Warriors on the side of the righteous!

Coach Z wrote

Would you prefer to get our oil from a country in Iran that calls us the great satan?  Would you rather trust a U.S. Based company to responsibly drill for energy compared to Chinese or Russian companies that will get thier oil regardless of the consequences?

Energy independence is what this country needs not making crappy deals with a country that supports terrorism and can't be trusted with nukes

How about solar?

Coach Z wrote

Would you prefer to get our oil from a country in Iran that calls us the great satan?  Would you rather trust a U.S. Based company to responsibly drill for energy compared to Chinese or Russian companies that will get thier oil regardless of the consequences?Energy independence is what this country needs not making crappy deals with a country that supports terrorism and can't be trusted with nukes

They say gas prices will be below $2.00 a gallon after the Iran oil comes online. I think they should use that opportunity to raise the gas tax and finally repair the failing infrastructure in this country.

Coach Z wrote

the great satan

Yea let's stick with our friends the Saudis, Venezuela and Russia for our oil.

Harvey wrote

Yea let's stick with our friends the Saudis, Venezuela and Russia for our oil.

How about our new friends in Iraq that murder journalists and throw gay men off of rooftops?

Harvey wrote

Coach Z wrote

the great satan

Yea let's stick with our friends the Saudis, Venezuela and Russia for our oil.

I said U.S. Energy independence but in the sprit of inclusiveness I'll add in our friends in the Hinterlands north of us.  Pass the keystone, take the gloves off the oil industry and drill baby drill.  Tax the crap out of oil from "bad" countries to make the green folks happy.   We don't need em.  We can then tell everyone in the Middle East to go to heck.

I hear ya, bro. I'd like to point out that I'm sure there are some hard working sum-bitches on that oil rig. Tax paying AMericans who depend on that job to feed their families.


Retrain them Americans to work on alternative energy, build a new grid, insulate every home on the planet. The new energy economy is creating mega jobs!

ml242 wrote

Coach Z wrote

Would you prefer to get our oil from a country in Iran that calls us the great satan?  Would you rather trust a U.S. Based company to responsibly drill for energy compared to Chinese or Russian companies that will get thier oil regardless of the consequences?

Energy independence is what this country needs not making crappy deals with a country that supports terrorism and can't be trusted with nukes

How about solar?

Coach could possibly be the modern day Archie Bunker!!!

nepa wrote

PeeTex wrote

More like Eco-terrorists

Interesting choice of words.  Terrorism is my opinion implies violence or destruction.  What type of violence or destruction do we see with this protest?  

These people are not terrorists. They are exercising their constitutional rights.

Their actions on the bridge are trespassing and small recreational boats must stay clear of large commercial boats in shipping channels so they are operating recklessly. These are not peaceful protestors, they are breaking the law as greenpeace so often does. I am perfectly fine with them walking up and down the shore of the channel waving signs and yelling what ever they want but I am not OK with law breakers. The coastguard will wait them out and then the ship will pass.

This in entire thread is pretty offensive to say these criminals are somehow righteous.  They should arrested.  Free speech is fine but they are violating the rights of the ships owners and employees to to make a living.  Something the protesters most likely don't know anything about.  

Used to be against the law for slaves to run away. That don't make it wrong

Coach Z wrote

This in entire thread is pretty offensive to say these criminals are somehow righteous.  They should arrested.  Free speech is fine but they are violating the rights of the ships owners and employees to to make a living.  Something the protesters most likely don't know anything about.

And how do you feel about Cliven Bundy?

PeeTex wrote

nepa wrote

PeeTex wrote

More like Eco-terrorists

Interesting choice of words.  Terrorism is my opinion implies violence or destruction.  What type of violence or destruction do we see with this protest?  

These people are not terrorists. They are exercising their constitutional rights.

Their actions on the bridge are trespassing and small recreational boats must stay clear of large commercial boats in shipping channels so they are operating recklessly. These are not peaceful protestors, they are breaking the law as greenpeace so often does. I am perfectly fine with them walking up and down the shore of the channel waving signs and yelling what ever they want but I am not OK with law breakers. The coastguard will wait them out and then the ship will pass.

Understood.  That wasn't my point.  Are trespassing and reckless behavior now a form of terrorism?  I suppose they could have just quietly gathered on the shore held up some signs and sang Kum-bah-yah for a few hours.  That would have made a real impact.   

He should be arrested as well.

^ Agree that Bundy should be arrested, just wondering why people who choose to protest by pointing loaded weapons at government representatives are given a free pass while people protesting police brutality are met with tear gas and people protesting to save the environment are called "terrorists"

 The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.

If the ship had passed sticking the protestors that would have been a violent act against property so the implied threat of violance was there.

PeeTex wrote

If the ship had passed sticking the protestors that would have been a violent act against property so the implied threat of violance was there.

In that case, the ship would have done the violence to the protesters, who were simply dangling about from ropes. Would that not then make the ship and crew terrorists?

Sick Bird Rider wrote

PeeTex wrote

If the ship had passed sticking the protestors that would have been a violent act against property so the implied threat of violance was there.

In that case, the ship would have done the violence to the protesters, who were simply dangling about from ropes. Would that not then make the ship and crew terrorists?

Possibly - in reality, terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. During WWII what the French resistance did would have been considered terrorism, it just all depends on which side of the fight you are on. My comment was tongue-in-cheek.

Once I heard the president of the United States define a terrorist as "someone who kills innocent civilians for political aims." It was (sadly) funny considering the source.

It's actually a reasonable definition, but it casts a wide net.

PeeTex wrote

My comment was tongue-in-cheek.

Mine too. When will they invent the tongue-in-cheek font?