Gassing Up with Obama - RightChange.com Politizoid -

[Sypran]

just saying... if the guy in the cartoons car gets 8mpg as it implied... hes gona be at the pump a lot and that if the gas prices were that high it actually might be cheaper to buy a used car...

[Jamez773]

Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight, :25 You would want to spend money to use what little oil we have to get at oil, that may destroy the gulf and cause millions of people to lose their jobs, that takes more energy to get out of the ground than it actually yields? Want someone to blame for the price at the tank? Blame you're inability to make cars with better gas mileage and reliance on a resource that is obsolete and is increasingly depleting. Or you can blame "Dat Obama" like a red neck.

[SamTHfan]

That's completely stereotypical Alaska. -_-

[X3SakakiX3]

soooo who cares about the lives of native Inuit when we need oil.

yea let's ruin more Indian land we having fucked them over enough.

[brandonhughes7]

what the fuck is this right change if a big fucken peace of shit obamba is doing way better then any republican could ever do, you ass holes. this is all fake facks.

[M3minusGrowth]

Why do Republicans hate Americans more than Al Qaeda and the Taliban combined? 

[Nixmix24]

@M3minusGrowth Democrats isn't spelled "Republicans"

[Polititic]

This video is a complete myth. Is gas expensive right now? Yes. However, this video completely misses the problem. 1) The drilling moratorium, after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, was set for less than 1% of the production platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. 2) The increase in prices has not come from low supply in the United States, but rather from uncertainty over the protests in the middle east, causing oil prices to soar. It is not anything Obama has done... rather, it is out of his control.

[Quekil830]

I smell republican LOL

[frellthat]

This video is a lie. President Obama has not put 2/3 of oil platforms out of commission. On the contrary, he has encouraged offshore drilling even though he shouldn't have.

[MrKevin624]

We need hybrid technology and plug in technology to get better and we should also just start building wind farms and solar arrays with the money from coal, natural gas and oil subsidies.

[JustCallMeIx]

Global warming? It's clearly a myth. You silly liberals! /end sarcasm

[tannerninjagames]

really the chevy volt takes more energy than my pontiac g6 gxp! Mining coal is what makes electricity and wat da heck r people in WV goin to do with it when we have mountains!

[vrsrox]

the fuck?

[Rivin2e]

I honestly hate everything that has to do with government now thanks to this video... obama was.... ok... and i was ok with jokes... till this video... now i just dont wana live on this planet anymore...

[bunkmasterflex]

When Limited people get together and create a community it allows them to feel as though the leader of that community is accomplished or successful or intelligent. It's a way that allows them to never change their ideals as the rest of the intelligent world discovers new information. They can just forever strive to be king of the limited. Although we all know that 40 or 50 years from now most republicans will have some form of green technology on them at every moment of their lives.

[dollayboo]

how about instead of investing in big oil, with a very recent oil spill, and considering there is a big oil spill around every seven years that pretty much kicks the environment while its down, then the company doesn't do shit about it,

they shouldn't be allowed to drill at all.

We need to break the dependence on oil, taking fossil fuels out of the ground is Not natural and never will be, and it will always have a negative impact.

[CMrace]

Nevermind over 60% of our oil is imported and the price is driven up by speculation and OPEC causing the price to skyrocket. Forget about the biggest oil spill in history temporarily shutting down oil platforms that FAILED to meet industry safety standards.

Let's just blame Obama, It's WAY easier than thinking.

"The price is high because we don't have enough oil, and Obama is to blame.: LOL!"

I wonder why it's in a cartoon format... maybe it has something to do with its target audience.

[IncDeathCreed]

Stupid ass bullshit commercials go fuck yourselves you idiots.

[iversonmatthew]

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned parenthood, NPR, and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither.

[Nixmix24]

Yes.. you should invest in a hybrid van that doesn't exist. Buy a whole new car to save a couple hundred a year in gas. Yes Obama, you are a genius.

Tell me all you tree huggers out there. Where does the electricity come from to power your Pious?.. I mean Prius.. Tell me how much emissions it took to make those stupid batteries and with all the shipping that had to be done. By the time you get that ugly, over priced car you've already left just as big of a footprint as you would with a real car

[colddrake80]

@Nixmix24 *sigh* Have you even heard the word "transition"? It's going to take a while - probably a long while - for the US to move away from fossil fuels. Cars of any type aren't really the way to do it. You complain about the batteries and the energy source for the hybrid when the real problem is the very concept of cars. One person one car as a means of getting people around is a terrible idea.

[Nixmix24]

@colddrake80 *rolls eyes* If we were to live in a more dense area such as Europe or many parts of Asia, that would be feasible. In bigger cities, many people do ride bikes or rail or some other sort of public transport. When I lived in Japan, I rode my bike everywhere and took a train to places I couldn't get to. But 99% of everything I needed was in walking or riding distance. You can't do that here. Having a personal car is more of a necessity. You live in a fantasy granola world.

[colddrake80]

@Nixmix24 You don't get it. Look up the word transition. Most of us live in densely populated areas. I live in a city like most Americans and mass transit - a real mass transit system - would provide us with most of our transportation needs. America redesigned it's cities to be car centric. It wasn't a good idea and that huge waste of money is going to have to be fixed. 99% within walking distance doesn't just happen it was set up that way.

[Nixmix24]

@colddrake80 I understand transition and I understand the effect it has on supply and demand. My original point still remains. I also understand that we aren't set up for walking or even biking. That's my point... thus the necessity of a car... I also currently live in a large city and I still need my own car due to two jobs on either side of town and school. My wife also has two jobs and school and we are stretched as it is with only one vehicle between the two of us. We're getting another car.

[thecrazyjewishkid]

@Nixmix24 motorcycle

[Nixmix24]

@thecrazyjewishkid Not when you live in a city where half of the year is winter with ice and snow. That might work for a season or two but then you're left with the rest of the year to deal with.

[AgrivatedKillah]

@Nixmix24 Whats wrong with an electric car..much rather have them than a gas car.. but IMO i'd rather have the perfect public transportation system..but that's just me.

[Nixmix24]

@AgrivatedKillah Nothing is wrong with an electric car... besides the price tag and their hideous styling. In fact, if I had the cash, I would drop it on a Fisker Karma in a heart beat.

My problem is with the attitudes and the false assumptions that you are saving money and the environment by buying one.

You can buy a stupid electric car if you want but don't run around thinking that you are somehow better than everyone else because of it. That's my problem with cars such as the Prius.

[AgrivatedKillah]

@Nixmix24 You can't prove something is hideous.[Because it's opinion]

So what is your point.

And why does the car has to be stupid, they're more efficient.

Gas cars are cool IMO, hell are cars are.

I just prefer Electric cars, but I wouldn't think i'm the shit because I have one, I just would prefer one.

[Nixmix24]

@AgrivatedKillah You're right, it is opinion... shared by most people. So I'm sticking to it.

I told you my point.

You're going to have to rephrase that question because it doesn't make sense.

I wouldn't say ALL cars are cool... Ever heard of the Geo Metro?

Why do you prefer Electric cars? As you said, to each his own, but I'm just wondering what the appeal is in your eyes.

[AgrivatedKillah]

@Nixmix24 Not as loud, and IMO, a lot of them are better looking. [IN my opinion of course].

More efficient, etc.

Both pollute.

[Nixmix24]

@AgrivatedKillah Being loud isn't a bad thing with most people under the age of 50. In fact, it's desired in many cars. The only electric car that looks good, imo, is the Karma Fisker. I would have sex with that thing.

"More efficient, etc." First, more fuel efficient, than most cars, yes. Efficient if you are looking to save money in the lng run? Absolutely not. More "eco" friendly? Nope. Every bit of pollution you save from using less gas was used in the making of the battery and such.

[Hoschi0913]

@Nixmix24

newsflash...the fed's thinking of legislation to raising the noice level of electric car,because being so quiet could be dangerous due to not hearing a car approaching....funny isnt it?

[Nixmix24]

@Hoschi0913 That is pretty funny actually.

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

What about the Tesla Roadster? It's a bit out of my price range, but I would definitely like to drive that thing around.

[Nixmix24]

@maximum411 Sure it's a cool car and I could respect that choice but at $109k I'd rather save $30k and get the Fisker Karma. But this is just personal choice. Maybe if it was $30k-$40k I'd throw down the money to get the Roadster but I'm not a big fan of the Lotus Elise style. But yes, I'd still drive that thing around town in a heart beat.

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

The Fisker Karma is a really nice car too- aren't those also around $100k though?

Plus, Tesla has the Model S, which isn't nearly as nice as the Roadster but is $40k after tax rebates.

[Nixmix24]

@maximum411 All the prices I have seen are actually closer to $80k... Still a lot of money but if I'm going to spend over 100k on a car, it would be an Aston Martin haha. I've seen the Model S and I actually like that one more than the Roadster, if I'm honest. But that's just in the looks department.. I don't know much about performance or reliability.

[AgrivatedKillah]

@Nixmix24 Although I agree with you that some people do think they're king shit and saving the environmetn when they purchase hybrids, or electric vehicles.

To each his own.

[Nixmix24]

@AgrivatedKillah At least we can agree on one thing.

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

Where does the electricity for an electric car come from?

In the United States: 43.1% coal

8.3 % hydroelectric

24.2 % natural gas

18.6 % nuclear

4.9 % wind, solar, etc.

0.7 % petroleum

Where does the gasoline in a car come from? : 100% petroleum

Electricity is already more sustainable and can be switched to more environmentally-friendly sources. Burning fuels, on the other hand, always emits pollution.

[Nixmix24]

@maximum411 So you're saying that 87.1% of electricity comes from sources that burn fuels or is considered "too unsafe"? Coal? Natural Gas? Nuclear? Petroleum? You're only making my point for me. Not to mention all of the gas it takes to power the boats and the ships to make and send all of the battery parts across the world and back. Get your head out of your ass.

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

First of all, how did you get 87.1%?- the things you mentioned add up to 86.6%.

Nuclear is considered a clean energy source when managed safely, since it emits no greenhouse gases and the nuclear waste produced per energy unit is very small. Natural gas is also cleaner than petroleum. The main point, however, is that once cars are on electric, you can simply switch the sourcing of electricity to cleaner sources and that will automatically switch the energy supply for cars.

[Nixmix24]

@maximum411 Not sure where 87.1% came from, I must have typed in a number wrong. At any rate, a .5% difference isn't significant enough to make the point invalid.

Yes Nuclear is clean but liberals are opposed to it.. Not conservatives. Yes, Natural gas is also clean, but again, that's the source conservatives are pushing for over electricity. At the end of the day they still pollute and according to your numbers nearly half of the energy used is "dirty." Electricity isn't sustainable.. Solyndra

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

Some liberals are opposed to nuclear- I am about as liberal as you can get and I support safe nuclear as a transition energy until we perfect fusion or find ways to either store wind and solar energy or ensure a reliable supply of it. The point is, electricity is currently more sustainable than burning fuel, even if it does cause a lot of pollution. The importance is that electricity will be made more sustainable in the future, and if all cars are electric, so will transportation.

[Nixmix24]

@maximum411 Like I already said, I'm not against cleaner alternatives, I'm against the lies used and the misconceptions people like you have bought into. Electricity isn't sustainable. There's a reason why Solyndra failed in a big way. Any sustainability it has is because of every other fuel source. You don't know what you're talking about. All you're doing is spouting all of the liberal rhetoric you hear without looking at the facts. Typical to liberal form I might add.

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

Funny how you turn hostile once I mention I'm liberal, lol. Just shows that it's not the opinions you're mad about, just the person who's saying them. I guess now that you view me as the enemy, our opinions are beyond reconciling. I would still be open to debate, but I doubt that will go anywhere.

[Nixmix24]

@maximum411 Don't flatter yourself, I knew you were liberal from the beginning. It's your ignorance that I am hostile against. You aren't open to debate because you have your mind made up, you are open to an argument. No amount of facts will change your mind.

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

It's a fact that electricity currently IS more sustainable than petroleum power, even if it does emit plenty of greenhouse gases. It's also very likely that it will become more sustainable in the future, since so much energy is being devoted toward changing our electricity supply. We have realistic plans for how to produce sustainable electricity; not so for automobile fuel as of yet. Even if we switch to carbon-neutral fuel, it will require huge tracts of land to grow.

[Nixmix24]

@maximum411 You're living in a fantasy world where "is" means the same thing as "will be" or "might be." It ISN'T sustainable now. That's common sense. Sure it MIGHT BECOME sustainable down the road a ways but that doesn't automatically mean that at this point in time, it IS CURRENTLY sustainable..

You keep brining up ethanol on your own as if that's a good point. You're only proving that you only repeat the garbage you hear without actually thinking about it. Drop the corn/ethanol talk.

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

No- electricity IS more sustainable now. Electricity comes from partially sustainable sources; gasoline comes from 100% unsustainable sources- what about that is so difficult to understand? You seem to enjoy telling me that my arguments are wrong- that's all well and good, but for your criticisms to have even a shred of validity you need to say what about them is wrong- and you aren't. The objective factual truth is that a partially sustainable source is more sustainable than petrol.

[Nixmix24]

@maximum411 Electricity is sustainable in as far as the other energy sources are available to sustain electricity. If electricity could stand on its own, then yes, I would say that it is sustainable, but it can't. How can you say that petrol isn't sustainable when it is one of the many sources that make up the foundation of electrical sustainability? That makes no sense. Petrol can stand alone on its own merits just fine, electricity cannot. It's you who needs to provide validity to your points.

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

I'm sorry, but it looks like you aren't really understanding the points I'm making. I like debating, but from your responses it's clear that you either aren't really reading or just aren't understanding what I'm saying. Thanks anyway.

I realize that electricity comes from other sources, which I made quite clear in my comment, but you seem to think that I believe that electricity comes from nowhere. The point I was making is that it is produced in part from sustainable sources.

[Nixmix24]

@maximum411 I understand your points and I read through your whole comment before responding. You keep repeating the same rhetoric over and over without a shred of evidence to back it up. Again, you don't want to debate, you want to argue. Facts mean nothing to you when it comes to this.

"it is produced in part from sustainable sources." Yes, I know. you don't seem to understand that this contradicts your own points. Electricity isn't sustainable because it relies on real sustainable energy.

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

"Electricity isn't sustainable because it relies on real sustainable energy." See- that's exactly what I mean- makes no sense whatsoever.

[Nixmix24]

@maximum411 That makes perfect sense, you just don't want to see it. Pay attention this time. If you take away the energy that sustains electricity (which is what liberals are trying to do) any stability in electricity is gone (making it unsustainable). If it depends on other forms of energy, it isn't sustainable. It has to be able to stand on its own like coal does.. like gas does.. like nuclear energy does.. so on and so on. This is a VERY simple concept.

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

Ah okay- I see what the problem is. You just don't get what the word "sustainable" means. Sustainable means that given the resources we have, and given the amount of environmental damage our earth can handle, the most sustainable energy sources will use the least resources and do the least environmental damage over time. Because electricity derives only partially from fossil fuels, it uses less resources and does less environmental damage than a pure fossil fuel (petroleum) does.

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

Besides, nuclear could very easily stand on its own, and when plants are built to be safe, nuclear is far more sustainable than coal or petroleum. I also recently went to a talk at Harvard in which one of the speakers (I forget exactly what his position was, but he works on developing clean technology) said that given the right infrastructure of windmills and solar panels spread across the country, we could ensure a more or less constant supply of energy from them.

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

Ethanol has been ruled out in terms of sustainability because all the corn it requires both raises corn prices and is pretty unsustainable.

I am also open to realistic, viable alternatives to linking cars into the electricity grid, but none have been presented as of yet.

If you think you know better, what are your suggestions?

[Nixmix24]

@maximum411 Nobody was talking about ethanol. And if you are going to say that ethanol is ruled out because of expense then you just ruled out electricity as well because it's too expensive to maintain. Again, there's a reason why Solyndra failed. Do your homework. My suggestion is to bring the Canadian pipeline down here and use that oil until we have actual sources of reliable energy that can be used as an alternative. We don't need to link cars into the electrical grid. That's one solution.

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

That doesn't even make sense. The cost of electricity varies hugely depending on the source. Coal will eventually be too expensive to maintain, but that is why we are switching to other sources. We will always have electricity (at least for the forseeable future).

Solyndra failed because it made poor-quality and inefficient solar panels, and the government didn't do its research before investing in them. It is not an inherent problem in solar panel technology.

[Nixmix24]

@maximum411 What do you mean it doesn't make sense? Do you not see all of the failed "green" companies? They fail because it's not practical right now. Use your head for a second.

Solyndra failed, even with all of the liberal money Obama poured into it, because the costs far outweigh the benefits. They were trying to offset the costs with the government subsidies. Still demand is very low and they couldn't recover their costs. This is simp economics. You don't know what you're talking about.

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

And I have "done my homework": do not insult me. Given that you are suggesting approval of the Tar Sands pipeline as a solution to our climate problems, I suggest you do yours. No serious climate scientist approves of the pipeline; a number have even said that approving it would be "game over" for limiting the effects of climate change. You do your research.

[Nixmix24]

@maximum411 Nice try with the rhetoric. I never said that the pipeline is a solution to our "climate problems" now did I? I don't care what "climate scientists" have to say about the pipeline. If it's not going to come here it'll go over to China and be used there that's the bottom line. I'd rather get our oil from friendly nations than the middle East and help fund the corruption over there. I've done my research, you apparently haven't done any of your own. Again, think for yourself.

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

You make a good point about China- however, it is not that simple. TransCanada does not currently have the permits it needs to be able to use Canadian ports to export crude to China in large quantities, and it is by no means assured that it will be able to get those. While it is possible that they could end up shipping the oil to China, it is also a bit of a bluff on TransCanada's part- you're reacting exactly the way they want Americans to (if we don't take it, China will)!

[Nixmix24]

@maximum411 It really is that simple. What makes you think that they can't get the approval for any obstacle they come across? Canada stands to lose nothing and to gain everything from this. Do you really think that if the US doesn't get it, they will just give up? Please.

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

Also, you have to remember the environmental impact this pipeline will have. Having cheap oil is great, but if that leads us to destroy the entire biosphere, it won't be much use. Environmental concerns are always portrayed as subordinate to economics, but there is a point where they become so serious that they become more important than any other factors.

[Nixmix24]

@maximum411 Again, you need to provide more than just rhetoric from the left if you want to make this argument.

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

Tar sands oil is especially "dirty" and requires heavy chemical use to refine the bitumen. It is also naturally higher in a number of dangerous heavy metals. Existing Tar Sands refineries are already causing high cancer rates in downstream communities. Refinement emits sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide, which cause acid rain.The proposed Keystone XL pipeline would also run through an aquifer which supplies drinking water for millions and 30% of America's irrigation water.

[Nixmix24]

@maximum411 And where are these "facts" that you are getting? What's the source? Give me a credible source that doesn't have an anti-oil agenda, and I will begin to take you seriously.

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

If we used up all the oil from the Keystone XL pipeline, we could raise atmospheric CO2 levels by several hundred ppm- the climate effects would be very severe.

It is time to get off of oil. China has a very profitable solar panel industry, and it can be done successfully. Solyndra failed because it was a bad company, and because the price of silicon dropped and its forte was that it used less silicon in its panels.

[Nixmix24]

@maximum411 If we don't use the oil CHINA WILL. No matter what the effect of the pipeline may be, it'll happen. I would prefer that we have the pipeline to create jobs, lower the cost of gas, stop relying on foreign oil from hostile nations, and stop funding said nations. If you want to talk about the public good, let's talk about that.

If we can move away from oil, that's great, but as I've already shown you, that's unrealistic RIGHT NOW because the alternatives are unsustainable RIGHT NOW.

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

The price of solar is projected to drop below that of coal soon anyway, so investing in such a huge oil supply may not help us in the long run. When the price graphs cross, the switch to electric will happen on its own. Nonetheless, I am in full support of government subsidies if they are effective in making that change happen sooner; this is a public good that we desperately need.

[Nixmix24]

@maximum411 "The price of solar is projected to drop below that of coal"

Think about what you are saying.. Just give it a try. The key word in YOUR OWN sentence is "projected." This isn't written in stone, and the people doing these projections are the people who are trying to get away from petroleum and coal and what not. This is biased reporting and research at it's best to push an agenda. Simple as that.

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

Also, once these "alternative sources of energy" are discovered, they will be used to produce electricity, correct? Which means that in order for cars to use this energy, they will need to be able to plug into the grid and get energy from there, correct? That will be pretty difficult without technology equipping electric cars to do this.

[maximum411]

@Nixmix24

Also, you do realize that all cars have batteries, right? There is no reason to assume that the battery in the Prius has a carbon impact any greater than that of another car.

[Nixmix24]

@maximum411 Yeah, but not the kids of batteries used in electric cars. There's a major difference. There's plenty of reasons to assume that electric cars make just as much of a carbon footprint. You just don't want to see it. You're too caught up in your rhetoric to see the facts of the matter. I'm not against cleaner alternatives, I'm against the lies used and the misconceptions people like you have bought into. There's a reason why companies like Solyndra have failed miserably.