Bob Barr for me?

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:05 pm

I took this quiz:

http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/senat ... ?quiz=2008

To see who matches my views the most, for me it said my closest candidate for me was Bob Barr.

Who is yours according to the quiz?

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:27 pm

I think I'll plagiarize the site and claim it as my own.

JC · Post by JC » Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:37 pm

It came up with Bob Barr for me also. Which is fine. Kinda like the guy, Hell I might even vote for him.
To no surprise Nobama, and Hilda were on the bottom of the list.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:52 pm

R0cke113 · Post by **R0cke113** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:40 am

McCain was my #2 and Obama was my 3 I am a little concerned with the legitimacy of this site, but anyone who wants to give power back to the people and take it away from the govt I will gladly vote for.

CiscoKid · Post by **CiscoKid** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:35 pm

Hillary was my number 1 and Obama was my number 2.

Anyone who agrees the Patriot Act is taking away too much is alright with me

JC · Post by JC » Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:01 pm

CiscoKid wrote:Hillary was my number 1 and Obama was my number 2.

What is it about Obama, that would make you vote for him?

R0cke113 · Post by **R0cke113** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:01 pm

Obama and McCain are both for big govt. so i will support neither of them. I will not vote for a major candidate because they have too many big businesses needs at heart and not ours as Americans. I don't care what their political stance they claim is.

Shagster · Post by **Shagster** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:56 am

I got Bob Barr by a large margin which is no surprise, seeing how I'm a Libertarian.

R0cke113 · Post by **R0cke113** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:21 am

We all have mixed views, which makes a perfect canidate impossible for either side of the spectrum, but the minimizing of govt. control is #1 in my book and that is the #1 reason Bob Barr will get my vote.

Paft · Post by **Paft** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:45 pm

Cynthia McKinney
Green nominee; Former House member (D, GA)

No suprise there.

A_old · Post by **A_old** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:59 pm

Paft wrote:Cynthia McKinney
Green nominee; Former House member (D, GA)

No suprise there.

didn't she go nuts a while back?

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:04 pm

He'll have probably even less impact than Ralph Nader.

R0cke113 · Post by **R0cke113** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:05 am

Are you content with voting for one of 2 options and supporting big government again? If so then I feel I have failed to inspire any new thinking in this thread.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:17 am

R0cke113 wrote:Are you content with voting for one of 2 options and supporting big government again? If so then I feel I have failed to inspire any new thinking in this thread.

No I'm not....but stepping outside of dreamy land....looking realistically...when my left shoe..or my cat...has as much chance of winning as Barr Nader or any oddball like that....

This guy is not even at the scale that Perot had....which was large enough back then to make me strongly ponder a vote his way.

The reality is..it's going to be one of the big two that win. Sadly, selecting the one that you think will do the least damage is the only realistic resort this time. ...the semi continuation of Bush years, or the clueless mister flippity flop.

R0cke113 · Post by **R0cke113** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:55 am

Well when your not happy with your dirty old clothing you change it. But in this case you would rather put on another pair of dirty worn out clearly unserviceable jeans. Way to keep the corrupt ball rolling.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:12 am

R0cke113 wrote:Well when your not happy with your dirty old clothing you change it. But in this case you would rather put on another pair of dirty worn out clearly unserviceable jeans. Way to keep the corrupt ball rolling.

Very poor analogy...because I'd want to put on clothing that I can actually get a hold of, pick up..and don. Literal, realistic clothes that I could get my hands on...purchase...and take home.

Barr is like a fleeting glimpse of imaginary clothing that would never materialize.

I'd love a transporter such as in Star Trek too....but I have to live with the fact that I am limited to walking, running, swimming, driving, taking the train/bus, or flying there.

R0cke113 · Post by **R0cke113** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:52 am

How about If your not part of the answer your part of the problem. - And yes someone definitely quoted that already.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:27 am

R0cke113 wrote:How about If your not part of the answer your part of the problem. - And yes someone definitely quoted that already.

LOL. Voting for Barr is the answer? He's a tool and he's not a very good one. The Lib party could have picked a better candidate. Paul would have done better as a Lib which he better represents is but realized early that it would take him running on a Republican ticket to get close to winning.

So does that leave you as part of the problem because believe me, if Barr even had a remote chance of winning, he'd be so ingrained into corporate money that he'd be indistinguishable from Tom DeLay.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:07 am

R0cke113 wrote:How about If your not part of the answer your part of the problem. - And yes someone definitely quoted that already.

Going from poor analogy to even worse statement.

How does that make sense?

In other words...how would an individual who is part of the population...become part of the problem, if there are no adequate candidates? How is a poor selection of candidates John Q Publics fault?

R0cke113 · Post by **R0cke113** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:18 am

because John Q Public is the decision maker. If John Q Public picks someone that is who gets picked. Therefore John Q Public gets what he picks. Seeing as how that is a group what is the problem with not picking one of the two most popular. What is the problem with picking an individual out of the normal two. Why not vote for the cnidate who best represents you instead of the richest candidate whom you feel is the lesser of two evils. My favorite quote, "An inept politician can do far less damage than an entrenched one."

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 6:23 am

R0cke113 wrote:because John Q Public is the decision maker. If John Q Public picks someone that is who gets picked. Therefore John Q Public gets what he picks.

"Decision maker" in a fantasy world.

In reality, John Q Public is more of a single grain of sand in a huge beach of part of a decision making process.

Just because John Q Public picks someone....that does not mean that person gets picked. What percentage of votes do you think this Bob Barker will actually accumulate? Do you think he'll even break double digits?

There's some coffee to go wake up and smell.

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 7:48 am

YeOldeStonecat wrote:Very poor analogy...because I'd want to put on clothing that I can actually get a hold of, pick up..and don. Literal, realistic clothes that I could get my hands on...purchase...and take home.

Barr is like a fleeting glimpse of imaginary clothing that would never materialize.

I'd love a transporter such as in Star Trek too....but I have to live with the fact that I am limited to walking, running, swimming, driving, taking the train/bus, or flying there.

realistic clothes? as opposed to the other kind that aren't realistic or the kind you can't wear? wtf are you talking about?

no vote is wasted. sad

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 7:51 am

Izzo wrote: aren't realistic

Exactly...but I wasn't keeping the point simple enough to include you.

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 7:59 am

YeOldeStonecat wrote:Exactly...but I wasn't keeping the point simple enough to include you.

I don't even think you know what you're talking about. That was some funny ****, man. Bob Barr ....the man with imaginary clothes!

McCain has real clothes....cuz he's a man of substance.....McCain is going to clothe America! (stands up to sing Star Spangled Banner)

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:10 am

Izzo wrote: I don't even think you know what you're talking about. That was some funny ****, man. Bob Barr ....the man with imaginary clothes!

The point is....(I'll write in huge big block letters like a Tip and Mitten book for ya) his chance to win is "imaginary".

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:12 am

Ok...How 'bout this.... What if the clothes BB is selling 'look good' to Rockiedude? What if the clothes he is selling ARE real to him and ARE realistic to him? Are you saying he's unable to dress (think) himself? Obviously you are. Is this too far outside your box to understand? It's apparently so....I assure you this, though what ever wardrobe McBush is selling you ...the pants are floods and the shirt has a stain.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:13 am

Izzo wrote: McCain has real clothes....cuz he's a man of substance.....

Your messiahs real answer to the oil shortage..."Everyone inflate your tires, that savings is the equivalent to the amount of oil we could drill"

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:17 am

YeOldeStonecat wrote:Your messiahs real answer to the oil shortage..."Everyone inflate your tires, that savings is the equivalent to the amount of oil we could drill"

My messiah? I have not endorsed any candidate. I've stated this numerous times here. Off to iron my imaginary shirt.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:28 am

Izzo, it's pretty apparent to me and I'd say everyone else reading this thread, exactly what YOS was refereing to. I happend to agree with him.

If you didn't get it, that's funny. If you did, then your just looking to stir the pot over nothing.

I'd not wear that shirt to work if I were you. At least not without a real tie.

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:36 am

downhill wrote:Izzo, it's pretty apparent to me and I'd say everyone else reading this thread, exactly what YOS was refereing to. I happend to agree with him.

If you didn't get it, that's funny. If you did, then your just looking to stir the pot over nothing.

I'd not wear that shirt to work if I were you. At least not without a real tie.

Nope, went completely over my head and thankfully I'm not required to wear a tie.

Just be careful who you vote for in November. Your wardrobe depends on it.

R0cke113 · Post by **R0cke113** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 11:59 pm

I saw the Obama speech when he talked about the tire inflation and his supporters started laughing at him until they realized he was serious. McCain joked about it and by what the news is saying he is now taking a legitimate stance on the topic.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:23 am

R0cke113 wrote:I saw the Obama speech when he talked about the tire inflation and his supporters started laughing at him until they realized he was serious. McCain joked about it and by what the news is saying he is now taking a legitimate stance on the topic.

No, he's done mocking Obamination.......McCain (and I doubt anyone) never said inflating tires doesn't help mileage and save a little petro.

The joke was that Obama said. (and I quote) ...... "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.”

You see..Obama is trying to state that the amount we'll save...equals what we would gain from drilling.

And cars that regularly need a tuneup...err..Obama..those sort of disappeared in the 70's. You don't really "tuneup" cars anymore on a regular basis like we had to decades ago.

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:15 am

YeOldeStonecat wrote: No, he's done mocking Obamination.......McCain (and I doubt anyone) never said inflating tires doesn't help mileage and save a little petro.

The joke was that Obama said. (and I quote) ...... "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.”

You see..Obama is trying to state that the amount we'll save...equals what we would gain from drilling.

And cars that regularly need a tuneup...err..Obama..those sort of disappeared in the 70's. You don't really "tuneup" cars anymore on a regular basis like we had to decades ago.

Ah yes, the conservative minister of terrible information is at it again.... *sigh*

Obama was observing that coastal drilling would save us so little oil and so little money even twenty years from now, that you can actually save more money immediately by doing "simple things" such as keeping your tires properly inflated.

Sarcasm and wit apparently escape the neo-tards

Where did he get that crazy idea? From

http://fueleconomy.gov/

http://getenergysmartnow.com/?p=619

Their joint site fueleconomy.gov is loaded with fuel-saving, money-saving tips. Keep your tires properly inflated, for example, and you can save up to 12 cents a gallon.

^^^ This is from the link above which is the guv's own fuel economy standards

Compare that immediate savings from that single tip, with what coastal and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling combined would get you two decades from now: 6 cents a gallon.

And that's being generous, because Bush's Energy Department says we can't expect any impact on prices from coastal drilling until the year 2030.

And I'm not sure what kind of car you're driving but regular maintenece (tunes) are still suggested.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-sche ... 16791.html

You're right leaning opinion needs a little left balance.. source ^^^

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:06 am

This is basic math Izzo...surely you made it past junior high school?

What percentage of the US oil consumption does the US import? What percentage of it do we actually drill ourselves? You can Google all day long..and come up with whatever numbers you want to fit your attempt at an arguement..but even going with the lowest numbers, lets lean waaaaay over and say...the US drills on its own land...30% of its own oil, imports 70%. Of the imported oil....again lets lean way over and say....only 20% of that comes from the Persian gulf area (that's over there by Iraq, Saudi, etc..for those strangers to a map)

So we import well over 50% of our oil...well over 50%. Seems closer to 70%.

For us to NOT import oil..we'd need to either bump up our own production, or somehow manage to cut our oil consumption by 70%. Ah yes...properly inflating tires, and doing regular tuneups, will account for this..according to the annointed one!

Sorry ...inflating tires, IF your tires happen to be way low...might gain you two to three more MPG. With most cars hovering even a lowly 15-20mpg these days....wow..I don't see a 60 or 70% reduction in fuel economy there, do you? Here....I'll loan you my calculator if you need help there. The major improvement in MPG arguments stem from the rare few cars out there that have tires down around 15psi or something hideously low, not many cars out there riding 1/2 on the rims, with tire compound and quality rims on most cars these days, even the lazy people in doing nothing for years at a time manage to ride around on 25-ish PSI. It's gone low maintenance. So if you wish to fall victim to the "miracle air inflation will save you 12c per gallon" hype..lol. Even if you did manage to save 24 cents a gallon...basic math..you're not going to cut your oil consumption by 70%..no way..no how.

Unless you're still driving a Pinto or Nova or Monza or some other car from the '70's..we've had some technology breakthroughs lately that don't require regular tuneups like decades ago. Carburetors have mostly disappeared, we have new fangled things like fuel injection, 100,000 mile spark plugs, huge air intake boxes with filters that on the extreme end...hardly need changing but every 15k miles at the most. An O2 sensor maybe replaced once in the lifetime of your car. Oil changes not related to fuel economy as much, that's more a life expectancy of your engine thing.

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:11 am

YeOldeStonecat wrote:This is basic math Izzo...surely you made it past junior high school?

What percentage of the US oil consumption does the US import? What percentage of it do we actually drill ourselves? You can Google all day long..and come up with whatever numbers you want to fit your attempt at an arguement..but even going with the lowest numbers, lets lean waaaaay over and say...the US drills on its own land...30% of its own oil, imports 70%. Of the imported oil....again lets lean way over and say....only 20% of that comes from the Persian gulf area (that's over there by Iraq, Saudi, etc..for those strangers to a map)

So we import well over 50% of our oil...well over 50%. Seems closer to 70%.

For us to NOT import oil..we'd need to either bump up our own production, or somehow manage to cut our oil consumption by 70%. Ah yes...properly inflating tires, and doing regular tuneups, will account for this..according to the annointed one!

Sorry ...inflating tires, IF your tires happen to be way low...might gain you two to three more MPG. With most cars hovering even a lowly 15-20mpg these days....wow..I don't see a 60 or 70% reduction in fuel economy there, do you? Here....I'll loan you my calculator if you need help there. The major improvement in MPG arguments stem from the rare few cars out there that have tires down around 15psi or something hideously low, not many cars out there riding 1/2 on the rims, with tire compound and quality rims on most cars these days, even the lazy people in doing nothing for years at a time manage to ride around on 25-ish PSI. It's gone low maintenance. So if you wish to fall victim to the "miracle air inflation will save you 12c per gallon" hype..lol. Even if you did manage to save 24 cents a gallon...basic math..you're not going to cut your oil consumption by 70%..no way..no how.

Unless you're still driving a Pinto or Nova or Monza or some other car from the '70's..we've had some technology breakthroughs lately that don't require regular tuneups like decades ago. Carburetors have mostly disappeared, we have new fangled things like fuel injection, 100,000 mile spark plugs, huge air intake boxes with filters that on the extreme end...hardly need changing but every 15k miles at the most. An O2 sensor maybe replaced once in the lifetime of your car. Oil changes not related to fuel economy as much, that's more a life expectancy of your engine thing.

It's sill how you just don't get it. Keep tryin'.... you may get there by the election.

jjrs · Post by **jjrs** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 6:20 am

Offshore drilling won't save you 70% of oil either.

According to the Energy Information Administration, removing restrictions on offshore drilling would, at peak — about 20 years from now — add about 0.2% to world production, with an “insignificant” effect on the price of oil.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0 ... -to-drill/
original data-
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

Sadly, That's far less than 3% from inflated tires.

Even domestically its not much-

Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone

So basically, if McCain and co get their way, offshore drilling will make as much difference as inflated tires annually 20 years from now.That really puts things in perspective.

Obama only said the tire gauge bit as a response to a question from someone about what they themselves can do to save fuel as an individual.

It is not his "energy plan". He, and other politicians, expect to lower dependency through alternative fuel sources.

Even Boone Pickens, the Oil Magnate that funded the Swift Boat Veterans against Kerry campaign is beginning to say that other fuel sources are needed. As he says, this is one problem we can't just drill out of".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02563.html

R0cke113 · Post by **R0cke113** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:42 am

Obama and McCain are saying the same things just twisting them to sound best for their parties lines. It is ridiculous to believe either of these jokers who we've historically voted for will be able to do anything new. How do you get new from the same old. Not in reference to recycling. (Just to head of Mr. Sarcasm)

R0cke113 · Post by **R0cke113** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:08 am

http://www.businessword.com/index.php?/ ... ents/2123/ check it out its a SHORT little blurb about Obama's energy policy and one would assume most likely McCain's also