Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Russian on January 31, 2006, 09:09:37 PM
-
The good, the bad and the ugly?
-
i didn't listen to it, i'll wait for the "experts" to tell me what he said and what it means.
-
I heard part, but I expect that it's all the same.
Terror, 911, terror, safety, security, terror, terror, Judge Roberts, terror, terror, Judge Alito, terror, terror, domestic surveillance, terror, terror, 911, terror.
-
We're from the government and we're here to help...
-
You got it wrong Sob.
Here you go:
We're from the government and we're here to help; bend over please, this won't hurt a bit...
-
Didn't see it, but saw that dependence on foreign oil will soon be over... right?
Here's a quick recap on foreign oil:
1973
President Nixon launches Project Independence, with the goal of achieving energy self-sufficiency by 1980. Recalling the Manhattan Project, Nixon declares that American science, technology, and industry can free the United States from dependence on foreign oil.
1975
President Ford urges Congress to cut individual and corporate taxes by $16 billion and to take steps to reduce the national dependence on foreign oil imports.
1979
President Carter announces, "The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s..." "In addition, we needed to immediately begin to develop a long-range strategy to move beyond fossil fuel."
1987
President Reagan's Energy Security Report outlines the Nation's increasing dependence on foreign oil.
1990
President George HW Bush State of the Union address, "...the Congress should, this month, enact measures to increase domestic energy production and energy conservation in order to reduce dependence on foreign oil."
1994
President Clinton states, "...the nation's growing reliance on imports of crude oil and refined petroleum products threaten the nation's security because they increase U.S. vulnerability to oil supply interruptions."
2006
President Bush, according to AP reports, will say, "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology."
-
I gave it a 3. Hard to dance to the beat.
-
I thought it was a good PR speech (I took a 5 minute nap about 30 minutes into it so I might have missed something). Hey, I like the guy and agree with alot of his views anyway so no biggie. Plus I voted for him twice and still feel good about that.
Sidebar news was the great trivializer Sheehan. Guess she was invited by some democrat congressperson and was on the house grounds but was arrested before the speech for refusing to cover up an anti war slogan on the shirt she was wearing. Poor woman...I wonder if I will ever stop having pity for her.
Actually might have been about a 15 minute nap....
-
I should endeavor to bed a black woman. I never have, and life is short.
-
You know... if you turn off the lights, they're all the same color.
-
bag their face; they're all beautiful !
-
edited per self
-
Originally posted by Toad
You got it wrong Sob.
Here you go:
We're from the government and we're here to help; bend over please, this won't hurt a bit...
LOL, I stand corrected. :)
-
It was a decent escape from reality TV.
-
Originally posted by Silat
It was a decent escape from reality TV.
What do you mean? You had your chance to vote him out of the house....
-
Naaa, Lew's side lost, they just haven't accepted it yet :)
-
What side is Lew on...and who won?
-
I love Old Peculiar. Theakston theakston theakston. Here it goes now. Down into my belly.
-
He's a pimp.
And we're his potatos.
Now, pay up; hoes. big daddy needs annuther fix.
-
i very much appreciated the final admission that americans are addicted to middle eastern oil.
though his incentives in that direction were weak, the verbage opens the gate to a new paradigm of thinking in regards to solving our energy issues.
it's about time.
problem solving is where americans shine thier brightest.
-
mebbe i've just seen too many of these.
or maybe i've seen enough.
-
two words : nuclear plants
you have to deal with the tree huggers, and nasty byproducts to get rid of, but it saves millions of tons of oil, and you actually get much less pollution. (unless the thing start to glow green !)
worth the risk IMHO.
the only reason you don't have enough nuke plants is because the oil lobby (wink wink nudge nudge) always gets in the way.
not to mention fuel cells akin to the ones used in the space program, the technology has been around for decades but no real attempt to make it more widspread has been made. same reason, oil interests would not allow it.
-
Originally posted by JB88
i very much appreciated the final admission that americans are addicted to middle eastern oil.
though his incentives in that direction were weak, the verbage opens the gate to a new paradigm of thinking in regards to solving our energy issues.
it's about time.
problem solving is where americans shine thier brightest.
Which president was that, JB88? I've heard 7 presidents say the same thing.
-
addicted is a strong word. it is stronger than dependence.
i just wish it was kennedy saying it.
-
How many times Bush say "Freedom"..?
Bet he didn't say "WMD" much.
-
his actions speak louder than his words ...
for the past 5+years, I am in agreement with the man's actions and how he has lead this country
it was obvious though, the left doesn't have anything "left" - no agenda, no course of action, zero direction for the country - only the Micheal Moron mindset "Bush is Wrong" mantra which has served them so well since we showed them the door in '00. For that, I am very happy :)
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Bet he didn't say "WMD" much.
I bet he didn't say "cheeseburger" much either.
Why would he?
-
If I were the Pres giving the state of the union address I would say to my party, "Listen....applaud all you want. But I do not want three dozen standing ovations during my speech."
I find it comical, and could not stand it after 5 minutes. I am not sure when the practice started, but I can rarely make it through more than 5 minutes of any state of the union. Regardless of the speaker.
-
Actually Sheehan wasn't the only one who was ejected from the house gallery for protesting. In today's news of the weird, the wife of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee Chairman was also ejected:
WASHINGTON — Cindy Sheehan, mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq, wasn't the only one ejected from the House gallery during the State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt with a war-related slogan that violated the rules. The wife of a powerful Republican congressman was also asked to leave.
Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida — chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee — was removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, "Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom."
She was sitting about six rows from first lady Laura Bush and asked to leave. She argued with police in the hallway outside the House chamber.
"They said I was protesting," she told the St. Petersburg Times. "I said, "Read my shirt, it is not a protest.' They said, 'We consider that a protest.' I said, 'Then you are an idiot."'
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by JB88
i very much appreciated the final admission that americans are addicted to middle eastern oil.
.
But we're not addicted to ME Oil. We purchase less than 1/5th of our oil from the ME.
Most of it comes from Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria. So cutting our reliance by 75% of ME oil isn't as grandious as it sounds.
Now, if he would have said we are addicted to oil, period, then OK, he's got a point.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
I bet he didn't say "cheeseburger" much either.
Why would he?
Because soldiers weren't sent to invade a nation based on a fear of Saddam launching cheeseburgers at us, possibly?
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Because soldiers weren't sent to invade a nation based on a fear of Saddam launching cheeseburgers at us, possibly?
what a delicious idea!
-
By "Us", he means "Israel". ;)
-
3 more years! :)
-
Well.....
Theoretically he very well could have launched a rare meat assault at the continental United States using those "Iraqi terror ships" he had at sea.
Or a dirty burger attack on NY city delivered by his groundbeef capable drone aircraft that he had under development.
And shirley we must all realise that if they hadn't done the preemptive thing the bastidge would certainly have attained some uncooked Liberian pork and within five years we'd have seen a bazillion dead in every major American city.
And then the door would be wide open for their fleets to land thier army and marines and force our wives and daughters to wear burkas and face veils!
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida — chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee — was removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, "Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom."
She was sitting about six rows from first lady Laura Bush and asked to leave. She argued with police in the hallway outside the House chamber.
"They said I was protesting," she told the St. Petersburg Times. "I said, "Read my shirt, it is not a protest.' They said, 'We consider that a protest.' I said, 'Then you are an idiot."'
- SEAGOON
Just think, by this time next year we might be able to get her on a felony, that would be cool!!!!, damn protesters!!!
shamus
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
3 more years! :)
It's possible yet not remotely probable, but if the Dems managed to change the course of the past few decades and gained control of the Senate, you can pretty much bet on an impeachment. ;)
-
why would "support our troops" on a t-shirt be considered a protest?
...a protest against what?
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Just think, by this time next year we might be able to get her on a felony, that would be cool!!!!, damn protesters!!!
shamus
Actually it would be great.
I'm so sick and tired of people who think just because their right to free speech is protected that somehow that gives them the right to interrupt others.
Say what you want but by golly if someone else is having an event stay the hell out of it.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
why would "support our troops" on a t-shirt be considered a protest?
...a protest against what?
I don't really know, but anyone wearing a T-Shirt to the state of the union should have been ejected. Maybe I'm old fashioned, (BS) but I don't think you should attend the State of the Union in person wearing a T-Shirt and Jeans. If she wasn't wearing jeans well that's just bad fashion with a T-Shirt and slacks. :confused:
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
why would "support our troops" on a t-shirt be considered a protest?
...a protest against what?
She was ejected for breaking the rules for wearing a shirt that made a politcal statement. The rules are clear, neither her nor Sheehan should have tried to make a politcal statement during the SOTU.
The difference is that even though both broke the SAME rule and both were ejected, only Sheehan was handcuffed and detained.
-
Well that was because Cindy refused to cover her shirt or leave. She was MADE to leave while Mrs. Young left on her own.
Plus Cindy was warned by Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider that such displays were not allowed in the House chamber.
Mrs. Young argued in the hallway but didn't put up a fight.
-
I had to turn it off about 1/4 of the way through... he wasn't making any kind of sense at all, kinda like he was just mumbling words out, allot of run on's and stuff that made NO sense at all... If I was that bad at public speaking I would have an aid read it on tv for me, I like the guys because he's flaky and that's what we need now, but man, he makes absolutely no sense when he's talking... he should just write it down and have someone else read it.... He was trying to say capitalistic last night and ended up saying canablistic instead about 3 different times LOL
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Didn't see it, but saw that dependence on foreign oil will soon be over... right?
Here's a quick recap on foreign oil:
1973
1975
1979
1987
1990
1994
2006
And congress response... Filibustered NWAR, by Democrats. Stop the building of refineries, (last built 1975) 150 down from 300 in 1972. Stop exploration in rocky mts./ gulf Mexico/ NW coast.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
But we're not addicted to ME Oil. We purchase less than 1/5th of our oil from the ME.
Most of it comes from Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria. So cutting our reliance by 75% of ME oil isn't as grandious as it sounds.
Are you sure that the proportion from the ME is as little as 1/5th? Also the real problem for America is its dependence on OPEC oil, and both Venezuela and Nigeria are members of OPEC.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
But we're not addicted to ME Oil. We purchase less than 1/5th of our oil from the ME.
Most of it comes from Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria. So cutting our reliance by 75% of ME oil isn't as grandious as it sounds.
Sorry but that is wishful thinking.
Oil is traded as a global commodity. Any disruption to the supply in the middle east will by necessity drive up prices and limit supply from Venezuela, or Nigeria or Canada or anywhere else, since more customers will be chasing a reduced supply. Moreover, since the other net importers of oil generally buy dollars with which to buy oil, you can't simply reduce the supply to them in your favour because that would drive the value of the dollar down.
The source is irrelevant; the key is the level of consumption from a limited supply..
You currently import over 55% of your total consumption and that rate is going up sharply. By 2015 you are projected to import over 60% of your requirements. By 2025 the projection is 75% of your total consumption. The middle east as a whole contains over 50% of world reserves. The more you import the more dependant on the ME you become, and that dependency is already a fact of life.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
It's possible yet not remotely probable, but if the Dems managed to change the course of the past few decades and gained control of the Senate, you can pretty much bet on an impeachment. ;)
On what grounds?
I don't think he's been putting his man-chowder on a young woman's dress lately and BLATANTLY LYING about it...;)
-
No, but there's a good chance he's doing the same thing to the rest of the country. :confused:
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Are you sure that the proportion from the ME is as little as 1/5th? Also the real problem for America is its dependence on OPEC oil, and both Venezuela and Nigeria are members of OPEC.
According to this site:
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html
In 2002, Canada led the world in our sources of imports, at 17%, with Saudi Arabia (13.7%), Mexico (13.5%), and Venezuela (12%) in a virtual three-way tie for second. The year before the percentages were Canada - 15.4%, Saudi Arabia - 14%, Venezuela - 13%, and Mexico - 12.1%. Canada has been the leader since at least 2001. In 2002, US imports from the Persian Gulf region amounted to 19.8 percent of our total imports. The same year, a total of 40% came from OPEC member nations -- which include countries such as Venezuela and Indonesia that are outside the Persian Gulf. More Information
But as you noted, OPEC is the controlling body.
**Side note--I really need to thank Rip for sharing with me his expertise in Rip and Paste skills and etiquette :aok
-
Originally posted by Sandman
It's possible yet not remotely probable, but if the Dems managed to change the course of the past few decades and gained control of the Senate, you can pretty much bet on an impeachment. ;)
Rebulicans didn't get control of house untill 1985, after 40 years of Dem control. the senate didn't come untill 2000. Jeffries went Indi after the took the senate in 2000. leaving them at 50 + 49+1 with Snow and Collonis of MA. Lincoln chaffe of RI always voteing with the Dems, they basical still have control of senate.
They just don't have any ideas.
-
Two thirds of the world's oil reserves are in the middle east.
Nigerian and Mexican production will decline and be minor by the end of the time frame of this fanciful 'weaning' from middle east oil.
Saudi Arabia alone will be producing 55% of the world's oil in less than 20 years.
Did people applaud at this recurring fantasy that the US will wean itself of middle east oil? You couldn't write fiction more surreal than that. :eek:
-
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/images/figure_52small.jpg)
27% of the worlds coal reserves are in the USA, about 4 times the oil reserves of Saudis, about 1.3 times the oil reserves of the earth.
USA has twice the reserves of Saudi Arabia in the form of oil shale.
It is technically quite feasable if the regulatory roadblocks are cleared.
-
history,terror,911,no honor in retreat,Osama wants Iraq to manage his terrorism from....I left after that. And, the word victory.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
I bet he didn't say "cheeseburger" much either.
Why would he?
Because he called it weapons of mass murder? lol
-
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Mr. Holden McGroin
FROM: Rollie 'Slick' Rolex
Public Relations Director
Snake Oil Corp.
RE: Shale oil
Dear Mr. McGroin,
Thank you for your enquiry regarding our corporate plans to develop the technology necessary to harvest enormous shale oil reserves available in the U.S.
I'm happy to report to you that we at Snake Oil Corp. are proud partners in the president's goal to rid ourselves of the hideous middle-east oil addiction by exploring and investing in technology to bring shale oil to market to better serve the American people. We believe developing this technology to be paramount to helping us achieve our corporate goal of bringing affordable and reliable energy to all Americans.
Our Board of Directors and shareholders are as excited and committed to this technology as you are. I'm delighted to report to you that we have penciled in a substantial target investment of $492.50 for each of the 3 years of our preliminary 2009-2011 budget. We've also included $38 to study the possibility of considering to think about talking about building a refinery.
We hope to see this investment blossom into a small, proof-of-concept article in Science magazine.
Unfortunately, our hands are tied by regulatory issues that we financed and secretively supported to give us a plausible excuse for not investing more. You see, Mr McGroin, money, not technology or regulatory roadblocks, is at issue.
From our perspective, war is cheaper. Why spend all that money ourselves on a technology that may not return anything for decades when we can spread the financial burden among all taxpayers, drive the price up anyway, keep oil flowing (at a high price) and not have to spend the money until we absolutely, positively have sucked every last drop of pumpable oil? There are still plenty of places left we can send our fine troops, or get others to do the fighting for us, to secure the oil that we deserve.
For heaven's sake. We've just gotten Iraq's oil (the 2nd largest reserve in the world) flowing at the trickle we need to keep prices high and profits at a new US record. And now you want us to make the ultimate sacrifice of spending some of the $10,000,000,000 profit from just the last 3 months of 2005 on investing in something that will benefit the nation? What are you, a socialist? Next, you'll be asking us to build refineries domestically to crack the oil?
Technology, techschmology... we'll pump out Iraq as we need it, then find some more pumpable stuff to get our hands on, somehow. What are we going to do with all of our ships, anyway?
Once again, thank you for your interest in our shale oil initiative and we look forward to seeing you at the pump.
Yours truly,
'Slick' Rolex
Snake Oil Corp.
-
Jackpot!
-
Originally posted by Stringer
But we're not addicted to ME Oil. We purchase less than 1/5th of our oil from the ME.
Most of it comes from Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria. So cutting our reliance by 75% of ME oil isn't as grandious as it sounds.
Now, if he would have said we are addicted to oil, period, then OK, he's got a point.
whatever.
i don't know the stats. i just know that it's not coming from here and its not gonna. therin lies a problem.
addictions are bad...regardless of who the dealer is.
slow molasses needs to step on it gasses.
88
-
Momus - good post last night. :aok
Yes, oil is indeed a global commodity, and as well as American oil demand set to rise, oil demand in countries like India and China will also rise sharply.
In the Carter years, the big gas guzzling cars of the 70s were discarded in favour of fuel efficient imports from places like Japan, and the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards came into being. Unfortunately, the Reagan administration decided to freeze the CAFE standard c1985. The fuel economy of vehicles on American roads peaked c1988, but it seems that successive Republican administrations wanted to cast off the CAFE "straitjacket" as if it were just a link to a period of austerity that they wanted to forget. Suddenly it became OK again to drive gas guzzling cars and trucks, and the SUV era was born, with house size vehicles like the Ford Excursion sucking up obscene amounts of gasoline.
There's only one factor that will make the American public respond to calls to cut back on oil consumption: Price.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/images/figure_52small.jpg)
27% of the worlds coal reserves are in the USA, about 4 times the oil reserves of Saudis, about 1.3 times the oil reserves of the earth.
USA has twice the reserves of Saudi Arabia in the form of oil shale.
It is technically quite feasable if the regulatory roadblocks are cleared.
We need technology to catch up where we can burn and dispose of it cleanly. Burning coal is deadly.
-
Rolex, brilliant post - you must have too much time on your hands. :)
-
rolex... what's your point? I don't care how we do it so long as it is cheap.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
rolex... what's your point? I don't care how we do it so long as it is cheap.
lazs
Was the infastructure for power and phone lines cheap? no ... but the govement used programs to send lines out to rual areas, farms ... places no private company would take them for lack of profit.
What we need is a diffrant infastructure.... Hydrogen could work .. only problem is no infastructure... no hydrogen 'gas' stations all over the place....
Take you pick of fuels .. there's many choices ...the Hydrogen/Oxygen reaction is basicly a 'battery' anyway..
The expensive part is no infastructure ... and that's not going to change leaveing it to the private sector....
Think what Timmy and Lassie would have done without a phone. The govement provided the infastructure and money to bring local loops out to farms..... They won't bring a Hydrogen infastructure to us it seems. 'free market' blah blah blah.... just like the free market uses the public roads and highways......
-
we don't need the government to build and maintain highways. We pay for too much as a user fee for roads right now. The "free market" end would simply be to take the gas tax on fuel and use it to bid out the building and maintaining of roads.
I have nothing against municipalities getting tax breaks or borrowing to build infrastructure tho... such as nuclear power plants.
FDR is not the answer.
lazs
-
We're living in a different era.
The phone companies pocketed $200 billion so far (yes, billion) in tax breaks and fee increases by promising to use the money to provide 45Mbps fiber service to all Americans. They have collected $2,000 per household.
So... how's that fiber connection working out for you?
The 'Greatest Generation' has been replaced by the 'Greediest Generations.'
-
Originally posted by Rolex
The 'Greatest Generation' has been replaced by the 'Greediest Generations.'
No argureing that
But I guess you expect a dissertation on social reform posted with that....that's another thread.
Point is ... if we are going to get gas out of cars... then we need a diffrant infastructure.... and private business isn't going to make it happen until 'Peak Oil' hits... but by then... it will be too late for the economy. Economic 'bumps' are no fun.
and we still need the power from somewhere... at least with nuclear power it's not in the air, we just need to take care to keep it out of the water etc.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Mr. Holden McGroin
FROM: Rollie 'Slick' Rolex
Public Relations Director
Snake Oil Corp.
RE: Shale oil
Dear Mr. McGroin,
Thank you for your enquiry...
Sasol produces liquid fuel from Coal in South Africa. Shell and Sasol are competing for a contract with the Chinese to build a coal liquification project in China. A pilot plant in Wyoming's Wind River Region is currently producing liquid and gas fuel from coal.
With oil prices more than doubling the break-even point of producing synthetic fuels, oil companies and world leaders are beginning to take a serious look at the future of Fischer-Tropsch fuels. Montana's Governor Schweitzer predicts they could be produced at a cost of about $1 per gallon in Montana if large-scale commercial plants could be developed in the state.
Fischer-Tropsch can be used on oil shale as well. In 1912, the President, by Executive Order, established the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves. This office has overseen the U.S. strategic interests in oil shale since that time. The huge resource base has stimulated several prior commercial attempts to produce oil from oil shale, but these attempts have failed primarily because of the historically modest cost of petroleum with which it competed.
Canada has 280 billion bbls of oil in tar sands of Alberta. This is larger than Saudi reserves.
Seems like you went to a great deal of trouble to write off alternate sources of hydrocarbons, something that is going to happen whether you like it or not.
Originally posted by sixpence We need technology to catch up where we can burn and dispose of it cleanly. Burning coal is deadly.
Currently the USA burns a little over 1.1 billion tons annually, providing about as much electrical energy than Oil, Gas, Nuclear, and Hydro combined.
Coal use has steadily increased, and since the clean air act, steadily become cleaner.
-
"We are addicted to oil"
Ok, let me get this straight, oil companies posted record profits last quarter. Now Dubya says he wants a 22% increase in spending for the energy dept. Which will be handed out as research contracts back to the oil companies.
So instead of spending their record profits on research for alternative energy, they get to spend our money!
But hey, our oil stock is doing great!