Gun control debate (merged)

#11,279
#11,279
hog88 said:
Oh, that’s right I forgot. You want us to cripple our economy while sticking it to the Middle East.
Click to expand...
That’s not what I want and I never said that. When you have an addiction the answer isn’t more more more. You can ween yourself from it though. If we spend a fraction of the money (and lives) we have spent in the Middle East (war) investing in sustainable technologies we could be energy dependent while still utilizing our oil if we wanted. They don’t want us there, and we shouldn’t be there. Wait...you aren’t one of those guys that thinks we needed to invade Iraq both times because it was the right thing to do...do you?
 
#11,280
#11,280
PeaceCorpsVol said:
That’s not what I want and I never said that. When you have an addiction the answer isn’t more more more. You can ween yourself from it though. If we spend a fraction of the money (and lives) we have spent in the Middle East (war) investing in sustainable technologies we could be energy dependent while still utilizing our oil if we wanted. They don’t want us there, and we shouldn’t be there. Wait...you aren’t one of those guys that thinks we needed to invade Iraq both times because it was the right thing to do...do you?
Click to expand...

First time it was the right thing, not the second.

I have advocated for years that we need to cut off the ME and do everything we can to be not only energy independent but an energy exporter. We should be fully exploiting our oil reserves, increasing transportation/distribution capability and refining capacity. All the while encouraging (not subsidizing) private industry to make advances in renewables.
 
#11,281
#11,281
hog88 said:
First time it was the right thing, not the second.

I have advocated for years that we need to cut off the ME and do everything we can to be not only energy independent but an energy exporter. We should be fully exploiting our oil reserves, increasing transportation/distribution capability and refining capacity. All the while encouraging (not subsidizing) private industry to make advances in renewables.
Click to expand...
So the first invasion we were just doing the right thing. It had nothing to do with our interests in Kuwaiti oils fields, energy contracts, military industrial complex...etc., we were just standing up for the little guy? Oil isn’t the answer, I can be a part of it but solar, wind and other forms of sustainable energy needs a seat at the adult table not the kids table. Oil companies and invested politicians do everything they can to prevent that.
 
#11,294
#11,294
hog88 said:
None, they should have been but you know why they weren’t. It has nothing to do with Trump.
Click to expand...
So if 15 of the 20 9/11 collaborators were Saudi wouldnt it have made the most sense for Trump to put a travel ban on Saudis? Do you have any idea why he wouldn’t as they would be the most obvious start to any ban?l I will hang up and listen but the correct answer will start with “Trumps business dealings in Saudi Arabia...”
 
#11,295
#11,295
PeaceCorpsVol said:
So if 15 of the 20 9/11 collaborators were Saudi wouldnt it have made the most sense for Trump to put a travel ban on Saudis? Do you have any idea why he wouldn’t as they would be the most obvious start to any ban?l I will hang up and listen but the correct answer will start with “Trumps business dealings in Saudi Arabia...”
Click to expand...

he should have put a ban on Saudis, you’re not getting any argument from me on that. You know the reason NO POTUS would come down on the Saudis.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top