Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on August 03, 2007, 11:43:13 PM
-
Hmmm...well, I don't exactly agree with him on this...hell, the "Peaceful Religion" is touching just about every country these days....however, I do agree with Newt about getting off our dependency on foreign oil....
Washington — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday the Bush administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001.
A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.
• More Nation/World news
"None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war," the ex-Georgian told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for collegiate conservatives.
Gingrich, who led the so-called Republican Revolution that won the GOP control of both houses of Congress in 1994 midterm elections, said more must be done to marshal national resources to combat Islamic militants at home and abroad and to prepare the country for future attack. He was unstinting in his criticism of his fellow Republicans, in the White House and on Capitol Hill.
"We were in charge for six years," he said, referring to the period between 2001 and early 2007, when the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. "I don't think you can look and say that was a great success."
Thursday's National Conservative Student Conference was sponsored by the Young America's Foundation, a Herndon, Va.-based group founded in the 1960s as a political counterpoint to the left-leaning activists who coalesced around the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War.
Gingrich retains strong support among conservatives and ranked fifth among possible Republican nominees behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, with the backing of 7 percent of those queried in a ABC News/Washington Post poll taken last week. The poll surveyed 403 Republicans and Republican-leaning adults nationwide and has a 5 percentage-point margin of error.
"I believe we need to find leaders who are prepared to tell the truth ... about the failures of the performance of Republicans ... failed bureaucracies ... about how dangerous the world is," he said when asked what kind of Republican he would back for president.
-
Holy **** who smacked Newt Gingrich with some common sense? I can't believe I'd ever say that I totally agree with what he said.. I think this must totally do away with any thoughts of global warming because hell must surly be freezing over.
That or has April 1st come early?
-
Well now...time to keep an eye on Newt. I'm hoping some kind of Third party, but I'd like to see the rest of his platform, if he's thinking of running.
More likely, he's trying to barge in with an "outside" nomination as a republican. Let's watch and see.
-
A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.
I totally agree with that...totally. Hit them where it hurts the most, their pocket books. Develop viable, renewable energy sources that can replace the fossil fuels we use now. Then share that info with the rest of the world and....voila!! Those governments that support the terrorists go broke. With no money, they can't buy explosives, weapons, food etc etc. I think the terrorist problem largely goes away if this happens.
-
C'mon Rip, he's an Amerihater and you know it. That's not Karl Rove's approved position. Either you are with us, or you are against us.
-
fight terrorism, burn a gas station.
-
Originally posted by rpm
C'mon Rip, he's an Amerihater and you know it. That's not Karl Rove's approved position. Either you are with us, or you are against us.
Somebody give Polly a cracker, he's successfully parroted his line again.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I totally agree with that...totally. Hit them where it hurts the most, their pocket books. Develop viable, renewable energy sources that can replace the fossil fuels we use now. Then share that info with the rest of the world and....voila!! Those governments that support the terrorists go broke. With no money, they can't buy explosives, weapons, food etc etc. I think the terrorist problem largely goes away if this happens.
I said that since the beginning. If we had spent the 400 billion that we've spent in Iraq, on renewable energy. We wouldn't need oil from the middle east in 10 to 15 years.
-
Originally posted by RetroVirus
Indeed. And that's why I don't understand guys like Lazs2 and jackl. They seem to think that a shift away from "conventional" petroleum based fuels would "cripple the US economy". I think the opposite is true. Right now, the price of oil is around $78/bbl, and the US imports 13m bbl per day. And... while demand remains high, so will the price! But I would ask those guys - 1) How does the US economy benefit from spending one trillion $ a day on foreign/OPEC oil?
- 2) How would generating electricity from nuke/ethanol instead of oil "cripple the US economy"?
[/B]
I think you misread Newt. He wants to wean us off imported oil.
-
Originally posted by crockett
I said that since the beginning. If we had spent the 400 billion that we've spent in Iraq, on renewable energy. We wouldn't need oil from the middle east in 10 to 15 years.
So have I ;)
-
Originally posted by RetroVirus
Indeed. And that's why I don't understand guys like Lazs2 and jackl. They seem to think that a shift away from "conventional" petroleum based fuels would "cripple the US economy". I think the opposite is true. Right now, the price of oil is around $78/bbl, and the US imports 13m bbl per day. And... while demand remains high, so will the price! But I would ask those guys - 1) How does the US economy benefit from spending one trillion $ a day on foreign/OPEC oil?
- 2) How would generating electricity from nuke/ethanol instead of oil "cripple the US economy"?
[/B]
Well in reality, it might actually cripple our economy. However it's going to happen sooner or later, so IMO it's best to have it happen at the time of our picking.
I don't think it will affect our economy in the way you are thinking though. The dollar is currently backed by oil. That's what gives the dollar it's value at this point.
Any oil that is sold anywhere in the world is sold first in dollars. That is the very reason the US dollar has been the world's currency and been stable for so long. Eventually this will change, sooner or latter oil will be sold in Euros or Yuan. Once that happens the dollar will no longer be the world's currency and we will likely be in trouble if we aren't ready for it.
That's why I say it's best we pick the time and place for this to happen, so we are ready for it and it happens on our terms. IMO the sooner we are ready the better.
Can you imagine what would happen if we had to start buying oil in Euros because the dollar's value had failed? That would bankrupt this country in a heartbeat. The current way of doing things , by backing the value of the dollar by oil, is going to really hurt this country if things don't change.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Well in reality, it might actually cripple our economy. However it's going to happen sooner or later, so IMO it's best to have it happen at the time of our picking.
I don't think it will affect our economy in the way your are thinking though. The dollar is currently backed by oil. That's what gives the dollar it's value at this point.
Any oil that is sold anywhere in the world is sold first in dollars. That is the very reason the US dollar has been the world's currency and been stable for so long. Eventually this will change, sooner or latter oil will be sold in Euros or Yuan. Once that happens the dollar will no longer be the world's currency and we will likely be in trouble if we aren't ready for it.
That's why I say it's best we pick the time and place for this to happen, so we are ready for it and it happens on our terms. IMO the sooner we are ready the better.
Can you imagine what would happen if we had to start buying oil in Euros because the dollar's value had failed? That would bankrupt this country in a heartbeat. The current way of doing things , by backing the value of the dollar by oil, is going to really hurt this country if things don't change.
People are so afraid of free market fluctuations, that they think any fluctuation will cripple the economy.
When the reality is that it is socialism that has already crippled us.
-
What was it that convinced you that global warming was a real and pressing problem?
Oh, I think the weight of evidence over time [convinced me] that it's something that you ought to be careful about. As a conservative, I think you ought to be prudent, and it seems to me that the conservative approach should be to minimize the risk of a really catastrophic change.
We've had three administrations: one early, and maybe not technology there yet; a second administration that reportedly knew everything about global warming; and now we've got another administration that has been saying all along that it's not a problem. Why do you think we have had three administrations who have not been able to deal with this issue on the federal level?
Because the left insists on pain, and the right insists on avoidance, and you've had no real leadership that says there's a positive, economically rational, science-and-technology way to solve this that makes your life better, not worse, and gives you more options, not fewer. ...
Is it because there are institutional impediments? I'm talking the oil and gas lobbies.
No, I think it's intellectual. I think that we're right at a tipping point where you could begin to imagine the development of an entirely new generation of systems; where you had a combination of a carbon cap with a trading system; you had prizes for the invention of major breakthroughs; you had incentives for investing in the new breakthroughs and accelerating their use and their development. And you could imagine a world 15 years from now that is dramatically greener than the world we're currently in.
But what you have is: People on the right know they're against regulation, and they're against taxation, and they're against bigger government, so they don't want to think about it because the only answers they ever see are things they hate. People on the left know the environment's important, but their answers are all regulation, taxation and litigation. So you're caught in this gridlock.
The average American, in fact, wants a healthy environment, but they also want a healthy economy. And the average American would like their political leadership to figure out a solution which is economically rational, environmentally favorable, and which leads to the creation of a better future using better science and technology to give them more choices and a higher quality of living.
-
Translation :
I've invested heavily in these new technologies to diversify my portfolio and am quite certain that if we can convince the general population that there is an environmental problem I can hedge my bets and reap a whirlwind as my stocks go through the roof.
I'd love it if Newt made a bundle. I just wish it didn't have to come out of my pocket.
It just doesn't read like Newt.
I think someone slipped some LSD into his Rice Crispies.
-
Bush & Cheney have waaayy too much personal money involved in foreign oil. If you look at how much the Bush/Cheney families rake in from their oil ties, compared to their government salaries, you'll see who they are gonna look out for in the long run. I think every President has ties to some kind of big business.
We just need the next few to be tied to American big business, if that's even possible now. I believe it will take at least 2 Presidential terms ONCE they get serious about changing our ways, to really see any kind of change in the American daily life, energy wise.
I just saw a commercial by BP 5 minutes ago saying they have invested 50 billion in researching alternative energy sources. Of course, the commercial doesn't say the length of time than money has been spent. Hell, they could be talking about the last 30 years, but they imply with the visual images that they are spending billions & billions of dollars on it RIGHT NOW.
I try to remain apolitical. I believe most politicians are vermin who sell their souls and votes to their special interest buddies, and really couldn't give a damn if we ever change the way this country operates, as long as those checks keep coming in, and I don't mean the one's signed by Uncle Sam.
-
Originally posted by USRanger
I just saw a commercial by BP 5 minutes ago saying they have invested 50 billion in researching alternative energy sources. Of course, the commercial doesn't say the length of time than money has been spent. Hell, they could be talking about the last 30 years, but they imply with the visual images that they are spending billions & billions of dollars on it RIGHT NOW.
BP along with many politicians are trying to push corn ethanol which is a bigger sham than oil is. Corn ethanol will get worst mileage than gas curentlly does and will cost close to the same amount as gas does now, if not more.
Reason the oil companies want to push corn ethanol, is because they can sell it at their current gas stations with little change. So they just exchange oil for corn and continue to rake in the big bucks.
The Politicians that are pushing it, are mainly from states that grow a lot of corn and bow down to the big farm lobbyist. In reality it will do little to weain us off oil because they can't grow enough to meet the needs of the entire US.
The end resualt, big biz makes more money and the typical end user gets bent over and screwed while he's thinking his govt really cares about the enviorment.
end of rant..
-
Too much time and money is being spent on stop gap dead end things like ethanol instead of new ways to provide cheap fuel and or transportation solutions.
Until a means of producing electricity for vehicles is found that does not require the burning of hydrocarbons, electric vehicles won't be a feasible means of transportation or shipping goods. The same goes for passenger flight and cargo.
-
Gentlemen. I think we are screwed.
-
Necessity is the mother of invention.
You won't see anything until it's actually needed.
-
...or too late.
-
I said it in a project for a science class a couple years ago: Nuclear-powered automobiles. :D
-
I read an article recently that had the arab states saying they will cut production if the US turns to alternative fuels like biodiesel. **** them
I also read somewhere that they are getting close to nuetralizing radioctivity in the waste from nuclear plants.
**** them and their oil, the two faced, forked tongue scumbags
-
I just want to be able to say I own an operate a "Nuclear Wessel" with a fake Russian accent. :D
-
:lol
-
Originally posted by RetroVirus
I think you missed me! The US consumes around 20m barrels of oil daily. If we would wean ourselves off 13m barrels worth of that (ethanol, nukes) the remaining 7m barrels from US production would still be in demand.
The President has initiated a new vision.
"I have a very deep belief in America's capabilities. Within the next 10 years, my program envisions: 200 major nuclear power plants; 250 major new coal mines; 150 major coal-fired power plants; 30 major new (oil) refineries; 20 major new synthetic fuel plants; the drilling of many thousands of new oil wells; the insulation of 18 million homes; and the manufacturing and the sale of millions of new automobiles, trucks and buses that use much less fuel. In another crisis -- the one in 1942 -- President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now."
-
Remember that Turkey Blood to Oil plant in Missouri?
One of the reasons that isn't taking off as well as it was hoped is the turkey plant was paying $25 per ton to have their waste hauled away, now the *refinery* has to pay $35 a ton for the waste. Bad negotiations imo.
If companies weren't so greedy this thing might have taken off already. It would be the perfect renewable resource. Just from agricultural waste we could provide for all our energy needs.
I wonder what is going on with these folks, their site doesn't appear to have been updated in some time now. Also the page that talked about costs related to buying the waste has been removed. I hope this technology isn't dying out.
http://www.changingworldtech.com/index.asp
-
Just from agricultural waste we could provide for all our energy needs.
Amazing as it may be, I think you have overestimated the amount of BS we produce in this country.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Amazing as it may be, I think you have overestimated the amount of BS we produce in this country.
Agricultural waste includes, but isn't limited to....Poultry (Offal, Feathers, Bones, Litter, Manure, Protein Meal); Beef (Offal, MDM, Paunch, Bone Meal); Pork (Offal, Manure, Grease); Fish; Hay and other Natural Grasses; Corn Sludge; Spent Hens; Egg Waste; Mushroom Substrate; Onion Skins; Soybean Oil Soapstock. The agricultural waste itself is a very significant source of *waste streams*.
If the agricultural waste isn't enough to satisfy our energy needs, just about any type of waste can be processed with this technology, including plastics, tires and human sewage. Notable exceptions are things that are by their very nature toxic, like nuclear waste.
-
Originally posted by RetroVirus
I think you missed me! The US consumes around 20m barrels of oil daily. If we would wean ourselves off 13m barrels worth of that (ethanol, nukes) the remaining 7m barrels from US production would still be in demand.
I was saying that Newt wasn't saying we should wean ourselves of oil but rather only foreign oil. We could easily satisfy our own oil needs without reducing consumption if we were willing to exploit our own resources.
-
retro... sure seems that building 250 nuke plants and exploring for new oil and using coal and building more refineries will do a lot more for people than anything you have suggested.
If we just stopped using oil for making electricity it would help a lot... if plastic becomes too expensive we might not have so much throw away plastic in packaging... wouldn't break my heart any.
If alcohol becomes cost effective we will use more of it. Fine with me... I can make more HP on it... I can allways use an extra 100 hp or so... thanks.
cafe standards? if people want cars that get better mileage.. they are available right now. no need to mandate anything... an example is... some of the worst mileage vehicles are selling badly. The market will adjust.
lazs
-
I have always liked what newt has had to say but I do not trust the man.