Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 902
Default They just don't get it...

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?
  #2   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,249
Default They just don't get it...

On 12/18/09 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?



Wait, don't tell me...herring is trying to convince readers he knows
something...

:)
  #3   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Nov 2009
Posts: 623
Default They just don't get it...

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:50:32 -0600, 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?


You're right. But at least we're getting something for our money.

We should definitely be doing a lot more drilling at home and building
a lot more nuclear plants. You've got the right attitude.
--

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

John H
  #4   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,427
Default They just don't get it...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:50:32 -0600, 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?


You're right. But at least we're getting something for our money.

We should definitely be doing a lot more drilling at home and building
a lot more nuclear plants. You've got the right attitude.
--

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

John H



We're getting plenty of rope from the Saudis. You know what you do with
plenty of rope, right?

--
Nom=de=Plume


  #5   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, 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.


  #9   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.
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 12:15 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