or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › We could call this the "Clinton Re-Election Strategy"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #1 of 55
Thread Starter 
Pelosi's Loss Could Be Obama's Gain

Quote:
In Washington these days, President Obama is rumored to be hoping Republicans capture the House of Representatives in the midterm election in November. There's no evidence for this speculation, so far as I know, but it's hardly far-fetched. If Mr. Obama wants to avert a fiscal crisis and win re-election in 2012, he needs House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be removed from her powerful post. A GOP takeover may be the only way.

Given the deficit-and-debt mess that Mr. Obama has on his hands, a Republican House would be a godsend. A Republican Senate would help, too. A Republican majority, should it materialize, could be counted on to pass significant cuts in domestic spending next yearcuts that Mrs. Pelosi and her allies in the House Democratic hierarchy would never countenance.

Quote:
Over the past 50 years, it should be no surprise which president has the best record for holding down discretionary spending. It was President Reagan. But who was second best? President Clinton, a Democrat. His record of frugality was better than Presidents Nixon, Ford and both Bushes. Mr. Clinton couldn't have done it if Republicans hadn't won the House and Senate in the 1994 election. They insisted on substantial cuts, he went along and then whistled his way to an easy re-election in 1996.

You might argue that the 1994 is what got Clinton re-elected. Irony is lovely isn't.


Quote:
Mr. Obama's re-election to a second term is heavily dependent on his ability to deal effectively with the fiscal mess.

I'd say unless the Clinton "miracle" happens again, Obama is Carter redux.


Quote:
But if Republicans win the House, everything changes. Mrs. Pelosi's influence as minority leader would be minimalthat is, assuming she's not ousted by Democrats upset over losing the majority.

Mr. Obama would be in a position to make his long-awaited pivot to the center. With Republicans in charge, he'd have to be bipartisan.

Instead of just pretending to be.


Quote:
He'd surely have to accede to serious cuts in spendingeven as he complains they are harsh and mean-spirited. Mr. Obama could play a double game, appeasing Democrats by criticizing the cuts and getting credit with everyone else by acquiescing to them.

Mr. Clinton did this brilliantly in 1996. He fought with Republicans over the budget, winning some battles, losing others, as he lurched to the center. He twice vetoed Republican welfare reform bills, then signed a similar measure. He was hailed as the president who overhauled the unpopular welfare system.

In recent months, the president has met repeatedly with Mr. Clinton. We can only guess what they talked about. But given Mr. Clinton's own experience, I suspect he suggested to Mr. Obama that Republicans could be the answer to his political prayers. In 1994, Republicans freed the president from the clutches of liberal Democratic leaders in Congress. In 2010, they can do it again.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'd say unless the Clinton "miracle" happens again, Obama is Carter redux....

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....
post #3 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

At least Clinton knew something about free market mechanics and economics;

That I'm not so sure about, but willing to listen to evidence of it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Obama is completely clueless in this regard...

Of this there appears to be ample evidence, so I agree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Moreover, the comparison between Jimmie Carter and Barack Obama is not precise either.

Agreed.

I was thinking more in terms of perception, 1-termer, being in place while the economy tanks...further.

Actually, the more I learn about some of the deregulation that occurred in the early 80's and credited to Reagan, the more I learn that a lot of it was actually started in the Carter administration.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Even if Republicans pick up the House in the fall elections, Obama is still to be held for blame.

Yes, but the American public appears to have the memory and attention span of a gnat. So we'll see.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

None of his ideas have worked to re-stimulate economy (until he tries tax cuts recession will continue)

I know that. Worse, his policies have actually hurt, but most people may forget it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

and his lack of response to Gulf Oil Spill invites national mockery as it far worse than government response to Katrina....

I consider this situation to be primarily BP's responsibility. I actually think Obama stepping in will only screw things up more. Katrina, being a natural disaster is a bit different. Of course it's different in a number of ways, like a) the people there had ample warning, b) the state and local authorities fucked that one up, but it is easy to blame Bush.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #4 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I consider this situation to be primarily BP's responsibility.

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!
post #5 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

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?

So that's a fair point. Where the government does have specific control, jurisdiction and authority but has failed to act, then I agree with you.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #6 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

At least Clinton knew something about free market mechanics and economics; Obama is completely clueless in this regard...


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.

Quote:


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....

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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #7 of 55
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.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #8 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

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!!!
post #9 of 55
Thread Starter 
Actually, the reasoning appears to have been much simpler. They were removed in order to do some roof repairs. They were not added back because, apparently, it wasn't considered cost-effective.

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/24/us...ng-system.html

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #10 of 55
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
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #11 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

there is no way we can "gotten off the oil" as you suggest, either during Carter's administration or now,

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.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #12 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

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.
post #13 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

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.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #14 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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

In what ways (specifically)?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #15 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #16 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

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!

post #17 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

In what ways (specifically)?

<sits back>

<opens bag of popcorn>
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #18 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

<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.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #19 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #20 of 55
You're going to need way more than one bag of popcorn.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #21 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Answer his question.

Ok.

Now let's see :
Quote:
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.

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!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #22 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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!

Good God! You're babbling incoherently. It's just like catching Obama off-guard without a pre-scripted question and sans tele-prompter! What the hell are you even talking about?


I'm curious about this:


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The oil companies are more of an obstruction to this kind of change than just phasing out cars.

In what ways (specifically)?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #23 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Good God! You're babbling incoherently. It's just like catching Obama off-guard without a pre-scripted question and sans tele-prompter! What the hell are you even talking about?


I'm curious about this:




In what ways (specifically)?

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.

Quote:
In what ways (specifically

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/

Quote:
The Formula (1980)

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?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #24 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #25 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

All this proves is you're a newbie that isn't aware of what's been going on here for years.

And that has what to do with what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You could try not commenting on things that don't concern you or that you don't understand.

This is public forum genius. If you are having a private conversation that no one else should be commenting on, then take it private.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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.

You're absolutely right. I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. So it looks like you're babbling incoherently.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I've already explained that.

Where? I don't see it anywhere. You've made a claim, let's see the logic and evidence in support of that claim.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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.

So you have repeated your opinion of the matter. You also claimed it to be "common knowledge" (actually common opinion) and that lots of people believe it to be so. None of this rises to the level of proof of the claim however.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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

Nor does pointing to a fictional movie that aligns with your opinion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

A good thriller

Perhaps it is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

and really the way the oil companies have been precieved for quite some time.

No doubt.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And I don't think people are wrong about this.

Well, good, we have more of your beliefs and opinions, but still no facts to support them or your claims.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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?

Ummm...I see how you'd like for it to work. You'd like to avoid actually supporting your claim with any logic or facts and to do so by creating various smoke screens and diversions so you think no one will notice, and to make your response to me conditional on the response of a 3rd person. But I'm learning to expect this tactic from you.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #26 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

And that has what to do with what?



This is public forum genius. If you are having a private conversation that no one else should be commenting on, then take it private.




You're absolutely right. I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. So it looks like you're babbling incoherently.




Where? I don't see it anywhere. You've made a claim, let's see the logic and evidence in support of that claim.




So you have repeated your opinion of the matter. You also claimed it to be "common knowledge" (actually common opinion) and that lots of people believe it to be so. None of this rises to the level of proof of the claim however.




Nor does pointing to a fictional movie that aligns with your opinion.




Perhaps it is.




No doubt.




Well, good, we have more of your beliefs and opinions, but still no facts to support them or your claims.




Ummm...I see how you'd like for it to work. You'd like to avoid actually supporting your claim with any logic or facts and to do so by creating various smoke screens and diversions so you think no one will notice, and to make your response to me conditional on the response of a 3rd person. But I'm learning to expect this tactic from you.

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/

Quote:
How Oil Companies Destroyed the Electric Vehicle (video)

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

Quote:
Companies that sell crude oil in the U.S. will see demand plummet, causing prices to drop along with sales. These companies include Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, Shell, ConocoPhillips, along with a host of other, smaller independent oil companies like Devon Energy, Anadarko Petroleum, and Occidental Petroleum.
Companies involved in refining oil into gasoline will also see demand plummet. These include Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Valero, Sunoco, and Western Refining.
Midstream pipeline operators like Kinder Morgan, Oneok, Enbridge, Transcanada Pipelines, and Enterprise Products Partners L.P. will lose revenue as fewer gasoline volumes will need to be transported across the country.

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

Quote:
Who Killed the Electric Car? is a 2006 documentary film that explores the creation, limited commercialization, and subsequent destruction of the battery electric vehicle in the United States, specifically the General Motors EV1 of the mid 1990s. The film explores the roles of automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, the US government, the Californian government, batteries, hydrogen vehicles, and consumers in limiting the development and adoption of this technology.

It was released on DVD to the home video market on November 14, 2006 by Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.



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

Enjoy!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #27 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Basically you continue to not look at the fact that you're a newbie and...

Basically you have now said this twice but have yet to explain its relevance to anything.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And who's " We "?

We is everyone who is reading here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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.

But, apparently, I'm not on ignore.

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


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

About the oil companies stifling innovation just a little something off the cuff. A little something to throw your way.

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


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Like I've said it's been common knowledge for some time.

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/

[QUOTE=jimmac;1651324]Also : http://www.wikinvest.com/concept/Electric_Cars

[QUOTE=jimmac;1651324]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Kil...lectric_Car%3F

How does any of this demonstrate that the oil companies have obstructed getting off of oil? All you've done is point to an unconvincing propaganda film that theorizes that the oil industry conspired to kill off the electric car but provides no convincing evidence of this theory and ignores the failure factors that did not fit with its pre-defined narrative.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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

I'll be waiting for you to provide it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #28 of 55
[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/

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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

How does any of this demonstrate that the oil companies have obstructed getting off of oil? All you've done is point to an unconvincing propaganda film that theorizes that the oil industry conspired to kill off the electric car but provides no convincing evidence of this theory and ignores the failure factors that did not fit with its pre-defined narrative.




I'll be waiting for you to provide it.

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.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #29 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Listen Bucko




Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I don't really want to have what passes for conversation with you.

Then don't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I really don't care what you have to say...

And yet...apparently you do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

try to goad me into saying something I'll get banned for.

Sorry you feel like you're being goaded. I have not control over your feelings.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Most conservatives use this " technique " when arguing their rhetorical talking points and this kind of nonreasoning

Using logic and reason is a "technique" alright. And apparently, to you, it is also "goading." That actually makes quite a lot of sense from what I've seen of your posts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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.

And you return to your tired red herrings like dog returns to its vomit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh! By the way " We " would imply that everyone reading here agrees with you.

We describes the group of people to whom you've implicitly shared your words with by posting here (i.e., more than just me.) That what you've said is an opinion or belief is clear on the face of it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #30 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post






Then don't.




And yet...apparently you do.




Sorry you feel like you're being goaded. I have not control over your feelings.




Using logic and reason is a "technique" alright. And apparently, to you, it is also "goading." That actually makes quite a lot of sense from what I've seen of your posts.




And you return to your tired red herrings like dog returns to its vomit.




We describes the group of people to whom you've implicitly shared your words with by posting here (i.e., more than just me.) That what you've said is an opinion or belief is clear on the face of it.

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!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #31 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post






Then don't.




And yet...apparently you do.




Sorry you feel like you're being goaded. I have not control over your feelings.




Using logic and reason is a "technique" alright. And apparently, to you, it is also "goading." That actually makes quite a lot of sense from what I've seen of your posts.




And you return to your tired red herrings like dog returns to its vomit.




We describes the group of people to whom you've implicitly shared your words with by posting here (i.e., more than just me.) That what you've said is an opinion or belief is clear on the face of it.

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.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #32 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You forgot the " most don't " part.

Don't what? Read your words? That may be true. You might have me on that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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

Good for you!


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And you're so obsessed with me you have to reply to everything I say here.

Nah. You're just my entertainment.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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

I don't use ignore. I figure that even with someone who annoys me quite a lot there's a chance they might say something useful or valuable that I want to read. Now I realize in your case that's pretty unlikely but, nonetheless, at least you provide good entertainment. Furthermore, I prefer to not let some of the silly things you have to say pass, lest anyone actually be lulled into believing them to be correct.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #33 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

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.

What, are you Nostradamus or something?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac

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 intellectial.

Jesus!

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



Heh...jimmac is pretty harmless. Just fun to play ping pong with him when I'm bored.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #34 of 55
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!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #35 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

What, are you Nostradamus or something?






Heh...jimmac is pretty harmless. Just fun to play ping pong with him when I'm bored.

Quote:
when I'm bored

Which seems to be most of the time.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #36 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Which seems to be most of the time.

Nah. Just sometimes. So anyway...back to the original question. Do you have anything substantial to support your claim that the oil companies are actively blocking getting off of oil? I mean other than continually providing all of us will a high quality, reliable and inexpensive source of energy?

(You probably thought I forgot I had asked that and that you haven't really answered it. Nice try though. )

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #37 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

What, are you Nostradamus or something?

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

Quote:


Heh...jimmac is pretty harmless. Just fun to play ping pong with him when I'm bored.

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."
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #38 of 55
Post deleated
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #39 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

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."

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

That's because you post the same nonsense over and over again.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #40 of 55
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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › We could call this the "Clinton Re-Election Strategy"