Oil.

Who thinks that in 4 or 5 years people will be saying this? I know everybody gives him shit for everything he does and he has the lowest approval rating (save congress lol)

Somehow I think people are going to look back and say positive things b/c of the catalyst of getting us off oil. I hope McCain or Obama will not screw it up. Sounds like a lot of electric/hybrid cars are finally being put into production at the moment, and we're finally going to get off of using so much oil pretty soon.

http://www.teslamotors.com/

http://www.aptera.com/

etc..

6/5/2008 5:33:23 PM

wut?

6/5/2008 5:57:57 PM

404bushNotFound, obamaWillGetCreditForThis

6/5/2008 5:59:27 PM

i dont think bush will ever be looked at that favorably as time passes...call it a hunch or liberal bias...whatever floats your boat

6/5/2008 5:59:53 PM

The only thing that will get us off oil is running out of oil

6/5/2008 6:12:08 PM

when did Bush do anything, at all, to encourage electric cars or anything? We're further from these technologies now than we were in 2000.

6/5/2008 6:17:19 PM

i was never big on electric...yeah i know i dont drive over 70 miles in a day anyway but it just never caught on with me

[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 6:20 PM. Reason : i remember watching oreilly in 2000 and they said in 5 years fuel cells would be everywhere]

6/5/2008 6:19:46 PM

Quote :

"when did Bush do anything, at all, to encourage electric cars or anything?"

He invaded Iraq.

6/5/2008 6:27:47 PM

lol wut?

If you believe this, then you must also believe that Al Gore and Bill Clinton invented the internet.

6/5/2008 6:42:04 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

THIS THREAD.

TEH LOLOZ

6/5/2008 6:45:56 PM

remember how when Clinton left office in 2000 (Jan 2001) he was hated, and now everybody loves him?

im just saying

6/5/2008 6:56:53 PM

Quote :

"He invaded Iraq."

Quite true. The global instability resulting from some of our fine work has caused oil prices to go nuts, and our insistence to purchase cheap products and services from developing nations overseas has resulted in economic booms that have caused competition for oil to go up an insane amount. With demand soaring for oil, and supplies not really soaring at all, prices are going crazy. With oil prices higher than most people thought would be possible in the near-term, we now have a market that is rapidly changing to cope with $100+/barrel oil. All we needed was a president to go kick over sandcastles in some brown peoples' countries.

6/5/2008 7:26:45 PM

its a shame gas has gone up about $1.20 a gallon since Pelosi and friends took over Washington

6/5/2008 7:28:21 PM

Quote :

"The global instability"

wait, so whats the difference between now and when clinton was in charge? or even reagan?

can you name a time in the past 50 years when there hasn't been an enemy of the United States threatening us constantly?

you people

[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 7:29 PM. Reason : .]

6/5/2008 7:29:00 PM

Quote :

"remember how when Clinton left office in 2000 (Jan 2001) he was hated, and now everybody loves him?"

no...dont remember him being hated...remember him having like 69% approval or some shit...and no...i dont remember everyone loving him now

6/5/2008 7:29:41 PM

Goddam

DNL just pwnt Twista, and good.

6/5/2008 8:24:09 PM

you're right dnl, you don't remember

6/5/2008 8:32:47 PM

Quote :

"Clinton left office with an approval rating at 65%, the highest end of office rating of any President since World War II."

6/5/2008 8:49:57 PM

thats cause most of the people willing to spend time to answer an opinion POLL probably also cheated on their significant others

6/5/2008 8:52:43 PM

admit it, troll, you just got the slapdown. now quit embarrassing yourself, and move along.

6/5/2008 9:03:47 PM

qntmfred probably skewed it.

that's why ALL the democrats are ahead in the POLLS and always LOSE in the real election



BOOOOHOOOO WWAAAAAAAAAHHHH

6/5/2008 9:05:39 PM

I thought maybe Rat was just a serious right-wing guy who watches the O'Reilly Factor too much at first, then I figured he had to be a brilliantly done alias, ironically challenging the political beliefs on both sides of the aisle.

I'm pretty sure he's serious, though. And I feel kinda bad for the guy at the same time I hope whatever he has isn't catching...I think he may be either completely insane or else have some sort of medical condition that turns your brain into moss.

I feel like we can say safely, though, that we probably won't remember someone who suggested we clear-cut and drill the shit out of one of the last unspoiled wilderness areas anywhere in search of oil, for getting us off of oil.

[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 9:15 PM. Reason : Non-constructive.]

[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 9:16 PM. Reason : F being constructive, this is ludicrous.]

6/5/2008 9:13:02 PM

Quote :

"BOOOOHOOOO WWAAAAAAAAAHHHH"

oh, yes, how clever of you, Rat .... i'll bet you stand in front of the mirror and gaze at yourself for long periods of time.

anyhow... back to the thread. now lets see:

"George W. Bush's foreign and domestic policy is SO BAD... that we're isolated from the entire energy producing countries of the world, and price of oil skyrockets like never imagined, so we finally get off our asses and develop alternate-energy solutions like we should have done 30 years ago. Therefore history will recognize Bush as not a bumbling foreign policy dunce who couldn't find his ass with two hands and a map, but actually a shrewd environmentally-conscious genius who tricked the american energy firms to devote more capital to R&D"

is that about right?



i'd nominate this for "Stupidest Thread of the Year", but its not even worthwhile enough to be recognized that way. How about "Most Mindnumbingly Unamusing and Laughably Ignorant Thread of the Year"?

Closer, perhaps.

But really, all this thread deserves is to just fall of the bottom of the page.




[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 9:17 PM. Reason : ]

6/5/2008 9:14:33 PM

lol. i love how a guy like me can wad your panties into several knots just because i try to give 1 ounce of credit to this administration

if the country is so bad why don't you move to canada? or mexico? or just jump in the ocean. it's that bad i know.

6/5/2008 9:17:23 PM

no i have a new plan.

im gonna stock up on weapons and ammunition and wait for the revolution.

6/5/2008 9:18:30 PM

republischmoe

btw better stock up soon cause depending on who gets elected...

6/5/2008 9:19:38 PM

If you gave credit for something that made a damn lick of sense, I'm sure someone would agree with you. I'm actually trying to think of something we can credit the Bush administration with that's positive.

I guess they were there for the last few years of development of the new lasers for the military, even though they pretty much share credit for that with Congress and the other presidents who've helped fund research into them...

Supported corn-ethanol...kind of...except that's also negatively impacting food prices and causing riots, as well as being a relatively inefficient way of producing alcohol.

I don't know, Rat, if you throw something good out there, I'll back you on it.

6/5/2008 9:21:34 PM

^^ maybe i should have said i'll be a counter-revolutionary, to help offset the crackpot Christian fascists who are increasingly inserting their death-worshipping tendrils into the mechanisms of our government.




[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 9:22 PM. Reason : ]

6/5/2008 9:22:21 PM

for one thing he didnt raise taxes, he cut them

i dunno about yall, but thats a pretty fucking good thing

Quote :

"Christian fascists who are increasingly inserting their death-worshipping tendrils into the mechanisms of our government."

increasingly? it is what it always has been

6/5/2008 9:22:29 PM

^^ the great part abou schmoe is that he's a closet republican. he's too witty to be clowning around with the homo crowd all day

it is nice of you think of me hourly creating those suspend threads on a daily basis while you wake up and bttting them while jerking off to the oreilly factors highest ratings on all of cable tv



now back on topic: i mean who's administration are we going to credit for FINALLY getting americans to stop buying the gas guzzlers????

obamamasitas?

[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 9:26 PM. Reason : .]

6/5/2008 9:24:48 PM

Quote :

"for one thing he didnt raise taxes, he cut them"

yeah, great.

instead of tax-and-spend, we got cut-and-spend.

what is it now? $US 12 Million a day? over $US 1 Trillion total? just to settle the feud between House Bush and House Hussein? while we sell the farm to China, to pay for it?

while our infrastructure decays, the war contractors and energy barons make record profit. meanwhile the poor and middle class collectively shoulder the tax burden and the debt of the nation.





[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 9:28 PM. Reason : ]

6/5/2008 9:26:24 PM

^do we owe you money or something? did bush steal a bunch of your money that you're suffering for now??



guess you gotta trade that 10mpg Tahoe in soon.

6/5/2008 9:27:48 PM

hardly.

i bike to work. 20 miles each way.

which reminds me, i got to change clothes and hit the road

6/5/2008 9:29:50 PM

yeah because W personally wrote all the bills that sponsor alternative energy and personally did research in all the labs the past 8 years.

also, no other president especially if democrat would have encouraged the transition either [/sarcasm]. Not that i am a big democrat fan but i think the push for alternative energy would have happened sooner had a democrat been in office. Did not Reagan cut funding for a lot of the alternative fuel initiatives enacted under Carter?

If you want to blow the trumpet on all the great things Bush has done then so be it; even if this includes Iraq because you 100% support the war. However, i would not claim his position on oil and alternative energy as being one of his big accomplishments. Unless record profits for US oil companies is an accomplishment we should commend Bush for.

[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 9:31 PM. Reason : l]

6/5/2008 9:30:19 PM

Quote :

"i bike to work. 20 miles each way."

gg

6/5/2008 9:31:48 PM

Quote :

"i remember watching oreilly in 2000 and they said in 5 years fuel cells would be everywhere] "

Please find proof of him saying that b/c I don't for a second believe it.

Quote :

"Supported corn-ethanol...kind of...except that's also negatively impacting food prices and causing riots, as well as being a relatively inefficient way of producing alcohol."

This is in pretty much NO way good for anyone but farmers. 10% ethanol in all gasoline makes every vehicle's engine less fuel efficient, not to mention the fuel more expensive. It requires too much energy to make the ethanol. Prices for food have been increasing at an alarming rate.

[Edited on June 6, 2008 at 12:17 PM. Reason : k]

6/6/2008 12:17:23 PM

I just want to post here to say that I hate polls. I mean how can they ask 100 people or whatever and say that is what the majority think? They never asked me about Clinton then or Bush now.

6/7/2008 2:31:38 AM

Quote :

"now back on topic: i mean who's administration are we going to credit for FINALLY getting americans to stop buying the gas guzzlers????"

I find it ironic that supposed "conservative" is so quick to give credit to the government for the potential impending reduction in oil consumption instead of the market.

6/7/2008 6:31:13 AM

George W Bush: The President who's ineptitude caused us to accidentally stumble into starting to think about getting off of oil.

6/7/2008 7:58:57 AM

haha

George W. Bush: The president who showed us what would happen if we didn't start to think about getting off of oil, and we all said 'holy shit, that sucks'

6/7/2008 9:35:46 AM

I mean somebody had to do it.

6/7/2008 11:56:52 AM

George W. Bush: The President who finally got us off.

6/7/2008 12:00:55 PM

6/7/2008 12:02:18 PM

sorry, schmoe. the poor aren't footing the bill. you have to actually PAY TAXES in order to do that.

6/7/2008 6:28:06 PM

I'd think clinton would be the president who got somebody off...

6/7/2008 8:05:27 PM

Quote :

"wait, so whats the difference between now and when clinton was in charge? or even reagan? can you name a time in the past 50 years when there hasn't been an enemy of the United States threatening us constantly?"

Clinton and Reagan didn't invade a country in the middle east. Bush happens to have fallen into a perfect storm of politics for his two terms. He's got an Iranian asshole who keeps riding his dick and pushing his buttons (which prompts us to make a hawkish response to Iran's continued insistence upon having lots of processed fissile material), he's got a buncha crazy Israelis elbowing him to do something about them (and they're shouting about bombing Iran's nuclear facilities after they bombed a suspected Syrian facility), he's got two wars that have partially destabilized an already volatile region that produces a large portion of the world's oil supply, and he had to ride through the worst attack on this country in decades which caused everything in this country to go absolutely mad (politics are now even more pointless, and the media has become so extremely sensationalized that any random government employee can say "oil prices might go up" and it'll spark a $10 price surge in the cost of oil per barrel).

The global economic situation is also completely different from both of those presidential terms, which is why the global political situation can be more stable than it was back then and still result in market panics that are worse than what was experienced back then. Bush is no more worth thanking than the Chinese and Indian governments for expanding their reliance on oil, or for the media for giving over-the-top coverage to every explosion bigger than an ant fart in oil producing countries.

Bush has done more than people give him credit for, but he'd be more likely to get credit for helping to reduce the spread of AIDS in Africa than he would get credit for ending the Nation's reliance on oil as an energy source.

I have a feeling this is yet another of those "this is my idea and if you disagree i'm going to troll you" threads that keep plaguing the soap box (although really that's 80% of what the soap box tends to be anyway).

6/8/2008 6:46:24 AM

Reagan had a shitload of nukes pointed at him. Don't even begin to say there wasn't a worldwide threat.

nice. love how you liberals always immediately witch hunt anybody with an idea against you.

[Edited on June 8, 2008 at 8:32 PM. Reason : .]

6/8/2008 8:31:37 PM

6/8/2008 8:45:24 PM

^ This is true.

Haha, I'm not a liberal, that's laughable. You're just being narrow-sighted and trying to defend an aspect of George W. Bush's presidency that he will not be celebrated for.

The worldwide threat when Reagan around was an entirely different animal to what we're facing today. The economic situation was entirely different. Reagan didn't have oil prices that were growing exponentially due to rapid growth in Asia combined with a volatile political situation in the middle east, he came into office with a destabilized market due in part to price controls and due in part to a supply-side instability and left with a market that had stabilized after a price decrease due to overproduction. Now we have expanding demand with a lack of increase of supply due to resistance to produce oil by less economical methods (in part due to increasing resistance due to that recurring catchphrase "global warming"), and we aren't dealing with a market with price controls but we are dealing with a new issue of rampant speculation (which we don't know how to deal with yet).

If I was calling for a witch hunt against you I'd be drawing unfounded parallels to past events which don't really have any relevance to the matter at hand but, when properly sensationalized, sound justifiable as some reason for an argument against some bullshit at hand. As it is, you are the one drawing parallels to past economic and political situations that don't mesh with what we're dealing with now. Building up your opposition into a boogeyman when nobody agrees with you because your argument is flawed is not going to win you this thread.

6/8/2008 8:59:07 PM