whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Confirmation hearing for Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, postponed indefinitely. MSNBC.

— Michael Grossman (@MichaelArt123) January 14, 2025

---

She has some issues to overcome for that role. Intel???put her in charge of interior or something non-security related. I like her, but gonna be tough to put her in national security role.

---

Idiots falling for another Hillary Clinton Russia Hoax. Amazing.

---

You guys are funny how you let things go for people you like and go nuts over who you don't. Must be tough going through life with a sliding moral compass based on who they tell you is now Ok. In 2016 Musk was a Dem, Lib that could not be trusted, now he is the savior. Gabbard was a liberal, Dem, Leftist (with a voting record in Congress), now she is cool to be in charge of all National Intel, without a blink you shift. This is really interesting for a religious school message board.
Reaching out across the aisle for a cabinet appointment is a "sliding moral compass?"

You really think there is nothing there if she is having issues with a clearance? You think NSA and the National Intelligence providers are relying on news stories to make Security decisions? If she gets held up at this level, there is something they found that is legitimate. If she passes, it was resolved. This is security and background checks at the highest level. Or is that now the Deep State because you don't like the answer? She has a lot of questions to answer before getting that job.
LOL
What are the odds that a LtCol in the US Army Reserves would not already have clearances?
I would caution against assuming that there is much truth to leftist media intimations that there are problems with her clearances.

I am shocked how quickly you would just hand over the reigns of National Intel because Donald said so, even in Hawaii they say her main qualification is loyalty to Trump. Check what Bannon and Musk think so you know what to think. Ow, they butt heads it must make your heart hurt not having a clear MAGA direction.

---

She is the perfect choice to address the very real concerns of a majority of the country - abuse of 1st Amendment protected rights by law enforcement and intel agencies. Who better to clean that up than someone who was put on a TSA watchlist for purely political reasons.

Self-government.
Citizen government.
That means the "experts" work for us, not the other way around.

---

Were they purely political?
Almost certainly. She spoke out against her party and got put on a watchlist.

If she were still a Dem and this were Biden you would be going Ape-*****
I liked her a lot when she was a Democrat, because she seemed to be a principled liberal, tolerant and interested in working on common interests rather than constantly demonizing everyone who disagreed with her as a Russian asset. I particularly appreciated her defense of free speech, an increasingly rare act in the Democrat Party.

You worked in Intel, you have no issues using her intel if she were your source with her background?
What background? Be specific? What is the evidence that she is a Russian asset? (let me help you here - the answer is none.) The entire thing is built on a wild-assed allegation by Hillary Clinton (which was as well founded as the wild-assed allegation that Trump was a Russian asset.)

You would put your life on the line based on her intel? If your background people told you there were issues, you would say pass her on your word and you would take the hit...
I would ask to see the evidence. And there is none, or she would not be an active LtCol in the US Army Reserves.

As I said, I have no issues with her in a non-national security role. Want to put her in charge of the FCC to protect speech and communications, have at it. I think she would be great for Interior, she truly loves the eco-system and would do a great job managing our natural resources. She is a better surfer than me...
So then it's not about having Russian assets in a cabinet level position. It's about the premise that a LtCol in the US Army is better suited to the environment than intelligence functions. Google up Stansfield Turner and tell me how he was any more qualified than Tulsi is. Turner's chief qualification appeared to have been that he was an Annapolis classmate of one Jimmy Carter.

---

You are emoting a bit here, based on a faulty premise that she is a suspected Russian asset.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

---

Asset??? No, I do not think she is an asset. Let's be clear, I have no issues with Gabbard and do not view her as anything but a loyal American.

We are talking Background checks for the highest security post in the land. I have no idea what the security issues are, but if she can't pass the Security Check or there are individual acts she must defend or explain she could be a loyal American, non-Asset and still not cleared for that post. You know this. You love being obtuse on certain points...

.@TedCruz hitting the bullseye during Pam Bondi’s AG confirmation hearing:

“I thought the exchange just a moment ago with Senator Hirono was illustrative. She asked you how you would respond if the President asked you to target his political enemies. It's rather striking,… pic.twitter.com/QAkhk64ACA

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 15, 2025

No argument here.

https://www.youtube.com/live/YhW_FCnY-gk?feature=shared

Redbrickbear said:

---

🚨Watch this mic drop moment from President Trump’s Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent destroying the Democrats’ war against fossil fuels:

Wyden: “We are in an arms race in clean energy with China. Are you going to be on the side of people who want to unravel this?”… pic.twitter.com/1y7rloUwRp

— Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) January 16, 2025

---

True about China being t why can't we go alone one clean energy.

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

🚨Watch this mic drop moment from President Trump’s Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent destroying the Democrats’ war against fossil fuels:

Wyden: “We are in an arms race in clean energy with China. Are you going to be on the side of people who want to unravel this?”… pic.twitter.com/1y7rloUwRp

— Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) January 16, 2025

---

True about China being t why can't we go alone one clean energy.

---

Well, that and Energy Density ...

historian said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

🚨Watch this mic drop moment from President Trump’s Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent destroying the Democrats’ war against fossil fuels:

Wyden: “We are in an arms race in clean energy with China. Are you going to be on the side of people who want to unravel this?”… pic.twitter.com/1y7rloUwRp

— Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) January 16, 2025

---

True about China being t why can't we go alone one clean energy.

---

Because so-called "clean energy" isn't as clean as the propaganda suggests and will never supply our energy needs.

---

It's amazing there are so many uneducated, ignorant fools that think there is such a thing as "clean" energy.

The closest example of "clean energy" that is real is clean coal and nuclear. And these have been available for decades. The enviro-fascists who worship Gaia and Satan will never be satisfied. If fusion is a genuine possibility with the hope of abundant energy and minimal pollution then there is much room for hope. Barring a major technological breakthrough, however, we have to rely on available resources.

historian said:

---

The closest example of "clean energy" that is real is clean coal and nuclear. And these have been available for decades. The enviro-fascists who worship Gaia and Satan will never be satisfied. If fusion is a genuine possibility with the hope of abundant energy and minimal pollution then there is much room for hope. Barring a major technological breakthrough, however, we have to rely on available resources.

---

True. Nuclear is the only thing remotely close to "clean."

The other is just meth for white trash regressives.

historian said:

---

The closest example of "clean energy" that is real is clean coal and nuclear. And these have been available for decades. The enviro-fascists who worship Gaia and Satan will never be satisfied. If fusion is a genuine possibility with the hope of abundant energy and minimal pollution then there is much room for hope. Barring a major technological breakthrough, however, we have to rely on available resources.

---

geo thermal and a couple others are good real clean energy but most just arent scalable in a meningful way to meet global needs

historian said:

---

The closest example of "clean energy" that is real is clean coal and nuclear. And these have been available for decades.

---

That's part of the problem. A lot of those guys want to claim they are bringing in a revolutionary change, so they can claim to be the problem solver, not just following through on an available solution.

As a result, they demand billions of tax dollars to build wind farms to 'save the environment', despite the catastrophic damage to birds and the fact that those turbines cannot be recycled.

They demand O&G companies be denied access to drilling sites and penalized for carbon emissions, even though this causes power blackouts for people and jumps their energy cost geometrically.

No executive at a 'clean energy' company has clean hands.

4th and Inches said:

---

historian said:

---

The closest example of "clean energy" that is real is clean coal and nuclear. And these have been available for decades. The enviro-fascists who worship Gaia and Satan will never be satisfied. If fusion is a genuine possibility with the hope of abundant energy and minimal pollution then there is much room for hope. Barring a major technological breakthrough, however, we have to rely on available resources.

---

geo thermal and a couple others are good real clean energy but most just arent scalable in a meningful way to meet global needs

---

True. But geothermal is only possible in places like Iceland with access to it. Unfortunately, they also have to deal with the risks of volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. And it's not a large scale problem for large countries such as the U.S.

Another option the U.S. already uses quite a bit is hydroelectric. But there are not many more places where than can build dams with generators.

The problem with all the sane options is that the environmentalist wackos hate all of them. They want to relegate all of us to a Stone Age living standard while they still drive around in gas guzzlers and fly in private jets.

historian said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

historian said:

---

The closest example of "clean energy" that is real is clean coal and nuclear. And these have been available for decades. The enviro-fascists who worship Gaia and Satan will never be satisfied. If fusion is a genuine possibility with the hope of abundant energy and minimal pollution then there is much room for hope. Barring a major technological breakthrough, however, we have to rely on available resources.

---

geo thermal and a couple others are good real clean energy but most just arent scalable in a meningful way to meet global needs

---

True. But geothermal is only possible in places like Iceland with access to it. Unfortunately, they also have to deal with the risks of volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. And it's not a large scale problem for large countries such as the U.S.

Another option the U.S. already uses quite a bit is hydroelectric. But there are not many more places where than can build dams with generators.

The problem with all the sane options is that the environmentalist wackos hate all of them. They want to relegate all of us to a Stone Age living standard while they still drive around in gas guzzlers and fly in private jets.

---

in hot areas, they can build a heat flus that spin a fan for electricity.

Solar heating to create a steam engine electric generator

These are smaller scale but thats ok to not pay or be attached to a grid

Therdd we are fine interesting technologies and lots of fascinating ideas but few options are available & cost effective for mass use. Solar & wind are a joke. They have more cons than pros, although we rarely hear anything on the negative side from the MSM because the woke fascists don't want people to have the option of weighing the choices. They want to dictate everything to everybody. And they are totally hooked on the climate hoax because it makes them rich and empowers them.

historian said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

historian said:

---

The closest example of "clean energy" that is real is clean coal and nuclear. And these have been available for decades. The enviro-fascists who worship Gaia and Satan will never be satisfied. If fusion is a genuine possibility with the hope of abundant energy and minimal pollution then there is much room for hope. Barring a major technological breakthrough, however, we have to rely on available resources.

---

geo thermal and a couple others are good real clean energy but most just arent scalable in a meningful way to meet global needs

---

True. But geothermal is only possible in places like Iceland with access to it. Unfortunately, they also have to deal with the risks of volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. And it's not a large scale problem for large countries such as the U.S.

Another option the U.S. already uses quite a bit is hydroelectric. But there are not many more places where than can build dams with generators.

The problem with all the sane options is that the environmentalist wackos hate all of them. They want to relegate all of us to a Stone Age living standard while they still drive around in gas guzzlers and fly in private jets.

---

All of these are niche solutions. Geothermal, wind, tidal, solar we should develop and use, but it is only complementary.

And any and all such developments should be completely organic and local. The federal government should not be involved because they screw up everything they touch. Four years of Biden & Harris has proven that in spades but it's really decades of fascist policies that have been mostly disastrous under both fascists & GOP leadership.

historian said:

---

And any and all such developments should be completely organic and local. The federal government should not be involved because they screw up everything they touch. Four years of Biden & Harris has proven that in spades but it's really decades of fascist policies that have been mostly disastrous under both fascists & GOP leadership.

---

I disagree. The Govt should sponsor research into these types of science and the private sector develop and deploy.

I have actually PM'd several innovation emerging technology projects, some over 20 million. The Government is good at identifying needs. They know where the gaps are that need to be filled, pretty much in any field. The private sector is OUTSTANDING at solving problems. But, they need to be told what the problem is that we are trying to solve, otherwise the monetization aspect of the private sector overwhelms. Perfect example is safety. All Americans should have the right to safe roads, not just those that can afford it. There is plenty of room for monetization, but the basic level has to be the level ALL Americans should have access. From there, have it. Subscriptions services, equipment with more capabilities, etc... But, the basic problem needs to be better, not perfect. Better.

I know you disagree, but that is what works. Tell Musk the get to Mars, he will figure out how to do, but the Govt provides the parameters and drive to accomplish to meet National needs. This is just for big stuff, overarching. Not everything. Govt should be a force multiplier, one person managing alot meeting societal needs. I would like to see more of the Govt funds put INTO the projects, not cost cutting and administration. Many Govt "leaders" act like their Agency is a private company. The Govt should NOT make a profit. Private sector does the work and gets paid. This ain't no charity.

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

And any and all such developments should be completely organic and local. The federal government should not be involved because they screw up everything they touch. Four years of Biden & Harris has proven that in spades but it's really decades of fascist policies that have been mostly disastrous under both fascists & GOP leadership.

---

I disagree. The Govt should sponsor research into these types of science and the private sector develop and deploy.

I have actually PM'd several innovation emerging technology projects, some over 20 million. The Government is good at identifying needs. They know where the gaps are that need to be filled, pretty much in any field. The private sector is OUTSTANDING at solving problems. But, they need to be told what the problem is that we are trying to solve, otherwise the monetization aspect of the private sector overwhelms. Perfect example is safety. All Americans should have the right to safe roads, not just those that can afford it. There is plenty of room for monetization, but the basic level has to be the level ALL Americans should have access. From there, have it. Subscriptions services, equipment with more capabilities, etc... But, the basic problem needs to be better, not perfect. Better.

I know you disagree, but that is what works. Tell Musk the get to Mars, he will figure out how to do, but the Govt provides the parameters and drive to accomplish to meet National needs. This is just for big stuff, overarching. Not everything. Govt should be a force multiplier, one person managing alot meeting societal needs. I would like to see more of the Govt funds put INTO the projects, not cost cutting and administration. Many Govt "leaders" act like their Agency is a private company. The Govt should NOT make a profit. Maybe call it revenue. Private sector does the work and gets paid. By who? The govt? This ain't no charity.

---

Government is good at identifying needs. They know where the gaps are that need to be filled, pretty much in any field. The private sector is OUTSTANDING at solving problems. But, they need to be told what the problem is that we are trying to solve, otherwise the monetization aspect of the private sector overwhelms. Perfect example is safety. All Americans should have the right to safe roads, not just those that can afford it. There is plenty of room for monetization, but the basic level has to be the level ALL Americans should have access. Well thought out. Thank you.

I know you disagree, but that is what works. . . . The Govt provides the parameters and drive to accomplish to meet National needs. Yes This is just for big stuff, overarching. Not everything. Govt should be a force multiplier, one person managing a lot meeting societal needs. Unclear to me. I would like to see more of the Govt funds put INTO the projects, not cost cutting and administration Yes

Govt is good at inventing needs that only they can provide so that more people are willing to relinquish their money & freedom to the tyrants. Even the morons who think someone else will pay the costs eventually pay a price themselves. This is why we can honestly say that socialism IS slavery.

historian said:

---

---

Yes, but let me add my thoughts - the government sells fear AND creates the problem (actively or passively) that only they are big enough to solve through more taxes and control.

Cop Funding
Homelessness
Fires
Flooding

All of these are intentionally manipulated by the government to grow the government ... and pay their friends.

Yes, this kind of fascist corruption is probably far more common than anyone realizes. The truth is our government is probably much worse than that with many other kinds of corruption as well.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Rubio is the first Secretary of State to be unanimously confirmed since Colin Powell in 2001 pic.twitter.com/dmVzefAr19

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) January 21, 2025

---

He is a good pick

Never forget who Murkowski and Collins are. They are the ones who pulled this POS man dressed as a woman across finish line. pic.twitter.com/FMKf0fLVEy

— Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) January 26, 2025

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Rubio is the first Secretary of State to be unanimously confirmed since Colin Powell in 2001 pic.twitter.com/dmVzefAr19

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) January 21, 2025

---

He is a good pick

---

Now I am worried….

Bill Maher defends Matt Gaetz from accusations by admitting the Biden administration 'had nothing', and scolds 'media hacks' for smearing Gaetz:
Maher: "People want to know two basic things. One. Was he ever with an underage girl?"
Gaetz: "No."
Maher: "If the justice Department… pic.twitter.com/iazVblIsHS

— Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) January 26, 2025

Waco1947 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

And any and all such developments should be completely organic and local. The federal government should not be involved because they screw up everything they touch. Four years of Biden & Harris has proven that in spades but it's really decades of fascist policies that have been mostly disastrous under both fascists & GOP leadership.

---

I disagree. The Govt should sponsor research into these types of science and the private sector develop and deploy.

I have actually PM'd several innovation emerging technology projects, some over 20 million. The Government is good at identifying needs. They know where the gaps are that need to be filled, pretty much in any field. The private sector is OUTSTANDING at solving problems. But, they need to be told what the problem is that we are trying to solve, otherwise the monetization aspect of the private sector overwhelms. Perfect example is safety. All Americans should have the right to safe roads, not just those that can afford it. There is plenty of room for monetization, but the basic level has to be the level ALL Americans should have access. From there, have it. Subscriptions services, equipment with more capabilities, etc... But, the basic problem needs to be better, not perfect. Better.

I know you disagree, but that is what works. Tell Musk the get to Mars, he will figure out how to do, but the Govt provides the parameters and drive to accomplish to meet National needs. This is just for big stuff, overarching. Not everything. Govt should be a force multiplier, one person managing alot meeting societal needs. I would like to see more of the Govt funds put INTO the projects, not cost cutting and administration. Many Govt "leaders" act like their Agency is a private company. The Govt should NOT make a profit. Maybe call it revenue. Private sector does the work and gets paid. By who? The govt? This ain't no charity.

---

Government is good at identifying needs. They know where the gaps are that need to be filled, pretty much in any field. The private sector is OUTSTANDING at solving problems. But, they need to be told what the problem is that we are trying to solve, otherwise the monetization aspect of the private sector overwhelms. Perfect example is safety. All Americans should have the right to safe roads, not just those that can afford it. There is plenty of room for monetization, but the basic level has to be the level ALL Americans should have access. Well thought out. Thank you.

I know you disagree, but that is what works. . . . The Govt provides the parameters and drive to accomplish to meet National needs. Yes This is just for big stuff, overarching. Not everything. Govt should be a force multiplier, one person managing a lot meeting societal needs. Unclear to me. I would like to see more of the Govt funds put INTO the projects, not cost cutting and administration Yes

---

No, government is not good at identifying needs. Look how much money we've spent on wind & solar, which we do not need at all.

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

And any and all such developments should be completely organic and local. The federal government should not be involved because they screw up everything they touch. Four years of Biden & Harris has proven that in spades but it's really decades of fascist policies that have been mostly disastrous under both fascists & GOP leadership.

---

I disagree. The Govt should sponsor research into these types of science and the private sector develop and deploy.

I have actually PM'd several innovation emerging technology projects, some over 20 million. The Government is good at identifying needs. They know where the gaps are that need to be filled, pretty much in any field. The private sector is OUTSTANDING at solving problems. But, they need to be told what the problem is that we are trying to solve, otherwise the monetization aspect of the private sector overwhelms. Perfect example is safety. All Americans should have the right to safe roads, not just those that can afford it. There is plenty of room for monetization, but the basic level has to be the level ALL Americans should have access. From there, have it. Subscriptions services, equipment with more capabilities, etc... But, the basic problem needs to be better, not perfect. Better.

I know you disagree, but that is what works. Tell Musk the get to Mars, he will figure out how to do, but the Govt provides the parameters and drive to accomplish to meet National needs. This is just for big stuff, overarching. Not everything. Govt should be a force multiplier, one person managing alot meeting societal needs. I would like to see more of the Govt funds put INTO the projects, not cost cutting and administration. Many Govt "leaders" act like their Agency is a private company. The Govt should NOT make a profit. Maybe call it revenue. Private sector does the work and gets paid. By who? The govt? This ain't no charity.

---

Government is good at identifying needs. They know where the gaps are that need to be filled, pretty much in any field. The private sector is OUTSTANDING at solving problems. But, they need to be told what the problem is that we are trying to solve, otherwise the monetization aspect of the private sector overwhelms. Perfect example is safety. All Americans should have the right to safe roads, not just those that can afford it. There is plenty of room for monetization, but the basic level has to be the level ALL Americans should have access. Well thought out. Thank you.

I know you disagree, but that is what works. . . . The Govt provides the parameters and drive to accomplish to meet National needs. Yes This is just for big stuff, overarching. Not everything. Govt should be a force multiplier, one person managing a lot meeting societal needs. Unclear to me. I would like to see more of the Govt funds put INTO the projects, not cost cutting and administration Yes

---

No, government is not good at identifying needs. Look how much money we've spent on wind & solar, which we do not need at all.

---

Showing one use-case does not make your point. The need is diversification of energy. Wind & Solar are two types. As is geothermal, hydrogen, nuclear- fission and fusion, tidal, friction, etc... Also, there are more uses than wholesale retail. There is also geographic uses, geothermal works well in certain locations. Tidal works in certain locations. Hell, wind will work in the right location. Actually there is science supporting it -

"The study identified the American mid-west, Australia, Argentina, Central Asia and South Africa as the most ideal locations for generating wind power. The combination of both high power density and low seasonal variation in wind power make these locations well placed for future wind power development."

Now, idiots sticking them every where? No way. Just because someplace is windy doesn't make them usable to wind. Notice it says - low seasonal variation. You need consistent, not peaks and valleys.

Or, is this more than you want? You just want to say Wind - Bad...

There is more to it than the simplified view wind - bad. Solar - bad because some idiots threw it in the Green New Deal. Rather simple view of complex issue.

Wind and Solar CAN play a role, for example Solar for powering of remote electrical needs or backups (we saw this in the hurricanes, solar powered signals were back on line faster regardless of the grid condition.) Also, guess who is investing in renewable energy - oil companies. They know there is a need to diversify, not end oil. Diversify. They are shifting to "energy", not just oil. There are others, if you really want to discuss energy. But, if it is more about calling Dems stuff bad, we can wait for it to be Trump's idea.