 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / May 2008(OT:) We can't drill in the Gulf, let's let the Nigerians
This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you: Congress won't allow drilling in the Gulf of Mexico by US companies. However, at a meeting of oil producing countries, Nigeria is inking a 100- year lease to drill in the Gulf's oil reserves. This makes sense, huh? A highly regulated US industry is banned from exploring for oil with the best equipment in the world, but we're going to allow one of the least technologically advance countries in the world do it. When the *HELL* are we going to vote these dimwit Democrats OUT OF OFFICE so we can become competitive again?! > This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > When the *HELL* are we going to vote these dimwit Democrats OUT OF OFFICE > so we can become competitive again?! How do you ***KNOW*** with absolute, ironclad certainty that this is the work of democrats? Furthermore, it seems to be a back room business deal that somehow gets around the rules. Provide all your information on this issue. >> This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > deal that somehow gets around the rules. Provide all your information on > this issue. Watch for yourself: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/tv/ Glenn Beck, every day at 7p and 9p ET on Headline News How do I know it was Democrats? Who the hell else tries to drag this country into the Stone Age? >>> This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you: >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > How do I know it was Democrats? Who the hell else tries to drag this > country into the Stone Age? There's nothing on that page related to your original message. You must've heard about it on television. When you find an actual news story about it, y'all come back and tell me about it. >> Watch for yourself: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > heard about it on television. When you find an actual news story about it, > y'all come back and tell me about it. Once again proving you can't read, it's going to be on CNN in about 15 minutes. If you put the bottle down NOW, you might even be able to comprehend it. If you don't, you'll have to wait until 9 PM when it coms back on. >>> Watch for yourself: >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > If you don't, you'll have to wait until 9 PM when it coms back on. I don't have cable TV. Find a source to corroborate Beck's story. And by the way, if a corporation manages to skirt the law as you've described, then that's not the news story. The story should be who in our government was paid off to allow it to happen. >> Once again proving you can't read, it's going to be on CNN in about 15 >> minutes. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > described, then that's not the news story. The story should be who in our > government was paid off to allow it to happen. What I don't know is who they're signing the lease with. They may not be drilling in US waters. The thing is, they are drilling in the Gulf. Or, will be. So, instead of doing the drilling ourselves, we're going to let someone else do the drilling and then charge us a premium price for oil we could get ourselves. You can thank the tree huggers and the Democrats for that. An oil field isn't usually localized, they're usually very large. We could probably tap the same oil field from within our own waters and use the oil to offset the prices ramped up by the Chinese. But the dunderheads that control policy right now won't allow that, cause it might foul up the ecology of the area. An oil spill 200 miles out isn't much different from an oil spill 160 miles out. But, let's just go ahead and let everyone else grab it so we can buy it back at bloated prices, and get the warm fuzzies cause WE didn't cause an oil spill, 'K? >>> Once again proving you can't read, it's going to be on CNN in about 15 >>> minutes. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > can buy it back at bloated prices, and get the warm fuzzies cause WE > didn't cause an oil spill, 'K? We need to wait until tomorrow when some reputable news sources pick up the story. As it stands right now, you are missing about 99% of the information needed to discuss this issue. You will now disagree. But, you need to explain the following: If "Nigeria" drills for oil, it's not "Nigeria" doing the drilling. It's one of several companies which do the work. At least two of those companies are American. So, the law must say that they can't drill in certain places if it's on their own behalf, but they *can* drill in those places if it's on behalf of a foreign government. Is that what you're saying? >> An oil spill 200 miles out isn't much different from an oil spill 160 >> miles out. But, let's just go ahead and let everyone else grab it so we [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the story. As it stands right now, you are missing about 99% of the > information needed to discuss this issue. Not really. Why aren't US companies drilling for oil in the Gulf? Let's discuss that, eh? Who cares if it's Nigeria, South Africa, China or Timbuktu? In other words, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?!?!?! Why aren't *WE* drilling for oil right in our own friggin back yard?!?! Lay off the bottle so I don't have to hit you over the head next time! >>> An oil spill 200 miles out isn't much different from an oil spill 160 >>> miles out. But, let's just go ahead and let everyone else grab it so we [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Lay off the bottle so I don't have to hit you over the head next time! Personally, I don't care that it's Nigeria that supposedly wants to drill for oil in our gulf. What pisses me off is that anyone is doing it besides the US. Thanks dims, you keep us dependant on foreign oil so much I see that you are no different than Bush. That's right. I'm outright accusing dims of being in bed with big oil just as much as Bush's family is. They are no different from one another. >>>> An oil spill 200 miles out isn't much different from an oil spill 160 >>>> miles out. But, let's just go ahead and let everyone else grab it so we [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > dims of being in bed with big oil just as much as Bush's family is. They > are no different from one another. All presidents as far back as Nixon have been too closely linked with the oil biz, and more importantly, with the Arabs. But, Hach's point is different. He's saying it bothers him that environmental regs keep Chevron from drilling in certain places, but if Nigeria gains rights to drill in those places, it will be Chevron doing it for them. So, that's why I said there's information missing here. His theory makes no sense. But, he might be right. We'll find out if & when he comes up with more information. >>>>> An oil spill 200 miles out isn't much different from an oil spill >>>>> 160 miles out. But, let's just go ahead and let everyone else grab [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > But, he might be right. We'll find out if & when he comes up with more > information. Like I said, Joe, it doesn't matter who's doing the drilling (as far as the company actually doing the drilling) the output is going to go to someone who will gladly sell it back to us at top dollar. Let's say there's 4B BBL under the Gulf. If Gulf were drilling in the Gulf, they could offer the oil to US customers at $65 a BBL and still make a tidy sum from it. Since you now have the second biggest oil consumer (maybe the biggest, but not for much longer) paying half the price, the world oil market will come back in line. Especially if you start putting the oil on the market for less than $120 BBL. Let's say you sell it domestically for $65 BBL, and to foreign interests at $75 BBL. THis will cause everyone in the oil industry to rethink and adjust accordingly. Ah, but the Democrqats don't like that! A duck might get oily. Yeah, a tragedy, for sure. but in the grand scheme of things, they'll make more ducks. >>>>>> An oil spill 200 miles out isn't much different from an oil spill >>>>>> 160 miles out. But, let's just go ahead and let everyone else grab [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > tragedy, for sure. but in the grand scheme of things, they'll make more > ducks. This is the last time I'm going to tell you: You do not have enough information about this Nigerian deal you invented. You're using this lack of information to invent a convoluted story involving environmental rules. You're doing this because you *needed* to concoct something. As of two hours ago, there's still nothing on Beck's web page about this. Nothing on any major news sites, nothing recent via google. Show me some reliable information about your story, or be quiet. >> Like I said, Joe, it doesn't matter who's doing the drilling (as far as >> the company actually doing the drilling) the output is going to go to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > This is the last time I'm going to tell you: You do not have enough > information about this Nigerian deal you invented. Boy, are you thick. WHO CARES WHO is getting the output?! I don't care if it's your Auntie Grizelda! The fact is, *WE'RE* not getting it! Is it really that hard a concept to grasp? The deal with Nigeria hasn't been inked yet, but there are plenty of references to Venezuela and China drilling in the Gulf. They're drilling in reserves shared between the US and Mexico. The Truth is out there. >>> Like I said, Joe, it doesn't matter who's doing the drilling (as far as >>> the company actually doing the drilling) the output is going to go to [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > The Truth is out there. Now I understand what's happening here. Beck had no solid sources. He expressed opinion (or outrage), and you are turning it into "facts". Besides Venezuela & China drilling in our reserves, who else drills there? >> Boy, are you thick. WHO CARES WHO is getting the output?! I don't care >> if it's your Auntie Grizelda! The fact is, *WE'RE* not getting it! [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Besides Venezuela & China drilling in our reserves, who else drills > there? Wow. Are you sure your name isn't Dense? Beck said that there are talks going on about having Nigeria drill in the Gulf for oil. It's not yet a done deal. *I* said there are plenty of people drilling in the Gulf for oil. Out of them, we're about the least. This is because of the blockades put up by Congress. See, Joe, the real point of this post was the blockades put up for Domestic oil exploration by Congress, and if we don't get the oil, others will. Following along so far? Now, if you care to discuss this, be my guest. If you're just going to keep up the subterfuge, I suggest you just STFU. >>> Boy, are you thick. WHO CARES WHO is getting the output?! I don't care >>> if it's your Auntie Grizelda! The fact is, *WE'RE* not getting it! [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > them, we're about the least. This is because of the blockades put up by > Congress. Here's where you need to provide legislative details, not generalizations. Give me either the formal names of the legislation, or the the bill numbers. I know your generalizations are coming from TV and/or radio, but we need details. Reality, in other words. > See, Joe, the real point of this post was the blockades put up for > Domestic oil exploration by Congress, and if we don't get the oil, others > will. Following along so far? > > Now, if you care to discuss this, be my guest. If you're just going to > keep up the subterfuge, I suggest you just STFU. The republicans, led by a boy from the oil biz, had 4 years in which to overturn the environmental regs you're bitching about. I wonder why they didn't do that. It would've been easy for them. >> *I* said there are plenty of people drilling in the Gulf for oil. Out >> of them, we're about the least. This is because of the blockades put up [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the the bill numbers. I know your generalizations are coming from TV > and/or radio, but we need details. Reality, in other words. You're kidding, right? >> See, Joe, the real point of this post was the blockades put up for >> Domestic oil exploration by Congress, and if we don't get the oil, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > overturn the environmental regs you're bitching about. I wonder why they > didn't do that. It would've been easy for them. The laws were passed in 2006. Let's see, who was controlling Congress in 2006... >>> *I* said there are plenty of people drilling in the Gulf for oil. Out >>> of them, we're about the least. This is because of the blockades put up [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > The laws were passed in 2006. Let's see, who was controlling Congress in > 2006... No, I'm not kidding. You just said the laws were passed in 2006, so you *DO* have a bit of detail about the laws. But, you can't name them. Who told you "2006"? More information. >> The laws were passed in 2006. Let's see, who was controlling Congress in >> 2006... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > More information. Let me guess, you don't have a computer, either. It's fairly easy to find. Go have a look. >>> The laws were passed in 2006. Let's see, who was controlling Congress in >>> 2006... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It's fairly easy to find. Go have a look. You invented a fairy tale based on what you heard from a TV pundit. You hate it when I ask the question "Who told you to say that?". But this thread is a perfect example of how foolish it is to repeat what you've been told without having complete information to defend what you say. You are embarrassed, and you should be. >>>> The laws were passed in 2006. Let's see, who was controlling Congress >>>> in 2006... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > You are embarrassed, and you should be. HAHAHAHAHA! Why am I embarrassed? I did some research and found there are PLENTY of people other than us drilling in the Gulf. And I also remember from my daus of reading the WSJ every day the bullshit the Democrats put in place to stop US companies from drilling in the Gulf. There are some, but they were Gradfathered in and can't plant any new rigs. But if you keep thinking you know more than me, go right ahead. I don't mind. Please don't respond unless you want to discuss what's going on in the Gulf. As usual, since you know nothing about the topic, but chose to respond anyway, you go after me and my sources instead of finding some of you own, and get totally off-topic. Use Google. It really works. >>>>> The laws were passed in 2006. Let's see, who was controlling Congress >>>>> in 2006... [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Use Google. It really works. Without the names and/or numbers of the laws, everything you have said, and everything you plan on saying next is vapor. Useless. A vain attempt to cover your a.s. >> Please don't respond unless you want to discuss what's going on in the >> Gulf. As usual, since you know nothing about the topic, but chose to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and everything you plan on saying next is vapor. Useless. A vain attempt > to cover your a.s. As usual, you have nothing to add. You don't even bother to try to prove what I'm saying is wrong. Bye. >>> Please don't respond unless you want to discuss what's going on in the >>> Gulf. As usual, since you know nothing about the topic, but chose to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > As usual, you have nothing to add. You don't even bother to try to prove > what I'm saying is wrong. Bye. You're right. I have nothing to say about this because I don't have the information needed to comment in detail. But neither do you. And I never would've made such a comment without first looking up the legislation I was referring to so other people could see it. Remember that next time you wake up in the morning and think "It's a great day to say something stupid." Apparently you do that every day LOL "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:lfBVj.87239 > Remember that next time you wake up in the morning > and think "It's a great day to say something stupid." Go back to sleep, Uncle Jemima. > Apparently you do that every day LOL > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Remember that next time you wake up in the morning >> and think "It's a great day to say something stupid." > Remember that next time you wake up in the morning > and think "It's a great day to say something stupid." > > Apparently you do that every day LOL > Go back to sleep, Uncle Jemima. Joe, you don't exactly help your cause when you write things like that. >> Remember that next time you wake up in the morning >> and think "It's a great day to say something stupid." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Joe, you don't exactly help your cause when you write things like > that. Haven't you seen Hunt's video? http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/play.shtml?mea=2584 >> As usual, you have nothing to add. You don't even bother to try to >> prove what I'm saying is wrong. Bye. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Remember that next time you wake up in the morning and think "It's a > great day to say something stupid." Then I'll post something you would. > >> Like I said, Joe, it doesn't matter who's doing the drilling (as far as > >> the company actually doing the drilling) the output is going to go to [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - How did YOU find out? Who told YOU? Where did YOU read this? >> Boy, are you thick. WHO CARES WHO is getting the output?! I don't care >> if it's your Auntie Grizelda! The fact is, *WE'RE* not getting it! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > How did YOU find out? Who told YOU? Where did YOU read this? http://www.glennbeck.com/content/tv/ >>> Boy, are you thick. WHO CARES WHO is getting the output?! I don't care >>> if it's your Auntie Grizelda! The fact is, *WE'RE* not getting it! [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > http://www.glennbeck.com/content/tv/ As of this morning, there was NOTHING on his site about the story you're telling. Stop posting that link. Show me at least one reputable source for the story. > "hachiroku ????" <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > Show me some reliable information about your story, or be quiet. See, this is the type of fricking bone-headed liberal-minded welfare- receiving communism-wanting thinking that has put America into the fricking TOILET! "Oh, you can't prove it with a citation, even though it's obvious every time I spend one fricking cent, so I'm going to fight you tooth and nail so I can feel good being the devil's advocate." f.ck THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE! >> "hachiroku ????" <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > f.ck THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE! Hey Einstein: You should've read the whole thread. As it turns out, he was 100% wrong. 1) He referred to legislation that HURT our ability to go looking for more oil in the Gulf. As it turns out, the legislation in question ALLOWS more exploration. Here's it's official title: S.3711 Title: A bill to enhance the energy independence and security of the United States by providing for exploration, development, and production activities for mineral resources in the Gulf of Mexico, and for other purposes. 2) He claimed Democrats were behind an effort to prevent increased oil exploration in the Gulf. In fact, the opposite it true. Most Senate Democrats voted for the bill. The House version was even *more* suppportive than the Senate version. So, shut the f.ck up, moron. > >> "hachiroku ????" <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > > So, shut the f.ck up, moron. Hey a.shole, f.ck you >> >> "hachiroku ????" <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] > > Hey a.shole, f.ck you That's exactly the response I'd expect from a child. A real man would say "Sorry, I didn't realize that he'd posted lies. My mistake." > >> "Nza" <the...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 141 lines] > That's exactly the response I'd expect from a child. A real man would say > "Sorry, I didn't realize that he'd posted lies. My mistake." No it's more like: i choose not to believe the tripe that you believe. Thank you, cock. >> >> "Nza" <the...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 172 lines] > > Thank you, cock. Is this a lie? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN3711: > > Show me some reliable information about your story, or be quiet. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to fight you tooth and nail so I can feel good being the devil's > advocate." Would it be better to rely more on gut feelings and hunches rather than facts, especially after several beers? >>> We need to wait until tomorrow when some reputable news sources pick >>> up the story. As it stands right now, you are missing about 99% of the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > outright accusing dims of being in bed with big oil just as much as > Bush's family is. They are no different from one another. No doubt about it. They say they're helping the Greenies, but it's all just more of the same. I think it's a backhanded method of punishing the oil companies, but it's the American oil consumer that's taking the punishment. But, let's keep electing the Pelosis and the Reids and the Clintons. Does us a world of good. Actually, it does more of a world of good for the foreign oil producers. > >>> We need to wait until tomorrow when some reputable news sources pick > >>> up the story. As it stands right now, you are missing about 99% of the [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > - Show quoted text - . . > But, let's keep electing the Pelosis and the Reids and the Clintons. Does > us a world of good. I am actively working to get MORE Democrats in office across the nation. If the US Oil Companies would invest a few bucks back into improving safety and delivery we would trust them. >> But, let's keep electing the Pelosis and the Reids and the Clintons. >> Does us a world of good. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > If the US Oil Companies would invest a few bucks back into improving > safety and delivery we would trust them. So you trust Chinese and Nigerians to do a better job of Conservation? > >>> We need to wait until tomorrow when some reputable news sources pick > >>> up the story. As it stands right now, you are missing about 99% of the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Actually, it does more of a world of good for the foreign oil producers. Let's just bend over and let them take everything. It is what the framers of the constitution and the dec. of independence wanted, right? that's what all the devil's advocates want. Let's go ahead and believe it. Freedom is overrated. Let's argue against it, Corolla! >> Actually, it does more of a world of good for the foreign oil producers. > > Let's just bend over and let them take everything. It is what the > framers of the constitution and the dec. of independence wanted, right? > that's what all the devil's advocates want. Let's go ahead and believe > it. Freedom is overrated. Let's argue against it, Corolla! At least someone understands the point of the original post without 100 replies of explanation!! Yee Haaa! Of course, you're not a Liberal. Some of them need extra help... > Glenn Beck Man, you seem so smart, then you go and quote this stupid right wing nut megalojunkie. What would you do if Exxon polluted Cape Cod with a catastrophic oil spill? > How do I know it was Democrats? Yeah that's the question. > Who the hell else tries to drag this > country into the Stone Age? Conservatism \Con*serv"a*tism\, n. [For conservatism.] The disposition and tendency to preserve what is established; opposition to change; the habit of mind; or conduct, of a conservative. Well, certainly most Americans who consider themselves "Conservative" are also Republicans. See the above definition, especially the reference to "opposition to change"... which political party has all of the dinosaurs who want to keep doing business the old fashioned way? I don't trust Exxon to be responsible _enough_ to go digging under the earth (somewhere off the coast of Africa in this case, I presume) for more oil safely. Are you telling me that you do trust Exxon or Gulf or Shell or BP or any other oil company be safe? Does your recovering a.shole friend Glenn Beck trust the nice Big Oil companies? >> Glenn Beck > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > any other oil company be safe? Does your recovering a.shole friend > Glenn Beck trust the nice Big Oil companies? Maybe we can finally put this to bed. As usual, Hach didn't do his research. I got impatient and did it for him. Senate bill S.3711 passed on August 1, 2006. The vote was 71 yea, 25 nay, 4 not voting. Contrary to Hach the idiot's theory, plenty of Democrats voted *for* the bill. These left-wing unfair unbalanced untrustworthy sources have all the information: http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congres s=109&session=2&vote=00219#position http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN3711: The biggest limitation is drilling near the coast of Florida. Guess who insisted on that limitation *originally*. See below. Bill Details Specifically prohibited: drilling within 100-125 miles of the coastline of the State of Florida. Half of the lease revenue goes into the federal general fund; half is disbursed to Gulf states and states eligible for Land and Water Conservation Fund monies. According to the Congressional Budget Office, royalties are estimated at $1.55 billion over the first 10 years. From 1982 - 2001, the US collected $110.4 billion from onshore and offshore leases. The Senate bill differs dramatically from the House version, which is more liberal. The House would open all shores to oil drilling unless a state objects. Back Story Area 181, about 1.5 million acres of this plan, was first proposed for drilling in 1997. In 2001, the Bush Administration backed off a plan that would come within 10 miles of the Florida coast, in part because brother Jeb (Governor of Florida) objected. From a 2001 press release: "We have listened and worked carefully with officials and affected citizens around the 181 lease area. The outcome is a balanced and common sense proposal," said [Interior] Secretary [Gale] Norton. "Our modified 181 area has been adjusted from 5.9 million acres to 1.5 million. The adjusted area is at least 100 miles from any portion of the Florida coast. For example, it's northern border is more than 100 miles from Pensacola, Florida and the eastern edge is 285 miles from the shores of Tampa Bay. From 1954 - 1990, the federal government leased 63,512,799 acres in four regions -- Alaska, the Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific. The first production was in the Gulf of Mexico. In 1990, 25% were producing oil and gas. From 1982 - 2000, the Department of Interior has managed ocean leases that generated more than 10.9 billion barrels of domestic oil and 133 trillion cubic feet of gas; 97% came from the Gulf of Mexico. The oil data is at the most optimistic end of estimates from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Perspective The area contains a quarter of the lowest estimate of reserves in the controversial Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. So this new area will provide no more than one percent of our current daily consumption. Sound pretty good to me, considering the current daily consumption in the US is 40 million barrels a DAY! I remember when the Dims and the environuts were saying the same crap while fighting the idea to drill the North Slope the LOL > The area contains a quarter of the lowest estimate of reserves in the > controversial Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. So this new area will > provide no more than one percent of our current daily consumption. > From 1982 - 2000, the Department of Interior has managed ocean leases that > generated more than 10.9 billion barrels of domestic oil and 133 trillion > cubic feet of gas; 97% came from the Gulf of Mexico. The oil data is at > the most optimistic end of estimates from the Arctic National Wildlife > Refuge. Wow. You actually came up with something except obfuscation for once. So why are they leasing the areas to foriegners? >> From 1982 - 2000, the Department of Interior has managed ocean leases >> that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > So why are they leasing the areas to foriegners? Because it's legal. >>> From 1982 - 2000, the Department of Interior has managed ocean leases >>> that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Because it's legal. That helps us a lot. >>>> From 1982 - 2000, the Department of Interior has managed ocean leases >>>> that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That helps us a lot. Better question: How are we able to decide who drills in international waters? Learning Little Richard, where do you thing we would be WITHOUT those big oil companies? LOL >> Glenn Beck > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > any other oil company be safe? Does your recovering a.shole friend > Glenn Beck trust the nice Big Oil companies? >> Glenn Beck > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > other oil company be safe? Does your recovering a.shole friend Glenn > Beck trust the nice Big Oil companies? I believe he does. I sure think they're better able to handle any 'erros' than Nigerians or Chinese. They also have to live here and pay for any pollution. Thing the Nigerians or the Chinese would stick around? > >> Glenn Beck > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > They also have to live here and pay for any pollution. Thing the Nigerians > or the Chinese would stick around? The Chinese are already responsible for most of the "air pollution" on the West Coast anyway.. What would be different? Let's let the Chinese do us over! Hell, Carter already gave them control of both ends of the Panama Canal.... just because he's a fuckwad... How do you say "I will serve if you spare my pathetic life" in Chinese? I think a lot of people will need to learn how to say that. Personally, I will go out "clinging to my guns and my religion." Go ahead, I dare anyone to take my guns. >> I believe he does. I sure think they're better able to handle any >> 'erros' than Nigerians or Chinese. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Go ahead, I dare anyone to take my guns. Not me, I'm a coward! Not only that, but we send money to them by the barrel. In November the BBC reported the Chinese Government had a surplus of $1.3T. And that they were spednding it on building up the military. YEAH! I want to send them MORE MONEY!!! > This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > When the *HELL* are we going to vote these dimwit Democrats OUT OF OFFICE > so we can become competitive again?! You mean we can stop North and South American companies from drilling oil in the Gulf but we can't stop Nigeria? Sounds like a sweetheart deal between Bush, Cheny, and Nigeria. On May 8, 1:04 pm, hachiroku <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote: > This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > When the *HELL* are we going to vote these dimwit Democrats OUT OF OFFICE > so we can become competitive again?! You mean we can stop North and South American companies from drilling oil in the Gulf but we can't stop Nigeria? Sounds like a sweetheart deal between Bush, Cheny, and Nigeria. ========================= I don't suppose the deal could've involved golf course negotiations involving any of the biggest corporate players in Nigeria, like Mobil, Chevron and Shell. > <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > involving any of the biggest corporate players in Nigeria, like Mobil, > Chevron and Shell. Of COURSE not! Still talking stupid again LOL > On May 8, 1:04 pm, hachiroku <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote: >> This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > involving any of the biggest corporate players in Nigeria, like Mobil, > Chevron and Shell. You drunken old twat. Nigeria's government does nothing but collect kickbacks from the oil business. Their government would be barely involved with negotiating drilling arrangements in the Gulf. That would be done by the companies who'll actually do the work. Those companies know how much they need to kick back to the Nigerians. > Still talking stupid again LOL > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> involving any of the biggest corporate players in Nigeria, like Mobil, >> Chevron and Shell. > This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > When the *HELL* are we going to vote these dimwit Democrats OUT OF OFFICE > so we can become competitive again?! It's cheaper... no tax to pump it through nigeria... >> This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > It's cheaper... no tax to pump it through nigeria... .....which should point Hach right back to my comment about agreements made on golf courses. >>> This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you: >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > .....which should point Hach right back to my comment about agreements > made on golf courses. Yeah, but by whom? >>>> This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Yeah, but by whom? As of this moment, that's an unimportant detail. What's important is that your fairy tale from your original post has been blown to pieces. The legislation you described does NOT make it harder for American companies to drill in the Gulf - it makes it easier. The bill passed, and most Democrats voted ***FOR*** the bill. You need to check what you hear from idiots like Beck, lest you also appear to be an idiot.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.