Vrede wrote:Looks to me like Roland Deschain chose to only defend Solar on a single point, a common sense one that Solar turns out to have been correct on. For all we know so far he agrees with you on the rest or doesn't feel informed enough to try and dispute you.
Nah. I find when a person proves themself to be a blathering idiot in their first few words there is no need to keep beating the dead horse. Once a dumdass..always a dumbass!
rollie boy, solar is going to be pissed that you find him a blathering idiot. his first few words were, ""How many more people need die, when there is a perfectly good solution, the Keystone Pipeline." - Solar the Dipshit
as shown to you, but not comprehended by you, - the keystone pipeline has nothing to do with the oil transported by train or the deaths from the train derailment.
but rollie, I'm sure that the uber liberal Stephen King appreciates you advertising his liberal character Roland. If you bought the books, or more likely the audio version, then let me say thanks. I'm sure Mr. King contributed some of it to a worthy liberal cause.
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
billy.pilgrim wrote:rollie boy, solar is going to be pissed that you find him a blathering idiot. his first few words were, ""How many more people need die, when there is a perfectly good solution, the Keystone Pipeline." - Solar the Dipshit
Had my original post been in a reply to solar then your post might make a little sense. Seeing as how I was pointing out ohbuttboy's idiotic efforts to one up solar with yet another dumbass assumption, your entire post paints you in the same club with ohbuttboy. DA.....Dumbass Anonymous.
Really you should at least try to come up with an intelligent comeback before posting, because if that is all you got you aint worth the effort.
billy.pilgrim wrote:rollie boy, solar is going to be pissed that you find him a blathering idiot. his first few words were, ""How many more people need die, when there is a perfectly good solution, the Keystone Pipeline." - Solar the Dipshit
Had my original post been in a reply to solar then your post might make a little sense. Seeing as how I was pointing out ohbuttboy's idiotic efforts to one up solar with yet another dumbass assumption, your entire post paints you in the same club with ohbuttboy. DA.....Dumbass Anonymous.
Really you should at least try to come up with an intelligent comeback before posting, because if that is all you got you aint worth the effort.
Damn you're slow. As I said, at the time of his posting there were no reported deaths. He made the assumption. You still haven't addressed the fact that he made a giant fool of himself claiming the Keystone Pipeline will save lives. What has Solar done to you to have this kind of hold on you?
billy.pilgrim wrote:rollie boy, solar is going to be pissed that you find him a blathering idiot. his first few words were, ""How many more people need die, when there is a perfectly good solution, the Keystone Pipeline." - Solar the Dipshit
Had my original post been in a reply to solar then your post might make a little sense. Seeing as how I was pointing out ohbuttboy's idiotic efforts to one up solar with yet another dumbass assumption, your entire post paints you in the same club with ohbuttboy. DA.....Dumbass Anonymous.
Really you should at least try to come up with an intelligent comeback before posting, because if that is all you got you aint worth the effort.
Now, now, rollie boy, you are showing your childishness by clinging to your idiotic comment after getting thoroughly spanked
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
Now the forum's Uncle Tom is trying to blame it on environmentalists. "Have they controlled the fires enough to start conducting some kind of investigation? I don't put anything past the EnviroNuts - including derailing a fuel train to make a splash."
Maybe our CPF apologist Roland can explain how exactly this would help to advance the cause of environmental responsibility.
Ombudsman wrote:Damn you're slow. As I said, at the time of his posting there were no reported deaths. He made the assumption. You still haven't addressed the fact that he made a giant fool of himself claiming the Keystone Pipeline will save lives. What has Solar done to you to have this kind of hold on you?
The point you are missing is that I don't give a flying frig about Keystone pipeline. It might save lives and it might kill hundreds...who knows...simply put I do not care. The fact is you made a complete ass of yourself by trying to challenge what any thinking person would automatically assume as correct based on time and location of the accident....that being that people died. You have now had your stupid ass handed to you by not only me but vrede as well (hell just froze) on that point. So quite whining about Keystone because I don't care about it...I'm having to much fun watching you prove yourself a fool over your challenge to solar's statement on deaths.
Ombudsman wrote:Damn you're slow. As I said, at the time of his posting there were no reported deaths. He made the assumption. You still haven't addressed the fact that he made a giant fool of himself claiming the Keystone Pipeline will save lives. What has Solar done to you to have this kind of hold on you?
The point you are missing is that I don't give a flying frig about Keystone pipeline. .
Son that is the point, that you don't care that your boy Solar doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about. Everything I said was 100% accurate meanwhile you want to keep defending your boy. Why is that? So how does it feel knowing you're as illogical as Vrede?
Vrede you're kind of a moron huh? I never said people didn't die. I said he made the assumption before it was reported they had. In fact I specifically said that, "at the time of his posting." The fact that you constantly harp on these irrelevant things ignoring the point demonstrates your as wacky as any of the folks at CPF. (It's also pretty good evidence of autism.) I'm surprised they didn't keep you around longer.
Ombudsman wrote:Vrede you're kind of a moron huh? I never said people didn't die. I said he made the assumption before it was reported they had. In fact I specifically said that, "at the time of his posting."
You also then followed that with a stupid and childish "dipshit" comment when, any person with an ounce of common sense, would agree that based on time and location there were more than likely multiple deaths. Your efforts to weasel your way out of the fact that you have a large amount of egg on your face because you were just being an internet asshole are quite comical. Nothing better than proving an asshole as an asshole except watching said asshole whine incessantly about getting caught.
"Does anyone have the statistics for the percentage of grown males that have reportedly
sexually abused teenage boys that they may have had close connections with?"
Hmmm. Statistics about something that has reportedly happened. Yep, that will make
things very clear. The nutjobs have to keep the churn cycle on. As soon as one of their
assjack posts turns out to be so obviously stupid to everyone but themselves, it's
time to get the next one up and running. And most of them are about some slow news
day crap that no one cares about. Don't worry about there being a shortage of
paranoid, sky is falling, delusional wingnuttery from Chairman S. This guy can pump it
out 24/7/365 and does.
At the risk of upsetting Vrede further, more evidence of what a clown Solar is.
Solar "It's not so much about bidding as it is control, which is why Husein has tried to block our [oil] production at every turn.
He knows if we can't produce, we're at the mercy of the mkt, which drives our energy prices even higher, in turn, allowing Husein a chance to Nationalize it."
Ah those pesky facts:
The chart above shows that oil production on federal property did in fact decline by 13% last year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. But that was mostly the result of the moratorium imposed after the BP spill in 2010.
Overall, oil production in 2011 was still above where it was when Obama took office.
Analysts are projecting another fall in oil production from federal land and water in 2012 -- again, largely due to the lingering effects of the moratorium. In 2013, production is expected to start rising.
Meanwhile, natural gas production from federal lands has been steadily declining for years, as the industry has moved away from offshore drilling in favor of newly-accessible onshore shale fields, which are mostly located on private land.
But the decline in production from federally administered areas has not led to an overall decline in U.S. oil and gas production. Indeed, the country is in the midst of an energy boom, mostly occurring on private land.
From 2008 to 2011 U.S. crude oil production has jumped 14%, going from 5.1 million barrels per day at the start of 2008 to nearly 5.8 million barrels per day currently, according to the EIA. Natural gas is up by about 10% over the same period.
Bad thing about using oil production numbers is that they do not show the attitude of the current administration. Fact is is takes about 10 years to bring a new site (lease) on line. So production in 2012 is happening on leases granted in approximately 2002. If you want an accurate picture of how Obama feels about US oil exploration look at the number of new leases granted under him as compared to Bush.
Vrede wrote:Why do you feel that leasing our public lands to oil companies is a good thing?
First off not all federal land is accessible by the public. Secondly, after having seen, first hand, oil exploration on public land it is not that big of a deal. Increased production, decreased demand, lower prices, more money in the economy....why do you think those are a bad thing? I also like how you ignored the point that Obama has decreased the number of new rigs and leases but is taking credit for higher production on those issued by Bush.
Vrede wrote:Why do you feel that leasing our public lands to oil companies is a good thing?
First off not all federal land is accessible by the public.
Irrelevant, it's still our land.
Secondly, after having seen, first hand, oil exploration on public land it is not that big of a deal.
I've worked in the oil patch - jug hustling, roustabout, workover rig hand. Have you?
Increased production, decreased demand, lower prices, more money in the economy....why do you think those are a bad thing?
It doesn't work that way. Oil production creates jobs and profits for fat cats at the cost of pollution and the loss of alternate land uses, but prices are set on the international market and US production is never going to be enough to affect that more than a miniscule amount. Plus, demand is not effected by production other than increasing with "lower prices".
I also like how you ignored the point that Obama has decreased the number of new rigs and leases but is taking credit for higher production on those issued by Bush.
There may be fewer federal leases, Obama has nothing to do with the number of rigs, and it's merely a fact that we are now producing more than we ever did under Shrub. The tangent began in response to Solar's uninformed wingnuttery on the topic.
Yes we are producing more now because leases granted under Bush are NOW producing. Production under Bush was roughly tied to the number of leases granted under Clinton. Production under the next POTUS will be roughly tied to the leases granted under Obama etc etc. The rest of your reply is equally wingnutty just off to the left side.
Roland Deschain wrote:Yes we are producing more now because leases granted under Bush are NOW producing. Production under Bush was roughly tied to the number of leases granted under Clinton. Production under the next POTUS will be roughly tied to the leases granted under Obama etc etc.
Federal production. The ODS folks can't stand that US production is greater than it ever was under Shrub so they keep trying to narrow the discussion as Solar did.
I can't find any backing for your notion that it "takes about 10 years to bring a new site (lease) on line". There are certainly no technological constraints causing that. Plus, leases are not equivalent to production and never have been. Many, many leases never get sold, explored or developed.
The rest of your reply is equally wingnutty just off to the left side.
"wingnutty just off to the left side" in Roland Deschain's world:
My greater experience in the oil patch. Note that he dodged my question, perhaps he drove past an oil field once.
His ignorance of the fact that prices are set on the international market and US production is never going to be enough to affect that more than a miniscule amount - basic oil economics.
His ignorance of the fact that demand is not effected by production other than increasing with "lower prices" - basic economics, really basic.
His wingnutty claim that Obama "has decreased the number of new rigs".
The only lefty thing I posted was that oil profits go to "fat cats". But then, something everyone knows isn't really lefty, anyhow.
Note that the only surviving reason that Roland Deschain has given for feeling that leasing our public lands to oil companies is a good thing is "more money in the economy". However, he ignores the fact that the same is achieved by conservation and/or development of alternative energy sources, usually with fewer taxpayer subsidies and less pollution.
Yes vrede federal production. I did not know that the US government had anything to do with what happens on PRIVATE lands. However, it does seem that you, Obama, and the rest of your ilk are more than ready to take credit for the increase in PRIVATE production as well. So you have been in the navy, worked an oil patch, been a civil disobedient involved in protests, and work in health care. Sounds to me that the only greater experience you have is in trying to find a job you can actually keep. I'm more proud to say that I have been gainfully employed at the same location for almost 30 years now. How 'bout you? However, to answer your question, I frequent an area in southeast Ohio that is covered in oil wells. Each well takes up about a quarter of an acre, there is no disturbing of wildlife, and no environmental disaster. In short the impact in minimal at best. Yes, prices are set on international markets now. However, if we increased US production we would no longer have to be held hostage by the international market now would we? Apparently that concept is too simple for you to grasp. I'm also all for conservation and alternative sources. However, until you can show me how to move 80,000lbs of freight from LA to New York without oil looks like we are stuck using oil. So would it not make more sense to use our OWN instead of paying millions to people who hate us???
