• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama likes paying $26 per gallon for Navy fuel. So he nominates a tree hugger as the

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
When there's no money for the Navy, Marines and Air Force to purchase fuel so they can fly their aircraft, Obama decides to continue to use the military for experimentation paid for by the tax payers. It looks like with nominating a tree hugging greenie retired admiral as the new Navy Energy Chief who wants to pay $26 per gallon for fuel in the name of liberal political correctness, it's just insanity.


>" The Obama administration has selected a renewable energy advocate and retired admiral to be the Navy’s new energy chief, according to an announcement from the White House.

Retired Vice Adm. Dennis V. McGinn — former president and chief executive of the American Council of Renewable Energy — has been nominated to be the Navy’s assistant secretary for energy, installations, and environment.
The vocal advocate for renewable energy resources — if confirmed by the Senate — will head the office in charge of maintaining naval installations, the Navy’s environmental programs and, “conservation of natural and cultural resources,” according to office’s website.

The Navy has come under fire from lawmakers over its ongoing pursuit of renewable jet and ship fuel derived from algae and camelina plants.

The experimental fuel —bought in limited quantities — costs $26 a gallon compared to $3.60 for conventional fuel, according to 2012 information from the Navy..."<
more-> Retired Admiral and Biofuel Fan Nominated to be Navy Energy Chief | USNI News

I'm sure the comments on this thread will be comparable to the comments you read on the USNI website, or will they ?
 

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
44,814
Reaction score
20,220
Location
A very blue state
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Obama likes paying $26 per gallon for Navy fuel. So he nominates a tree hugger as

Think of it this way - what will it do for national security if we don't have to buy oil from other countries to fuel our military? We could avoid giving the King of Saudi Arabia a liplock forever.

It's $26/gallon now because it's experimental and not probably not mass produced. If it works and the military ends up buying it the price will go down.
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
18,628
Reaction score
6,679
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Re: Obama likes paying $26 per gallon for Navy fuel. So he nominates a tree hugger as

Course a fair and balanced rant would note the total amount of 'green fuel' is less than .0008 % of total fuel consumed by the USofA Navy.

450,000 gallons vs the 670 MILLION gallons used each year.

Prospective- I guess that word is too close to progressive for some folks to include it in their vocabulary... :2wave:
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Re: Obama likes paying $26 per gallon for Navy fuel. So he nominates a tree hugger as

Course a fair and balanced rant would note the total amount of 'green fuel' is less than .0008 % of total fuel consumed by the USofA Navy.

450,000 gallons vs the 670 MILLION gallons used each year.

Prospective- I guess that word is too close to progressive for some folks to include it in their vocabulary... :2wave:

I believe that 450,000 gallons your referring to was for the army not the green chicken fat fuel used to power warships which would need more than 450,000 gallons to fuel one ship. Or the green GP-5 fuel that navy and marine aircraft use.

When your talking about fueling a cruiser or destroyer you don't talk in gallons or even barrels but tons of fuel.

Now this thread isn't so much about the Navy spending $26 per gallon for fuel when the Navy is so broke that Navy and Marine pilots have had their flight training hours cut back by 60% because the lack of funding for fuel. Or that the Obama administration has problems of keeping just two carriers at sea because the lack of funding for fuel and trained sailors to go to sea. That's right, of the Navy's 11 carriers and it's escorts, only two are capable to be at sea and one may be or may not be able to put to sea and the other 8 carriers can't put to sea. That's Obama's PC Navy olf today.

It's more about Obama's failed green policies that we have seen over the past 4 1/2 years of throwing billions of tax payers money at green energy companies that all seem to go under. And it's also about Obama politicizing the U.S. military.

The U.S. military under DARPA all ready has a program of developing an affordable green fuel for the military. When they succeed and they will, then the military will go green and they will not be wasting tax payers money by paying $26 per gallon for green fuel in the name of political correctness.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

But what we are seeing is Obama politicizing the military by appointing brown noser yes men to high ranking positions. Obama already has a track record of relieving competent warriors who know how to fight and relieving them of their commands and replacing them with "yes men" who wouldn't know how to field strip a M-16.

Remember Admiral Mullen ? A YES MAN.

The current Navy's Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Greenert, another PC yes man. Everyone in the naval community are asking why would Obama nominate someone as CONO who has never commanded a ship or never flew and aircraft ??? Scuttlebutt is, Adm. Greenert specialties are with gender friendly commodes.
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
18,628
Reaction score
6,679
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Re: Obama likes paying $26 per gallon for Navy fuel. So he nominates a tree hugger as

A swing and a miss! No, Sir it is the navy and that is according to the Institute for Energy website a very pro-oil bunch.

You can carry on and get all emotional about it, call Officers names, but you can't seem to get the facts correct... the Navy uses 670 MILLION gallons of jet fuel per year, the green fuel is a nit compared to that. it isn't the increased cost in fuel that grounds the planes, but rather an end to hostilities in Iraq and now the wind down in Afghanistan. Given the huge rubber check BushII wrote for those two wars cost cutting seems warranted.

But don't let that get in the way of your tirade... :2wave:
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Re: Obama likes paying $26 per gallon for Navy fuel. So he nominates a tree hugger as

A swing and a miss! No, Sir it is the navy and that is according to the Institute for Energy website a very pro-oil bunch.

You can carry on and get all emotional about it, call Officers names, but you can't seem to get the facts correct... the Navy uses 670 MILLION gallons of jet fuel per year, the green fuel is a nit compared to that. it isn't the increased cost in fuel that grounds the planes, but rather an end to hostilities in Iraq and now the wind down in Afghanistan. Given the huge rubber check BushII wrote for those two wars cost cutting seems warranted.

But don't let that get in the way of your tirade... :2wave:

You're wrong, the financing of fighting the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and fighting Al Qaeda was never part of the National Defense Budget until Obama combined them in 2009. So it has nothing to do with the draw down in Afghanistan. It's has to do with the $500 - $800 billion dollars that Obama cut from the military during his first term in office.

BTW: I just looked it up, it takes 450,000 gallons of fuel to refuel a destroyer.

Lets look at it this way,there's the liberal way to refuel an Arleigh Burke–class destroyer that cost $10,800,000.
And there's the conservative way to refuel an Arleigh Burke–class destroyer at the cost of less than $1,800,000.

No wonder America is broke.

It was bad enough G.W. Bush was spending money like a drunken sailor on liberty. But Obama is spending money like the entire Pacific fleet was on liberty.
 

BMCM

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
1,052
Reaction score
380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Obama likes paying $26 per gallon for Navy fuel. So he nominates a tree hugger as

You're wrong, the financing of fighting the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and fighting Al Qaeda was never part of the National Defense Budget until Obama combined them in 2009. So it has nothing to do with the draw down in Afghanistan. It's has to do with the $500 - $800 billion dollars that Obama cut from the military during his first term in office.

BTW: I just looked it up, it takes 450,000 gallons of fuel to refuel a destroyer.

Lets look at it this way,there's the liberal way to refuel an Arleigh Burke–class destroyer that cost $10,800,000.
And there's the conservative way to refuel an Arleigh Burke–class destroyer at the cost of less than $1,800,000.

No wonder America is broke.

It was bad enough G.W. Bush was spending money like a drunken sailor on liberty. But Obama is spending money like the entire Pacific fleet was on liberty.

Actually, it's Congress that spent all that money.
 

Smeagol

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Obama likes paying $26 per gallon for Navy fuel. So he nominates a tree hugger as

When there's no money for the Navy, Marines and Air Force to purchase fuel so they can fly their aircraft, Obama decides to continue to use the military for experimentation paid for by the tax payers. It looks like with nominating a tree hugging greenie retired admiral as the new Navy Energy Chief who wants to pay $26 per gallon for fuel in the name of liberal political correctness, it's just insanity.


>" The Obama administration has selected a renewable energy advocate and retired admiral to be the Navy’s new energy chief, according to an announcement from the White House.

Retired Vice Adm. Dennis V. McGinn — former president and chief executive of the American Council of Renewable Energy — has been nominated to be the Navy’s assistant secretary for energy, installations, and environment.
The vocal advocate for renewable energy resources — if confirmed by the Senate — will head the office in charge of maintaining naval installations, the Navy’s environmental programs and, “conservation of natural and cultural resources,” according to office’s website.

The Navy has come under fire from lawmakers over its ongoing pursuit of renewable jet and ship fuel derived from algae and camelina plants.

The experimental fuel —bought in limited quantities — costs $26 a gallon compared to $3.60 for conventional fuel, according to 2012 information from the Navy..."<
more-> Retired Admiral and Biofuel Fan Nominated to be Navy Energy Chief | USNI News

I'm sure the comments on this thread will be comparable to the comments you read on the USNI website, or will they ?


I have no way of knowing if this is the case here but it is SOP for the military to seemingly waste boatloads of money on things like $500 screwdrivers, etc. in order to finance highly classified new military assets going on since Eisenhower. We live in a society where unlike China and Russia, our government expenditures are a matter of public record. However, our need to keep certain assets classified as top secret still exists. Many in the public unfamiliar with the development of new innovations that are keeping us safe may and do moan and gran and use it as political opposition material, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if $26 a gallon gas is actually paying for some new advanced satellite surveillance system than can follow Kim Jong Un or Vladamir Putin 24/7 anywhere on earth that can see through buildings, measure their heart rate and blood pressure and digitize and transmit sound waves back to the Pentagon hearing every word they utter or is uttered to them. Who knows? I doubt however we're actually paying $26 a gallon for gasoline unless its some new technology that lasts 100 years per tank.
 

Smeagol

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Obama likes paying $26 per gallon for Navy fuel. So he nominates a tree hugger as

When there's no money for the Navy, Marines and Air Force to purchase fuel so they can fly their aircraft, Obama decides to continue to use the military for experimentation paid for by the tax payers. It looks like with nominating a tree hugging greenie retired admiral as the new Navy Energy Chief who wants to pay $26 per gallon for fuel in the name of liberal political correctness, it's just insanity.


>" The Obama administration has selected a renewable energy advocate and retired admiral to be the Navy’s new energy chief, according to an announcement from the White House.

Retired Vice Adm. Dennis V. McGinn — former president and chief executive of the American Council of Renewable Energy — has been nominated to be the Navy’s assistant secretary for energy, installations, and environment.
The vocal advocate for renewable energy resources — if confirmed by the Senate — will head the office in charge of maintaining naval installations, the Navy’s environmental programs and, “conservation of natural and cultural resources,” according to office’s website.

The Navy has come under fire from lawmakers over its ongoing pursuit of renewable jet and ship fuel derived from algae and camelina plants.

The experimental fuel —bought in limited quantities — costs $26 a gallon compared to $3.60 for conventional fuel, according to 2012 information from the Navy..."<
more-> Retired Admiral and Biofuel Fan Nominated to be Navy Energy Chief | USNI News

I'm sure the comments on this thread will be comparable to the comments you read on the USNI website, or will they ?


I have no way of knowing if this is the case here but it is SOP for the military to seemingly waste boatloads of money on things like $500 screwdrivers, etc. in order to finance highly classified new military assets going on since Eisenhower. We live in a society where unlike China and Russia, our government expenditures are a matter of public record. However, our need to keep certain assets classified as top secret still exists. Many in the public unfamiliar with the development of new innovations that are keeping us safe may and do moan and gran and use it as political opposition material, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if $26 a gallon gas is actually paying for some new advanced satellite surveillance system than can follow Kim Jong Un or Vladamir Putin 24/7 anywhere on earth that can see through buildings, measure their heart rate and blood pressure and digitize and transmit sound waves back to the Pentagon hearing every word they utter or is uttered to them. Who knows? I doubt however we're actually paying $26 a gallon for gasoline unless its some new technology that lasts 100 years per tank.
 
Top Bottom