Things you won't hear in the U.S.

Gato_Solo said:
Sure...when the public is willing to fogo those huge SUV's and V-8 power, we'll get right on that. Before you say it...what are you driving to lower our dependence on foreign oil?

Por que tu no callese? :rofl:
Click to expand...


nice dodge! that has nothing to do with what i posted. so until you can come up with something coherent....

vai toma no cu...
 
2minkey said:
nice dodge! that has nothing to do with what i posted. so until you can come up with something coherent....

vai toma no cu...
Click to expand...

Sure it does. The Saudis are the main source of our oil. They use quite a bit of the money we pay for that oil on the madrassas that produced the 9/11 people. If we cut our oil dependency, it cuts their profits, which, in turn, impacts the funding on those madrassas. Get it, now, oh wise-acre?
 
right. yeah. so, um, we attacked iraq why? because of their ideological similarity to wahabis?

:rofl:

oh, wait, that's not what you're talking about. gee, now i get it. i should make sacrifices so that we don't need to depend on foreign oil. and then... yeah.

you remember at least a year ago me mentioning something about spending the iraq war money on energy strategy/research/development instead of a venture with dismal ROI, when you asked your prophetic "well what would you do, smartypants?"

well, alec, i'll take sideways buggery for $800.

next time, just say what you mean at the onset, instead of being half-obscure so you can come back with something witty later.
 
2minkey said:
right. yeah. so, um, we attacked iraq why? because of their ideological similarity to wahabis?

:rofl:

oh, wait, that's not what you're talking about. gee, now i get it. i should make sacrifices so that we don't need to depend on foreign oil. and then... yeah.

you remember at least a year ago me mentioning something about spending the iraq war money on energy strategy/research/development instead of a venture with dismal ROI, when you asked your prophetic "well what would you do, smartypants?"

well, alec, i'll take sideways buggery for $800.
Click to expand...

So. Self-deprecating humor is more sound than a logical answer...

2minkey said:
next time, just say what you mean at the onset, instead of being half-obscure so you can come back with something witty later.
Click to expand...

Didn't think I was being 'half-obscure'. I thought you'd figure it out without prompting. Mayhap I'm giving you too much credit. ;)
 
you've proven yourself a literalist a bunch of times. why should one assume this time would be different?
 
2minkey said:
you've proven yourself a literalist a bunch of times. why should one assume this time would be different?
Click to expand...

I'm only a literalist when it comes to certain things. Others require interpretation. Besides...unpredictability is also a hallmark of mine.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Anyway...back on topic...
Click to expand...

Yes ... let's ...

SOURCE

Countries Missing Kyoto Targets, Taxpayers to Foot the Bill
By Noel Sheppard | November 30, 2007 - 10:14 ET

As climate alarmists around the world head to a tropical paradise on Bali next week to discuss how developed nations should pay to solve global warming, an inconvenient truth has emerged: many countries that are part of the Kyoto Protocol are going to dramatically overshoot their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions limits.

While it seems a metaphysical certitude that America's green media will largely boycott such revelations so as not to put a damper on the hysterical proceedings, the fact that taxpayers in countries missing these targets will end up footing the bill also appears likely to be ignored. (emphasis added)

As reported by Bloomberg Friday (emphasis added throughout, h/t Benny Peiser):

Japan, Italy and Spain face fines of as much as $33 billion combined for failing to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions as promised under the Kyoto treaty.

The three countries are the worst performers among 36 nations that agreed to curb carbon dioxide gases that cause climate change. The 1997 Kyoto accord designed to slow global warming demands that polluting nations buy credits for their excess emissions from other industrial polluters or investors.

``They're looking at a huge bill now,'' said Mike Rosenberg, management professor at the University of Navarra's IESE Business School in Barcelona. ``That is because none would pay to reconvert factories, power plants and paper mills'' to trim gases blamed for the planet-warming ``greenhouse effect.'' (emphasis added)​
Click to expand...

Why will they miss these targets? Hold on to your seats:

Spain, Italy and Japan are likely to miss their Kyoto commitments because they underestimated economic growth and future emissions from factories and utilities. (emphasis added)​
Click to expand...

...

Welcome to green capitalism, coming to a country near you without any warning from your media. (emphasis added)
Click to expand...

<more>
 
And ain't this a hoot. Bet the press is just emblazoning this all over the front page, eh?

SOURCE

November 24, 2007
The Green FolliesRosslyn Smith

Along those same lines comes this release out of Bali that the airport there is expecting so many private jets for the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference that local officials will be making most attendees ferry their planes to four other airports in the region for parking as the local airport can only accommodate 15 planes. The closest airport to provide parking space for such jets is about 60 miles away, the furthest about 600.

I wonder how the projected future carbon footprint of the infant one of the women in the Daily Mail article aborted in order to "protect the planet" compares to that of deadheading (flying an empty aircraft with no passengers --j) a fleet of jets from Bali to Jakarta and back again?
Click to expand...

Maybe they should have it in Halifax or Gander. These are pics from Halifax airport on 9/11 after all flights were diverted there. Looks like they have plenty of room for parking aircraft.

0188171.jpg
0204716.jpg


Gander, from that same day ...

0191693.jpg
0191691.jpg


SOURCE AND ATTRIBUTION
 
Once again, pursuant to the thread premise, good news = less news about the war.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2007/fax20071204.asp

MRC researchers examined all 354 Iraq war stories that aired on the big three evening newscasts from September 1 through November 30, including weekends. That figure includes 234 field reports, plus 120 short headline items read by the news anchor.

■ Vanishing War. Back in September, as reporters voiced skepticism of General Petraeus’ progress report, the networks aired a total of 178 Iraq stories, or just under two per network per night. (See chart.) About one-fourth of those stories (42) were filed from Iraq itself, with most of the rest originating in Washington.

In October, TV’s war news fell by about 40 percent, to 108 stories, with the number of reports filed from Iraq itself falling to just 20, or less than one-fifth of all Iraq stories. By November, the networks aired a mere 68 stories, with only eleven (16%) actually from the war zone itself.
Click to expand...
chart1204.jpg
 
Why is that C-5 parked at Gander? Military Aircraft were, supposedly, given permission to use US airspace. :confused:
 
Gato_Solo said:
Why is that C-5 parked at Gander? Military Aircraft were, supposedly, given permission to use US airspace. :confused:
Click to expand...

As I recall, all flights from overseas regardless of type were ordered grounded at the beginning. If the C-5 was coming in from Europe or whatever they would have been included in the grounding order.

Pretty impressive pictures, huh?

I notice that Gander was able to find more school buses than Mayor Nagin was able to do.
 
jimpeel said:
Once again, pursuant to the thread premise, good news = less news about the war.

yeah yea either that or the shit's gotten boring. you can only play the same revord so many times.

or, perhaps, there's no real link between the two. you weren't a stats major were ya?:nerd:
Click to expand...
 
2minkey said:
yeah yea either that or the shit's gotten boring. you can only play the same revord so many times.

or, perhaps, there's no real link between the two. you weren't a stats major were ya?:nerd:
Click to expand...

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. :D

One question, though...if the war has gotten so boring, then why do I still see negative reports? I've been here 5 times, so far, and I rarely, if ever, see anything positive we've done, or are doing. As soon as a negative happens, however, its front'page news...
 
2minkey said:
jimpeel said:
Once again, pursuant to the thread premise, good news = less news about the war.
Click to expand...

yeah yea either that or the shit's gotten boring. you can only play the same revord so many times.

or, perhaps, there's no real link between the two. you weren't a stats major were ya?:nerd:
Click to expand...

Why don't you save that post just in case there is a reversal of fortunes in Iraq. It will save you time in thinking up something snappy to say; and with a few quick edits who knows what you might come up with.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. :D

One question, though...if the war has gotten so boring, then why do I still see negative reports? I've been here 5 times, so far, and I rarely, if ever, see anything positive we've done, or are doing. As soon as a negative happens, however, its front'page news...
Click to expand...

Thus the premise of the thread. You won't hear anything good, just the bad. If anything good does happen, it is suppressed in the U.S.; and we then have to go to foreign sources or media outlets which dwell on the unwillingness of the MSM to print positive stories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top