Read carefully before you reply.
We agree on more things than you seem to realize. My premise has nothing to do with funding the military. I agree it is necessary. However the point you are missing is that our military should not be used as a tool to protect the oil business when it is based in unstable regions of the world. Our oil industry is deriving profits from this protectionism. I think our oil industry would be better served by military protectionism if it was included under blanket protection within our borders. I agree with you about the interference of the enviro-nuts in energy commerce. They have caused more damage to our economy than they have created good. How can a proposal such as the Phoenix Project be considered wacko-environmental when it does precisely what the wackos seem to be against, the exploitation of our natural energy resources for an energy independant Amerrica??
I believe that if GWB had proposed this plan instead of Braun, you would be more apt to support the Phoenix Project. Since our economy is energy based already, I see nothing that would change except we could tell the Saudi's to screw themselves, we don't need their oil.
One of the huge problems here in America is that too many things are being produced outside of our borders. We would be much better served, and certainly more secure against terrorists, if we realized that America's security is only in America's best interest. And the rest of the world couldn't care less if America remains strong or gives it all away to appease the have nots.
Foreign manipulation of America's sovergnity can only be achieved if we relinquish our energy production and manufacturing capacity to countrys that openly renounce our Capitalist based economy, and the freedoms we enjoy because of our success. Foreign oil production, and foreign produced underwear are the fringes of the spectrum. When everything else falls in the middle, we have lost control of our destiny my friend.
It is unfortunate that a lesser candidate like Braun has proposed self sufficient energy production. Since the mainstream political buereauocracy has had plenty of chances to fix the problem over the past 35 years, they appear to be unwilling. My preference if I were to sacrifice would be to pay more to see onshore energy production, than see my sons, your sons, and other peoples sons put in harms way to defend a failed American energy policy.
We are vulnerable to terrorism only because we are seen as occupiers and exploiters. Having a presence in those unstable regions gives the terrorist's more reason and opportunity to strike us. We are making it too easy for them to have an excuse to strike.
Thank you for a spirited debate.
However the point you are missing is that our military should not be used as a tool to protect the oil business when it is based in unstable regions of the world.
We are not in Iraq for the oil. Never have been, never will be. We are there because of the threat of militant Islamic terrorism. Granted, if they did not have any oil wealth, the Arab world would likely be so desperately poor that they couldn't afford belts for the suicide bombers. Oil makes it impossible for us to ignore them. That is the only thing oil has to do with this...it gives the enemy enough wealth to be dangerous. We are not there to take their oil. If you think we are, you might have a better audience at DU.
How can a proposal such as the Phoenix Project be considered wacko-environmental when it does precisely what the wackos seem to be against, the exploitation of our natural energy resources for an energy independant Amerrica??
The environuts don't agree with you...they are mostly for the use of 'green' power. (It is also worthwhile to note that every 'green power' option also has environmentalists opposed to it, hydro-damns have fish people, windmills have bird people etc) They use it as cover because it is impractical...it lets them say they are 'for' a different kind of energy, as opposed to the truth that they are against energy and the capitalism that it fuels.
I believe that if GWB had proposed this plan instead of Braun, you would be more apt to support the Phoenix Project.
There is much convolution there. First, I wouldn't support this if GWB were to propose this...because it would still be socialism. I would likely be more receptive to the technolgy...because he wouldn't propose it were horrendously impractical...a constraint that doesn't seem to stop fringe candidates and democrats.
Since our economy is energy based already, I see nothing that would change except we could tell the Saudi's to screw themselves, we don't need their oil.
Every economy has always been 'energy' based. Stone age people's economy is 'energy' based, its just that their energy was wood fires and human sweat. Transitioning from a hydrocarbon based economy to a hydrogen based one is a MASSIVE change...not something to be disregarded because 'we are already energy based'
Since the mainstream political buereauocracy has had plenty of chances to fix the problem over the past 35 years, they appear to be unwilling.
Never heard of laissez faire, eh?
As I said in the begining, if you think the technology is practical...go out, invest your money, make it happen and make millions. Good luck, you will deserve every penny of your millions. Don't use the ballot box to try to control the economy, be it energy, health care or anything else. Socialism does not work. More importantly, it cannot work because it is outside of the proper function of government.