We could call this the "Clinton Re-Election Strategy"

At least Clinton knew something about free market mechanics and economics; Obama is completely clueless in this regard... Moreover, the comparison between Jimmie Carter and Barack Obama is not precise either. Even if Republicans pick up the House in the fall elections, Obama is still to be held for blame. None of his ideas have worked to re-stimulate economy (until he tries tax cuts recession will continue) and his lack of response to Gulf Oil Spill invites national mockery as it far worse than government response to Katrina....

While the oil spill is BP's issue to address, there are legion remedies the federal government could and should have assisted in delivering, and Obama has failed in all of them! The response to this oil spill has been far worse than federal response to Katrina and the people know it... Just one issue ... LA Governor's request on day of spill to Corps of Engineers for permission for immediate construction of offshore sand berms took almost a month to approve through federal government and these required asinine environmental studies! Can you imagine such insanity?

While the issue is BP's responsibility, the federal government had a key role it has failed on delivering to the people in the Gulf... but the parties in the West Wing of the White House continue!

I disagree. He understands. But his goals for the country are just totally different. He doesn't want us to be #1 economically and militarily. He's said so. He WANTS high gas prices. He WANTS redistribution. The man is a super-progressive. That's really all it is.


We'll see. I would say Carter is nowhere near as bad. I think he wanted many of the same things Americans did. He just didn't know how to accomplish them, and was feckless on top of it.

If we had listened to Carter and gotten off the oil when he wanted us to, we wouldn't have the spill to deal with now. Carter put solar panels on the White House. Reagen took them off. Enough said.

No... not "enough said"... not by a long shot! Installing cosmetic solar panels on White House was at best a PR stunt! Do you really want the White House Situation Room entirely dependent on the potential of a sunny day? Said another way, do you want the Executive Office shut down if weather delivers clouds? Moreover, a single trip on Air Force One neutralizes any electrical savings realized with solar panels anyway! You want the Chief Executive to also give up his protected limo and use a hybrid Go Car too?

The fact is that our transportation is still predicated upon petroleum and there is no way we can "gotten off the oil" as you suggest, either during Carter's administration or now, for our transportation needs! While we can use alternative energy sources for home heating (coal, nuclear, and yes some solar) the fact is transportation rests with petroleum and will do so for the foreseeable future!!!

I think Obama has a good chance to win another term

main stream media love child he can do no wrong

grow the number of govt dependents no one will vote against their check

replacement voters with immigration overhaul

don't underestimate the power of the Chicago machine training

blame bush

clintn did well with triangulation him and msm need villians

they already created when needed

people have the memory of a fly

a lot of things can happen in a few months let alone years

don't underestimate the power of

MORE BREAD AND CIRCUS

Certainly not with that attitude.

We can put a man on the moon in a decade but we can't pour our resources into alternative energies? Give me a break.

Ah thus spoke the voice of the eco-warrior! Do you have any idea how many petroleum-fuelded internal combustion engines just in the United States? Not to mention the rest of the world? It would take far longer than your proverbial "decade" just to move to an alternative fueled vehicle if one even existed! Even the high-tech hybrids use petrol half-time. And if we do move to another form of fuel who is to say it will not be just as bad for the environment? And what to do with all those internal combustion engines in stock? We just throw those in the ocean overnight? We are just realizing now that the hybrid batteries being used are actually more damaging to environment through their mining and disposal.... so save the "man on the moon" rhetoric for where it belongs... to the space race not rational discourse on our energy utilization.

Actually he's right. The oil companies are more of an obstruction to this kind of change than just phasing out cars.

Those oil companies that you call an obstruction have, in reality, fueled the greatest period of technological, medical, and scientific innovation and discovery the world has ever known over the past 50 years or so.

Shhhh... don't tell the eco-warriors that plastics come from oil!

<sits back>

<opens bag of popcorn>

It's ok you can eat your popcorn. I know how plastic's made.

I just thought I'd check in on this little pocket universe to see the laughable logic therein.

Thanks and good luck with your aspirations.

Answer his question.

You're going to need way more than one bag of popcorn.

Ok.

Now let's see :
Now while a good portion of that is true if you have to admit to this then you also have to admit that Boomers have been the driving force behind this. Most if not all of those innovators have probably been boomers which is what I was trying to get through to trumptman a few months ago so how's this going to sit with him?

Yes I'm afraid if you look at it this way you also have to admit what a piss poor world it would have been without the Boomers and their innovation in things like the oil companies.

Sorry. Can't have one without the other.

And also while the oil companies have been innovative they just don't want to leave the old world behind because it's much cheaper to keep using the ol' fossil fuels than retooling and going to something else which they'll have to do sooner or later. I'm betting on later when we run out of said fuel and you can't breath outside without a mask ( notice how I didn't get into Global Warming because I already know how you're in denial over that ).

Just for you!

All this proves is you're a newbie that isn't aware of what's been going on here for years. You could try not commenting on things that don't concern you or that you don't understand. trumptman makes a point ( I'm sure he's viewing this even as we speak ) and then someone else does. What most don't understand is that some of these broad statements about the past are connected logically so if you admit one you also have to admit another and since SDW and trumpy are friends I thought it timely to bring up the other point.


I've already explained that. The oil companies don't want to restructure for other kinds of energy. The reality is they would rather have things stay like they are ( even though that's an insane expectation ) That's been common knowledge since the 70's. This is how most of the public has been thinking of them.

Even though this movie is fiction it's a good example of how it is : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080754/


A good thriller and really the way the oil companies have been precieved for quite some time. And I don't think people are wrong about this.

Now if you want me to look up more substancial examples then Jazzy has to look up some for his statement as well. See how it works here?

You answered his question with a fictional movie from 1980? He wants to know specifically what the oil companies are doing to hinder innovation. I'm not even saying they AREN'T...I would just love to hear specifically what they are doing. "They're trying to make things stay the same" is not an answer. He's asking how they do this.

Basically you continue to not look at the fact that you're a newbie and haven't had to sit through all of SDW and my conversations over the years as some have. That's what you don't understand. Unless of course you have been here before and are back with a different handle. On a forum like this if you make a statement be prepared to have it countered with logic from what's been said before.

And who's " We "? Do you always refer to yourself in the plural?

Since the subject deals with recent history of a certain period the two subjects are interconnected. You can't excape that no matter how hard you try.
The fact that you seem to jump in and comment and then blather on about how you see it ( without understanding the context of the discussion ) is one of the resons you're on ignore.

About the oil companies stifling innovation just a little something off the cuff. A little something to throw your way. Like I've said it's been common knowledge for some time.


http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2009/...oil-companies/


Also : http://www.wikinvest.com/concept/Electric_Cars


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Kil...lectric_Car%3F




It an easy thing to understand but there's much more if you want it.

Enjoy!

[QUOTE=MJ1970;1651350][QUOTE]Basically you have now said this twice but have yet to explain its relevance to anything.




We is everyone who is reading here.




But, apparently, I'm not on ignore.

I see you are continuing to smoke screen, hand wave and distract.




Ahhh, so now you finally wish to get back to what I originally asked about. How nice.




Indeed you have said this. You haven't provided what this so-called "common knowledge" is, nor do you seem able to recognize that what you declare as "common knowledge" is merely common belief or opinion.


[QUOTE=jimmac;1651324]http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2009/...oil-companies/


Listen Bucko I've already explained how you don't have the maturity to respect being on ignore when I don't really want to have what passes for conversation with you.

I really don't care what you have to say when your main focus is to troll around and try to goad me into saying something I'll get banned for. Please! It's as transparent as glass.

Most conservatives use this " technique " when arguing their rhetorical talking points and this kind of nonreasoning is why the republicans aren't going to get the results they're hoping for. Voters just don't like or respect it. Not after the Bush era. So by all means continue ( even though I know you claim not to be a republican you share many of their flaws ).

Oh! By the way " We " would imply that everyone reading here agrees with you. I've got news for you. More don't than do.

You forgot the " most don't " part.

And by the way everything you just posted is an opinion.

And you're so obsessed with me you have to reply to everything I say here. Kind of like a dog pissing on something saying " I was here " and then another dog coming along and covering it up with his own scent " No I was here! "

Pretty quasi intellectual.

Jesus!

Hey! Here's an idea. Put me on ignore!

You know, watching this half of the conversation makes me pity you. Bet he tries to turn your whole post around and make like you are the one who is causing all the argument and having all the opinions. Won't be long before he cries that you are ignoring his ignores and then cries for you to put him on ignore.

I'ts funny that I pity the both of you that you come right back with a quip so fast it's like you hover around this forum all day long! I mean Noah you're from the same part of the country ( at least you claim to be ). It's sunny outside! Why are you here so much? I mean MJ I can understand. What a metphor! " Like a dog returns to his vomit " How poetic!

Which seems to be most of the time.

Nah, Just seen the same responses from him over and over before with myself and others.


He is nothing if not predictable.

Well enough about him. Waiting for the cable guy, and completely bored. "We will be out between the hours of 12 and 4. Just hang around and wait as we know you have nothing better to do."

Post deleated

That's because you post the same nonsense over and over again.

jimmac:

First, stop using my name as some sort of credential. Anyone that looks back at our "conversations" over the years will just see that you've gotten your butt handed to you in the most embarrassing fashion, just as is happening here.

Secondly, you being a member here for many years doesn't mean you're "right." It doesn't mean you get to make a statement and not support it.

Thirdly, I would love to go back and count the number of times you've claimed that your statement is supported because it's "common knowledge." It's actually laughable when you do this, because it's almost always a statement that is highly debatable, dubious or even just an opinion. Perhaps you're unaware, but "common knowledge" usually refers to facts whose veracity is not in question by, well, anyone.

Here are some examples:

--Grass is usually green.
--Low barometric pressure often results in precipitation.
--Smoking is bad for one's health
--The personal computer was non-existent until the late 1970s/early 1980s.

Here are some hypothetical examples of statements that are NOT common knowledge:

---We have only 50 years of oil left.
---A tooth left in Coke overnight will dissolve.
---A car that ran on water was invented in the 1970s, but the oil companies killed it.
---Government spending will save the economy.


Of the above, 2 are urban legends and 2 are HIGHLY debatable if not almost certainly false. However, the above hypotheticals are the kind statements you claim are "common knowledge." In reality, they are nothing close to that.

Last, let's address your "evidence." The issue here, as usual, is that you're not linking to factual information....you're linking to opinion. The existence of a documentary that espouses your view does not prove anything, just as the existence of a book called "How Al Gore Tried to Steal The Election" does not back the opinion that he actually DID try to steal the election.

The funny part of this exchange is that you haven't realized that WE are not even necessarily disagreeing with you on the issue itself. WE would just like to see you actually support your claims.