McCain said last night, "We're going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much."
The United States in 2006 gave a total of $23.3 billion in foreign aid. More than one-third of that total, by the went, went to Iraq ($8.8 billion). Another large amount went to Afghanistan ($3.6 billion). Almost half of the total ampunt went to countries that President Bush invaded.
So does that mean that McCain just lied to America or did he just misspeak?
Did he mean that he is going to not spend money on the military?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
McCain said last night, "We're going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much."
The United States in 2006 gave a total of $23.3 billion in foreign aid. More than one-third of that total, by the went, went to Iraq ($8.8 billion). Another large amount went to Afghanistan ($3.6 billion). Almost half of the total ampunt went to countries that President Bush invaded.
So does that mean that McCain just lied to America or did he just misspeak?
Did he mean that he is going to not spend money on the military?
RecycleMichael:
Turn the Democrat Talking Points Spin Machine Off.
McCain was referring to the $700 billion we send to overseas countries for the purchase of CRUDE OIL.
Like to Venezuela. Saudi Arabia. Russia.
Those countries don't exactly LOVE us.
But, you KNEW that, didn't you?
You guys need to tone down the personal jibes, but gotta say, RM, you got pwned on this one.
Michael, we might offend their delicate sensibilities. They're a little sensitive today. God bless their pointy little heads.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Michael, we might offend their delicate sensibilities. They're a little sensitive today. God bless their pointy little heads.
And as Obama's 20-year mentor, the Right Reverand Wright, ranted:
"G_d D_mn America."
You'll love the new Reverand Wright video rant.
Release date: October 31, 2008 just in time for the evening news........
Thanks for bringing that up RM.
That was one of the best points that McCain made and a very important consideration that Mr. Obama has only tackled by saying he will fund programs to explore alternative energy sources.
Obama is going to have to become a friend to domestic energy if he is to be elected. We need to be self sufficient and clean energy and alternative energy are a big part of that, but currently it is only capable of producing a very very small percentage of our energy needs, and we have to fuel the machine.
If we are to continue to prosper, I mean if that is the goal, we have to embrace domestic energy systems of ALL forms. We are living in a time when other countries are converting their vehicles to natural gas so that they can sell their oil to us, and purchase more weapons to use against us. It's surreal.
Why would any leader ever consider limiting domestic energy production? Why? We have the cleanest production systems, the best rates of efficiency, and a oil waste reclamation system that is second to none!
Why would any leader be against nuclear energy now. The accidents that happened in the past, happened in plants with equipment from the 50's, 60's and 70's. The sensitive balance necessary to maintain reaction was measured with mechanical dials, and pneumatic pressure sensors. We hold more technology in the palms of our hands (our cell phones) than was available in the entire 3 Mile Island complex.
Yes we want solar. Yes we want wind. Yes we want Geo. Yes we need to spend money on focused programs to make these energies valuable and abundant, but as it stands, it takes too much land mass to produce too little energy for these to sustain us.
We could use less, and grow our economy slower, but the rest of the world will not wait for us. The whole world runs off of the machine that we have created. Our economy, our innovations, our inventions, our cures and our tools touch every person every day. If we stop or slow down those on the fringes will decay. Many of those who live off of us from a market standpoint, also want what we have. And some of those want to destroy what we have simply because we have it.
That's reality. We have to face it. Energy is not bad, it's what we choose to do with it, and our stewardship that is in question.
Any politician with the goal of limiting domestic energy is an idiot. I can't stress that enough. It's not an environmental issue. It's a survival issue. We have to be able to survive and prosper to see clean energy become a reality.
Nuclear is not necessary, especially here in Oklahoma with our immense wind potential, along with our vast resources of natural gas and geothermal energy potential.
Mr. Thomas R. Blakeslee, Clearlight Foundation thinks we should be focusing ALL of our resources on geothermal energy production since 99.9% of the Earth's mass will boil water.
...I think he's on to something.
The Elephant Under the Rug: Denial and Failed Energy Projects (//%22http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reinsider/story?id=53467%22)
If we were to only shift tax credits currently applied to dinasour technologies, these new resources could easily be developed.
We need an Energy Policy, something which has not been established since Carter was Prez, and his sucked.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
You guys need to tone down the personal jibes, but gotta say, RM, you got pwned on this one.
Ahem, Conan?
"Posted - 09/05/2008 : 14:47:02
HT, for someone who supported Hillary, you are really, really ugly toward these Republican women.
Are they just not butch-dyke enough for you like Hillarity? I mean what's the real problem?
"Beauty is fleeting, stupidity lasts a lifetime""
http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11240&whichpage=2
Just sayin'[:P]
Anyway, RM, you were wrong on this one.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
You guys need to tone down the personal jibes, but gotta say, RM, you got pwned on this one.
Ahem, Conan?
"Posted - 09/05/2008 : 14:47:02
HT, for someone who supported Hillary, you are really, really ugly toward these Republican women.
Are they just not butch-dyke enough for you like Hillarity? I mean what's the real problem?
"Beauty is fleeting, stupidity lasts a lifetime""
http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11240&whichpage=2
Just sayin'[:P]
Anyway, RM, you were wrong on this one.
I'm a hypocrite
Repuke Repug Repiglican Aw hell, I'm just a Dimocrat at heart....
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Nuclear is not necessary, especially here in Oklahoma with our immense wind potential, along with our vast resources of natural gas and geothermal energy potential.
Mr. Thomas R. Blakeslee, Clearlight Foundation thinks we should be focusing ALL of our resources on geothermal energy production since 99.9% of the Earth's mass will boil water.
...I think he's on to something.
The Elephant Under the Rug: Denial and Failed Energy Projects (//%22http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reinsider/story?id=53467%22)
If we were to only shift tax credits currently applied to dinasour technologies, these new resources could easily be developed.
We need an Energy Policy, something which has not been established since Carter was Prez, and his sucked.
Natural gas is another consumable resource. Wind and hydro are well-suited to Oklahoma. I'd promised myself I'd look more into geothermal after you'd mentioned it before. I'm still skeptical about the cost, and technically, we'd be transferring that heat out of the earth's crust and I don't believe it's renewable once it's out. Eventually it would run out.
But hey, if we can just squeak it out on what we've got available for another 40 to 50 years, won't be a worry of mine any longer. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
You guys need to tone down the personal jibes, but gotta say, RM, you got pwned on this one.
Ahem, Conan?
"Posted - 09/05/2008 : 14:47:02
HT, for someone who supported Hillary, you are really, really ugly toward these Republican women.
Are they just not butch-dyke enough for you like Hillarity? I mean what's the real problem?
"Beauty is fleeting, stupidity lasts a lifetime""
http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11240&whichpage=2
Just sayin'[:P]
Anyway, RM, you were wrong on this one.
I'm a hypocrite Repuke Repug Repiglican Aw hell, I'm just a Dimocrat at heart....
I knew it!
Drilling in America won't solve America's problems. America doesn't own any oil companies. This ain't like Venezuala.
What you are saying is to let American companies drill so they can sell this oil. The oil business is a global business. Exxon sells oil to China. All the oil companies are multi-national companies these days.
All oil will be drilled someday. It is a finite resource. The longer the oil stays in the ground the more valuable it becomes. All the talk about drilling in America is just talk to let oil companies make more profit now.
The republicans are against efforts to reduce demand. They have fought higher fuel standards for cars and stopped incentives for Americans wanting to make their homes more energy efficient. The answer is not to just increase supply, especially if that supply is traded on the world market. All we are going to do is continue to feed China's appetite for more oil.
Drilling in sensitive areas to sell the oil to someone else at today's price seems very shortsighted. We should instead spend every bit of our time reducing demand, finding alternatives, and saving the oil we have to be sold to the rest of the world when it is more valuable.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Drilling in America won't solve America's problems. America doesn't own any oil companies. This ain't like Venezuala.
What you are saying is to let American companies drill so they can sell this oil. The oil business is a global business. Exxon sells oil to China. All the oil companies are multi-national companies these days.
All oil will be drilled someday. It is a finite resource. The longer the oil stays in the ground the more valuable it becomes. All the talk about drilling in America is just talk to let oil companies make more profit now.
The republicans are against efforts to reduce demand. They have fought higher fuel standards for cars and stopped incentives for Americans wanting to make their homes more energy efficient. The answer is not to just increase supply, especially if that supply is traded on the world market. All we are going to do is continue to feed China's appetite for more oil.
Drilling in sensitive areas to sell the oil to someone else at today's price seems very shortsighted. We should instead spend every bit of our time reducing demand, finding alternatives, and saving the oil we have to be sold to the rest of the world when it is more valuable.
We can all start walking more, too.
Do us all some good, right?
I take the MTTA whenever I need to go straight downtown.
Bus ridership is way up,too, what with the high cost of gasoline.
And, I took Barack Hussein Obama's advice, and checked the air in my car tires. All A-OK.
Proper tire inflation, a clean airfilter, a well-tuned car, slower acceleration and slower highway speeds, and removal of excess weight from a car all increase fuel mileage.
So do fewer Stop signs.
Utica Avenue from 51st to 61st now has FOUR Stop signs.
And, the city recently added FOUR speed bumps in the same stretch in front of Henthorne Park on Utica for speed quieting.
However, they didn't take out any Stop signs.....
EVERY unnecessary Stop sign WASTES gasoline. Anyone got a calculator?
[:O]
Those are all good starts. We can do more though. Part of me just wishes the Dems would just let oil drilling start in the "sensitive areas" and make absolutely, doubly sure that its done with the best technology and environmental sensitivity we can muster. Just take the issue off the table. I bet we will see that in short time that it will have made no difference at all. But at least it will have taken the fight off the table and then force us to realize that we will have to do things differently.
It may be that allowing that oil to be drilled will get the prices back down.... for a bit. But what that will do is actually encourage even more usage of automobiles, not just here, but around the world. And take the economic "pressure" incentives and desire off of creating large alternative sources and delivery infrastructure. So in a very short time we will be right back where we are. Except for this...
When the oil does begin to "run out", it will do so even faster because there will be even more cars and road miles using the declining resource. Plus our current development patterns and energy infrastructure will be larger and more difficult to change. And lets not forget that expensive oil isnt just used to get us around, it gets our food and raw materials around, helps produce our food aka fertilizers, is used in the chemical industry, plastics, military, etc.
IMO with the way the future looks to be panning out, I would say screw the fact that these last oil reserves in the US are in "environmentally sensitive" areas. We should wisely hold on to them as reserves when the oil really does start to run out. When the prices really skyrocket. When most other nations do run out. When some nations will still have some oil aka Russia, and start playing hardball and can make a fortune from selling it to the rest of the world. That oil in the Gulf of Mexico will be worth a looooooooooooooooooot more then than it is now. Regardless of whether we are driving or not or have alternatives, we will still need it. That fortune could also come in quite handy when the debt bill/ baby boom retirement bills come due in that same future. We dont want to be broke and with other countries stirring up trouble in the world and then also trying to rebuild our cities to be more compact and energy efficient, roads, add mass transit, and new energy infrastructure.
I just keep thinking about that Bible story I heard as a kid. Joseph, in Egypt and how he saved the grain during times of plenty and then when there was drought, they had it. Then of course if we are going to go the Bible route, there is the end times, Babylon and how she and the world got rich off of "drinking her wine", then went to war over it. Do we really HAVE to go there?
No matter how you look at it, with the way the future is looking, having a little back up in reserves can only be a good thing. AND in the meantime studiously preparing for an expensive oil future with different growth patterns and alternative resources NOW would be wise.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Drilling in America won't solve America's problems. America doesn't own any oil companies. This ain't like Venezuala.
What you are saying is to let American companies drill so they can sell this oil. The oil business is a global business. Exxon sells oil to China. All the oil companies are multi-national companies these days.
All oil will be drilled someday. It is a finite resource. The longer the oil stays in the ground the more valuable it becomes. All the talk about drilling in America is just talk to let oil companies make more profit now.
The republicans are against efforts to reduce demand. They have fought higher fuel standards for cars and stopped incentives for Americans wanting to make their homes more energy efficient. The answer is not to just increase supply, especially if that supply is traded on the world market. All we are going to do is continue to feed China's appetite for more oil.
Drilling in sensitive areas to sell the oil to someone else at today's price seems very shortsighted. We should instead spend every bit of our time reducing demand, finding alternatives, and saving the oil we have to be sold to the rest of the world when it is more valuable.
Thank you, RM, for pointing this out. So many people seem to not grasp the idea that drilling here doesn't mean the oil stays here. When I see all of those bumperstickers saying "America needs American oil" I want to ask them if they really do support nationalizing the oil companies.
who cares if the oil stays here. if the supply is increased the prices will go down and americans will benefit. ECON 101.
Remember OPEC? They'll just reduce production by whatever number we produce. Monopolies 101.
I like where this thread has gone. Everyone on both sides, and in the middle has made good points.
Geo is an awesome resource for nearly every state and it IS being exploited, both on the hot and cold side. Using it for energy generation in most parts of Oklahoma is still not viable because the cost of reaching "hot zones" is too expensive, and would require massive resources, but some day when the technology to drill stable shafts that deep comes about it may be very valuable. Currently the cost per KW of power is running $2,800. This is more expensive than every other form of power (nuclear is around $2,000 per KW).
Shallow Geo is currently being used on many of the new businesses and homes in Oklahoma, and the cost of cooling your home using geothermal heat exchange has dropped dramatically. This is a big change, because cooling a space requires more energy than heating it.
RM is on the money with wind in Oklahoma. We have enough open land mass and wind to provide vast amounts of power, but again it is still a question of space and expense vs wattage. Wind power requires the clearing of thousands of acres to produce the same energy wattage that can be produced from the use of one natural gas or oil well on less than 1/10th of an acre. Wind also involves a transmission maintenance and storage investment that is quite massive because generation is intermittent like hydro-electric.
Each 1,000 kw turbine costs between 600k to over 1 million dollars and we currently consume over 38,000,000 kw in NE Oklahoma. This would require 38,000 wind turbines at a cost of $22.8 billion dollars, at the low end, just for us poor saps in the PSO served regions of Oklahoma. It would also require the clearing and maintenance of 1.94 acres for each wind turbine (73,000 acres) That's 114 square miles (Tulsa is 182.7 square miles). So we would nearly the same land mass of Tulsa to provide our power.
A single tornado could wipe out billions of dollars and leave hundreds of thousands of people in the dark for a very long time. This is not a realistic answer yet, but it will be someday.
Meanwhile, natural gas, clean coal, and hydro-electric are viable.
quote:
Meanwhile, natural gas, clean coal, and hydro-electric are viable.
"Clean" Coal is a myth.
CO2 Sequestration is the same as storing nuclear waste, and about as economical.
The cost of nuclear is often cited without considering the storage costs or environmental hazard if one were to get out of hand. It's not like it hasn't happened.
Wind does not require 'clearing' land, it's mostly done in areas already open, such as the western half of Oklahoma. The land can still mostly be used for crops, pasture land for grazing or wildlife refuge. And, until they figure out a way to charge for it, wind has a zero fuel cost, and zero emissions.
Since 1980, the cost of wind generated energy has fallen year after year from around $.80/KWH to around $0.06/KWH UNTIL 2006 when it began to rise, now up more than 60% since 2006. What happened?
What happened is big energy stepped in and caused industry-wide escalation in their attempt to corner the wind market. That and wind is now only attempting to maintain par with other energy production methods, so the market for energy produced by coal and/or natural gas is dictating wind costs.
Wind now needs more competition in the market to bring prices back down. So long as demand remains strong, wind costs will no longer reduce.
The same thing has not yet happened to solar and fuel cell markets, though both still have technological barriers keeping their prices high. As that improves, expect what has happened in wind markets to occur in those as well.
WE NEED FEED-IN TARIFFS IN OKLAHOMA!
Carbon Credits are industry's 'solution' to keep prices high and markets controlled.
As for geothermal, it is about as limited resource as the sun. Anything which can be counted in billions of years is considered inexhaustible. If it is classified as non-renewable, then so should air, oxygen, hydrogen and solar (the sun will also eventually burn out).
I'd like to raise the question of how much we should consider energy a National Security issue?
If it's not, then certainly, free world markets are the way to go. Demand would strickly drive the market price and supplies could be manipulated to achieve the best market price.
If it is, as I suggest, then what's a practical solution to securing our energy dependence?
As stated in a post above, big energy is now almost totally a world market from a corporate standpoint.
It does seem strange to me that oil, in particular, is produced here, then sold to a world market before being bought back for our own use.
While I remain opposed to nationalization of energy companies, it would seem practical to me that all local production first be sold into a local (national) market and then excesses sold to the international market. That could be legislated without 'nationalizing' companies. Though, it would tend to promote their assets being applied to other, more profitable markets, there would remain a good deal of margin in local markets, with local companies egar to participate.
It makes no sense, to me, that local production is sold into world markets when we are importing production from other countries to meet our own demand.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Meanwhile, natural gas, clean coal, and hydro-electric are viable.
"Clean" Coal is a myth.
CO2 Sequestration is the same as storing nuclear waste, and about as economical.
The cost of nuclear is often cited without considering the storage costs or environmental hazard if one were to get out of hand. It's not like it hasn't happened.
Wind does not require 'clearing' land, it's mostly done in areas already open, such as the western half of Oklahoma. The land can still mostly be used for crops, pasture land for grazing or wildlife refuge. And, until they figure out a way to charge for it, wind has a zero fuel cost, and zero emissions.
Since 1980, the cost of wind generated energy has fallen year after year from around $.80/KWH to around $0.06/KWH UNTIL 2006 when it began to rise, now up more than 60% since 2006. What happened?
What happened is big energy stepped in and caused industry-wide escalation in their attempt to corner the wind market. That and wind is now only attempting to maintain par with other energy production methods, so the market for energy produced by coal and/or natural gas is dictating wind costs.
Wind now needs more competition in the market to bring prices back down. So long as demand remains strong, wind costs will no longer reduce.
The same thing has not yet happened to solar and fuel cell markets, though both still have technological barriers keeping their prices high. As that improves, expect what has happened in wind markets to occur in those as well.
WE NEED FEED-IN TARIFFS IN OKLAHOMA!
Carbon Credits are industry's 'solution' to keep prices high and markets controlled.
As for geothermal, it is about as limited resource as the sun. Anything which can be counted in billions of years is considered inexhaustible. If it is classified as non-renewable, then so should air, oxygen, hydrogen and solar (the sun will also eventually burn out).
The windy hills that are selected in western Oklahoma are not cleared. Just a gravel road to the construction site for construction and maintenance of the wind mills.
Problem with wind power is whether the wind generators will last long enough to recover the cost.
A lot goes wrong with them.
For instance, in too high of wind, they can be literally thrown apart if the cut-off switch doesn't activate.
A million dollars worth of broken parts then litter the landscapes.
Ouch!
And, regarding mixed land use, the cattle continue to graze around the windmills.
Birds have a problem at night or low light seeing the enormous twirling blades.
The upside is that you can get there early in the morning and feed your family from the dead bird harvest.
The carnivores do..........easier than chasing those wily wabbits.
[:P]
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
I'd like to raise the question of how much we should consider energy a National Security issue?
If it's not, then certainly, free world markets are the way to go. Demand would strickly drive the market price and supplies could be manipulated to achieve the best market price.
If it is, as I suggest, then what's a practical solution to securing our energy dependence?
As stated in a post above, big energy is now almost totally a world market from a corporate standpoint.
It does seem strange to me that oil, in particular, is produced here, then sold to a world market before being bought back for our own use.
While I remain opposed to nationalization of energy companies, it would seem practical to me that all local production first be sold into a local (national) market and then excesses sold to the international market. That could be legislated without 'nationalizing' companies. Though, it would tend to promote their assets being applied to other, more profitable markets, there would remain a good deal of margin in local markets, with local companies egar to participate.
It makes no sense, to me, that local production is sold into world markets when we are importing production from other countries to meet our own demand.
I would say that it is THE issue. Nothing else can happen until we solve this problem. We are under the control of our detractors.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
I'd like to raise the question of how much we should consider energy a National Security issue?
If it's not, then certainly, free world markets are the way to go. Demand would strickly drive the market price and supplies could be manipulated to achieve the best market price.
If it is, as I suggest, then what's a practical solution to securing our energy dependence?
As stated in a post above, big energy is now almost totally a world market from a corporate standpoint.
It does seem strange to me that oil, in particular, is produced here, then sold to a world market before being bought back for our own use.
While I remain opposed to nationalization of energy companies, it would seem practical to me that all local production first be sold into a local (national) market and then excesses sold to the international market. That could be legislated without 'nationalizing' companies. Though, it would tend to promote their assets being applied to other, more profitable markets, there would remain a good deal of margin in local markets, with local companies egar to participate.
It makes no sense, to me, that local production is sold into world markets when we are importing production from other countries to meet our own demand.
I would say that it is THE issue. Nothing else can happen until we solve this problem. We are under the control of our detractors.
Regarding Saudi Arabian Oil:
We need their Oil.
We don't need them......
ALIVE...
After the Nerve Gas, for any still standing, if it's wearing a Rag on its head, Gun It and Get On.......but,
Remember to pack in plenty of Ammo. There's 30 million of the Sons of Allah.
Regarding the shooting of Burqua'd Women:
Remember: It is approved. They breed Islamicists. Regrettably.
Use the Three-Round Burst Limiter Setting....
Standard Fire Control Protocol:
Two in the chest, and One in the Head.
They won't be missed......
Did I mention that 15 of 19 9-11-01 Hijackers were bred from our friends the Saudis?
Allah Akbar!
Barack bin Obama for President??
Barack Affirms: I did NOT graduate from an Indonesian Madrassa!
Attend a Madrassa?
Next question, Islamophob!
Aren't they the Religion of Peace, like GWBush tells us RIGHT after 9-11?
Did I mention that King George Bush I is a major shareholder in the Carlyle Group, a major investor in Arabia?
Sure, just a coincidence.........Let's move on....