Victory Motorcycle Forum banner

1 - 20 of 83 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,253 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Which parties future president will be most likely to stop intervening in the affairs of countries in the middle east?
And why?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,253 Posts
Discussion Starter #3

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
Vote for a democrat majority. We need to get on track with alternative fuels. Once done Middle East is just sand. In 5 years oil will be ld school fuel. But if republicans take control we never get off the oil dependency.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,769 Posts
did someone say party!:)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
728 Posts
That house doesn't look very big, could be a fire code violation...:crzy:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,632 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,158 Posts
Yes. Oil is a huge issue. Without it the country all but stops. No trucks, planes, cars, motorcycles are moving.

There is a move toward electric cars and bikes but that electricity is mostly from fossil fuels so that won't work. Wind and solar farms are big and ugly so in congested areas that won't work with means almost all of the Eastern one third of the country. Going solar on your house is an option but is expensive and can take up to 20 years to recuperate the expense. It also requires a bank of batteries, which take oil to make, so there is more oil usage. I wouldn't be surprised if the solar panels themselves need oil to make. They certainly need energy from somewhere and something.

What about all the products like plastics and paints that take oil to make?

What about using algae to make oil? They have been making great advances in this area. I like this option the best.

You can make your own ethanol for fuel if you like. Coincidentally you can also drink it and get a buzz. Seems like a waste to use it in the fuel tank for the time and effort it takes to make it. :D

Coal fired energy plants are being phased out by this Admin and the EPA if they get their way. They might very well be how we get our energy in the future when oil and natural gas becomes prohibitively expensive.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
13,002 Posts
Guess you'll be asking about religion next. Like all the lying ass politicians will do any thing right
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,632 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,253 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
Vote for a democrat majority. We need to get on track with alternative fuels. Once done Middle East is just sand. In 5 years oil will be ld school fuel. But if republicans take control we never get off the oil dependency.
Dave I am reading that without any increase in alternative energy or alternative fuels America will be oil independent within 5 years.

Fracking technology has been growing by leaps and bounds and we are up to our asses now in oil and natural gas because of that.

All the expensive part has been done now. Most of the land has been purchased, technology proven, if special interests don't get the government to intervene on their behalf we should see a steep drop in energy costs up to almost 30%. A bi product will be a return of manufacturing to the US in spite of the efforts of large industries through the EPA.

That's huge because if it becomes economical to manufacture here. You will see start up competition again which will help the consumer in many ways and hurt large corporate America's bottom line. Technology and prices will definitely benefit as will the poor.

All that if the government just does nothing.

However I am more interested in which Administration is most likely to stop destabilizing foreign nations though overt and covert acts.

So far we have reduced Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria to shambles. Two of those countries by financing and overthrowing their governments.
We also have admitted to instigating and financing two revolutions in the Ukraine in the last 10 yrs.

The net of those actions has lead to the deaths of in the neighborhood of 750,000 people.
We have supported the bombing out of existence of what little infrastructure there was in those countries.
Putting the remaining populations in further poverty with much less than they had. Leaving them to face the resulting civil wars that have created huge floods of refugees many of whom will eventually end up here.
Cause the annexation of Crimia by the Russian government.
Disturbed the weapons of war of most of those countries into the hands of know terrorists who hate us. Terrorists that would not have had access to those weapons without military and air support which was authorized by our presidents.

Oil is no longer the game changer it was in the middle east. Large oil is only heavily invested in foreign oil. If it is able to get the environmental movement to put the brakes on fracking here in America , it will still control the price of oil. If it is unable to bring about a moratorium on fracking oil production will no longer be an issue here and prices are seen to drop by 30%. Gas will drop more. I just have a hard time justifying what we are doing overseas for something we recently figured out we have enough of.

So which of those two party's are going to do the right thing so some of the people in the Middle East can start to have some parties of their own?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,632 Posts
Putting the remaining populations in further poverty with much less than they had. Leaving them to face the resulting civil wars that have created huge floods of refugees many of whom will eventually end up here.
Only their best swimmers.

Cause the annexation of Crimea by the Russian government.
Crimea river, Crimea river, cause I cried a river over you.

Disturbed the weapons of war of most of those countries into the hands of know terrorists who hate us.
I know the word "terrorist" is in vogue, but as far as I know, it does not apply to military people shooting at one another.

Oil is no longer the game changer it was in the middle east.
Bzzzzt. There is still a great big world that depends on that oil. Take it off the market and it will definitely have a negative effect on global economics.

So which of those two party's are going to do the right thing so some of the people in the Middle East can start to have some parties of their own?
If you listen to the old neocons, they are beating the war drums again. Not sure whose side they want us to take in this i.e. ISIS, Iran, Hezbollah, Assad. So far Obama's only offered up a few hundred advisors to help Baghdad's forces help themselves. You tell me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,253 Posts
Discussion Starter #13 (Edited)
Only their best swimmers..
Here is a short list of surges of emigration after someone threw a war somewhere.

Philippines after the Spanish American war and the annexation of the Philippine islands. I'm not sure if they swam or took ships.
Probably ships.

Italian immigration, after their government picked the loosing side in WWI. Economy was in the pits no work at home.
These guys definitely took ships. Mostly docking at Ellis Island.

Korean emigration, mostly after the Korean war.

After WWII major influx of Germans, Dutch and other Europeans. Economy of Europe in shambles, infrastructure reduced to rubble those that could left.

Vietnam, post war emigration. Boat people, some were good swimmers huge numbers drowned however. Didn't deter them from trying. Many made it to here. Some to Europe. Many who were now European citizens then emigrated to here to reunite with their other family members.

But wait there are more..... Many more. Note to self if you don't want them for neighbors don't blow up their homeland.

Crimea river, Crimea river, cause I cried a river over you..

Your tax dollars used to overthrow democratically elected governments when they aren't the "right" ones. Personally I would like my tax dollars back. Iran is still giving us fits as a result of our overthrow of their democratically elected government in 1953.
One of many. None of which have worked out.


I know the word "terrorist" is in vogue, but as far as I know, it does not apply to military people shooting at one another..
I'm talking about the guys heading out of Libya and Syria with the stockpiles of high grade state of the art arms after the military collapsed. The ones which have been turning up throughout Africa amongst other places.



Bzzzzt. There is still a great big world that depends on that oil. Take it off the market and it will definitely have a negative effect on global economics.
.
We will be in competition with that oil shortly. Leaving the middle east alone is not taking anything off the market. Oil is a valuable resource it will still sell if we are not pulling the strings. The rest of the world will still need energy and it will go to the highest bidder.
Blowing up the neighborhood is certainly not making the price of middle eastern energy cheaper in Europe or anywhere else.


If you listen to the old neocons, they are beating the war drums again. Not sure whose side they want us to take in this i.e. ISIS, Iran, Hezbollah, Assad. So far Obama's only offered up a few hundred advisors to help Baghdad's forces help themselves. You tell me.
The biggest of the neocons at this moment is the president.
He has waged wars in Libya and Syria. Tried a couple of times to start a war in Iran and taken 6 yrs to make good on his promise to end Iraq and Afghanistan.
In his short time in the US senate he managed to accept more money from the defense industry than any Senator in US history.
No dove there.

Thanks for the response. Hope you had a good weekend cheers
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,632 Posts
The biggest of the neocons at this moment is the president.
He has waged wars in Libya and Syria. Tried a couple of times to start a war in Iran and taken 6 yrs to make good on his promise to end Iraq and Afghanistan.
Need more elaboration on this. How exactly is Obama to blame for people rising up against cruel, tyrannical leaders? How is arming the peasants so they don't get summarily executed by the tyrant's military, AFTER said military had been conducting such sweeping executions, equivalent to starting a war?

How does ending two wars when having to deal with war mongers in Congress equate to being a neo-con? You do realize that if one soldier breaks a nail and it's due to Obama's pulling out, Congress will have full on impeachment hearings wasting his time from now until eternity, right?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,632 Posts
From your article:

"More than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to shut down and an additional 36 might have to close because of new federal air pollution regulations, according to an Associated Press survey.

Together, those plants — some of the oldest and dirtiest in the country...

Combined, the rules could do away with more than 8 percent of the coal-fired generation nationwide, the AP found. The average age of the plants that could be sacrificed is 51 years."

That jives with the Businessweek article. What your article failed to mention was that that decrease will occur over the next 16 years or so. That will take us from 39% coal generation to 30-31%.

What I was pointing out with the article is that Obama isn't "phasing out" coal generated electricity. The EPA is simply mandating that to use it, modern, less pollutive means much used. Unless someone is pro-pollution, I fail to see a big problem.

That's not to say that there aren't problems. As your article points out, jobs will be lost. OTOH, that energy still has to come from somewhere, so jobs will be gained in Nat Gas or Algae fired plants in the future.

Remember, the EPA was created by a Republican. Breathing really shouldn't be a partisan issue. Essentially all of its regulations have been fought by businesses that are affected as "the end of the economy." So far our economy is still reasonably sound and there is a hell of a lot less pollution. Seems to me to be a better use of gov't resources than stirring up the nests of middle eastern religious whackos.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,253 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Need more elaboration on this. How exactly is Obama to blame for people rising up against cruel, tyrannical leaders? How is arming the peasants so they don't get summarily executed by the tyrant's military, AFTER said military had been conducting such sweeping executions, equivalent to starting a war?
Tyrannical leaders seems to be another term getting thrown around lately. The US has not helped anyone except it's military defense contractors by destroying the existing governments, bombing the little infrastructure there was into nonexistence and plunging the area into civil war where there is no rule of law, resulting in the deaths of 3/4 of a million people. You don't help people by turning their cities into wastelands.

How does ending two wars when having to deal with war mongers in Congress equate to being a neo-con? You do realize that if one soldier breaks a nail and it's due to Obama's pulling out, Congress will have full on impeachment hearings wasting his time from now until eternity, right?
He should have stopped the war the way it was started. With the stroke of a pen. He is the king after all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,253 Posts
Discussion Starter #19 (Edited)
When you say "tyranical leaders", I trust you include Obummer?
Never really thought about it.
What do you think?

Tyrannical =
unjustly cruel, harsh, or severe; arbitrary or oppressive; despotic: a tyrannical ruler.

Not sure tyrannical really fits. Been a long time since America had a president who was looking out for America more than his party's friends though.

Some would say that Obummer or Bush were the worst ever. I disagree they don't even come close to as devastating to the nation as Lincoln and FDR were. Those two were in a class by themselves. It's a pity that they were able to rise to the presidency where their actions could do so much damage to so many people.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,632 Posts
When you say "tyranical leaders", I trust you include Obummer?
If Obama was a tyrant like those of the middle east who their people recently deposed, you'd be hanging upside down in a gulag somewhere waiting for your morning foot beating

Joe is right that in some cases, we put them there, and probably shouldn't. But to pretend they aren't or that our democratically elected leaders are tyrants shows a complete disregard for reality.
 
1 - 20 of 83 Posts
Top