Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 02-28-2012, 06:13 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
At current gasoline and electric prices, and assuming the economy numbers given by this obviously biased report (something the snopes report didn't fully rebut) you would be correct. However, gasoline prices are extremely volatile, and electric is very stable. Resale value on hybrids is exceptionally high. The economy numbers from other sources suggest a reasonable electric-only range of 35 miles, and gasoline-only economy of over 35mpg. It is most economical at or below the average person's driving profile, and would likely save money for about 60% of the population.

It wouldn't save me much money - I put in 100 to 250 miles at a time for work.
Yeah, to each his own I guess.. You won't see me buying one. I usually buy old used stuff with over 100k miles on it anyway and I don't really drive far to work so I highly doubt it would save me ANY money at all. My money is saved on how cheap my vehicles are.

Oh, and the "amount saved" number I used was from the Chevrolet Volt website (http://www.chevroletvoltage.com/inde...nderstand.html)
and I used the more generous one. It states that the average cost per mile for the Volt drivers is $.03-.06 while the cost of a conventional 30mpg vehicle is $0.13 per mile. That is a savings of between 7-10 cents per mile. Just for fun..... Let's say I buy a car for $5000 and it gets 30mpg and I drive 30 miles per day... (One gallon a day).. and Gas goes up to $10 a gallon tomorrow.
So now it costs me 30 cents per mile to drive my gas car. So the "Volt" saves me 24 cents per mile (that's if the operating cost of the Volt is STILL only .06 cents per mile..)... I could have paid at least $25k more to buy a Volt... So how long would it take for me to get my 25k back with the savings... So at 24 cents of savings per mile at 30 miles per day.. That's $7.20 per day. Divide $7.20 into $25k and it would take me 3472.22 days... About 10 years. TO BREAK EVEN. IF GAS GOES TO $10 A GALLON.
Yeah, I'm not buying it.
__________________

__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."

--Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2012, 03:55 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post
Yeah, to each his own I guess.. You won't see me buying one. I usually buy old used stuff with over 100k miles on it anyway and I don't really drive far to work so I highly doubt it would save me ANY money at all. My money is saved on how cheap my vehicles are.

Oh, and the "amount saved" number I used was from the Chevrolet Volt website (http://www.chevroletvoltage.com/inde...nderstand.html)
and I used the more generous one. It states that the average cost per mile for the Volt drivers is $.03-.06 while the cost of a conventional 30mpg vehicle is $0.13 per mile. That is a savings of between 7-10 cents per mile. Just for fun..... Let's say I buy a car for $5000 and it gets 30mpg and I drive 30 miles per day... (One gallon a day).. and Gas goes up to $10 a gallon tomorrow.
So now it costs me 30 cents per mile to drive my gas car. So the "Volt" saves me 24 cents per mile (that's if the operating cost of the Volt is STILL only .06 cents per mile..)... I could have paid at least $25k more to buy a Volt... So how long would it take for me to get my 25k back with the savings... So at 24 cents of savings per mile at 30 miles per day.. That's $7.20 per day. Divide $7.20 into $25k and it would take me 3472.22 days... About 10 years. TO BREAK EVEN. IF GAS GOES TO $10 A GALLON.
Yeah, I'm not buying it.
Agreed. But the same is true of *any* new car you buy, compared to a well-used vehicle. You're not comparing apples to apples, or even apples to oranges. This is more like apples to steam shovels.
__________________

__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 06:00 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
Agreed. But the same is true of *any* new car you buy, compared to a well-used vehicle. You're not comparing apples to apples, or even apples to oranges. This is more like apples to steam shovels.
Yeah, I know. That's why it was "Just for fun". I still don't think it would be a worthwhile alternative to a new gas auto unless someone just wanted to "feel good" about it. I certainly wouldn't buy one thinking I was going to save money.
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."

--Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 05:41 AM  
Supporting Member
 
teaberryeagle's Avatar

Richmond, VA
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,444 | Kudos: +200
Images: 16
1111111111


Quote:
subject: Snopes no more
Quote:

wow...read this one! Then check out the suggested web sites!!!


many of the emails that i have sent or forwarded that had any anti obama in it were negated by snopes. I thought that was odd. Check this out.

shades of krystalnacht

snopes, soros and the supreme court's kagan.we-l-l-l-l now, i guess the time has come to check out snopes! Ya' don't suppose it might not be a good time to take a second look at some of the stuff that got kicked in the ditch by snopes, do ya'?


we've known that it was owned by a lefty couple but hadn't known it to be financed by soros!


snopes is heavily financed by george soros, a big time s upporter of obama! in our search for the truth department, we find what i have suspected on many occasions.


i went to snopes to check something about the dockets of the new supreme court justice. Elena kagan, who obama appointed, and snopes said the email was false and there were no such dockets. So i googled the supreme court, typed in obama-kag an, and guess what? Yep, you got it; snopes lied! Everyone of those dockets are there.

so here is what i wrote to snopes:
referencing the article about elana kagan and barak obama dockets:

the information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as claimed and the examples you gave are blatantly false. I went directly to the supreme courts website, typed in obama kagan and immediately came up with all of the dockets that the article made reference to. I have long suspected that you really slant things but this was really
shocking. Thank you. I hope you will be much more truthful in the future, but i doubt it.

that being said, ill bet you didn't know this.



kagan was representing obama in all the petitions to prove his citizenship. Now she may help rule on them. Folks, this is really ugly. chicago politics and the beat goes on and on and on. Once again the us senate sold us out!

now we know why obama nominated elana kagan for the supreme court. Pull up the supreme courts website, go to the docket and search for obama. She was the solicitor general for all the suits against him filed with the supreme court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her big time. All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? The american people mean nothing any longer. it's all about payback time for those who compromised themselves to elect someone who really has no true right to even be there.

here are some websites of the supreme court docket: You can look up some of these hearings and guess what?
elana kagan is the attorney representing obama!
check out these examples:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/09-8857.htm

http://www.supremec ourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/09-6790..htm

http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/09-724.htm
if you are not interested in justice or in truth, simply delete.
however, if you hold sacred the freedoms granted to you by the u.s. Constitution, by all means, pass it on!
there truly is tyranny afoot.






Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 09:06 AM  
Senior Member
 
oldognewtrick's Avatar

Nashville, TN
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 493 | Kudos: +74
Thanks for posting this, guess we really can't trust anything except what we see, hear or feel. And then, I guess we need to question a lot of that.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 01:33 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
The Snopes conspiracy goes a little deeper than that




But seriously, someone should have read what the original email claimed, what snopes claimed, and the court records cited.

The "krystalniacht" email teaberryeagle just posted, with it's massive font size (because anything in a large font is obviously more believable, amirite?) suggests that Snopes factchecking of an email claiming an Obama/Kagan link is flawed. The "krystalnacht" email doesn't cite or quote the original email, nor does it cite or quote the Snopes article. The only cites the "Krystalnacht" email provides are three links to cases on the Supreme Court docket.

Trying to discover what the "krystalnacht" email was referring to, I searched Snopes for "Kagan Obama" and came up with exactly one link.
The search: http://goo.gl/wUgIq
The single link: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kagan.asp

The Snopes article claims that the original email that spawned the message was circulated in response to a WorldNetDaily article that cited 9 specific cases as evidence that Kagan blocked lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility. Snopes claims that these 9 specific cases were unrelated to Obama's eligibility, gives a short synopsis of each case demonstrating this, and provides links to government records of each of these cases.

The most "damning" case was a lawsuit filed by an anti-Obama 527 PAC against the Federal Election Commission about regulations that it claimed violated its right to disseminate information about Obama. This case was related to the Citizens United suit also against the Federal Election Commission. Except that even this case was not a question of eligibility, but a question of election procedure; Obama wasn't a party to this case.

In the three cases cited in the "krystalnacht" email, Elana Kagan is listed as the Attorney of Record for the Respondents. The respondents in question are the Federal Government or specific named entities of that government, including the President of the United States, Barack Obama. If you understand the role of the Office of the Solicitor General, you will know that this office represents the Federal Government in front of the Supreme Court over any lawsuit involving abridgment of constitutional rights. Her name appears on "500+" (the limit of the search feature on the site) records appealed to the Supreme Court:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.a...-Court=Dockets

Perhaps the most damning evidence against the originally circulated email was the fact that WorldNetDaily, who's reporting incited the creation of that email, later withdrew their claims: http://www.wnd.com/2010/08/187797/
Quote:
Editor?s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described a series of cases for which Elena Kagan represented the government as eligibility cases. Those cases, in fact, were a series of unrelated disputes pending before the Supreme Court and the references have been removed from this report.
Moving on to the alleged Snopes/Soros link, note that the "krystalnacht" email cites no evidence of such a link, it merely asserts that there is one. It doesn't say how much Soros has allegedly provided to the Mikkelsons, the people who run Snopes, it only claims that Snopes is "heavily financed" by Soros. Given the lack of any supporting evidence, this claim is no more valid than a claim that "teaberryeagle gave money to the Satanist's for Romney SuperPAC".

Given that the remainder of the claims in the "krystalnacht" email are contradicted by the evidence, I personally have a hard time taking the author's word on this.

Obviously, their claim cannot be fully trusted due to a blatant appearance of bias, but for what it's worth, Snopes makes this claim:
Quote:
Because snopes.com is all about rumors, it was only a matter of time before rumors began to circulate about it and its operators, such as the following:

Snopes receives funding from an undisclosed source. The source is undisclosed because Snopes refuses to disclose that source. The Democratic Alliance, a funding channel for uber-Leftist (Marxist) Billionaires (George Soros etc.), direct funds to an "Internet Propaganda Arm" pushing these views. The Democratic Alliance has been reported to instruct Fundees to not disclose their funding source.

The snopes.com web site is (and always has been) a completely independent, self-sufficient entity wholly owned by its operators, Barbara and David Mikkelson, and funded through advertising revenues. Neither the site nor its operators has ever received monies from (or been engaged in any business or editorial relationship with), any sponsor, investor, partner, political party, religious group, business organization, government agency, or any other outside group or organization.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2012, 05:49 AM  
Supporting Member
 
teaberryeagle's Avatar

Richmond, VA
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,444 | Kudos: +200
Images: 16
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

Quote:
This Executive Order was posted on the http://www.whitehouse.gov/ web site on Friday, March 16, 2012, under the name National Defense Resources Preparedness. In a nutshell, it's the blueprint for Peacetime Martial Law and it gives the president the power to take just about anything deemed necessary for "National Defense", whatever they decide that is. It's peacetime, because as the title of the order says, it's for "Preparedness". A copy of the entire order follows the end of this story.
Under this order the heads of these cabinet level positions; Agriculture, Energy, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Defense and Commerce can take food, livestock, fertilizer, farm equipment, all forms of energy, water resources, all forms of civil transporation (meaning any vehicles, boats, planes), and any other materials, including construction materials from wherever they are available. This is probably why the government has been visiting farms with GPS devices, so they know exactly where to go when they turn this one on.
Specifically, the government is allowed to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate. They decide what necessary or appropriate means.

UPDATE: BIN reader Kent Welton writes: This allows for the giving away of USA assets and subsidies to private companies: "(b) provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities, including the modification or improvement of production processes, when taking actions under sections 301, 302, or 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, 2093; and (c) sell or otherwise transfer equipment owned by the Federal Government and installed under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to the owners of such plants, factories, or other industrial facilities."

What happens if the government decides it needs all these things to be prepared, even if there is no war? You likely won't be able to walk into a store to purchase virtually anything because it will all be requisitioned, "rationed" and controlled by the government. Construction materials, food like meat, butter and sugar, anything imported, parts, tires and fuel for vehicles, clothing, etc. will likely become unobtainable, or at least very scarce. How many things are even made here in the USA any more?
A bit of history... During WWII, price stabilization didn't begin until May of 1942, which froze prices on nearly all every day goods an

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
March 16, 2012
Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness
EXECUTIVE ORDER
NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
PART I - PURPOSE, POLICY, AND IMPLEMENTATION


Section 101. Purpose. This order delegates authorities and addresses national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (the "Act").
Sec. 102. Policy. The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency. The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness. The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense needs of the United States.
Sec. 103. General Functions. Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:
(a) identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;
(b) assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;
(c) be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;
(d) improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial base to support national defense requirements; and
(e) foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, services, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.
Sec. 104. Implementation. (a) The National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, in conjunction with the National Economic Council, shall serve as the integrated policymaking forum for consideration and formulation of national defense resource preparedness policy and shall make recommendations to the President on the use of authorities under the Act.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:
(1) advise the President on issues of national defense resource preparedness and on the use of the authorities and functions delegated by this order;
(2) provide for the central coordination of the plans and programs incident to authorities and functions delegated under this order, and provide guidance to agencies assigned functions under this order, developed in consultation with such agencies; and
(3) report to the President periodically concerning all program activities conducted pursuant to this order.
(c) The Defense Production Act Committee, described in section 701 of this order, shall:
(1) in a manner consistent with section 2(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2062(b), advise the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy on the effective use of the authorities under the Act; and
(2) prepare and coordinate an annual report to the Congress pursuant to section 722(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171(d).
(d) The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other agencies, shall:
(1) analyze potential effects of national emergencies on actual production capability, taking into account the entire production system, including shortages of resources, and develop recommended preparedness measures to strengthen capabilities for production increases in national emergencies; and
(2) perform industry analyses to assess capabilities of the industrial base to support the national defense, and develop policy recommendations to improve the international competitiveness of specific domestic industries and their abilities to meet national defense program needs.
PART II - PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATIONS
Info. in another bill......worth watching......
ATTENTION PREPPERS -
Having More Than 7 Days Of Food Makes You A Suspected Terrorist
Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2012, 06:07 AM  
Senior Member
 
Sideways's Avatar

Houston, Texas
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 980 | Kudos: +33
Images: 1
Sadly, I am not surprised.
__________________
"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. Never forget that everything the Founding Fathers did was not." Martin Luther King, Jr.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2012, 08:00 AM  
Supporting Member
 
teaberryeagle's Avatar

Richmond, VA
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,444 | Kudos: +200
Images: 16
Should you have missed it and would like more info. about
this link and information available here......

http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse

2012 State Of The Union Address:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union-2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Zgfi7wnGZlE


Meeting of the Interagency Task Force to Monitor and
Combat Trafficking in Persons

Quote:
Uploaded by whitehouse on Mar 15, 2012
Cabinet members and senior advisors gather at the White House for a meeting
chaired by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to lay out their plans to eradicate
trafficking in persons, drawing on tools ranging from law enforcement and victim
service provision, to public awareness building and diplomatic pressure. March 15, 2012.


First Question with Jay Carney - March 19th 2012
Quote:
Uploaded by whitehouse on Mar 19, 2012
In his first "First Question" White House Press Secretary Jay Carney takes questions from the White House social networks on gas prices, energy policy and health care



All the President's Pens

Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2012, 09:49 AM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
Maybe Obama will push to have the Howard Johnson Motor installed in the Volt.
__________________

__________________
I remember when power tools and small appliances had flexible cords.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.