English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Honestly, I think the analogy is apt. But I have some questions about its timing and where the president's policy really stands, since the initial recommendation after 9/11 was consume, consume, consume.
What does the president really suggest. Does he want our governnment to take over the role of the drug dealer? ("Energy Independence") Where is he and his energy policy in this analogy? Is he the Narc? Is he the dysfunctional parent who acts as the enabler? If he is the white hat, what energy conservation measure is he, as a national leader, modeling for the rest of country? Taking the bus? Using a hot air balloon instead of Air Force 1? Videoconferencing instead of jetting to foreign countries? Stop using Aircraft carriers for photo ops? Stop pouring money into the IRAQ Bonfire?

2006-08-10 08:30:55 · 4 answers · asked by Pluto Corsini 2 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

4 answers

No. OPEC are just the producers. Exxon and Shell and BP are the pushers.

Ignore how Bush deals with the energy crisis. He's already said that he doesn't believe federal laws should apply to him, so purely practical considerations are way outside the realm of hope.

2006-08-10 08:35:36 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0 0

certainty examine.... Afghanistan has constantly been heavily in contact interior the drug commerce.....finding an Afghan chief who isn't linked in some way with the drug commerce is enormously much impossible... you will have greater success finding a virgin in a whore living house on a similar time as we attempt to do away with the heroin commerce .....it relatively is incredibly complicated.... drugs are with regards to the only genuine money crop they have.....and after enormously much one hundred years..... the individuals do no longer comprehend any incorrect way.... elevating corn ain't reducing it financially for my section i do no longer think of Afghanistan has the components mandatory to create a conceivable good usa..... without that conceivable good usa you could no longer win an insurgency.... We went in for the superb motives..... Osama has been "castrated" and can no longer advance a sparkling set.... Osama is broke....he even had to borrow money from Saddam.....a guy he did no longer like very plenty..... sometime interior the destiny Osama would be status on a sprint hill taking a whiz.... a drone controlled from a console in Arizona will vaporize him.... concern solved GAYLE.... I served 30 years and in 2 wars...... I paid my dues..... it incredibly isn't any longer approximately honoring the troops or appreciating their sacrifice..... it relatively is approximately triumphing the conflict and not dropping those youthful men and ladies in a no win difficulty.... I useful in counter terrorism / counter insurgency.... I additionally hung out interior the middle East..... without usa spending trillions of progression money we will not arise with the money for and years of wrestle dropping hundreds of lives usa can no longer arise with the money for or tolerate..... we will not win greater effectual to stroll away at our chosing or be pushed out via activities.... this patriotic stance you have taken is easy no remember if it incredibly isn't any longer your blood interior the sand

2016-12-11 06:29:01 · answer #2 · answered by erke 4 · 0 0

we are our own drug dealers or better yet we are trying to take over the drug dealers because we are that addicted

2006-08-10 08:35:32 · answer #3 · answered by Walli 2 · 0 0

NO IT JUST MEANS THAT HE WILL HAVE TO KEEP UP WITH
THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND, JUST LIKE THE DRUG CARTELS
WORK!!! THE MORE USERS, THE MORE PROFITS!!!!
SUPPLY YOUR CUSTOMERS WITH THE PRODUCT THEY
NEED, AND BEFORE YOU KNOW IT, THEY WILL REALLY
NEED TO DEPEND ON YOU!!! I MEAN REALLY!!!!!!
BESIDES, WHY SHOULD HE COMPLAIN!!! HE'S IN THE OIL
BUSINESS HIMSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2006-08-10 09:02:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers