Magox Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Well since they've been in power, there really isn't too much positive to talk about. The economy stinks, unemployment even worse, the handling of the US debt even worse, and the leadership to tackle the looming ticking timebombs of the entitlements even worse than that. So in 2010, when Democrats had nothing to run on, they went with the theme that the Tea Partiers were racists and extremists. How did that work out for them? Now this year, they are going with another theme, which is that Conservatives are anti-women. Okey dokey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Well since they've been in power, there really isn't too much positive to talk about. The economy stinks, unemployment even worse, the handling of the US debt even worse, and the leadership to tackle the looming ticking timebombs of the entitlements even worse than that. So in 2010, when Democrats had nothing to run on, they went with the theme that the Tea Partiers were racists and extremists. How did that work out for them? Now this year, they are going with another theme, which is that Conservatives are anti-women. Okey dokey Who cares, both parties suck, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Who cares, both parties suck, right? Yep. Doesn't mean yours doesn't suck more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wisconsin Bills Fan Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Well since they've been in power, there really isn't too much positive to talk about. The economy stinks, unemployment even worse, the handling of the US debt even worse, and the leadership to tackle the looming ticking timebombs of the entitlements even worse than that. So in 2010, when Democrats had nothing to run on, they went with the theme that the Tea Partiers were racists and extremists. How did that work out for them? Now this year, they are going with another theme, which is that Conservatives are anti-women. Okey dokey Pay no attention to the high gas prices, high unemployment, exploding debt, and broken promises. Sounds like a winner to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Pay no attention to the high gas prices, high unemployment, exploding debt, and broken promises. Sounds like a winner to me! Oh, that? That's all because the Republican Congress is obstructionist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Yep. Doesn't mean yours doesn't suck more. Ah, but yours sucks better. Quality over quanity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 3, 2012 Author Share Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) Mitt Romney: My plan is to cut corporate taxes down to 25%, cut everyones taxes down by 20%, means test Medicare to make it sustainable and viable for our children, slash spending and expand drilling permits to increase jobs and lower our dependency on mideast oil. Obama: I'll give you free sh*t! And I'll fund that free sh*t with the money from those oil tycoons, hedgefund managers and anyone who has 2 cadillacs.... oh and Republicans hate women. Edited March 3, 2012 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Mitt Romney: My plan is to cut corporate taxes down to 25%, cut everyones taxes down by 20%, means test Medicare to make it sustainable and viable for our children, slash spending and expand drilling permits to increase jobs and lower our dependency on mideast oil. Obama: I'll give you free sh*t! And I'll fund that free sh*t with the money from those oil tycoons, hedgefund managers and anyone who has 2 cadillacs.... oh and Republicans hate women. So you are a partisan Republican, ya, I already knew that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 3, 2012 Author Share Posted March 3, 2012 So you are a partisan Republican, ya, I already knew that bwaaaak bwaaaaak conservatives are the party of anti-women bwaaaaak bwaaaaak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Oh, that? That's all because the Republican Congress is obstructionist. Damn Republicans. I can't believe they won't allow that poor innocent Harry Reid to have a budget vote in the Senate, even as they force him to pass every evil GOP bill that Boehner wants directs him to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philly McButterpants Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Yeah, I gotta agree . . . This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. It all began with Stephanopolous at the debate when he asked Romney about contraception. The Dems have NOTHING to talk about other than getting Bin Laden, so they come up with this BS contraception issue. I guess they're counting on getting 99% of all women to vote for Bam . . . . Republicans need to avoid this like poison and keep talking about jobs, the econimy, taxes, debt and gas prices. It's about the economy, stupid! I realize the MSM won't allow this, but don't get sucked into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Women are a huge voting base.... Conservatives should have stayed laser focused on the Economy, instead in 1 State you have to get a Trans Vaginal Ultrasound before an abortion, and they made a big stink about contraception... those are not items that will endear female voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Women are a huge voting base.... Conservatives should have stayed laser focused on the Economy, instead in 1 State you have to get a Trans Vaginal Ultrasound before an abortion, and they made a big stink about contraception... those are not items that will endear female voters. Women already have a couple of free choices for contraception that aren't gov't mandated. 1) "I have a headache" 2) Blow Jobs 3) Anal The correct usage of the above 3 methods will ensure that no woman ever has to pay $3000/year in annual contraception coverage again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Women already have a couple of free choices for contraception that aren't gov't mandated. 1) "I have a headache" 2) Blow Jobs 3) Anal The correct usage of the above 3 methods will ensure that no woman ever has to pay $3000/year in annual contraception coverage again. $3,000 annually on contraception? Anyone can go to PLanned Parenthood and get the Pill for almost nothing... I think you can also get free condoms as well. $250/mo. on contraception, you're doing something wrong. Option #4- Pull out Really Early- Ernie McCracken did it, why can everybody else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 $3,000 annually on contraception? Anyone can go to PLanned Parenthood and get the Pill for almost nothing... I think you can also get free condoms as well. $250/mo. on contraception, you're doing something wrong. Option #4- Pull out Really Early- Ernie McCracken did it, why can everybody else? Check the other thread on the Sandra Fluke. But I do agree. 4) Ask for more facials Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Well since they've been in power, there really isn't too much positive to talk about. The economy stinks, unemployment even worse, the handling of the US debt even worse, and the leadership to tackle the looming ticking timebombs of the entitlements even worse than that. So in 2010, when Democrats had nothing to run on, they went with the theme that the Tea Partiers were racists and extremists. How did that work out for them? Now this year, they are going with another theme, which is that Conservatives are anti-women. Okey dokey Conservatives should run with this. It's so patently ridiculous that it could become the left's birther issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 Conservatives should run with this. It's so patently ridiculous that it could become the left's birther issue. It's quite impressive how the left is able to effectively mobilize in such a uniformed matter as quick as they do. You should see in the comments section, they are parrot the same damn thing, over and over and over. Arguing that women care more about access to contraceptive care more so than the economy. No, really. I'm serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Women already have a couple of free choices for contraception that aren't gov't mandated. 1) "I have a headache" 2) Blow Jobs 3) Anal The correct usage of the above 3 methods will ensure that no woman ever has to pay $3000/year in annual contraception coverage again. why don't you write the rnc with your idea....it's a sure vote getter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 It's quite impressive how the left is able to effectively mobilize in such a uniformed matter as quick as they do. I could well be wrong about this, but I think one of the main reasons you see so much divisiveness in the country right now is because, with genuine thanks to our current president and his handling of his first year in office, conservatives finally figured out how to do this, too. Hundreds of thousands of people like myself -- disengaged from politics -- suddenly had enough, so they asked themselves (unfortunately, but seriously), "Who the hell is my representative?" This was followed by "I want to speak to him/her," which was followed by conversations that sounded something like this: "Hi, I'm so-n-so from this district in California and I want to speak to my congressman. Well, what's his number in DC? Why? Because we're spending like drunk sailors and I want him to know its not acceptable to me. What? Town Hall meeting? Sure, I'd like to attend." The next thing you know, all these people were yelling and screaming with like-minded people about like-minded topics, and then you have tea party rallies and news reports of senior citizens yelling at Arlen Specter, and somewhere in the middle of it all, you hear the entire left say, "Uh, oh. Happy learned how to putt." The left is still much better at it because, let's face it, the right has to work for a living. But if you read the comments section at places like Politico, The Hill, WSJ, etc., you'll see the right is getting pretty good at it, as well. Not as good, but getting there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) I could well be wrong about this, but I think one of the main reasons you see so much divisiveness in the country right now is because, with genuine thanks to our current president and his handling of his first year in office, conservatives finally figured out how to do this, too. Hundreds of thousands of people like myself -- disengaged from politics -- suddenly had enough, so they asked themselves (unfortunately, but seriously), "Who the hell is my representative?" This was followed by "I want to speak to him/her," which was followed by conversations that sounded something like this: "Hi, I'm so-n-so from this district in California and I want to speak to my congressman. Well, what's his number in DC? Why? Because we're spending like drunk sailors and I want him to know its not acceptable to me. What? Town Hall meeting? Sure, I'd like to attend." The next thing you know, all these people were yelling and screaming with like-minded people about like-minded topics, and then you have tea party rallies and news reports of senior citizens yelling at Arlen Specter, and somewhere in the middle of it all, you hear the entire left say, "Uh, oh. Happy learned how to putt." The left is still much better at it because, let's face it, the right has to work for a living. But if you read the comments section at places like Politico, The Hill, WSJ, etc., you'll see the right is getting pretty good at it, as well. Not as good, but getting there. Our problem is that we try to take a logical approach to an argument while they resort to slogans, name calling, and moralizing. We can't even really adopt their tactics because they've got the exclusive rights (try calling an extreme left wing professional activist a slut and see what happens). Edited March 8, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 When I see anyone from either party talk about high gas prices I automatically assume they are dumb thinking the president can control that. Also...unemployment and debt are a side effect of the greatest collapse and most complicated recovery ever. Unemployment and poverty would be worse if not exactly the same under a conservative leadership. The real issue is that nobody can keep promises or have a truly great presidency with Washington the way it is now. It's completely broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) When I see anyone from either party talk about high gas prices I automatically assume they are dumb thinking the president can control that. Also...unemployment and debt are a side effect of the greatest collapse and most complicated recovery ever. Unemployment and poverty would be worse if not exactly the same under a conservative leadership. The real issue is that nobody can keep promises or have a truly great presidency with Washington the way it is now. It's completely broken. How could you possibly know what unemployment would be and what the debt would be under policies that were never enacted? And where the price of gas may not be in direct control of the President (especially in the short term) Presidents have a great deal of influence over policies that effect gas prices. Liberals, like the ring-a-ding kid in the Whitehouse have said for decades that it's pointless to increase oil exploration because it could take 4-8 years to see the benefits. That time has elapsed over and over again. The real problem isn't that nobody can keep promises, but rather that the electorate looks to the government like it's their dad, and he who promises the most goodies wins. Mainstream liberal discussion of the government's role in the economy isn't much different from football fans who don't understand why their team can't pay mega-salaries to every free agent on their wish list. Edited March 8, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 How could you possibly know what unemployment would be and what the debt would be under policies that were never enacted? And where the price of gas may not be in direct control of the President (especially in the short term) Presidents have a great deal of influence over policies that effect gas prices. Liberals, like the ring-a-ding kid in the Whitehouse have said for decades that it's pointless to increase oil exploration because it could take 4-8 years to see the benefits. That time has elapsed over and over again. The real problem isn't that nobody can keep promises, but rather that the electorate looks to the government like it's their dad, and he who promises the most goodies wins. Mainstream liberal discussion of the government's role in the economy isn't much different from football fans who don't understand why their team can't pay mega-salaries to every free agent on their wish list. If there's one thing that Bill O'Reilly has nailed on the head it's his talking points on gas prices. He puts it better than I will given the time I am willing to spend on this post (or probably am capable of) but the bottom line is it's a global market and even if we extract more oil domestically it's still private companies doing it and it still flows into the global market. It'll just end up in a big pot with the rest of the oil. China is willing to pay more than us per barrel, a private company that extracts it has no barriers to sending it over there and getting $5 a gallon. Hell, it's roughly $9 a gallon in Europe right now! So it's not like we're doing terrible. He did put forth an idea about crazy taxes if you send it out, which I'm not sure how practical it would be (and I know we wouldn't like it other nations did that). But the point is...the no presidential candidate can really do anything in the short term and in the long term it's not something that going to necessarily help us relative to world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 If there's one thing that Bill O'Reilly has nailed on the head it's his talking points on gas prices. He puts it better than I will given the time I am willing to spend on this post (or probably am capable of) but the bottom line is it's a global market and even if we extract more oil domestically it's still private companies doing it and it still flows into the global market. It'll just end up in a big pot with the rest of the oil. China is willing to pay more than us per barrel, a private company that extracts it has no barriers to sending it over there and getting $5 a gallon. Hell, it's roughly $9 a gallon in Europe right now! So it's not like we're doing terrible. He did put forth an idea about crazy taxes if you send it out, which I'm not sure how practical it would be (and I know we wouldn't like it other nations did that). But the point is...the no presidential candidate can really do anything in the short term and in the long term it's not something that going to necessarily help us relative to world. This admin doesn't seem to care that gas prices are high, because they feel it will spur "green" tech. Despite the fact that it's crippling the economy in the process, while they're pouring in billions into failing "green" companies. And Barry could have gotten a tax on oil exports within his first 2 years in office, but he didn't? I wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 This admin doesn't seem to care that gas prices are high, because they feel it will spur "green" tech. Despite the fact that it's crippling the economy in the process, while they're pouring in billions into failing "green" companies. And Barry could have gotten a tax on oil exports within his first 2 years in office, but he didn't? I wonder why? Well I just don't agree that they don't care gas prices are high. From a purely political standpoint I assure you they do. As for failing green companies...that's what happens as we all know. I'm not defending a huge amount of public money funding that research but that talking point is overblown. As for the last point on Obama failing to get an export tax that he "could have got" I really have no knowledge of that. You can elaborate if you want but I can't speak to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 When I see anyone from either party talk about high gas prices I automatically assume they are dumb thinking the president can control that. Also...unemployment and debt are a side effect of the greatest collapse and most complicated recovery ever. Unemployment and poverty would be worse if not exactly the same under a conservative leadership. The real issue is that nobody can keep promises or have a truly great presidency with Washington the way it is now. It's completely broken. Well the economic collapse started with the housing industry bubble being burst. The bubble was created by overzealous influence on the lenders to make loans. Barney Frank and company refused to allow Fannie & Freddie to be regulated further. So, yes I would place my bets on conservative leadership over amateur hour. As far as gas prices go, the more oil we produce here, the cheaper our domestic gas costs will be. The reason that gas is $9-$10 a gallon in Europe is not because they are paying more for it at the wholesale level. It's the damn taxes. Regardless, if we go balls out to drill for oil and utilize our vast reserves it and our vast reserves of natural gas then we'll see cheap energy in this country again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Well the economic collapse started with the housing industry bubble being burst. The bubble was created by overzealous influence on the lenders to make loans. Barney Frank and company refused to allow Fannie & Freddie to be regulated further. So, yes I would place my bets on conservative leadership over amateur hour. As far as gas prices go, the more oil we produce here, the cheaper our domestic gas costs will be. The reason that gas is $9-$10 a gallon in Europe is not because they are paying more for it at the wholesale level. It's the damn taxes. Regardless, if we go balls out to drill for oil and utilize our vast reserves it and our vast reserves of natural gas then we'll see cheap energy in this country again. From everything I've heard/read on the subject that's a specious argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 If there's one thing that Bill O'Reilly has nailed on the head it's his talking points on gas prices. He puts it better than I will given the time I am willing to spend on this post (or probably am capable of) but the bottom line is it's a global market and even if we extract more oil domestically it's still private companies doing it and it still flows into the global market. It'll just end up in a big pot with the rest of the oil. China is willing to pay more than us per barrel, a private company that extracts it has no barriers to sending it over there and getting $5 a gallon. Hell, it's roughly $9 a gallon in Europe right now! So it's not like we're doing terrible. He did put forth an idea about crazy taxes if you send it out, which I'm not sure how practical it would be (and I know we wouldn't like it other nations did that). But the point is...the no presidential candidate can really do anything in the short term and in the long term it's not something that going to necessarily help us relative to world. Exactly, and when you increase the supply on the global market it reduces the cost. It can actually reduce the cost before it hits the market because people set prices based on replacement cost. There are other factors involved such as refineries and pipelines that could reduce the cost but the left doesn't want us building any of that because they hate oil and everything that facilitates its use. It would be less annoying if they could justify this irrational hate with something other than a religious belief and had some kind of reasonable alternative other than algae and pedals. Well I just don't agree that they don't care gas prices are high. From a purely political standpoint I assure you they do. As for failing green companies...that's what happens as we all know. I'm not defending a huge amount of public money funding that research but that talking point is overblown. As for the last point on Obama failing to get an export tax that he "could have got" I really have no knowledge of that. You can elaborate if you want but I can't speak to that. Very recently Obama and others on the left have stated that they want the price of gas high so people will switch to the mythical "green energy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Well I just don't agree that they don't care gas prices are high. From a purely political standpoint I assure you they do. As for failing green companies...that's what happens as we all know. I'm not defending a huge amount of public money funding that research but that talking point is overblown. As for the last point on Obama failing to get an export tax that he "could have got" I really have no knowledge of that. You can elaborate if you want but I can't speak to that. http://news.yahoo.com/energy-secretary-chu-admits-administration-ok-high-gas-193900713.html It's not "talking points" dayman. Half a billion was sunk into Solyndra (a Barry campaign contributor BTW) despite warnings that it was destined to fail. Barry could have gotten a lot of stuff passed in his 1st 2 years with the majority in the Senate (super majority for the first year or so) and majority in the House. Flat tax, "the Buffet Rule," oil export tax, curbing oil speculators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 From everything I've heard/read on the subject that's a specious argument. How much do you think shipping costs are involved in the price of oil/gasoline? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 To me the idea that drilling as Gingrich wants to spike the global supply is the way to go is just wrong. Also leave it to him to promise $2.50 a gallon...ok Newt. We HAVE to move towards alternative fuels regardless. How we do it, when we do it...all open to debate. But the sooner and more aggressive we are about it the better off we'll be. Massive investment in oil or in other means? I'll take the later. I can see it's not popular here. As I've said over and over, I've seen strong personalities on both sides talk about how drilling domestically won't have the effects on our local gas prices that the proponents of drilling would have us believe. Ultimately disagreeing on something like that is reasonable though, it's difficult to forecast even for experts. I know Solyndra, believe me it's all anyone talks about. One company that went bankrupt. And yes, there are others. So be it. It happens. I'll not be asked to defend every bill labeled "Obama" that people on this board hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 To me the idea that drilling as Gingrich wants to spike the global supply is the way to go is just wrong. Also leave it to him to promise $2.50 a gallon...ok Newt. We HAVE to move towards alternative fuels regardless. How we do it, when we do it...all open to debate. But the sooner and more aggressive we are about it the better off we'll be. Massive investment in oil or in other means? I'll take the later. I can see it's not popular here. As I've said over and over, I've seen strong personalities on both sides talk about how drilling domestically won't have the effects on our local gas prices that the proponents of drilling would have us believe. Ultimately disagreeing on something like that is reasonable though, it's difficult to forecast even for experts. I know Solyndra, believe me it's all anyone talks about. One company that went bankrupt. And yes, there are others. So be it. It happens. I'll not be asked to defend every bill labeled "Obama" that people on this board hate. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 8, 2012 Author Share Posted March 8, 2012 If there's one thing that Bill O'Reilly has nailed on the head it's his talking points on gas prices. He puts it better than I will given the time I am willing to spend on this post (or probably am capable of) but the bottom line is it's a global market and even if we extract more oil domestically it's still private companies doing it and it still flows into the global market. It'll just end up in a big pot with the rest of the oil. China is willing to pay more than us per barrel, a private company that extracts it has no barriers to sending it over there and getting $5 a gallon. Hell, it's roughly $9 a gallon in Europe right now! So it's not like we're doing terrible. He did put forth an idea about crazy taxes if you send it out, which I'm not sure how practical it would be (and I know we wouldn't like it other nations did that). But the point is...the no presidential candidate can really do anything in the short term and in the long term it's not something that going to necessarily help us relative to world. Actually Bill O-Reilly couldn't be farther from the truth, and as an amazing lack of understanding of how the oil markets work. He believes that the oil companies basically fix the prices, he also happens to believe that we should mandate oil companies to not export any of their products. He basically went Hugo Chavez on us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Actually Bill O-Reilly couldn't be farther from the truth, and as an amazing lack of understanding of how the oil markets work. He believes that the oil companies basically fix the prices, he also happens to believe that we should mandate oil companies to not export any of their products. He basically went Hugo Chavez on us. Haha he did there's no denying that. As for my stance on gas Rob, IDK what to tell ya dude. It's just the way I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 8, 2012 Author Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Very recently Obama and others on the left have stated that they want the price of gas high so people will switch to the mythical "green energy". You know, you could make a more compelling argument if you weren't so rigid against the idea of "green energy". Sure there is a place for alternative energies, and yes it will need to continue to get developed moving forward, having said that, Obama doesn't understand the laws of supply and demand. He says that for those that are proponents of "drill, drill, drill" and that make claims that it would be the silver bullet solution, are basically lying to you. That's complete and utter nonsense. Of course a massive oil drilling program would have an impact on prices, obviously not over the short-term, but you have to start sometime. Edited March 8, 2012 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Haha he did there's no denying that. As for my stance on gas Rob, IDK what to tell ya dude. It's just the way I see. Don't feel bad. No one can explain it. To your credit, you didn't roll out a bunch of junk science and conjecture which is the normal play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 why don't you write the rnc with your idea....it's a sure vote getter I did. But as usual partisan politics played a role and the RNC didn't want to back an idea that former President Clinton would also support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) You know, you could make a more compelling if you weren't so rigid against the idea of "green energy". Sure there is a place for alternative energies, and yes it will need to continue to get developed moving forward, having said that, Obama doesn't understand the laws of supply and demand. He says that for those that are proponents of "drill, drill, drill" and that make claims that it would be the silver bullet solution, are basically lying to you. That's complete and utter nonsense. Of course a massive oil drilling program would have an impact on prices, obviously not over the short-term, but you have to start sometime. You're probably right. I'm actually all for "green energy". I use high pressure fluorescents in outdoor and hard to reach fixtures. I like LEDs and long battery life. I'd even looked into putting solar panels on my house (way too expensive/not efficient). I love energy efficiency. I just get so irritated thinking about how many valuable resources are wasted in the name of this hippy religion parading as science. Edited March 8, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 You're probably right. I'm actually all for "green energy". I use high pressure fluorescents in outdoor and hard to reach fixtures. I like LEDs and long battery life. I'd even looked into putting solar panels on my house (way too expensive/not efficient). I love energy efficiency. I just get so irritated thinking about how many valuable resources are wasted in the name of this hippy religion parading as science. I don't understand what you are referring to here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Actually Bill O-Reilly couldn't be farther from the truth, and as an amazing lack of understanding of how the oil markets work. He believes that the oil companies basically fix the prices, he also happens to believe that we should mandate oil companies to not export any of their products. He basically went Hugo Chavez on us. It would also be helpful that people understood the difference between oil & gasoline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts