One would guess due to our gross domestic reliance on humming our cars. And it's cheaper to be a net-exporter of overall oil where you can buy imported oil cheaper than what you are selling your own oil for overseas. I'm not trying to be a dick, but the same resources needed to try and prove your point (ala google) can also be your friend in asking a rhetorical question which probably has actual answers which may not agree with the rhetoric.
Again, if a country wanted to actually be energy-independent it would mean going beyond oil.
You guys are quick to jump on anything someone says in here from an opposing viewpoint- it’s exactly why it’s so slimy in this forum. Everyone quickly laughed at me until they were shown we import millions of barrels of crude from russia every month when they wrongfully assumed I didn’t know what I was talking about.
I used google to double check my point, and I stand by my original statement that I would like to see us using our own resources instead of paying Russia every month to fuel their insanity.
do our sanctions involve no longer buying these barrels? Or are we continuing to send Russian companies 30 million a month while sanctioning them?
um, maybe take a look back at the majority of your AMT posts from 2016-2020 and tell me again why a couple of LOL's got you all melty?
Now the QtRUmplicans led by the likes of the former guy and tuQer Qarlson are tripping all over themselves to defend RUssia and denigrate President Joe Biden.
I haven’t seen Tucker or Trump say anything pro-Russia. Tucker has been critical of Biden’s response, but that’s not the same as defending Russia.
I haven’t heard anything in the last few weeks from Trump, but his stance has always been Putin wouldn’t try stuff like this if he was president. Believe him or not, that’s not the same as defending Russia. Havent read Dreher, but I will later. I doubt he is pro Russia invading Ukraine though. Probably just critical of the response or saying we should stay out of it, which is not the same as defending Russia.
Now the QtRUmplicans led by the likes of the former guy and tuQer Qarlson are tripping all over themselves to defend RUssia and denigrate President Joe Biden.
I haven’t seen Tucker or Trump say anything pro-Russia. Tucker has been critical of Biden’s response, but that’s not the same as defending Russia.
I haven’t heard anything in the last few weeks from Trump, but his stance has always been Putin wouldn’t try stuff like this if he was president. Believe him or not, that’s not the same as defending Russia. Havent read Dreher, but I will later. I doubt he is pro Russia invading Ukraine though. Probably just critical of the response or saying we should stay out of it, which is not the same as defending Russia.
I'm sorry, you're wrong. Read the tweet from Candace Owens that I posted. Is that not pro-Russia?
Read it all if you want the view straight from the Kremlin.
For Russia, the core question is NATO. NATO is the post-war military alliance created in 1949 to keep the Soviets from invading Western Europe. And it worked pretty well for about 40 years. The Soviet Union has not existed in more than three decades; it’s part of history now. And yet NATO very much lives on, better funded than ever. It’s an army without a purpose. So at this point, NATO exists primarily to torment Vladimir Putin who, whatever his many faults, has no intention of invading Western Europe. Vladimir Putin does not want Belgium. He just wants to keep his western borders secure.
That’s why he doesn’t want Ukraine to join NATO. And that makes sense. Imagine how we would feel if Mexico and Canada became satellites of China. We wouldn’t like that at all. In Russia’s case, this is an existential question. A NATO takeover of Ukraine would compromise Russia’s access to its Sevastopol Naval Base – that’s the site of the Russia Black Sea’s fleet and one of the country’s only connections to international waters. In the words of Russia scholar Richard Sakwa, if Russia lost the Sevastopol Naval Base, it would be "the biggest military geopolitical defeat of Russia in the last thousand years."
Now the QtRUmplicans led by the likes of the former guy and tuQer Qarlson are tripping all over themselves to defend RUssia and denigrate President Joe Biden.
I haven’t seen Tucker or Trump say anything pro-Russia. Tucker has been critical of Biden’s response, but that’s not the same as defending Russia.
I haven’t heard anything in the last few weeks from Trump, but his stance has always been Putin wouldn’t try stuff like this if he was president. Believe him or not, that’s not the same as defending Russia. Havent read Dreher, but I will later. I doubt he is pro Russia invading Ukraine though. Probably just critical of the response or saying we should stay out of it, which is not the same as defending Russia.
I'm sorry, you're wrong. Read the tweet from Candace Owens that I posted. Is that not pro-Russia?
Read it all if you want the view straight from the Kremlin.
For Russia, the core question is NATO. NATO is the post-war military alliance created in 1949 to keep the Soviets from invading Western Europe. And it worked pretty well for about 40 years. The Soviet Union has not existed in more than three decades; it’s part of history now. And yet NATO very much lives on, better funded than ever. It’s an army without a purpose. So at this point, NATO exists primarily to torment Vladimir Putin who, whatever his many faults, has no intention of invading Western Europe. Vladimir Putin does not want Belgium. He just wants to keep his western borders secure.
That’s why he doesn’t want Ukraine to join NATO. And that makes sense. Imagine how we would feel if Mexico and Canada became satellites of China. We wouldn’t like that at all. In Russia’s case, this is an existential question. A NATO takeover of Ukraine would compromise Russia’s access to its Sevastopol Naval Base – that’s the site of the Russia Black Sea’s fleet and one of the country’s only connections to international waters. In the words of Russia scholar Richard Sakwa, if Russia lost the Sevastopol Naval Base, it would be "the biggest military geopolitical defeat of Russia in the last thousand years."
I couldn’t read your quote from Owens.
That quote from Tucker was from December, so obviously not about the current invasion. I haven’t seen him support this invasion. His stance is pretty much why should we care, how will helping Ukraine help America? And if Trump was president Putin wouldn’t be doing this. And this is what Ukraine paid Hunter for. I don’t agree with any of those points. But again, it’s not supporting the invasion or current situation. His stance is I don’t care, not “go Russia!”
Now the QtRUmplicans led by the likes of the former guy and tuQer Qarlson are tripping all over themselves to defend RUssia and denigrate President Joe Biden.
I haven’t seen Tucker or Trump say anything pro-Russia. Tucker has been critical of Biden’s response, but that’s not the same as defending Russia.
I haven’t heard anything in the last few weeks from Trump, but his stance has always been Putin wouldn’t try stuff like this if he was president. Believe him or not, that’s not the same as defending Russia. Havent read Dreher, but I will later. I doubt he is pro Russia invading Ukraine though. Probably just critical of the response or saying we should stay out of it, which is not the same as defending Russia.
I'm sorry, you're wrong. Read the tweet from Candace Owens that I posted. Is that not pro-Russia?
Read it all if you want the view straight from the Kremlin.
For Russia, the core question is NATO. NATO is the post-war military alliance created in 1949 to keep the Soviets from invading Western Europe. And it worked pretty well for about 40 years. The Soviet Union has not existed in more than three decades; it’s part of history now. And yet NATO very much lives on, better funded than ever. It’s an army without a purpose. So at this point, NATO exists primarily to torment Vladimir Putin who, whatever his many faults, has no intention of invading Western Europe. Vladimir Putin does not want Belgium. He just wants to keep his western borders secure.
That’s why he doesn’t want Ukraine to join NATO. And that makes sense. Imagine how we would feel if Mexico and Canada became satellites of China. We wouldn’t like that at all. In Russia’s case, this is an existential question. A NATO takeover of Ukraine would compromise Russia’s access to its Sevastopol Naval Base – that’s the site of the Russia Black Sea’s fleet and one of the country’s only connections to international waters. In the words of Russia scholar Richard Sakwa, if Russia lost the Sevastopol Naval Base, it would be "the biggest military geopolitical defeat of Russia in the last thousand years."
I couldn’t read your quote from Owens.
That quote from Tucker was from December, so obviously not about the current invasion. I haven’t seen him support this invasion. His stance is pretty much why should we care, how will helping Ukraine help America? And if Trump was president Putin wouldn’t be doing this. And this is what Ukraine paid Hunter for. I don’t agree with any of those points. But again, it’s not supporting the invasion or current situation. His stance is I don’t care, not “go Russia!”
December is when the build up on the border started. So it's exactly about this situation. And no, he's not saying "Go Russia!", but he's defending Russia's position. It's the same thing. C'mon. You understand that perfectly well. He's aping the Kremlin talking points, precisely their arguments.
Now the QtRUmplicans led by the likes of the former guy and tuQer Qarlson are tripping all over themselves to defend RUssia and denigrate President Joe Biden.
I haven’t seen Tucker or Trump say anything pro-Russia. Tucker has been critical of Biden’s response, but that’s not the same as defending Russia.
I haven’t heard anything in the last few weeks from Trump, but his stance has always been Putin wouldn’t try stuff like this if he was president. Believe him or not, that’s not the same as defending Russia. Havent read Dreher, but I will later. I doubt he is pro Russia invading Ukraine though. Probably just critical of the response or saying we should stay out of it, which is not the same as defending Russia.
One would guess due to our gross domestic reliance on humming our cars. And it's cheaper to be a net-exporter of overall oil where you can buy imported oil cheaper than what you are selling your own oil for overseas. I'm not trying to be a dick, but the same resources needed to try and prove your point (ala google) can also be your friend in asking a rhetorical question which probably has actual answers which may not agree with the rhetoric.
Again, if a country wanted to actually be energy-independent it would mean going beyond oil.
You guys are quick to jump on anything someone says in here from an opposing viewpoint- it’s exactly why it’s so slimy in this forum. Everyone quickly laughed at me until they were shown we import millions of barrels of crude from russia every month when they wrongfully assumed I didn’t know what I was talking about.
I used google to double check my point, and I stand by my original statement that I would like to see us using our own resources instead of paying Russia every month to fuel their insanity.
do our sanctions involve no longer buying these barrels? Or are we continuing to send Russian companies 30 million a month while sanctioning them?
At this point, I don't believe we have cut that. But we will run those sanctions through the EU and other countries so no one is buying Russian oil.
I didn't think anyone laughed. Russia supplies 10% of oil and gas. The point I was making was that we have no governmental production constraints. So yes, energy will increase in price during this war. But I don't think that's too much to ask from selfish Americans.
I believe this to be correct if we were in normal times. But with a growing inflation rate, millions of people without jobs, an insane housing market that is growing more unaffordable by the year, Auto prices through the roof, supply chain issues and a pandemic, I don't think this holds. Wouldn't an increase in energy prices lead to even more inflation with the already weakened buying power of the proletariat?
One would guess due to our gross domestic reliance on humming our cars. And it's cheaper to be a net-exporter of overall oil where you can buy imported oil cheaper than what you are selling your own oil for overseas. I'm not trying to be a dick, but the same resources needed to try and prove your point (ala google) can also be your friend in asking a rhetorical question which probably has actual answers which may not agree with the rhetoric.
Again, if a country wanted to actually be energy-independent it would mean going beyond oil.
You guys are quick to jump on anything someone says in here from an opposing viewpoint- it’s exactly why it’s so slimy in this forum. Everyone quickly laughed at me until they were shown we import millions of barrels of crude from russia every month when they wrongfully assumed I didn’t know what I was talking about.
I used google to double check my point, and I stand by my original statement that I would like to see us using our own resources instead of paying Russia every month to fuel their insanity.
do our sanctions involve no longer buying these barrels? Or are we continuing to send Russian companies 30 million a month while sanctioning them?
At this point, I don't believe we have cut that. But we will run those sanctions through the EU and other countries so no one is buying Russian oil.
I didn't think anyone laughed. Russia supplies 10% of oil and gas. The point I was making was that we have no governmental production constraints. So yes, energy will increase in price during this war. But I don't think that's too much to ask from selfish Americans.
I believe this to be correct if we were in normal times. But with a growing inflation rate, millions of people without jobs, an insane housing market that is growing more unaffordable by the year, Auto prices through the roof, supply chain issues and a pandemic, I don't think this holds. Wouldn't an increase in energy prices lead to even more inflation with the already weakened buying power of the proletariat?
Are times really tough compared to history? I don’t buy that. Anyone that wants a job can get one. It’s impossible to find help today. That’s no joke. I don’t know where the workforce disappeared to, but it’s thin pickings.
Regardless, there’s zero chance that Putins desire to rebuild the Soviet Union ends with two oblasts in Eastern Ukraine. He needs to be checked now and the West is united.
There are no workable alternatives for heat in a cold climate, and barely existing alternatives for energy. Solar and wind are fine for one house out of ten but decades and trillions away from being close to scalable.
One would guess due to our gross domestic reliance on humming our cars. And it's cheaper to be a net-exporter of overall oil where you can buy imported oil cheaper than what you are selling your own oil for overseas. I'm not trying to be a dick, but the same resources needed to try and prove your point (ala google) can also be your friend in asking a rhetorical question which probably has actual answers which may not agree with the rhetoric.
Again, if a country wanted to actually be energy-independent it would mean going beyond oil.
You guys are quick to jump on anything someone says in here from an opposing viewpoint- it’s exactly why it’s so slimy in this forum. Everyone quickly laughed at me until they were shown we import millions of barrels of crude from russia every month when they wrongfully assumed I didn’t know what I was talking about.
I used google to double check my point, and I stand by my original statement that I would like to see us using our own resources instead of paying Russia every month to fuel their insanity.
do our sanctions involve no longer buying these barrels? Or are we continuing to send Russian companies 30 million a month while sanctioning them?
At this point, I don't believe we have cut that. But we will run those sanctions through the EU and other countries so no one is buying Russian oil.
I didn't think anyone laughed. Russia supplies 10% of oil and gas. The point I was making was that we have no governmental production constraints. So yes, energy will increase in price during this war. But I don't think that's too much to ask from selfish Americans.
I believe this to be correct if we were in normal times. But with a growing inflation rate, millions of people without jobs, an insane housing market that is growing more unaffordable by the year, Auto prices through the roof, supply chain issues and a pandemic, I don't think this holds. Wouldn't an increase in energy prices lead to even more inflation with the already weakened buying power of the proletariat?
Are times really tough compared to history? I don’t buy that. Anyone that wants a job can get one. It’s impossible to find help today. That’s no joke. I don’t know where the workforce disappeared to, but it’s thin pickings.
Regardless, there’s zero chance that Putins desire to rebuild the Soviet Union ends with two oblasts in Eastern Ukraine. He needs to be checked now and the West is united.
where did the workforce disappear to? it realized that working for american minimum wage was a fucking scam, and quit. it's waiting for the inevitable UBI to kick in.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,839
One would guess due to our gross domestic reliance on humming our cars. And it's cheaper to be a net-exporter of overall oil where you can buy imported oil cheaper than what you are selling your own oil for overseas. I'm not trying to be a dick, but the same resources needed to try and prove your point (ala google) can also be your friend in asking a rhetorical question which probably has actual answers which may not agree with the rhetoric.
Again, if a country wanted to actually be energy-independent it would mean going beyond oil.
You guys are quick to jump on anything someone says in here from an opposing viewpoint- it’s exactly why it’s so slimy in this forum. Everyone quickly laughed at me until they were shown we import millions of barrels of crude from russia every month when they wrongfully assumed I didn’t know what I was talking about.
I used google to double check my point, and I stand by my original statement that I would like to see us using our own resources instead of paying Russia every month to fuel their insanity.
do our sanctions involve no longer buying these barrels? Or are we continuing to send Russian companies 30 million a month while sanctioning them?
At this point, I don't believe we have cut that. But we will run those sanctions through the EU and other countries so no one is buying Russian oil.
I didn't think anyone laughed. Russia supplies 10% of oil and gas. The point I was making was that we have no governmental production constraints. So yes, energy will increase in price during this war. But I don't think that's too much to ask from selfish Americans.
I believe this to be correct if we were in normal times. But with a growing inflation rate, millions of people without jobs, an insane housing market that is growing more unaffordable by the year, Auto prices through the roof, supply chain issues and a pandemic, I don't think this holds. Wouldn't an increase in energy prices lead to even more inflation with the already weakened buying power of the proletariat?
Are times really tough compared to history? I don’t buy that. Anyone that wants a job can get one. It’s impossible to find help today. That’s no joke. I don’t know where the workforce disappeared to, but it’s thin pickings.
Regardless, there’s zero chance that Putins desire to rebuild the Soviet Union ends with two oblasts in Eastern Ukraine. He needs to be checked now and the West is united.
where did the workforce disappear to? it realized that working for american minimum wage was a fucking scam, and quit. it's waiting for the inevitable UBI to kick in.
would assume able to secure single position income that was aided by child tax payments.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
i cannot imagine the gymnastics of supporting and cheerleading other countries to go to a war while at the same time wanting my own government to stay out of it, while at the same time hating my own government.
So well said.
PJ: 2000-6-25: Berlin, GER | 2005-3-18: Seattle, WA | 2006-6-30: Milwaukee, WI | 2009-8-24: Chicago, IL | 2012-7-5: Berlin, GER | 2013-7-19: Chicago, IL | 2014-10-17: Moline, IL | 2014-10-20: Milwaukee, WI | 2016-8-20: Chicago 1, IL | 2016-8-22: Chicago 2, IL | 2018-8-18: Chicago N1 | 2018-8-20: Chicago 2, IL | 2021-9-18: Asbury Park, NJ | 2022-9-11: MSG, NY | 2023-9-5: Chicago, IL |
EV: 2017-9-2: Dana Point, CA | 2022-2-3: NYC 1, NY | 2022-2-4: NYC 2, NY
There are no workable alternatives for heat in a cold climate, and barely existing alternatives for energy. Solar and wind are fine for one house out of ten but decades and trillions away from being close to scalable.
Sweden has successfully begun a transition to a low-carbon energy system, reducing domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 24% from 1990 to 2014 and by more than 40% since the mid-1970s. In terms of energy for heating, the share of fossil fuels is now below 5%. This has been achieved by removing oil and other fossil fuels for heating in both detached homes and blocks of flats over the past 50 years. Fossil fuel energy has been replaced by both district heating and electricity through resistive heating and heat pumps, which provide up to 75% of the energy demand for heating in buildings.
Also, would like to point out.. Sweden must be considered having "a cold climate"..?
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Now the QtRUmplicans led by the likes of the former guy and tuQer Qarlson are tripping all over themselves to defend RUssia and denigrate President Joe Biden.
I haven’t seen Tucker or Trump say anything pro-Russia. Tucker has been critical of Biden’s response, but that’s not the same as defending Russia.
I haven’t heard anything in the last few weeks from Trump, but his stance has always been Putin wouldn’t try stuff like this if he was president. Believe him or not, that’s not the same as defending Russia. Havent read Dreher, but I will later. I doubt he is pro Russia invading Ukraine though. Probably just critical of the response or saying we should stay out of it, which is not the same as defending Russia.
I'm sorry, you're wrong. Read the tweet from Candace Owens that I posted. Is that not pro-Russia?
Read it all if you want the view straight from the Kremlin.
For Russia, the core question is NATO. NATO is the post-war military alliance created in 1949 to keep the Soviets from invading Western Europe. And it worked pretty well for about 40 years. The Soviet Union has not existed in more than three decades; it’s part of history now. And yet NATO very much lives on, better funded than ever. It’s an army without a purpose. So at this point, NATO exists primarily to torment Vladimir Putin who, whatever his many faults, has no intention of invading Western Europe. Vladimir Putin does not want Belgium. He just wants to keep his western borders secure.
That’s why he doesn’t want Ukraine to join NATO. And that makes sense. Imagine how we would feel if Mexico and Canada became satellites of China. We wouldn’t like that at all. In Russia’s case, this is an existential question. A NATO takeover of Ukraine would compromise Russia’s access to its Sevastopol Naval Base – that’s the site of the Russia Black Sea’s fleet and one of the country’s only connections to international waters. In the words of Russia scholar Richard Sakwa, if Russia lost the Sevastopol Naval Base, it would be "the biggest military geopolitical defeat of Russia in the last thousand years."
I couldn’t read your quote from Owens.
That quote from Tucker was from December, so obviously not about the current invasion. I haven’t seen him support this invasion. His stance is pretty much why should we care, how will helping Ukraine help America? And if Trump was president Putin wouldn’t be doing this. And this is what Ukraine paid Hunter for. I don’t agree with any of those points. But again, it’s not supporting the invasion or current situation. His stance is I don’t care, not “go Russia!”
There are no workable alternatives for heat in a cold climate, and barely existing alternatives for energy. Solar and wind are fine for one house out of ten but decades and trillions away from being close to scalable.
If your only concern is heat I guarantee you that usage can, at the absolute very least, be reduced when it comes to practically every other need and dependency on oil & gas.
Now the QtRUmplicans led by the likes of the former guy and tuQer Qarlson are tripping all over themselves to defend RUssia and denigrate President Joe Biden.
Former President Donald Trump praised Russian President Vladimir Putin's moves in Ukraine, calling him "savvy," after the Kremlin recognized the independence of two breakaway, Russian separatist-controlled regions in eastern Ukraine. "I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, 'This is genius.' Putin declares a big portion ... of Ukraine, Putin declares it as independent," Trump said in an interview Tuesday on the conservative Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show.
"So, Putin is now saying, 'It's independent,' a large section of Ukraine. I said, 'How smart is that?' And he's gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That's [the] strongest peace force," Trump said, adding that that was the kind of show of force the United States could use on its Southern border.
How is this rationalization any different than what would be expected of a confirmed Russian agent?
Look at this opening preamble. He's saying, don't hate Putin. Hate the people that are really hurting you, including the progressives of America. Hate your fellow citizens. This is where Tucker is today.
Before that happens, it might be worth asking yourself, since it is getting pretty serious: What is this really about? Why do I hate Putin so much? Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him? Has he shipped every middle-class job in my town to Russia? Did he manufacture a worldwide pandemic that wrecked my business and kept me indoors for two years? Is he teaching my children to embrace racial discrimination? Is he making fentanyl? Is he trying to snuff out Christianity?
One would guess due to our gross domestic reliance on humming our cars. And it's cheaper to be a net-exporter of overall oil where you can buy imported oil cheaper than what you are selling your own oil for overseas. I'm not trying to be a dick, but the same resources needed to try and prove your point (ala google) can also be your friend in asking a rhetorical question which probably has actual answers which may not agree with the rhetoric.
Again, if a country wanted to actually be energy-independent it would mean going beyond oil.
You guys are quick to jump on anything someone says in here from an opposing viewpoint- it’s exactly why it’s so slimy in this forum. Everyone quickly laughed at me until they were shown we import millions of barrels of crude from russia every month when they wrongfully assumed I didn’t know what I was talking about.
I used google to double check my point, and I stand by my original statement that I would like to see us using our own resources instead of paying Russia every month to fuel their insanity.
do our sanctions involve no longer buying these barrels? Or are we continuing to send Russian companies 30 million a month while sanctioning them?
At this point, I don't believe we have cut that. But we will run those sanctions through the EU and other countries so no one is buying Russian oil.
I didn't think anyone laughed. Russia supplies 10% of oil and gas. The point I was making was that we have no governmental production constraints. So yes, energy will increase in price during this war. But I don't think that's too much to ask from selfish Americans.
I believe this to be correct if we were in normal times. But with a growing inflation rate, millions of people without jobs, an insane housing market that is growing more unaffordable by the year, Auto prices through the roof, supply chain issues and a pandemic, I don't think this holds. Wouldn't an increase in energy prices lead to even more inflation with the already weakened buying power of the proletariat?
Are times really tough compared to history? I don’t buy that. Anyone that wants a job can get one. It’s impossible to find help today. That’s no joke. I don’t know where the workforce disappeared to, but it’s thin pickings.
Regardless, there’s zero chance that Putins desire to rebuild the Soviet Union ends with two oblasts in Eastern Ukraine. He needs to be checked now and the West is united.
Getting a job doesn't equal making a living or making ends meet. Luckily we are seeing wages being raised in hopes to draw more candidates. With prices rising due to inflation and market manipulation a lot of the wage gain is meaningless. Sure we are better off than other points in history, so what? Is Ukraine better off than compared to a historical point? Well then we might as well not do anything... That is the same kind of taking point that the right will use to justify holding back civil rights, stifling unionization etc. My point is that if the price of gas and other goods goes up at a higher rate than it is currently due to Ukranian conflicts and the US hand in it, there will not be broad based support for further action.
There are no workable alternatives for heat in a cold climate, and barely existing alternatives for energy. Solar and wind are fine for one house out of ten but decades and trillions away from being close to scalable.
Sweden has successfully begun a transition to a low-carbon energy system, reducing domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 24% from 1990 to 2014 and by more than 40% since the mid-1970s. In terms of energy for heating, the share of fossil fuels is now below 5%. This has been achieved by removing oil and other fossil fuels for heating in both detached homes and blocks of flats over the past 50 years. Fossil fuel energy has been replaced by both district heating and electricity through resistive heating and heat pumps, which provide up to 75% of the energy demand for heating in buildings.
Also, would like to point out.. Sweden must be considered having "a cold climate"..?
One would guess due to our gross domestic reliance on humming our cars. And it's cheaper to be a net-exporter of overall oil where you can buy imported oil cheaper than what you are selling your own oil for overseas. I'm not trying to be a dick, but the same resources needed to try and prove your point (ala google) can also be your friend in asking a rhetorical question which probably has actual answers which may not agree with the rhetoric.
Again, if a country wanted to actually be energy-independent it would mean going beyond oil.
You guys are quick to jump on anything someone says in here from an opposing viewpoint- it’s exactly why it’s so slimy in this forum. Everyone quickly laughed at me until they were shown we import millions of barrels of crude from russia every month when they wrongfully assumed I didn’t know what I was talking about.
I used google to double check my point, and I stand by my original statement that I would like to see us using our own resources instead of paying Russia every month to fuel their insanity.
do our sanctions involve no longer buying these barrels? Or are we continuing to send Russian companies 30 million a month while sanctioning them?
At this point, I don't believe we have cut that. But we will run those sanctions through the EU and other countries so no one is buying Russian oil.
I didn't think anyone laughed. Russia supplies 10% of oil and gas. The point I was making was that we have no governmental production constraints. So yes, energy will increase in price during this war. But I don't think that's too much to ask from selfish Americans.
I believe this to be correct if we were in normal times. But with a growing inflation rate, millions of people without jobs, an insane housing market that is growing more unaffordable by the year, Auto prices through the roof, supply chain issues and a pandemic, I don't think this holds. Wouldn't an increase in energy prices lead to even more inflation with the already weakened buying power of the proletariat?
Are times really tough compared to history? I don’t buy that. Anyone that wants a job can get one. It’s impossible to find help today. That’s no joke. I don’t know where the workforce disappeared to, but it’s thin pickings.
Regardless, there’s zero chance that Putins desire to rebuild the Soviet Union ends with two oblasts in Eastern Ukraine. He needs to be checked now and the West is united.
Getting a job doesn't equal making a living or making ends meet. Luckily we are seeing wages being raised in hopes to draw more candidates. With prices rising due to inflation and market manipulation a lot of the wage gain is meaningless. Sure we are better off than other points in history, so what? Is Ukraine better off than compared to a historical point? Well then we might as well not do anything... That is the same kind of taking point that the right will use to justify holding back civil rights, stifling unionization etc. My point is that if the price of gas and other goods goes up at a higher rate than it is currently due to Ukranian conflicts and the US hand in it, there will not be broad based support for further action.
I understand your point, but it's not a strong counterpoint to supporting Ukraine and NATO against Russian aggression. Yes, belts will have to tighten because oil might go to $110 per gallon. But the administration could halt the gas tax in the immediate term to offset it. While I'm 100% sure you're right that some will not agree with the US standing with Ukraine's sovereignty because their fuel price increases, no one is going to convince me that we should roll over for Putin. Every time we roll over, there's a new part of the USSR to take back.
There are no workable alternatives for heat in a cold climate, and barely existing alternatives for energy. Solar and wind are fine for one house out of ten but decades and trillions away from being close to scalable.
Sweden has successfully begun a transition to a low-carbon energy system, reducing domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 24% from 1990 to 2014 and by more than 40% since the mid-1970s. In terms of energy for heating, the share of fossil fuels is now below 5%. This has been achieved by removing oil and other fossil fuels for heating in both detached homes and blocks of flats over the past 50 years. Fossil fuel energy has been replaced by both district heating and electricity through resistive heating and heat pumps, which provide up to 75% of the energy demand for heating in buildings.
Also, would like to point out.. Sweden must be considered having "a cold climate"..?
District heating is scalable in North America?
Is District heating scalable in Sweden?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
There are no workable alternatives for heat in a cold climate, and barely existing alternatives for energy. Solar and wind are fine for one house out of ten but decades and trillions away from being close to scalable.
Nuclear fusion is 5-10 years out and a complete game changer. Question becomes, will it be enough soon enough?
One would guess due to our gross domestic reliance on humming our cars. And it's cheaper to be a net-exporter of overall oil where you can buy imported oil cheaper than what you are selling your own oil for overseas. I'm not trying to be a dick, but the same resources needed to try and prove your point (ala google) can also be your friend in asking a rhetorical question which probably has actual answers which may not agree with the rhetoric.
Again, if a country wanted to actually be energy-independent it would mean going beyond oil.
You guys are quick to jump on anything someone says in here from an opposing viewpoint- it’s exactly why it’s so slimy in this forum. Everyone quickly laughed at me until they were shown we import millions of barrels of crude from russia every month when they wrongfully assumed I didn’t know what I was talking about.
I used google to double check my point, and I stand by my original statement that I would like to see us using our own resources instead of paying Russia every month to fuel their insanity.
do our sanctions involve no longer buying these barrels? Or are we continuing to send Russian companies 30 million a month while sanctioning them?
At this point, I don't believe we have cut that. But we will run those sanctions through the EU and other countries so no one is buying Russian oil.
I didn't think anyone laughed. Russia supplies 10% of oil and gas. The point I was making was that we have no governmental production constraints. So yes, energy will increase in price during this war. But I don't think that's too much to ask from selfish Americans.
I believe this to be correct if we were in normal times. But with a growing inflation rate, millions of people without jobs, an insane housing market that is growing more unaffordable by the year, Auto prices through the roof, supply chain issues and a pandemic, I don't think this holds. Wouldn't an increase in energy prices lead to even more inflation with the already weakened buying power of the proletariat?
Are times really tough compared to history? I don’t buy that. Anyone that wants a job can get one. It’s impossible to find help today. That’s no joke. I don’t know where the workforce disappeared to, but it’s thin pickings.
Regardless, there’s zero chance that Putins desire to rebuild the Soviet Union ends with two oblasts in Eastern Ukraine. He needs to be checked now and the West is united.
Getting a job doesn't equal making a living or making ends meet. Luckily we are seeing wages being raised in hopes to draw more candidates. With prices rising due to inflation and market manipulation a lot of the wage gain is meaningless. Sure we are better off than other points in history, so what? Is Ukraine better off than compared to a historical point? Well then we might as well not do anything... That is the same kind of taking point that the right will use to justify holding back civil rights, stifling unionization etc. My point is that if the price of gas and other goods goes up at a higher rate than it is currently due to Ukranian conflicts and the US hand in it, there will not be broad based support for further action.
Prices always go up during war, any war we've ever been involved with. And you're probably right because people as a whole are pretty terrible (both for need for war and their selfish needs that do not see the forest from the trees).
There are no workable alternatives for heat in a cold climate, and barely existing alternatives for energy. Solar and wind are fine for one house out of ten but decades and trillions away from being close to scalable.
Nuclear fusion is 5-10 years out and a complete game changer. Question becomes, will it be enough soon enough?
I agree - unfortunately, though, the political bullshit of nuclear has made the closings of nuclear plants seem like a good thing when in actuality we should be leaning in to nuclear power for as much as possible (and where practical - don't put a nuclear plant on a fault line, for example).
Now the QtRUmplicans led by the likes of the former guy and tuQer Qarlson are tripping all over themselves to defend RUssia and denigrate President Joe Biden.
I haven’t seen Tucker or Trump say anything pro-Russia. Tucker has been critical of Biden’s response, but that’s not the same as defending Russia.
I haven’t heard anything in the last few weeks from Trump, but his stance has always been Putin wouldn’t try stuff like this if he was president. Believe him or not, that’s not the same as defending Russia. Havent read Dreher, but I will later. I doubt he is pro Russia invading Ukraine though. Probably just critical of the response or saying we should stay out of it, which is not the same as defending Russia.
I'm sorry, you're wrong. Read the tweet from Candace Owens that I posted. Is that not pro-Russia?
Read it all if you want the view straight from the Kremlin.
For Russia, the core question is NATO. NATO is the post-war military alliance created in 1949 to keep the Soviets from invading Western Europe. And it worked pretty well for about 40 years. The Soviet Union has not existed in more than three decades; it’s part of history now. And yet NATO very much lives on, better funded than ever. It’s an army without a purpose. So at this point, NATO exists primarily to torment Vladimir Putin who, whatever his many faults, has no intention of invading Western Europe. Vladimir Putin does not want Belgium. He just wants to keep his western borders secure.
That’s why he doesn’t want Ukraine to join NATO. And that makes sense. Imagine how we would feel if Mexico and Canada became satellites of China. We wouldn’t like that at all. In Russia’s case, this is an existential question. A NATO takeover of Ukraine would compromise Russia’s access to its Sevastopol Naval Base – that’s the site of the Russia Black Sea’s fleet and one of the country’s only connections to international waters. In the words of Russia scholar Richard Sakwa, if Russia lost the Sevastopol Naval Base, it would be "the biggest military geopolitical defeat of Russia in the last thousand years."
I couldn’t read your quote from Owens.
That quote from Tucker was from December, so obviously not about the current invasion. I haven’t seen him support this invasion. His stance is pretty much why should we care, how will helping Ukraine help America? And if Trump was president Putin wouldn’t be doing this. And this is what Ukraine paid Hunter for. I don’t agree with any of those points. But again, it’s not supporting the invasion or current situation. His stance is I don’t care, not “go Russia!”
How is this rationalization any different than what would be expected of a confirmed Russian agent?
That still comes across to me as indifferent and why should we care more than being pro-Russia. I disagree, we should care. But even if you’re right, and Tucker is all pro-Russia invading and taking Ukraine, my point was I don’t know any Americans who feel that way. I should have responded by asking who is a QtRumplican? Because Bentley said QtRumplicans like Russia now. That word gets thrown around a lot and often I see it as meaning anyone who voted for trump, or is Republican, or sometimes even simply not a Biden supporter. But in any case, covers tens of millions of Americans. I see a lot of people arguing why we should care about Ukraine, but I don’t personally know a single person who doesn’t and isn’t worried about what can happen. And if that many people really didn’t care, we all would know quite a few.
Now the QtRUmplicans led by the likes of the former guy and tuQer Qarlson are tripping all over themselves to defend RUssia and denigrate President Joe Biden.
I haven’t seen Tucker or Trump say anything pro-Russia. Tucker has been critical of Biden’s response, but that’s not the same as defending Russia.
I haven’t heard anything in the last few weeks from Trump, but his stance has always been Putin wouldn’t try stuff like this if he was president. Believe him or not, that’s not the same as defending Russia. Havent read Dreher, but I will later. I doubt he is pro Russia invading Ukraine though. Probably just critical of the response or saying we should stay out of it, which is not the same as defending Russia.
I'm sorry, you're wrong. Read the tweet from Candace Owens that I posted. Is that not pro-Russia?
Read it all if you want the view straight from the Kremlin.
For Russia, the core question is NATO. NATO is the post-war military alliance created in 1949 to keep the Soviets from invading Western Europe. And it worked pretty well for about 40 years. The Soviet Union has not existed in more than three decades; it’s part of history now. And yet NATO very much lives on, better funded than ever. It’s an army without a purpose. So at this point, NATO exists primarily to torment Vladimir Putin who, whatever his many faults, has no intention of invading Western Europe. Vladimir Putin does not want Belgium. He just wants to keep his western borders secure.
That’s why he doesn’t want Ukraine to join NATO. And that makes sense. Imagine how we would feel if Mexico and Canada became satellites of China. We wouldn’t like that at all. In Russia’s case, this is an existential question. A NATO takeover of Ukraine would compromise Russia’s access to its Sevastopol Naval Base – that’s the site of the Russia Black Sea’s fleet and one of the country’s only connections to international waters. In the words of Russia scholar Richard Sakwa, if Russia lost the Sevastopol Naval Base, it would be "the biggest military geopolitical defeat of Russia in the last thousand years."
I couldn’t read your quote from Owens.
That quote from Tucker was from December, so obviously not about the current invasion. I haven’t seen him support this invasion. His stance is pretty much why should we care, how will helping Ukraine help America? And if Trump was president Putin wouldn’t be doing this. And this is what Ukraine paid Hunter for. I don’t agree with any of those points. But again, it’s not supporting the invasion or current situation. His stance is I don’t care, not “go Russia!”
How is this rationalization any different than what would be expected of a confirmed Russian agent?
That still comes across to me as indifferent and why should we care more than being pro-Russia. I disagree, we should care. But even if you’re right, and Tucker is all pro-Russia invading and taking Ukraine, my point was I don’t know any Americans who feel that way. I should have responded by asking who is a QtRumplican? Because Bentley said QtRumplicans like Russia now. That word gets thrown around a lot and often I see it as meaning anyone who voted for trump, or is Republican, or sometimes even simply not a Biden supporter. But in any case, covers tens of millions of Americans. I see a lot of people arguing why we should care about Ukraine, but I don’t personally know a single person who doesn’t and isn’t worried about what can happen. And if that many people really didn’t care, we all would know quite a few.
If that comes across to you as indifferent, your mental gymnastics are impressive AF.
Comments
www.headstonesband.com
Havent read Dreher, but I will later. I doubt he is pro Russia invading Ukraine though. Probably just critical of the response or saying we should stay out of it, which is not the same as defending Russia.
Now read this: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-america-gain-nothing-from-starting-war-russia
Read it all if you want the view straight from the Kremlin.
For Russia, the core question is NATO. NATO is the post-war military alliance created in 1949 to keep the Soviets from invading Western Europe. And it worked pretty well for about 40 years. The Soviet Union has not existed in more than three decades; it’s part of history now. And yet NATO very much lives on, better funded than ever. It’s an army without a purpose. So at this point, NATO exists primarily to torment Vladimir Putin who, whatever his many faults, has no intention of invading Western Europe. Vladimir Putin does not want Belgium. He just wants to keep his western borders secure.
That’s why he doesn’t want Ukraine to join NATO. And that makes sense. Imagine how we would feel if Mexico and Canada became satellites of China. We wouldn’t like that at all. In Russia’s case, this is an existential question. A NATO takeover of Ukraine would compromise Russia’s access to its Sevastopol Naval Base – that’s the site of the Russia Black Sea’s fleet and one of the country’s only connections to international waters. In the words of Russia scholar Richard Sakwa, if Russia lost the Sevastopol Naval Base, it would be "the biggest military geopolitical defeat of Russia in the last thousand years."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I don’t agree with any of those points. But again, it’s not supporting the invasion or current situation. His stance is I don’t care, not “go Russia!”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-praises-putins-genius-gop-fissures-grow-ukraine-crisis-rcna17259
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
www.headstonesband.com
would assume able to secure single position income that was aided by child tax payments.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Also, would like to point out.. Sweden must be considered having "a cold climate"..?
"I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, 'This is genius.' Putin declares a big portion ... of Ukraine, Putin declares it as independent," Trump said in an interview Tuesday on the conservative Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show.
Before that happens, it might be worth asking yourself, since it is getting pretty serious: What is this really about? Why do I hate Putin so much? Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him? Has he shipped every middle-class job in my town to Russia? Did he manufacture a worldwide pandemic that wrecked my business and kept me indoors for two years? Is he teaching my children to embrace racial discrimination? Is he making fentanyl? Is he trying to snuff out Christianity?
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
But even if you’re right, and Tucker is all pro-Russia invading and taking Ukraine, my point was I don’t know any Americans who feel that way.
I should have responded by asking who is a QtRumplican? Because Bentley said QtRumplicans like Russia now. That word gets thrown around a lot and often I see it as meaning anyone who voted for trump, or is Republican, or sometimes even simply not a Biden supporter. But in any case, covers tens of millions of Americans.
I see a lot of people arguing why we should care about Ukraine, but I don’t personally know a single person who doesn’t and isn’t worried about what can happen. And if that many people really didn’t care, we all would know quite a few.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©