GAO To Obama: More Oil Than Rest Of The World

Dixie said:
See, here is the problem we seem to be having with communication. Can you please copy and paste the text that I posted, which led you to imagine I was "praising" some regulatory agency, or "labeling them as 'liberals who do cartwheels'?" Because I just don't see anything in the text I posted which even comes remotely close to that. So apparently, you are interpreting something I posted incorrectly, or you are imagining you are reading shit that isn't there. Either way, it has become an insurmountable problem in conversing like rational adults, and we really need to get to the bottom of that before we can continue.
Click to expand...

When you change your password, you won't have to wonder why someone is posting comments in your name, that you don't agree with.

Kids...they can be such practical jokers!

All I ever said was, we have governmental regulatory agencies already established, who's job it is to see that companies meet specific environmental guidelines in handling contamination
Click to expand...
Do you think they are necessary?
 
Althea said:
If you recited the Lord's Prayer, then you agree/accept it.
Click to expand...

I wasn't accused of accepting or agreeing with the article posted. I was accused of mentioning Obama, and I didn't. The article mentioned Obama, I didn't write the article. I never said I didn't agree with the article, that has never been in question. I would have absolutely ZERO logical reason to post an article I didn't agree with or accept. It still doesn't mean I wrote the article or the article is my words.

If you cite an author, and offer a thread for discussion, you either agree with the piece, or you refute it.
Click to expand...

I agree with the article, again... there is no rational or logical reason to presume otherwise, and that has never been in question. What kind of a fucking idiot are you? I was accused of "bashing Obama", and I never mentioned Obama. The thread title includes Obama's name, because the linked article is titled such... I didn't write that. I did type it in the box, but those are not MY words.

In this case, Dixie agrees with it. By default, he blames Obama for the lack of investment in a venture with no forseeable profit for a long time.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that I blame Obama. I didn't say anything about lack of government investment, in fact, I was very vocally clear that I didn't say or imply that in any way, and articulated my pro-capitalist free market approach. I said that I do blame LIBERALS... for 30 years of the same old tired game of "We can't do it... it's impossible... it takes 10 years.... there's not enough water... there's not enough electricity... woe is us.... might as well just give up!" Followed by.... "Ohhh the humanity! Think about the ENVIRONMENT?" Get government out of the damn way, free up some federal lands, and let the capitalists develop a new innovative technology for the 21st Century! That's all I want!

And then he backpedaled, and agreed that oversight is necessary to guarantee the environmental safety issues that he earlier claimed were bogus.
Click to expand...

Where have I EVER posted, that I DIDN'T think environmental safety should be regulated or monitored? Again... to the fucking contrary, I have posted at least three separate times, that we have the environmental protection bases covered, bought and paid for already in place! That one of the main reasons the process is SO fucking expensive, is because we have to be able to clean and recycle the water used. What part of that text are you interpreting as me not understanding the need for environmental controls? Because, I read this stuff thoroughly before I post it, and I just don't see how you can be reading and comprehending the same text as I am posting, if you are this far off base with what you believe I have said. There is apparently some problem with your comprehension skills, is all I can figure.

And he cited a preference for Skippy peanut butter, which is the only sane offering he's made in this thread.
Click to expand...

The only peanut butter here is between your ears.
 
So reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, taking an oath, or singing the national anthem are not indications of anything unless you are the original author?
 
Althea said:
When you change your password, you won't have to wonder why someone is posting comments in your name, that you don't agree with.

Kids...they can be such practical jokers!

Do you think they are necessary?
Click to expand...

No, like I said, PUNK... we really need to get to the bottom of this now, before we can converse further.

Either post the text in which you interpreted me "praising" a regulatory agency, or labeling them as liberals doing cartwheels, or admit that you are in error again.

No one has my password, no one else is posting in my name, and all my posts are readily available for you to copy right here and now, so let's get to it, shall we?
 
\\()// said:
So reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, taking an oath, or singing the national anthem are not indications of anything unless you are the original author?
Click to expand...

They are not indications that you wrote the words. Even if you copied and pasted them, they still wouldn't be YOUR WORDS... unless you wrote them.
 
Dixie said:
They are not indications that you wrote the words. Even if you copied and pasted them, they still wouldn't be YOUR WORDS... unless you wrote them.
Click to expand...

Nobody said you wrote them, did they?

You typed them, you posted them, you mentioned Obama.

Now, do you agree with the article in the OP, or not?
 
\\()// said:
Nobody said you wrote them, did they?

You typed them, you posted them, you mentioned Obama.

Now, do you agree with the article in the OP, or not?
Click to expand...

I would have to have written them for them to be MY words.

I posted the article and typed the title, but I didn't mention Obama, the article did.

And for the third time, YES... I agree with the article, why the fuck else would I have posted it? Do you generally link articles you don't agree with, moron?
 
Dixie said:
I would have to have written them for them to be MY words. I posted the article and typed the title, but I didn't mention Obama, the article did. And for the third time, YES... I agree with the article, why the fuck else would I have posted it? Do you generally link articles you don't agree with, moron?
Click to expand...

So you mentioned Obama.
 
Althea said:
You recite the Lords Prayer? Why? When?
Click to expand...
Let's say I post an article in which it is written when talking about "prayer" to somebody who does believe in the magic man. Do I then suddenly "agree" with it or believe in it? Or let's say I bring up an interesting article that I don't agree with because I think people will talk about it, does this make me "agree" with it?

Yes, and his comments were in the affirmative.
Click to expand...
Well, to tell the truth I don't read most of the posts... I really have no opinion of that. Only on whether somebody may post an article for comment...

see above

Perhaps you should read the thread? He's running in circles. Why don't you explain how one can argue that 'liberals always trot out the environment as an excuse to keep oil companies from making a profit', and then offer the extensive/mandatory oversight needed to assure environ. safety?
Click to expand...
It would depend on whether he is explaining the article or offering his own opinion. I will bow to your knowledge of his opinion as I don't plan on reading the thread.

The reason I posted at all is because somebody suggested by posting an article at all he was "talking about" something. That is a bit much to swallow.

There are myriad examples where I could post something I do not "agree" with or promote.
 
Damocles said:
Let's say I post an article in which it is written when talking about "prayer" to somebody who does believe in the magic man. Do I then suddenly "agree" with it or believe in it? Or let's say I bring up an interesting article that I don't agree with because I think people will talk about it, does this make me "agree" with it? Well, to tell the truth I don't read most of the posts... I really have no opinion of that. Only on whether somebody may post an article for comment...It would depend on whether he is explaining the article or offering his own opinion. I will bow to your knowledge of his opinion as I don't plan on reading the thread. The reason I posted at all is because somebody suggested by posting an article at all he was "talking about" something. That is a bit much to swallow. There are myriad examples where I could post something I do not "agree" with or promote.
Click to expand...

But Dixie admits he agrees with the author of the article in the OP.
 
Dixie said:
I posted the article. I agree with the article. The article mentioned Obama. I did NOT mention Obama. Clear yet? Or is 2 out of 3 the best you can do?
Click to expand...

You posted the article.

You agree with the article.

You did mention Obama, because the article you posted and agree with did.
 
\\()// said:
You posted the article.

You agree with the article.

You did mention Obama, because the article you posted and agree with did.
Click to expand...

Okay, I am officially through with you. I did not mention Obama until YOU mentioned Obama. I mentioned Liberals, I blamed Liberal policies, I raked Liberals over the coals, up one side and down the other, but you were the first to mention Obama in this thread. Now you can pretend that isn't the case, be my guest... you are wrong. And I am not going to waste any more time responding to this, it's silly and stupid, like you.

Damo, for the record, THIS is a good example of why you need to clean house and take out the trash here. This was a really good informative thread with interesting commentary, for about 25-30 posts, and since then, it's been the pinhead clown parade, arguing semantics and common sense, like a bunch of retarded kids. They have literally buried the content and substantive information in a whirlwind of stupidity and meaningless trivial 'arguments' that don't even make rational sense. And THIS goofy bitch will continue to argue his nonsensical point for as long as someone pays attention.
 
Dixie said:
Okay, I am officially through with you. I did not mention Obama until YOU mentioned Obama. I mentioned Liberals, I blamed Liberal policies, I raked Liberals over the coals, up one side and down the other, but you were the first to mention Obama in this thread. Now you can pretend that isn't the case, be my guest... you are wrong. And I am not going to waste any more time responding to this, it's silly and stupid, like you.
Damo, for the record, THIS is a good example of why you need to clean house and take out the trash here. This was a really good informative thread with interesting commentary, for about 25-30 posts, and since then, it's been the pinhead clown parade, arguing semantics and common sense, like a bunch of retarded kids. They have literally buried the content and substantive information in a whirlwind of stupidity and meaningless trivial 'arguments' that don't even make rational sense. And THIS goofy bitch will continue to argue his nonsensical point for as long as someone pays attention.
Click to expand...

Next time you try to evade responsibility for a post, I'll be there.
 
Dixie said:
Okay, I am officially through with you. I did not mention Obama until YOU mentioned Obama. I mentioned Liberals, I blamed Liberal policies, I raked Liberals over the coals, up one side and down the other, but you were the first to mention Obama in this thread. Now you can pretend that isn't the case, be my guest... you are wrong. And I am not going to waste any more time responding to this, it's silly and stupid, like you.

Damo, for the record, THIS is a good example of why you need to clean house and take out the trash here. This was a really good informative thread with interesting commentary, for about 25-30 posts, and since then, it's been the pinhead clown parade, arguing semantics and common sense, like a bunch of retarded kids. They have literally buried the content and substantive information in a whirlwind of stupidity and meaningless trivial 'arguments' that don't even make rational sense. And THIS goofy bitch will continue to argue his nonsensical point for as long as someone pays attention.
Click to expand...

You could always just ignore him, now there's a thought!
 
Althea said:
That, and research the topic before he attempts to bash the POTUS over alternative fuel sources.
Click to expand...
oh, are you done derailing the thread now?......for a while I thought liberals believed they could get Obama re-elected if they could prove the annual flow of the Colorado River......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
oh, are you done derailing the thread now?......for a while I thought liberals believed they could get Obama re-elected if they could prove the annual flow of the Colorado River......
Click to expand...
What has your contribution been? The OP is meant to lead one to believe that Obama is blocking all attempts to develop this technology.

Do you have any proof that POTUS is doing that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top