Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #12   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,222
Default They just don't get it...

On Dec 18, 8:44*pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article 9447f5fd-78c4-4463-a85f-
,
says...



On Dec 18, 12:50*pm, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:07:07 -0500, John H wrote:
From the second article:
"...the United States backed what amounts to the single biggest transfer
of wealth from rich to poor nations for any one cause -- in a sense
offering compensation for decades of warming the Earth.


There are lots of weasel words in the above, but by far, the largest
transfer of wealth is our purchase of foreign oil. *Or, did you think
Saudi Arabia was always a wealthy country?


But that's okay, because as a whole, the democrats want to lessen our
need for oil, and pollutants so that MUST be a bad thing.


What makes your thinking narrow is your assumption that we don't or
couldn't, just because we don't see the same solution you do...


Yeah, I know. Raping the landscape for oil shale, more refineries,
more coal, same old same old.
  #13   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,222
Default They just don't get it...

On Dec 18, 10:07*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"I am Tosk" wrote in ...





In article 9447f5fd-78c4-4463-a85f-
,
says...


On Dec 18, 12:50 pm, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:07:07 -0500, John H wrote:
From the second article:
"...the United States backed what amounts to the single biggest
transfer
of wealth from rich to poor nations for any one cause -- in a sense
offering compensation for decades of warming the Earth.


There are lots of weasel words in the above, but by far, the largest
transfer of wealth is our purchase of foreign oil. Or, did you think
Saudi Arabia was always a wealthy country?


But that's okay, because as a whole, the democrats want to lessen our
need for oil, and pollutants so that MUST be a bad thing.


What makes your thinking narrow is your assumption that we don't or
couldn't, just because we don't see the same solution you do...


We've all been waiting for the right-wing solution to the damage that we're
doing to the Earth... drum roll please.....

--
Nom=de=Plume- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Hell, that's easy. Most of them claim that we aren't doing anything
negative to the earth.
  #16   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,222
Default They just don't get it...

On Dec 19, 12:33*pm, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article 8fff69e2-7531-426d-b8a6-
,
says...







On Dec 18, 10:07 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"I am Tosk" wrote in ...


In article 9447f5fd-78c4-4463-a85f-
,
says...


On Dec 18, 12:50 pm, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:07:07 -0500, John H wrote:
From the second article:
"...the United States backed what amounts to the single biggest
transfer
of wealth from rich to poor nations for any one cause -- in a sense
offering compensation for decades of warming the Earth.


There are lots of weasel words in the above, but by far, the largest
transfer of wealth is our purchase of foreign oil. Or, did you think
Saudi Arabia was always a wealthy country?


But that's okay, because as a whole, the democrats want to lessen our
need for oil, and pollutants so that MUST be a bad thing.


What makes your thinking narrow is your assumption that we don't or
couldn't, just because we don't see the same solution you do...


We've all been waiting for the right-wing solution to the damage that we're
doing to the Earth... drum roll please.....


--
Nom=de=Plume- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Hell, that's easy. Most of them claim that we aren't doing anything
negative to the earth.


Man, you are completely unhinged here.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Oh, really? How many examples of republican politicians statements
that spewing millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere does NO HARM
to the earth would you like me to post?

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905210011

http://www.infowars.com/top-house-re...ul-is-comical/

Want more, just ask!
  #17   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,222
Default They just don't get it...

On Dec 19, 12:32*pm, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article cb366de3-10b3-498f-abcf-c0b88715c8b4
@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, says...







On Dec 18, 8:44*pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article 9447f5fd-78c4-4463-a85f-
,
says...


On Dec 18, 12:50*pm, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:07:07 -0500, John H wrote:
From the second article:
"...the United States backed what amounts to the single biggest transfer
of wealth from rich to poor nations for any one cause -- in a sense
offering compensation for decades of warming the Earth.


There are lots of weasel words in the above, but by far, the largest
transfer of wealth is our purchase of foreign oil. *Or, did you think
Saudi Arabia was always a wealthy country?


But that's okay, because as a whole, the democrats want to lessen our
need for oil, and pollutants so that MUST be a bad thing.


What makes your thinking narrow is your assumption that we don't or
couldn't, just because we don't see the same solution you do...


Yeah, I know. Raping the landscape for oil shale, more refineries,
more coal, same old same old.


Again, you generalize and cherry pick what you would want to be our
point of view, and dismiss it at the same time... Same old, same old..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Really, how many examples of the above do you need?

  #18   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,921
Default They just don't get it...

In article d57483c4-1482-47a5-a4c3-
,
says...

On Dec 19, 12:33*pm, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article 8fff69e2-7531-426d-b8a6-
,
says...







On Dec 18, 10:07 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"I am Tosk" wrote in ...


In article 9447f5fd-78c4-4463-a85f-
,
says...


On Dec 18, 12:50 pm, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:07:07 -0500, John H wrote:
From the second article:
"...the United States backed what amounts to the single biggest
transfer
of wealth from rich to poor nations for any one cause -- in a sense
offering compensation for decades of warming the Earth.


There are lots of weasel words in the above, but by far, the largest
transfer of wealth is our purchase of foreign oil. Or, did you think
Saudi Arabia was always a wealthy country?


But that's okay, because as a whole, the democrats want to lessen our
need for oil, and pollutants so that MUST be a bad thing.


What makes your thinking narrow is your assumption that we don't or
couldn't, just because we don't see the same solution you do...


We've all been waiting for the right-wing solution to the damage that we're
doing to the Earth... drum roll please.....


--
Nom=de=Plume- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Hell, that's easy. Most of them claim that we aren't doing anything
negative to the earth.


Man, you are completely unhinged here.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Oh, really? How many examples of republican politicians statements
that spewing millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere does NO HARM
to the earth would you like me to post?

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905210011

http://www.infowars.com/top-house-re...ul-is-comical/

Want more, just ask!


Post one time when I said that
  #20   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,921
Default They just don't get it...

In article 3d7c8dbb-f6d2-400e-a303-
, says...

On Dec 19, 12:32*pm, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article cb366de3-10b3-498f-abcf-c0b88715c8b4
@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, says...







On Dec 18, 8:44*pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article 9447f5fd-78c4-4463-a85f-
,
says...


On Dec 18, 12:50*pm, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:07:07 -0500, John H wrote:
From the second article:
"...the United States backed what amounts to the single biggest transfer
of wealth from rich to poor nations for any one cause -- in a sense
offering compensation for decades of warming the Earth.


There are lots of weasel words in the above, but by far, the largest
transfer of wealth is our purchase of foreign oil. *Or, did you think
Saudi Arabia was always a wealthy country?


But that's okay, because as a whole, the democrats want to lessen our
need for oil, and pollutants so that MUST be a bad thing.


What makes your thinking narrow is your assumption that we don't or
couldn't, just because we don't see the same solution you do...


Yeah, I know. Raping the landscape for oil shale, more refineries,
more coal, same old same old.


Again, you generalize and cherry pick what you would want to be our
point of view, and dismiss it at the same time... Same old, same old..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Really, how many examples of the above do you need?


Well, show me where I said it...
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017