The saying is, “Boom”.Oh please. Please tell us how Biden is "shutting down" domestic oil production. The last number I saw was that oil production in federal land accounted for 5% of total production in the United States. Tell me, exactly, how Biden has proposed shutting down 95% of domestic oil production.
Joe Biden approved more domestic oil leases in his first year in office than Trump approved in his first year. Link below. The oil companies are sitting on thousands of leases they won’t use.
You’re exactly what’s wrong with American politics today. You’re a hyper partisan liar who posts incorrect nonsense just to get attention. Then, other people read your nonsense and take it for 💯 real and swallow,it down. You don’t care about the truth.
New Data: Biden’s First Year Drilling Permitting Stomps Trump’s By 34%
Center for Biological Diversity: Thousands of Permits OK’d Despite President’s Authority to End Drilling by 2035biologicaldiversity.org
18 House Republicans voted against a resolution to support Finland, Sweden joining NATO
- Thread starter BelemNole
- Start date
I feel like this post didn't go as well as you'd hoped.
You dont think we are already their big brother regardless of NATO status?
Gonna be a hard sell for the US... Russia is not a threat to NATO for conventional war...it will be hard to convince them to spend more now.
Might want to do a little research before hitting the post button, Ah hell, Who am I kidding, Nevermind.
Like 7 people already did. I don't think your brain is getting enough oxygen.
Where you getting your history books from, one of the Bush Presidential Libraries? Cuz that sounds like the crap they used to spew.
There are some really stupid people in Congress.
Clearly you are a student of history. Just not World War I. Or World War II.
Please explain how Biden is shutting down oil production on private land. Is he somehow confiscating that land? Executive order? Can you link that? If Biden is in fact doing that, he needs to be impeached. I’ll be the first Democrat calling for impeachment.
The other option is you’re a lying political hack piece of shit. I think I know which it is, but I’ll keep an open mind in order to give you a chance to provide proof.
What's wrong with you? Several people replied directly to you refuting your post. Why don't you reply to those? Because you only have one talking point and you aren't smart enough to enter into a real debate.
I do not think you have much to worry about, These are 50-100 year issues being discussed. Once, the winds shift, the Democrats will quickly abandon their hawkish views and bail on support for an expanded NATO.
Please recall that Democrat support for our missions in Afghanistan and Iraq quickly evaporated.
.................................................................................................................................................................................
After two world wars, we were left without the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the German Empire, and the Russian Empire had transitioned into becoming the Soviet Union. The USSR eventually became the single most unsuccessful piece of the entire reorganization of Europe.
We had this last piece mostly resolved after the Bush presidency in 1991 or so. (Russia was downsized, selling American style hamburgers to their citizenry, and even building GM autos.) Now due to inattention to who Putin really was/is, another strongman has emerged and needs to be dealt with. We have been handling issues in this part of the world now for 70 years. We have a new order set up, it is good for America, it is working, and needs to be maintained.
Russia is a pariah state, and they have a handful of client states. THEY WANT A FEW MORE, AND OVER TIME MANY MANY MORE. They are even starting to mention Alaska in that narrative.
We need to build on our alliances and to continue to control the narrative that underlies our great land anywhere we can.
Last edited:
Bullshit. U.S. strategic (global) interests far outweigh petty financial concerns.
I don’t always agree with you, but I always value your insight. It’s nice to read intelligent conservative commentary on this board because it’s a rare commodity.
Well, I’ll let @Titus Andronicus speak for himself, but he has always struck me as one. I’m being sincere. I enjoy intelligent debates/discussions between conservatives and liberals, but most of the cons who post here are morons. I think a lot of the saner cons left during the Trump years.
This ^
I haven't read the resolution. If that stipulation isn't in the resolution, just add it. Everyone should support that, right?!
NATO is arguably the most successful mutual defense alliance the world has ever seen.
If Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO they would have been gobbled up by Russia many moons ago...
I always thought he was as well. I can't remember who let the cat out of the bag though.
Probably not, but are you sure?
Ask yourself what difference we would see in our support of Ukraine if they had been a NATO member.
Remember, even when Article 5 is invoked, that does not require troops or nukes. So if Ukraine had been in NATO and had invoked Article 5, individual nations would still decide how to come to Ukraine's aid.
The result might not have been noticeably different from what's now happening.
A different way to look at it is to ask since Ukraine is not in NATO, why are we treating it like it is?
Don’t get me wrong: the fact he is able to construct several coherent sentences in one post without a myriad of spelling and grammar errors initially threw me off, but I’m pretty sure he is conservative.
No one has explained why they feel I'm wrong, because they can't. If you don't know how making it harder to extract and deliver oil raises its price, you need to take an economics class.
I just glanced at @cigaretteman's post on an earlier resolution endorsing NATO. In that vote, 63 House Rs voted against.
I haven't compared the names, but I wonder why so many of them are now more pro-NATO than they were in April?
iowa.forums.rivals.com
I haven't compared the names, but I wonder why so many of them are now more pro-NATO than they were in April?
Why 30 percent of the House GOP voted against reaffirming NATO support
A quarter-century ago, the U.S. Senate was faced with a major question: whether to ratify expanding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to include Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, which would bring the alliance closer to Russia’s border. The public generally supported NATO...
iowa.forums.rivals.com
I would try to explain so that you could understand, but it's hard to draw pictures on HORT.
What was the source of the oil that would have been transported via the Keystone XL?
All the more reason to support it.
We are doing other things to stymie Russia's aggression. There's no need to also do things that will harm us.
While I am in favor of Sweden and Finland joining, there are lots of good reasons to worry about making the largest military power in the history of the world even stronger.
Personally, I'd rather see the power reside in more democratic organizations, like the EU and UN.
While I'm sure you can find nice words about rights and democracy in NATO's documents, it is not fundamentally concerned with those values. It's a military organization.
Personally, I'd rather see the power reside in more democratic organizations, like the EU and UN.
While I'm sure you can find nice words about rights and democracy in NATO's documents, it is not fundamentally concerned with those values. It's a military organization.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Missouri State Transfer WR Raylen Sharpe Visiting Iowa on Tuesday- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
