Comments on: Democrats’ Gas Solution; More Taxes

By: gasoline profits vs taxes

gasoline profits vs taxes — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:26:40 +0000

[...] on to consumers but on the gasoline that consumers buy. Congress is considering raising the tax byhttp://www.onebigdog.net/democrats-gas-solution-more-taxes/Carbon Tax Center ? We Explain Gasoline Demand including why it??s … … via socially determined [...]

By: Bunny Colvin

Bunny Colvin — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 04:35:41 +0000

Yo Scott…you giving up on this one?

Maybe politics just aint your thing, dog.

By: Bunny Colvin

Bunny Colvin — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:33:14 +0000

Teh…great, your’re back.

The photos I included in my comments weren’t “photoshopped”. I don’t even know how to “photoshop”. Regardless, my point was that oil rigs are clearly visable off the coasts of several southern Californa towns. And it doesn’t require superhuman vision to see them from the beach.

This is the last proof I’ll offer of the platforms existence. (It’s from Aera Energy’s website. They’re the company that operates the rig). “Reason”’s next comment may accuse me of creating the website itself, but I think more REASONable readers will take my word for it…http://www.aeraenergy.com/whoweare/HuntingtonBeach.htm

As noted on the webpage, the platform is 1.3 miles off the coast of Huntington Beach. Evidently too far for Scottie’s imaginary SoCal friend to see it, but easy to spot by 99.9999999% of beachgoers not suffering from blindness.

Where is Scottie anyway? Hasn’t had much to say since I proved him a liar.

Bunny Colvins last blog post..T. Boone Pickens- Who is this guy on my T.V. every 10 minutes?

By: Reason

Reason — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:50:43 +0000

Bunny that photo could be anywhere.

Take this one for example i could tell you this was off the coast of MD and you can see it from Ocean City.

http://nickambrose.com/diving/photos/linked-to/oil-rigs-aug-5-2007/small/oil-rigs-aug-5-2007-1.jpg

Doesn’t make it true, and since there are no identifying landmarks (and with photoshop I could drop a rig right next to the Statue of Liberty) it makes it hard to use a picture as any kind of evidence.

By: Bunny Colvin

Bunny Colvin — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:41:28 +0000

Oh, how about “religious groups” who wish to exclude minorities and people with disabilites because they have a “religious conviction” that compels them to do so? Are you claiming no such groups exist? Maybe not on your street, but I’m telling you they’re out there.

Any couple that hires a Muslim butcher (lotta those around) and then wants him to butcher a pig should be denied the right to marry and reproduce. Stupidity is very often hereditary.

Bunny Colvins last blog post..Lost In Translation?…Nope!

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:45:12 +0000

Some of them are protected. Those items are illegal so they should not be allowed to use them. Satanic worshipers believe in human sacrifice and that religion is recognized in this country. We cannot allow them to kill just because it is their religion.

There is a difference between illegal activity and legal activity.

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:42:53 +0000

No, there is no First Amendment protection for that. People who have a religious conviction against homosexuality should be protected because the government can not interfere in their religious beliefs.

Suppose a couple was having a wedding reception and hired a Muslim butcher to cater it and then wanted a pig cooked and butchered. Could the government force the Muslim to mess with the pig? Same thing for people who believe that homosexuality is a sin and violates their religion.

People with disabilities and minorities do not fall in that category.

By: Bunny Colvin

Bunny Colvin — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:41:13 +0000

Better yet, should religious group that use drugs on your "bad" list (rastafarians/marijuana or some native american groups/peyote) in their ceremonies be protected from prosecution under the First Amendment? Bunny Colvins last blog post..Lost In Translation?…Nope!

By: Bunny Colvin

Bunny Colvin — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:36:38 +0000

How about businesses that do not want to do work for minorities or people with disabilities? First Amendment protect them? Bunny Colvins last blog post..Lost In Translation?…Nope!

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:28:29 +0000

I am not worried about those things that can or cannot kill me. I do have a right to speak about any subject I find objectionable. Taxes certainly affect me more than an oil spill because I can count on taxes happening.

I believe abortion to be murder so I have a right to speak about it and there is a difference between gay rights (they already have rights without labeling them gay rights). I don’t believe they should be allowed to push their agenda on the majority that does not favor it. I also believe that if a business does not want to do work for gay people for religious reasons then they should be protected by the First Amendment.