You really aren’t going to offer a cite whose “Manifesto” states
are you?
This thread is hilarious.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
That’s it emac, get The Gonz off that grenade o’ stupid. It’s your grenade, own it!
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed...en-i-think-pri Will do. this would indicate you are wrong. Feel free to snark after someone expains it to you.
[/QUOTE]
The Gonz is not going to give up that choice spot on the grenade without a serious fight, Finn. 
But feel free to snark after someone ‘expains’ (which presumably means after the pain of the grenade going off) it to him..
-XT
I just wish somebody would pull the fuckin’ pin, already.
From the very first quote in your cite:
In other words, according to this expert, the fact that the oil matches the site does not necessarily mean it comes from a leaking well. Only inspection of the well will determine that whether or not it’s leaking. Which the Coast Guard did. And found no leaks.
Give it up gonzo. There is no solid proof that the well is currently leaking. You jumped the gun on this one.
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/new-evidence-of-a-massive-oil-slick-near-deepwater-horizon-site/
Yep, you are right on top of it again.
So, let me see if I have this right, the Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, and Louisiana and Mississippi oil spill coordinators all say it is not leaking , but I am the one who is wrong? Also, why are your cites always from such random sources? Do you subscribe to some service that emails you all random conspiracy theories or something?
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/20…-horizon-site/
Yep, you are right on top of it again.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, as always, very convincing. From your ‘cite’:
As I don’t want to get into trouble with the mods for citing the whole article, I left out 3 sentences about the flight that supposedly saw a 10 mile slick (with video!) and the rather terse ‘BP had firmly denied that the well is continuing to leak. “None of this is true,” they said’.
I mean, how can anyone question such an authoritative and expansive cite, going over all of the evidence so completely that no stone is left unturned?? Gonzo, you are truly a credit to this board. Good work man…good work…
-XT
No sites work on idiots who wear blinders and stick their fingers in their ears. When the gulf rig first started leaking last year, you did exactly what you are doing now. You can’t learn. You are a credit to stubborn ignorance. This is hoiw you acted during the Fukushima nuke plant blow up. I suppose when you were young you decided what was right and are totally unable to learn or see anything you don’t want to. Yep, this will wind up the same way. you will cry like a baby over sites which are just not pro business and pro nuke. In your world, that is where truth lies. But the leak will get bigger and uglier. Whats new?
Why is it that every conspiracy nutjob, no matter what conspiracy fantasy s/he is espousing, says this.
Don’t believe the moon landings were faked? They must wear blinders and stick their fingers in their ears.
Don’t believe the WTC collapse was staged by the US gov’t? They must wear blinders and stick their fingers in their ears.
Don’t believe that TWA Flight 800 was shot down by the Navy? They must wear blinders and stick their fingers in their ears.
Don’t believe in dowsing, Tarot, fortune telling, etc? They must wear blinders and stick their fingers in their ears.
Don’t believe in the Illuminati or the absolute power of the Freemasons? They must wear blinders and stick their fingers in their ears.
Don’t believe mortgage interest is a scam? They must wear blinders and stick their fingers in their ears.
I am disappointed that the word “sheeple” has not appeared in this thread until now. The quality of insane ramblings just isn’t what it used to be.
You’re honestly the dumbest poster on this website. It’s so difficult to communicate with you because nothing sinks in. I really try to make it a habbit to not be rude to people, but it’s nearly impossible with you.
The United States Coast Guard is not a pro-business site you absolute imbecile. They have no reason to lie. They have every reason to report environmental damage if it existed. You are stating that the Federal Government and it’s agencies are lying. You are such an idiot that you don’t even know what companies are involved. You are such an idiot that literally nothing could be presented by anyone to convince you that are wrong.
Also, here is the very first comment I made about Macondo.
[QUOTE=LonghornDave]
Not that this comes close to estimating the economic impact of the spill, but here are the declines in the market capitalizations for the major parties involved in the operations.
BP (Operator 65% owner of well): $39.3 billion
Transocean (Rig owner): $7.7 billion
Anadarko (well partner): $6.5 billion
Mitsui (well partner): $2.6 billion
Cameron (blow out preventer): $1.8 billion
Halliburton (cement job): $2.7 billion
TOTAL: $60.7 billion
This is an absolute catastrophe. I think this is going to crush BP. Furthermore, realize that BP self-insures while most of the other parties insure. This is creating havoc in the London insurance markets. They expect losses to exceed that of Katrina. This will negatively affect any oil and gas company trying to get insurance regardless of whether they have any deep water operations.
Also, while this isn’t an item that many people are talking about, there are a tremendous number of oil and natural gas wells in the state waters and marshy areas along the coast of LA. Many of those operations are going to be shut in affecting hundreds of the smaller oil and gas companies and related service companies in the area. It is just in general a terrible things for the domestic oil and gas industry.
[/QUOTE]
So, yes, I did exactly what I am doing right now. I made statements that were accurate, have proven to be accurate, and I made them in a sane manner. You, on the other hand, said they BP would never pay damages, that the site would only be stopped by a nuclear bomb, that BP would never plug the well, and hundreds of other idiotic statements that are proven incorrect.
Furthermore, after reading your ramblings about the structure of mortgages linked to earlier, I can hardly believe you even live under your own care. I’m honestly surprised a person as stupid as you knows how to operate a computer. You are a credit to the Mental Health / Special Educators in this country yet still a disgrace to the human race. It is as if after teaching Koko the ape how to use sign language, we were forced to recognize her as a human. That thread should be required reading for anyone prior to engaging in a discussion with you. It is effectively your resume as a stubborn, semi-functional moron.
Hartmann referred to a McClacthy poll today that polled small businesses across the country on why they were not hiring. Nope, not regulation. It was not enough customers. It all is about demand.
As a stubborn, mostly-functional moron (just ask anyone who knows me), I do not like this comparison. I’d like to think I am still light-years ahead.
The Conservationist has info that the area is leaking.
This is a familiar pattern. A leak is seen and reported. Then rightys claim the source is a lefty, therefore they must have some reason to lIe? What that is, is never explained. Then more report surface . Then more. when the leak can not be denied, it is downplayed as being small and irrelevant. The same people on this board defend it as such. then they are proven wrong.
The original BP leak went that way. The Fukushima plant went that way. So it goes.
No it doesn’t. Good gravy, man do you even read the articles you cite?
Sometimes it does go that way, but sometimes it doesn’t. Each time it doesn’t, the anti-conservation lobby uses it as a hammer on public opinion for all future events. That’s why it’s extremely important for environmentalists to get their ducks in a row before proclaiming that the sky is falling.
Yes, blooms were spotted, but the wellhead was checked by both BP and government agencies and no leaks were detected. Now, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but there are other plausible explanations for the blooms which have not been excluded.
Perhaps you should read deeper than the headlines…
But hey, one environmentalist is sure it is. From the original article:
Maybe he did a secret dive late at night to determine the true cause? Oh wait…
So that is about as valuable as every expert who testified that the WTC collapses were controlled explosions and that TWA flight 800 had to have been shot down by the Navy. But I wouldn’t be surprised at all to learn that you believe those are also true.
Wow. That was good. That was really, really good. Thank you for your post.
Can we start up a few other <n-th argument about xxx> threads, so you can do the same thing for the half-dozen or so other posters who essentially behave the same way?
I’d appreciate it, and happily chip in to pay for a few cool ones at the Austin establishment of your choice.
Well done.
Is it remotely possible that Obama would like scrap some regulations but not all; I see it as a chess game in my head (I don’t play chess, by the way but no other explanation occurred to me) in which Obama makes one or more moves to forestall his opponents, i.e., republicans. When (if?) the republican party starts squalling about how regulations hurt business, Obama can then say, "Look, we abolished a bunch of them; if you have more you want to abolish, let’s talk about it.)
But, as everyone knows, I’m old, marginalized, and not very smart but I am smart enough to know that Obama could outsmart me on the worst day he ever had.