As the energy crisis becomes more and more of a real problem, and Americans truly become attuned to this issue, "absurd" ideas like maintaining a proper tire pressure will be more and more impossible to mock.

But, for now, game on, I suppose. Who the mockery benefits is beyond me.

Yeah. Plus, Republican obstructionism when the congress tried unsuccessfully last week to pass a bill that would've helped to get a handle on the rampant oil speculation that escalated price at the pump over the last 6-8 months. Surprisingly, 61 reps voted "yea", while 135    rep(tiles) voted "nay": we need to work on getting more dems in congress to fix the problem of speculation-induced gas price increases.

This week the hard-core congressional friends-of-BigOil are grand-standing (drill here - drill now is a Gingrich slogan), with the help of "opinion-advocacy" radio, to promote drilling programs that won't work.

Find out how YOUR rep voted here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-540

 

if drilling won't work, let's stop all onshore drilling.  no drilling anywhere anytime.  drilling is just a gimmick.  i know we've been doing it for more than one hundred years, which just goes to show how we've been hoodwinked.

IMO, proposed drilling programs won't produce within the short-term, meaning the proposed wells can't remedy the current misery-at-the-pump. Also, if off-shore wells eventually do come in, what is to stop BigOil from selling that oil to China? McSame? Give me a break...

Have you ever been to the oil patch? (I have). In Texas, the oil wells are drying up, while the formerly-sweet-water aquifers above are polluted with brine from careless oil-field operations from the 1930s through the 1970s. The place has become more of a wasteland than before oil was discovered there. This is a problem throughout the Permian Basin. Elsewhere in North America, high sulfur concentrations are the problem with the oil. Google "high sulfur content" and "acid rain", not just for the "oil patch", but for "oil shale" too. You can't solve the problem of acid rain without limiting sulfur ... nitric acid is an inevitable byproduct of combustion, but sulfuric acid need not be. You'll find that your advocation of "drill here, drill now" is a total abdication of environmental protections against acid rain that in the past has impacted regions beyond US borders. Get back to me on that with what you find, won't you?

Frankly, I think you understand these distinctions, and you are taking a cheap shot in your reply to me, probably because you also recognize that the proposed drilling programs won't address our energy problems in the short term, but you wish to use this talking point of Newt's to spin the runup to the 2008 Presidential election your way.

As far as the actual cause of the current energy crisis, I blame the Gingrich republicans of the 90's congresses, and the republican congresses of the 2000s, who all, upon obtaining power, failed to lead the US into a future where our energy needs would have been met. They were more worried about a BJ.

And if everyone did it, that'd be 2.8 billion gallons of gas.

Wow.  Talk about a junk data statement if I've ever heard one.  This 2.8B gallon statement is assuming that all 200,000,000 cars in the United States are losing 3.3% of fuel economy from under pressured tires.  This factors in that all 4 tires are underinflated by over 8psi.

However, according to a study by the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration, 27% of cars & 32% of trucks/vans/suvs have 1 under inflated tire.  Also, only 8% of cars have all 4 under inflated tires.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3072627/

To actually read between the lines, and take a real data figure assuming like the NYT that all the cars had 3.3% loss if underinflated, you'd come to the conclusion that we may be wasting 0.224B barrels per year.

Talk about misinformation.

Also, its quite common in areas that encounter harsh winters to actually slightly deflate their tires to gain extra traction by increasing their tire to road contact patch.

so it's not a good idea to keep your tires at the proper inflation?   not worth the trouble?

First, I never claimed that, so don't try to bait me with something I didn't say.

Second, the data cited by the NYT and used as information by MMFA is wildly incorrect, and that's all I was saying.

but the point is republicans ridiculed obama for suggesting that proper tire inflation will reduce energy usage, according to the washington times.  it does. 

Of course it has the ability to reduce energy usage...but more importantly to each person, they may get a few mpg more if they properly check their tires. This is something that has been said for decades.  But to advertise this as if its something that effects all 200M cars is a far stretch of the imagination and needs to be accounted for - after all, this is supposed to be a site for misinformation in the media, and clearly is just that the way MM and NYT attempted to represent this.

 

Of course it has the ability to reduce energy usage...but more importantly to each person, they may get a few mpg more if they properly check their tires.

So you are in agreement with Barack Obama's suggestion that individual consumers may reduce their gas costs by keeping their tires properly inflated and their cars tuned. Glad you agree...

Now, please show me where Barack Obama has ever made this fuel-saving tip the centerpiece of his energy plan.

Yes I agree.  But to use it as a political ploy is ridiculous.  Its been widely known for 30 years.  This isn't a new piece of information out there.

I've cited it twice already in this thread.

He was asked a question by a women as to what she could do to help out.

Then he could have made a simple answer, without talking about oil drilling.

He said if everyone did that it would benefit more than offshore drilling.

Exactly - that's a false statement.  Even if you use the bloated and false statistics stated here by the New York Daily News of 2.8B bpy,estimated drilling is at 200,000bpd, or roughly 7+B bpy.

Do your math again.

His name isnt MATH101, its SCIENCE 101, Loonz. Give him a break.

More like Pseudoscience to me...

maybe i'm missing it, but isn't that 2.8 billion figure in gallons? 

Whoops, yes.  Roughly 6.6M bpy (42gal per barrel).  Just a fraction of estimated 200000bpd estimates of OCS drilling.

That begs the question: How much gasoline does a barrel of oil produce?

Tell him about Google. He can look it up there.

One barrel (42 gallons) of crude oil, when refined, yields approximately 19.6 gallons of finished motor gasoline. The remainder of the barrel yields distillate fuel oil, residual fuel oil, jet fuel, and other products.

Know what else has been "widely known" for 30 years? Soybeans. Eat any form of those 15-20 years ago? Bet not.

Wonder why they continued to grow them then...

You have literally no point here.

coming from someone citing soybeans?

It's known as an "analogy". You use those a lot, in, well, science.

Point being that simply because the idea of proper tire pressure is a 30 year "old" one, it doesn't devalue its importance, as you're so obviously want to do.

Again, that argument literally has no point.

Again, havent devalued it.  But I will not advocate it as a substitute for increasing supply.  Thats just silly.

Well, Pseudoscientist, your side is mocking it big time. Why is that so if it isn't important?

in fact, i did eat soybeans 30 years ago.  they made structured vegetable protein.  also, they use it as animal feed, and for many other purposes.  that's why they grew it.

 -- Of course it has the ability to reduce energy usage...This is something that has been said for decades. -- scienceguy

Correctamundo...pardon the polishing of my second language...I don't discount everything Obama says.

But back to Obama and the link provided by mmfa. Why stop with inflating your tires? Their source easily identifies $.76/gallon savings by following the simple steps for your car. Geez, makes me wonder what else I didn't know...other than mullets are no longer in style.

Obama has solved the fuel price crisis with his simple wisdom...quite impressive. It's not too late for Obama's summer's advice of staying out of the sun, wearing a hat and light colored clothing to avoid heat related health problems.

And of course he should get on the ball for this winter...don't forget your mittens, always dress in layers, and heavens to Betsy keep that hat on.

The man's intellect is really quite impressive...so quit running down the anointed one! 

 

I enjoyed that.  Thanks for the laugh Wes...

Obama has solved the fuel price crisis with his simple wisdom...quite impressive.

You give Obama too much credit.  This is just a small step everyone can take.  The centerpeice of his energy policy is to get us off fossil fuel and replace it with green energy.

The centerpeice of his energy policy is to get us off fossil fuel and replace it with green energy.

I would be all for that, if this "green" energy was actually economically viable and produced as much energy as oil for the current costs.

Who cares when we need to get off of fossil fuels.

Every nations economy revolves around cheap energy.  Its what makes the world go round, keeps our standard of living up, and builds national wealth.  Those three factors are more important to many than being "green".  Being "green" would be a nice side effect of cheap energy, but dont mistake it for a substitute.

Once we start going green on a large scale prices will go down.  We can subsidize the people who can't afford the switch.

Thats all we need, more subsidies, more government spending.  So the taxpayers will still be paying that high cost.  

We'll pass it off to the rich.

As usual. 

Would you feel better if we soaked the poor with it? Oh, wait, perhaps that wouldn't work too well, right? Ever heard of not being able to get blood from a turnip?

you subsidize them, don't ask me to do it.

Every country doesn't need to do it but we do.  The amount of oil we use in proportion to our size is ridiculous.

In a way - but when you factor in our national standard of living for 300+M people, and our GDP.  Its a very good thing.  Only in the US, can middle class families have a nice 4bdrm home on a half acre of land, 2 kids, and 2-3 cars in the driveway.

Its a very good thing.  Only in the US, can middle class families have a nice 4bdrm home on a half acre of land, 2 kids, and 2-3 cars in the driveway.

We have this because of debt.

Not in all cases at all.  Many people live beyond their means, and they have to live with the consequences. Personal and financial responsibility go a long way.

Uh, Pseudo, when people 'live beyond their means' then they are in DEBT. And in most cases, way too much of it.

Only in the US, can middle class families have a nice 4bdrm home on a half acre of land, 2 kids, and 2-3 cars in the driveway. - sciguy

You are wrong.  There are many countries where this happens.  And they most likely have a higher quality of life.

Pseudo has zero idea what life is like outside the US of A... aside from what rightwing propagandists tell him.

Really curious,old ben, could you name a few of those many utopias for us?

going green pays.  when you can buy light bulbs that use 1/4 the energy of incandescent bulbs, the savings is money you can spend elsewhere. 

The higher price of those lightbulbs do not pay off, especially when their advertisements are using the bulb about 2 hours per day.  Hopefully in the future they will pay off...but the the last thing im concerned about is paying a 300% premium on a lightbulb to save $1-2 off my monthly electric bill.

I'll disagree with you on that one. I had to know so I installed those bulbs and saw first hand that they deliver as promised. The only reason I didn't see the full return on my invsetment was because of the exponential increase in energy cost. I'm pretty sure if I plotted it out I can prove an increase in performance.

more fuzzy math, science.  those bulbs last 8,000 to 10,000 hours, vs. about 1,000 or so for an incandescent.  i've been using them for years, and i've had one on my front porch that's been burning all night for years.  it uses 13 watts and is equal to a 60 watt in output.  do the math, if you can.  if they are three times the price, but last 8 times longer, and use 1/4 of the electricity, then tell me how it's a losing proposition.   it's not even arguable. 

Ah, excuses excuses... just admit it, Pseudoscientist, you really DON'T want this country to get off the fossil fuels, do ya? Just say it.

No ,mefirst, the actual point is that it is absurd to say ,as BO did, that by inflating our tires we could save more oil than we could produce by ending the moratoriam on offshore drilling. To make that statement exposes BO's ignorance of the facts. The sophistry of his followers arguments is so very amusing to watch, as they spin and obfuscate furiously, to no avail, because he stubbornly keeps repeating the same foolish statement. Has he ,perhaps, bought into this whole Messiah thing, and now considers himself infallible? That might explain his inability to admit he was wrong about the surge. This campaign has now gotten to the theater of the absurd stage ,and I plan to survive til the election by laughing at this nonsense instead of being irritated by you looney lefties. Til next time, remember, BO=JC. Whoops, glad I previewed this, let me change that to Obama=Carter

No, the actual point is that impartial people who have all the facts available have documented that what he said was true.

And accurate.

And totally demolishes McCain's lie that it's a good idea to drill for that additional oil in the Gulf and risk the environment and use up our finite resource even faster than we already are.

And because the truth is like sunlight to you vampires, you have to fight like the devil to derail a thread with your lies.

Sorry,BB, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. BO's statement was factually wrong,and you calling me a vampire and denying the fact that what he said is absurdly , foolishly, goofily wrong can't change that.            Obama=Carter

Oh scienceyone, did you actually read the report? It never assumed all 4 tires. You did, though...

Of course it does.  Prove me wrong.

Nah, for once do your own homework. Prove me wrong.

Wow, what creativity you have.  You accused me of being wrong - but now you don't want to back that up?  Never ceases to amaze me.

Yeah, you're a real piece of work. Come here, make an opinion, demand us to prove you wrong, then whine when someone tells you to start with a fact. You never fail to prove that reich wingers put fantasy before facts.

Are you referring to the New York DAILY NEWS' quote? Because that's not a study, and it's not the New York Times.

Also, your 5 year old article says "at least" one tire is underinflated in those percentage of cars. Not just "one".

In any case, when it comes to tire inflation, yes, we are talking about BILLIONS of saved gallons of gas.

What was that about misinformation again?

And what could possibly be your point if not to devalue the necessity of proper tire inflation?

AND of course you realize that tire inflation is but ONE small and easy way to address this crisis, no? Because it seems that McCain and co. doesn't.

I stand corrected on the source, I saw NYT, didnt notice the NY Daily News part.

However, its quite comical to bloat your figures when you see necessary.  Oil drilling, as Obama was countering, is measured in barrels, not gallons.  To try and justify your stances by using a smaller measurement to get larger numbers to fool your audience is very misleading.

The fact is your "billions of gallons", is actually about 225,000 barrels per year.  Slightly more than the energy deparment estimated 200,000 barrels per day for OCS drilling.

Science, I am not "bloating" my figures. I am also not conflating an ENTIRE energy policy with a easy and yet significant way to save a rather large amount of gas at the pump. That's apparently your job.

Again, what is your point, if not to devalue this rather simple concept? It certainly isn't a "scientific" approach.

I am not trying to devalue it by any means, as I've already stated that checking your tire pressure is and easy and smart thing to do.  

But this is not a substitute for increasing supply by saying we can conserve even more when the facts are that it would only save as much in one year as we could potentially drill in one day.

Where are you getting your numbers from?

Which ones.  Theres several good places, such as the EIA.

What numbers did you use to come up with this:

But this is not a substitute for increasing supply by saying we can conserve even more when the facts are that it would only save as much in one year as we could potentially drill in one day.

The IEA report claims that we will drill 2.2M bpd w/o OCS, 2.4 w/ OCS drilling.  Thats 200,000bpd, 7+B bpy.

Again, if you factor in that the report cited in this MM article claims 2.8B gallons wasted, you can factor in about 20gal per barrel and be roughly 140M bpy. However, that 2.8 assumes every car at a 3.3% loss if you do the math.  A more respectable 25-33% of cars would give you about 50M bpy.

Do your math again.

The math is correct.  Show me YOUR calculations.  Lets see here - worst case scenario:

2.8B gal/19.6gal p bar =  roughly 140M barrels

 

200,000bpd x 365 = 7+ M barrels

200,000 x 365= 73 million

73 million x 19.6≈ 1.4 billion

2.8 billion > 1.4 billion

Do you have a calculator on your computer?

I am going to say this one more time, and if you ignore it again, I have no choice but to believe you're a troll.

This is but ONE small and yet effective way to take on higher gas prices, not an entire policy.

Why do you insist on pretending it is?

Because Obama made the statement countering oil drilling by falsely stating that by inflating tires, we can save as much oil as we would drill. 

That's a lie.

Ahh, but its not...and some simple calculations from EIA and this article, as well as Obama's quote are easy to prove.  You cannot swindle your classic "your a liar" line this time.

Post Obama's quote.

And do your math again.

Find that exact quote, or we're done, and you're a troll.

You are now blatantly lying to make your point.

Ugh.

"Making sure your tires are properly inflated - simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling - if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You'd actually save just as much."

Science, depending on how one calculates the oil production numbers, the time involved, consumption, etc., Obama's statement that we would save just as much oil as new drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf would produce may or may not be correct. But even if that part of his statement is not 100% accurate, fuel savings tips such as tire inflation would actually contribute to reduced fuel consumption. You've already said you agree with that. The point is that John McCain and the usual right wing talking heads have distorted and ridiculed what Obabama said in order to portray his statement as a major piece of his comprehensive energy policy. You are aware, I assume, that Barack Obama has said that in order to pass a comprhensive energy plan he would be willing to compromise on offshore drilling, if that's what it took, but on a more limited basis than what McCain and others are proposing. But offshore drilling will not produce immediate effects regardless how hard you try to spin it.

I usually kept my tires inflated to 36psi. A few months ago a friend suggested I try inflating them to 40psi, which is still within the appropriate range of tire inflation, to get better gas mileage. I tried it and it worked. While I did not attempt to calculate the amount of increased fuel efficiency, I did notice a difference on a trip to a city in another state that I often took. Whereas the trip usually took almost a full tank of gas, with my tires inflated to 40psi it took about three quarters of a tank. I guess I saved about two or three gallons...less than a quarter tank. The ride is a little rougher because the tires are harder and I don't know how much fuel efficiency is produced in city driving, but the fact is that it works. 

It is my understanding that Barack Obama's suggestion regarding tire inflation was in the context of what consumers could do to reduce their gas costs...not as the central point of his energy plan, as the Republicans have ridiculoulsy attempted to portray it. Perhaps the Republicans can ask Paris Hilton what she does to increase her gas mileage and put that in a commercial. 

 The ride is a little rougher because the tires are harder and I don't know how much fuel efficiency is produced in city driving, but the fact is that it works.

Of course it works, but there are other factors involved in the tire pressure ratings for each car.  Much has to do with the weight of the car, and the amount of tire to road contact patch for safety standards and handling.  Remember, you often want a wider road contact patch for wet and snowy roads to increase traction and get a better chance of dry pavement contact.

But yes, in a way, Obama did tout it as an energy plan by saying you can save as much as you could by drilling, which is false:""There are things you can do individually, though, to save energy. ... Making sure your tires are properly inflated - simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling - if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You'd actually save just as much."

Energy estimates are in the range of 200,000bpd (7.3B bpy) for drilling for the OCS.

Which makes me wonder why after all the bridge collapses during Bush that republicans still ignore the effects of bad roads and pot holes. They let the infrastructure crumble for greed's sake.

Oh god, here we go.  The federal government does not maintain the bridges, the independent states do.  They do get funding for it from the fed, but in no way, is Bush or anyone else there responsible for the bridge maintenance.  Look no further than your states DOT and Governor.

They do get funding for it from the fed...

From gas taxes, no doubt...which John McCain was in favor of temporarily suspending. Or was it temporary? I thought John McCain was against taxes...

Sorry, but federal inspections happen at the federal level. It's called oversight.

The fed does not go out and inspect every bridge on a yearly basis.  Inspections are done on a cycle, and its up to the state DOT to report issues if it needs to be inspected earlier than scheduled.

I think you need a refresher course in how that works...

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/

Please show me where Barack Obama ever made this energy-saving tip the centerpiece of his energy plan. As for offshore drilling, not one drop of opil will produced for about seven or eight years and any reduction of fuel prices as a result thereof may take as much as 20 years. Obama's tip was in response to the question of what individual consumers could do now to reduce their gas costs. However, once again, Republicans have distorted an innoucuous statement made by Obama into something it was not.

As for offshore drilling, not one drop of opil will produced for about seven or eight years and any reduction of fuel prices as a result thereof may take as much as 20 years.

Wrong.  That is an estimate from an energy administration report in general.  Oil drilling companies themselves have said we can expect to see oil in 2 years for areas that are closer in proximity to existing infrastructure (ANWR, Gulf), and up to 8 years for areas 200mi off shore with no existing infrastructure.  But by all means, feel free to be misleading and use the worst case scenario...

The oil companies could be lying just to keep us dependent on oil when we to turn to green energy.

Uhhhh...new offshore drilling contemplates sites over 100 miles offshore. That is the only way states are going to agree to any part of it. I don't know where you're getting your figures but even McCain has ackowledged that it would be years before we even saw any oil from new offshore drilling. Then...the question is whether that would even begin to lower fuel prices before many more years.

If you understood the speculation market, you would know that it would lower them immediately based on futures.  Unless, that is, you're also trying to ban the speculation market of commodities.

But the gas pumps don't follow. Gas increased to $4 a gallon exponentially, but falls in price by fractions. It's artificially controlled.

This is true - and it doesn't make me happy.  Up fast, down low.  Just an extra way for the gas station owners to increase profit - but not the oil companies.  At that point, they've already sold the oil off.

Just an extra way for the gas station owners to increase profit...

That is a lie.  One of many on this thread.  Independent gas station ownership is dropping like a stone.  You're ideology is blinding your viewpoint of reality.

It would have no net effect.  If the oil companies keep on drilling, demand will soar as opposed to decreasing (like it is right now) and well be in the same situation a few years from now.

Energy demand globally is not going to decrease at all.   You'd be a fool to think it will.  Cheap energy builds national wealth and increases standard of living.  Oil demand will continue to increase until a viable alternative is made available that produces similar energy production at a comparable or cheaper price.

The argument for drilling is "start now, even though the results will not appear in several years".

Why not start going green now?  Why not be the world leader in green technology.  How long to you think China can keep going at this pace? 

All you care about is your precious standard of living.  You're selfish and care nothing about our future generation. 

Ask Phil Gramm, Science... <sarcasm>

But yes, in a way, Obama did tout it as an energy plan by saying you can save as much as you could by drilling, which is false:"

His statement true.  How much oil is expected from offshore drilling?

up to 200,000bpd

About 7 months of world global consumption. But nonetheless a guess at best. Recoverable is the  unwritten fact.

7 months of global supply - on top of the current demand.

Right now, the excess production supply for the world is less than 5% of US daily demand.

OK, show me some data to prove that, cause I'm of the impression we  consume 40+% of the world supply.

We consume a bit less than that.  We consume roughly 20M bpd, and the world total consumption is 85M bpd.  However, world production is 86M bpd, leaving the excess production at 1M bpd...about 5% overhead of just US consumption.

US/World Consumption: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/gifs/Fig5.gif

Production:  http://www.worldoil.com/INFOCENTER/STATISTICS_DETAIL.ASP?STATFILE=_WORLDOILPRODUCTION

Thanks. I'm reading that link now.

No problem.  

This 2.8B gallon statement is assuming that all 200,000,000 cars in the United States are losing 3.3% of fuel economy from under pressured tires.  This factors in that all 4 tires are underinflated by over 8psi.

Where did you get this information from?

Drill here, drill now, pay less.

 

Increase the supply of oil, lower the demand of oil (and thus the cost at the pump). LOSD at work.

 

That and quit breathing down on everything oil companies do. They'd be happy to distribute and sell the newly-drilled oil.

Agreed.  The tire pressure statement in regards to getting better fuel economy is true, but has been commonly known for years and years, and is talked about in the news and newspapers every summer since 70's embargo.  To actually cite this as a counter to drilling is laughable at best.

Ahh, but see? Only McCain and the republicans are trying to claim that is all Obama is trying to do. He just offered ideas on how to help while the govt. works out long term solutions. But you sure bought into McCains bait and tackle.

But I heard it from Hannity!

Did you also hear him tell us that the republican circus on demanding a special session of congress was 100% responsible for the continued drop in price of oil? ;)

IIRC I think he did mention that. He gave Mike Pence (R-IN) (my rep. is Dan Burton [R-IN] BTW) half of the final hour to talk about that special meeting, and then Hannity started smearing Pelosi for the rest of that hour.

No Obama tried to counter it to oil drilling by saying that we could inflate tires and in turn, save the same amount that we'd be drilling.  Which is blatently false.

He said: ""There are things you can do individually, though, to save energy. ... Making sure your tires are properly inflated - simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling - if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You'd actually save just as much."

When in fact the energy departments estimate is that we could be drilling roughly 200,000bpd from the OCS (7.3B bpy). 

See? Again, Obama just said we could do other things too. BTW, how much of the world oil reserves is the US claiming? Wasn't it around 3%?

And why did the US oil companies increase oil exports 33% last year?

Isn't it time for you to admit it's all a stunt to allow oil companies access to as much as possible so they can sell it overseas for a profit, while what they sell will be of little consequence to the overall price of global oil?

And why did the US oil companies increase oil exports 33% last year?

The amount of oil drilled in the US peaked in the 1940's and has decreased ever since.  But seeing as how the oil goes on the global market, its easy to see there are a few countries who have increased demand by very high percentages.  No longer are we the only ones buying it back.

Wow, a rare statement of acknowledgement. Yes, oil did peak years ago. So why are you still trying to suggest "drill here, drill now" will benefit the country when in truth it will only benefit the oil companies? 3% of world supply is a drop in the bucket when compared to world reserves.

That 3% statement world reserves would only be discounted if the resources were owned globally, and had no political influence by the countries who owned them.  The ability for OPEC to dictate prices & supply are a big reason to use our own as leverage against their manipulation.

i don't think obama ever meant that it would be the solution to all our energy problems.  but it's one of a hundred things anyone can do to reduce energy usage, and that will add up in the end.  i've been using reduced energy bulbs for years and it's put money in my pocket.   but we're subjected to all this limbaugh dittohead type smirkiness when you suggest small things that can make a difference.

Mr. McCain challenged Democrats to call Congress back into session to boost energy production.

LOL

Can't figure out why McCain would want to call Congress back into session, he's won't be there. 

John McCain has missed 399 votes (63.3%) during the current Congress http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

 

Actually, I just read an article today where McCain stated that he would report to congress and halt the campaign to attend a session dedicated to energy.

What about Obama? How many votes has he missed? Would he also sit in the Senate Chambers to vote on this bill?

 

Just trying to be fair, here

Barack Obama has missed 282 votes (44.8%) during the current Congress

So let me get this straight - we're trying to justify who's "better" because two highly paid government congressmen are missing 44% and 63% of the votes?  Seems to me like neither are fit for presidency as neither are doing the jobs they are currently getting paid to do.

So let me get this straight - we're trying to justify who's "better" because two highly paid government congressmen are missing 44% and 63% of the votes?

Actually, no I'm not. The fact is, McCain is  at the top of the list for missed votes. It's a fact that you and other Conservative/Republicans don't want to talk about. Missed votes means McCain choose winning the election over showing up to vote, which makes a mockery of his urgency to act on energy and his challenge to Democrats to call Congress back into session to discuss energy. 

Dawuss wanted to fair so he ask how many votes did Obama miss, which I provided.

If Obama missed 63% of the votes, you and your Republicans friends would be making a big deal out of Obama's missed votes. I can hear commercials and talk radio blowhards going on about how Obama doesn't care about the country and he just wants to win the election and on and on, yet silence when it comes to McCain missed votes.

"Congress should come back in session, and I'm willing to come off the campaign trail," McCain told reporters at the Lafayette Hill headquarters of the National Label Co.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20080804_McCain__Congress_should_reconvene_to_deal_with_energy.html

 

And to think, in early 2007, he wasn't willing to come off the campaign trail to make Iraq votes. Hmmmmmm:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccains-missed-votes-on-iraq-trigger-reid-rebuke-2007-05-17.html

McCain said numerous times he'd show up for important votes. Missed every single one though. Can't be trusted to keep his word, but no surprise. He was a collaborator during Vietnam after all...

FYI - many conservatives and republicans (and libertarians like myself) DONT trust McCain's word.  Amnesty ring a bell?

If y'all don't show up to vote for him I'll say you're right. I suspect you'll go with the "lesser of two evils" approach though and cast that McCain vote...

Correct.  I will.

Libertarians are still going to vote for Ron Paul. Why McSame for you?

...McCain stated that he would report to congress and halt the campaign to attend a session dedicated to energy.

Now that would be a photo-op to beat all...John McCain actually voting in the Senate! I seem to recall that the GI bill wasn't important enough for McCain's return to Washingtom from a fund raising trip...but offshore drilling is? 

but offshore drilling is?

90 days before an election when 75% of the US wants it...I'd say it would be a very smart move for him.

Sends a great message to the veterans whom the phony McCain apparently thinks he owns...

Are you asserting that the majority of the active military will be voting for Obama?

I am saying that there are many veterans who have McCain's number... they are not crazy about him. And the election is still over three months away...

Science101: Buddy, I am in awe of your patience,and tenacity, and rational discourse . You really hung in there,on point, posting rational comments again and again. And what did you get in return? Mostly pure sophistry, with some sarcasm thrown in for a little flavoring, called a liar a few times as the icing on the cake,and the cherry on top?you are a troll!!! Uhhh,or was that a trog? No matter,they use those terms indiscriminately, consider them badges of honor.Really enjoyed the show,looking forward to your next posts.

What is so "rational" about Science posting a math set with an order of magnitude error? Loonz caught the error, and no response yet from Science101.

That's a fundamental error in Science's thought process. An error in calculation like that can lead to ... errors in conclusions.