Obama is Renewing the American Sense of Identity. Unbelievable to Watch

[vicupstate]

Jindal has a bright future if he plays his cards right.  He is off to a good start, and he has plenty of time  (and an excellent opportunity in LA) to make his mark.

  McCain won't pick him because to do so would eliminate the 'experience' issue against Obama.  Jindal was in the House of Representatives only a couple of terms and has only been Governor a few months.   

[Eazy E]

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w

Let's dissect this truly radical, bizarre and anti-American statement:
1)  "We cant drive our SUVs":  why not?  As Americans we have the freedom to do whatever we want to within the law.  If people can afford to drive SUVs and want them, it is fine with me.


3)  "We cant keep our homes on 72 degrees all the time":  Really?  Is he advocating that we outlaw central heat and air now?  Perhaps a return to fans only?  Why cant we keep our homes comfortably heated and cooled consistent with our wishes and financial abilities?  Is America now so broken down and bankrupt that under an Obama regime he will have the Feds monitoring our thermostats?  This is truly disturbing and ridiculous.

It literally pains me to read such ignorant statements.  It's anti-American to say that we we need to stop carelessly using energy and start actually realizing that the way we live our lives have consequences?  That is pure nonsense.  WE CAN"T KEEP DRIVING SUVS AND BLARING OUR A/C, and not because people who pause and actually think out these problems have anything against these things themselves (as RG's comments would suggest), but because THEY WASTE ENERGY.  In turn, energy waste will lead to wars for natural resources, and the lifestyle we want our children to have will simply not be possible.

The idea that anyone could suggest that thinking responsibly about energy use is "anti-American" is exactly why people are voting for Obama: we are sick of stupid, know-nothing conservatives spouting off that this or that is "ant-american", in a desire to consistently alienate neighbors from one another, and to keep our society split.  If you want to talk "anti-American", let's talk torture, or spying on American citizens, or suppressing speech and protest; to label discussion of irresponsible energy use "anti-American" is just stupid. 

[NotNow]

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w

Let's dissect this truly radical, bizarre and anti-American statement:
1)  "We cant drive our SUVs":  why not?  As Americans we have the freedom to do whatever we want to within the law.  If people can afford to drive SUVs and want them, it is fine with me.


3)  "We cant keep our homes on 72 degrees all the time":  Really?  Is he advocating that we outlaw central heat and air now?  Perhaps a return to fans only?  Why cant we keep our homes comfortably heated and cooled consistent with our wishes and financial abilities?  Is America now so broken down and bankrupt that under an Obama regime he will have the Feds monitoring our thermostats?  This is truly disturbing and ridiculous.

It literally pains me to read such ignorant statements.  It's anti-American to say that we we need to stop carelessly using energy and start actually realizing that the way we live our lives have consequences?  That is pure nonsense.  WE CAN"T KEEP DRIVING SUVS AND BLARING OUR A/C, and not because people who pause and actually think out these problems have anything against these things themselves (as RG's comments would suggest), but because THEY WASTE ENERGY.  In turn, energy waste will lead to wars for natural resources, and the lifestyle we want our children to have will simply not be possible.

The idea that anyone could suggest that thinking responsibly about energy use is "anti-American" is exactly why people are voting for Obama: we are sick of stupid, know-nothing conservatives spouting off that this or that is "ant-american", in a desire to consistently alienate neighbors from one another, and to keep our society split.  If you want to talk "anti-American", let's talk torture, or spying on American citizens, or suppressing speech and protest; to label discussion of irresponsible energy use "anti-American" is just stupid. 

Sir,  I think that what us stupid, know-nothing conservatives are calling "un-American" is the use of Federal power to tell American citizens what cars they can or cannot drive or what temperature they can maintain in their own homes.  I can't seem to find any constitutional authority for the federal government to legislate either of those.  I am sure, however, that you can find the Article where that governmental power resides.  Please let the rest of us know.  I know that Stephen is an "admirer" of the U. S. Constitution.  Perhaps he can help.  We stupid conservatives are not opposed to energy conservation, but we are opposed to governments or political candidates (or anyone else, for that matter) sticking their nose into how we live our lives or spend our hard earned money.

As for "torture", you have left me wondering what acts you are referring to.  Is it "waterboarding", the media favorite that has been used so few times that you only need one hand to count, requiring the highest authority?  Those uses (Muhammed, Zubaydah, and al-Nashiri) led to intelligence which probably saved many lives in the West.  I'm not sure of what spying on American citizens you are referring to, but again, only very few life threatening cases meet the criteria for no warrant wiretap.  Can you refer me to a case where this was misused?  I would also ask for what instances of suppressing speech or protest you refer to.

[JeffreyS]

I love how unappealing conserving is to conservatives.

[Downtown Dweller]

How would the dems limit usage of power? Would they...gasp "spy" on the citizens to determine at what temp they kept their air? I guess they would just outlaw SUV's limiting our individual choices and require everyone to drive a blue hybrid? Why both parties are distrubing: Hello pot, the kettle is calling.....

[gatorback]

Actually, grid managers limit power useage  by calling out to businesses and asking them to consume less power and when the power usage doesn't decline we could experience brownouts, or when brownouts fail, limits are reached vis-à-vis rolling blackouts, or heaven forbid blackouts, and that all of this happens irrespective of what party is in control of the White House.

[downtownparks]

Jeffry, its not that conserving is un-appealing, whats unappealing is having the government get involved to that degree in our day to day lives.

I went out and bought my wife a scion xa two years ago because I saw that gas prices were never coming down, and we couldnt afford our two gas guzzlers. on top of that, as soon as my daughter is out of school, I am going to start ridding my bike to work for the same reasons.

We make these decisions because it makes fiscal sense for my family. I would prefer to be allowed to make those decisions on my own, rather than at the point of a gun.

[Charleston native]

It literally pains me to read such ignorant statements.  It's anti-American to say that we we need to stop carelessly using energy and start actually realizing that the way we live our lives have consequences?  That is pure nonsense.  WE CAN"T KEEP DRIVING SUVS AND BLARING OUR A/C, and not because people who pause and actually think out these problems have anything against these things themselves (as RG's comments would suggest), but because THEY WASTE ENERGY.  In turn, energy waste will lead to wars for natural resources, and the lifestyle we want our children to have will simply not be possible.

The idea that anyone could suggest that thinking responsibly about energy use is "anti-American" is exactly why people are voting for Obama: we are sick of stupid, know-nothing conservatives spouting off that this or that is "ant-american", in a desire to consistently alienate neighbors from one another, and to keep our society split.  If you want to talk "anti-American", let's talk torture, or spying on American citizens, or suppressing speech and protest; to label discussion of irresponsible energy use "anti-American" is just stupid.

Talk about ignorant statements.

And foolish.

[JeffreyS]

Jeffry, its not that conserving is un-appealing, whats unappealing is having the government get involved to that degree in our day to day lives.

I went out and bought my wife a scion xa two years ago because I saw that gas prices were never coming down, and we couldnt afford our two gas guzzlers. on top of that, as soon as my daughter is out of school, I am going to start ridding my bike to work for the same reasons.

We make these decisions because it makes fiscal sense for my family. I would prefer to be allowed to make those decisions on my own, rather than at the point of a gun.

We make policy about speed limits and car specs and food safety and so on all the time many of them based on levels of use.  Enforcing tougher conservation is not some radical departure into a totalitarian government.  Both parties call each other Nazis or Communists ect. all the time but we vote and change leaders peacefully and  regularly  in this country so let's stop this constant fear mongering both sides participate in that voting for the other surely spells the end of the American way of life.  Maybe one group will think this law or that one is too strict but the big brother fear the left has about Bush will soon end and all of their talk of the patriot act ending civil liberties will have been over blown and if we enact some conservation restrictions people will start screaming we are no longer free and that will be just as dumb.

[JeffreyS]

Instead of the more radical ideas you quote why don't we.

Set the speed limit at 55.

Set epa standards for cars to levels already achieved in much of Europe.(average car already gets 43 mph let's shoot for 38mph)

Invest in desalinization, wind and solar.( the tech is already here we just have to use it.)

Invest in mass transit instead of roads.

Forget using food for fuel.

Simple conservation practices are enough to make us energy independent and lower costs. I guess it is just more politically advantages to focus on the ridiculous ideas that have been floated.

[RiversideGator]

It literally pains me to read such ignorant statements.  It's anti-American to say that we we need to stop carelessly using energy and start actually realizing that the way we live our lives have consequences?  That is pure nonsense.  WE CAN"T KEEP DRIVING SUVS AND BLARING OUR A/C, and not because people who pause and actually think out these problems have anything against these things themselves (as RG's comments would suggest), but because THEY WASTE ENERGY.  In turn, energy waste will lead to wars for natural resources, and the lifestyle we want our children to have will simply not be possible.

What is truly ignorant is going around calling the informed opinions of others ignorant.  While that may be an "Easy E" way to debate, it is not persuasive in the real world.

And let me tell you a little something about Americans.  Americans are a people who solve problems and who have great ingenuity and a tremendous work ethic.  We dont have to go back to the standards of living of 1900 because you have been scared by some environmentalist shrews with ulterior motives (communism).  We will simply do what we always do - we will find efficient solutions to our energy needs.  And, we dont need scolds and nannies telling us what to set our thermostat on.  If you want your house hot in the summer and cold in the winter, then go live in a tent in the woods and leave the rest of us alone.

The idea that anyone could suggest that thinking responsibly about energy use is "anti-American" is exactly why people are voting for Obama: we are sick of stupid, know-nothing conservatives spouting off that this or that is "ant-american", in a desire to consistently alienate neighbors from one another, and to keep our society split. 

The problem here is your premise is false.  Obama is not thinking responsibly about energy.  He is thinking in a reflexively liberal fashion which involves great self-flagellation and self-loathing.  We do not need prophets of doom.  We need to unleash the powers of American innovation to move us onto the next level of power generation.  This will happen as market forces demand it.

If you want to talk "anti-American", let's talk torture, or spying on American citizens, or suppressing speech and protest; to label discussion of irresponsible energy use "anti-American" is just stupid. 

No torture has occurred and certainly not of American citizens.  In fact, none of the rest of this statement is true either.

[Charleston native]

Hooray for Murdoch...as he considers hitching on that PC bandwagon that is Obama.  Big deal. Interestingly enough, Murdoch's company, which owns several major media outlets including Fox, has increased numbers of its stock being purchased by people like Saudi Arabia's prince among other Islamist dignitaries. Just FYI.

Fox News has lost quite a bit of credibility, BTW, i.e. Sean Hannity and Geraldo Rivera.

As for putting concepts like drilling for more oil equivalent with "wasting our resources", I have to say that's pretty funny how you can twist it like that. And yet, it's sad at the same time.

[thelakelander]

I dont know if you have followed any of the other strings on here, but we are debating whether or not a property is STILL contaminated from a gassification process after 112 years.

Its contaminated.  I have a copy of the 100 meg report.

[Charleston native]

the oil itself is killing us charleston.

I have always marvelled at the similarities between the Global Warming deniers  and the  'smoking doesn't cause cancer' crowd.

It poisons everything it touches.

Interesting that a "conservative" would use that description for the lifeblood of most industrialized nation's economies.

The same thing can be said of hydrochloric acid. Using your mentality, I guess we should eliminate things like drinking water production, wastewater treatment, battery production. Another "evil" chemical that "destroys" the earth. Ay caramba.

[Charleston native]

Well river has made a great point that its not the lifeblood of the French economy.

And its not the lifeblood of ours either.   Energy itself may be, but it doesnt have to come from oil.

I just dont understand why you are so eager to support terrorist countries.

I'm not, hence my vehement support for drilling in ANWR, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, and off our shores, in addition to overwhelming support for nuclear power expansion.

We could stick it to terrorist countries if we would just get off our asses.