KD in CA Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Did I really just hear a President state that he intended to get our country off oil?? Git 'er done G-Dub!
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Did I really just hear a President state that he intended to get our country off oil??Git 'er done G-Dub! 590436[/snapback] Neeeever gonna happen. At least, not until the oil runs out. And while it may SEEM like a good geopolitical strategic move, weakening our dependence on our unreliable Arab "allies"...the Arabs will have to court even closer ties with Europe and China to maintain their cash flow. A Sino-Islamo-European "axis" that US interests are increasingly removed from? Bad things, man...
GG Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 And while it may SEEM like a good geopolitical strategic move, weakening our dependence on our unreliable Arab "allies"...the Arabs will have to court even closer ties with Europe and China to maintain their cash flow. A Sino-Islamo-European "axis" that US interests are increasingly removed from? Bad things, man... 590447[/snapback] Shhhhh....
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Shhhhh.... 590451[/snapback] But second-order effects are hard...
KD in CA Posted February 1, 2006 Author Posted February 1, 2006 Neeeever gonna happen. At least, not until the oil runs out. And while it may SEEM like a good geopolitical strategic move, weakening our dependence on our unreliable Arab "allies"...the Arabs will have to court even closer ties with Europe and China to maintain their cash flow. A Sino-Islamo-European "axis" that US interests are increasingly removed from? Bad things, man... 590447[/snapback] That would indeed be a bad thing. But it would seem that Europe and eventually China would encounter many of the same issues as we have and would also be happy to embrace a cleaner, cheaper alternative. Of course, since the world has a very short attention span, no one may care to look that far ahead. I agree that it won't happen though...to much invested in that economy for it to go away that easily.
Ramius Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 "Blowing up commuters in London"... not the best choice of words We had set the over/under until his first major !@#$up at 3.5 minutes. i took the over, as that happend about 6 minutes in.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 "Blowing up commuters in London"... not the best choice of words We had set the over/under until his first major !@#$up at 3.5 minutes. i took the over, as that happend about 6 minutes in. 590479[/snapback] Doesn't look too bad in the text. Looks like his speechwriters catering to his homey "aw, shucks" portrayl he usually has. Of course, then the writers ask him to pronounce words like "rostrum". You'd think they know by now not to give Curious George any hard words...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Doesn't look too bad in the text. Looks like his speechwriters catering to his homey "aw, shucks" portrayl he usually has. Of course, then the writers ask him to pronounce words like "rostrum". You'd think they know by now not to give Curious George any hard words... 590509[/snapback] Still only words, energy plan, medicare reform and the democratic response to reforming social security... a made up republican problem that if fully funded, no deficit interest and lower debt to pay solves itself in about 20 years and the next babyboom generation reaches the height of its employement. Figures vary of course on the gap. The only problems is Washington's spending habits including the Dept. of Defense. My only question is since when did pension funding of big business become part of their bankruptcy package instead of being separated out for the workers. Sounds like a scam and will make America even more dependant on Soc.Sec. While fat cat ceos like Bush recieve their golden parachuttes while they pillage the funds for the rest of us. Wish some more Dems would actually act like the loyal opposition, their spine is lost and nowhere to be found. Guess we are stuck with these crooks for a while longer.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 How much net profit did ExxonMobil make last quarter? 10.7 BILLION or so... I repeat 10.7 BILLION... NET PROFIT... LAST QUARTER. Very convenient timing to say the US will be weaned off oil. That is 116 million every 24 hours.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Still only words, energy plan, medicare reform and the democratic response to reforming social security... a made up republican problem that if fully funded, no deficit interest and lower debt to pay solves itself in about 20 years and the next babyboom generation reaches the height of its employement. Figures vary of course on the gap. The only problems is Washington's spending habits including the Dept. of Defense. My only question is since when did pension funding of big business become part of their bankruptcy package instead of being separated out for the workers. Sounds like a scam and will make America even more dependant on Soc.Sec. While fat cat ceos like Bush recieve their golden parachuttes while they pillage the funds for the rest of us. Wish some more Dems would actually act like the loyal opposition, their spine is lost and nowhere to be found. Guess we are stuck with these crooks for a while longer. 590553[/snapback] What are you babbling about? Wish some more Dems would actually act like the loyal opposition, their spine is lost and nowhere to be found. Guess we are stuck with these crooks for a while longer. Yeah...because they're not part of the problem.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 What are you babbling about?Yeah...because they're not part of the problem. 590561[/snapback] Just babbling, some Dems are part of the problem agreed, but many are not, and the same can be said of some Repubs, but their is no balance, so a matter of fact the Repubs are currenlty the whole problem. I liked it better when we had the split government under Clinton, with both side arquing over how we could balance the budget and stay out of conflicts that could unecessarily obligate ourselves into situations that we could not extract ourselves from. Face it Iraq is a failure and is only going to get worse. No balance...and don't give me that crap about terrorism, we should have dealt fully with Osama in Afganistan and kept Sadam in the box he was previously in, at least until a reasonable solution to Iran could have been figured out. Now we have Iraq as a mess and Iran feeling healthy enough to causie a lot more trouble than Sadam, while our corrupt U.S. supported Fatah leaders in Palestine have been defeated by even more Islamic extremists. Beware of unintended consequences.
Chilly Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Did I really just hear a President state that he intended to get our country off oil??Git 'er done G-Dub! 590436[/snapback] The strongest part of Bush's state of the union speech was without a doubt the energy part. The rest sucked. As far as a entertainment point of view... the strongest entertaining part was when all the democrats cheered for the failure to privitize Social Security.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Face it Iraq is a failure and is only going to get worse. No balance...and don't give me that crap about terrorism, we should have dealt fully with Osama in Afganistan and kept Sadam in the box he was previously in, at least until a reasonable solution to Iran could have been figured out. 590581[/snapback] Wow, It's good we don't have illiterates like this chucklehead running the country. You're judging Iraq a TOTAL failure just 4 years into the thing? I think you can only say that for certain after 20 or 50 years. Way to take the long view, there. And who's to say we HAVEN'T dealt fully with bin Laden? The guy's been effectively crippled for the last 5 years or so. I'd wager to say that geedub has done a better job WRT bin Laden than Billy Boy did.
Ramius Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Doesn't look too bad in the text. Looks like his speechwriters catering to his homey "aw, shucks" portrayl he usually has. Of course, then the writers ask him to pronounce words like "rostrum". You'd think they know by now not to give Curious George any hard words... 590509[/snapback] It wasnt bad per say, it just came out wrong when he said it. There were a couple of times he got fired up, and started talking really fast, and you could the wheels about to come off. but somehow he held it together, or the republicans sensed what was about to happen and started an applause to calm/quiet him down. BTW, what was his whole deal with all the isolationism talk? Also, he came dangerously to basically declaring war on iran.
KD in CA Posted February 1, 2006 Author Posted February 1, 2006 As far as a entertainment point of view... the strongest entertaining part was when all the democrats cheered for the failure to privitize Social Security. 590614[/snapback] That was funny. And then of course the GOP side had to retaliate with cheering at very next sentence (whatever it was) and so on.....
GG Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 As far as a entertainment point of view... the strongest entertaining part was when all the democrats cheered for the failure to privitize Social Security. 590614[/snapback] Entertaining is one word for it.
UConn James Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 The strongest part of Bush's state of the union speech was without a doubt the energy part. 590614[/snapback] "America is addicted to oil." It's nice for him to admit that. But I think all that means is he's now not ashamed to admit that hisownself, his family, his friends, and some of his biggest political contributors are our dope dealers. And it doubles to put us on notice that the price on the street is going to go up even more.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 "America is addicted to oil." It's nice for him to admit that. But I think all that means is he's now not ashamed to admit that hisownself, his family, his friends, and some of his biggest political contributors are our dope dealers. And it doubles to put us on notice that the price on the street is going to go up even more. 591595[/snapback] Regardless...I'd rather hear someone admit there's a problem they're contributing to rather than say "What? What problem?"
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 Regardless...I'd rather hear someone admit there's a problem they're contributing to rather than say "What? What problem?" 591674[/snapback] What is the use when he is unwilling to do anything about it, or worse aggravate the problem with tax breaks for his oil buddies and insufficient alternative energy tax breaks except for a car maybe 10 years off. He veto threatened practically anything of substance that could save energy last year. Phasing out the alternative fuels energy tax breaks for cars and providing a pathetic tax break for homeowners. $2,500 won't even get you in the door for one solar panel.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 What is the use when he is unwilling to do anything about it, or worse aggravate the problem with tax breaks for his oil buddies and insufficient alternative energy tax breaks except for a car maybe 10 years off. He veto threatened practically anything of substance that could save energy last year. Phasing out the alternative fuels energy tax breaks for cars and providing a pathetic tax break for homeowners. $2,500 won't even get you in the door for one solar panel. 591850[/snapback] Uhhh...because the first step in fixing a problem is knowing it exists. Just admitting we consume too much oil is a big step for Curious George. You have a hard time with complex, abstract thought, don't you?
Recommended Posts