why i might want bush in office, after all

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Feb 23, 2004.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601


    Jul 18, 2002
    i've finally sussed out what bush and the neocons are doing. much of it is done in the interest of protecting americans from things we're not yet keenly aware of.

    first, nuts to the War on Terror. it's a front. same to the "economic recovery." bush knows it's a sham, but there's a reason for it.

    consider these possible realities:

    1. the inevitable decline in oil production and rise in prices (linked-to article from topic i can't seem to find)

    2. a 1929-like (or worse) depression in the US and the world (deficit) (jobs)

    3. sudden global climate change, resulting in artic conditions for the UK, northern europe, and the eastern US sea board (link)

    4. the use of nukes as countries scramble to protect their resources (link as above)

    5. worldwide famine, rioting, war, etc. (link as above)

    if i were president and decided to accept some or all of these as reality, i would:

    1. secure foreign oil fields
    2. protect the US against missile strikes
    3. develop tactical nukes
    4. train my military w/ real war
    5. starve welfare programs now
    6. keep the populace afraid
    7. stack the judicial system w/ judges who see it my way
    8. secure food and water supplies

    i would pay for the stuff as fast as i could. deficits don't matter, because:

    - if i'm right, the world will fall to anarchy anyway

    - if i'm wrong, the value of the dollar will decline sufficiently that foreign gov'ts can buy the debt on the cheap (bush's target: one euro = 1.50 USD)

    if any/all of this stuff actually starts happening in the next few years, and bush is in office, he'll look like a genius.

    at the expense of the rest of the world, of course.
  2. Backtothemac macrumors 601


    Jan 3, 2002
    San Destin Florida
    The guy that you are quoting is an idiot. With all due respect there are huge, massive, vast expanses of oil that haver never been touched in Russia, the US, and many other overseas areas. The middle east isn't even close to being tapped.

    It will happen, but hopefully we will be moving away from oil in the next 20 years. We better.
  3. amnesiac1984 macrumors 6502a

    Jun 9, 2002
    I haven't been able to read the linked article but the idea of the oil crash is not just the idea of this "idiot". I posted a long article that was in the new scientist a while ago on this. When production rate starts to slow, in short when supply drops below the demand, and this starts to happen when the oil well is less than half full, then a mass shortage will occur and prices will skyrocket. This, according to the new scientist, has been predicted by the same mathematician/economist who 100% acurately predicted the 70s oil peak. And he says it'll occur in the next 5-15 years. (this is all from memory and I no longer have access to the new scientists subscription site.)
  4. krossfyter macrumors 601


    Jan 13, 2002
    secret city
    so why arent we concentrating more on alterbative energy/fuel sources?
  5. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601


    Jul 18, 2002
    the accuracy of the page of the Peak Oil thing aside, anyone have any thoughts on the bigger issue i brought up?

    does the bush administration's actions belie a belief of the inevibilities of some or all of these catastrophic scenarios?
  6. wwworry macrumors regular

    Mar 23, 2002
    so you can vote for the guy who thinks doom is inevitable or you can vote for someone who wants to forstall that doom. Make your choice.

    I would rather have someone in office who waits before striking first with nukes or whatever. I would still like to try avoiding sudden climate change. I would like to use more renewable energy and have less dependence on foreign wars (oops, oil, I mean). I would like to make more allies than enemies. I would like to remain opptomistic. I'm not for all this fundementalist christian battle logic.
  7. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Jul 4, 2003
    Terlingua, Texas
    wwworry, I don't think the deal is us being the instigators of nuke-use. The worry is about some equivalent to a freighter in New York harbor making a mushroom cloud.

    "Hubbert's Pimple" about worldwide use of oil is well-known; he first published it in the 1950s and has, so far, been spot-on. Now, there may be more oil here, there and yonder than his graph illustrates, but one thing for sure: It's pure burning hell to get to and get to market. Politics and climate come immediately to mind. Warlords in Afghanistan; ice in Siberia...

    There are high odds that the Euro is going toward $1.50; it's been to $1.29 before profit-taking, already. That's up from $0.84 not so long ago.

    If the U.S. consumer gets scared and starts saving instead of maxxing out his VISA, there's gonna be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth on a worldwide basis, not just here. I don't think today's population will be as long-suffering as folks were in the 1930s; expectations about "I deserve the good life!" are just way too high.

    Alternative fuels? Billions have been and are now being spent on just that. The public will become more eager as present fuel supplies become more expensive. However, in the words of one Exxon exec, "There's all the oil you want, at $100 a barrel." This was in 1976, during the shale-oil research. I guess in actuality, pollution is more of an issue that the availability of gasoline--albeit I don't know the price of the latter, in this hypothetical future.

    And I agree that it's nice to make allies instead of enemies, but it looks like a Pandora's Box situation to me. That is, what can be done, if anything, to change the views of those who now hate us to the point that they will blow themselves up in order to kill some of us?

    It's all well and good to talk about might-have-beens and oughta-be, but for many in the U.S., no oil = no job, no food, no clothing, no shelter.

    Just look around your own house. You have a computer; thank those who drill for oil and who work in the petrochemical plants. Have a bicycle? Thank those who mine ores and work in smelters; and those who drill for oil and natural gas and process those into tires. You wear clothes? Orlon, dacron and nylon come from the world of petrochemicals. All cotton? Farm tractors have tires and burn gas or diesel...

    Sure, gripe about *how* stuff is done, but don't gripe that it is done...

    :), 'Rat

  8. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Jan 5, 2004
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    It's not just the Arabs you think we are nuts -- the Europeans think we are nuts -- hell, I think we are nuts!

    You can't continue to say "xxxk the world, we don't care what you think", and expect things to be OK.

    'Rat, I suggest you move to NYC or L.A. and test your view of life. You might discover that having a "xxxk the world" view just doesn't work when you find that you are dependent on others to maintain a civil society. It might work in Texas, but try it in Manhattan.
  9. wwworry macrumors regular

    Mar 23, 2002
    well 'Rat, I guess you made your choice. THe world is screwed so let's just get what we can now.

    Renewable energy is too expensive? Take away the oil and gas subsidies, take away our fixation and military dollars proping up Saudi Arabia, Isreal and Egypt, take away all the related pollution costs and add the economy of scale in greater production and use of renewables and what do you get? Renewables may be very cost competitive and will come a lot sooner than some hydrogen car on Mars.

    I agree that we need oil and my point is too make it last rather than throwing up our hands and burning it all up now.

    If every SUV driven was a minivan we would not have to import oil from Saudi Arabia but I do not want to turn this into another SUV thread.

    Anyway the neo-cons have already decided the world is screwed and they are aided by Christian fundementalists who are wanting the final holy war. I believe Bush is between the two and shares their common end-views. I hear him talk lovingly about executions but nothing about improving the justice system. I hear him punishing evil-does and nothing about cheap ways to bring clean water to Africa (how many allies would that gain?). I hear him talk constantly about terror and nothing about the causes of terror. I'm sorry but not all terror is because of the devil. (I do not condone terror FBI snoops.) He talks about how great it is for business that jobs are moving overseas and nothing about investing in people other than millionairs. His idea of improvement is amending the constitution (THE CONSTITUTION!) to ban same sex marriages. How stupid is that? How will that change anyone's marriage? It would help my marriage a hell of a lot more if he did not support limiting overtime, backed up his school programs with real money and did not put through that anti-competitive gift to the drug companies he calls a medicare bill.

    I agree it has gotten pretty gloomy since he has been in office and if there is 4 more years of this I might have to join you out in the woods but I am not ready to give up yet.
  10. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Jul 4, 2003
    Terlingua, Texas
    numediaman, I just don't like big cities. Period. I've spent a good bit of time in various world-class cities, such as Hong Kong, Paris, and San Francisco. They're neat places for me to visit, but I just can't take the crowds. But that's just me. I worked for a year in Detroit; helluva good job, but my wife was miserable. There're lots of jobs but just one wife, was my attitude, so I went home to Austin. That was better, but things changed and I just sorta dropped out of the organized world.

    I don't have an "Up the world!" attitude. I observe and comment, but that doesn't necessarily mean I advocate. There are many things our country does of which I disapprove, but when in my judgement it stems from what I see as human nature, I see no point in grand and glorious harumphing about it all.

    wwworry, it's not a matter of "get what we can now". It's a matter of some calm and reasoned thought about the realities of the world we live in, and how to deal with them. This holds true for individual as well as the various levels of political subdivisions.

    AS to the energy stuff, all I'm doing is pointing out the realities of comparative costs and the probable human reactions to changes. From my standpoint, facts have no morals, no good or bad. They just lie there ignoring you; you have to deal with the "what is" and the "what if?" about them.

    And by the way, 8% of our imported oil comes from Saudi Arabia, or about 4% of the total usage. I don't know the present situation in Venezuela, having sorta lost track; but we depend heavily on Mexico and on the west coast of Africa.

    I try to understand what drives the neo-cons, since they're running the show right now. That some of their points have merit does not mean that all do. There is a lot with which I disagree. Still, I must try to figure out how it all would affect me, and what I must to protect me and mine. Call it self-defense; call it insurance. Whatever.

    And religious wars to some degree have been a part of human history for thousands of years. In recent centuries the Europeans could spread their version of the Gospel with the relatively low cost of projecting power. In more recent decades, the possession of oil and RPGs has rather negated much of the ability to project that power, and militant Islam seems on the rise. I dunno where it will end, nor when.

  11. wwworry macrumors regular

    Mar 23, 2002
    well the facts are that energy efficiency has increased by somethiung like 26% in the last 20 years in every sector of the market except for the auto market. It has even in the auto market if you take away what SUVs have done to it. Sorry about all the SUV emphasis.

    It can be done and done rather painlessly. To put defence of energy inefficiency as "defending our way of life" seems rather stupid to me. That's who Bush/Cheney see it.

    And let's get to the root of all these doomsday senarios: it's energy inefficiency at the root. Climate change - fossile fuel by-products and inefficiencent land use. MiddleEast wars - fossile fuel dependency. Terrorism - feeling left out of power structures/repressive regiemes. and let's face it we prop up a lot of these repressive regiemes at one point or another because of stratigic oil issues.

    I'm saying for the last 25 years we have been giving lip service to conservation. Remember when Carter gave tax breaks for insulating homes? Everyone insulated. Cafe standards in cars resulted in cars with power and with better milage. Today there are building techniques using SIPs or ICFs that are way way more energy efficient than traditional stick framing and use less non recycled material. SIPs are faster too. Why anyone would build an exterior shell out of anything else is beyond me (except in a few cases).

    Lets count the real cost of fossile fuel dependancy (including subsidies) and the real benefits of conservation when we add up the facts.
  12. wwworry macrumors regular

    Mar 23, 2002
    and suburbs, don't start me on them. The traffic is worse than in cities, you can't walk to get some milk or a newspaper, etc, Talk about inefficiency and waste!
  13. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Feb 14, 2004
    OBJECTIVE reality
    You know, years ago I would've been tempted to pass off zimv's post as paranoia. But nowadays I'm not so sure. I don't (yet) buy the idea that Bush is clamping down on things in order to prepare for the disaster that is to come, but I can't entirely dismiss it either.
    Because that would take vision and courage.
    And that's another thing. We need to rebuild our cities from the inside out, not just keep on spreading further and further into the burbs and rural areas. And we should be seriously looking at how many jobs can be done by telecommuting. As people move farther out and jobs become scarcer, people are making round trips of 20, 30, 40 or more miles per day to go to work. If there's any way to use technology to avoid that, we should do so.
  14. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Jul 4, 2003
    Terlingua, Texas
    Seems to me there's a bit too much negativism here, as though the U.S. is the only place that's energy inefficient.

    I've been in houses in Europe; ours are better insulated. The issue of whether we're too "comfy" oriented insofar as what temperature we set our thermostats to, that's a whole 'nother deal. :) But it takes less energy to heat or cool our homes to a given temperature than in other countries.

    Pollution and automotive fuel economy? Go to Mexico City and report back on a comparison with, say, Houston. I can tell you right now, Houston wins.

    Traffic congestion? Other than the issue of size, there's no difference at rush hour between Munich and Atlanta. I've been to both. From my reading, London's worse than either.

    Alternative energy sources? We (and Japan) are spending billions of dollars on not just research but development. If the time rate of change isn't fast enough to suit folks, I suggest they waddle on down to the Chaplain and get their TS cards punched.

    Urban sprawl? Well, after WW II a helluva lot of folks wanted more than something like a Baltimore row house, or other cheek-by-jowl living. It seems to me that absent some sort of inducements to would-be homeowners for in-city living, the sprawl will increase. After all, the latest thing is "Five acres, five miles from town." Who among you would call for laws requiring me to move into a city?

    And so it goes...

  15. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601


    Jul 18, 2002
    no one's claiming it is, but i'd like to think our role in the world is to lead by example.

    i disagree. i hold up munich as an example of great planning. there's a highway that circles the city. computers monitor the traffic patterns and set speed limits in areas by lane to keep traffic moving.

    motorists are informed of their lane's speed limit (which is more of a recommended speed than a limit) via electronic signs that span the lanes.

    the best thing is -- the motorists heed the signs! try that in the US!

    i was also impressed how many german motorists heed the "pass on the left" and "slower traffic moves to the right" rules.

    i've been caught in atlanta rush hour traffic and, aside from the occasional commuter lane (full of cheats, btw), i thought it was pretty bad.
  16. wwworry macrumors regular

    Mar 23, 2002
    So you think global wars over energy are coming and global disaster because of climate change is coming but then when someone proposes minor changes to forestall disaster you say we are being negative. (or someone else is worse so I do not have to do anything)

    In short, what is more negative - trying to improve things or accepting "inevitable" decline. I think you are the negative one here.

Share This Page