Obama guilty
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
Picture this. It's 11am and the Republican candidate (Ted Cruz?) is doing a little fund raising. Big business led by big oil are the ones he's counting on. He's got to deny global warming and talk up increased drilling for oil.
At 2pm he's speaking at a rally attended by a wide range of people. Right, left, old, young, rich, poor, you name it. Deny global warming? Not a chance. He needs their votes and the GOP has to "stop being the stupid party".
He'll be talking out of both sides of his mouth on the same day in the digital age where every moment is recorded.
The only solution that I can see is, as they say, turn it into a parade and get out in front of it. How? In this day and age it wouldn't work any better than Sarah Palin's bridge to nowhere gambit.
But then there's a reason why I drive a truck instead of working for a political organization.Still, it's fun to think about this stuff, no?
I wouldn't recommend any politician hang their hat on "global warming". You do realize that climate change is more of a religion than anything else.
One, I NEVER back by party, I can't stand ANY of political parties in this country. They are all dog doo doo. NO career politician can be trusted, regardless of party. I trust NO Marxist, which Obama is, or ANY other form of extremist.
Second, King Putz the 1st is now in office, no one else. What the others did is not relevant to what he is doing. Yes, they have all done wrong, so that excuses Obama's sins? Since when does other's past sins justify the sins of current office holders? If that was the case then two wrongs must make a right.
Obama is responsible for what HE is doing wrong, which is a LOT of STUFF. Like no enforcing Obamacare, after all, it IS the law. Not closing and securing our borders, after all, the is HIS responsibility. The list is endless. He is a tin horn dictator wanna be and doing his best to achieve that goal.
According to my accurate record keeping, the average price I paid for a gallon of regular gasoline during the month of December, 2006 was $2.23. For the year 2006 I paid an average of $2.42/gallon.
In 1999, under the Clinton regime I paid an average of $1.11/gallon; most of that was pure, unadulterated gasoline. Alcoholics Anonymous would be proud of me.
What any of this has to do with shipping guns from South Korea to a skid row hotel in Vermont is beyond me. I'm just along for the ride.
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
It's funny you should put it that way. It's quite the opposite. I'm not sure I can put this into words but I'll try.
The payoff in a wager matters. It's not just a case of picking the right horse. A horse that has only a 20% chance of winning is a good bet when you can get 10 to 1 odds. That's how liberals like me approach global warming.
If conservatives are wrong. We've done shameful harm to the planet. If liberals are wrong, we'll all save a few bucks and the planet probably isn't affected one way or the other.
What I mean is this. You're a fleet owner, right? If you can get your guys to minimize idling their trucks you'll cut down on damage to the planet, you'll help reduce your country's dependence on foreign oil and you'll save a few bucks, all at the same time. I ask you. How many times in your entire life are the needs of your planet, your country and your wallet likely to align so perfectly?
There's nothing religious about the liberal point of view on this issue. Approach it like a professional gambler. Weight the odds. Weigh the payoff. Size up the alignments. It's like playing with the house's money.
Actually the the results of enacting the global warming agenda would cost the average person a couple hundred a month and make virtually no impact on it. As always follow the money it isn't about their claim of saving the earth. If I remember correctly global warming is pretty far down the list of people's voting concerns.
Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123
Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123
No, I never said that's when he took over. You brought up 2006 in reply to my post which only said "when Obama took over". The only point up until that time was "when Obama took over". You then said I was wrong about gas prices because in 2006 it was $3 or whatever. Find someone capable of reading and have them read to you from post number one. If they aren't an Obama voter they will capably point out that 2006 was not introduced until post 16 when you introduced it. I pointed out the error in a semi-joking manner. You followed up by again making a big deal out of 2006. There have been multiple errors but I'd think you are out of feet or ammo or both by now.
Do you honestly think that only one party has their big money people with an agenda. Money runs politics on both sides one is just as bad as the other. How much do you think soros drops on liberal causes?
The big money on wall street is in love with Obama and spend huge sums of money on dem. campaigns. It isn't because they want to help the little guy.
As a country we are pretty screwed up and both parties share in wearing the head screwed crown.
Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123
Last edited:
No, it is a religion. For everyone that has a theory it exists, it is followed by one that doesn't. Even if you follow that scripture that it exists, it still carries arguments on both sides. It really boils down to who promotes their side. Everything tied to the global warming industry is financially backed by democrats. So it is "follow the money" rather than sound science. Same with the oil industry.
As far as a fleet owner, going "green has raised the price of every truck 15k to 20k and who knows the cost of constant regen repairs. Hardly exciting but I can take comfort I may be saving a tree somewhere. As mentioned, everyone will be paying thousands through all the mandates. Could be a fleet owner paying extra for equipment, to the person who lost their job because he worked in the coal industry. And don't think for a minute when the latter happens, you are going to see energy costs climb significantly.
If you are a believer of global warming, our impact here is virtually non existent. Unless you impact, China, India, Russia, and that long list of others, the benefits just aren't there to be seen. Doesn't mean you create pollution everywhere, but you have to do it in a way that makes sense.
No. Because unless I somehow missed it being changed in the past six years, it's exactly the same.
It's exactly the same. That's funny right there.No. Because unless I somehow missed it being changed in the past six years, it's exactly the same.
Just ANOTHER reason Obama is WRONG on guns, TOTALLY WRONG!
Two Men Use Girl As Human Shield — Until Her Father Guns Them Down
A St. Louis couple is likely thankful to have guns in their home after they were forced to use them to defend their daughter against two men Monday night.
The men, one of whom had an extensive rap sheet, confronted the couples’ 17 year-old daughter after she stepped outside of the house to go to her car, reports the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Two Men Use Girl As Human Shield ? Until Her Father Guns Them Down
Two Men Use Girl As Human Shield — Until Her Father Guns Them Down
A St. Louis couple is likely thankful to have guns in their home after they were forced to use them to defend their daughter against two men Monday night.
The men, one of whom had an extensive rap sheet, confronted the couples’ 17 year-old daughter after she stepped outside of the house to go to her car, reports the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Two Men Use Girl As Human Shield ? Until Her Father Guns Them Down
It's Really Hard to Be a Good Guy With a Gun
An honest article from a long-time conceal and carry guy.
An honest article from a long-time conceal and carry guy.
You seem to be grasping. Is the "typical academic" someone who is a Naval veteran who graduated from the Naval Academy and after his service time in the Navy went back to Iraq and served in the Avastar and Multi-National Corps - Iraq, Camp Victory, Baghdad as a military contractor?
Is it his honesty you have a problem with, or the fact that some of his statements directly oppose some of your most dearly held beliefs?
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
You're right about money corrupting both parties but if we heed the warnings and reduce our dependance on fossil fuels, even if the liberals are wrong, in the long run we still benefit. We'll have less dependance on foreign oil and if we do it right, we can lead the world in development of some pretty cool technologies.
If on the other hand, we don't heed the warnings and find out that the conservatives are wrong we've fubared the planet for generations to come.
Just for the sake of argument, let's assume the odds are equal on either side being right. The only sane choice is to go with the liberals on this one because the cost if the conservatives are wrong is just too great.
Another thing to consider is that we're running out of easily reachable oil. The low hanging fruit is about gone. (let's get something out of the way real quick - we're not running out of oil and we never will - but harder to extract oil will be so expensive that no one will want it). So we're turning to renewables whether we want to or not.
Maybe it's that he starts off telling his wife he can see himself doing exactly the same thing in the same situation and then does a 180 to the typical academic position that CHL holders/practitioners are stupid for doing so and he has divested himself of all his guns by putting them at his father's. Kind of like what I said already. It's fine if he disagrees with me. It's his, and anyone else's, privilege to be wrong.
Umm...no. It is again, " follow the money". Democrats want renewables in which they have personal investments. If the true goal is as you are thinking we will run out of oil, we would have switched to natural gas along time ago. Plenty of it and no where close to ever running out.
One slight problem. The gas industry is tied heavily to the oil industry and that is where the "Right" has a lot of their money sitting. Much better return on the dollar and for the average American, much better savings. Have to consider also, other countries want it and the infrastructure is already in place. Solar and wind can't support themselves and that is why millions of tax dollars are used to sustain them. Take that away, and both industries collapse.
See...it really is "about the money" rather than wanting to save a tree.
Last edited: