Gabby Gifford’s High School Term Paper

Reading like a poorly drafted high-school term paper, Gabby Giffords delivers this nonsensical letter to the Sierra Vista Herald. Gabby rambles incoherently about climate change, oil independence, military supply lines, global warming, and how solar panels will not only protect the United states but the US Military fighting in Afghanistan.  It is written so poorly that one would have to conclude that she hastily penned  it on the school bus in route to first period.   Please tell me Gabby, that you had a staffer ghost-write this one for you.  Since we now “grade” our elected officials, you definitely do not get a B+ for this term paper.

The safety and security of the United States will depend on how well we as a nation address the challenges of climate change. [Huh?]

That was reaffirmed for me at the recent United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen, which I attended as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation.

Opponents of climate action argue there is no proof that greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change and therefore we should not expend significant effort to reduce those emissions.

But many of the steps that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions are steps we must take to increase our national security — specifically by weaning ourselves off oil.

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am concerned about how our dependence on oil threatens our national security. As a member of the House Science and Technology Committee, I am confident that renewable energy, especially solar energy, can be a key solution.

The Department of Defense accounts for 80 percent of the federal government’s energy consumption. Three-quarters of the department’s energy is used for military operations — and 94 percent of that energy comes from petroleum.

Where does that petroleum come from? In 1970, we imported 24 percent of our oil. Today, it’s more than 65 percent and growing.  By depending on foreign sources for two-thirds of our oil, we are in a precarious position in an unpredictable world.

The impact of our oil dependence is more than just a vague, geopolitical risk — it is felt directly by our troops on the front lines every day, where they use petroleum for everything from armored vehicles to air conditioners.

A recent report by the Government Accountability Office determined that transporting fuel to the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan poses tremendous security risks and logistical burdens to U.S. armed forces.

For the military, greater fuel efficiency and solar power prove their worth with lives saved and battles won.

Our dependence on oil weakens us at home, as well. In his recent speech on Afghanistan, President Barack Obama noted that we cannot be militarily strong unless we are economically strong.

Yet our nation spends more than $400 billion a year on foreign sources of energy. That’s money taken out of our economy and sent to foreign nations — and it is draining the lifeblood from our economy.

However, a recent report by the Solar Energy Industries Association found that solar can meet 15 percent of our nation’s electricity demands by 2020. That would mean 800,000 new jobs for American workers.

Clearly, reducing our dependence on imported oil and switching to domestic, renewable energy sources would make our nation more secure.

Because it understands this, the Department of Defense is taking the lead on energy efficiency and renewables. The military has set an ambitious goal of obtaining 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.

The results of this effort are apparent in Tucson at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. A vast array of 80,000 solar panels soon will provide power to 900 homes for Air Force personnel and their families.

Now the rest of our country must follow.

We in Congress recently took an important step to make solar power even more effective — and attractive — in the years ahead. The House of Representatives gave strong bipartisan approval to my Solar Technology Roadmap Act, a bill that would boost federal research for the development of improved solar energy technology.

This bill would advance solar research and help move new technologies from laboratories into our homes, businesses and military bases. I am hopeful the Senate soon will consider my bill and send it to the president.

Our dependence on oil is a threat to our national security — but we have the knowledge and the tools to address the challenge.

The United States military represents the paragon of American ingenuity, discipline and dedication. They are applying those traits to the development of a 21st century energy policy, one that will not only reduce emissions, but also make us and our men and women in uniform more secure.

In 1970 we imported 24% of our oil.  Jimmy Carter promised then to “wean us off of foreign oil?”  President Peanut created the Department of Energy, whose main goal was to gain energy independence for America.  30+ years later, the Dept of Energy has a budget of $24.2 billion, 16,000 employees, and  approximately 100,00 contract employees.  The results? Now we import 65% of our oil.  Job well done!

Gabby bounces back and forth between oil and solar as though they are interchangeable commodities.  “We have to get off of oil and the solution is solar”, is her theme and that is just plain lunacy.  We will NEVER not need oil.  For the last thirty years, I have heard day in and day out that solar is the answer and viable solutions are just around the corner [if we only spend enough money].  The idea that the government has to subsidize the solar energy industry for innovations to come to fruition is moronic at best.  The company that finally develops the big breakthrough in solar tech will become a multi-billion dollar global company overnight.  That is enough incentive for any business, not some tax-payer funded House bill.

Gabby states [and gets it wrong] that “Our dependence on oil is a threat to our national security”.  Our dependence on foreign oil is the threat to our national security.

Gabby should be made to answer the  questions that arise from her op-ed.  Such as; How will solar panels help our troops in war zones?  How has your Solar Initiatives helped us win battles on the war on terror?  As a member of the House Science and Technology Committee, can you please explain why our dependence on foriegn oil has increased under your watch?  The list of questions is long.  What questions do you want answered?

I can’t wait to see that new Humvee with solar panels on the top of it. You know, the one that’s saving lives and winning battles.


Comments

  1. “We will NEVER not need oil.”

    Really, never? Man, the conservative view of the future sucks.

  2. At the top you spell climate without the E is this intentional? I seem to not think so because its not like Gabby has spelling errors in hers…

    So before critcizing others on writing make sure yours is correct.

    That being said, Gabby’s letter is just your typical liberal crap on climate change, I am not sure why this is surprising.

    We will be dependent on oil for a very long time and putting up solar panels in the desert and government subsidizing it won’t change anything.

  3. Yes NEVER!!!!! Where do you think plasitc comes from? You know plastic, like the stuff that you are typing on, or in your fridge or in your car, or your TV. Or for our roads? Or jet fuel? Or how about the pharmaceutical industry? Everything from baby oil to blacktop is a product of oil. Yes we get GAS from oil, but that accounts for about 30% of the ways we use oil. Unless you have an alternative for plastic. Again just look inside of your fridge. First a lot of your fridge is made of plastic. Now let’s look at all of the stuff in your fridge that is encased in plastic. Welcome to reality, Klute.

  4. Here’s a scenario:

    Southern Sudan, building – not rebuilding, for it never had a chance – from most recently two decades of the contemporary world’s most brutal civil war, two million killed, 4 million fled/displaced. The Islamic regime in Khartoum took all the oil wealth of the region and used it to finance its capital, its military, and the war to subjugate and convert the Christian/Animist Southerners to Islam – by violence and terror, and finance now its brutality against Western Sudan, known as Darfur.

    Southern Sudan won concessions when Khartoum capitulated and agreed to cease hostilities which included the right to automous governance, part of the oilfields and the right to vote for independence in 2011.

    Southern Sudan is destitute. It’s quality of life statistics in every category are amongst the worst in the world. Its people need roads, electrical grids, clean water, hosiptals, clinics, child vaccinations, schools – everything. It has TWO commodities it can easily sell on the international market to raise money for national infrastructure development – gum arabica and oil.
    It has developed a national budget based on sale of oil to the world market. The more oil it can sell at a good price, the better chance to raise the standard of living in the nation it has. No oil sales, no money, no roads, no electricity … nothing happens. Literally, without a market to sell what they have in abundance, they are condemned to the stone age and at the mercy of their neighbors, including a potentially re-energized hegemonic North, more war ahead. They need oil sales to build an infrastructure that can support industry and productivity in the region.

    The argument for the USA to be “energy independent” and reduce its dependency on foreign oil will have unintended consequences. Many poor countries are hoping and praying the US economy stays strong so the USA will continue to purchase oil so they can raise their citizens’ standard of living too. It’s not all terrorist nations out there.

    It was all the rage for Hollywood to show up in Sudan heaving sacks of flour or rice about to “help.” It doesn’t come across as “caring” but “condescending” when these same destitute poor Africans want to pull themeslves up by their bootstraps with oil sales to get serious money to build a nation and the Hollywood crowd cries, “No oil!”

    It’s the same elitist, self-absorbed mentality that sent a TEAM of medical experts by aircraft at huge expense to inspect 5 chickens to see if they had Avian Flu, during a cholera epidemic when hundreds of Sudanese had just died and thousands of sufferers were overwhelming all available medical facilities.

    Didn’t actually care about Sudanese, just themselves.

  5. Fixed it Johnny! Now do I get a B+ for grammar? For once, you and I agree, oil is here to stay and solar panels on everything will change little. Just to clarify for Klute, I AM a proponent of developing ALL alternatives, solar, wind, nuclear, tidal, french-fry oil, all of it. BUT and it’s a very big BUT, until that glorious day when I can go down to my local Pep Boys and buy and install some sort of conversion kit for my 3 cars, it’s OIL, BABY!!!

  6. Love it! Hey, is anybody gonna talk about Gabby here?

  7. “Welcome to reality, Klute.”

    Since everything from agriculture to industry relies on petroleum, as the supply falls the price of everything will go up. The only way to avoid a dismal future is to develop alternatives to petroleum now. Assuming we are always going to be depending on a diminishing resource isn’t reality, papatodd, it is folly.

  8. Todd, so what is YOUR alternative for plastic? for blacktop? for jet fuel? for diesel? But let’s just start with plastic. Your real world alternative?
    As for a “diminishing resource” I have been hearing that line for 30 years too.

  9. papatodd,
    Are you actually suggesting oil is not a diminishing resource? Really? Do you understand the process of how petroleum is formed in nature, or do you think God made it all 6,000 years ago?

    Obviously, changes in how plastic will be used will have to be made, much more recycling, much more reuse, and much less dependence on it in areas it is not necessary. There are already alternatives that exists for consumer packaging and I think finding alternatives for other uses should be a priority. There is already advancements happening in bio-plastics which could be promising. Again, as petroleum prices climb this will become more and more of a necessity.

  10. papatodd Says:
    January 8th, 2010 at 11:27 am
    Love it! Hey, is anybody gonna talk about Gabby here?
    …..
    Um, how about “Gabby” is ironically appropriate given the level of analysis in that commentary?

    The scenario we gave was to provide a basis to go back to ol’ Gab’s opinion piece to better comprehend what’s missing in its woefully uninformed and geopolitically weak foundation.

    The comment also “Yet our nation spends more than $400 billion a year on foreign sources of energy. That’s money taken out of our economy and sent to foreign nations — and it is draining the lifeblood from our economy.”
    is unsupportable by basic economics.

    The USA BUYS and SELLS all sorts of things. It is not a “draining the lifeblood” if the purchased commodity enables a productivity that easily off-sets the purchase.

    One of the first things taught in economics is the “efficiency cost” of any activity. Many nations in the 1960s and 70s discovered the drive for “national economic independence,” based on weaning off all imports in favor of local production was not a successful strategy for growth. A nation’s best strategy is a mix of producing what it has a comparative advantage producing and purchasing for cheaper from other nations that which they can produce thru their comparative advantage.

    This “energy independent” concept sounds good, but flounders in application. Nations end up using MORE investing in inefficiencies.

  11. ……………………..
    Really? Do you understand the process of how petroleum is formed in nature, or do you think God made it all 6,000 years ago?
    ……………
    It’s not a “fossil” fuel. That’s been debunked. You do know that, don’t you?

  12. wanumba

    “It’s not a ‘fossil’ fuel. That’s been debunked. You do know that, don’t you?”

    But is it a “renewable” resource?

  13. “It’s not a “fossil” fuel. That’s been debunked. You do know that, don’t you?”

    Where did I use the term ‘fossil fuel?’

    Anyway, it certainly was once largely organic matter. What is the process you think forms it?

  14. Todd,

    That’s just not nice – why would you knock down wanumba’s carefully constructed straw man?

  15. Antifederalist says

    I find it really funny that liberals cry for alternative energy out of one side of their mouths, then oppose the alternatives with the other. Who opposes increased dependence on nuclear power becuase it creates waste? None other than enviro-whacko Leftists. Who opposes wind power because it kills birdies or they don’t want “eyesores” within sight of their posh coastal hereditary estates? Enviro-whackos and the Kennedys. Name a type of energy and it’s either unfeasible right now and YEARS away from being marketable, too expensive, or the Libs oppose it. If they had their way, we’d all be living in caves eating raw plants because they hate humans, and nature and animals are just WAY more important than we are…as if humans and what we do are somehow separate from nature and humans aren’t animals. Lineus would be shocked! Leftists are ALWAYS self-loathing. They should just go sulk in a corner somewhere and let the rest of the adults in this country get on with business.

    I also find Klute’s cry that conservatives in charge of science would lead back to a geo-centric universe when climate change proponent “scientists” are the biggest bunch of crooked quacks I’ve ever seen. The lefty Union of Concerned Scientists also push junk science all the time. It’s also nutjob leftists that oppose animal testing for any number of products humans use. Who’s backwards Klute? Look in the friggen mirror!

  16. Antifederalist – just curious, how do you function in your world of ridiculous caricatures and absurd generalizations? I bet you are a real hit with people around the office since you clearly like to talk about all sorts of things you have no knowledge about but strong opinions regardless.

  17. “Who opposes increased dependence on nuclear power becuase it creates waste?”

    Not me. I specifically included fission and fusion. Hell, we should go France’s route and completely go atomic.

    Not Obama. In fact, he’s proposing tax breaks for energy companies that start building new reactors in the US.

    And how does any of your army of strawmen (putting wanumba’s single one to shame) contradict the notion that papatodd is without foresight or imagination about the future?

  18. papatodd,

    “BUT and it’s a very big BUT, until that glorious day when I can go down to my local Pep Boys and buy and install some sort of conversion kit for my 3 cars, it’s OIL, BABY!!!”

    Conversion kits already exist for biodiesel and natural gas, Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt, etc. etc. etc.

  19. Chevy Volt? Are you freaking kidding me? Want to see what GM has become with the Volt? Check out this ridiculous video on the Volt>
    http://www.papatodd.com/?p=3619
    GM is doomed.

  20. Investing in Solar and renewable energy would save many military lives. The long dangerous convoys that go through Iraq and Afghanistan are for fuel for the generators on our bases. If we can cut those those in half there are less dangerous missions that our troops have to go on.

  21. OMG! Well, that totally invalidates the science behind it, right?

    I could give a **** how a PR flack managed the launch. Does it work? All signs point to yes. Will it fly? GM says they won’t make a profit on the 1st-gen vehicles, but 2nd-gen, we’ll see.

    And, of course, if the United States fails to produce a zero-emissions vehicle, the Japanese (the Leaf), Koreans, and Germans will happily fill the void.

  22. Well now that we all agree that we must develop alt energy sources [while continuing to drill] let us all put our focus where it belongs… 30+ years have gone by since the birth of the Dept of Energy and now we import more foreign oil than ever. Anybody else see something wrong with that or am I alone on this point?

  23. So thirty years ago we had a 24% import rate of foreign oil. In this same 30 years we now have gigantic TVs, cellular phones, smart phones, fiber-optic into our houses, dvd players, dvd recorders, microwave ovens, 500+ channel satellite tv service etc, etc, etc. Now we import 65% of our oil and they advertise cars that get 28-32 mpg. I drive a 91 Toyota that gets 38 on the freeway. Wanna talk about not keeping up? Look to the Feds.

  24. No argument there. The failure of previous administrations to refuse to push Detroit to increase CAFE standards (and the failure of American automakers to innovate on their own) is nothing short of criminal

  25. ……………..
    todd Says:
    January 8th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
    “It’s not a “fossil” fuel. That’s been debunked. You do know that, don’t you?”

    Where did I use the term ‘fossil fuel?’

    Anyway, it certainly was once largely organic matter. What is the process you think forms it?
    ………….
    So, you don’t know. Perhaps more readers are unaware of this so let’s take a few minutes to get those who don’t up to speed. Oil isn’t “once largely organic matter.”

    Oil is being obtained MILES underground. The “organic matter” hypothesis has been discarded – what two decades now? No one knows how much oil the earth has miles below the surface, but the estimates are GROWING, not shrinking. No one knows yet for sure whether it’s from a massive planetary reserve or if by some process the earth is actually producing new oil all the time. Fascinating, absolutely. The earth produces diamonds, there’s no law saying it can’t be producing oil.

    There is a traceable reason the argument for reducing oil consumption (and more specifically the real target : economic production) abandoned “scarcity” for a different argument of “pollution.”
    With the discovery that “emptied” oil fields were refilling from hitherto unknown sources underneath, geologists had to throw the “fossil” or “organic material” guess out the window. Oil was once categorized as a “fossil fuel” along with coal, formed from “once organic material” but not any more.
    The “reduce oil consumption or we’ll run out” argument immediately floundered so the replacement was “we need to reduce oil use because of pollution.”

    This is not my personal analysis, it’s on record and verifiable. And the true target of all this is “reduce economic production.”
    That’s why Hillary Clinton (acting as the mouthpiece of the Obama Administration – that is her designated role as Sec of State) informed the Indian government that they should do their part to “save the planet” by cutting back their national production. She didn’t offer a discount on efficient coal-fired electrical plant technology that burns fuel better, she told them to slow down, scale back on their economic growth.
    The Indians told her to stuff it.

    Speaking of India, their embrace of socialist/communist economic and social models after Independent held that nation’s economic development back for decades. They were one major nation that bought into the “local production only” socialist idea and crawled along for years not getting anywhere. Their economy literally took off the past decade only when the BJP Party began a huge privitization program – getting moribund and failing nationalized industries sold to private investors. Jobs jobs jobs jobs jobs have provided new wealth – work and improved salaries, and thus, growth.

    “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” has nothing to do with warming, but taxing and curbing economic growth. Why else the nonsense pathetic clinging bitterly to “it’s freezing because we’re warming” mantra.

    ALso, why are solar cells so superior when they have a high production cost – in materials and energy. And with batteries which are required for a full-functiong solar system, what do we do with the toxic leads and acids required for their manufacture and – how to dispose of them?
    Oil is carbon. 100% natural and biodegradable. THe massive oil spill of the EXXON Valdez could have been left alone and the planet would have cleansed itself. Years later now, the places where the environmental crews sprayed and steamed and scrubbed have measurably not rebounded as well as the areas that were not touched by clean-up crews. They looked worse in the short run, but recovered far better in the long run.

  26. …………………
    Lisa Says:
    January 8th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
    Investing in Solar and renewable energy would save many military lives. The long dangerous convoys that go through Iraq and Afghanistan are for fuel for the generators on our bases. If we can cut those those in half there are less dangerous missions that our troops have to go on.
    ………………
    We could just defeat the Taliban and make all the roads safe for oil, gas and the Afghan people so they can start enjoying their own country again without fear of being blown up or their hands chopped off while on the way to town. Make it safe for solar panel dealers to get their products out to potential customers – and live to make the sale.

    It was globsmackingly dumb in the article – Lisa, do youself a favor and don’t make yourself look the fool by uncritically repeating it.

  27. Well, wanumba, since it’s “it’s on record and verifiable”, please provide some links!

  28. Blue Meanie says

    We have all those nukes we are not using and paid for with tax money. Why don’t we drill some holes in Iran with them. I hate wasting tax money.

  29. “So, you don’t know. Perhaps more readers are unaware of this so let’s take a few minutes to get those who don’t up to speed. Oil isn’t “once largely organic matter.”

    Oil is being obtained MILES underground. The “organic matter” hypothesis has been discarded – what two decades now?”

    Yes for those who don’t know. Wanumba seems to subscribe to a theory of oil source first championed by Soviet scientists and know held by a small minority of geologists. The widely accepted view is that most oil has its origins in organic matter. This is backed up by a wealth of data, not alone the fact that precursor to oil has chemical markers from algae. The fact that oil is found miles underground is hardly surprising if one is aware of the geological time being discussed.

    Non-organic sources of oil could still turn up and have been seen in small amounts, however, the evidence so far is pretty poor and hardly merits wanumba’s assertion that oil is not sourced back to biological matter and certainly does not justify claims that this widely accepted view is wrong. Again, wanumba just listens to views that support his point and discards anything, no matter how valid or accepted, out the window.

    Oh and your claims about the Valdez spill is pure hogwash. In fact, the oil has been disappearing at a much slower rate that anyone had predicted at the time. Doubtlessly wanumba just heard this ‘fact’ on Limbaugh and decided it must be true without spending 5 seconds looking into it.

  30. Why take my word for it?
    A simple search of “Gulf of Mexico oil fields refilling” came up with plenty of links.

    I read about it years ago, I believe it was in the Wall Street Journal and never came back to it until today. Voila!

    SO, Todd, how long do you think this clingy bitter stereotype you invoke that all Republicans and Conservative must get their everything they know from “Rush Limbaugh,” will last? After a while, people become jaded to the Left’s Pavolian conditioning and start regaining their normal critical functions.
    Have you spent 5 seconds verifying that your last statement is actually true? Nope. So, what ELSE isn’t true that you’ve claimed?

    Too bad you haven’t applied those astouding critiquing skills to Gabby Giffords tediously stupid propagandic screed which is the subject of this entire thread.

    Oh! Guess you have and found nothing even a wee bit peculiar about any of it.

  31. The Klute Says:
    January 8th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
    Well, wanumba, since it’s “it’s on record and verifiable”, please provide some links!
    ……….
    If you could find the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approval for Illinois Senator Barack Hussien Obama’s tax-payer-funded trip to Kenya in 2006, which you initially were SHOCKED and DISBELIEVING to hear from source wanumba, then we’re very confident you are perfectly capable of finding all the links you need on this subject.

    Would that you’d put that rapier mind to the task of pointing out Gabby Giffords official abandonment of the “Global Warming ” and “Climate Change” argument because of the debacle at Copenhagen and the East Anglia CLimate CHange Research Bureau’s dumping and altering of data to “HIDE THE DECLINE” in global temperatures, an international FRAUD designed to provide a fradulent foundation for an excuse to redistribute wealth from developed nations to underdeveloped nations, via greedy potitical hacks’ hands.

    The NEW Argument is “It helps our SOLDIERS!”
    Everyone KNOWS that Republicans and Conservatives are chickenhawks! They’re SURE to fall for that!

  32. Wanumba,

    You jackass in the Army I did security for convoys. (Yes woman pull security) About 50% percent of what we shipped was fuel. If you have portable solar panel technology that can run generators instead of fuel we would have to do less dangerous convoys.

  33. Ah. Or is it because your links you would provide would be immediately discredited as the fringe hackery it is.

    No government is betting on abiogenesis.

    No petroleum company is betting on abiogenesis.

    Why? Because it’s a crap theory.

    And fyi, your whole thrust of the Kenyan trip argument was that no one in the media covered it. My point of posting the links was to point out what a giant tool you were, regurgitating arguments that fit your preconcieved notions, which were not grounded in any basis of fact. Much like your belief in abiogenesis!

    Post the links, wanumba. Let’s see the sources. Stop with the intellectual cowardice.

  34. …………………….
    The Klute Says:
    January 8th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
    Stop with the intellectual cowardice.
    ………..
    Yessiree! Stops right here, right now!

    The subject is Gabby Giffords and the patently stupid argument that solar will somehow SAVE our TROOPS! A gobsmackingly (to borrow a great phrase from our gumshoe “The Klute”) stupid concept from someone who is sporting the credentials of “House Armed Services Committee” and “House Science and Technology Committee.”

    It’s intellectual cowardice to yak yak sniff sniff diversionary about anyone or anything other than this appalling performance by Gabby Giffords.

    Well, it also could be uber-partisan political posturing diversionary tactics. Change the subject, make ad homenim attacks, “Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals”-dodge-em.

    Wonder how many times this nouveau idea will be floated this coming week thru the media. We could put up a “Democratic Party -Controlled Congress Talking Points Watch” for “Solar Saves our Troops!” and see how many hits we get.

  35. Lisa Says:
    January 8th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
    Wanumba,

    You jackass in the Army I did security for convoys. (Yes woman pull security) About 50% percent of what we shipped was fuel. If you have portable solar panel technology that can run generators instead of fuel we would have to do less dangerous convoys.
    …………..
    Lisa,
    Take a deep breath and read this carefully:
    WHY are the conveys not safe on the roads?

    Is there something defective with the truck?

  36. “Have you spent 5 seconds verifying that your last statement is actually true? Nope. So, what ELSE isn’t true that you’ve claimed?”

    Actually I did. I also found it was Limbaugh circulating the ridiculous claim about the Valdez.

  37. ……………………
    todd Says:
    January 8th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
    Actually I did. I also found it was Limbaugh circulating the ridiculous claim about the Valdez.”

    “Doubtlessly wanumba just heard this ‘fact’ on Limbaugh and decided it must be true without spending 5 seconds looking into it.”
    ………………….

    So does your brain explode when “doubtlessly” things didn’t actually happen?

    Stupid Progessive Liberal Left hackneyed stereotypes to avoid sticking to the subject AGAIN.

    A tacit admission that Gabby’s statement is partisan political socialist crap. “Socialist” because it’s all about redistribution of wealth, high taxes, expansion of government and putting constraints on economic growth … last week for “Global CLimate Action” to Save the Planet,” BUT THIS WEEK (eternal thanks to the East Anglia Climate Research Unit WHISTLEBLOWER HERO), it’s “National Energy Action” to … “Save our Soldiers.”

    Teeth-grinding in its dishonesty.

  38. wanumba – i don’t have my opinion about you because you are conservative, i have my opinion based on seeing your writing on this blog.

  39. todd Says:
    January 8th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
    wanumba – i don’t have my opinion about you because you are conservative, i have my opinion based on seeing your writing on this blog
    ………………
    Like how I got my opinion of Senator Obama while observing how he was having a grand old time on the US taxpayer dime while in Kenya, meddling in Kenyan national political affairs?

    Oh, yes, you couldn’t handle that inconvenient truth, either. But instead of questioning Obama, the plan is always attack the bystanders for being alive and having ears and eyes which work.

    But, without all this, who would have fisked Gabby’s announcement of the new Democratic Party Hard Sell the way it needed to be fisked?

    Isn’t that what papatodd was hoping for?

  40. Basil St. John says

    Wanumba is absolutely right again. I can’t tell you how many times someone has said to me: “I believed what Gabby declared until I saw what Wanumba said about it in the comments section of Sonoran Alliance!” You’re a giant killer, whoever you are.

  41. Wanumba,

    Any movement in a combat zone is dangerous. You want to limit your movement in a combat zone unless of course it is to move to a defensive or offensive position. Wasting resources protecting and transporting fuel is bad resource allocation. If you can cut 20% of your load and replace it with renewable energy production you can allocate the army troops protecting that said load. So to summarize if 20% of our troops do not have to put themselves in harms way for cargo, then 20% of our troops can potentially be saved. Wanumba you are out of your league on this subject. Unless you have gotten behind a MRK 19 recently to protect a supply line you are clueless in this area.

  42. I have read, and reread this thread and am absolutely astonished by the absurd claims of Lisa.

    First, your terminology is defective. Its POL not “fuel.”

    Second, most is used for vehicles, not generators.

    Third, solar power is both limited and unreliable in Afghanistan, especially in the winter.

    I could go on and on about your absurd allegations, but won’t bore the other readers.

    So, in conclusion Lisa, stop the nonsense!

  43. wanumba – you accept as truth something you read about in some place you can’t remember a few years ago and you want to lecture others on where they get their opinions. Hah.

    you keep asserting bizarre things that are tangential like Obama’s visit to Kenya and claiming i have some plan to attack people(?!!!?!?!?!) or that somehow i am following a book which I have never read. it is clear by your indiscriminate flailing around that you are out of your depths. maybe you should just stop before you discredit yourself further.

  44. 44 comments and everyone is still yelling at each other. THIS is exactly where BB wants us, quarreling amongst ourselves instead of putting the focus where it belongs, on CONGRESS. Hey little sheep, WAKE UP! Klute and Johnny and Todd and Lisa and Wanumba and Blue Meanie, stop yelling at each other and start yelling at those who are responsible for this crap. Let’s start with Gabby, or Trent, or Raul, or Ann or the 3 Johns in our state. [Please note: I included both R’s and D’s in the list.] Just trying to be fair with our elected officials……… WE are not the problem here. Our elected officials are the problem.

  45. Has anyone besides me called Gabby’s offices and asked for some sort of clarifications on her op-ed piece? You’d all crack up with laughter to some of the responses that I have gotten.

  46. I haven’t been yelling at anyone.
    I’ve been on the road for two days.

    Hilarious!

  47. …………………..
    Basil St. John Says:
    January 8th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
    Wanumba is absolutely right again.
    …………………
    Thanks!
    Who would have ever guessed that having our kids in the same schools as the kids of EXXON,CHEVRON, SHELL and ELF oil platform engineers in Nigeria would pay off years later on a local Arizona political blog?

  48. just a thought says

    I must say… this is quit an interesting read.
    I agree and disagree with each one of you…. so glad we live in a country where that is still possible, and very glad to hear everyone’s opinions. Food for thought. …
    But I am curious… is no one concerned about the fact that 40 years ago, a former Prez; formed a Dept.(Dept of Energy) that has failed to do it’s job?
    If memory serves me(and this is questionable these days) The dept of Energy was formed 40 years ago; to reduce our dependency on foreign oil; and in the last 40 years… while we the people pay for it…. our Defense Dept invents, invests, and encourages oil dependency instead of any other mightily available source.

    Let’s just for a moment; imagine that for the last 40 years the Dept of Defense and Dept of Energy, were working together, and , low and behold, they had improved solar energy and wind… instead of oil.

    We would not be dependent on foreign oil.

    Now wasn’t that really their job???????

    Why are we not talking about firing the Dept of Energy…. a failed department… that is draining our resources to improve in areas that they are supposed to be finding ways around? Where is the outrage for this dept that has been taking our tax money and not being accountable for their actions?

    It is a complete hypocrisy.

    Just some things going through my addled mind.

  49. Fire the Department of Energy.

    Excellent idea. Also the Department of Education, whose budget goes up as national school academic achievement goes down.

    Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China can drill in the Caribbean … they and more nationas can drill and pump all the oil they want, why can’t we?

    Why is ONLY the US has to cut back? Reeks of rank discrimination.

  50. Interesting post. Thanks for share

Leave a Reply