I told you this would be bigger then Exxon Valdez

Yurt said:
i have no doubt you're misrepresenting what was said...its your forte
Click to expand...

Says the human projector.

How am I misrepresenting what he said? There was a big debate about seepage, and frankly, it looks extremely stupid now. You were sporadically involved in that (not to really render any opinions or debate, but just to periodically make demands for studies & for others to do you research for you).
 
Onceler said:
In light of recent events, I don't think there is anything partisan about opposing offshore drilling.

At this point, it's merely common sense.
Click to expand...

No, it is not. Enforcing the regulations that are on the books... THAT is common sense. Running around saying we should cease drilling off shore is not.

That is simply a knee jerk reaction by those who are really saying.... please just don't drill around us. Let other countries drill off their shores and on their land.
 
Yurt said:
no...accidents happen, we just need to do everything we can to ensure they don't happen again...we will find out what happen here and not make that same mistake

you're just looking at this emotionally, you've been that way on this issue from the start
Click to expand...

America is a reactive nation. I have no doubt that there will be a lot of pomp & circumstance about preventing this one problem from ever happening again. But other potential problems will be ignored, until another 'accident' happens and another coastline is lost for a few years.

It's not emotional; it's economic, it's environmental & it's common sense. Offshore drilling is not worth the potential consequences.
 
Onceler said:
Says the human projector.

How am I misrepresenting what he said? There was a big debate about seepage, and frankly, it looks extremely stupid now. You were sporadically involved in that (not to really render any opinions or debate, but just to periodically make demands for studies & for others to do you research for you).
Click to expand...

you made the claim...link up and prove you're not misrepresenting...i highly believe you are misrepresenting what was said....if you weren't...you would have the links in hand and would be running around the board showing off your gotcha trophy....

like i said...its your forte and your characterization of my involvement in that threadf is yet another example of your dishonest misreprensentation
 
Onceler said:
Says the human projector.

How am I misrepresenting what he said? There was a big debate about seepage, and frankly, it looks extremely stupid now. You were sporadically involved in that (not to really render any opinions or debate, but just to periodically make demands for studies & for others to do you research for you).
Click to expand...

Again... please state what was 'stupid' about it. At no time did I state that the seepage was at the same level (even when it was thought to be 5000brls a day) as the Horizon spill. The point was that off shore drilling can have POSITIVE effects as well as negative. A point the knee jerk reactionaries, such as yourself and dung, refused to acknowledge.

Instead you continued to try and paint it as if I was saying it was equal to the horizon. Blah blah blah...
 
Onceler said:
America is a reactive nation. I have no doubt that there will be a lot of pomp & circumstance about preventing this one problem from ever happening again. But other potential problems will be ignored, until another 'accident' happens and another coastline is lost for a few years.

It's not emotional; it's economic, it's environmental & it's common sense. Offshore drilling is not worth the potential consequences.
Click to expand...

so you're against nuclear energy?
 
Yurt said:
you made the claim...link up and prove you're not misrepresenting...i highly believe you are misrepresenting what was said....if you weren't...you would have the links in hand and would be running around the board showing off your gotcha trophy....

like i said...its your forte and your characterization of my involvement in that threadf is yet another example of your dishonest misreprensentation
Click to expand...

What a baby. Here's the thread, Yurtsie....

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=25755&highlight=seepage
 
Yurt said:
link to the specific...not some pussy...here's the whole thread...lmao...that doesn't prove a damn thing

you're know you screwed up here and are wrong....but of course you are incapable of ever admitting you're wrong :)
Click to expand...

Where am I wrong? You're making the claim; YOU prove that I'm wrong.

I said there was a debate about seepage, and that it looks stupid now. That thread is the debate about seepage (Onceler was right!) And guess what? It does look stupid now (Onceler was right again!)

Have at it, Yurtsie.
 
Superfreak said:
If I remember correctly, I didn't state it WOULDN'T reach Exxon levels, I stated how long it would based on the estimates. I stated it would take several months of leaking in those threads to reach the Exxon levels. That was based on the 5000 brls per day estimates we had at that time. So do try to be at least a little bit honest.
Click to expand...


Right. You were just helping us all out with the math and were in no way suggesting that it wouldn't be as bad as the Valdez.


Superfreak said:
As for the seepage, yes, we get it.... you don't want any information that goes against your position of 'oil drilling in ocean....baaaaad'. We understand completely how much of a partisan douche bag that you are. No need to continually try to prove to us how much of a brain dead lemming you wish to be.
Click to expand...


It was a stupid argument. And it still is. Only now it is abundantly clear how stupid it is.
 
Onceler said:
Plenty.

What does that have to do with nukes?
Click to expand...

i'm trying to understand your threshhold for acceptable deaths, harm etc...in terms of allowing something harmful into our lives...

in the first half of 2008...there were approxmately 18,000 car fatalities...that is just the first half

what is your threshhold? apparently you're ok with more than 18,000 people dying, but not drilling off shore, and not nuclear energy which so far have not killed anywhere near that amount

further...it is indisputable that cars cause enormous harm to the environment
 
Yurt said:
i'm trying to understand your threshhold for acceptable deaths, harm etc...in terms of allowing something harmful into our lives...

in the first half of 2008...there were approxmately 18,000 car fatalities...that is just the first half

what is your threshhold? apparently you're ok with more than 18,000 people dying, but not drilling off shore, and not nuclear energy which so far have not killed anywhere near that amount

further...it is indisputable that cars cause enormous harm to the environment
Click to expand...

When it comes to nukes, my main concern isn't accidents; it is the half-life of nuclear waste.

Just another one of your BS false analogies. If you want to start a thread on nukes, have at it. My reasons for opposing nukes have nothing to do with offshore drilling.
 
Onceler said:
Where am I wrong? You're making the claim; YOU prove that I'm wrong.

I said there was a debate about seepage, and that it looks stupid now. That thread is the debate about seepage (Onceler was right!) And guess what? It does look stupid now (Onceler was right again!)

Have at it, Yurtsie.
Click to expand...

are you gay? because you love calling me yurtsie which is very gay...sounds like you're calling me a cute term of endearment...i'm happily married

and you are wrong...you mentioned the seepage and how it was dumb with regards to the amount of oil being spilled now...however, you totaly misrepresented what SF said and you can't prove your point so all you do is point to the whole thread, nothing specific...SEEPAGE has nothing to do with the amount of oil spilled NOW...it has to do with whether we should drill or not drill
 
NigelTufnel said:
Right. You were just helping us all out with the math and were in no way suggesting that it wouldn't be as bad as the Valdez.
Click to expand...

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=25755&highlight=natural+seepage

Yes... I was stating that based on the estimates of leakage at that time and the estimates of how long it would take to stop the leakage that it would not surpass the Exxon spill. Which was correct based on the leakage information we had at that time.

Which is why I spelled out the math for Mott who proclaimed on the first post that it was worse than Exxon.


It was a stupid argument. And it still is. Only now it is abundantly clear how stupid it is.
Click to expand...

No. It was an argument that you don't like. Period.

In no way did I state that it was equivalent to the Horizon spill. In fact I stated quite clearly that the pace of the Horizon was what made it worse. Yet morons such as yourself tried to pretend that by mentioning a positive effect of drilling offshore that somehow I was trying to equate it to the Horizon spill.

Just keep burying your head in the sand and taking it up the ass from your masters. That is all you are good for.
 
Yurt said:
are you gay? because you love calling me yurtsie which is very gay...sounds like you're calling me a cute term of endearment...i'm happily married

and you are wrong...you mentioned the seepage and how it was dumb with regards to the amount of oil being spilled now...however, you totaly misrepresented what SF said and you can't prove your point so all you do is point to the whole thread, nothing specific...SEEPAGE has nothing to do with the amount of oil spilled NOW...it has to do with whether we should drill or not drill
Click to expand...

Can you please copy & paste the verbiage you are referring to where I "totally misrepresent" what SF said? I assume it's on this thread somewhere, so it shouldn't be too hard to find.

This should be very interesting, Yurtsie...
 
Onceler said:
When it comes to nukes, my main concern isn't accidents; it is the half-life of nuclear waste.

Just another one of your BS false analogies. If you want to start a thread on nukes, have at it. My reasons for opposing nukes have nothing to do with offshore drilling.
Click to expand...

it is not a false analogy, i didn't know your stance on nukes was solely half-life waste...you're such a pissy little boy

ok...then back to drilling and this accident...and harm...care to address that with regards to automobiles....because anyone with a 1st grade reading comprehension level can see that is what i was talking about....nuclear energy alone isn't the issue, it is the harm to the environment and human deaths that you are willing to accept

you accept cars, yet cars cause more deaths and more pollution than this oil spill
 
Onceler said:
Can you please copy & paste the verbiage you are referring to where I "totally misrepresent" what SF said? I assume it's on this thread somewhere, so it shouldn't be too hard to find.

This should be very interesting, Yurtsie...
Click to expand...

lmao....here you are demanding i copy and paste the verbiage, YET, you can't do so with regards to what SF said...

once again....the intellectually dishonest hack rears its ugly head in the form of the homosexually love obsessed onceler
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top