[asking]

You don't really have fuel efficient cars and trucks there is much more that can be done but car makers will only make the costly changes when they are forced to do it. The days of the car industry being consumer driven are gone and consumers will want cars that are cheaper to run so the car makers should be leading

I agree. Except, consumers do continue to buy vehicles with poor efficiency--for all kinds of reasons. I was on the freeway yesterday, and every single vehicle for a half mile in one lane ahead of me was an SUV or pickup, each one, as far as I could tell, with one person and usually no load.

Sometimes companies want to be told what to do. If everybody has to do it, then they don't have to worry about being non competitive.

I heard a suggestion yesterday that vehicles in a certain size class whose efficiency is below a certain level would include a fee, which would be used to subsidize the purchase of vehicles with better efficiency. It would move buyers toward the more efficient vehicles.

[excon]

And again you misrepresent us wingers. I'm not against alternative energy, I'm tired of the lies.

Hello again, Steve:

No, you're just against how to PAY for it. Why should I pay for it? Let the people who PROFIT from energy pay for it. That means they should be TAXED, no? Otherwise, assuming you agree with my post about the government STIMULATING development, if the energy producers don't pay for it, WE, the TAXPAYERS will.

I know they can afford it. Exxon made about $40 BILLION last year. Tom and I argued back and forth about whether they made $10 Billion a QUARTER or for the whole year. It WAS, of course, just a quarter. But, I understand why tom would argue as he did. Even HE'S embarrassed by it...

Speaking of oil running out. We're NOT going to let the oil companies suck every last drop out of the earth. At some point in the future, we're going to nationalize that industry, aren't we? No?? Yes, we are.

excon

[tomder55]

Hello again, tom:

Tom, you've been drinking right wing koolaid again. You might have seen on your local news, a Seattle cop slugging a 17 year old girl. Using your logic, I COULD say that the police are the problem, instead of saying this ONE cop is the problem...

THESE BUSH and OBAMA regulators DIDN'T do their jobs. That doesn't mean government IS part of the problem. I understand, though. For a guy who believes government IS the problem, it ain't much of a leap.

excon

Yup not that hard a leap at all. It is a consistent problem as regulations pile one upon another that safeguard nothing ;but increases costs.

Why don't you address the point I made where I really thought government was the problem... in that regulations and policy forced the oil companies to move to deeper water where the drilling is riskier and more expensive ? The big lie was that we have run out of places on land and in shallow waters to drill .There are 503 billion barrels of oil estimated at the Bakken field in North Dakota;South Dakota; and Montana .

[speechlesstx]

No, you're just against how to PAY for it.

At the moment I'm just tired of the lies... and the bullying. Obama plans on ramming cap and tax down our throats just like he did with health care.

[excon]

At the moment I'm just tired of the lies. Obama plans on ramming cap and tax down our throats just like he did with health care.

Hello again, Steve:

Me too. It's a LIE that passing legislation is ramming ANYTHING down ANYONE'S throats. From a winger, who purportedly is a patriot, and loves his country, to diss the law making process like you're doing, is UN-AMERICAN, UNPATRIOTIC, and is supportive of some OTHER document besides the CONSTITUTION of these United States of America. I haven't a clue which document that might be. Want to tell us?

Is this a great country, or what?

excon

[speechlesstx]

It's not that the tingle is gone, CNN confirms we're just not smart enough to appreciate Obama's genius.

[tomder55]

Now, I agree that we don't have the technology NOW, but it seems to me, that the government COULD stimulate development IF it offered subsidies, tax credits, deductions and any other incentive's to start moving in that direction.

You? Not so much.

Yeah that's right . I'm not so much against development of alternate energies. Even BP (beyond pretroleum ) is part of this alt energy thingy . Big oil is first and foremost an energy industry and they are already investing in that future . And that is how it should be .

Ask yourself what the sainted libertarian Ron Paul would think of the government investing money in "future technology" or steering the direction of the market through subsidies and the tax code .

What do you get when you do that?. Boondoggles like the ethanol industry .

[speechlesstx]

Me too. It's a LIE that passing legislation is ramming ANYTHING down ANYONE'S throats.

I thought the idea of a representative was to represent, not run roughshod over. Just the fact that they CAN pass legislation doesn't make it right.

[excon]

I thought the idea of a representative was to represent, not run roughshod over. Just the fact that they CAN pass legislation doesn't make it right.

Hello again, Steve:

Civics lesson number #2: When the representatives ran for their seat, they TOLD the voters what they were going to do, and the voters voted them IN. Then they proceeded to DO what they SAID they would do. That's the way it works around here in this great country of ours. Ain't nobody running roughshod over anybody.

The only thing that changed since they were elected, when they actually grew a set and started DOING the public's business, was the noise machine from the right. They started scaring the hell out of everybody with LIES (which I thought you were opposed to) such as "death panels".

THOSE kinds of lies would scare ANYBODY - and they did. But, the health care law doesn't have death panels. Imagine that.

So, I suppose you better start preparing your lies for cap and trade - cause that's what the elected representatives said they were going to do. Hopefully, they WILL. That ISN'T ramming ANYTHING down ANYONE'S throats. It's the Constitution at work.

Ain't this a great country?

excon

[speechlesstx]

You mean like Obama is KEEPING his promises? Bwaa ha ha ha!

Green: Obama is a victim of Bush's failed promises
By CHUCK GREEN
Columnist
Published: Sunday, February 7, 2010 11:14 AM MST

Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first year in office.

Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever.

Wow. Talk about change.

Just one year ago, fresh from his inauguration celebrations, President Obama was flying high. After one of the nation’s most inspiring political campaigns, the election of America’s first black president had captured the hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed crisis.

Of course, they don’t see it as self imposed. It’s all George Bush’s fault.

George Bush, who doesn’t have a vote in Congress and who no longer occupies the White House, is to blame for it all.

He broke Obama’s promise to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.

He broke Obama’s promise to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.

He broke Obama’s promise to end earmarks.

He broke Obama’s promise to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.

He broke Obama’s promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.

He broke Obama’s promise to make peace with direct, no pre-condition talks with America’s most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.

He broke Obama’s promise to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high White House jobs.

He broke Obama’s promise to end no-compete contracts with the government.

He broke Obama’s promise to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.

He broke Obama’s promise for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.

He broke Obama’s promise to have chosen a home church to attend Sunday services with his family by Easter of last year.

Yes, it’s all George Bush’s fault. President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending, failed Bush administration.

If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, all of President Obama’s problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel, North Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been restored to the federal government.

Oh, and did I mention what it would be like if the Democrats, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, didn’t have the heavy yoke of George Bush around their necks. There would be no earmarks, no closed-door drafting of bills, no increase in deficit spending, no special-interest influence (unions), no vote buying (Nebraska, Louisiana).

If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, we’d have real change by now.

All the broken promises, all the failed legislation and delay (health care reform, immigration reform) is not President Obama’s fault or the fault of the Democrat-controlled Congress. It’s all George Bush’s fault.

Take for example the decision of Eric Holder, the president’s attorney general, to hold terrorists’ trials in New York City. Or his decision to try the Christmas Day underpants bomber as a civilian.

Two disastrous decisions.

Certainly those were bad judgments based on poor advice from George Bush.

Need more proof?

You might recall that when Scott Brown won last month’s election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, capturing “the Ted Kennedy seat,” President Obama said that Brown’s victory was the result of the same voter anger that propelled Obama into office in 2008. People were still angry about George Bush and the policies of the past 10 years, and they wanted change.

Yes, according to the president, the voter rebellion in Massachusetts last month was George Bush’s fault.

Therefore, in retaliation, they elected a Republican to the Ted Kennedy seat, ending a half-century of domination by Democrats.

It is all George Bush’s fault.

Will the failed administration of George Bush ever end, and the time for hope and change ever arrive?

Will President Obama ever accept responsibility for something — anything?

Chuck Green, veteran Colorado journalist and former editor-in-chief of The Denver Post, syndicates a statewide column and is at [email protected]


Copyright © 2010 - Aurora Sentinel

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

I'm not talking about Obama. I'm talking about congress. All Obama has to do is sign the danged thing.

But, you don't have to convince me about his lies. He said he would END the Bush insanity, and he embraced it instead.

excon

[NeedKarma]

PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Barack Obama's Campaign Promises



Seems he is doing OK. Plus that website has a lot more detail that the previous opinion talking-points website.

[speechlesstx]

I'm not talking about Obama. I'm talking about congress. All Obama has to do is sign the danged thing.

But, you don't have to convince me about his lies. He said he would END the Bush insanity, and he embraced it instead.

You forget but I don't, that the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2006 by running a Trojan Horse campaign. It was all a big lie.

But since this is a thread on the Obama tingle factor and we're discussing lies, remember how many times he said if I liked my current plan I could keep it? Not happening...

The Unmet Promise Of Obamacare

[NeedKarma]

But since this is a thread on the Obama tingle factor and we;re discussing lies, remember how many times he said if I liked my current plan I could keep it? Not happening......

The Unmet Promise Of Obamacare

There is something wrong with that article. It talks about a draft written up that details the grandfathering clause but links to Forbes search results. A link to the actual source information would be helpful, no? Also it's just a draft, not law. Also he talks about what "may" happen if employers decided not to follow. That article is full of holes.

If it's all a lie it should be easy for you to point to law where the lie resides. But it's always just these opinion pieces.

[speechlesstx]

If it's all a lie it should be easy for you to point to law where the lie resides. But it's always just these opinion pieces.

There you go again trying to tell us which sources are approved. If you had paid attention, I argued way back that once the bill is passed that's only the beginning. From there it goes to the relevant government agencies to write the regulations, something Dr. Siegel also pointed out. Yes, the possibility exists the final draft will change but for now...

President Obama said repeatedly during the health-care debate that people who like their current coverage would be able to keep it. But an early draft of an administration regulation estimates that many employers will be forced to change their health plans under the new law.

In just three years, a majority of workers -- 51 percent -- will be in plans subject to new federal requirements, according to midrange projections in the draft.

An anonymous administration official said "the final version will uphold Obama's promise."

He did promise after all. :rolleyes:

[NeedKarma]

There you go again trying to tell us which sources are approved.

You really have to stop the whining. I commented on the content and still you whine. Dear god.

[speechlesstx]

You really have to stop the whining. I commented on the content and still you whine. Dear god.

"If it's all a lie it should be easy for you to point to law where the lie resides. But it's always just these opinion pieces."

That's a criticism of the source.

[Catsmine]

Civics lesson number #2: When the representatives ran for their seat, they TOLD the voters what they were going to do, and the voters voted them IN. Then they proceeded to DO what they SAID they would do.

There's the problem. They haven't. For a long time (like, a century or so)

[tomder55]

Tom, you've been drinking right wing koolaid again. You might have seen on your local news, a Seattle cop slugging a 17 year old girl. Using your logic, I COULD say that the police are the problem, instead of saying this ONE cop is the problem...

This probably deserves it's own OP . But I'll address it here.

Or you could say the women resisting arrest was the real problem.
Preface... this incident happened after Officer Ian Walsh ,patrolling alone had stopped a group of girls after they had crossed a major intersection illegally instead of using a pedestrian overpass. The Officer intended to just warn them and instruct them about the danger of crossing where they did.
One of the "girls " ;Marilyn Levias, age 19, started walking away.He warned her that if she walked away he would have to arrest her. She continued to walk away. He grabbed her arm in an attempt to detain her ,and she began to resist arrest .The video begins at that point .
http://www.kirotv.com/video/23904902/index.html

A second girl Angel Rosenthal, age 17, can be seen being restrained by a man. But she breaks free and uses her hands to push Officer Walsh from Levias . She is the girl who the officer punches .Now officer Walsh was struggling with both girls . The man again restrains Rosenthal while Office Walsh final gets Levias in a position to cuff her.
Then he turned his attention back to Rosenthal . He restrained her against the hood of the car until backup arrived with another pair of cuffs.

1.It is a no win situation for a male cop . How much use of force is justified in arresting a female who resists and in fact assaults the cop ? You will see in the video that pound for pound Walsh and Rosenthal are about equal. Maybe if he was armed with a taser he wouldn't have needed to punch her .
2. To add gas to the fire ;he is white and they are black.
3. The idiots with the cellphones recording it should've put their phones down long enough to assist the cop. Only the male restraining Rosenthal was any help.In fact ;if it were me ,I would've been suspicious of the growing crowd.

Officer Walsh was in a classic no win situation. Use too much force you're a bully compared to a male domestic abuser (at the Urban League press conference after the incident ). Use too little to make the arrest and you look like a wimp and a fool.What is missed is that by shoving Walsh and resisting arrest Rosenthal committed a felony.

[excon]

An anonymous administration official said "the final version will uphold Obama's promise."

Hello again, Steve:

AP Poll: Public now favors Obama health-care law.

Imagine that. So, when the public found out there weren't any death panels, they like it...

The most recent Associated Press-GfK poll on Obama's top domestic achievement finds support for the new overhaul has risen to its highest point since the survey started asking people about it in September, six months before it became law.

The results now: 45 percent in favor, 42 percent opposed. That's a significant shift in public sentiment, considering that opposition hit 50 percent after Obama signed the health plan into law in late March and that in May, supporters were outnumbered 39 percent to 46 percent.

Tell me again, about cramming stuff down our throats.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon