| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
This is interesting....
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:20:11 -0500, NotNow wrote: Tosk wrote: In article , says... wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown) I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a truck. Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is this just another way to demonize oil companies? WHOOOOOSH....... So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes, wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush, because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately dise ase kills children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of their reach? The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19 million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any way at all? We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of people. ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it, villages. Seems almost every argument is being nailed here today. Wonder where the honest dems are, seems they can only act like harry and change the subject, or deny the facts all together cause Maddow, and Huffington told them to... Okay, I just don't understand, so please help me. Why does it seem to me that you and other conservatives don't want anything to do with creating and building new technologies and instead just want to keep using fossil fuels? It appears to me that if you all had your way, we'd still be using technology that damned near ruined areas of the United States until we got the pollution under control. Is nuclear energy based on fossil fuels? Loogy, you are sounding more and more flaky. You put words in the mouths of others, you flat out lie about what people say, and then you come up with the ridiculous **** above. Plonk. |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is interesting....
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:50:55 -0500, NotNow wrote:
John H. wrote: On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:20:11 -0500, NotNow wrote: Tosk wrote: In article , says... wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown) I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a truck. Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is this just another way to demonize oil companies? WHOOOOOSH....... So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes, wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush, because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately dise ase kills children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of their reach? The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19 million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any way at all? We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of people. ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it, villages. Seems almost every argument is being nailed here today. Wonder where the honest dems are, seems they can only act like harry and change the subject, or deny the facts all together cause Maddow, and Huffington told them to... Okay, I just don't understand, so please help me. Why does it seem to me that you and other conservatives don't want anything to do with creating and building new technologies and instead just want to keep using fossil fuels? It appears to me that if you all had your way, we'd still be using technology that damned near ruined areas of the United States until we got the pollution under control. Is nuclear energy based on fossil fuels? Loogy, you are sounding more and more flaky. You put words in the mouths of others, you flat out lie about what people say, and then you come up with the ridiculous **** above. Plonk. Thank goodness for small favors! Now if only the Plum would do likewise. -- Loogy says: Conservative = Good Liberal = Bad I agree. John H |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Well that was interesting... | General | |||
| Well, that was interesting... | General | |||
| A visit with an interesting guy who builds an interesting boat.... | General | |||
| Interesting way to help the Bay... | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
