Ohhhh that’s what he ment
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=149521
Printed Date: 26 January 2026 at 11:21am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Ohhhh that’s what he ment
Posted By: mbro
Subject: Ohhhh that’s what he ment
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 2:28pm
|
So apparently, when bush said in the state of the union that he was going to cut middle east oil imports by 75% by 2025 he was http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/13768901.htm - just using it as an example and didn't actually mean it. Thank god I'll be president after the 2020 election. ------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Replies:
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 2:36pm
| wow... |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 2:38pm
|
Oooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Well, now Im disapointed. I fully and completely expected our consuption of oil to decrease by 75% when he said that. And when you become president, will you still have the Mbro cam? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 2:38pm
|
I thought that was obvious - it's not like we can suddenly decide not to buy gasoline made with oil from Iran. That's not how the system works. ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 2:42pm
|
True, but to the average american they take what he says literally and he did state it as such that he was going to end the consumption by 2025 with the new technologies.
Gatyr, I think then it'd be the oval office cam -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 2:42pm
|
He said that? And people took him literally? (I had better things to do than watch him blab)
Man. Cutting mideast oil by 75% in any timeframe is a joke. Americans love their automobiles too much. No matter who the president is or what the current crisis will be... the public ain't changing, so any decrease in oil imports isn't feasible. When you become President mbro... I expect you to up the ante and decrease oil imports by 76%. If it means I have to pay more to fill my hovercar, so be it. |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 2:43pm
-------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
ShortyBP wrote:Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 2:44pm
| And I expect you to be under the desk 75.8% of the time on the oval office cam. |
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 3:07pm
|
I took his comment to mean that we will cut our dependance on oil GENERALLY by 75% by 2025, which would of course also reduce our dependance on foreign oil. Now, while that certainly is an extremely aggressive proposition, it isn't necessarily as far-fetched as one might think. There are two principal uses of petroleum fuels in the US - electrical generation and automobiles/trucks. There are other large ones - residential heating and airplanes - but those two are the main ones. They each account for almost 50% of total petrousage in the US. (Of course, we also use a pile of natural gas, oil's cousin, but that was conveniently left out of the question) 20 years is enough time to build a buttload of nuclear reactors - enough to replace all the diesel-burning generators out there. That alone would cut our oil usage almost in half. Then we just need to cut the diesel/gasoline usage in automobiles in half and we have cut our oil usage by 75%. Car gas usage could be significatly reduced by a combination of minimum mileage requirements, increased gas taxes, new engine technology, and alternate fuel usage. It could be done, IMO. It would require some very aggressive action that would be unpopular with many, but it could be done. It won't be done, but it could be. ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 3:10pm
You have my vote. |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 3:10pm
|
Granted nuclear reactors are a good option but you run into the "not in my back yard problem." There hasn't even been a nuclear powerplant built in america in over 20 years. I think it would be a hard sell to get america to go along with it although I myself like the option.
Footnote: If I hear one politician talk about fuel cells in the energy debate I will personally fly to washington to slap them. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: PaintballkidEPS
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 3:10pm
| wow wouldnt it be great to have Mbro as president? |
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 3:17pm
|
You have NIMBY problems no matter what you build. I have seen shots fired trying to stop construction of windmills. Granted that the NIMBYs would work hard to stop nukes, my timeline factors that in. 5 years for construction, 3 years for pre-construction development work, and 10 years for politics and litigation before that. Although we actually can't afford 10 years of litigation - if we are to build 100+ nuclear reactors, that can't all be done at the same time; there just aren't enough construction companies with the expertise in the world. Construction would have to be staggered, which means that several plants would have to be underway within the next 5 years or so. ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 3:21pm
|
You had the NIMBY problem in Racine county a few years ago when they tried to expand the coal plant there. And on the expertise thing I think France would probably be the most likely option for getting real modern expertise in the field, I think they are the only western country still pursuing nuclear power activly. Of course we could always ask North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran or Isreal for help. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 3:24pm
|
I would LOVE to see GW call up Kim Jung Il and ask for help with nuclear technology. :) ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 3:25pm
|
Nuclear reactors won't even be an issue.
President mbro will provide a cold fusion reactors, which will provide enough power to supply the nation. Five reactors will be built using land acquired via the rule of Eminent Domain, on property once owned by John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. mbro rules. |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 3:26pm
|
Actaully, I'm currently looking at these warm fusion reactors, they seem much more plausable -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 3:33pm
| This thread delivers. Mbro for president! |
Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 3:55pm
Really we need refineries (enrichment plants). Which under some of the new plan are going to be built very soon. You can have all the nuclear plants you want but then you run into "What do we do with the waste now?" questions. We need plants, and refineries. PS. I think I would rather have a nuke plant in my backyard, then a propane tank. Just my thoughts on it. It just gets me PO'ed when people drive behind giant trucks full of explosive products, then complain that a train carrying nuclear waste (in a sealed and uber protected boxcar) goes through their state.....retards. |
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 3:59pm
|
Folks, he's an ex-oil barron.... -------------  |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 4:06pm
|
*Meant ------------- 
|
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 4:23pm
|
Ya know though, -75% in 25 years isn't exactly the most lofty goal in the world.... ------------- |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 4:32pm
|
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 4:46pm
http://ask.yahoo.com/20030919.html - This says we get like 17% from Saudi Arabia, and if you add up all of the percentages from the mideast on the map down there you get like 30%. So basically he wants to cut down on our oil imports by 22% in the next 25 years....In my opinion that isn't that bigga deal. We need to actually try to get this country off of oil as much as we try to secure new sources....hell, we built the a-bomb and went to the moon, changing energy sources should not be this hard...
Yeah, I know it's a couple of years old but still.... ------------- |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 02 February 2006 at 8:03pm
America has a short attention span. We talk up a great deal about how we are needlessly dependant on oil, and how we should work on new technology... but then we step down off our soapbox and into our H2 or Escalade and don't feel like paying for the cost of said new technology. DO we have the ability to ween ourselves off? I think so, if we apply ourselves. Do I think we will achieve that goal? Nope. Because no one truly wants to apply themself. They say they do... but its nothing more than words. Pessimistic as it may be... the public incentive is nil. It'll take more than $3 gas prices, or even $5 gas prices to wake Americans up. And even then... the solution does not become "find something new"... the solution every wants is "just get the prices down again". Nothing else matters. Alternative fuels? Improving Engine Technology? Public Transportation? Shrugged off. Doesn't matter. All Americans care about are $2 gas prices. They aren't willing to spend a nickel more, or use a drop less... even in the name of long-term goals. Not that I'm a saint either. I drive to work, rather than take public trans (cheaper/faster to drive). But I AM willing to pay $5/gal, as much a hardship as that would be on my meager salary, if it meant $2.50 of it went towards long-term solutions (and not just profits into oil co's pockets). America needs true incentive. War in the Mid-East, Katrina-style price hikes... obviously not enough. |
Posted By: TruePaintballer
Date Posted: 03 February 2006 at 1:35am
|
lmao oh bushy ------------- http://www.freewebs.com/outlawspaintball/index.htm - Outlaws *Sponsors* http://www.abrika.ca - Abrika |
Posted By: Whazuuup!
Date Posted: 03 February 2006 at 9:27am
|
I agree with Shorty. The incentive isn't there because gas only goes up a few coins at a time, and people forget about it after a few days. Now if gas jumped up a buck or two in one day, then I think the country would actually start to get it. ------------- 
http://ipods.freepay.com/?r=20098193 - Free ipod! Yay! |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 03 February 2006 at 9:46am
Again, no interest in a "fix". No interest in reducing the usage. Just interest in reducing the cost. |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 03 February 2006 at 1:30pm
|
In a follow up http://www.thestreet.com/_googlen/stocks/energy/10266206.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA - 54% of americans think we should use nuclear energy but 63% don't want a nuclear power plant near their homes -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 03 February 2006 at 1:33pm
One or the other, people. You cant have both. |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 03 February 2006 at 1:41pm
|
Sure you can, just build it where poor people live like we did with airlines. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: amishman89
Date Posted: 03 February 2006 at 7:25pm
|
Hi Iam an American and Iam addicted to Oil. ------------- Only Hugh can prevent florist friars. |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 03 February 2006 at 7:28pm
-------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: amishman89
Date Posted: 03 February 2006 at 7:32pm
|
I choose I am for $200. ------------- Only Hugh can prevent florist friars. |
Posted By: oreomann33
Date Posted: 03 February 2006 at 7:34pm
|
Nuclear power plants = Bigger penis
------------- 
|
Posted By: Mephistopheles
Date Posted: 03 February 2006 at 8:28pm
Because quite sadly the average American is a pretty damn gullible idiot. Sorry. Had to say it. ------------- http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=166647&PN=1"> 
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 03 February 2006 at 11:52pm
|
I'd love to have a nuclear power plant in my backyard. I'd go play in the reactor and grow a third eye. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Mephistopheles
Date Posted: 04 February 2006 at 12:21pm
|
I'd have my own Cyclops Kitten! ------------- http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=166647&PN=1">
|
Posted By: procarbinefreak
Date Posted: 04 February 2006 at 12:36pm
then you'd post it all over the internet and when it died i'd make shirts and make money off it! the true american way! |
Posted By: Mephistopheles
Date Posted: 04 February 2006 at 12:40pm
|
Screw that I'll make my own shirts off it. ------------- http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=166647&PN=1">
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 04 February 2006 at 3:50pm
|
I say we cut off oil from Norway. Norway is nothing but trouble, a regular cesspool... ------------- 
|