| Bush Takes Back State of the Union Speech [message #188253] |
Thu, 02 February 2006 19:36  |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
And it only took one day... Why are we supposed to listen to the President when his own administration says his speech isn't even true?
| Quote: |
Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports
By Kevin G. Hall
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.
|
Oh, and check this out:
http://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/see-lieberman-ju mp-for-joy.html
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bush Takes Back State of the Union Speech [message #188340 is a reply to message #188308] |
Fri, 03 February 2006 17:05  |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 03 February 2006 13:28 |
How is it unintelligent to want to remove dependence on foreign oil by 2025?
|
It's not. But to state one thing, when you (according to his administration) actually meant something else, is.
| Quote: |
I believe you are splitting hairs.
Either way, our dependence will not be on oil from the middle east.
|
Heh, it will be on Canada 
[Updated on: Fri, 03 February 2006 17:05] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Bush Takes Back State of the Union Speech [message #188344 is a reply to message #188253] |
Fri, 03 February 2006 17:38 |
msgtpain
Messages: 663
Registered: March 2003
Location: Montana
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Thre president saying that he is comitted to reducing middle east oil 75% by 2025 is just about as stupid as someone saying that he didn't mean it literally, or someone arguing about who we should believe.
President Bush will most likely be DEAD by 2025, or at least in an electric wheeled cart eating mashed carrots. I think it is OBVIOUS that whatever he said wasn't meant LITERALLY as HIM being dedicated to it; in two years, he won't give a rats ass about it.
What I think is REALLY stupid is that some far-left liberal tool would begin a forum topic entitled "Bush Takes Back State of the Union Speech", when all they really want to talk about is one line in the entire speech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bush Takes Back State of the Union Speech [message #190680 is a reply to message #188253] |
Tue, 21 February 2006 08:03 |
 |
Goztow
Messages: 9731
Registered: March 2005
Location: Belgium
Karma: 13
|
General (5 Stars)
Goztoe |
|
|
Yay, the US now want 100 more nuclear plants to reduce this dependancy. How nice is that? It's nicer to have nuclear waste than to depend of the middle east...
You can find me in The KOSs2 (TK2) discord while I'm playing. Feel free to come and say hi! TK2 discord
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bush Takes Back State of the Union Speech [message #190683 is a reply to message #188253] |
Tue, 21 February 2006 08:55 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Actually, yes, it is nicer. It's a hell of a lot safer, too; nuclear power stations have a much lower accident rate than do oil-fired plants. Not only that, but the same mass of fuel that will last a nuclear plant for months takes an oil plant mere MINUTES to burn through (though Uranium is, admittedly, a more limited resource). Both types have roughly the same conversion efficiency (+/- 60%), which is the current known limit for systems which use superheated steam to turn a turbine. Nuclear plants do not produce the same volume of pollution that conventional plants do; the only problem that exists right now is that of finding a place to store the radioactive waste. Nuclear plants will also work anywhere, unlike other alternatives such as solar, hydroelectric, and wind.
Until fusion finally gets up on its legs, nuclear fission is the best option we've got to kill dependance on fossil fuel power (including coal as well, which is still the dominant source).
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bush Takes Back State of the Union Speech [message #190798 is a reply to message #190683] |
Wed, 22 February 2006 12:24 |
 |
Scythar
Messages: 580
Registered: February 2003
Location: Finland
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 21 February 2006 10:55 |
Until fusion finally gets up on its legs, nuclear fission is the best option we've got to kill dependance on fossil fuel power (including coal as well, which is still the dominant source).
|
Kind of like me playing Renegade until Duke Nukem: Forever comes out 
OR, we could solve several issues in on shot/shit: Ban condoms and birth regulations, and then remove excessive babies from their families and insert them into the giant human farm in which they create power, Matrix-style...
But yeah, seriously, there aren't any real alternative to nuclear power yet in most countries. It's quite clean, contrary to the common belief, as long as the waste is stored well. Maybe, if NASA got their space elevator up and running, we could safely transfer the waste to space too.
There's a hole in the sky through which things can fly.
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
