Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

President Barrack Obama ... I thought you were supposed to be smart.

I'm curious how you come to the conclusion that he's not intelligent (smart)?

By every objective measure (education, accomplishments, etc.) he's very smart indeed.

It seems that you believe he's not smart because you are generalizing from this one supposed error, or because you dislike his policies.

DUUUUDE.. when severe ODS is brought on in such a virulent way.... you see the result. If ANY conservative entity sees anything they might hand wring and residistribute to the conservatard regurgisphere... you will see it here at nearly light speed once its posted by the likes of the BIG BUG BRAIN by its scurrying little minions.

[billvon 3,120]

>>considering they contribute what was it again? a whopping 0.1% of the world's
>greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gases are not green, and they don't come from greenhouses. Why can't you stick to the topic instead of using inaccurate and inflammatory words to try to push your anti-progress agenda?

[CanuckInUSA 0]

You would think that lowering the USA's dependency on middle east oil might be seen as progress. You would think that part of this progress towards lowering the USA's dependency on middle east oil would be to find replacements from areas of the world that are less politically volatile. But to gain cheap political points Obama decides to slag the "Oil Sands" to appease his enviro'nut support.

Nothing wrong with looking for alternative energy resources, but you know damn well that oil is here and will not be replaced anytime soon.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 3,120]

>But to gain cheap political points Obama decides to slag the "Oil Sands" to appease
> his enviro'nut support.

And he's doing that by calling them tar sands?

CanuckinUSA, 2006: "I'm surprised we haven't seen the American military in the Alberta tar sands yet."

CanuckinUSA, 2007: "Skinny is not wrong in saying that extracting the oil from the tar sands comes at a cost both financially as well as environmentally."

So the question becomes - why were you slagging the "oil sands" for cheap political points, and who are you trying to appease?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>>considering they contribute what was it again? a whopping 0.1% of the world's
>greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gases are not green, and they don't come from greenhouses. Why can't you stick to the topic instead of using inaccurate and inflammatory words to try to push your anti-progress agenda?

Anti progress??



Not that is funny

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skymiles 3]

Quote

>But to gain cheap political points Obama decides to slag the "Oil Sands" to appease
> his enviro'nut support.

And he's doing that by calling them tar sands?

CanuckinUSA, 2006: "I'm surprised we haven't seen the American military in the Alberta tar sands yet."

CanuckinUSA, 2007: "Skinny is not wrong in saying that extracting the oil from the tar sands comes at a cost both financially as well as environmentally."

So the question becomes - why were you slagging the "oil sands" for cheap political points, and who are you trying to appease?

It seems CanuckInUSA also speaks out both sides of his mouth and is an enviro-nut.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

>But to gain cheap political points Obama decides to slag the "Oil Sands" to appease
> his enviro'nut support.

And he's doing that by calling them tar sands?

CanuckinUSA, 2006: "I'm surprised we haven't seen the American military in the Alberta tar sands yet."

CanuckinUSA, 2007: "Skinny is not wrong in saying that extracting the oil from the tar sands comes at a cost both financially as well as environmentally."

So the question becomes - why were you slagging the "oil sands" for cheap political points, and who are you trying to appease?

Oh, the delicious irony.

Canuck is hoist by his own petard.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Slip of the tongue (or in my case the keyboard). Obviously I made a mistake several years ago and will be thrown to the DorkZone.com wolfs. But I am not a politicians looking to buy votes. My gaff still does stop Obama from playing politics. Appeasing the enviro'nuts while he clearly knows (or just does not know enough about the file) that he does not have a hope in hell in closing down the Oil Sands if he is serious about reducing the dependency of middle east oil.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[futuredivot 0]

Ne sweat-you're detractors have slipped into the 'we have no reasonable argument against, therefore we must attack the messenger' mode. Happens a lot.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Ne sweat-you're detractors have slipped into the 'we have no reasonable argument against, therefore we must attack the messenger' mode. Happens a lot.

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy regardless of the messenger. He changed his tune to suit his chronic ODS, he was caught, and now he's weaseling.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Wow if I directed PAs against you I know for a fact I would get banned. Since you are entitled to your entitlements, I see PAs are perfectly acceptable and tolerated by the MODs here at the DorkZone.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[mnealtx 0]

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Search is an interesting tool. With search we can not hide from words we have written in the past. One can easily search "Tar Sands" and see I used the words twice (not counting this thread) in my entire existence here on the DorkZone. I wonder how many other times did I use "Oil Sands"? There is not enough hours in the day to go back to count the references. But I am sure it was the norm not the exception.

Quote

CanuckinUSA, 2006: "I'm surprised we haven't seen the American military in the Alberta tar sands yet."

I put my foot in my mouth here. No excuses. Not sure why I called them "Tar Sands" back in 2006, but there is no hiding that I called them this. Maybe I was not as defensive five years ago concerning the "Oil Sands" as I am now because five years ago we didn't have a US president suggesting that maybe the "Oil Sands" should be shut down for the 0.1% global contribution it makes to the entire world's CO2 emissions. Oh and 5 years ago I thought the US president at the time was a moron, so don't go painting me as something that I am not.

Quote

CanuckinUSA, 2007: "Skinny is not wrong in saying that extracting the oil from the tar sands comes at a cost both financially as well as environmentally."

When you dug up this reference made in 2007, did you bother to read the entire thread or was slander the primary goal "oh look I found Tar Sands" time to go on the attack. If you read the entire thread you will see that the OP of the thread was claiming the supply of world oil was coming to an end, I stepped in specifically using the term "Oil Sands" saying that the world supply was not in jeopardy and then the OP decided to start slagging the "Oil Sands" as one of the world's worst environmental disasters and the OP was the one who first called them "Tar Sands" in the thread at which time my response was to use the same words.

Tell me did you actually read this thread or was the primary purpose of your search to slander someone? You got me on my first reference. But you were clearly on the attack on the second reference. Next time people should read the threads instead of cherry picking words.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Amazon 7]

Quote

CanuckinUSA, 2006: "I'm surprised we haven't seen the American military in the Alberta tar sands yet."

Hmmm how many US troops are there now 5 years later????

But you can still have hope for the future


If that were to happen.. it would be your cherished American Conservatards most likely sending them and of course the ones doing the sending will have once been young rePUBIClown chickenhawks when they had a chance to "serve their country"

[CanuckInUSA 0]

You know Amazon if you went back and read the 2006 thread where I used the term "Tar Sands" you would see that I was actually attacking GWB at the time. More cherry picking from the peanut gallery. Care to address the issue of this thread?

Which if you need to be reminded is:

Why is the current US president saying out of one side of his mouth "maybe we should shutdown the Tar Sands" (his words not mine) when from the other side of his mouth he is saying "the USA needs to reduce it's dependency on Middle East oil". Either Obama is playing cheap politics to appease people he wants votes from, or Obama needs to be educated in how Canada is the USA's largest supplier of natural resources. Which is it? Obama the politician? or Obama who was given a job he clearly was not qualified to have when he does not even know who his largest trading partner is?

or do you need to stick to your usual partisan "name calling" politics.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Amazon 7]

Quote

You know Amazon if you went back and read the 2006 thread where I used the term "Tar Sands" you would see that I was actually attacking GWB at the time. More cherry picking from the peanut gallery. Care to address the issue of this thread?
.

OMG.. you were worried that your HERO was going to attack



But even still ... the American military did not attack... BUT you can still hope for the NEXT right wing administration to do so.... I mean you can welcome them in the streets with flowers as Liberators form the onerous liberals.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

OMG.. you were worried that your HERO was going to attack

Absolutely hopeless, partisan politics at it's worst. I even called GWB a moron in this thread so that there would be no need to go back a waste time using the search tool and yet I am still labeled as a GWB fan.

Still unwilling to actually address the topic of this thread I see.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Still unwilling to actually address the topic of this thread I see.

you're feeding the troll. it's fun to watch though.

--
Rob

[kallend 2,151]

Your own written words betrayed you, and now you are weaseling.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Your own written words betrayed you, and now you are weaseling.

I see you are still refusing to deal with this issue of this thread.

Tell me, before NATO took over control of the Libyan "no fly zone" mission, did you support Obama when he ordered air strikes and cruise missiles to be fired? One would think a Nobel Peace Prize winner would not be so fast to wage war. But as usual the partisans only view the world from one side of their rose colored glasses.

I have no excuse for my first reference of "Tar Sands". But the second reference where Bill decided to direct his slander was taken out of context and one only needs to read the thread to see why it was used. If that is your definition of a weasel, then throw me some mice and if you can not find some mice throw me some shrews, pikas, birds, fish and insects. I am hungry and I would like to be fed.

He/she who has never made a mistake in their life may cast the first stone.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Your own written words betrayed you, and now you are weaseling.

I see you are still refusing to deal with this issue of this thread.

Maybe you should re-read the title of your thread and your OP - you seem to have forgotten what it is about.

You got all indignant because someone you dislike used an expression that it turns out you yourself used previously, and you're STILL weaseling about being caught out.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Tell me oh professor specialist of youth indoctrination to your Fabian Socialist beliefs, why is Obama telling people "Maybe we should be closing down the Oil Sands" and then turning around and telling people "We need to reduce our dependency on Middle East oil". Is Obama playing cheap politics to appease his base? Or is he just not that smart enough to realize that he can NOT reduce the USA's dependency on Middle East oil without using Canada's Oil Sands? Do you care to address the issue here or are you too busy throwing PAs at people?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

... playing cheap politics...

Re-read your post #1. Irony score 10/10.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

You should get into politics as you clearly do what they do. You seek to slander those who's opinions differ from your own while you totally ignore the issue at hand.

Obama is either playing cheap politics by appeasing to his base when he tells them "I am considering having the Oil Sands shut down" or the man just lacks the basic intelligence to realize he can not reduce the USA's dependency on Middle East oil while at the same time shutting down the Oil Sands. Which one is it? I actually think Obama is smarter than thinking he can reduce the dependency and have the Oil Sands shutdown at the same time. So it goes back to Obama talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Care to address the issue? Or is slander your preferred way to deal with issues?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kallend 2,151]

Irony score 10/10, twice in one thread.

Apparently you forgot that you wrote in the OP: "Obama showed little respect when he called the "Oil Sands" "Tar Sands". There is no tar in the "Oil Sands" Barrack. I thought you were supposed to be smart. A smart person knows there is no tar. Calling the Oil Sands, Tar Sands is a favorite among the environmentalists and now it sure sounds like Obama is trying to make the environmentalists think he is on their side"

I think maybe you just set a SC record for irony.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.