hockeydork

Copy, wind mills have put this US into unrecoverable debt. Good thing we can keep drilling holes in the ground because we'll never run out of oil. I can't wait for somebody to invent a bottle of JD that never runs out too.

That draws a lot of conclusions that I don't agree with. Like because we're at 2% it means we can't get to 30%? There was a time and place when only 2 percent of the population had cell phones. The idea that we've spent all this money on nothing? Not quite, the progress is pretty dramatic: 5 trillion on a life changing technology is nothing. We spent 2 trillion on the Iraq war. I don't even want to know how much was spent going from this: to this: The one thing I do agree with in that video is the radical greenies need to get in check with reality and understand we don't live in disneyland. Those metals will need to be mined, there will be consequences on the environment, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The good news is they only have to be mined once and can be recycled over and over.

I guess this is what I am struggling with. I am fine with you thinking our government is too big in its current state. But to than justify trading with Russia and China? You think our government is too big? Look at them, we ain't got sh*t on those governments. I guess one could shrug their shoulders and say Ukrainians/Russians/Taiwanese/Chinese are not my problem because they aren't Americans. But for me if they have two eyeballs, a forehead and opposable thumbs and don't want to live on their knees, the last thing I am going to do is keep helping the aggressor wreck 40 million people. I am with you on the need for consistency in the US. But it's usually a trade off between doing what is right and doing what is in the best interest of ones self and that situation is constantly changing. What was a good idea yesterday can become a terrible idea in an instant, and vice versa. I was against Trumps war on China. I thought it would isolate us, hurts us economically(it will), and make the Chinese even less likely to westenrize, and even more likely to militarize. I was wrong, they're going down that path anyways. Trading ipods, picture frames, camping chairs and TVs with someone is one thing. Trading essentials, like water, fuel, food and other vital items is another. I don't care if we have to drill in the short term, or push hard to accelerate renewables, or find some middle ground solution, all I know is I don't want the US having its hands tied because we need to buy X from sh*tty country Z. And often only the government has the ability to react rapidly and move the US toward a unified goal, just like only the government had the means to push to put people on the moon in the 60s. So we need a cohesive team plan, even if it may not be our first choice, and regardless of who is in office, we need to just support each other and push towards ensuring the American way of life isn't going anywhere.

I like that you play devils advocate a lot, it forces me and others to defend my/their positions. But if you're going to point out whats wrong with someone else's plan of action you need to provide a solution. So what is your plan? You want to keep trading with the Russians and Chinese? I get your anti left, trump wanted to bring manufacturing back home and this was before the Chinese (yet?)/Russians started redrawing borders, but now your saying we shouldn't because it'll damage the American economy and things will get more expensive? You know that's exactly what would have happend with the "America first" plan right? Do you know how much a computer will cost for the average American if its made here and not China? In hindsight Trump was right IMO. We tried to play ball with these bad actors, hoping they would see the light. It failed, was worth trying no doubt, but failed. The world is variable. Prior to the Russians invading, the East hadn't done anything "that" bad, and I understand "that bad" is subjective. But now we have an actual smoking gun reason to detach our economy and your saying we should't because its in the best interest of America.

That could happen too. And I'm fine with it. If he wants to lockdown in fortress Russia and tank the Russian economy, and the Russians around him are dumb enough to let him ruin their country, so be it. We don't need them, we don't need their fossil fuels, we are rich in our own resources (fossil, wind solar) and we are innovators. Strategically we will leave them in the dust.

My understanding is we're calling and they aren't picking up the phone? Not sure how accurate that is. Unfortunately he doubled down, and this exactly what happens when you double down, you can double lose. I guess that ship sailed for me. He is going to be completely defeated at least in terms of what he actually wanted to achieve, he is going to be humiliated, he is going to be shamed and shunned, and he is likely to get offed by his own. Minus a couple people on here who think that the West should keep trading with Russia because "its in the economic interests of the US", the vast majority want nothing to do with Russia unless the government is changed. Trust = blown. It's done, no going back. I have accepted that we should be looking into mitigating the use tac nukes or chemical weapons via force we can transfer to the Ukrainian's, and be prepared for their employment. If he is considering using them, nothing is going to change that now. Let's hope that units says "no thanks" when the order is given. Good for them. That's what happens when you send young Russian kids to die for nothing. The Ukrainian's have Mel on their side, the Russians, do not.

Will it? Putin won't leave without leveling the place in a temper tantrum to save his ego anyways. The West will be the ones who end up footing the bill and donating money to help rebuild the place. Small price to pay for the Ukrainians shedding blood to fend off the Russians. As sad as it is, the US spent years and trillions on weapons preparing to fight the Russians, and now somebody else is doing it for us. Least we can do is let them try and send the Black Sea fleet to the sea floor. Tragic, but I have seen enough of cruise missiles smashing into random apartment complexes. I'm sure we have some dusty harpoons that we're gunna be scrapped anyways. Light em up.

I know which is why entertaining the idea of them using a "small?" one, a "medium?" one, or whatever in Ukraine unchecked is a freaking disaster. This is nuclear weapons, appeasement has no place. We've been riding high on the idea that a nut job won't ever get their hands on them, which was always a statistical impossibility. The amount of destruction you just noted, is exactly why we need to make it clear that we all lose everything if this gets escalated to the level of employing nukes. I want that Russian commander to KNOW that if that nuke goes off in Kyiv, one WILL go off over his own boys. Because that is the ONLY way to get him to not agree to push that button. I think those 500 million people are more likely to die if we shrug and walk away. Maybe not now, but they'll die eventually when the next conflict kicks off and nuclear weapons is a main ingredient for the participants. BTW, there is a high probability that humanity will wipe itself out with nuclear weapons, or at least send civilization back a couple hundred years. To think that we aren't "dumb" enough to do it is shortsighted. War itself is dumb, it is a logical fallacy, yet we do it all the time. We have gotten smarter, and as a world much more tolerant, and wars have for the most part gotten less brutal, but underneath it all were all still animals capable of doing very dumb things. It's all still there under the facade. Putin could have challenged Zelensky to a game of darts to decide the fate of Ukraine. Nope, we're animals, we love to resort to the extremes unless a bunch of other animals are around to remind it isn't a good idea.

This is what I was alluding to earlier. You would need the whole world to collectively be like "oh absolutely not" if Russia did use one, including China/India/Pakistan. Which would be possible and the best solution, but its an unknown that we could all collectively band together like that. I'm not a two wrongs make a right person usually, but I think there is validity to making it clear that if he uses a small nuke in Ukraine, it is very likely we will supply them with something comparable to shoot back at the Russians, in Ukraine. I'm not saying we should go nuking Moscow, but letting the bully use one and letting him not have to pay the price? Disaster. We will end up paying that bill at some point in the future. If you let the narrative of using tactical nukes offensively and successfully, to be written into history. We're all screwed. The next conflict will just be countries slinging tactical nukes at each others bases.

What do you think about about supplying Ukraine with a tac nuke? This isn't a rhetorical question and i'm not trying to prove a point, I honestly don't know. It just seems letting a nuke fly without getting checked by somebody is no bueno for future conflicts. Might as well just start future wars off with slinging tac nukes at your opponent.

A) I guess I was looking at it through the lens of it would actually encourage smaller countries to arm up with nukes even more. If they see a big bad country use a nuke on a little guy (for no reason, which makes this scenario even worse) without getting nuked back, what country on earth is ever going to feel secure without having their own nukes? I really don't want to see tac nuke employment becoming a new "normal" element of battle. I honestly don't know, but seeing a country employ nukes in an offensive manner and getting away with it is terrifying. B) This would work, but how do we ensure it? Would the entire world unite and basically be like "yea this government has to go"? Would China green light terminating Putin? What if Xi says no? China may not have the best military, but they sure are big and could make a real mess in their sphere. No real way to know, uncharted waters. C) Yea this fight for sure would have chosen us. Russia's fault, Putin had his late life crisis and made a huge mess and thinks the world is his personal game board since he himself doesn't have to worry about dying in Ukraine. How someone in his inner circle who maybe has terminal cancer or something hasn't clipped him and taken one for the team at this point beats me. He's annihilating his own country economically, and for what strategic gain exactly besides an ego boost I have yet to figure out.

100 percent. However I think if he uses a tac in Ukraine, one needs to be used in retaliation on Russian forces in Ukraine. The idea of tac nuke deployment with zero return nuclear repercussions is unacceptable. That precedent will be too damn dangerous. If he lets a bird fly, than that can of worms is open and there is no going back, one needs to fly back or the future of the whole damn world is at stake. That is the code we've all agreed upon. I think China may have Vlad on a leash. They know full well a nuke going off in their back yard is not at all in their best interests. Xi may be an autocrat, but "self preservation" is also high in his vocabulary. That's whats great about these people, if their willing to abuse their own people, you can bet your ass China will have no hesitation letting Russia choke itself out if they overstep. He'd rather see Vlad go down alone than be dragged with him if this escalates. And if this goes genocide? No more pee pee slaps with Stingers and Javelins. Give the Ukrainians heavy weapons. Like Harpoons. Let them sink the Black Sea fleet. Two can play that game.

This should be playing all over the news networks. Best concise breakdown I've seen.

Lets hope we keep the pressure up and this gang of dbags learn the lesson of Icarus. He should've just run his clock out and sat in his billion dollar palace on the Black Sea placarded with all its czar double headed eagle memorabilia. If he falls it's going to be a long way down. I've become even more skeptical of his NATO expansion BS excuse after learning more about him. All this "for the motherland" bologna, what a load of shit. I hope the Russian people go take back their Kremlin. And people think corruption here is bad.

Some pretty brutal street to street fighting. Also been watching a lot of docs on Putin. I have come to the conclusion he is essentially a nuclear armed mafia boss who wiggled to the top through bribes.

Just my one isolated experience but: At a career fair I was speaking with their VP of talent hiring/whatever you want to call it. She said why should I hire you. I said I possessed better than average academic talent and practical technical skills that not every body has. She replied with "everybody here is smart", and handed me back my resume. I guess everybody can throw the ball like Brady too. Make of it what you will, it all worked out for me, been building boats and flying airplanes and have no regrets, especially after watching them put two new 73s into the ground =/.

Def not a panacea but would provide more stability. Some useful charts for your talking point and others:

And that's fine man, I am fine with your counter position so long as its consistent. For me the autos had to be bailed out as a matter of national security, losing the ability to build transportation in house domestically would be a giant vulnerability to the security of the country. For me it was a necessary "socialist act" to preserve our free capitalist society. And I hear you about the potential for the government to over react to gas owners, but to me they haven't really punished ICE vehicle owners yet. The new LS engines are freaking awesome, and make more power on less gas than any of the Vettes that have come before. If they do punish ICE owners I will line up right next to you and back you 100 percent. But I am fine with them "rewarding" someone who is willing to buy an EV to offset my polluting lead foot. I will also restate that if electricity costs get cheap enough, which they have been, certain bio fuels that are currently not worth it may become worth it. Even if I have to pay todays equivalent of 3.85 a gallon for some bio butanol in 15 years, do I really give a sh*t so long as I can hear my V8 scream? There is a middle ground solution to be found here where everybody wins, and you and I can skip off into the sunset holding hands.

Well I might be in the minority than, because for me its an engineering problem, so that's what governs my approach. EVs and gas cars are just different tools to solve different problems. I struggle with the notion of making policies based off of picking winners here and losers over there, pissing off this group of political people over here, etc. Even if that is how it goes down 90 recent of the time, for better or worse. Also I don't think gas engines will be abolished, just play a different role. And if the government tries to take my gas car away, I'll absolutely resist. US oil manufacturers are unlikely to be going anywhere, but they should probably plan for a smaller market share, and should probably start buying up renewable companies like their foreign counterparts have been. With regards to the incentives, I acknowledged EVs were not perfect gas replacements, are new tech, and will intially require some enticement. Also expect those incentives to vanish as mass production of EVs start to play a role and initial costs to acquire an EV become comparable to an ICE car. Vehicles aren't TVs, they are a necessity for most people to get to work and require infrastructure, and are the second largest investment after homes. Could the free market develop EVs on its own? Sure. Would it take a lot longer? Yes. So if you are 100 percent on the free market train, than yea I guess incentives by the government are government meddling somewhere it shouldn't be in your eyes. But so was bailing out the US auto makers. I am fine with your position, so long as your fine with having to drive a KIA with Ford GM and Chrysler all defunct. Per the video previously posted, we should be building more nuke plants because they are more economical in the long run than natural gas, but we don't. So why is that than? You agree we are making the right decision by not harnessing emission free nuke plants? Nuke technology can stand on its own merit, yet where is it?

Not once did I bring politics into this thread. Not once did I advocate for banning gasoline vehicles, which is different than encouraging electric vehicles and supporting infrastucture development. You're so focused on "beating the left", you can't approach a discussion without that bleeding into your thoughts. Which basically makes you problem solving/combat ineffective.

If airplanes were so great the airlines would build airport's themselves without government funding. Disengaging, you suck. Your on a political tirade, not actually interested in energy policy.

Because humans, for the most part, are terrible at caring about long term goals. Which makes sense: we are finite creatures, why care about a problem for somebody who won’t be born for another 150 years? It’s unnatural to care. Which is the exact same reason the nuclear plants you want to build (and I agree with you), aren’t getting built, even tho they are better than a natural gas plant Switching a significant portion of the fleet to electric cars requires large infrastructure investment and some lifestyle adjustment (numerous charging stations at places of employment, fuel management planning/skills, similar to what a pilot has to deal with since we cannot pull over when the plane runs out). The incentive to adopt/infrastructure upgrades is more than the average consumer has the power do do (rapidly at least), unlike an iPod. An iPod is a luxury item, transportation is a necessity. I also acknowledge that electric cars ARE NOT a perfect drop in replacement for liquid fueled vehicles, at least yet (unlike an iPod was for CD player). They’re different. A negative is that their “turn times” are not 2 minutes at a pump (they need time to charge, even if its only an hour for a fast charge). A positive is there are a lot less things to break (no exhaust to rot, no complex transmission, no oxygen sensors, oil pan gaskets, valve cover gaskets, rear mains seals, the list goes on), and fuel costs are much lower over the life of the vehicle. If I was a betting man: You will see most families owning a mix, probably at least one liquid fuel car and one electric car. This may vary with location. If you live in a city, you may be all electric, in the country, you may be all liquid fuel. Investment in electric infrastructure upgrades will be costly at first, but there are dividends in the long term. As to the long term future of liquid fuel (in like 100 years), I know cellulosic ethanol has flopped in the past due to production costs, but if electricity can be generated cheap enough to lower the processing costs, I could see this being the liquid fuel of the future. Especially since I’ve read Exxon has some nifty proprietary tech to make ethanol into liquid butanol (basically a perfect gasoline drop in replacement), which eliminates the water affinity problem of ethanol.

Easy his intentions are pure, but yes let's just truck it in lol. Does the US have a land based cruise missile system? I know the army was playing with some anti ship missiles. Seems to me rolling a couple of those across the border from Poland would solve a lot of problems....but maybe start WW3.

Because electric cars are coming, there's no stopping them. Oil industry knows this but is going to squeeze out as much profit as they can. It's what I'd do if I was CEO of Chevron. I drive a G8 with an LS3, so I love gas. The electric car is coming and will significantly dent oil demand.

I've been E85ing mine, working great for now. Mileage is down slightly but we'll worth it cost wise.