Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 63 of 63
  1. #51
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Bou s and Buffett, shoulder to shoulder.
    Clipper Nation, head up her ass to the shoulders

  2. #52
    Board Man Comes Home Clipper Nation's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Clippers
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Post Count
    54,257
    Clipper Nation, head up her ass to the shoulders
    You and Warren Buffett, sittin' in a tree.

  3. #53
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    Yet yall seem to want them to run the healthcare system.
    Healthcare?

    No.

    I think the government could do far better at health insurance than an inefficient collection of for profit companies with baked in profits.

  4. #54
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    Actually, Warren Buffett does:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNSF_Railway

    And that's the real reason why the left opposes pipelines - in order to prop up the railroad company that one of their biggest multibillionaire donors owns.
    Strawman two. "the left opposes"

    Strawman arguments are fancy lies.

    The right lies so reflexively they don't even realize how much they do it. Sad.

  5. #55
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    "Moderates" aren't the type of peoole going to Standing Rock and throwing a big hissyfit, let's be real now. Sane environmentalists would realize that we don't live in an oil-free utopia, and they'd support pipelines as a safer way of transporting the oil we need than any of the alternatives.
    Given the effects of CO2 emissions on the climate, sane environmentalists would oppose any infrastructure that would encourage tar sand oil production. The world little needs more oil production/consumption.

    Let the cost of oil transport simply stay high, and the markets will do the rest. The oil industry is big enough not to need the subsidies.

  6. #56
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    so what does that say about the energy-invested brothers actively funding the gop as they for some odd unrelated reasons are desperately trying to undermine and discredit scientific consensus?


    Shockingly enough trillion dollar industries can afford to bankroll a lot of propaganda. The ciggy companies fought just as hard.

  7. #57
    Board Man Comes Home Clipper Nation's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Clippers
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Post Count
    54,257
    Given the effects of CO2 emissions on the climate, sane environmentalists would oppose any infrastructure that would encourage tar sand oil production. The world little needs more oil production/consumption.

    Let the cost of oil transport simply stay high, and the markets will do the rest. The oil industry is big enough not to need the subsidies.
    Sane environmentalists would understand that we're not going to quit oil cold-turkey tomorrow. While we work to develop alternative energy that can replace oil someday, the pragmatic choice for the environment would be to support the safest possible means of transportation for all that oil, which would be pipelines.

  8. #58
    Board Man Comes Home Clipper Nation's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Clippers
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Post Count
    54,257


    Shockingly enough trillion dollar industries can afford to bankroll a lot of propaganda. The ciggy companies fought just as hard.
    You do realize, of course, that left-wing billionaires have pumped tons of money into pro-climate-change research as well:

    http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ind...2-10CF6D8D08DF

    And they're not doing it because they give a about the environment, BTW. It's all about protecting their financial investments in renewable energy:

    http://eelegal.org/wp-content/upload...cts-Final1.pdf

    Let's be real, the moment we allowed science to become politicized, it was a given that the donor class was going to start paying scientists to tell them what they wanted to hear. Both sides of the aisle are guilty; stop pretending your doesn't stink.

  9. #59
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536

    Shockingly enough trillion dollar industries can afford to bankroll a lot of propaganda. The ciggy companies fought just as hard.
    BigCarbon's tactics are the same: hire scientists to produce favorable "results", attack the legit science, create doubt and confusion everywhere, esp amonng the majority of people who are uneducated, unread, irrational, pay politicians to contribute to doubt and confusion, and pass enabling/protective legislation.

    BigCig still doesn't care how many 10Ms of people have died from their poison, and BigCarbon doesn't care how mans 100Ms, if not Bs, will die from AGW climate change.

    What BigCarbon's strategy has now that BigCig didn't have is support from Christian Taliban, lead by the nose and pocketbook by grifter pastors, who already deny rationality and science by believing, under threat of going to For All Eternity, that the Bible is historically, cosmologically, scientifically accurate.

    Christian Taliban can't accept, "cherry pick", climate science as true because they'd have to accept all of science, which would be mean disbelieving the Bible, and going to .

  10. #60
    Veteran hater's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    74,105
    Our holy veterans who are not 2,000 but now 4,500 are now moving on to the next destination of this battle of good vs evil. They are currently traveling to Flint Michigan to fight the evildoers there. God have mercy on those corporations and their pupets

  11. #61
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,917
    Eight different statehouses across the nation are considering bills criminalizing protests on property owned by the the oil and gas industry which critics say could squelch pipeline protesters and others calling attention to climate change-causing infrastructure.

    The bills offer steep criminal penalties for trespass onto oil and gas industry-owned private property defined as “critical infrastructure” under state law. The legal definition of “critical infrastructure,” which incorporates essentially all assets serving as the bedrock of the current economic system, has greatly expanded in the post-September 11 era. With that expansion came increasingly harsh criminal enforcement mechanisms available to prosecutors in the name of protecting national security.
    https://therealnews.com/columns/bill...ses-nationwide

  12. #62
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    I guess the criminalization-of-dissent texts were written by ALEC, which is financed by BigOil

  13. #63
    Veteran hater's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    74,105
    Police state doing police state thangs tbqh

    Remember they are also banning protests in public places and cities.

    Police state doing police state thangs

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •