Obama: Inflating Tires is the Solution
Barack Obama said inflating your tires will increase gas mileage and therefore, we don’t need to drill. What?! Again, dodging the issues.
This is getting very frustrating. When will he learn? The American people are realizing it. The polls are showing it. He obviously hasn’t yet.
And he still argues that the surge failed, even though he deleted content off the website, since he hasn’t completely made up his mind.
FLIP FLOP.
…more to come.
read more | digg story
About Michael Ubbens
Mike Ubbens is a senior Political Science and Secondary Education major at Susquehanna University. Mike is originally from Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania. Last year he served as the State Treasurer for the federation, and is currently the Chairman of the Susquehanna University College Republicans. Upon graduation, Mike hopes to attend law school.
Tags: Energy, Mike Ubbens, Obama, oil
This entry was posted
on Friday, August 1st, 2008 at 12:09 pm by Michael Ubbens
and is filed under Viewpoint.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Leave a Reply
August 1st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
actually, if everyone fully inflated their tires, it would save more oil than would be produced by offshore drilling. that was obama’s point. but i guess you didn’t understand what he was saying.
and it’s funny that you use this occasion to call obama a “flip flop[per]” when it’s mccain who has flip-flopped on the offshore drilling question. last may, just three weeks before he made his current drilling proposal, mccain was against lifting the ban on offshore drilling.
and the surge? obama’s been consistent on that as well. it seems like you’re just throwing all the stupidest criticisms against obama against the wall to see which ones stick.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:28 pm
it seems like you’re just throwing all the stupidest criticisms against obama against the wall to see which ones stick.
Noz, that’s not “criticism” he’s flinging against the wall…
I always give these guys the benefit of the doubt and assume they’re just being good apparatchiks, because so much of what they say is transparently bone-headed. I can’t believe that anyone computer literate enough to post on a blog can’t use Google and realize that what they’re writing is, well, idiotic.
August 2nd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
HA! Obama’s stance on the surge has gone back and forth between working and not working more than anyone else.
JULY 15…”I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there.”
JULY 22: Katie Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops … help the situation in Iraq?
Obama: Katie, as … you’ve asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There’s no doubt.
Hmmmmmm.
And regarding oil drilling, nearly 70% of Americans support such a measure, and yet the Democrat-controlled congress doesn’t want to bring it for a vote. Sounds like they’re taking the will of the people to me, doesn’t it?
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
JULY 15…”I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there.”
JULY 22: Katie Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops … help the situation in Iraq?
Obama: Katie, as … you’ve asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There’s no doubt.
i guess you didn’t notice that these two statements don’t contradict one another. i mean, i don’t think the surge solved the sectarian violence (the beginning of the surge was accompanied by the largest spike in shia-sunni since the u.s. invaded. it didn’t die down until the various baghdad neighborhoods were ethnically (sectarianally?) cleansed), and yet i also believe that the surge did help reduce some of the violence in the country. that’s not a contradiction because not all of the violence is sectarian.
And regarding oil drilling, nearly 70% of Americans support such a measure, and yet the Democrat-controlled congress doesn’t want to bring it for a vote. Sounds like they’re taking the will of the people to me, doesn’t it?
so what? about 70% of the american public thinks thinks the iraq war was a mistake and wants to pull u.s. troops out of the country. about 2/3 of americans want universal health care guaranteed by the government. does that you believe those positions are automatically correct?
the bottom line is that offshore drilling is nothing but an oil company giveaway. it won’t start producing oil until 2017, way too far in the future to have any effect on the price at the pump today and will produce so little additional oil, we would save more oil just by keeping our tires inflated (800,000 barrels according to the u.s. department of energy vs. ony 200,000 expected yield from all untapped offshore oil sources). plus, drilling is really bad for the environment.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
70% of America thinks Bush handled the war poorly; not that removing Saddam was a mistake. And 70% of Americans don’t want universal healthcare, they want healthcare to be less complicated so they can get the coverage they want without the hassles that are currently there (thanks to…the government!)
And tell me where you get your numbers from. The United States is sitting on as much oil as the middle east according to estimated numbers. 430 BILLION barrels… http://tinyurl.com/5ehjbo
Many Americans have heard about oil shale, a rock that burns and has the potential to produce 800 billion barrels of super-clean fuel right here at home. That’s three times as much as Saudi Arabia has in oil reserves.
Ecologists have stymied new refineries since 1975. A potential 200-year supply of oil shale remains shuttered in the Rockies. Carbon-free atomic power plants draw green ire. Hydroelectric dams? How dare humans inconvenience fish?
The green-Left’s mantra is “Renewables!” Splendid. Imagine that we tripled solar, wind, and geothermal output. They then would generate a whopping 2.2 percent of U.S. energy supplies.
Too long from now? Currently mired in red tape, Chevron’s Destin Dome field off Florida could produce within four years. Southern California deposits could yield within five to 10 years. Besides, as Confucius said: “The best time to plant a tree is 10 years ago. The second best time is now.”
Anyway, let me know.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
It’s my new policy not to debate energy policy with people who a) Don’t know anything about it and b) are unwilling to learn.
Smitty, you’re situated squarly within both camps.
I wonder which comes first; I forget completely about this site or you guys say things so aggregiously wrong that I’m forced to respond.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:00 am
John, I’ve met many people like you, in fact… you may even know me. In my observations I find that many times when someone has to begin their conversations with “you don’t understand”, or something similar, it turns out to be quite the opposite of what you imply. It’s quite common in that situation for the person who has all the answers to be close minded and in many cases so narrowly focused on their own point of view that they miss a much larger picture, that they are the one’s flying in the face of facts, and in many cases incorrect on a number of points they feel so strongly about.
Now John, I’ve watched closely as many of your debates have unfolded. And while you’re clearly good at debating, you’ve definitely used that to convince yourself that you’re correct when in fact many times you’ve only angled your way into a different debate or steered the debate toward your ‘facts’. You stick strongly to topics in which you have a canned set of ‘facts’ that you have practiced defending, and also dismiss things you cannot refute as stupid, and those you cannot debate as “people who know nothing” or “don’t understand”.
Ya know John, most people continue to develop their opinions over a lifetime, which is why many people go from liberals to conservatives as they get older and their priorities, lives and experiences change. But others so clearly jaded by their own ability to rationalize reality decide they’re ‘correct’ early on in life, and never allow for adjustment or opposing views. These people ultimately struggle later in life as they cannot adapt to changes in society, or their own life. Maybe you’re current state of ‘all knowing’ will in fact not alienate you from others as you continue through life and are forced to interact with all of these ‘incorrect’ and ‘know nothing’ people but either way, at least you can say you’ve met Bob Barker.
August 6th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I find that many times when someone has to begin their conversations with “you don’t understand”, or something similar, it turns out to be quite the opposite of what you imply.
CasualObserver, what you’re missing is that this is not how I began any conversations here. If you’ve been casually observing, you might have noticed some of the CRs and I had reasonably extended debates regarding energy issues. It was after these discussions, not before, that I concluded that none of them (that I’ve seen here thus far) have any idea what they’re talking about. You’re confusing my observation for prejudice.
Maybe you’re current state of ‘all knowing’ will in fact not alienate you from others as you continue through life and are forced to interact with all of these ‘incorrect’ and ‘know nothing’ people but either way, at least you can say you’ve met Bob Barker.
Can’t…resist…mocking…incorrect use of contraction “you are”…in place of…possessive form of you (your).
Actually, I’ve never met Bob Barker. Tell me though, CasualObserver, do we in fact know each other?
August 6th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I’m actually glad you came back, John. Your post actually greatly supports my point. Thank you.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
CasualObserver, why so coy?
Are you a Drexel student or recent graduate? Don’t be a tease!