The Goat Pen

George Bush is his buddy?

[youtube]yC3ZSImffyU[/youtube]

bluetick wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:
Global warming is a political issue. It is not a scientific one. It was never a scientific one. That is main reason why those who are politically motivated by it will never allow a scientific debate on what they believe to be the accepted consensus. Those who believe in Global Warming, or Global Cooling, or man-made climate change all share the consensus on one thing (politically....)

The Western Nations (more specifically the United States) are too rich. The 3rd World is too poor. That's racist. Lets find a way to give the 3rd World a leg up financially by fucking the United States in the ass economically.

That is basically the whole purpose to the consensus of man-man climate change. Hurt the wealthiest nations by forcing them to consume less resources OR force them to pay a tax to be given to the savages. Man-man-climate change creates the consensus from which this goal could be best achieved.

Fuck everything else you could ever say or think on this matter that is accepted by consensus.

Got it. Eleven thousand climate scientists are on the 3rd world "savage's" payroll. And you forgot the Sierra Club, so that's an extra 79 cents in the pocket of every one of those money-grubbing meteorological hoaxsters.

Yeah, they're really clobbering Big Oil and Big Industry politically. Lessee... says here Exxon Mobile made $45 bil in profits last year and kept it's title as World's Most Valuable Company. Is that really your idea of "financially fucked up the ass"?

Strawmen all over the place tick. It is obvious you didn't read my post. The climate change "consensus" is not about hurting oil companies. It is about hurting the American people (financially) because they are too rich and the 3rd world is too poor and that is the fault of the United States.

"Strawmen all over the place tick. The climate change "consensus" is not about hurting oil companies. It is about hurting the American people"

I'd like to hurt you by wrapping you in straw, dousing you in oil, and setting you on fire...

innocentbystander wrote:

bluetick wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:
Global warming is a political issue. It is not a scientific one. It was never a scientific one. That is main reason why those who are politically motivated by it will never allow a scientific debate on what they believe to be the accepted consensus. Those who believe in Global Warming, or Global Cooling, or man-made climate change all share the consensus on one thing (politically....)

The Western Nations (more specifically the United States) are too rich. The 3rd World is too poor. That's racist. Lets find a way to give the 3rd World a leg up financially by fucking the United States in the ass economically.

That is basically the whole purpose to the consensus of man-man climate change. Hurt the wealthiest nations by forcing them to consume less resources OR force them to pay a tax to be given to the savages. Man-man-climate change creates the consensus from which this goal could be best achieved.

Fuck everything else you could ever say or think on this matter that is accepted by consensus.

Got it. Eleven thousand climate scientists are on the 3rd world "savage's" payroll. And you forgot the Sierra Club, so that's an extra 79 cents in the pocket of every one of those money-grubbing meteorological hoaxsters.

Yeah, they're really clobbering Big Oil and Big Industry politically. Lessee... says here Exxon Mobile made $45 bil in profits last year and kept it's title as World's Most Valuable Company. Is that really your idea of "financially fucked up the ass"?

Strawmen all over the place tick. It is obvious you didn't read my post. The climate change "consensus" is not about hurting oil companies. It is about hurting the American people (financially) because they are too rich and the 3rd world is too poor and that is the fault of the United States.

Re-read your quote, IB. You said "fucking the United States up the ass financially." Now you want to change United States into American people? Maybe because your not too stupid to know that Corporate America had a great year financially in 2013?

bluetick wrote:Re-read your quote, IB. You said "fucking the United States up the ass financially." Now you want to change United States into American people? Maybe because your not too stupid to know that Corporate America had a great year financially in 2013?

I don't care how good a year Corporate America had. If the 3rd World wants to profit by this, have the 3rd world buy stock shares in various Corporate American companies instead of hijacking our container shps. Do NOT just go with a "consensus" that man-made climate change is "science" and then refuse to have the scientific debate (because it is "settled") and then impose financial constraints on the people of 1st World Nations by way of Kyoto (either by a tax or a nation's restriction on the consumption of fossil fuels.) Either way, you have fucked the United States up the ass, financially, which was my point which IS the goal of the "consensus" of man-made climate change.

Fuck anything else you have to say.

Fuckwit, the U.S. is not a party to Kyoto and we pay no emission taxes to 3rd World 'savages.' Odd how you love to make crap up..and then rant about it.

consensus!

I think IB is retarded.

bluetick wrote:Fuckwit, the U.S. is not a party to Kyoto and we pay no emission taxes to 3rd World 'savages.' Odd how you love to make crap up..and then rant about it.

consensus!

Stop being a belligerantly obtuse narcisist.

When you want people to STOP buying something they are free to buy you either make it illegal or you tax it. We are not making the use of electricity or drving cars illegal. So (for the fools who believe in man-made climate change) they want to raise the price by taxing it. That is what they want.

Who gets the taxes? Where do those increased tax dollars go? What does the US government buy with them? And if we (we = the US government) dont get to keep them for ourselves, where do they go? Who gets them? What 3rd world country gets the check? What do they do with it?

In the early 1950s, 1% of the US GDP went to Europe via the Marshall Plan. Those were our US tax dollars hard at work being spent in Europe for Europe to rebuild Europe. We gained nothing from them other than the satisfaction that we were helping people we previously destroyed. Tell me oh king of crap, how (exactly) do you enforce a fossil fuel restriction on the American people who want to buy more and more of it (and it is a sellers market) without raising the price via taxation or regulating consumption (kind of like gasoline coupons ala 1942 or worse, gasoline lines via 1973 and 1979?) Do you want 1973 or 1979 back? Or just increase the price with more taxes? And if you increase the taxes, who gets the taxes and what are the spent on?

Be specific. Don't be a smart-ass dickhead. I brook no sass here.

Toemeesleather wrote:Even Mexico can admit long held (80+ years) mistakes.....Don't hold yer breath waiting on the MSM (Dept. of Propaganda) to do same.


The Mexican Senate approved the most far-reaching oil reform in 75 years on Tuesday, opening up Mexico’s $95 billion-a-year oil industry to private capital. In a building ringed by thousands of security forces, the ruling PRI party and the opposition PAN voted to pass the politically controversial reform, overriding the strong opposition by the leftist PRD party lawmakers who displayed a gigantic banner in the center of the hall reading: “NO TO PEMEX’S PRIVATIZATION.” Pemex is Mexico’s state-own oil monopoly.

“The historical significance of the reform is enormous. This is a paradigm shift in the Mexico hydrocarbons sector, with a meaningful role for the private sector permitted for the first time since the 1930s,” Duncan Wood, President of the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute, told me.

LOL. Pemex is PRI's piggy bank and checkbook, with scandal after scandal about public oil money going to finance PRI's campaign war chest and lavish lifestyles for PRI's leadership. The new law doesn't take Pemex out of state control, it just allows foreign companies to explore and drill in Mexico, which was banned in Mexico's constitution.

The new law also creates a state controlled central fund to administer all of the profits.

PRD's opposition is only to changing the constitution, because now the foreign companies that pump the oil will have title to it and book it, rather than having Pemex book it, so Pemex' production numbers will go down.

I think Joel Osteen is looking for aTm right now. Thief.

Can't aTm afford to buy his own hair gel?

The new normal speaks...(as the minister of propaganda allows)



Florida's 13th Congressional District held a special election today for House Rep. The Dem, Alex Sink, was favored to win (even the conservative bloggers predicted a Sink win - the district went for Obama in 2012.) The GOP candidate, David Jolly, pounded away at Sink's support of Obamacare. Sink sunk somehow, despite the fact that fellow Floridian Debbie Wasserperson-Schultz said Dems would be glad to run on Obamacare in 2014 and would win, win, WIN!!

Earlier today, when Sink was expected to win, the NY Times had an article up about how this was a "bellweather election" for 2014. Funny, that story seems to have vanished from their website. Poof! Down the memory hole! Now, since a Republican won, it's not a bellweather at all, just a little local story with no significance whatsoever.

The White House still needs about 1.8 million people to sign up for Obamacare by March 31 to be successful before the open enrollment deadline. Enrolling 6 million people will do the trick—a number that was revised down from 7 million.

Some 4.2 million Americans have signed up for health coverage on the new insurance exchanges through February, the White House said Tuesday. However, that number could be significantly lower—since it is still unclear how many of those people have actually paid for their plans.

Though the administration has not provided that information, a separate study by the McKinsey consulting firm says about 25 percent of enrollees have not paid their first premium. That would bring total enrollments down to a little more than 3.1 million.

Still, administration officials are painting the new numbers as a success and say they expect a surge in enrollments ahead of the deadline.

Yes, I still miss Baghdad Bob.

as well as your wife

Rangel: 'Our community's 9/11'...

Oh puhleese.

I wish somebody would hijack an airplane and fly it into you...

You're a one trick pony.