BREAKING NEWS!!! EXXON Teaming up with Boeing!!!

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

A rocket fueled by raw crude!!! No need to refine!!! Brilliant!!!

www.exxonenergy.com

[FORD]

Didn't see that story there at all, but what I did see made me vomit.

Like the bottom of the page where it says "Copyrighteous 2006 Exxon Mobil"

Copyrighteous??

As if there is anything RIGHTEOUS about being lying thieving criminals who are destroying this nation's economy??

Satan's got a 666 gallon drum of boiling oil with your name on it waiting down in Hell, you motherfuckers.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

I LOVELOVELOVE THESE GUYS!!!

"Because we take our profits seriously, we take our campaign contributions seriously".

[ELVIS]

I like this quote from Citizenship at ExxonMobil...



We have long enjoyed a close relationship with Congress, successfully lobbying to gain commercial access to federal lands as well as the rollback of several Environmental Protection Agency initiatives deemed unfriendly to our oil interests.


:elvis:

[FORD]

It's like PNAC.... they openly brag about their crimes and yet so many remain BLIND to it :(

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by FORD
Didn't see that story there at all, but what I did see made me vomit.

Like the bottom of the page where it says "Copyrighteous 2006 Exxon Mobil"

Copyrighteous??

As if there is anything RIGHTEOUS about being lying thieving criminals who are destroying this nation's economy??

Satan's got a 666 gallon drum of boiling oil with your name on it waiting down in Hell, you motherfuckers.

Just wondering what they lied about and how arfe they destroying the economy. If you were smart enough you would buy gas futures or short retail stocks who are getting squeezed by the higher prices and whose earnings are being missed on wall street. The problem is not these companies it is the fact that you are not smart enough to make money in this environment. IT is called capitalism. Buy some puts in the S&P 500 like I did and you would have made some money, then possibly you would not be crying about the mean oil companies.

[FORD]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
Just wondering what they lied about

Well, just off the top of my head....

1) Supply & demand. They lie about that constantly and use it as an excuse for price gouging.

2) Refining capacity - They claim that "liberal environmentalists" prevent them from building more refineries when the fact is that the sons of bitches have CLOSED dozens of existing refineries.

3) They claim no political involvement at all, yet the artificial gas prices are somehow always higher in the "blue" states.

and how arfe they destroying the economy.

Because everything that requires shipping is transported by truck, train, boat or airplane, the costs of all those things rise with the greedy price gouging. And since wages obviously haven't kept up with this greed, that means working families are losing money rapidly. And the loss of that money means they will spend less, because disposable income no longer exists.

If you were smart enough you would buy gas futures or short retail stocks who are getting squeezed by the higher prices and whose earnings are being missed on wall street. The problem is not these companies it is the fact that you are not smart enough to make money in this environment. IT is called capitalism. Buy some puts in the S&P 500 like I did and you would have made some money, then possibly you would not be crying about the mean oil companies.

So you think what those "unknown persons" who purchased all those United Airlines put options the first week of September 2001 did was perfectly acceptable?

I don't. I think those people obviously had prior knowledge that a crime was about to be committed.

Didn't they just give Zacarias Moussoui a life sentence for that?

Maybe that's what they should do to a few oil company executives?

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

I don't know what the fuck you;re talking about in the last bit of that post FORD. You totally changed the subject.

All I know is that that is one brilliant website.

[Guitar Shark]

What do you call a t-shirt worn by a parrot?

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

I just sent them correspondence asking them about the merger with Boeing. They wrote back, saying that it should be a very exciting, profitable business acquisition, but they'll have to close most of the Boeing facilites in the Northwest.

[Guitar Shark]

Good, I'm sick of all the Boeing traffic.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Here's a piece of correspondence an associate sent to the good people who keep this country running:

SIR -

Is it true that Exxon is teaming up with Boeing to make a rocket
fueled by raw crude, no need to refine?

I feel the Exxon Energy site is quite informative, though perhaps a halfshade too strident. Also, I was surprised to hear so little about the company's opinion on global warming, considering Halliburton's recent technological innovations.

Regards,
An Informed Citizen

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Below, the response:

I couldn't have said it better myself. Proof that TRUE patriots think alike.

Dear SIR,

Indeed, we are making a rocket that can use crude. That way we can assemble and fire missiles where ever there are wells. Makes sense, right?

As for global warming, that is an old wive's tale as far as we are
concerned. Environmentalist snake oil, hocus-pocus, smoke and
mirrors, etc.

I hope I have been helpful.

Yours,

Legrand Goldenrod
Public Interfacer
ExxonEnergy

[ELVIS]

There's no way to prove global warming...

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
There's no way to prove global warming...

Ummmm.... didn't that proof arrive in your own back yard last year?

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by FORD
Ummmm.... didn't that proof arrive in your own back yard last year?

I thought you said the hurricane was George Bush's fault. Now you're blaming global warming? Pfft. Get your story straight. ;)

[ELVIS]

No, and It's going to be bad this year, I predict...



Global warming or global cooling? (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1034077.cms)

Almost as soon as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming came into effect on February 15, Kashmir suffered the highest snowfall in three decades with over 150 killed, and Mumbai recorded the lowest temperature in 40 years. Had temperatures been the highest for decades, newspapers would have declared this was proof of global warming. But whenever temperatures drop, the press keeps quiet.

Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed.

A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!

In the media, disaster is news, and its absence is not. This principle has been exploited so skillfully by ecological scare-mongers that it is now regarded as politically incorrect, even unscientific, to denounce global warming hysteria as unproven speculation.

Meteorologists are a standing joke for getting predictions wrong even a few days ahead. The same jokers are being taken seriously when they use computer models to predict the weather 100 years hence.

The models have not been tested for reliability over 100 years, or even 20 years. Different models yield variations in warming of 400%, which means they are statistically meaningless.

Wassily Leontief, Nobel prize winner for modeling, said this about the limits of models. "We move from more or less plausible but really arbitrary assumptions, to elegantly demonstrated but irrelevant conclusions." Exactly. Assume continued warming as in the last three decades, and you get a warming disaster. Assume more episodes of global cooling, and you get a cooling disaster.

In his latest best seller State of Fear, Michael Crichton does a devastating expose of the way ecological groups have tweaked data and facts to create mass hysteria. He points out that we know astonishingly little about the environment. All sides make exaggerated claims.

We know that atmospheric carbon is increasing. We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that started in 1850 at the end of what is called the Little Ice Age. It is scientifically impossible to prove whether the subsequent warming is natural or man-made.

Greens say, rightly, that the best scientific assessment today is that global warming is occurring. Yet never in history have scientists accurately predicted what will happen 100 years later. A century ago no scientists predicted the internet, microwave ovens, TV, nuclear explosions or antibiotics. It is impossible, even stupid, to predict the distant future.

That scientific truth is rarely mentioned. Why? Because the global warming movement has now become a multi-billion dollar enterprise with thousands of jobs and millions in funding for NGOs and think-tanks, top jobs and prizes for scientists, and huge media coverage for predictions of disaster.

The vested interests in the global warming theory are now as strong, rich and politically influential as the biggest multinationals. It is no co-incidence, says Crichton, that so many scientists sceptical of global warming are retired professors: they have no need to chase research grants and chairs.

I have long been an agnostic on global warming: the evidence is ambiguous. But I almost became a convert when Greenpeace publicised photos showing the disastrously rapid retreat of the Upsala Glacier in Argentina. How disastrous, I thought, if this was the coming fate of all glaciers.

Then last Christmas, I went on vacation to Lake Argentina. The Upsala glacier and six other glaciers descend from the South Andean icefield into the lake. I was astounded to discover that while the Upsala glacier had retreated rapidly, the other glaciers showed little movement, and one had advanced across the lake into the Magellan peninsula. If in the same area some glaciers advance and others retreat, the cause is clearly not global warming but local micro-conditions.

Yet the Greenpeace photos gave the impression that glaciers in general were in rapid retreat. It was a con job, a dishonest effort to mislead. From the same icefield, another major glacier spilling into Chile has grown 60% in volume.

Greenpeace and other ecological groups have well-intentioned people with high ideals. But as crusaders they want to win by any means, honest or not. I do not like being taken for a ride, by idealists or anyone else.

We need impartial research, funded neither by MNCs, governmental groups or NGOs with private agendas. And the media needs to stop highlighting disaster scares and ignoring exposes of the scares.



:elvis:

[FORD]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I thought you said the hurricane was George Bush's fault. Now you're blaming global warming? Pfft. Get your story straight. ;)

The pathetic lack of a response to the disaster was George Bush's fault.

But the blatantly anti-environmental policies of the BCE have definitely contributed to global warming, so in that sense the Chimp IS to blame for last year's hurricane season starting earlier, lasting longer and being far more severe than normal.

[Guitar Shark]

I knew you were going to say that.

[ELVIS]

So did I...

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by FORD
The pathetic lack of a response to the disaster was George Bush's fault.

But the blatantly anti-environmental policies of the BCE have definitely contributed to global warming, so in that sense the Chimp IS to blame for last year's hurricane season starting earlier, lasting longer and being far more severe than normal.




Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I knew you were going to say that.




Originally posted by ELVIS
So did I...

So did 98% of the worlds geologists.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

As for global warming, I myself have been conducting my own studies since January, and indeed the temperature in my neighborhood has been completely, unquestionably on the rise in the last 5 months.

If somebody doesn't do something soon, the temperature might exceed 80 degrees F before too long...

[ELVIS]

Frightening...

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by FORD
The pathetic lack of a response to the disaster was George Bush's fault.

But the blatantly anti-environmental policies of the BCE have definitely contributed to global warming, so in that sense the Chimp IS to blame for last year's hurricane season starting earlier, lasting longer and being far more severe than normal.

The democratic Mayor and Govoner's lack of a plan had nothing to do with it, it was all the Presidents fault?

[FORD]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
The democratic Mayor and Govoner's lack of a plan had nothing to do with it, it was all the Presidents fault?

Apparently the citizens of New Orleans (or at least those who are left) didn't blame the Mayor.

And for the record, there are no real Democrats in Louisiana.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Okay, just in the last three days alone, the temperature here in NYC has risen by SIX DEGREES.

If this trend continues, then it will be 911 degrees farenheit by November.

[scamper]

Al Gore is causing global warming by flying all over the world in a jet that emits more emissions in one trip than any SUV ever will. Not to mention the fuel he's wasting.

[FORD]

Originally posted by scamper
Al Gore is causing global warming by flying all over the world in a jet that emits more emissions in one trip than any SUV ever will. Not to mention the fuel he's wasting.

That's a presumption on your part. President Gore actually has been known to fly commercial airliners, sadly evidenced by the fact that BCE Reichland Security flunkies actually pulled him aside for selective harrassment in the months following 9-11-01.

So unless you have proof that our legally elected President is using a chartered jet, maybe you shouldn't make such allegations.

Or maybe you should point your finger at the Chimp who will fly a taxpayer funded plane anywhere in the country for a photo op?

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by FORD
legally elected President

:rolleyes:

[ELVIS]

I doesn't add up, GS...

FORD is a smart guy, yet he spews this nonsense...

[diamondD]

The scolding of someone else for making assumptions is hilarious...

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by FORD
President Gore


???

[scamper]

Originally posted by FORD
That's a presumption on your part. President Gore actually has been known to fly commercial airliners, sadly evidenced by the fact that BCE Reichland Security flunkies actually pulled him aside for selective harrassment in the months following 9-11-01.

So unless you have proof that our legally elected President is using a chartered jet, maybe you shouldn't make such allegations.

Or maybe you should point your finger at the Chimp who will fly a taxpayer funded plane anywhere in the country for a photo op?


Read my post again...I never said Gore was flying around in a private jet. "That's a presumption on your part." My point is that anyone who flys commercial or private should not bitch about what other people drive.