Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
speedingpullet
ParticipantWow, for someone who doesn’t like Obama, you guys are sure spending a lot of time on him. Let’s see – two threads devoted to Obama, on a housing blog?
You ‘can’t take him seriously’, but you expend time an effort to let us know how seriously you don’t take him?That kind of publicity – you. just. can’t. buy. 😉
More to the point – why do people who don’t like Obama feel the need to tell us in mind-numbing detail why they don’t like him?
I’m not a big fan of McCain, but I don’t feel the need to shout it from the rooftops – or post multiple threads – telling everyone how much I hate him?
Both these guys occasionally wake up with morning-breath, and get blisters from their shoes. They’re human. Both have issues and policies I’m much more interested in debating, than whether – gasp, horror – they fluff a campaign speech or misread a teleprompter. Big deal.
But then again – I guess by the resounding silence – other than mine – on this thread, I’ve already answered my question about ‘who you’re trying to convince’ with yet more cr@p that doesn’t amount ot a hill ‘o beans in the big picture.
ParticipantWow, for someone who doesn’t like Obama, you guys are sure spending a lot of time on him. Let’s see – two threads devoted to Obama, on a housing blog?
You ‘can’t take him seriously’, but you expend time an effort to let us know how seriously you don’t take him?That kind of publicity – you. just. can’t. buy. 😉
More to the point – why do people who don’t like Obama feel the need to tell us in mind-numbing detail why they don’t like him?
I’m not a big fan of McCain, but I don’t feel the need to shout it from the rooftops – or post multiple threads – telling everyone how much I hate him?
Both these guys occasionally wake up with morning-breath, and get blisters from their shoes. They’re human. Both have issues and policies I’m much more interested in debating, than whether – gasp, horror – they fluff a campaign speech or misread a teleprompter. Big deal.
But then again – I guess by the resounding silence – other than mine – on this thread, I’ve already answered my question about ‘who you’re trying to convince’ with yet more cr@p that doesn’t amount ot a hill ‘o beans in the big picture.
ParticipantWow, for someone who doesn’t like Obama, you guys are sure spending a lot of time on him. Let’s see – two threads devoted to Obama, on a housing blog?
You ‘can’t take him seriously’, but you expend time an effort to let us know how seriously you don’t take him?That kind of publicity – you. just. can’t. buy. 😉
More to the point – why do people who don’t like Obama feel the need to tell us in mind-numbing detail why they don’t like him?
I’m not a big fan of McCain, but I don’t feel the need to shout it from the rooftops – or post multiple threads – telling everyone how much I hate him?
Both these guys occasionally wake up with morning-breath, and get blisters from their shoes. They’re human. Both have issues and policies I’m much more interested in debating, than whether – gasp, horror – they fluff a campaign speech or misread a teleprompter. Big deal.
But then again – I guess by the resounding silence – other than mine – on this thread, I’ve already answered my question about ‘who you’re trying to convince’ with yet more cr@p that doesn’t amount ot a hill ‘o beans in the big picture.
ParticipantWow, for someone who doesn’t like Obama, you guys are sure spending a lot of time on him. Let’s see – two threads devoted to Obama, on a housing blog?
You ‘can’t take him seriously’, but you expend time an effort to let us know how seriously you don’t take him?That kind of publicity – you. just. can’t. buy. 😉
More to the point – why do people who don’t like Obama feel the need to tell us in mind-numbing detail why they don’t like him?
I’m not a big fan of McCain, but I don’t feel the need to shout it from the rooftops – or post multiple threads – telling everyone how much I hate him?
Both these guys occasionally wake up with morning-breath, and get blisters from their shoes. They’re human. Both have issues and policies I’m much more interested in debating, than whether – gasp, horror – they fluff a campaign speech or misread a teleprompter. Big deal.
But then again – I guess by the resounding silence – other than mine – on this thread, I’ve already answered my question about ‘who you’re trying to convince’ with yet more cr@p that doesn’t amount ot a hill ‘o beans in the big picture.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And, make no mistake, you’d get your wish to have al-Qaeda come out and fight. The problem is that you would galvanize tens of thousands of previously moderate Arabs as well, and from 150+ countries throughout the world.[/quote]
I have to agree with Allan here about Saudi Arabia – imagine what would happen if an Islamic Army (of any country) were to occupy the Vatican, for ‘security purposes’?
No matter what your flavour, Christians around the world would be up in arms about it. Over a billion people worldwide consider Mecca the centre of the world, you really don’t want to pi$$ off that many people without a really, really good reason.I also think that getting out of Iraq – whether you’re of the ‘after my first term in 2013’ or the ‘troops out in 16 months’ persuasion – is going to make a big difference for the US re: Middle East relations.
And – maybe someone can explain this – I don’t understand why the US keeps on trying to fight a conventional war against what is a classic Guerilla movement (or asymmetric warfare, pick your poison) – in Al Quaida?.
Why isn’t the military taking a leaf out of both the UK and Israeli methods and copying MI6 and Mossad? They’re both internationally famous for infiltrating their enemies and bringing them down from within.
OK, it doesn’t look as heroic as a bunch of Marines taking a hill in a firestorm, but it would be a more appropriate method for finding and taking down Al Quaida than we’re doing at the moment.
Its not as if the US doesn’t have native speakers, the technology, or the manpower to be ‘softly, soflty, catchy monkey’, in the words of John Le Carre.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And, make no mistake, you’d get your wish to have al-Qaeda come out and fight. The problem is that you would galvanize tens of thousands of previously moderate Arabs as well, and from 150+ countries throughout the world.[/quote]
I have to agree with Allan here about Saudi Arabia – imagine what would happen if an Islamic Army (of any country) were to occupy the Vatican, for ‘security purposes’?
No matter what your flavour, Christians around the world would be up in arms about it. Over a billion people worldwide consider Mecca the centre of the world, you really don’t want to pi$$ off that many people without a really, really good reason.I also think that getting out of Iraq – whether you’re of the ‘after my first term in 2013’ or the ‘troops out in 16 months’ persuasion – is going to make a big difference for the US re: Middle East relations.
And – maybe someone can explain this – I don’t understand why the US keeps on trying to fight a conventional war against what is a classic Guerilla movement (or asymmetric warfare, pick your poison) – in Al Quaida?.
Why isn’t the military taking a leaf out of both the UK and Israeli methods and copying MI6 and Mossad? They’re both internationally famous for infiltrating their enemies and bringing them down from within.
OK, it doesn’t look as heroic as a bunch of Marines taking a hill in a firestorm, but it would be a more appropriate method for finding and taking down Al Quaida than we’re doing at the moment.
Its not as if the US doesn’t have native speakers, the technology, or the manpower to be ‘softly, soflty, catchy monkey’, in the words of John Le Carre.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And, make no mistake, you’d get your wish to have al-Qaeda come out and fight. The problem is that you would galvanize tens of thousands of previously moderate Arabs as well, and from 150+ countries throughout the world.[/quote]
I have to agree with Allan here about Saudi Arabia – imagine what would happen if an Islamic Army (of any country) were to occupy the Vatican, for ‘security purposes’?
No matter what your flavour, Christians around the world would be up in arms about it. Over a billion people worldwide consider Mecca the centre of the world, you really don’t want to pi$$ off that many people without a really, really good reason.I also think that getting out of Iraq – whether you’re of the ‘after my first term in 2013’ or the ‘troops out in 16 months’ persuasion – is going to make a big difference for the US re: Middle East relations.
And – maybe someone can explain this – I don’t understand why the US keeps on trying to fight a conventional war against what is a classic Guerilla movement (or asymmetric warfare, pick your poison) – in Al Quaida?.
Why isn’t the military taking a leaf out of both the UK and Israeli methods and copying MI6 and Mossad? They’re both internationally famous for infiltrating their enemies and bringing them down from within.
OK, it doesn’t look as heroic as a bunch of Marines taking a hill in a firestorm, but it would be a more appropriate method for finding and taking down Al Quaida than we’re doing at the moment.
Its not as if the US doesn’t have native speakers, the technology, or the manpower to be ‘softly, soflty, catchy monkey’, in the words of John Le Carre.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And, make no mistake, you’d get your wish to have al-Qaeda come out and fight. The problem is that you would galvanize tens of thousands of previously moderate Arabs as well, and from 150+ countries throughout the world.[/quote]
I have to agree with Allan here about Saudi Arabia – imagine what would happen if an Islamic Army (of any country) were to occupy the Vatican, for ‘security purposes’?
No matter what your flavour, Christians around the world would be up in arms about it. Over a billion people worldwide consider Mecca the centre of the world, you really don’t want to pi$$ off that many people without a really, really good reason.I also think that getting out of Iraq – whether you’re of the ‘after my first term in 2013’ or the ‘troops out in 16 months’ persuasion – is going to make a big difference for the US re: Middle East relations.
And – maybe someone can explain this – I don’t understand why the US keeps on trying to fight a conventional war against what is a classic Guerilla movement (or asymmetric warfare, pick your poison) – in Al Quaida?.
Why isn’t the military taking a leaf out of both the UK and Israeli methods and copying MI6 and Mossad? They’re both internationally famous for infiltrating their enemies and bringing them down from within.
OK, it doesn’t look as heroic as a bunch of Marines taking a hill in a firestorm, but it would be a more appropriate method for finding and taking down Al Quaida than we’re doing at the moment.
Its not as if the US doesn’t have native speakers, the technology, or the manpower to be ‘softly, soflty, catchy monkey’, in the words of John Le Carre.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And, make no mistake, you’d get your wish to have al-Qaeda come out and fight. The problem is that you would galvanize tens of thousands of previously moderate Arabs as well, and from 150+ countries throughout the world.[/quote]
I have to agree with Allan here about Saudi Arabia – imagine what would happen if an Islamic Army (of any country) were to occupy the Vatican, for ‘security purposes’?
No matter what your flavour, Christians around the world would be up in arms about it. Over a billion people worldwide consider Mecca the centre of the world, you really don’t want to pi$$ off that many people without a really, really good reason.I also think that getting out of Iraq – whether you’re of the ‘after my first term in 2013’ or the ‘troops out in 16 months’ persuasion – is going to make a big difference for the US re: Middle East relations.
And – maybe someone can explain this – I don’t understand why the US keeps on trying to fight a conventional war against what is a classic Guerilla movement (or asymmetric warfare, pick your poison) – in Al Quaida?.
Why isn’t the military taking a leaf out of both the UK and Israeli methods and copying MI6 and Mossad? They’re both internationally famous for infiltrating their enemies and bringing them down from within.
OK, it doesn’t look as heroic as a bunch of Marines taking a hill in a firestorm, but it would be a more appropriate method for finding and taking down Al Quaida than we’re doing at the moment.
Its not as if the US doesn’t have native speakers, the technology, or the manpower to be ‘softly, soflty, catchy monkey’, in the words of John Le Carre.
ParticipantI think comparing energy and transportation is comparing apples to oranges. They’re two sides of the same coin, but need differing technological methods.
We can’t wean ourselves off of imported oil in a stroke, but finding alternative scources to power our houses and buildings will take a load off. There’s plenty of innovation in the transport sector, let someone/something else take the lead in finding new power sources in that field.
Just because Wind power isn’t a single ‘magic bullet’ doesn’t mean its not a worthy and workable piece of the total energy’ jigsaw puzzle’ which will be our power sources in the coming decades.
While I don’t think that Mr Pickens would win my ‘guy I’d like to have a beer with’ award, I have to give him credit for thinking laterally – not something you see every day in the Oil Club. He has a lot of experience in the energy sector, and I’m glad that he’s thinking beyond ‘drill, drill, drill” and exploring other ways to keep the lights on.
Yes, while wind power, especially on the scale that Pickens is envisioning, will have some environmental effect, its still going have a lot less of an impact that the constant shipping, to and fro, of huge quantities of petroleum products.
Or the environmental and human impact of making yet more refineries.
Not to mention the ever present fear of tanker spills, refinery attacks, etc.. both natural and human, in correlation to the massive amount of the stuff we ship all over the world.So, yeah, its a drop in the bucket – but at least its one drop among many. Enough people like Pickens and his ilk start thinking beyond oil, and the bucket will be full.
ParticipantI think comparing energy and transportation is comparing apples to oranges. They’re two sides of the same coin, but need differing technological methods.
We can’t wean ourselves off of imported oil in a stroke, but finding alternative scources to power our houses and buildings will take a load off. There’s plenty of innovation in the transport sector, let someone/something else take the lead in finding new power sources in that field.
Just because Wind power isn’t a single ‘magic bullet’ doesn’t mean its not a worthy and workable piece of the total energy’ jigsaw puzzle’ which will be our power sources in the coming decades.
While I don’t think that Mr Pickens would win my ‘guy I’d like to have a beer with’ award, I have to give him credit for thinking laterally – not something you see every day in the Oil Club. He has a lot of experience in the energy sector, and I’m glad that he’s thinking beyond ‘drill, drill, drill” and exploring other ways to keep the lights on.
Yes, while wind power, especially on the scale that Pickens is envisioning, will have some environmental effect, its still going have a lot less of an impact that the constant shipping, to and fro, of huge quantities of petroleum products.
Or the environmental and human impact of making yet more refineries.
Not to mention the ever present fear of tanker spills, refinery attacks, etc.. both natural and human, in correlation to the massive amount of the stuff we ship all over the world.So, yeah, its a drop in the bucket – but at least its one drop among many. Enough people like Pickens and his ilk start thinking beyond oil, and the bucket will be full.
ParticipantI think comparing energy and transportation is comparing apples to oranges. They’re two sides of the same coin, but need differing technological methods.
We can’t wean ourselves off of imported oil in a stroke, but finding alternative scources to power our houses and buildings will take a load off. There’s plenty of innovation in the transport sector, let someone/something else take the lead in finding new power sources in that field.
Just because Wind power isn’t a single ‘magic bullet’ doesn’t mean its not a worthy and workable piece of the total energy’ jigsaw puzzle’ which will be our power sources in the coming decades.
While I don’t think that Mr Pickens would win my ‘guy I’d like to have a beer with’ award, I have to give him credit for thinking laterally – not something you see every day in the Oil Club. He has a lot of experience in the energy sector, and I’m glad that he’s thinking beyond ‘drill, drill, drill” and exploring other ways to keep the lights on.
Yes, while wind power, especially on the scale that Pickens is envisioning, will have some environmental effect, its still going have a lot less of an impact that the constant shipping, to and fro, of huge quantities of petroleum products.
Or the environmental and human impact of making yet more refineries.
Not to mention the ever present fear of tanker spills, refinery attacks, etc.. both natural and human, in correlation to the massive amount of the stuff we ship all over the world.So, yeah, its a drop in the bucket – but at least its one drop among many. Enough people like Pickens and his ilk start thinking beyond oil, and the bucket will be full.
ParticipantI think comparing energy and transportation is comparing apples to oranges. They’re two sides of the same coin, but need differing technological methods.
We can’t wean ourselves off of imported oil in a stroke, but finding alternative scources to power our houses and buildings will take a load off. There’s plenty of innovation in the transport sector, let someone/something else take the lead in finding new power sources in that field.
Just because Wind power isn’t a single ‘magic bullet’ doesn’t mean its not a worthy and workable piece of the total energy’ jigsaw puzzle’ which will be our power sources in the coming decades.
While I don’t think that Mr Pickens would win my ‘guy I’d like to have a beer with’ award, I have to give him credit for thinking laterally – not something you see every day in the Oil Club. He has a lot of experience in the energy sector, and I’m glad that he’s thinking beyond ‘drill, drill, drill” and exploring other ways to keep the lights on.
Yes, while wind power, especially on the scale that Pickens is envisioning, will have some environmental effect, its still going have a lot less of an impact that the constant shipping, to and fro, of huge quantities of petroleum products.
Or the environmental and human impact of making yet more refineries.
Not to mention the ever present fear of tanker spills, refinery attacks, etc.. both natural and human, in correlation to the massive amount of the stuff we ship all over the world.So, yeah, its a drop in the bucket – but at least its one drop among many. Enough people like Pickens and his ilk start thinking beyond oil, and the bucket will be full.
ParticipantI think comparing energy and transportation is comparing apples to oranges. They’re two sides of the same coin, but need differing technological methods.
We can’t wean ourselves off of imported oil in a stroke, but finding alternative scources to power our houses and buildings will take a load off. There’s plenty of innovation in the transport sector, let someone/something else take the lead in finding new power sources in that field.
Just because Wind power isn’t a single ‘magic bullet’ doesn’t mean its not a worthy and workable piece of the total energy’ jigsaw puzzle’ which will be our power sources in the coming decades.
While I don’t think that Mr Pickens would win my ‘guy I’d like to have a beer with’ award, I have to give him credit for thinking laterally – not something you see every day in the Oil Club. He has a lot of experience in the energy sector, and I’m glad that he’s thinking beyond ‘drill, drill, drill” and exploring other ways to keep the lights on.
Yes, while wind power, especially on the scale that Pickens is envisioning, will have some environmental effect, its still going have a lot less of an impact that the constant shipping, to and fro, of huge quantities of petroleum products.
Or the environmental and human impact of making yet more refineries.
Not to mention the ever present fear of tanker spills, refinery attacks, etc.. both natural and human, in correlation to the massive amount of the stuff we ship all over the world.So, yeah, its a drop in the bucket – but at least its one drop among many. Enough people like Pickens and his ilk start thinking beyond oil, and the bucket will be full.
-
AuthorPosts