Originally posted by Sukhoi29SU
Why don't you post the comment you made where you feel you 'proved' that Palin's use of the word hydrocarbons was mis-used and out of context.
I do agree that perhaps using "hydrocarbon emissions" would have been a better choice of words- but I do not feel that it was used out of context. It was definitely relevant to her argument.
I don't like you.
quote:
Originally posted by RJT
And for the record, this is what she said:
quote:
So even in dealing with climate change, it's all the more reason that we have an "all of the above" approach, tapping into alternative sources of energy and conserving fuel, conserving our petroleum products and our hydrocarbons so that we can clean up this planet and deal with climate change.
"Conserving our hydrocarbons" does not compute. Any idiot who understands what a hydrocarbon is should get that, unfortunately I'm certain there are many "any idiots."
Again, "conserving our hydrocarbons" doesn't make any sense, what-so-ever - at least not in any meaningful way, and is generally irrelevant to the rest of what she was talking about.
And I like that you, and people like you, don't like me. :)
Edit: And that is in fact a direct ing quote from the transcript of the debate - just like it was the night I posted it.
Clovis
quote:
Originally posted by Sukhoi29SU
The fact of the matter remains that you have no clue if there was a link between Iraq and 9/11 or not.
And neither do you.
delobbo
nice debate recap at the end. :)
RJT
quote:
Originally posted by delobbo
nice debate recap at the end. :)
ing brilliant. :stongue:
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by Sukhoi29SU
The fact of the matter is: you don't ing know. How can you claim that Al-Qaeda and Saddam despised each other? Where are you getting your information? Instead of being so easily persuaded, why not open your mind to the possibility that what you've read or seen on the news might not be accurate?
Please. I'm not getting that information from the news.
In fact, I try to get as little information as possible from news sources like "NewsMax" because reporters don't know anything about foreign policy and they always have an agenda to push.
I despise it when people use credentials in online arguments, but to cut this real short, I'm basing my statement on conversations with two members of the 9/11 Commission - one that I worked for, and another that I've had as a professor.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by Sukhoi29SU
You know, there are legitimate links and documentation at the bottom of that page. And for every one you try and discredit, I can find another one. The fact of the matter remains that you have no clue if there was a link between Iraq and 9/11 or not.
Wait, so is your argument that we went to war because there was a link between Iraq and 9/11... or that we went to war with a country because we couldn't definitely say that there was a 100% chance they weren't kinda-sorta linked to 9/11...
