Barack Obama

[GeneralGeeWhiz 0]

the 2003 honda civic hybrid advertises 48 on highway, i routinely get 51...HAbut of course

What do you drive? I get 24 on the highway.

[chrozzo 19]

What do you drive? I get 24 on the highway.

i use cruise control about 80% of the time...that helps i believei live in PA where it is mostly 65, i go 70 with cc onand about every 2nd or third fill up i put in one of those engine treatment things.

That's weird, the hybrid's strenth is city driving, not highway. You must drive the speed limit or some other craziness

in city and when im working i get about 42 to 43 normally...i love that auto off of the engine, i freak people out all the time...tell them that the car stalled on a busy intersection, lol

[Balloon guy 158]

in city and when im working i get about 42 to 43 normally...i love that auto off of the engine, i freak people out all the time...tell them that the car stalled on a busy intersection, lol

I actually test drove the hybrid ford suv, forget the name. I drive the expedition now, a whopping 12 mpg. But the hybrids are too wimpy for me, but it's a work thing, need a big cargo space, otherwise I would seriously think about getting the Ford one. I just like the idea of a hybrid car with Vote for Bush bumperstickers all over it. Make them liberals confused.

[chrozzo 19]

I actually test drove the hybrid ford suv, forget the name. I drive the expedition now, a whopping 12 mpg. But the hybrids are too wimpy for me, but it's a work thing, need a big cargo space, otherwise I would seriously think about getting the Ford one. I just like the idea of a hybrid car with Vote for Bush bumperstickers all over it. Make them liberals confused.

haha, yeahI think it's called the Ford Escape Hybrid. Yeah, the honda is a bit wimpy when it comes to space and power, but it is all i need really. I love it, although i do miss my old mercedes. I had a 91 290e, but i would have a few problems with it and the labor and parts were killing me, so the hybrid is probably the exact opposite for those problems.

[DonkSlayer 1]

I agree with Balloon Guy quite a bit on the solutions. I can't for the life of me understand why Ford takes record losses in the rear end instead of making cars that get super fuel efficiency. Chevy has recovered a bit with their campaign about having 20+ vehicles that get 25 mpg or better.

[Untilted 158]

The media is really pushing him and I think Daniel is caught up on the hype. If you want and African American Democrat who is intelligent and not your typical Liberal Democrat, maybe some of you should take a closer look at Harold Ford, Jr. He certainly has more experience than Obama but I don't know if he has any presidential ambitions.

[socalpoker_j 1]

The media is really pushing him and I think Daniel is caught up on the hype. If you want and African American Democrat who is intelligent and not your typical Liberal Democrat, maybe some of you should take a closer look at Harold Ford, Jr. He certainly has more experience than Obama but I don't know if he has any presidential ambitions.

Yes, he comes from a legacy of politicians in TN and has all of the credentials. He is also very intelligent, charismatic, and has a great future ahead of him in politics. He was running pretty even with the Rep. nomination for Senator in their race.I voted Republican in the last election, and for the Gov. here in California, but these "Centrist" Democrats are beginning to get my attention. (My father would not be pleased with that statement). JC Watts is a great example of a fine black Republican.

[Balloon guy 158]

I agree with Balloon Guy quite a bit on the solutions. I can't for the life of me understand why Ford takes record losses in the rear end instead of making cars that get super fuel efficiency. Chevy has recovered a bit with their campaign about having 20+ vehicles that get 25 mpg or better.

I think I may know what Ford was doing.You see I bought Ford stock last year, so of course Ford felt the need to make bad decisions in order to drive the price low enough to get me to sell, which it did.Now I own Sirius, get ready for the 'satelite radio causes cancer' report out soon.

[checkymcfold 0]

Form August 16th.Obama Preaches Fuel Efficiency From the Back Seat of an SUVAt his Town Hall meetings yesterday, Sen. Barack (the-sky-is-falling) Obama lectured everyone at the Metropolis Community Center about gas guzzling.Ignoring the fact that it's August, and generally warm in Illinois, BO (Barack Obama) claimed that "the blame for the world's higher temperature rests on gas guzzling vehicles". His solution: switch to "higher mileage hybrids". Problem is, following his lecture, BO left in his GMC Envoy after "admitting to favoring SUV's".BO's press secretary Tommy Vietor tried to cover up the junior senator's hypocrisy by explaining that what BO "has long advocated is the use of vehicles that are more fuel efficient, including, but not exclusively hybrids." According to Vietor, "the vehicle BO travels in while in Illinois is a Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV), which can (but I guess doesn't) run on e85, a blended fuel made of 85 percent ethanol."However, according to the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition (see here), the GMC's Envoy is not e85 ready.TV coverge

did you click your own link? you can't just add a nice little "according to so and so, with no documentation, and contrary to an official statement by a party involved" and expect your criticism to hold.obama is probably one of the cleanest high-profile candidates for any office on either side of the aisle. you might disagree with his policies, but it's not quite kosher to just make **** up about how he's a hypocrite without doing any research whatsoever.

[checkymcfold 0]

sorry quoting is f-ed up and i can't figure it out.

1) "Global warming" is not accepted science in the first place, it's just a good soundbite, and easier to explain than the full complexity of the issue.

LOL, no. find me an article published in any major scientific journal that doubts the science behind global warning.

2) To the extent that the earth has been warming, it doesn't correlate well with human production of greenhouse gases. So basically, the jury is still out on *if* it's happening, and if it is, why. A hundred years of records means little in the geological record. But let's assume it is eventually confirmed to be a fact and proven to be caused by human activities. Then:

2) yes it does. it pretty ****ing directly correlates. here is a decent article (if you read the linked articles inside it where you're unclear):http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7

3) I love the hypocrisy of politicians who know what's best for those other people (themselves exempted)

right. except gay people.these sorts of statements are utter silliness. of COURSE the job of government is to tell us what to do and what not to do. the only question is to what extent they ought to be able to do it. can i kill people? no, ok, govt. can i steal stuff? no, ok, govt. do i have to drive a hybrid car? can i get married if i'm gay? just because many conservatives use broad language in their answers to the latter two questions does NOT mean that the government is not in the business of legislating morality. it always has been, and always will be, engaged in that enterprise.

4) Ethanol requires more energy to produce than it provides, so trying to cover up using the ethanol defense is silly, since that would lead to *more* greenhouse gases.All-in-all, another bad sign for OB. Score so far: a few plusses, a few minuses.

for now. the thing about ethanol is that if we could clean up its production process, which we are working hard to do and getting progressively more succesful at, then it could conceivably become a much cleaner overall fuel than any form of gasoline. and that's above and beyond the fact that it's not a fossil fuel and is functionally infinitely renewable. supporting its use is not a clear cut "minus" in any sense.

[alf13 0]

Barack might be a very nice guy, tips his dealers well, always brings the beer to the party...etc...etc....BUT PLEASE..STOP CALLING HIM A CENTRIST!!!!!!!!!!

[aucu 3]

Obama is a poker player! That takes him a long way in the right direction.http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2006/10...a3243166002.txtSPRINGFIELD -- U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s decision to consider a run for president isn’t surprising to his old poker buddies. The Democratic senator from Illinois was described Monday as a “conservative” card player who kept his hand close to his vest.“He wasn’t going to declare his hand until he had his cards and had a chance of winning,” said Denny Jacobs of East Moline, who served with Obama when the two were members of the Illinois State Senate. “He usually kicked my butt.”Jacobs, a Democrat, speculated that Obama arrived at his presidential decision — announced Sunday — after assessing that he had the right combination of cards to win the jackpot.“If he played his hand, he usually had a winner,” Jacobs said. “That’s what I learned about the other side of Barack Obama.”Obama, who served in the Illinois Senate from 1997 until he left for Washington D.C. in 2004, said Sunday he was abandoning his earlier vow to serve out his six-year term."That was how I was thinking at the time," he told “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert. "Given the response I’ve been getting the last several months, I have thought about the possibility."My focus is on ‘06 . . . After Nov. 7, I’ll sit down and consider it."Obama has been traversing the country raising money for Democratic congressional hopefuls. He also has launched a promotional tour for his book, "The Audacity of Hope" and recently appeared on the “The Oprah Winfrey Show.”State Sen. Bill Brady, a Bloomington Republican, said a group of senators from both sides of the partisan aisle would often meet on Wednesday nights after a day of doing business in Springfield.Seated around a card table at a lobbyist’s office in downtown Springfield, the lawmakers would lay bets that would allow a winner to walk away with $100 in winnings on a good night.Brady said Obama’s card-playing style didn’t match his more liberal voting record.“He was very conservative at the card table,” agreed Brady.By contrast, Jacobs said he and Brady, both considered conservatives in their respective parties, were nothing like Obama in their approach to the game.“It got us in trouble sometimes,” Jacobs said.

[DonkSlayer 1]

I'm sold.

[alf13 0]

I'm sold.

I'm not. Now I don't like him since we come to find out he is a nut peddling nit.

[hblask 1]

sorry quoting is f-ed up and i can't figure it out.LOL, no. find me an article published in any major scientific journal that doubts the science behind global warning.

I read Science News regularly, and while it appears that the climate is warming, there is still no consensus that this is anything other than the random fluctuations that have been going on since the Earth first formed.

2) yes it does. it pretty ****ing directly correlates. here is a decent article (if you read the linked articles inside it where you're unclear):http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7

Notice that the climb begins before the industrial revolution, and is not really that closely related. There simply is no agreement that current temperature changes are caused by human activity.

right. except gay people.these sorts of statements are utter silliness. of COURSE the job of government is to tell us what to do and what not to do. the only question is to what extent they ought to be able to do it.

Oh, I'm sorry, I was talking about the US, not some totalitarian state. Sorry to confuse you.

can i kill people? no, ok, govt. can i steal stuff? no, ok, govt. do i have to drive a hybrid car? can i get married if i'm gay? just because many conservatives use broad language in their answers to the latter two questions does NOT mean that the government is not in the business of legislating morality. it always has been, and always will be, engaged in that enterprise.

Ah, so killing someone is now equivalent to driving a car that gets 8 mpg worse than your neighbors. Sure.Gov't is to protect us from force and fraud. The exact definitions of those terms are debateable, but "driving a car that gets worse mileage than somebody else" clearly is neither.

for now. the thing about ethanol is that if we could clean up its production process, which we are working hard to do and getting progressively more succesful at, then it could conceivably become a much cleaner overall fuel than any form of gasoline. and that's above and beyond the fact that it's not a fossil fuel and is functionally infinitely renewable. supporting its use is not a clear cut "minus" in any sense.

If it takes *more* energy to produce it than it can produce, it will always cause more pollution and always cost more. See: True story on Ethanol

[mk 11]

I read Science News regularly, and while it appears that the climate is warming, there is still no consensus that this is anything other than the random fluctuations that have been going on since the Earth first formed.

LOL. Science News. Attempting to refute EVERY PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC ARTICLE EVER WRITTEN on the topic (where there is UNIVERSAL consensus that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels) by saying you read Science Times is basically stating you that you trust journalists over scientists. The ONLY reason there is now a global warming "debate" is because in the mid-late 90s the major energy conglomerates began a misinformation advertising campaign. They've spent literally billions of dollars in an attempt to frame global warming as part of the planet's natural, cyclical temperature change. Sadly, it's worked on people like you. It's like Charlie Parker said, "there's some people...if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." I imagine if some libertarian nits started saying "this whole 'the sky is blue' thing is a farce; it's just harmful to the economy," you'd hop right on board with them.

Barack might be a very nice guy, tips his dealers well, always brings the beer to the party...etc...etc....BUT PLEASE..STOP CALLING HIM A CENTRIST!!!!!!!!!!

What is your definition of a centrist? And give a few examples of politicians you would label centrist.

[DonkSlayer 1]

LOL. Science News. Attempting to refute EVERY PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC ARTICLE EVER WRITTEN on the topic (where there is UNIVERSAL consensus that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels)

dude, they don't universally say that. Emissions are contributing to warming..but it is likely we are/would be in a warming cycle regardless, and Cow Poop contributes as well. Saying it's 1 degree warmer just and only because of the burning of fossil fuels is misinformed.

[Balloon guy 158]

I thought Algore invented global warming???

[blueodum 0]

Americans never cease to amaze me at their distrust of universal health insurance. This despite the fact that the US spends a greater part of its GDP on healthcare than most other industrialized countries - and its populace has worse health indicators.I can only surmise that this is due to ideological factors that see any sort of government intervention as intrinsically bad, no matter how well it works. Saying it's 1 degree warmer just and only because of the burning of fossil fuels is misinformed.It's irrelevant anyway.If it's agreed that the earth is warming and that this is a problem and that humans can do something about it - that's all we need to know.

[Balloon guy 158]

Americans never cease to amaze me at their distrust of universal health insurance. This despite the fact that the US spends a greater part of its GDP on healthcare than most other industrialized countries - and its populace has worse health indicators.I can only surmise that this is due to ideological factors that see any sort of government intervention as intrinsically bad, no matter how well it works.

It is my opinion that the only reason Canada can have free health care is because of their luck to be right next to the most powerful nation in the world, that they know isn't going to invade. If Canada had to spend money on defense like many other countries, they would never be able to afford free health care. This is true of most socialized societies, the capitalist democracies are spending the money prtoecting the world, freeing up resources to try social experiments. And when there is a need for the best and quickest, The USA is still the first choice amongst the wealthy.Our experience with governement involvement in healthcare has been for the price to skyrocket, with fewer services available. Why increase this trend?Truth is when we have the revolution and line up all the lawyers, things will go back to a more reasonable level.just my opinionAnd global warming is caused by the sun.

[alf13 0]

What is your definition of a centrist? And give a few examples of politicians you would label centrist.

Here are a few:Colin PowellMark WarnerDavid DreierJoe LiebermanGeorge PatakiRudy GiulianiMary LandreuBill Nelson (used to be a centrist...he has lost it in the senate..now he is just another liberal)There are a few more..it's early in the morning for me and my brain doesn't work so good at this time.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Americans never cease to amaze me at their distrust of universal health insurance. This despite the fact that the US spends a greater part of its GDP on healthcare than most other industrialized countries - and its populace has worse health indicators.I can only surmise that this is due to ideological factors that see any sort of government intervention as intrinsically bad, no matter how well it works.

No. Did you even see the study or did someone tell you about it? The rich people that can afford the best healthcare insurance in the world are still sicker than their peers around the world! It's not the gov. (or lack thereof), it's that Americans eat and live like shyt. Plus, I don't want to wait in line for 3 months if I want surgery and can pay for it . I also want to be worked on by a doctor who is making too much money to mess up.

It's irrelevant anyway.If it's agreed that the earth is warming and that this is a problem and that humans can do something about it - that's all we need to know.

Well, first, the misstatement is not irrelevant as it was incorrect and could wrongly spread a misleading notion. Second, if by "do something about it" you mean "lessen the impact by adopting green policies and killing cows", then your're right about that.

Here are a few:Colin PowellMark WarnerDavid DreierJoe LiebermanGeorge PatakiRudy GiulianiMary LandreuBill Nelson (used to be a centrist...he has lost it in the senate..now he is just another liberal)There are a few more..it's early in the morning for me and my brain doesn't work so good at this time.

I like pretty much all of them...was pretty disappointed when Warner said he wasn't running. America needs a centrist party.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

did you click your own link? you can't just add a nice little "according to so and so, with no documentation, and contrary to an official statement by a party involved" and expect your criticism to hold.obama is probably one of the cleanest high-profile candidates for any office on either side of the aisle. you might disagree with his policies, but it's not quite kosher to just make **** up about how he's a hypocrite without doing any research whatsoever.

The text is from one artical and the link is a different one. LinkHappy now

[brvheart 1,752]

This is just like Sean Hannity saying it's hypocritical for politicians who prefer to limit emissions to also fly in personal jets...you need something so you use what's out there. Do you think a prominent black politician should travel in a little Ford Escape Hybrid? Let's put Bush in one of those and see how long it takes for some loonie to take a pot shot at it.

If you think a GMC Envoy is some type of super bullet proof mini tank, you've never seen an Envoy. They are a smallish SUV very similar to the Ford Explorer.

[DonkSlayer 1]

If you think a GMC Envoy is some type of super bullet proof mini tank, you've never seen an Envoy. They are a smallish SUV very similar to the Ford Explorer.

Ive seen them and I know what you're saying, but we don't know if it's been modified, and Envoy > Escape. At least he bought American.