|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Barak's Big Oil Ad - 8/6/2008 8:52:55 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 4377
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: saved9201
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
And if we OVERinflated our tires, think of how much more we could save!!! Wow Obamessiah is a genius!!
On a serious note, I heard a caller in to Rush today, saying he was an auto tech instructor, I believe for one of the armed services. He brought up the fact that cars today do not have tune-ups like they used to. The car's computer does all sorts of adjustments and corrections as it runs. About all that's left is oil changes and, after 100K miles or so, new plugs and wires. I hadn't thought of that before. It breaks my heart to find another "oops" in the Obamessiah mantra.
-Dave
I just bought a 2007 Chrysler and the maintenance schedule recommends a tune-up after 30,000 miles. I've checked several websites, and yes, there are cars, mostly expensive imports equipped with platinum or iridium spark plugs, that do require less frequent tune-ups. But most older cars (which, since people still drive them, are considered, "cars today") still require tune-ups at the 30,000 mile interval.
My point?
I know some of you worship the guy, but..
Don't get your car maintenance advice from Rush. You may find yourself walking. Then you'll REALLY save gas. Trust your authorized mechanic and your cars maintenance manual.
- Julius
Platinum plugs last about 100,000 in whatever car they are in... More important than replacing your plugs these days is yanking them every couple years and putting fresh anti-seize compound on the threads... Most 30,000 mile scheduled maintenance plan s call for inspections on various items and the replacing of air filters and oil changes... Maybe power steering fluid...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Barak's Big Oil Ad - 8/6/2008 8:54:00 PM
|
|
|
todd_t
Posts: 1307
Joined: 6/21/2006
From: The North Woods
Status: offline
|
Show me where Obama says tire inflation is the end-all, be-all of his energy platform. It's just one method that individuals can use to reduce fuel consumption, one of many.
That is all.
_____________________________
Chicago Cubs: Back-To-Back NL Central Division Champions (2007-2008)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Barak's Big Oil Ad - 8/6/2008 8:55:38 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 777
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
Show me where Obama says tire inflation is the end-all, be-all of his energy platform. It's just one method that individuals can use to reduce fuel consumption, one of many.
That is all.
I thought one of the quotes in this thread attributed to Obama was that properly inflated tires could save as much oil as would be produced through new drillng?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Barak's Big Oil Ad - 8/6/2008 8:58:15 PM
|
|
|
todd_t
Posts: 1307
Joined: 6/21/2006
From: The North Woods
Status: offline
|
quote:
I thought one of the quotes in this thread attributed to Obama was that properly inflated tires could save as much oil as would be produced through new drilling?
I can't see how doing so can hurt anything.
_____________________________
Chicago Cubs: Back-To-Back NL Central Division Champions (2007-2008)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Barak's Big Oil Ad - 8/6/2008 9:07:25 PM
|
|
|
inthysite
Posts: 753
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
Here is his original quote:
"There are things you can do individually, though, to save energy," Obama said. "Making sure your tires are properly inflated – simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling – if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You'd actually save just as much!"
And again (and again and again), the point isn't that you can save fuel by properly inflating your tires, everyone knows that, everyone agrees with that. There is nothing wrong with that.
The issue is the NObama tries to counter the drilling argument with this silly and incorrect statement; that we can save the same amount of fuel as we would get from drilling.
If you accept the liberals figure that would be 200,000 barrels of crude a day.
Again, nice try attempting to cloud the issue but for someone with 2 English degrees I would expect better.
_____________________________
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Thy sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer - Psalm 19:14
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Barak's Big Oil Ad - 8/6/2008 9:20:27 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 777
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
In this ad, didn't Obama also suggest tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?
Didn't he say in April that this was only a gimmick?... and that this should only be done in the event of an emergency?... Well, what was the emergency? Dropping poll numbers?
By the way, today it was announced that oil inventories are up.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Barak's Big Oil Ad - 8/7/2008 8:26:14 AM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 532
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: inthysite
Funny how everyone leaves out the rest of McCain's statement. This was posted above. Here is the rest of the statement.
But he kept up his broad criticism of Obama on energy: “I … don’t think that that (inflating tires) is a way to become energy independent.”
So nice try but as you say, you came up empty, or should I say a little flat.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
...
quote:
ORIGINAL: inthysite
Here is his original quote:
"There are things you can do individually, though, to save energy," Obama said. "Making sure your tires are properly inflated – simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling – if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You'd actually save just as much!"
And again (and again and again), the point isn't that you can save fuel by properly inflating your tires, everyone knows that, everyone agrees with that. There is nothing wrong with that.
The issue is the NObama tries to counter the drilling argument with this silly and incorrect statement; that we can save the same amount of fuel as we would get from drilling.
If you accept the liberals figure that would be 200,000 barrels of crude a day.
Again, nice try attempting to cloud the issue but for someone with 2 English degrees I would expect better.
200,000*365.25=73,050,000
quote:
Abstract
The majority of US drivers do not consistently monitor the tire pressures in their vehicles. The 2000 TREAD Act, which requires automakers to gradually provide tire pressure monitoring systems for vehicles sold in the US will correct this problem for new vehicles. This law does not impact the problem in previously deployed vehicles, which have a turnover time of not, vert, similar20 years. A solution is provided here to address under-inflated tires on the current 220 million vehicles and the concomitant wasted energy due to increased rolling resistance in the US automobile fleet. This communication reports on a preliminary study of tire pressures in randomly chosen vehicles, which were undergoing oil changes at a combined retail/auto-care facility. The study indicates that substantial benefits would accrue if car care facilities systematically offered complimentary tire pressure checks with oil changes including: (i) increased safety by decreasing all crashes and saving more than 100 lives per year, (ii) reduced petroleum consumption by over a billion gallons/year, which would (iia) provide over $4 billion in economic savings for US consumers that could in part be recouped in retail/auto-care facilities, (iib) reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 13.5 million tons and automobile pollution and (iic) enhance national security.
Keywords: Transportation; Fuel efficiency; Tire pressure
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Barak's Big Oil Ad - 8/7/2008 10:01:58 AM
|
|
|
saved9201
Posts: 728
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I suppose with the AAA, Nascar and other experts agreeing with Obama, he could only look foolish for so long.
Yeah, yeah, but AAA, Nascar and other "experts" are all left-wing libral organizations, that is if they agree with Obama.
Everybody knows that.
Rush says inflating tires is stupid, Sean Hannity says it's stupid, so it's stupid. Good Christian folks don't need to trust any other so-called "experts". Rush and Sean are experts on EVERYTHING.
Everybody knows that.
- Julius
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Barak's Big Oil Ad - 8/7/2008 10:16:33 AM
|
|
|
davemiller7
Posts: 824
Joined: 3/5/2008
From: NC via NY
Status: offline
|
No no no no! Rush and Sean did not say inflating tires is stupid. Apparently you don't listen to them. I've listened to them. They say that everyone should keep their tires at the correct pressure. They say that it is stupid to think that keeping your tires properly inflated is going to end our gas crunch and need for oil. Keeping your tires properly inflated is only common sense. Expecting that to end our oil problems is nonsense.
-Dave
quote:
ORIGINAL: saved9201
quote:
I suppose with the AAA, Nascar and other experts agreeing with Obama, he could only look foolish for so long.
Yeah, yeah, but AAA, Nascar and other "experts" are all left-wing libral organizations, that is if they agree with Obama.
Everybody knows that.
Rush says inflating tires is stupid, Sean Hannity says it's stupid, so it's stupid. Good Christian folks don't need to trust any other so-called "experts". Rush and Sean are experts on EVERYTHING.
Everybody knows that.
- Julius
_____________________________
-Dave
The Prayer of Protection
The light of God surrounds me,
The love of God enfolds me,
The power of God protects me,
The presence of God watches over me.
Wherever I am, God is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Barak's Big Oil Ad - 8/7/2008 11:16:17 AM
|
|
|
inthysite
Posts: 753
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
Apparently you people can't read, or else you choose not to.
McCain agrees that inflating your tires improves gas mileage.
McCain, unlike NOBama, doesn't believe it will save as much oil as we will get from drilling.
quote:
The majority of US drivers do not consistently monitor the tire pressures in their vehicles. The 2000 TREAD Act, which requires automakers to gradually provide tire pressure monitoring systems for vehicles sold in the US will correct this problem for new vehicles. This law does not impact the problem in previously deployed vehicles, which have a turnover time of not, vert, similar20 years. A solution is provided here to address under-inflated tires on the current 220 million vehicles and the concomitant wasted energy due to increased rolling resistance in the US automobile fleet. This communication reports on a preliminary study of tire pressures in randomly chosen vehicles, which were undergoing oil changes at a combined retail/auto-care facility. The study indicates that substantial benefits would accrue if car care facilities systematically offered complimentary tire pressure checks with oil changes including: (i) increased safety by decreasing all crashes and saving more than 100 lives per year, (ii) reduced petroleum consumption by over a billion gallons/year, which would (iia) provide over $4 billion in economic savings for US consumers that could in part be recouped in retail/auto-care facilities, (iib) reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 13.5 million tons and automobile pollution and (iic) enhance national security.
Let's look at this one step at a time (though no one will read this...)
The majority of US drivers do not consistently monitor the tire pressures in their vehicles.
Proof? Where do they get the "majority" from? What are the numbers? I tried to go to their links to read more about their study but I'm not a registered member and I don't want to pay $31 for the article.
The 2000 TREAD Act, which requires automakers to gradually provide tire pressure monitoring systems for vehicles sold in the US will correct this problem for new vehicles
quote:
The final rule was published June 5, 2002. Unfortunately NHTSA proposed that if a vehicle is using a direct system (with sensors in each tire sending a signal to the dashboard) the TPMS does not have to trigger until the tire is 25 percent below the recommended cold psi. An indirect TPMS (that runs off the anti-lock braking system) does not have to trigger until the tire is 30 percent below the recommended cold psi for that tire. TIA is strongly opposed to NHTSA’s supposed "safety" regulation which in effect allows the motoring public to drive on severely underinflated tires.
Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems
If I'm running on tires that are 8 - 9.2 lbs underinflated I don't need an idiot light to tell me. I can see it for myself and I can tell in the handling of the vehicle.
The study indicates that substantial benefits would accrue if car care facilities systematically offered complimentary tire pressure checks with oil changes
For the last few years everytime I have had my oil changed or work done on my car they have always not only checked my tires but informed me that they were properly inflated (I guess I'm in the minority who actually keeps up with this).
reduced petroleum consumption by over a billion gallons/year
As shown earlier by Dubya, the math on this just doesn't add up. I would love to see the numbers on this.
When asked to back up his assertion NObama couldn't:
The Obama campaign could not provide figures to back up his claim that inflating tires and getting tuneups would save just as much oil as could be produced by offshore drilling.
Fact Check: GOP mocks Obama suggestion to inflate tires, but experts say it has merit
It kills me to see how many people, plus all the media that are bending over backward to try and prove that NObama is correct on this.
If you would like to honestly and intelligently discuss this then provide figures that show the following:
a.the number of cars on the road today
b.the number of cars with underinflated tires
c.the average lbs that they are underinflated
d.show the math that supports the grossly exaggerated figures of fuel savings.
_____________________________
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Thy sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer - Psalm 19:14
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Barak's Big Oil Ad - 8/7/2008 11:36:09 AM
|
|
|
inthysite
Posts: 753
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
Here is an article from MNSB that discusses a study done by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that was done in 2003.
According to a survey released Wednesday by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 27 percent of cars and 32 percent of vans, pickups and sport utility vehicles had at least one tire that was underinflated. Eight percent of light trucks and 3 percent of cars had all four tires underinflated.
Many drivers have underinflated tires
According to this about 30% of drivers have one tire under pressure, but only 8% have all four tires under inflated.
I would attribute the 30% of one tire to a problem with the tire, small puncture, leaky valve etc..
Which means that only 8% of people neglect to check their tires on a regular basis.
Granted, their study only considered tires that were 25% or more under recommendation.
The survey considered a tire underinflated if it was eight pounds per square inch or more below the vehicle manufacturer’s recommended inflation pressure. That’s 25 percent for a common recommended inflation pressure of 32 psi.
But that matches the study given above that said a majority, this hardly sounds like a majority, nor will it save the billions of gallons of gas it claims either.
_____________________________
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Thy sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer - Psalm 19:14
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Barak's Big Oil Ad - 8/7/2008 12:03:25 PM
|
|
|
todd_t
Posts: 1307
Joined: 6/21/2006
From: The North Woods
Status: offline
|
I frankly don't think anyone cares about this tempest-in-a-teapot any longer.
McCain has embarassed himself enough at allowing his campaign to get so worked up over it versus, say, addressing much broader issues impacting the country.
_____________________________
Chicago Cubs: Back-To-Back NL Central Division Champions (2007-2008)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Barak's Big Oil Ad - 8/7/2008 12:05:50 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 532
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
I provided a link, which shows you an abstract. You have my apologies for not having a cost-free paper for you to look at, but I'm content knowing that at least there's a paper out there, and forgive me, but I'm willing to give it (and the other studies mentioned- NASCAR, etc) the benefit of the doubt over some back of the envelope calculations by obviously politicized detractors.
It's conceivable that Obama was engaging in campaign-trail hyperbole, and that the existence of this study is purely serendipitous for him. Regardless, the thrust of the argument (individuals can contribute in meaningful ways to reduce consumption) is intact. The notion that Obama's energy plan consists of "checking your tires and getting tune-ups" is simply false.
One notion that I don't see people picking up on here is that the benefits of drilling won't be seen for a long time. Off the top of my head, I think I recall ten years as being a popular figure. Bush and McCain have admitted as such (though I don't recall their numbers), and both have sounded off on the notion of it being largely a psychological benefit. If you insist on the forum maths, it seems like this gap in time is something that ought to be figured into the comparisons.
And "tempest in a teapot" is right. At most, there was an exaggeration. The people making hay over this could be having more fun with the other distractions. Why not be talking about Paris Hilton?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Barak's Big Oil Ad - 8/7/2008 12:15:45 PM
|
|
|
davemiller7
Posts: 824
Joined: 3/5/2008
From: NC via NY
Status: offline
|
Apparently some still care about "the tempest-in-a-teapot" because Obamessiah is still harping on it.
-Dave
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
I frankly don't think anyone cares about this tempest-in-a-teapot any longer.
McCain has embarassed himself enough at allowing his campaign to get so worked up over it versus, say, addressing much broader issues impacting the country.
_____________________________
-Dave
The Prayer of Protection
The light of God surrounds me,
The love of God enfolds me,
The power of God protects me,
The presence of God watches over me.
Wherever I am, God is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Barak's Big Oil Ad - 8/7/2008 12:21:13 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 532
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
Are you talking about the "pride in ignorance" bit? He's being meta and harping on the tempest in a teapot nature of political discourse. Beyond that, he's still talking about energy policy, which isn't really a teapot.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Barak's Big Oil Ad - 8/7/2008 12:36:12 PM
|
|
|
inthysite
Posts: 753
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
One notion that I don't see people picking up on here is that the benefits of drilling won't be seen for a long time. Off the top of my head, I think I recall ten years as being a popular figure. Bush and McCain have admitted as such (though I don't recall their numbers), and both have sounded off on the notion of it being largely a psychological benefit. If you insist on the forum maths, it seems like this gap in time is something that ought to be figured into the comparisons.
I agree that the "tire pressure issue" has been overblown, by both sides I might add.
I had started another thread earlier on this where I explained that in no way to I believe that this is NObama's complete energy plan. I just thought it absurd to make such a claim, as do most people.
If you want to accept the 10 years that has been bantered about that's fine (I've heard expert testimony to the contrary but it's all debatable).
However, the argument that drilling won't show results for 10 years therefor it's a waste of time doesn't hold water. I've asked before, only to be ridiculed rather than engaged in honest debate, what "new technology" that NObama is for that will be available any sooner?
Liberals have used this 10 year excuse back during Clinton's presidency, if we had started drilling then we would have the oil now.
I don't believe that drilling alone will solve the problem but it is a necessary part of the overall solution. No matter what technology is developed we will still need oil, maybe not as much but we will still need it.
People will still be driving older cars that rely on gas 10 years from now.
Products such as plastic, rubber, tar for our roads, will still need oil.
Why pay countries that hate us for their oil when we can produce it ourselves. When you add in the factor of shale oil we can produce enough oil to meet our needs.
NObama is against drilling, he says he would consider it but only after the oil companies drill on 100% of the land that they currently lease, which is ridiculous.
NObama is against building nuclear plants.
NObama is against building refineries.
NObama wants to increase taxes on energy (coal plants, oil, etc.) thus raising the price of energy, thus an actual tax on the individual.
NObama wants to double wind and solar in the next 4 years. While that's great it won't solve the problem. Currently wind and solar provide 3% of our energy, so that would increase to 6% (hey would could do that by inflating our tires - sorry coldn't resist.)
Add to the fact that Ted Kennedy won't allow windmills off his coast.
WASHINGTON - A measure that would permit the governor of Massachusetts to veto the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm was approved by a key congressional panel, dealing a serious blow to project supporters.
The amendment targeting the Cape Wind Associates project was included in the $8.7 billion Coast Guard reauthorization bill that a House-Senate conference committee approved Thursday. Lawmakers have been hashing over the bill for several weeks under a shroud of secrecy.
Cape Wind officials denounced the bill as an "eleventh-hour, back room" bid to torpedo the project. The bill still must be approved by the House and Senate, which will be on spring recess over the next two weeks.
"We are going to fight this," said Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers.
The veto measure got a boost in recent days from longtime project foe U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, who made a personal appeal last week to Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, a committee member and a leading backer of the veto bill.
Congress moves to block wind energy project
So what are we left with? What will provide enough energy that is currently supplied by oil within the next 10 years or sooner?
_____________________________
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Thy sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer - Psalm 19:14
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Barak's Big Oil Ad - 8/7/2008 12:56:27 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 532
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
My understanding is that drilling is largely something that would benefit the oil industry and not the consumer. In the time that it takes for that oil to be available, demand will have already far outstripped that which could be produced. The problem that needs to be addressed, as I understand Obama tell it, is dependence on fossil fuels itself.
His use of it as a bargaining chip is, I think, politically savvy of him.
Obama is not against nuclear energy, though he's not as visibly enthusiastic as I wish he would be. The hardcore environmentalists have some successful memes that are difficult to stamp out, and Democratic politicians have their hands tied because of it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Barak's Big Oil Ad - 8/7/2008 1:23:24 PM
|
|
|
HighPlainsDrifter
Posts: 1158
Joined: 9/22/2005
From: The Land Of The Burnt Thigh
Status: offline
|
quote:
My understanding is that drilling is largely something that would benefit the oil industry and not the consumer. In the time that it takes for that oil to be available, demand will have already far outstripped that which could be produced. The problem that needs to be addressed, as I understand Obama tell it, is dependence on fossil fuels itself.
Yeah, see, that's the same silly argument Clinton made in the 90's, that there was no point drilling in Alaska, because we wouldn't even see that oil on the market for 10 years...or, I guess, now.  Can you explain how the oil industry turns a worthwhile profit going after non-existent, or trickles of oil in far-flung places. If there were so little point in trying to reach these little, hardly worth it pools, wouldn't it seem that investments in exploring and tapping these reserves would enrage stockholders?
_____________________________
''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Barak's Big Oil Ad - 8/7/2008 1:26:15 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7330
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
My understanding is that drilling is largely something that would benefit the oil industry and not the consumer. In the time that it takes for that oil to be available, demand will have already far outstripped that which could be produced. The problem that needs to be addressed, as I understand Obama tell it, is dependence on fossil fuels itself.
His use of it as a bargaining chip is, I think, politically savvy of him.
Obama is not against nuclear energy, though he's not as visibly enthusiastic as I wish he would be. The hardcore environmentalists have some successful memes that are difficult to stamp out, and Democratic politicians have their hands tied because of it.
Drilling is obviously a benefit to the consumer, provided the drilling results in more oil being available (particularly from domestic sources). In terms of futures, I think the aggresive and wide ranging search and drilling for oil would have (and may already had have) an effect on prices at the pump. Installing a President who reflexively opposes such activity would certainly have the opposite effect.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Barak's Big Oil Ad - 8/7/2008 1:33:35 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 532
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
There were two major arguments against Alaska, if I recall:
1. It would harm the pristine natural environment. (this is nonsensical- drilling simply isn't that invasive in the Alaska context)
2. I'm a little murky on this one, but: The oil would be sold to Japan. This would benefit Alaska, but not most American consumers.
Realistically, trying to keep gas cheap doesn't help solve the problem at all (the reverse, actually). It's a hard issue to sell though.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Barak's Big Oil Ad - 8/7/2008 1:42:30 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 532
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
Drilling is occasionally a valid stopgap solution, yes.
I would be happy to have a "big-picture" president who sees dependence on oil as a problem in itself though. Bargaining with energy companies to make a less-oil-dependent future a reality may carry the appearance of knee jerk nay saying, but I chalk that up to the dichotomized American political climate. Almost any position is going to be seen in a negative light by someone, rightly or not.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The McBush Oil Plan - 8/7/2008 2:23:54 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 532
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
Also, has anyone mentioned the massive Hess (Oil family/company) donations that McCain received on the eve of his flip-flop on the drilling issue?
It's plausible that it's nothing, but if nothing else, it's timing that should make any reasonable person suspect quid pro quo.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The McBush Oil Plan - 8/7/2008 2:31:58 PM
|
|
|
inthysite
Posts: 753
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
How is it “absurd” if he was answering a person’s question about what they could do individually to save gas? Only the RNC and the far right thought it was “absurd” and even mocked the idea until it backfired and are now flip-flopping on this “absurd” claim.
If you continue to refuse to read my posts or my opinions then there is no use discussing this with you.
NObama answered the question posed, what can we do to help conserve, his response was valid as far as inflating tires properly gives better gas mileage. But he went farther than that as you well know and as I have explained too many times and won't do so again.
quote:
What exactly is wrong with this? If oil companies are not utilizing the land they now lease for oil, why should they be allocated more land? McBush is so caught up in pandering to the oil companies that he’s not asking them for any accountability.
Again, as has been stated before, not all of the land leased contains oil so there is no point on drilling there. This is a liberal talking point to try and cloud the issue. Oil companies lease land so they can be allowed to search for oil, if they find it they drill, if not they don't.
quote:
What’s the excuse the far right give for President Bush not starting any drilling during his eight years in office? Let’s not forget the fact the McBush was against offshore drilling before he was for it.
How do I explain this? By stating that they were wrong as well. But you can't completely blame Bush. Look at what is happening today, Bush removed the presidential ban on drilling offshore and now leaves it up to congress to follow suit. However Nancy Pelosi won't even allow an up or down vote on the issue.
I blame both Republicans and Democrats for the state we are in now. But we need to do something and we need to start now.
quote:
How do you justify McBush’s claim that HE TOO wants to include wind and solar power in his “all of the above” plan. Is it just a good idea if McBush comes up with it?
Again, if you had read my post you would have seen that I agree that wind and solar are a good part of the solution, but they aren't the whole solution as NObama proposes.
I would love for someone to answer my question I posted above. What source of energy that we either have now or will have in the future do you see as completely replacing oil? How do you plan on manufacturing plastics, rubber, and tar without using oil?
_____________________________
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Thy sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer - Psalm 19:14
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
