Saturday, April 14, 2018

Show some faith

I understand that there can be utility in holding someone accountable. But doesn't the God-Emperor come in for enough criticism already that he doesn't need to hear it all the time from both sides?
Prominent supporters of President Trump are expressing skepticism over his decision to launch airstrikes against Syria, slamming the move as overly aggressive and unnecessary.

Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham both questioned Trump’s decision Friday to launch strikes in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack last weekend that the U.S. has attributed to the Syrian government.

Carlson noted the move was inconsistent with the president’s message during his 2016 campaign, and Ingraham said she found that intervention in other countries could be risky, as shown in the Iraq War, according to the Daily Beast.

Michael Savage, a prominent conservative radio host and author, tweeted that “sad warmongers hijacking our nation” following news of the strike.

Michael Savage@ASavageNation
 We lost. War machine  bombs syria. No evidence Assad did it. Sad warmongers hijacking our nation

Infowars’s Alex Jones broke down in tears while speaking out against the military action. “If he had been a piece of crap from the beginning, it wouldn’t be so bad,” Jones said of Trump. “We’ve made so many sacrifices and now he’s crapping all over us. It makes me sick."

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter also shared her opposition to the strike, retweeting a series of other conservative or right-wing figures who condemned the move and resurfacing Trump's own past tweets against military action in Syria.

And far-right figures Mike Cernovich and Laura Loomer also ripped Trump over the military strike in Syria.

Mike Cernovich@Cernovich
At least I won’t feel bad when he gets impeached.
The ironic thing is that I am probably more anti-war, and have been for much longer, than any of these right-wing figures. I'm not bothered by a few missile strikes. I don't believe they will lead to boots on the ground, any more than all the previous missile strikes did.

Everything I have seen about the situation indicates that Trump is resisting the neocons and their war machine, not giving into it. I really don't understand why none of these folks, of whom most I generally think well, aren't able to do the same.

Be patient. Don't react. And don't assume you necessarily know what the President is doing.

Labels: ,


«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 214 of 214
Blogger Dirk Manly April 15, 2018 6:34 PM  


>> Not enough of 'our' muzzies though -- unless he hits Minneapolis... but not even then.

> We can take care of our muzzies ourselves, once the rules change.

Indeed, Well over a million patriotic Americans know EXACTLY how to play war by Mozzie Rules.

The moslem populations in Dearborn, Michigan, and especially Dearborn Heights will be annhilated.

Pro-tip -- always use 'O', not 'U'... it pisses them off, and shows them that YOU control the language, not them, and have absolutely NO qualms with disrespecting their insane moon-good child-sacrifice cult.

Blogger Dirk Manly April 15, 2018 7:19 PM  


"For Russia, this is NOT a fight over a bunch of obnoxious goat-bangers. This is for their Mediterranean Sea port.

Easy enough. Let them have Constantinople (I assume they'll rename it). But, what about the Turks? Who cares about the damn Turks. They've been antagonists for twenty years and bent on Moar Islam. "

You can't give Constantinople/Istanbul (Istanbul literally means "The City"). The Rus and the Turks have been at each other's throats ever since the Turks moved out of central Asia into Asia Minor. The Turks would consider it to be the biggest insult ever (for one, as Mozzies, they are not going to voluntarily (or even begrudgingly( give up a conquered Christian church as important as Constantine's. They would rather level the entire city than to see it in Christian hands again. And every Mozzie from around the world with the means to do so would join in. Just like they all trooped into Afghanistan against the Soviet Red Army, and then against us.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 15, 2018 7:34 PM  

(Istanbul literally means "The City")
Istanbul is a mere corruption of "Konstantinopolis". If it means something in Turkish, the cause/effect runs the other way.

Blogger jb April 15, 2018 8:46 PM  

Arthur #175 You wrote:

"Where on Earth is this happening and with what personnel? Are these plots being played out in the West Wing? Is it plausible that Trump has had operational security to do anything remotely like what you are suggesting?"

Okay - your really don't want to go precisely at what I wrote, but I understand.

Are you daft? What did Trump do in Saudi Arabia - make a courtesy call on his way to Israel? China? NK? Were you on an extended lunch?

Now you are totally perplexed by Friday night's events. Did you pay attention how the deep state got body-slammed by Donald the whole day long? Apparently not.

What's with the "plots hatched" BS? What do you think, Arthur - Donald is a nut-less eunuch occupying the west wing?

Is it plausible that POTUS had "operational security" whatever the heckers and a half you mean by that one!)

Dude - catch up! He already DID it.

Blogger Markku April 15, 2018 8:56 PM  

Now even DEFCON says that Russia was notified in advance about where exactly the bombs would fall, and that DEFCON was aware of this, which is why they didn't go beyond level 4.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd April 15, 2018 9:56 PM  

Dirk Manly wrote:You can't give Constantinople/Istanbul (Istanbul literally means "The City"). ... The Turks would consider it to be the biggest insult ever ... And every Mozzie from around the world with the means to do so would join in. ...

We would have to destroy mohamedanism all around the world, then? This give-Constantinople-to-the-Russians plan is all up-side!

Blogger Jack Amok April 15, 2018 11:05 PM  

The Turks would consider it to be the biggest insult ever

Why should any of us give a rat's rear end about the fookin' Turks being insulted? Let them level Instanbul. The Russians will just rebuild Constantinople. They're good at that sort of thing. Visit Minsk sometime...

Blogger Arthur Isaac April 15, 2018 11:08 PM  

Dude - catch up! He already DID it.

I think you are dreaming. Time will tell.

Blogger jb April 15, 2018 11:26 PM  

Arthur -

You step n' fetch with all your half-skewed, half-assed questions that have zero substance. You have not even tried to address my initial post.

You are like a mosquito buzzing around the ears - not able to bite just yet, but being a pain anyway.

Go find a new commenter to bother with your nonsense. Thank you.

Blogger Arthur Isaac April 16, 2018 12:37 PM  

@jb you're the CT version of a flat earther. Q is fueled by pixie farts and your getting hostile because someone dares ask what's under the hood. I've seen this shit my whole life. Best we both move on.

Anonymous Anonymous April 16, 2018 8:57 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:China would get hit? Feature not bug.
Indeed, but China might regard it as an act of war.

We aren't energy independent? We can be, we just need to open the throttle a little bit on our production, which has been kept low by ME oil prices and enviro regs.
I don't think you appreciate just how massive an increase 4 million bbl/day is.  It's equivalent to 2 more Alaska pipelines.  Further, the hydro-fracked shale wells this is all coming from deplete rapidly.  Our current bounty can come to an end very suddenly as the best spots in the shales are used up.

The USA burns about 9.2 million barrels/day of gasoline and 3 million of diesel.  We'd be in far better shape if we went after the problem by hitting demand and substituting:

1.  Wal-Mart is in the middle of efforts to double the fuel efficiency of its warehouses-on-wheels.  Roll those improvements out nation-wide.  Call that 1.2 million barrels, 30% of the way.

2.  Roll out LNG for the trucks for maybe another 1 million barrels.  We're up to 2.2, 55% of the way.

3.  Push people to downsize their vehicles and particularly the engines.  Engines have become far more efficient in the last 30 years but everything has gone into more power.  I know from experience that you can cut fuel demand by 1/3 by just trading power for efficiency.  That would give another 3 million barrels a day for a total of 5.2 million, 130% of what's needed to be oil-independent.

There are other places where huge improvements are possible but that's something we'd have to do over 10-20 years, not 2 years.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd April 16, 2018 9:27 PM  

Pale Male wrote:I don't think you appreciate just how massive an increase 4 million bbl/day is.  It's equivalent to 2 more Alaska pipelines. 

Closer to four additional pipelines. TAPS has been running a little over 500,000BBL/day for quite a while now. There is quite a bit of additional oil which could be developed on and off shore the Slope, which might bring us closer to the design capacity of 2,000,000BBL/day. A pro-American administration and Congress might open that up for development.

Pro-American Congress is the sticking point right now, I think.

Blogger Arthur Isaac April 16, 2018 9:56 PM  

Also, we haven't realized the potential of a Trans-Alaska LNG line. Given the right economics this could happen very quickly. Uncrucifying coal is also an option when the going gets tough.

Anonymous Anonymous April 17, 2018 8:31 AM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:There is quite a bit of additional oil which could be developed on and off shore the Slope, which might bring us closer to the design capacity of 2,000,000BBL/day.
Also a lot of associated and nearby gas which has no route to market.  I know there's interest in converting it to methanol and pushing it through the pipeline as well, which would work wonders both for the minimum-flow constraint and as antifreeze.  Nobody's quite gotten the economics to work, though.

LNG moves on ships, not through pipelines.

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 214 of 214

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts