two sentences where I mentioned nothing about the Middle East except the word “Gaddafi.” You took that and went off into a tirade about Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. which led into some reference to a New York Times reporter…
And now you seem to be claiming that you didn’t mention any of this stuff?
Don’t bother trying to explain that you meant something else with the phrase “drive a blade.”
You’ve exceeded your quota on the “straw-man” claims.[/quote]
Pri: Now you feign ignorance on what is meant by “regime change”? Regime change is the US invading Iraq and ousting Saddam Hussein. Supporting a genuiune, homegrown uprising (which Iran was, by the way) is completely and totally different, which is what I meant by “driving a blade”. Obama was afforded the opportunity to provide priceless support for a populace that was desperately looking to America for a sign and that sign never came.
Pri, you simply cannot be this obtuse. You either feign ignorance of what certain words mean, or you completely misread what I meant and twist it into something entirely different.
Hey, how’s about talking on a subject you seem almost PATHOLOGICALLY averse to recognizing? That would be Obama’s policies (actually Dubya’s policies as continued by Obama, but you know what I mean – hopefully). Another very good article in Salon, that hopelessly retrograde Republican party organ on Obama’s CIA policies: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/barack_obama/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/09/01/obama.
Money shot from the article: “Frontline adds that while candidate Obama “promised a sweeping overhaul of the Bush administration’s war on terror” and “a top to bottom review of the threats we face and our abilities to confront them,” Rizzo explains that, in fact, Obama officials during the transition made clear to the CIA that they intended almost complete continuity.”
Any thoughts on this, pri? Anything? Bueller?
September 1, 2011 at 3:11 PM #728071Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: And, unsurprisingly, you proffer yet another strawman. Where, oh where, did I mention regime change in Iran?[/quote]
Just a few posts earlier:
[quote]Obama had a golden opportunity to drive a blade into the Iranian regime[/quote]
This whole interaction started with two sentences where I mentioned nothing about the Middle East except the word “Gaddafi.” You took that and went off into a tirade about Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. which led into some reference to a New York Times reporter…
And now you seem to be claiming that you didn’t mention any of this stuff?
Don’t bother trying to explain that you meant something else with the phrase “drive a blade.”
You’ve exceeded your quota on the “straw-man” claims.[/quote]
Pri: Now you feign ignorance on what is meant by “regime change”? Regime change is the US invading Iraq and ousting Saddam Hussein. Supporting a genuiune, homegrown uprising (which Iran was, by the way) is completely and totally different, which is what I meant by “driving a blade”. Obama was afforded the opportunity to provide priceless support for a populace that was desperately looking to America for a sign and that sign never came.
Pri, you simply cannot be this obtuse. You either feign ignorance of what certain words mean, or you completely misread what I meant and twist it into something entirely different.
Hey, how’s about talking on a subject you seem almost PATHOLOGICALLY averse to recognizing? That would be Obama’s policies (actually Dubya’s policies as continued by Obama, but you know what I mean – hopefully). Another very good article in Salon, that hopelessly retrograde Republican party organ on Obama’s CIA policies: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/barack_obama/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/09/01/obama.
Money shot from the article: “Frontline adds that while candidate Obama “promised a sweeping overhaul of the Bush administration’s war on terror” and “a top to bottom review of the threats we face and our abilities to confront them,” Rizzo explains that, in fact, Obama officials during the transition made clear to the CIA that they intended almost complete continuity.”
Any thoughts on this, pri? Anything? Bueller?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.