Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Libyan No-Fly ZoneFollow

#302 Mar 29 2011 at 9:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Quick what's our mission in Lybia?

Prevent Gaddafi forces from shelling/bombing civilian populations.

Quote:
Where's our national interest?

Be on the positive side of pro-democracy forces in the Middle East, a region of vital significance to the United States. Libya represented an option where both the Libyan people and the Arab region were asking for our help.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#303 Mar 29 2011 at 9:40 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Elinda,

Quote:
I think the president has been very clear in his leadership


Clearly bad.

Quick what's our mission in Lybia? Where's our national interest?

Edited, Mar 29th 2011 11:15am by varusword75
Lybia? Our mission in Libya was Protecting civilians.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#304 Mar 29 2011 at 9:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In even simpler terms, our mission is to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#305varusword75, Posted: Mar 29 2011 at 10:08 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#306 Mar 29 2011 at 11:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
And who determines whether they're civilians or radical muslim organizations?

This is the best you can do?

Quote:
And you still didn't answer what our national interest is there.

Sure I did. You just didn't like the answer.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#307varusword75, Posted: Mar 29 2011 at 11:16 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#308 Mar 29 2011 at 11:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Sorry saving the idigenous peoples of wherever just doesn't cut it as a reason for war; especially with what N Korea and Iran are doing to their civilian population.

So you're saying you just didn't comprehend what I said. Well, no surprise there.

Quote:
And yes confirming whether or not these "rebels" are in fact members of Al-quaida should be on the top of the list.

UN Security Council Resolution 1973 isn't about the rebels, it's about the civilian population.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#309 Mar 29 2011 at 11:36 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
I haven't been wrong about anything Joph.
You're so not wrong that you don't even need to bother citing sources or using facts to support your claims? That's a certain degree of impressive.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#310 Mar 29 2011 at 11:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Notice how both of them abruptly shut up about the oil thing? :D
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#311varusword75, Posted: Mar 29 2011 at 11:59 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#312 Mar 29 2011 at 12:08 PM Rating: Good
Wait, wasn't Virus the one always going on about "removing the evil dictator from Iraq"? Apparently it only counts when a Republican does it...
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#313 Mar 29 2011 at 12:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Elinda,

Quote:
I think the president has been very clear in his leadership


Clearly bad.

Quick what's our mission in Lybia? Where's our national interest?

Edited, Mar 29th 2011 11:15am by varusword75


Cheap energy, and developing regional partners, as usual.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#314varusword75, Posted: Mar 29 2011 at 12:57 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Techno,
#315 Mar 29 2011 at 1:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Actually you refused to respond to this.

I did respond. Salazar said it should have a minimum impact on production as there are large leases still sitting untapped in the Gulf.
I previously cited an article when I wrote:
[Salazar] dismissed concerns that the decision will seriously damage efforts to further develop domestic energy resources, noting that roughly 29 million acres already under leases in the Gulf have not yet been developed.

A fact you drive home with your second quote so... thanks, I guess.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#316varusword75, Posted: Mar 29 2011 at 1:14 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#317 Mar 29 2011 at 1:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, if I was proven to be completely wrong again and again, I'd be tempted to just start saying "Lalalalala!! I can't hear you!! Doesn't count!! Lalalala!!!" as well.

Fortunately, I've spent this thread proving you chuckleheads wrong instead so I haven't had to worry about it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#318varusword75, Posted: Mar 29 2011 at 1:34 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#319 Mar 29 2011 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
varusword75 wrote:
What i've proved...


No doubt. Quite a bulletproof argument you've constructed. I mean, the academic rigor behind it is astounding!
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#320 Mar 29 2011 at 1:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
What i've proved is that despite what Obamas cronies, like Salazar, say banning drilling in the gulf, atlantic, and pacific will hurt US oil production.

And you've proved this by using numbers collected by the Obama administration designed to show that it won't, in fact, actually hurt US oil production. The numbers designating how much oil and gas are sitting in untapped reserves on lands already leased to energy companies.

Brilliant!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#321varusword75, Posted: Mar 29 2011 at 2:15 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#322 Mar 29 2011 at 2:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,948 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Notice how both of them abruptly shut up about the oil thing? :D


Huh? I went home for the night and have been working today and came back to find 20 someodd more posts in a threat that had been pretty much turning into you arguing my own position for me.

Look... Joph. I already conceded the point. The oil subsidies for exploration are a tiny and insignificant amount, thus proving my position that US subsidies aren't a significant factor in increasing domestic oil production as you had previously suggested. We're kinda done on that one, aren't we?

Don't be modest, now. You were right! How does it feel? ;)
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#323 Mar 29 2011 at 2:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Don't be modest, now. You were right! How does it feel? ;)

You forgot to mention that oil production has increased year-to-year for every month that Obama has been in office after experiencing drops in the two years before that (...maybe further but I stopped looking).

You say I was arguing your point for you but I guess your point must have been "I have no complaints about domestic oil production since Obama took office". Glad to see we're on the same page.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#324 Mar 29 2011 at 3:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Somewhat relevant link - http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/the-real-reason-gas-prices-are-soaring/19893347/?icid=maing|main5|dl4|sec1_lnk3|52083

Not about production really, but pricing.

What do you guys think? I don't know jack **** about this stuff, but if this is true it kind of ****** me off.
#325 Mar 29 2011 at 4:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,948 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Don't be modest, now. You were right! How does it feel? ;)

You forgot to mention that oil production has increased year-to-year for every month that Obama has been in office after experiencing drops in the two years before that (...maybe further but I stopped looking).


Sure! Because oil production turns on a dime and minor variations of said production have nothing at all to do with current oil prices.

Quote:
You say I was arguing your point for you but I guess your point must have been "I have no complaints about domestic oil production since Obama took office". Glad to see we're on the same page.


Except the issue was about what Obama is specifically doing to affect said production. Are you arguing that the Democrats lied during the 2006, 2008, and 2010 campaigns when they opposed making changes to help increase domestic oil production? Or maybe, they didn't make such changes at all, but because of other factors oil production just happened to increase over the last couple years?

I'm assuming the latter, but you're more than free to show what legislative and/or regulatory changes the Democrats have put in place over the last 2-4 years which caused this recent boom (ok, more like slight increase) in domestic production.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#326 Mar 29 2011 at 4:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sure! Because oil production turns on a dime and minor variations of said production have nothing at all to do with current oil prices.

Wow, a two year dime is pretty huge. Who knew that Obama's reign of terror over the oil industry would take over 26 months to come to fruition?

Grasping for straws? Understandable.

Quote:
I'm assuming the latter, but you're more than free to show...

No, no... this was your and Varus's little baby, remember? Obama is sooooo against domestic production. I'm pointing to the reality of the fact that domestic production has only gone up since Obama took office. But keep on making those excuses while you stomp your feet and insist that he's really, really against it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#327 Mar 29 2011 at 5:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,948 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sure! Because oil production turns on a dime and minor variations of said production have nothing at all to do with current oil prices.

Wow, a two year dime is pretty huge. Who knew that Obama's reign of terror over the oil industry would take over 26 months to come to fruition?


I honestly have no clue what you think this pattern shows. Oil production has steadily decreased every decade since 1971. The fact that there was a sharp dip in 2005,2006,2007, and 2008 is why you're seeing an "increase" over the last couple years. But the base trend line is still steadily going downward. Our production today is still lower than it was in the early 2000s, which was lower than it was in the early 1990s, which was lower than it was in the early 1980s, which was... wait for it... lower than it was in the early 1970s.

Quote:
Grasping for straws? Understandable.


What's funny is that you're tossing out out of context statistics apparently to argue that your party is somehow not doing what they promised and *is* doing what the GOP promised. Kind of a strange turn around, don't you agree? What's next? You'll argue that Obama is going to repeal that awful health care bill that was passed just a while ago?

Lol! Sometimes, I really think that you get so caught up in the argument that you forget what you're arguing.

Quote:
No, no... this was your and Varus's little baby, remember? Obama is sooooo against domestic production.


That's a nice strawman, I suppose. But that's not it at all. The argument Varus was making was that Obama has done nothing to increase domestic production in the US, yet he's handing 2 Billion dollars to help Brazil increase their production. Specifically, we're talking about oil production in the Gulf. While the Obama administration has maintained significant restrictions on drilling in the Gulf by the US, he's encouraging and even directly funding drilling in the Gulf by other nations.


That's kinda strange, don't you think? If it was purely about the environmental issues, you'd think he wouldn't be helping Brazil to drill in the gulf. So since he is, it would make one suspect that the moratorium on drilling by US companies must have more to do with economics than environmentalism. One might suggest that he wants our companies to make less money, while foreign companies make more. But that's just crazy, right?

Right?


Quote:
I'm pointing to the reality of the fact that domestic production has only gone up since Obama took office.


And I'm pointing out that this has nothing to do with anything our government has done since Obama took office. Remember the whole correlation vs causation thing? It's funny how selectively you apply that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#328 Mar 29 2011 at 5:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I honestly have no clue what you think this pattern shows. Oil production has steadily decreased every decade since 1971. The fact that there was a sharp dip in 2005,2006,2007, and 2008 is why you're seeing an "increase" over the last couple years. But the base trend line is still steadily going downward. Our production today is still lower than it was in the early 2000s, which was lower than it was in the early 1990s, which was lower than it was in the early 1980s, which was... wait for it... lower than it was in the early 1970s.

Yeah, we already talked about that. Unless your brilliant remark here is that each administration has hated drilling more than the last, perhaps there's other reasons for this? Like, you know, the depletion of easily accessed oil reserves?

Quote:
What's funny...

...is that you're still flailing about in the face of evidence showing no decline in production under Obama, still trying desperately to have a point because you care more about crying about Obama than you care about being accurate.

Quote:
That's a nice strawman

No, it's 100% accurate. As I said before, I already quoted the passages. I understand that ignoring them is in your best interest.

gbaji wrote:
While the Obama administration has maintained significant restrictions on drilling in the Gulf by the US, he's encouraging and even directly funding drilling in the Gulf by other nations.

Holy shit, Oil Professor Gbaji! I had no idea that Rio de Janeiro & Sao Paulo was in the Gulf of Mexico!

Because, you know... off the coast of Rio de Janeiro is where the Santos Basin is, home of the oil discovery Brazil wants to tap.

Quote:
And I'm pointing out that this has nothing to do with anything our government has done since Obama took office

Based on your hopes and dreams, I guess. Or were you preparing another lecture about the oil industry based on Gbaji Fantasyland?

Edited, Mar 29th 2011 6:47pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#329 Mar 29 2011 at 6:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,948 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, we already talked about that. Unless your brilliant remark here is that each administration has hated drilling more than the last, perhaps there's other reasons for this? Like, you know, the depletion of easily accessed oil reserves?


And the lack of replacement locations being opened up? Yes. That might exactly be it! Amazing how you can get half there on your own but then fail to close the deal mentally.

Quote:
...is that you're still flailing about in the face of evidence showing no decline in production under Obama, still trying desperately to have a point because you care more about crying about Obama than you care about being accurate.


Honestly Joph? My only stake in this was to point out that your response to Varus of "But we subsidize the oil industry!!!" was ridiculous. I've more than proven that point. Everything else is just sheer thread inertia and I'm not really caring much at all.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
While the Obama administration has maintained significant restrictions on drilling in the Gulf by the US, he's encouraging and even directly funding drilling in the Gulf by other nations.

Holy shit, Oil Professor Gbaji! I had no idea that Rio de Janeiro & Sao Paulo was in the Gulf of Mexico!


Yeah, well. They're not. And the connection isn't as direct as Varus made it out to be. Did I mention that my point here isn't to defend the specifics of Varus' posts, but merely to show that your own responses are equally flawed?

Quote:
Because, you know... off the coast of Rio de Janeiro is where the Santos Basin is, home of the oil discovery Brazil wants to tap.


Yes. Which is what the $2B we gave them a couple years ago was for. However, the same Brazilian company we gave the money to then is now opening up a new drilling operation in the gulf, and said operation was approved by the US dept of interior right before Obama went on his trip to South America. Coincidence? Maybe. And hey! I'm sure none of that $2B we gave them back in 2009 will in any way fund or influence this new platform in the gulf. Nope. Cause they'll keep that money in a separate bag or something!

Yeah. And I'll save you the really nutty conspiracy stuff and avoid pointing out the interesting relationship between George Soros investment shifts in Petrobras (the Brazilian company in question) during and around these various events. Cause that would just be paying back a supporter with taxpayer money and that would be illegal, right?

Um... Of course we're still left with a nearly complete moratorium on US companies drilling in the Gulf, while a Brazilian owned company is given a great big green light. Why do you suppose that is? And even ignoring the gulf region specifically, by blocking new offshore drilling off the East and West coasts of the US (and all areas around and in Alaska), we're basically handing production profits to other countries in the region.

Quote:
Quote:
And I'm pointing out that this has nothing to do with anything our government has done since Obama took office

Based on your hopes and dreams, I guess. Or were you preparing another lecture about the oil industry based on Gbaji Fantasyland?


/shrug

Bush and the GOP implemented changes which were intended to open up offshore drilling nationwide starting in 2007. Most of that got blocked by the Dems when they took congress back in 2006. I could start digging up facts and figures to make the case that the relatively tiny amounts of increase we've seen over the exact time frame in which these increases were supposed to happen might just be the result of the few measures that weren't eliminated by the Dems having an effect, but honestly I just don't feel like going point counterpoint on this one. If you want to pretend that Obama magically had a hand in creating those oil production increases despite not passing a single piece of legislation and creating an executive moratorium against drilling in the gulf *and* his entire party being vocally opposed to any new drilling for oil the whole time, then by all means knock yourself out.


I think it's a silly line of argument from the start. I'll ask again: Are you actually trying to argue that the Dems are for increase domestic oil production in the US?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#330 Mar 29 2011 at 6:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And the lack of replacement locations being opened up? Yes. That might exactly be it! Amazing how you can get half there on your own but then fail to close the deal mentally.

New locations like the increase in onshore production in 2011?

Yeah. But, hey, you said I was shutting down mentally so I guess that made you feel better.

Quote:
Honestly Joph? My only stake in this was to point out that your response to Varus of "But we subsidize the oil industry!!!" was ridiculous. I've more than proven that point. Everything else is just sheer thread inertia and I'm not really caring much at all.

Good thing you keep typing line after line after line about it though. Easier than admitting you're wrong, I guess :D

Clipping out your inaccuracies about Brazil and your tinfoil conservative conspiracy theories...
Forbes, March 23 2011 wrote:
As was explained here before, there has been no financial transaction at this time between Brazilian oil giant Petrobras and the Export-Import Bank. What looks likely is a $308 million credit guarantee, of which JP Morgan would be the lender, and Ex-Im would be the guarantor of the loan. The credit would be used by Petrobras to acquire drilling services and capital goods to dig for oil in the Santos Basin off the coast of Rio de Janeiro and Espirito Santos states.

Yeah, the Santos Basin that they apparently moved into the Gulf so tools like you can throw giant conspiracy-fits about as you cry, cry and cry some more about Obama without ever checking the facts. Great job educating us once again, Professor. The same link discredits the Soros theory that Glenn Beck taught you (I'd advise you to read the previous link as well) and there's enough other sources doing the same that I won't waste more time on it. Besides, once news gets out about Obama campaigning for that Odinga guy, he'll never get elected anyway.

Quote:
Are you actually trying to argue that the Dems are for increase domestic oil production in the US?

By in large, I'd expect the status quo much as the past few years have borne out. The big "They're trying to KILL it!" stuff is the insane wheelhouse you and Varus live in. Just because you guys live and breath for theories about evil Democrats doesn't mean I take a completely opposite view.

Edit: As a final note, I'll point out that both Exxon Mobile and Chevron have received Gulf drilling permits in the past week. Chevron's even being an exploratory permit. Way to kill domestic production, Obama!

Edit II: Oh, and Statoil just got a permit. And Noble, which received the first permit is going for another permit... oh noes! No drilling in the Gulf EVER!!! Only for Brazil!! Obama won't let no one drill nothing because he haets teh oilz!!!

Edited, Mar 30th 2011 8:43am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#331 Mar 29 2011 at 7:10 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Screenshot



Screenshot


Werds...
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#332varusword75, Posted: Mar 30 2011 at 8:16 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#333 Mar 30 2011 at 8:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Heard on NPR this morning...

Is this anything like that last thing you "heard" on NPR that was completely wrong?

Quote:
And let's not forget
Quote:
more than two-thirds of offshore oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico are sitting idle.

Good point. In fact, identical to the point Obama and Salazar were making. You'd make a great Democrat, I guess.

Quote:
How much more does it cost you to fill your tank this year than last?

In 2008, it cost me considerably more than in 2007. Bush haets oilz!

Edited, Mar 30th 2011 9:21am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#334 Mar 30 2011 at 8:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Heard on NPR this morning that Obama's looking at cutting oil imports by aprox 30% in the next few years.

Hahahaha... I just looked into this. Like I said, Varus, I guess you'd make a great Democrat since you're working so hard to defend Obama and Salazar.
Washington Post wrote:
WASHINGTON — Facing pressure to curb rising gasoline prices, President Barack Obama is calling for the U.S. to reduce its oil imports by one third by 2025, a lofty goal likely to run into significant obstacles.

The White House said Obama will seek to reduce the U.S. dependence on foreign oil by boosting domestic energy production, increasing the use of biofuels and natural gas, and making cars and trucks more fuel-efficient. Obama planned to outline these steps during a speech Wednesday at Georgetown University.

Well, fuck... ya got me there.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#335varusword75, Posted: Mar 30 2011 at 8:46 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#336 Mar 30 2011 at 8:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You're seriously stretching. "Boost domestic energy production". Of course, for actual energy independence, we'd be better off working to convert more things to natural gas and liquefied/gasified coal given that our reserves for either one of those resources (never mind the combined total) dwarf our domestic oil reserves.

I love it when you and Gbaji try to talk oil and drilling. I've never met a couple of guys less informed about the topic but who feel they're experts. You two need to go bowling.

Edited, Mar 30th 2011 10:00am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#337varusword75, Posted: Mar 30 2011 at 9:02 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#338 Mar 30 2011 at 9:04 AM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You two need to go bowling.
bowling is for muslim communists like obama.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#339 Mar 30 2011 at 9:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
No we wouldn't. Just because you radical libs seem to think we need to change our primary source of energy that just isn't so.

Yeah, going from one carbon-based energy source to another is sooooooo radical :D Are you denying that our native coal and gas resources are many, many times larger than our domestic oil resources?

Quote:
I'm curious what expertise you have in the oil industry that makes you the resident expert?

Oh, absolutely none. That's why I actually read things, learn about the topic, cite sources, etc.

You two clowns, on the other hand, get hysterical about loans that haven't actually happened, lecture about subsidies while getting it 100% wrong, moved the Santos Basin 10,000 miles from where it actually is, are completely ignorant of domestic production trends and apparently don't know a thing about the nations actual energy reserves. You just know how to cry about Obama because it's all Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh & Andrew Breitbart have taught you two guys to do.

Edited, Mar 30th 2011 10:10am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#340 Mar 30 2011 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
this is pretty cool energy technology.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#341 Mar 30 2011 at 9:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
this is pretty cool energy technology.
Wired wrote:
Nocera's leaf is stable -- operating continuously for at least 45 hours without a drop in activity in preliminary tests -- and made of widely available, inexpensive materials -- like silicon, electronics and chemical catalysts. It's also powerful, as much as ten times more efficient at carrying out photosynthesis than a natural leaf.

Let me just go out to the electronics mine and gather another bucket full of electronics for my leafs.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#342varusword75, Posted: Mar 30 2011 at 9:44 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#343 Mar 30 2011 at 10:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
lmao...is that it? Really?

Yeah, really. I know that educating yourself before spewing half-cocked nonsense you heard on the radio is a novel thing for you but you should try it some time.

Quote:
Quote:
get hysterical about loans that haven't actually happened
And they shouldn't happen and what's worse is the president should never have suggested it.

And yet we have you wetting your pants over it and Gbaji informing us all that this is a NEW $2bil give-away so George Soros can drill all the oil in the Gulf and give it to Brazil after they already used the OLD $2bil give-away to clean out the Santos basin.

Hilarious.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#344varusword75, Posted: Mar 30 2011 at 11:20 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#345 Mar 30 2011 at 11:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Did you read this somewhere?

Yeah. In this thread. You left your Obama-terror urine all over it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#346 Mar 30 2011 at 11:55 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Speaking of reading I read somewhere that Obama's banned new drilling in the gulf, atlantic, and pacific.
[citation needed]

Oh yeah? I read somewhere else that everything you say is complete garbage. So there. You know it's true because I just told you that I read it somewhere.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#347varusword75, Posted: Mar 30 2011 at 1:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) phil,
#348 Mar 30 2011 at 1:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Already addressed. As noted, Salazar pointed out that, due to the large amount of untouched leases in permitted areas, the impact of the ban will be minimal.

Then you started hooting about how Salazar was lying because you didn't like his answer and saying "I heard there's a ton of untouched leases!!" because you somehow thought that repeating Salazar's statements was a boon for you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#349varusword75, Posted: Mar 30 2011 at 1:44 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#350 Mar 30 2011 at 1:47 PM Rating: Good
******
44,511 posts
paulsol wrote:
Screenshot
That is a ******** 'do.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#351 Mar 30 2011 at 1:52 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,684 posts
varusword75 wrote:

He was lying then and he's still lying.
proof this.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 45 All times are in CST