Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

All of PACEDOG'S Syria threads merged into one

+7
Wordslinger
Markle
ZVUGKTUBM
Sal
Joanimaroni
knothead
boards of FL
11 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Go down  Message [Page 4 of 6]

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Oh, and the COWH has blocked expansion of oil drilling on federal lands and in the Gulf Of Mexico.
Maybe, but it has had no effect on the growing U.S. oil production onshore in the lower 48. I read the Oil & Gas Journal and follow energy from many different news outlets on a daily basis. Big Oil does not blast the Obama administration hardly at all. They'd like to see Keystone built and worry about fracking being regulated a little too much, but otherwise, they are as quiet as a mouse. It is a good time to be invested in oil. And in about 15 years, when the major Saudi oil fields run dry, the price of the black stuff is going to rise considerably.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Z,
All well and good to get off ME oil, but we have economic partners that cannot.
This is true, but many of our economic partners are making great strides to reduce their dependency on petroleum. Like Germany, which will soon generate 50% of its electricity from solar. We are using less petroleum in the U.S., too, even as we extract more of it these days.

The Chinese are going to be hurting. Their demand for oil is growing exponentially as their people become more affluent. They don't produce enough oil and gas domestically, and I just read that U.S. technology isn't working in China where they also have vast shale oil and gas deposits. Different geology than we have here. So, China will have to suck up to the tin-pot dictators who control the world's disparate oil deposits.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

knothead

knothead

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Knot head,
If the COWH wanted to lessen dependence on foreign ME oil we'd be drilling on the federal lands he cut off and closed and allowing the Keystone pipeline to be approved.
*********************************************************

That is just not a true statement PD. First, the Keystone pipeline dustup was a straw man. It would deliver the nasty shale oil to a tax free export zone in Houston and then shipped to the highest bidder. America would gain nothing except the risk of pumping the stuff across fragile areas where critical aquifers are located. The permanent jobs would not mean squat but not approving it we save the good paying jobs by shipping by rail and truck. It's never been a good idea but became a political football by those seeking ammo to go after the POTUS We now import less oil from the ME than we did 10 years ago and domestic production has increased.

Sal

Sal

knothead wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:Knot head,
If the COWH wanted to lessen dependence on foreign ME oil we'd be drilling on the federal lands he cut off and closed and allowing the Keystone pipeline to be approved.
*********************************************************

That is just not a true statement PD.  First, the Keystone pipeline dustup was a straw man.  It would deliver the nasty shale oil to a tax free export zone in Houston and then shipped to the highest bidder.  America would gain nothing except the risk of pumping the stuff across fragile areas where critical aquifers are located.  The permanent jobs would not mean squat but not approving it we save the good paying jobs by shipping by rail and truck.  It's never been a good idea but became a political football by those seeking ammo to go after the POTUS  We now import less oil from the ME than we did 10 years ago and domestic production has increased.
Bingo 

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:Z,
All well and good to get off ME oil, but we have economic partners that cannot.
This is true, but many of our economic partners are making great strides to reduce their dependency on petroleum. Like Germany, which will soon generate 50% of its electricity from solar. We are using less petroleum in the U.S., too, even as we extract more of it these days.

The Chinese are going to be hurting. Their demand for oil is growing exponentially as their people become more affluent. They don't produce enough oil and gas domestically, and I just read that U.S. technology isn't working in China where they also have vast shale oil and gas deposits. Different geology than we have here. So, China will have to suck up to the tin-pot dictators who control the world's disparate oil deposits.
Glad we agree on something. Still, goods and service items are moved by truck or train and that required diesel right now which is fossil fuel. Here in the good ole USA, that is quite important because we are a gazillion times bigger than Germany. Japan and others are dependent upon ME oil and our economies are tied together.

Guest


Guest

knothead wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:Knot head,
If the COWH wanted to lessen dependence on foreign ME oil we'd be drilling on the federal lands he cut off and closed and allowing the Keystone pipeline to be approved.
*********************************************************

That is just not a true statement PD.  First, the Keystone pipeline dustup was a straw man.  It would deliver the nasty shale oil to a tax free export zone in Houston and then shipped to the highest bidder.  America would gain nothing except the risk of pumping the stuff across fragile areas where critical aquifers are located.  The permanent jobs would not mean squat but not approving it we save the good paying jobs by shipping by rail and truck.  It's never been a good idea but became a political football by those seeking ammo to go after the POTUS  We now import less oil from the ME than we did 10 years ago and domestic production has increased.
You don't think that the US isn't going to get some sort of deal on the oil we BUY from Canada if we let them ship it across our country? If you think that, then you have another THINK coming. We get the majority of our oil from Canada and they will cut us in on a deal I guarantee you that. Drop your liberal, greentard talking points and get with the program. And, no we aren't going to garner more trucking jobs to move it across the USA in that manner. That process for the oil folks is cost prohibitive. The Canucks will just build a pipeline that goes from where the oil is found to the Pacific Coast where the Chinese are waiting to buy it up.

Guest


Guest

Sarin gas is like bug spray for humans. The symptons are atypical of that sort of agent.

http://news.sky.com/story/1132776/3600-syrians-treated-for-neurotoxic-symptoms

knothead

knothead

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
knothead wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:Knot head,
If the COWH wanted to lessen dependence on foreign ME oil we'd be drilling on the federal lands he cut off and closed and allowing the Keystone pipeline to be approved.
*********************************************************

That is just not a true statement PD.  First, the Keystone pipeline dustup was a straw man.  It would deliver the nasty shale oil to a tax free export zone in Houston and then shipped to the highest bidder.  America would gain nothing except the risk of pumping the stuff across fragile areas where critical aquifers are located.  The permanent jobs would not mean squat but not approving it we save the good paying jobs by shipping by rail and truck.  It's never been a good idea but became a political football by those seeking ammo to go after the POTUS  We now import less oil from the ME than we did 10 years ago and domestic production has increased.
You don't think that the US isn't going to get some sort of deal on the oil we BUY from Canada if we let them ship it across our country? If you think that, then you have another THINK coming. We get the majority of our oil from Canada and they will cut us in on a deal I guarantee you that. Drop your liberal, greentard talking points and get with the program. And, no we aren't going to garner more trucking jobs to move it across the USA in that manner. That process for the oil folks is cost prohibitive. The Canucks will just build a pipeline that goes from where the oil is found to the Pacific Coast where the Chinese are waiting to buy it up.
******************************************************

I don't want to embarrass you more than you are to yourself but the things you say are just not factual PD.  Canada is not giving any one 'a break' but if you are aware of an economic agreement you are invited to share that with not just us but the whole world!  America currently benefits from thousands of transportation jobs in both trucking and rail that are good paying jobs + benefits . . . . now that is just a fact.  The 'oil' goes to Houston which is in an economic tax free zone but will be sold on the world market as the commodity that it is.

And as to what you call greentard whatever, I assume you don't give a rat's ass about America's natural resources including our need to protect our water supply.  There is just not a positive here in the equation for America unless you consider we accept a real/present danger to our aquifers, lose good paying jobs only to deliver the product to an economic tax free zone to be sold on the world market then you need to go back for a refresher course in basic economics my friend.  This is not a good deal for America . . . .

Continue your rants but most of us here are not necessarily Einstein's but we are not stupid!!!

Guest


Guest

knothead wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:
knothead wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:Knot head,
If the COWH wanted to lessen dependence on foreign ME oil we'd be drilling on the federal lands he cut off and closed and allowing the Keystone pipeline to be approved.
*********************************************************

That is just not a true statement PD.  First, the Keystone pipeline dustup was a straw man.  It would deliver the nasty shale oil to a tax free export zone in Houston and then shipped to the highest bidder.  America would gain nothing except the risk of pumping the stuff across fragile areas where critical aquifers are located.  The permanent jobs would not mean squat but not approving it we save the good paying jobs by shipping by rail and truck.  It's never been a good idea but became a political football by those seeking ammo to go after the POTUS  We now import less oil from the ME than we did 10 years ago and domestic production has increased.
You don't think that the US isn't going to get some sort of deal on the oil we BUY from Canada if we let them ship it across our country? If you think that, then you have another THINK coming. We get the majority of our oil from Canada and they will cut us in on a deal I guarantee you that. Drop your liberal, greentard talking points and get with the program. And, no we aren't going to garner more trucking jobs to move it across the USA in that manner. That process for the oil folks is cost prohibitive. The Canucks will just build a pipeline that goes from where the oil is found to the Pacific Coast where the Chinese are waiting to buy it up.
******************************************************

I don't want to embarrass you more than you are to yourself but the things you say are just not factual PD.  Canada is not giving any one 'a break' but if you are aware of an economic agreement you are invited to share that with not just us but the whole world!  America currently benefits from thousands of transportation jobs in both trucking and rail that are good paying jobs + benefits . . . . now that is just a fact.  The 'oil' goes to Houston which is in an economic tax free zone but will be sold on the world market as the commodity that it is.

And as to what you call greentard whatever, I assume you don't give a rat's ass about America's natural resources including our need to protect our water supply.  There is just not a positive here in the equation for America unless you consider we accept a real/present danger to our aquifers, lose good paying jobs only to deliver the product to an economic tax free zone to be sold on the world market then you need to go back for a refresher course in basic economics my friend.  This is not a good deal for America . . . .

Continue your rants but most of us here are not necessarily Einstein's but we are not stupid!!!
Whatever knothead, favors are a part of politics. You are naïve.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Wordslinger, for the same reason we got into WWII we should take Assad's regime down. He is exterminating his own people.
Pacedog: Wrong again. We didn't go into WWII to save Europe's Jews, and you know better. In fact, our government did all they could to avoid the issue of Hitler's holocaust action. They didn't accept Jews trying desperately to leave Germany, and even after they knew what the Nazi death camps were really doing, we didn't bomb them or even let it become a news issue. America then, and probably now, didn't want Jewish, Gypsy, or other Nazi-persecuted minorities to come to our shores under any circumstances.

In fact WWII in the European theater of operations, was the only war in our recent history not directed at black, brown or yellow people. Face it, Pace, Germany was a white country who wanted to rule the world. We took them on because we figured ruling the world was OUR job!!

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
. wrote:Im fine staying out of it. They can kill themselves off if they wish.

What I do not like about it is that the American preisident said he would act if a red line was crossed. That line has been crossed. It concerns me because inaction at this point basically has lead to the rest of the world veiwing us as indesisive and inept. That I dislike.
Which is one reason it wasy sooooo easy to draw people into the idea of war on Afghanistan and Iraq.
If you recall it was President Barack Hussein Obama who strongly stated that the use of chemical weapons would cross a red line and that there would be dire consequences.

Meanwhile Vice President Biden dusted off the Campaign Bus for President Obama to campaign for lower college costs.

President Obama is known around the world as...

All of PACEDOG'S Syria threads merged into one  - Page 4 WimpObama-1

Does my memory fail me, or wasn't it Bush/cheney who got us into the Iraq and Afghan wars? Obama continued what your team started, and all of these wars were absolutely unnecessary, unwinnable and a waste of American money and blood. Iraq isn't a functioning democracy, it's a country heavily involved in civil war. Every American who died fighting there was wasted so your dear friends at Boeing and General Dynamics could laugh their way to the bank!!

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:Damaged Eagle says I'm an "enlightened progressive".  And Markel says I'm simply a "progressive".  Is that the same thing as a "liberal"?  If so then I'll throw my two cents in about Syria.

The capital is Damascus.   Damascus is often claimed to be the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world, and evidence exists of a settlement dating back to 9000 BC.

The city has a street called the Straight Street.
in Acts 9, God speaks to Ananias in a vision, and tells him to go to the Damascus Straight Street. At the house of Judas, he was to look for a man named Saul, as Paul was then known. Ananias is hesitant but goes anyway. After Ananias lays hands on Saul, his eyesight is restored and he is baptized.

Damascus is located about 140 miles north-northeast of Jerusalem.  The Golan Heights is between the two cities.
All of PACEDOG'S Syria threads merged into one  - Page 4 Th?id=H.5052755252413393&pid=1

And you call me a right-winger when my position is definitely not toeing the line of the right.

*****ROFLMAO*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9AbeALNVkk

Laughing

By the way... It's supposedly enlightened progressive liberal.

Guest


Guest

Britain is planning to join forces with America and launch military action against Syria within days in response to the gas attack believed to have been carried out by President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against his own people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10265765/Navy-ready-to-launch-first-strike-on-Syria.html

I may ruffle feathers here but I must have my own point of view.

I am extremely concerned that we are being lied to. And what this means if we support the rebels even more, because we have been supporting them is these things.

1. we are again going to help install a muslim brotherhood puppet, watch.
2. we are going to be the receiver of many poor poor muslim immigrants who just need a nice safe home here in good ole usa.

Im fed up with this shit people. I see this clear as day. Its like being given all the possible moves to a chess game and watching it play out. Our reactionary responses that we are allowing these govs and media driven agenda manipulators play out on us must end or our country will be no more.

Guest


Guest

You're going to ruffle PD feather's he's all for an invasion, plus he is going to label you LIBERAL:P

Oh, addition to number 2, they will also turn on us.

Guest


Guest

Just incase anyone missed it... Samantha Power is our new ambassador to the UN... she missed an emergency meeting the other day... but luckily she had written and spoke enough that we ALL know her views. Y'all should get to know her if you don't.

Responsibility to protect is a good starting place.

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:Just incase anyone missed it... Samantha Power is our new ambassador to the UN... she missed an emergency meeting the other day... but luckily she had written and spoke enough that we ALL know her views. Y'all should get to know her if you don't.

Responsibility to protect is a good starting place.
well then, if we have to look to her to give us a clue I feel safe to say we are about to have another jimmy carter moment, but bigger this time.

Guest


Guest

. wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Just incase anyone missed it... Samantha Power is our new ambassador to the UN... she missed an emergency meeting the other day... but luckily she had written and spoke enough that we ALL know her views. Y'all should get to know her if you don't.

Responsibility to protect is a good starting place.
well then, if we have to look to her to give us a clue I feel safe to say we are about to have another jimmy carter moment, but bigger this time.

You might be surprised... she is no gandhi.

Guest


Guest

No boots on the ground, COWH is gonna pull a slick Willie and cruise missile them lol

Guest


Guest

Doubting, where did I ever say invasion liar boy?

95All of PACEDOG'S Syria threads merged into one  - Page 4 Empty Wagging the Dog 8/26/2013, 4:41 pm

Guest


Guest

Kerry says evidence undeniable for chem weapon use in Syria. Is this gonna earn the COWH another Nobel Peace PriE?

Guest


Guest

How about flogging your mule, pulling your pud, choking your chicken? I think that is up there with wagging the dog.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/is-u-s-launching-a-war-in-syria-to-distract-from-spying-and-other-scandals.html

Experts Doubt Syrian Chemical Weapons Claims

Ghost Rider

Ghost Rider

Floridatexan wrote:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/is-u-s-launching-a-war-in-syria-to-distract-from-spying-and-other-scandals.html

Experts Doubt Syrian Chemical Weapons Claims

OK FT, if the experts agree that chemical weapons were not used, then how do they explain the deaths of all those civilians? From what I saw on TV, the victims they showed had no external wounds such as bullets or BFT. Some were in convulsions, some were foaming at the mouth. The experts can say all they want, but from what I saw chemical agents were certainly used.

Oh, but I forgot, I'm trying to explain this to someone that believes what we saw fly into the WTC buildings was a production of holograms.



Last edited by Ghost Rider on 8/27/2013, 9:49 am; edited 1 time in total

Guest


Guest

Let me see if I get this-

Iran's proxy has used Saddam's "nonexistent" WMDs against Al Qaeda in Syria so now we must join the war b/c?


This ought to be a hoot....Question Question Question 

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/is-u-s-launching-a-war-in-syria-to-distract-from-spying-and-other-scandals.html

Experts Doubt Syrian Chemical Weapons Claims

They made a movie about it called WAGGING THE DOG.

BUT LIBTARDS...answer me this:

Let me see if I get this-

Iran's proxy has used Saddam's "nonexistent" WMDs against Al Qaeda in Syria so now we must join the war b/c?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 4 of 6]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum