Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Aerial Footage of Arkansas Tar Sands Oil Spill (It reached the lake).








Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

by on Apr. 3, 2013 at 12:43 AM
Replies (61-70):
autodidact
by Platinum Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 7:48 PM


ha, more foolhearty assumption on your part. 

Quoting talia-mom:

You really try too hard.   I hope your performance improves.


Quoting autodidact:


it's impressive how you strive constantly to outdo your previous performance.  

Quoting talia-mom:

Only for the sheeple.


Quoting autodidact:


you make less sense with every post. 





talia-mom
by Gold Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Oh.   Your performance isn't going to improve.

I am sorry for having hope you would actually be better at this game.


Quoting autodidact:


ha, more foolhearty assumption on your part. 

Quoting talia-mom:

You really try too hard.   I hope your performance improves.


Quoting autodidact:


it's impressive how you strive constantly to outdo your previous performance.  

Quoting talia-mom:

Only for the sheeple.


Quoting autodidact:


you make less sense with every post. 




brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 7:54 PM


Autodidact was trying to have a conversation with you. You were trying to discredit people.

That's the disconnect. You are playing a game, and she wasn't.

Knowing every scientist by name across the globe is not a requirement to talk about a topic. Especially one that involves oil and oil spills.

Quoting talia-mom:

Oh.   Your performance isn't going to improve.

I am sorry for having hope you would actually be better at this game.


Quoting autodidact:


ha, more foolhearty assumption on your part. 

Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

frogbender
by Captain Underpants on Apr. 3, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Healthy soil is always more important than home values. 


Quoting talia-mom:

So people who just lost 75% of the value of their house don't count because you are worried about daises?


Quoting frogbender:

Well that's just fucking lovely. Really, I couldn't care less about the people and their property values, but more about the damage done to the flora and fauna of the region. 





meriana
by Gold Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 9:01 PM

Quoting frogbender:

Healthy soil is always more important than home values. 


Quoting talia-mom:

So people who just lost 75% of the value of their house don't count because you are worried about daises?


Quoting frogbender:

Well that's just fucking lovely. Really, I couldn't care less about the people and their property values, but more about the damage done to the flora and fauna of the region. 






Of course healthy soil is very important. However, the soil where the spill occurred is no longer healthy and that includes the soil that is under and around the affected homes. Home values? No, they aren't important until it's one's own home that has been devalued due to something like this. The homeowners can do nothing but wait for the oil company responsible to clean it up and even then, they may find the soil to contaminated to grow anything at all. The other concern would be the oil getting into the water table. Oil doesn't just sit there on the surface waiting to be scooped up.
MrsSamMerlotte
by Bronze Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 9:08 PM
1 mom liked this
I care about the environment. I do more than anyone I know. and I preach to family and friends like crazy. I'm sure they are sick of hearing it. But I have no idea who that guy is...
Why do I have to know the names of other environmentalists to care about the environment? Thats a ridiculous statement.


Quoting talia-mom:

I love that people who pretend to care about the environment don't know who David Suziki, one of the world's biggest environmentalists, is.


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
MrsSamMerlotte
by Bronze Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 9:13 PM
Do you have any idea how stupid you sound right now?


Quoting talia-mom:

Oh.   Your performance isn't going to improve.

I am sorry for having hope you would actually be better at this game.



Quoting autodidact:


ha, more foolhearty assumption on your part. 


Quoting talia-mom:

You really try too hard.   I hope your performance improves.



Quoting autodidact:


it's impressive how you strive constantly to outdo your previous performance.  


Quoting talia-mom:

Only for the sheeple.



Quoting autodidact:


you make less sense with every post. 







Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Annettey19
by Bronze Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 9:33 PM

Ugh. What happened to innovation in this country? How many oil messes do we need before we put our heads together and starting thinking up alternatives?

LindaClement
by Linda on Apr. 4, 2013 at 12:49 AM

I heard him say it on the radio, in the 90s, on CBC.

Quoting autodidact:

for the quote


Quoting LindaClement:

For which?

Quoting autodidact:

source? 



Quoting LindaClement:

As opposed to science fact, that is.

Have you ever heard David Suzuki speak? The man's a born preacher, and his religion is 'people should not exist on this planet.'

He actually said that an earthquake was caused by how angry Triton the Earth God was over strip mining.

Quoting autodidact:

eye rolling


Quoting LindaClement:

My point is: we don't take safety (of people or the landscape) seriously on so many fronts.

When was agriculture 'good for the environment'? Jet fuel explosions? Even without talking about the mess 9/11 made, the environmental cost of flying is NOT a conversation point.

We have a huge international industry built around the new religion of environmentalism, and not one of them has suggested that the 'best' thing for the environment would be to stop flying anywhere, ever. Why? Because they make their billions getting together in various conferences all over the world, so they can nod and pat each other on the back and make scathing remarks about the people who drive, ever, or who think 3rd world employment is worth buying for, or who actually care that safe water supplies exist only in 1st world countries.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Quoting LindaClement:

If people treated airline crashes they way they're treating this, flight would have been banned in 1961.


I don't know many airline crashes that after they crash they continue to damage the land, the animals, and the peoples lives around the area. Can you show how they do this?

A big point about the Keystone XL Pipeline is an aquifier that it can contaminate. When is the last time an airplane crashed and destroyed a water supply for states across the country?

And let's not forget no one is saying we shouldn't use the oil. If Canada wants to build a refinery on their land they are completely capable of it. It doesn't make sense to build a pipeline across our country that puts lives, the land, and our water at danger so a few people can make loads of money from it.

They can build a refinery near the oil if they want to make money from it.  There is no way to even cross this example to airlines.











LindaClement
by Linda on Apr. 4, 2013 at 12:52 AM

Because most of the 1000 asked don't know any more about the science vs. environmental religion than the average person.

Canada's national broadcaster, CBC, swallowed the koolaid a LONG time ago, and it's hard to find any media outlet that doesn't just follow along like good little believers.

You have to look, personally, and you need to have a skeptical, inquiring mind. It's not 'out there'. What is out there is Suzuki's and Gore's and Sierra Club's and IPCC's and Greenpeace's fiction, swallowed whole and uncritically, for the most part.

Quoting Sisteract:

 Playing along with the "semantics" game... when asked via a poll, why did the majority of Canadians say "No" to having a pipeline through Canadian provinces? You know, since Canadians are so individualistic and do not kowtow to fake environmental science information or popula, current group think?

Makes no sense.

Quoting LindaClement:

Why did you suggest that 'Canadians' voted for anything?

Quoting Sisteract:

 Sounds like most Canadians did vote in favor of that "fake" science, individuals or otherwise and said, "No" to the possibility of having an occurrence similar to what just happened down south.

Why makes you think that folks in the US do not have individual opinions on each and every issue? Your assertion is hardly true-

Quoting LindaClement:

Because unlike folks from the US, individual Canadians have individual opinions, and many listen to environmental doomsayers spouting fake science and invective, so they don't all vote the same way.

We don't vote directly for laws of any kind, and the 'no' was on polls, not elections.

Quoting Sisteract:

 That being said, how come Canadians voted NO when it came to the pipeline running through Canadian provinces?

Quoting LindaClement:

My point is: we don't take safety (of people or the landscape) seriously on so many fronts.

When was agriculture 'good for the environment'? Jet fuel explosions? Even without talking about the mess 9/11 made, the environmental cost of flying is NOT a conversation point.

We have a huge international industry built around the new religion of environmentalism, and not one of them has suggested that the 'best' thing for the environment would be to stop flying anywhere, ever. Why? Because they make their billions getting together in various conferences all over the world, so they can nod and pat each other on the back and make scathing remarks about the people who drive, ever, or who think 3rd world employment is worth buying for, or who actually care that safe water supplies exist only in 1st world countries.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Quoting LindaClement:

If people treated airline crashes they way they're treating this, flight would have been banned in 1961.


I don't know many airline crashes that after they crash they continue to damage the land, the animals, and the peoples lives around the area. Can you show how they do this?

A big point about the Keystone XL Pipeline is an aquifier that it can contaminate. When is the last time an airplane crashed and destroyed a water supply for states across the country?

And let's not forget no one is saying we shouldn't use the oil. If Canada wants to build a refinery on their land they are completely capable of it. It doesn't make sense to build a pipeline across our country that puts lives, the land, and our water at danger so a few people can make loads of money from it.

They can build a refinery near the oil if they want to make money from it.  There is no way to even cross this example to airlines.


 


 


 


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured