Restoring Honor Rally 8/28

[MattusMaximus]

Well, the Volt is priced at about two and a half times the price of a regular car with its performance. You pay twice as much -- the other half-car is other people's money in the form of a tax rebate.

Well, not to add to the derail too much, but something kind of similar happened years ago with the Prius and other hybrid gas-electric models (though not to the extent as with the upcoming Volt, I'll admit). I received a very nice tax break ($2500) for purchasing my Prius in 2005, and it seems that once people realized it was a damn fine vehicle then even after those tax breaks expired people kept buying them.

If the Volt is a good vehicle, I forsee something similar occuring. If the Volt isn't a good vehicle, then it'll go away.

I have to admit, all this talk of the Volt has gotten me interested in potentially purchasing one

 

[Cicero]

I received a very nice tax break ($2500) for purchasing my Prius in 2005, and it seems that once people realized it was a damn fine vehicle then even after those tax breaks expired people kept buying them.

"Hateful lentil-fuelled transport for the insufferably self-righteous. And it’s not even all that economical.’ JCRC TOP GEAR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqY8FUDcATE

 

[Shalamar]

Meh.

if you really want an electric vehicle, buy a Tesla. Ridiculously expensive, yes, but a 300 mile range, and the roadster performs like a high performance sports car. I understand maintenance is far lower as well. Fewer moving parts.

I don't know much about the Sedan, except it will be a lot less expensive than the roadster, have actual cargo space, and the possibility for switching out the batteries for much longer trips.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Agreed. It's just that I don't recall Skeptic Ginger and many others on these forums being exercised about comparisons of Bush to Hitler.

"Exercised about"?

If you are complaining about hypocritical complaining, you need specific examples, not just your personal miff that people did not come to the defense of the worst President this country has had in a century when someone depicted Bush as Hitler.

If you have a post of someone actually calling Bush Hitler, then complaining about Obama being depicted as Hitler, then make your case. But expecting me, or someone else to stand up against Bush being called names, there are >4,000 dead soldiers that remind me Bush does not deserve defending regardless of someone else's inappropriate name calling.

 

[Cicero]

" But expecting me, or someone else to stand up against Bush being called names, there are >4,000 dead soldiers that remind me Bush does not deserve defending regardless of someone else's inappropriate name calling.

Since Bush 43 does not deserve defending for the 4,734 American casualties suffered in Iraq, does POTUS Obama deserve defending for the 643 American casualties in Afghanistan incurred since he took office?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Since Bush 43 does not deserve defending for the 4,734 American casualties suffered in Iraq, does POTUS Obama deserve defending for the 643 American casualties in Afghanistan incurred since he took office?

Not unless you can show that Obama's decision making in Afghanistan and Iraq were made on a level playing field compared to Bush's decisions.

Bush slanted the case against Iraq to support his choice, and invaded unnecessarily and under false pretenses, regardless of what his personal motives were.

Obama came into office with a war Bush started. He needs to get us out without making things worse. The circumstances are completely different

 

[Cicero]

Not unless you can show that Obama's decision making in Afghanistan and Iraq were made on a level playing field compared to Bush's decisions.

Playing fields are never level. That is why they change sides at the half.

Bush slanted the case against Iraq to support his choice, and invaded unnecessarily and under false pretenses, regardless of what his personal motives were.

"Seeking to temper partisan feelings over the war on a day when Republicans pointed out that Mr. Obama had opposed the troop surge generally credited with helping to bring Iraq a measure of stability, the president offered some praise for his predecessor, George W. Bush. Mr. Obama acknowledged their disagreement over Iraq but said that no one could doubt Mr. Bush’s “support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/world/01military.html

Obama came into office with a war Bush started. He needs to get us out without making things worse. The circumstances are completely different

Now it's 'Obama's War': President sees same number of U.S. troops - 575 - die in Afghanistan as during Bush years

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...ber-US-troops-die-Afghanistan-Bush-years.html

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Playing fields are never level. That is why they change sides at the half.

Non sequitur.

"Seeking to temper partisan feelings over the war on a day when Republicans pointed out that Mr. Obama had opposed the troop surge generally credited with helping to bring Iraq a measure of stability, the president offered some praise for his predecessor, George W. Bush. Mr. Obama acknowledged their disagreement over Iraq but said that no one could doubt Mr. Bush’s “support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/world/01military.html

Did you really expect Obama to call 'W' an a-hole that started an unnecessary war? Get real.

Now it's 'Obama's War': President sees same number of U.S. troops - 575 - die in Afghanistan as during Bush years

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...ber-US-troops-die-Afghanistan-Bush-years.html

This is another non sequitur. Are you unable to discuss the fact there is a difference between starting an unnecessary war and dealing with an ongoing war already in progress?

 

[Cicero]

This is another non sequitur. Are you unable to discuss the fact there is a difference between starting an unnecessary war and dealing with an ongoing war already in progress?

That's what LBJ and Nixon said. How did that distinction work for them?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's what LBJ and Nixon said. How did that distinction work for them?

Change the subject much when you don't have a good answer?

 

[Alareth]

A true believers tale. (Warning: May cause brain hemorrhage)

I wander the streets trying to catch a vibe. Is this our generation's Woodstock? I wish Bob Dylan would pop up and lead us in protest songs. He's got to "get it." I know lots of '60s hippies who have converted to Beckism. Social awareness is social awareness. No one comments on my Beck button. No pro or con. Maybe D.C. has gone Orwellian. Maybe they are actually afraid to think for themselves. They are afraid to have opinions. I start to feel like the Thought Police are following me. I whip my head around.

That's right folks, paranoia induced by a lack of persecution.

 

[Mumbles]

What's offensive to me is the word "n-word". We all know what it means yet we think somehow making up this saying changes anything. I don't know why people are more concerned about phonetics instead of intent. Unless it's Al Sharpton, then we know why. He sees dollar signs every time a white person says it. But of course that's not racist....

If it were my forum, I'd just write the entire word out, but I've been slapped by a mod for merely using a censored version of the word before.

 

[TraneWreck]

Hitch used to describe himself as a socialist and still is a self-described atheist, yet he had his kids baptized.

I found no evidence to support this. Where did you find this?

 

[GreNME]

A true believers tale. (Warning: May cause brain hemorrhage)



That's right folks, paranoia induced by a lack of persecution.

Is that the C-list ex-SNL cast member whose main comedy use was "the stupid blonde" in pretty much every skit she was in?

 

[bit_pattern]

A true believers tale. (Warning: May cause brain hemorrhage)



That's right folks, paranoia induced by a lack of persecution.

Rofl!

I liked this:

I notice there are mostly white people here. I wonder why there aren't more Cubans, and Venezuelans, Koreans, Vietnamese, Russians, Egyptians, Africans, Pakistanis, Chinese and Colombians. Didn't they come here to escape dictatorships and corrupt governments? Why aren't they worried about this "fundamental transformation" that is making our country look like the one they left? Maybe they don't speak English so they don't watch Glenn Beck. Why aren't some Muslims here? They are "Americans," right? Aren't they concerned about the state of our nation? The crashing economy? The socialist/communist agenda?

Uh, gee, yeah I wonder why? :

 

[Cicero]

Change the subject much when you don't have a good answer?

Same subject. You just refuse to confront the fact that the war in Afghanistan has been POTUS Obama's war since he took office. He fired Gen. McChrystall. He has sent more forces to Afghanistan. So next time you feel like not defending the former POTUS for military deaths that happened during his term of office, remember that the current POTUS assumes the same responsibility for the 643 American casualties in Afghanistan incurred since he took office.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Same subject. You just refuse to confront the fact that the war in Afghanistan has been POTUS Obama's war since he took office. He fired Gen. McChrystall. He has sent more forces to Afghanistan. So next time you feel like not defending the former POTUS for military deaths that happened during his term of office, remember that the current POTUS assumes the same responsibility for the 643 American casualties in Afghanistan incurred since he took office.

Round and round the mulberry bush,
Cicero chased his agenda.
When it was shown that he had no case,
He just refused to end-a.


You are trying to equate MISLEADING/LYING to the country and STARTING a war on false pretenses, which Bush did, with Obama's forced decisions how to proceed AFTER a war was in progress. Obama inherited a mess. That was not the case with Bush who had the option to initiate a needless war or not.


You can ignore the facts all you want here, Cicero. But most people in the forum are not ignoring those facts.

 

[Cicero]

You are trying to equate MISLEADING/LYING to the country and STARTING a war on false pretenses, which Bush did, with Obama's forced decisions how to proceed AFTER a war was in progress. Obama inherited a mess. That was not the case with Bush who had the option to initiate a needless war or not.

Since American military presence in Afghanistan was never considered the wrong war in the wrong place, even by most liberals, are you now inoculating POTUS Obama from any responsibility for the loss of American military lives in that theater of operation because it is not a "needless war?"

LBJ and then Nixon inherited the Southeast Asia mess. Do you absolve them of all U.S. casualties that occurred when they were in office?

Please provide any evidence where Bush 43 "lied" to the country about WOMD?

Senator Obama was against the surge in Iraq, but POTUS Obama can now only say 'time to turn the page' on Iraq.


Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq


"Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence.
"The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.

Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As long as you ignore the issue here, Cicero, you are wasting everyone's time.

Bush lied and started a war we should never have had to fight. Obama did not.

 

[Cicero]

As long as you ignore the issue here, Cicero, you are wasting everyone's time.

Bush lied and started a war we should never have had to fight. Obama did not.

Until you can provide evidence that Bush 43 "lied" about WOMD, you should change your handle to anti-Skeptic Ginger ale. Nothing but fizz and fizzle.