RI Bills Fan

You really don't have a clue, do you?

Wow! I just scanned that post with a 20 Meg Ironic/Hypocrisy Meter. It Exploded! Maybe you should try answering your own question honestly.

Re-read Posts 1, 9, & 21 in this thread, Sue. You wrote that drivel, ("Republicans painting the cost... Tree Huggers..." etc) yet you need someone to explain it to you.

Somewhere in the middle, actually. While it's true that the Navy didn't create the demand for Nuclear Power Plants. Admiral Rickover's influence is still felt today in the Nuclear Power world, and the Navy's Nuclear Power School is the ONLY training facility of it's kind in existence and the only school that trains Nuclear Power Plant Operators. A fully Nuke Powered fleet would be the best way to go if it were possible or more correctly, practical. IMO Frigates and up should all be Nukes, but the Aux fleet (Supply ships, tugs, Landing Craft, etc) cannot be for obvious reasons and even the most advanced Nuke Plants have Diesels for back-up. I'm not even going to mention Naval Avation. So it's possible to reduce the Navy's need for oil, but not to eliminate it. And the Navy would be foolish to limit it's examination of possible answers to potential problems to just those approved of by one side of the political spectrum.

1. Find any post where I disagreed with you on the drilling issue. 2. Then find any post where I disagreed with you about the Strategic Reserve. 3. Check your reading comprehension against the results of your searches for 1 & 2. 4. Quit while you're behind.

Ya mean like Nuclear Power Plants? A price (in Bulk) comparable to #4 or #6 Fuel Oil. Developing the production capability to meet or exceed demand at the comparable price.

Reach Much? I know Kirby Street hasn't produced many Rhodes Scholars but that's almost crayons level (minus the humor).

The first highlighted section demonstrates exactly why nobody on this board (with certain obviously loony exceptions) takes anything you say seriously. The second demonstrates why the first is so funny. But go ahead and keep shoveling the partisan BS out there.

Cost plus contracts are typically used for R & D work, Unexpected Major Repairs (think USS Miami etc.), and things of that nature. Material procurement contracts (including operating supplies) typically go to the lowest bidder. I'm not saying that the lowest bidder option will result in an acceptable cost for that fuel, but we can't find that out until we give it a chance to succeed.

Except that it isn't the Navy's mission to produce that fuel. And if the Navy demonstrates the fuel is viable, other services and/or industries will (If they aren't scared off by the partisan BS) begin to seriously investigate it's possible use. IF the demand is there, the cost will come down. Whether or not it comes down enough to make the fuel a viable alternative to #4 or #6 is another question entirely. I don't know if it will ever be cost effective to use this fuel. But nobody can definitively say it won't be, either. But if we let Pastisan Sniping derail the entire process everybody loses.

So let me get this straight. In your mind the "common sense" approach is to ignore any possible solutions which aren't endorsed by your political idiot-logy and to bash any attempts to prove or disprove their worthiness for future consideration? Did I get that straight? Good thing you're not in charge of anything defense related. OBTW, All of the Carriers in commission today are nuclear powered. So those charging stations would be for them to provide power to someone else. So another of your partisan BS rants fails the smell test.

Nah, I'm just here to laugh at your hipocricy. And as usual the ten year old's level of personal insults are highly effective, keep them coming.

Enjoy! Happy 4th Everybody!

It does for you. Why should he be different?

As usual your total lack of comprehension of any facts or ideas not spoon fed to you by either the RNC or Fox News is astounding. Unlike the Tea Party/Conservative Wing GOP/FNC Talking Heads who feed you your "Original" ideas, the leadership of the Navy (actually the entire US Military) is forced to deal with the real world as it is rather than "How it should be" so they need to consider and either prove or disprove the viability of a wide range of options not restricted by political rhetoric. Do you honestly think that there is never a situation that requires multiple options to be explored to find an optimum solution to a given problem? Or that the best solution might be found in a combination of different philosophies? Why should the military (or the nation) be handicapped by strict adherance to the political philosophy of one political party? I'm not arguing against your options, although I know you'll claim I am. The options of increased drilling/use of the strategic reserves are valid. I'm stating that it's absolutely stupid to ignore/attack other possible solutions to the problem because they don't fit into the box your political masters define as "correct."

So let me get this straight. The same people who're bitching like hell that we need to become "Energy Independent" are pissed that the Navy demonstrated that if necessary, in an emergency, they could complete their assigned missions using an (admittedly) extremely expensive fuel to substitute for the normal fuel. Did I miss something here? This was a Demonstration/Test of an Emergency Use Back-Up Fuel! And now a pack of partisan idiots and their sheeple want to turn it into a political football. Would you clowns be happier if the military wasn't exploring alternate fuel usage? Would you be happier if the Joint Chiefs came out and stated that if we run out of fuel for some reason we'll be in the wardroom playing Acey-Duecy until somebody finds some for us? Partisan Frickin' Idiots!

Nothing new there...

You know, it seems like all the "Libs" are smarter than that. In fact, I can't think of anyone dumb enough...

Our prayers are with yu and your family.

Consider it my version of "You're an Idiot." Here are a few points for you to consider: 1. You've never "handed me my ass" in any way shape or form. In fact you made yourself look like a complete idiot by cherry picking a single post of mine (and then misrepresenting it) in an attempt to make it look like I said the complete opposite of what I actually did say. (And at the same time in another thread you were bitching and crying about the MSM doing the same exact thing you were doing. No hypocracy there, eh?) 2. You've taken advantage of the free-for-all that is PPP on many occasions, 3rd. How many times have you asked someone the same question over and over and over, reguardless of the topic of the thread you were in or the conversation in progress? Don't be a whiney B word and cry when your tactics come back at you. 3. If you don't want to be called out as a partisan hypocrite, don't act like one. As long as you continue to do so you're fair game. You love to dish it out but you're the first one to start with the name calling and BS when you're on the receiving end. 4. Feel free to respond with your usual nonsensical BS. But don't act supprised or offended when all I consider it worthy of is a "Cut & Paste Crusade" reply.

Time and time again you prove my point. Yet no matter how many times it's shown to you; you just don't get it. You already know the next line. (I don't feel like sending Tom any more money)

Time and time again you prove my point. Yet no matter how many times it's shown to you; you just don't get it. You already know the next line. (I don't feel like sending Tom any more money)

3rd, you are living proof of the second half of the old PPP adage: Admitting you're wrong is a sign of weakness but it is sometimes preferrable to proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're an Idiot! Nobody doubts that you fully believe in the first part and every time you post you prove to the rest of us the validity of the second part. Tom, the check is in the mail.

Or he could just read any thread that 3rd has multiple post in.

Congrats!