Ban Ki-Moon: Darfur Genocide Caused by Global Warming

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:33 pm

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... 1&catnum=0

Climate change behind Darfur killing: UN's Ban

Jun 16 05:27 PM US/Eastern

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the slaughter in Darfur was triggered by global climate change and that more such conflicts may be on the horizon, in an article published Saturday.

"The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change," Ban said in a Washington Post opinion column.

UN statistics showed that rainfall declined some 40 percent over the past two decades, he said, as a rise in Indian Ocean temperatures disrupted monsoons.

"This suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan Africa derives, to some degree, from man-made global warming," the South Korean diplomat wrote.

"It is no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought," Ban said in the Washington daily.

When Darfur's land was rich, he said, black farmers welcomed Arab herders and shared their water, he said.

With the drought, however, farmers fenced in their land to prevent overgrazing.

"For the first time in memory, there was no longer enough food and water for all. Fighting broke out," he said.

A UN peacekeeping force may stop the fighting, he said, and more than two million people may return to rebuilt homes in safe villages.

"But what to do about the essential dilemma: the fact that there's no longer enough good land to go around?"

"Any real solution to Darfur's troubles involves sustained economic development," perhaps using new technologies, genetically modified grains or irrigation, while bettering health, education and sanitation, he said.

Sudan is not the only country with such problems, Ban said, and pointed to Somalia, Ivory Coast and Burkina Faso as African countries with "food and water insecurity."

Khartoum agreed this week to accept 23,000 UN and African Union peacekeepers after four years of fighting, which has killed at least 200,000 people.

Check all that Apply:

[ ] Some dumbfucks will believe anything

[ ] Ban is part of a conspiracy to totally discredit the UN

[ ] Ban the UN

[ ] Dinsdale's contributions will put this thread in the Archives

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:09 pm

Stop the genocide.
Buy a Prius.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:18 pm

Mikey wrote: Buy a Prius.

The least "environmentally-friendly" vehicle in production-btw.

So, there's not enough water and farmland to go around...so they want to take my tax dollars to stop the fighting, thereby defeating Mother Nature's built-in population control?

They want 2 million people to move back to a place that they say can't support those people?

Pure freaking genius.

When there's scarcity, then disease, famine, and violence are inevitible? No way. I'm glad that we could reproduce that experiment, just in case the last few hundred examples were flawed.

I'm not without compassion, but it was inevitible. When scarcity became a real issue 20+ years ago, it was a simple matter of self-imposed reductions in birthrate. Pretty simple how that works. But these people just ain't bright enough to figure out what the problem is.

Sorry, but if the drought and fighting don't get them, they'll figure out a different way to Darwin it up.

Those people are doomed. It's good to be a Northern Euro...walk north and live, or stay behind and die...glad my ancestors made the wise choice.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:06 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Mikey wrote: Buy a Prius.

The least "environmentally-friendly" vehicle in production-btw.

Maybe not as wonderful as some people think (I'm not sure what you're referring to here though), but I'm sure it's quite a bit less "environmentally-unfriendly" than, say, a Ford Excursion or a Cadillac XLR.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:36 pm

Mikey wrote: but I'm sure it's quite a bit less "environmentally-unfriendly" than, say, a Ford Excursion or a Cadillac XLR.

Bullshit.

An extensive study was just completed, which confirms what all the other number-crunchers have said -- that it takes quite a bit more energy/petroleum to build and ship the hybrids than they will ever save in fuel.

But hey -- that place in Upper Mexico where they mine and process the nickel has been cleaned up a little, and it's rumored that there's even a few trees within a ten-mile radius of there...like there was before they started mining/processing the nickel...

Which then goes to a battery manufacturer in China...who uses a boatload of evergy to build them. Then...

It gets shipped to Japan.

Then back to North America(pure genius)...straight outta the nuclear power industry's playbook.

Actually, the study just done by the outfit in Bandon claimed that due to the complete POS construction, combined with recyclability, combined with fuel economy, the Scion becomes the enviro-friendly choice.

And they determined a Hummer was a MUCH more "environmentally friendly" vehicle than the Prius Hybrid...not even close.

Regardless, I'll keep driving my American Iron, to take a load off Darwin for a change. It's the least I can do, considering how much Chucky D has done for my family.

Gas hog = dead nog. Man, is Al gore gonna be piiiiissssssed.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:33 pm

Is that the same study you referred to that says there's no such thing as an intestinal virus, that all repeat ALL gastroenteritis is bacterial in origin?

Like before, I'll wait until you post your source. Like before, I'll probably still be waiting 6 months from now.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:48 pm

Mikey wrote: Like before, I'll wait until you post your source. Like before, I'll probably still be waiting 6 months from now.

I guess you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think.

Since you were so interested in sources, it would have taken you less time to put "bandon" and Hybrid Hummer" into Google than it did to cement your idiocy.

http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

They have links to other articles.

There's dozens of sources for the same information. Then again, anyone who has cracked a newspaper in the last couple of years should regard the hybrid fallacy as "common knowledge."

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 12:02 am

Gas hog = dead nog.

bwa

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 12:14 am

So you've posted a link to a 450 page report. Oh, and it has links to "other articles". Impressive.

Show me where is says that a Hummer is more "environmentally friendly" than a Prius.

I'm not a big fan of hybrids, but you're completely full of shit and it's quite obvious to anybody with a functioning brain.

Maybe you should try googling "JD Power" (an outfit that at least some people have heard of) and "automotive environmental index". Here's what you might see....

Somehow it doesn't surprise me to see Hummer near the bottom.

For some reason the Hummer got left out of the top 30. Ponderous.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 12:25 am

I notice a lack of any sort of link to the methodology...:SHOCKER:, coming from the "where's the link" guy.

You asked for a link. I provided one. I recommended a Google search, before you clowned yourself any further.

Your response basically boiled down to "it's too long."

Gee, a study that explains methodology and gives figures to back their claims is...long?

Man, who woulda thunk it?

I could link up a news article that gives a synopsis of the study, but what's the point? It has some big words, rendering it useless to Mikey.

I will cite a paragraph from it, though --

"Spinella did not stop there in his energy consumption calculations. He looked at 3,000 other factors, like how much energy was consumed by workers commuting to the factory.[/quote]

It also points out that hybrids support the largest producer of sulfur dioxide in North America...there is that.

But I'm sure JD Powers' thoughts on the matter were equally comprehensive.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 1:05 am

He's definitely covering up for someone with regional interests, it's just up to everyone to decide who for.

Either the Islamofascist caliphate, or the US imperialist ZioNazis.

Givin that he's South Korean, who have a long history of bending over and capitulating to every smooth talking stranger (or otherwise) that waltzes into town, I vote USImperialistZioNazi.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 1:18 am

I prefer English, thanks.

The president of Sudan said Jewish groups are lying about violence in Darfur to raise money for Israel.

Speaking Tuesday at the U.N. General Assembly, Omar Hassan al-Bashir said reports of deaths and refugees in Darfur are “fictions,” and that those “who made the publicity, who mobilized the people, invariably, are Jewish organizations.”

The U.S. Jewish community has taken the lead in organizing against the mass violence in Darfur, but has been led by the American Jewish World Service, which does not raise funds for Israel.

Bashir’s comments came the same day President Bush denounced government-sponsored violence in Darfur and named Andrew Natsios as his special envoy to the region.

link location

From Jimmy Carter:

“The people in Sudan want to resolve the conflict. The biggest obstacle is US government policy. The US is committed to overthrowing the government in Khartoum. Any sort of peace effort is aborted, basically by policies of the United States...Instead of working for peace in Sudan, the US government has basically promoted a continuation of the war."

Web Page Name

Clash of civilisations, eh?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 1:21 am

Dinsdale wrote:
"Spinella did not stop there in his energy consumption calculations. He looked at 3,000 other factors, like how much energy was consumed by workers commuting to the factory.

Wow. He looked at 3,000 factors. Impressive. Yeah, that goes a long way in explaining the methodology...imbecile.

You still haven't quoted any part of your study that says a Hummer is more "environmentally friendly" - by any methodology or measure - than a Prius. I wonder why. Maybe because you can't.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 1:38 am

You're almost as big a fucking retard as Phibes...almost.

He;s apparently cracked about as many newspapers in the last few months as you have.

And wow, you sure have me pegged -- I can quote a portion of said article, but obviously don't have the rest.

Ohhh, you are a clever one, Mikey.

Oh, did I say "clever"? I meant "fucking idiot."

Yeah, buddy...I just made that shit up out of thin air. And then, I made up the name of an author of a study(oh, wait -- Spinella is considered the "auto research guru" in the industry). I made up a fictional location where the research company is located, too. And then, I very quickly Fraudo'ed up a webpage, cranked out 450 pages of fictional study, so I could cover my ass.

Mikey -- do you even realize how fucking stupid you look?

What's even funnier, is that you always act this way when your "I'm Mikey, I come to this board to pretend like I'm intelligent" persona gets shot down by what many would consider "common knowledge."

Dude -- the hybrid fallacy was exposed a long time ago. Goes a long way to explaining the remarkable plummet of hybrid sales.

And just because you...the hero of your own tiny little world was unaware of this...you're actually going to try and argue against it?

OK...THAT'S funny.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 1:58 am

Ya'know, I generally have respect for Carter -- he uses his celebrity to raise awareness, and tries to do good...whether I agree with him or not, I like that's he's an activist.

And sure, he may know more about the inner-workings of the US policy, and it's æffect on Sudan than I...

But it sure seems like the Chinese are the ones being some serious shitheads on this one.

The US doesn't even do business with Sudan. But the Chinese sure do. They even supply the weapons that the genocide is comitted with.

I blame very bad US foreign policy for many of the world's problems...because it's true. But in this case...

I just don't see how those dots get connected to anywhere but China. It's not like the US has monopolized shitty foreign policy...we're just the best at it.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 2:58 am

I didn't say I agreed with him... I just dig the fact he thinks he's doing good, and is willing to take mass shit to do what he thinks is right.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 2:59 am

Dinsdale wrote:

And wow, you sure have me pegged -- I can quote a portion of said article, but obviously don't have the rest.

You're so transparent it's almost funny. If there was anything at all in that study to back up you claim that Hummers are more "environmentally friendly" than a Prius, you'd post it. All your usual spinning and bluster do absolutely nothing to cover up the fact that you have exactly nothing.

Yeah, you make so, so much sense. "Here's a study that absolutely proves what I'm saying, but I'm going to quote a different part of it, because what I'm saying is common knowledge. The fact that I can quote a completely irrelevant passage makes me right, and you know it." If the fact that Hummers are "environmentally friendly" then, yeah, I guess I missed out on common knowledge. At least your kind. Fucking moron.

So, why don't you try and explain the "hybrid fallacy" to me, since you seem to think that I don't get it. Does the fact that they're not worth the extra $$ they cost make them "environmentally unfriendly"? Maybe in your world, but in mine those are two different issues. Hummers are comparatively cheap, right? And oh, so clean too.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:11 am

Mikey wrote:Does the fact that they're not worth the extra $$ they cost make them "environmentally unfriendly"?

OK, see if you can follow along...

It takes more energy to build a hybrid than is saved by driving one.

I explained that earlier. If you're unaware of this, then you're not the well-informed guy you think you are.

And you're apparently unaware of the environmental devastation that nickel mining creates. I also explained this.

And how much fuel is burned by the people driving to the nickel processing plant?

How much fuel was burned when the nickel was shipped across the ocean?

How much fuel does it take to recycle/dispose of the spent batteries?

How much extra fuel/energy is used making an additonal electric motor?

How much fuel does a hybrid save over a regular gas model? (Hint: According to hybrid owners, the correct answer is "about none.")

How long does Toyota themselves claim a Prius Hybris will be on the road?(Hint: about 110,000 miles, according to Toyota...so how much energy is used building its replacement?)

I could continue, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're at least smart enough that the light has come on by now.

Yup, it's a page straight outta the nuclear power industry playbook -- if you look at only one statistic, it sounds great. Look at the hidden costs, and it's a joke.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:13 am

mvscal wrote:Making their batteries generates real pollution not fake, imaginary pollution (CO2).

I'd RACK you for being smarter than Mikey, but then I'd be racking Cicero and XXXKC, too.

NOTHING grew within miles of the Canuck nickel plant for decades...NOTHING. It was lush before they started processing nickel there.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:14 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Mikey wrote:Does the fact that they're not worth the extra $$ they cost make them "environmentally unfriendly"?
OK, see if you can follow along...

It takes more energy to build a hybrid than is saved by driving one.

I explained that earlier. If you're unaware of this, then you're not the well-informed guy you think you are.

And you're apparently unaware of the environmental devastation that nickel mining creates. I also explained this.

And how much fuel is burned by the people driving to the nickel processing plant?

How much fuel was burned when the nickel was shipped across the ocean?

How much fuel does it take to recycle/dispose of the spent batteries?

How much extra fuel/energy is used making an additonal electric motor?

How much fuel does a hybrid save over a regular gas model? (Hint: According to hybrid owners, the correct answer is "about none.")

How long does Toyota themselves claim a Prius Hybris will be on the road?(Hint: about 110,000 miles, according to Toyota...so how much energy is used building its replacement?)

I could continue, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're at least smart enough that the light has come on by now.

Yup, it's a page straight outta the nuclear power industry playbook -- if you look at only one statistic, it sounds great. Look at the hidden costs, and it's a joke.

You ask a lot of good question. You obviously don't know the answers, or you'd provide them. Just because you "think" you know something, doesn't mean you know it. In your case this is painfully obvious.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:34 am

Mikey wrote:You ask a lot of good question. You obviously don't know the answers, or you'd provide them. Just because you "think" you know something, doesn't mean you know it. In your case this is painfully obvious.

Yes, I do.

See, it would take me a looooong time to compile such information, and there's not much in it for me to spend that much time on something I have no profesional motive to do. So, I read studies from people who have crunched the numbers. Then, if I see different accounts, and they all have the same conclusion, I generally accept the numbers as reasonably factual.

See how that works?

And I even shared the source of some of that knowledge with you...to little avail.

Everyone makes a choice in life -- to be learned, or to be ignorant. I see you chose poorly. You'd rather argue the incorrect side of an issue than to actually learn something about it. You didn't need to take my word -- it was set before you, yet you CHOSE to remain ignorant...

Ponderous.

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:09 am

mvscal wrote:
Mikey wrote:Does the fact that they're not worth the extra $$ they cost make them "environmentally unfriendly"?
Making their batteries generates real pollution not fake, imaginary pollution (CO2).

If Bush could find a way to make the batteries on Venus, his poll numbers would skyrocket.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:21 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Mikey wrote:You ask a lot of good question. You obviously don't know the answers, or you'd provide them. Just because you "think" you know something, doesn't mean you know it. In your case this is painfully obvious.

Yes, I do.

See, it would take me a looooong time to compile such information, and there's not much in it for me to spend that much time on something I have no profesional motive to do. So, I read studies from people who have crunched the numbers. Then, if I see different accounts, and they all have the same conclusion, I generally accept the numbers as reasonably factual.

See how that works?

And I even shared the source of some of that knowledge with you...to little avail.

Everyone makes a choice in life -- to be learned, or to be ignorant. I see you chose poorly. You'd rather argue the incorrect side of an issue than to actually learn something about it. You didn't need to take my word -- it was set before you, yet you CHOSE to remain ignorant...

Ponderous.

You didn't "share" anything. It's a good thing you never went to college or had to write any kind of expository paper. Because normally, when you present a reference as evidence or substantiation of a claim, you're supposed to provide a quote, a table or figures from the reference that specifically pertain to your claim. You have failed miserably in that aspect, providing only a passage that the author used 3000 sources or something like that, and we're supposed to take your word for it that you read the study and the author's conslusions are what you say they are. If his conclusions include the fact that a Prius is worse for the environment than a Hummer, why can't you come up with something, anything from the study to back up your claim? The only conclusion that any logical person can reach is that there is nothing like that in the study, or you would point it out.

By your logic, I could find a quote that says every time somebody says that fairies don't exist another fairy dies, and claim that by quoting that I've proven that elephants can fly. Maybe in your world that logic works, but not in mine.

I never claimed that hybrid cars are completely benign. After all, they run on gas and carry huge batteries. I never made that claim, but you DID claim that they are worse for the environment than Hummers. Guess what, Hummers burn about 4 to 5 times the gas of a Prius, and have big lead acid batteries in them along with a lot of other metal, plastic and other shit. I challenged you to provide any evidence at all in the form of a quote or data of any kind and you couldn't. You can't. You sure are willing to go to a lot of time and effort to obscure the fact that you're completely full of shit.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 7:02 am

Ohhhh okay, Mikey.

But seriously...you decided that "well...Hummers have lead acid batteries" was your best defense here?

Really?

Since you mentioned "gas," I'll assume you're talking about a Hummer gas model, although most don't burn any gas at all.

OK, time for a visit from the logic fairy...

A replacement lead-acid battery (which may or may not contain a small amount of nickel, depending on manufacturer...and trust me, I've forgotten more about lead-acid batteries than you'll ever know) for a gas Hummer costs $50-70, depending how booyah you go.

A replacement battery for the electric motor on a Prius hybrid goes for around $5000+.

My question for you -- which one requires more processing, and uses more resources to get to the end-product -- the $50 battery(the most recycled product on the planet, by far), or the $5000(NON-RECYCLABLE) battery?

Think hard now...

Then, once you've thought it over, you can get to feeling like a fucking moron for even using that as any sort of argument.

B-b-b-b-but...there's a battery in a gas Hummer, too!

Fucking priceless.

As far as being bad for the environment -- everything we do as humans is bad for the environment. When we burn gasoline, CO2 and water vapor come out of the tailpipe, neither of which are toxic, last time I checked. Sure, there's some very minute amounts of NO, and the NOx family...sure. But there's not enough coming out of an OBD2 vehicle to be of any significance. But...when you start processing the amounts of nickel it takes to make batteries to run electric vehicles, you're talking about massive amounts of sufur dioxide...which last I checked, is toxic. And produces acid rain, which causes all sorts of problems, not the least of which is altering the natural Ph of the surrounding environments.

If you think for one second there's even a non-laughable comparison in the amount of energy consumed and toxic materials created between a gas car and a hybrid, then you are truly an ignorant dumbfuck.

And stop asking me to do what your own common sense has failed miserably in doing. If 50 years on this planet hasn't cured you of your penchant for ignorance, even I can't fix that in a day.

You must be quite the shut-in, if you missed all the furor over the From Dust To Dust report.

Mikey wrote:If his conclusions include the fact that a Prius is worse for the environment than a Hummer, why can't you come up with something, anything from the study to back up your claim?

I posted the entire fucking study(or one of them...there's numerous examples that all say the same thing).

I didn't come up with "anything" from the study...I came up with "everything."

You're just so pissed off that you're wrong/ignorant about something, you're trying every diversionary tactic in the book to pawn that ignorance off on others...and it's not going to work.

Call me all the names you like. Point out that I never went to college(not sure where you got that...I'd love to see one of those "links" you're so fond of...since I've never once discussed my education on this or any other board...matter of fact, I don't recall even mentioning whether I graduated high school or not, much less how many credit hours I have to my name...but go ahead and keep making shit up out of thin air -- most people refer to that tactic as "lying"). Go ahead and create all the diversions that you think will help you save face.

Go ahead and do all of that stuff, Mikey -- at the end of the day, you're still a dumbfuck. And whether I pony up 10,000 links, or zero, the fact will remain -- I'm right, and you're wrong. And that bothers you. Which makes me laugh.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:20 pm

Dinsdale wrote:Waaaaahhhhh!!!
Mikey's kicking my ignorant narcissistic butt again because he actually knows something, so I'll fill up a page and a half with spin, bluster and non sequitur. That should make me look really good.

Nice try anyway, though (not really). For all the volume of bullshit you put out, it's amazing how little of substance ever passes through your keyboard. Are you really this vapid in "real" life?

Since you, for obvious reasons, refuse to post any actual data from your own reference, I'll go ahead and do it...

Your claim about a "non-laughable" comparison doesn't quite hold any water. OK the H3 (pretty much a mid-sized SUV) has a lower (better) rating than the Prius, but the "real" Hummers are quite a bit higher. And tell me, which model's ratings are increasing and which are decreasing?

Also from your reference:

As for Hummer, much of the design, development and manufacturing energy costs are spread across more than just this single model. (One of the original and recent Prius disadvantages, quickly being turned around.)

In addition, the platform, power train and other mechanical components are shared with a variety of other GM products and have a significantly longer post-disposal life in the replacement market. Higher volume of components speeds manufacturing and reduces energy per-unit costs. Add the simplicity of disposing of the Hummer and the entire per-mile cost becomes lower even though the fuel economy is staggeringly worse than Prius.

And as I pointed out in the past, the energy cost per mile is unequivocally going to decline for Prius over time as the technology continues to spread across other models and the disposal/scrap industry learns how to deal with its high-tech materials and components.

The Hummer has the advantage of higher volume, which is gradually disappearing as the hybrid technology matures and spreads. The key word here is "matures". The battery technology and impacts of its manufacture will improve as the technology matures. Add to this the impending introduction of the plug-in hybrid (ever hear of those, genius?) and your blubbering about the "hybrid fallacy" just becomes fertilizer.

Dinsdale wrote:Since you mentioned "gas," I'll assume you're talking about a Hummer gas model, although most don't burn any gas at all.

Interesting. I guess they run on air then? You're probably referring to diesel, but last time I checked that was a petroleum product as well.

Dinsdale wrote:And they determined a Hummer was a MUCH more "environmentally friendly" vehicle than the Prius Hybrid...not even close.

I'm still looking for the place where they determined this. I guess you know it but are still unwilling to share with the rest of the world.

Dinsdale wrote:Sure, there's some very minute amounts of NO, and the NOx family...sure. But there's not enough coming out of an OBD2 vehicle to be of any significance.

No significance? Are you really this stupid? Why do you think they still regulate tailpipe emissioins? And besides NOx, there's SOx, CO, methane and other organic compounds.

BTW, here are the EPAs ratings for regulated (i.e. not including CO2) tailpipe emissions, comparing the Hummer to a Prius. Insignificant difference? Maybe to you.

Hummer

Prius

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:31 pm

As a parent, I would just like to point out that unless you own both a Hummer and a Prius, you can’t possibly understand the issues.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:48 pm

Certainly, folks living in Africa don't drive either kind of vehicle. Their viewpoints on what caused the genocide should be shrugged off entirely

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:17 pm

Dinsdale wrote:

NOTHING grew within miles of the Canuck nickel plant for decades...NOTHING. It was lush before they started processing nickel there.

Chock

Full

of

Jokey

Resets!

RACK!

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:45 am

Mikey wrote:Interesting. I guess they run on air then? You're probably referring to diesel, but last time I checked that was a petroleum product as well.

The rest of your post was just as ignorant as this... this part just made me laugh the most.

During my nearly-decade working in the automotive business, we had a word for people who tried this tack -- we called them "BWAHAHAHA...shut the fuck up, you idiot!"

Uhm..."gas" is an abbreviation for "gasoline." Gasoline and deisel are two very different things, as a teenaged alcohol-fuelled siphoning incident verified quite emphatically.

The tweekers we employ to pump gas here in Oregon can even keep this concept straight, yet for some reason, Mikey can't.

Awesome.

So, now that we're in agreement that a Hummer is more environmentally sound(or the lesser of evils, anyway), how about you take the next leap, and compare a gas Prius to a hybrid Prius? Your ~~stupidity and gullible nature~~ argument pretty much becomes an even bigger laugher than "gas and deisel are the same thing," and "well, Hummers have batteries, too."

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:26 am

Uhhh....no. "Gas" is (still) an abbreviation for gasoline.

That's why, when ordering parts, they ask you "gas or diesel?" They are not interchangable terms, ever(and yes, I know more about the automotive industry than you).

"Deisel" is....uhm....uhm...a winter blend of diesel. Yeah, that's it. I did that on purpose, and it had nothing to do with dyslexai. (As an aside, this shit is getting much worse with age...starting to have a lot of trouble reading sometimes...your salvation may be near, T1B).

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:34 am

Dinsdale wrote:

Uhm..."gas" is an abbreviation for "gasoline." Gasoline and deisel are two very different things, as a teenaged alcohol-fuelled siphoning incident verified quite emphatically.

Believe it or not I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Based on your post that I've copied below, where you claim that most Hummers "don't burn any gas at all", I thought you might be referring to diesel. Because if they don't burn any gas at all and they don't burn diesel, then WTF are they running on...sunlight, or maybe methane produced from the decomposition of your infinite supply of bullshit?

Dinsdale...from some earlier post wrote: Since you mentioned "gas," I'll assume you're talking about a Hummer gas model, although most don't burn any gas at all.

completely discredited U&L tweeker wrote:So, now that we're in agreement that a Hummer is more environmentally sound(or the lesser of evils, anyway), how about you take the next leap, and compare a gas Prius to a hybrid Prius? Your ~~stupidity and gullible nature~~ argument pretty much becomes an even bigger laugher than "gas and deisel are the same thing," and "well, Hummers have batteries, too."

Toyota has never produced a "gas Prius", slappy. Yeah, right you're really current on the modern automobile market. You really should have quit earlier today while nobody was watching. You're looking dumber and dumber with every iodotic post.

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:23 am

I'm like anyone else on this planet -- I'm very moved by world hunger.

I see the same commercials, with those little kids, starving, and very depressed. I watch those kids and I go, 'Fuck, I know the FILM crew could give this kid a sandwich!' There's a director five feet away going, 'DON'T FEED HIM YET! GET THAT SANDWICH OUTTA HERE! IT DOESN'T WORK UNLESS HE LOOKS HUNGRY!!!'

But I'm not trying to make fun of world hunger. Matter of fact, I think I have the answer.

You want to stop world hunger?

Stop sending these people food. Don't send these people another bite, folks.

You want to send them something, you want to help?

Send them U-Hauls. Send them U-Hauls, some luggage, send them a guy out there who says, 'Hey, we been driving out here every day with your food, for, like, the last thirty or forty years, and we were driving out here today across the desert, and it occurred to us that there wouldn't BE world hunger, if you people would LIVE WHERE THE FOOD IS! YOU LIVE IN A DESERT! YOU LIVE IN A FUCKING DESERT! NOTHING GROWS OUT HERE! NOTHING'S GONNA GROW OUT HERE! YOU SEE THIS? HUH? THIS IS SAND. KNOW WHAT IT'S GONNA BE A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW? IT'S GONNA BE SAND! YOU LIVE IN A FUCKING DESERT! GET YOUR STUFF, GET YOUR SHIT, WE'LL MAKE ONE TRIP, WE'LL TAKE YOU TO WHERE THE FOOD IS! WE HAVE DESERTS IN AMERICA -- WE JUST DON'T LIVE IN THEM, ASSHOLES!

War Big Sam