Democrats and high gas prices

[Tigermike 3,072]

April 27, 2006

It's Hard Out Here For a Pump

By Ann Coulter

I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.

But it's too much having to watch Democrats wail about the awful calamity to poor working families of having to pay high gas prices.

Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline to force people to ride bicycles has been one of the left's main policy goals for years.

For decades Democrats have been trying to raise the price of gasoline so that the working class will stop their infernal car-driving and start riding on buses where they belong, while liberals ride in Gulfstream jets.

The last time the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency was in 1993. Immediately after trying to put gays in the military and socialize all health care, Clinton's next order of business was to propose an energy tax on all fuels, including a 26-cent tax on gas. I think the bill was called "putting people first in line at the bus station." This is the Democratic Party. That's their program.

Al Gore defended the gas tax, vowing that it was "absolutely not coming out" of the energy bill regardless of "how much trouble it causes the entire package."

And mind you, this was before we knew Gore was clinically insane. Back then we thought he was just a double-talking stuffed shirt who seemed kind of gay. The important thing was to force Americans to stop their infernal car-driving, no matter how much it cost.

Democrats in Congress promptly introduced an "energy bill" that would put an additional 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline to stop "global warming," an atmospheric phenomenon supposedly aggravated by frivolous human activities such as commerce, travel and food production.

Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley endorsed the proposal on "Charlie Rose," saying: "I'd have a five-cent increase every year for five years. ... But that's not going to happen ... because we've got people who fret and worry that one- or two-tenths of a cent of a gasoline tax is going to cause some revolution at home." So in Tom Foley's universe, two-tenths of a cent is the same as a quarter -- another testimonial to the American public educational system.

The Democrats' proposed gas tax did cause a revolution at home, and consequently the Democrats were able to sneak through only an additional 4.3-cent federal tax on gasoline. After tut-tutting the idea that voters would object if the Democrats attempted a huge gas tax increase, Speaker Tom Foley soon became former speaker, and indeed former Congressman Tom Foley.

Gary Hart, another whimsical demonstration of what Democrats think a president should be like, said at the time, "I certainly favor consumption taxes, particularly on energy." Then there's John Kerry, who favored a 50-cent increase in the gas tax in 1994. If he were a rap artist, Kerry's stage name would be "Fifty Cent a Gallon."

Last year, a couple of green "climatologists" at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were back at it in the journal Science, wheeling out their proposal for a 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline as an "insurance policy" against global warming.

Just two months ago, we were being confidently told -- on the basis of a New York Times/CBS News poll, so it must be true -- that "Americans might OK a gasoline tax hike if it reduced global warming or lessened U.S. dependence on foreign oil." (This poll was wedged in among the 29 polls claiming Americans think we're losing the war in Iraq.) Other results from the Times' "meaningless polls" section: Americans might "OK" a Dennis Kucinich presidency if it meant free ice cream every Tuesday.

How many times do Democrats have to tell us they want to raise the price of gas for the average American before the average American believes them? Is it more or less than the number of times Democrats tell us they want to surrender in the war on terrorism?

It's as if a switch goes off in people's brains telling them: The Democrats can't be saying they want to destroy the lives of people who drive cars because my father was a Democrat, and the Democrats can't be this stupid!

The Democrats' only objection to current gas prices is that the federal government's cut is a mere 18.4 cents a gallon. States like New York get another 44 cents per gallon in taxes. The Democratic brain processes the fact that "big oil companies" get nearly 9 cents a gallon and thinks: WE SHOULD HAVE ALL THAT MONEY!

When the free market does the exact thing liberals have been itching to do through taxation, they pretend to be appalled by high gas prices, hoping the public will forget that high gas prices are part of their agenda.

link

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Good article.

[DKW 86 7,475]

I like Coulter for the most part. But again, I will argue that a gas tax, one that gets us away from buying mid-East oil, is a great idea to me. We need to get away from having a price war with the Chinese. Their economy will eventually overpower us. They are just too large. To compensate, the US will likely consolidate Nafta and Cafta into a EU type of thing. Their buying power will force us to compete with China, India, etc. and their economies, based on just population alone will swamp us eventually.

The best thing we can do is to basically take the gas tax idea from the Dems AND open up in the US drilling (ANWR) while proactively seeking new energy sources. Solar, wind, hybrids, smaller, more fuel efficirent cars, really good public transportation, etc.

We have to get away from being at the mercy of Middle Eastern Islamo-Fascists and nut cases like Hugo Chavis.

BTW, with Chavis, we could just run down there and take over his oil fields in an afternoon. It's not like Venzuela even has a an Army. Just a threat for our neighbors to the south to dwell upon...

[TexasTiger 13,090]

For a little actual perspective, which one will NEVER get from Ann Coulter, the gas tax went up 4.3 cents under Clinton. It was raised 5 cents under Reagan and 5 cents under Bush I.

Ross Perot planned to raise it 50 cents to pay down the deficit. Kerry never sponsored or supported any such legislation.

If we had a gas tax that was high enough to significanly impact what people chose to drive and what car manufacturers sold in the US--- several car makers are introducing smaller more fuel efficient cars this year-- the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, etc. but these are not "new" cars. The rest of the world has had them for years. Nor or they even the most fuel efficient cars that the same car makers we have here in America sell elsewhere.

Ross Perot's plan for a gas tax would likely make us less dependent on foreign oil. Right now we count on Saudi Arabia to help feed our habit and China to loan us the money to pay for it. That does not keep us more secure. We get weaker every year and will continue to until we practice more discipline and restraint both financially and fuel-wise.

[quietfan 233]

If we had a gas tax that was high enough to significanly impact what people chose to drive and what car manufacturers sold in the US--- several car makers are introducing smaller more fuel efficient cars this year-- the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, etc. but these are not "new" cars.  The rest of the world has had them for years.  Nor or they even the most fuel efficient cars that the same car makers we have here in America sell elsewhere.

Ross Perot's plan for a gas tax would likely make us less dependent on foreign oil. Right now we count on Saudi Arabia to help feed our habit and China to loan us the money to pay for it.  That does not keep us more secure.  We get weaker every year and will continue to until we practice more discipline and restraint both financially and fuel-wise.

232751[/snapback]

Perhaps an alternate compromise would be to put the tax on the vehicle rather than the fuel. In other words, put a painfully high surcharge on the purchase of inefficient vehicles rather than on the fuel. That would encourage the move to better mileage cars without penalizing the middle/low income worker who still has to get to work in his 30-40 MPG Honda/Toyota/Nissan. Those who still wanted their land battleships could have them if they were willing to pay. [You could even incorporate some sort of rebate for those who required the large vehicles for work or huge families.]

Of course, that would do nothing to promote better energy habits like walking instead of driving 3 blocks to the convenience store for beer/cigarettes, etc., but it also wouldn't force the poor to pay higher fuel costs they can't afford. [One of my pet peaves: I live near a college campus where the students (mostly younger and healthy than I) feel they have to drive their SUV's and King Cabs from one class to another rather than walk a block or two. ...and then bitch because there is a parking shortage!]

[Tigermike 3,072]

Suppose we all go out and try to buy one of those small cars you are speaking of. The demand would overwhelm the supply wouldn't it? Would it be fair to think those manufacturers and dealers of those little cars would then hold the price higher? Would Schumer & company then be screaming about windfall profits for the small car industry?

One thing is obvious, "if there is anything worse than partisan demagoguery, it is bipartisan demagoguery."

[quietfan 233]

Suppose we all go out and try to buy one of those small cars you are speaking of.  The demand would overwhelm the supply wouldn't it?  Would it be fair to think those manufacturers and dealers of those little cars would then hold the price higher?  Would Schumer & company then be screaming about windfall profits for the small car industry?

One thing is obvious, "if there is anything worse than partisan demagoguery, it is bipartisan demagoguery."

232789[/snapback]

Well of course no major change in consumer trends happens instantaneously, but that's no reason to never attempt changes for the better. Other suggestions like drilling Alaska or off shore & building new refineries won't produce results any faster than car makers can retool, and perhaps no faster than hydrids and alternative fuel vehicles can become readily available. We can say "Well, we can't change things overnight, so we should just keep sucking that Middle East oil teat", or we can say "It will take some time and cause temporary hardship, but if we start to change now we'll be much better off in the future".

Petroleum as a fuel source is doomed sooner or later. Why wait until our backs are catastrophically against the wall before pushing changes?

[Tigermike 3,072]

Suppose we all go out and try to buy one of those small cars you are speaking of.  The demand would overwhelm the supply wouldn't it?  Would it be fair to think those manufacturers and dealers of those little cars would then hold the price higher?  Would Schumer & company then be screaming about windfall profits for the small car industry?

One thing is obvious, "if there is anything worse than partisan demagoguery, it is bipartisan demagoguery."

232789[/snapback]

Well of course no major change in consumer trends happens instantaneously, but that's no reason to never attempt changes for the better. Other suggestions like drilling Alaska or off shore & building new refineries won't produce results any faster than car makers can retool, and perhaps no faster than hydrids and alternative fuel vehicles can become readily available. We can say "Well, we can't change things overnight, so we should just keep sucking that Middle East oil teat", or we can say "It will take some time and cause temporary hardship, but if we start to change now we'll be much better off in the future".

Petroleum as a fuel source is doomed sooner or later. Why wait until our backs are catastrophically against the wall before pushing changes?

232798[/snapback]

So if we all were to agree to purchase smaller cars then the dims would agree to drilling in AWR?

The dems & environmentalists will go along with that? The dems & environmentalists will STFU about new nuclear plants? The dems & environmentalists will STFU about new refineries? No one is saying wait till the oil runs out. But what do we do until the new technology is available? We use oil. While we are waiting for that new technology do we want more or less oil? Any oil obtained from drilling in AWR is years down the road. Until the dims decide to allow that, then they should keep their mouth shut about gas prices.

[quietfan 233]

Suppose we all go out and try to buy one of those small cars you are speaking of.  The demand would overwhelm the supply wouldn't it?  Would it be fair to think those manufacturers and dealers of those little cars would then hold the price higher?  Would Schumer & company then be screaming about windfall profits for the small car industry?

One thing is obvious, "if there is anything worse than partisan demagoguery, it is bipartisan demagoguery."

232789[/snapback]

Well of course no major change in consumer trends happens instantaneously, but that's no reason to never attempt changes for the better. Other suggestions like drilling Alaska or off shore & building new refineries won't produce results any faster than car makers can retool, and perhaps no faster than hydrids and alternative fuel vehicles can become readily available. We can say "Well, we can't change things overnight, so we should just keep sucking that Middle East oil teat", or we can say "It will take some time and cause temporary hardship, but if we start to change now we'll be much better off in the future".

Petroleum as a fuel source is doomed sooner or later. Why wait until our backs are catastrophically against the wall before pushing changes?

232798[/snapback]

So if we all were to agree to purchase smaller cars then the dims would agree to drilling in AWR?

The dems & environmentalists will go along with that? The dems & environmentalists will STFU about new nuclear plants? The dems & environmentalists will STFU about new refineries? No one is saying wait till the oil runs out. But what do we do until the new technology is available? We use oil. While we are waiting for that new technology do we want more or less oil? Any oil obtained from drilling in AWR is years down the road. Until the dims decide to allow that, then they should keep their mouth shut about gas prices.

232804[/snapback]

That's sort of my point: If new oil sources are years down the road anyway, why not put the emphasis and R&D money on alternatives right now? Hybrids work NOW, Ethanol cars work NOW. The only delay on these is tooling up for greater production. Would that really take any longer than drilling new fields and building more refineries? The gov't pays farmers to NOT grow crops now, why not pay them to grow fuel instead? By the time we could have AWR gas (or shale oil or tar sands in the longer run) showing up at the pumps, we could be well on our way to not needing oil anyway and make the whole environmental debate a moot point.

[DKW 86 7,475]

For a little actual perspective, which one will NEVER get from Ann Coulter, the gas tax went up 4.3 cents under Clinton.  It was raised 5 cents under Reagan and 5 cents under Bush I.

Ross Perot planned to raise it 50 cents to pay down the deficit.  Kerry never sponsored or supported any such legislation.

If we had a gas tax that was high enough to significanly impact what people chose to drive and what car manufacturers sold in the US--- several car makers are introducing smaller more fuel efficient cars this year-- the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, etc. but these are not "new" cars.  The rest of the world has had them for years.  Nor or they even the most fuel efficient cars that the same car makers we have here in America sell elsewhere.

Ross Perot's plan for a gas tax would likely make us less dependent on foreign oil.  Right now we count on Saudi Arabia to help feed our habit and China to loan us the money to pay for it.  That does not keep us more secure.  We get weaker every year and will continue to until we practice more discipline and restraint both financially and fuel-wise.

232751[/snapback]

You Sir are totally clueless!!!!! We had a whole thread on this topic alone back in 2004!!! Kerry was fuming mad because he wasnt rated the top Lefty in the Senate over this Bill he endorsed and actually complained that he wasnt given credit for supporting the .50 a gallon tax. Tex, use the search feature and quit reading the Liberal sites!

Just one of 6,050,000 of Links provided: http://www.factcheck.org/article165.html

As we've noted before , Kerry's support for a 50-cent-a-gallon increase in the gasoline tax happened a decade ago, back when regular was selling for a national average of $1.01 per gallon.

[DKW 86 7,475]

If we had a gas tax that was high enough to significanly impact what people chose to drive and what car manufacturers sold in the US--- several car makers are introducing smaller more fuel efficient cars this year-- the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, etc. but these are not "new" cars.  The rest of the world has had them for years.  Nor or they even the most fuel efficient cars that the same car makers we have here in America sell elsewhere.

Ross Perot's plan for a gas tax would likely make us less dependent on foreign oil. Right now we count on Saudi Arabia to help feed our habit and China to loan us the money to pay for it.  That does not keep us more secure.  We get weaker every year and will continue to until we practice more discipline and restraint both financially and fuel-wise.

232751[/snapback]

Perhaps an alternate compromise would be to put the tax on the vehicle rather than the fuel. In other words, put a painfully high surcharge on the purchase of inefficient vehicles rather than on the fuel. That would encourage the move to better mileage cars without penalizing the middle/low income worker who still has to get to work in his 30-40 MPG Honda/Toyota/Nissan. Those who still wanted their land battleships could have them if they were willing to pay. [You could even incorporate some sort of rebate for those who required the large vehicles for work or huge families.]

Of course, that would do nothing to promote better energy habits like walking instead of driving 3 blocks to the convenience store for beer/cigarettes, etc., but it also wouldn't force the poor to pay higher fuel costs they can't afford. [One of my pet peaves: I live near a college campus where the students (mostly younger and healthy than I) feel they have to drive their SUV's and King Cabs from one class to another rather than walk a block or two. ...and then bitch because there is a parking shortage!]

232781[/snapback]

I could support that. It would be painful to pay it all at tag time. That is why I supported the gas tax idea.

[TexasTiger 13,090]

For a little actual perspective, which one will NEVER get from Ann Coulter, the gas tax went up 4.3 cents under Clinton.  It was raised 5 cents under Reagan and 5 cents under Bush I.

Ross Perot planned to raise it 50 cents to pay down the deficit.  Kerry never sponsored or supported any such legislation.

If we had a gas tax that was high enough to significanly impact what people chose to drive and what car manufacturers sold in the US--- several car makers are introducing smaller more fuel efficient cars this year-- the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, etc. but these are not "new" cars.  The rest of the world has had them for years.  Nor or they even the most fuel efficient cars that the same car makers we have here in America sell elsewhere.

Ross Perot's plan for a gas tax would likely make us less dependent on foreign oil.  Right now we count on Saudi Arabia to help feed our habit and China to loan us the money to pay for it.  That does not keep us more secure.  We get weaker every year and will continue to until we practice more discipline and restraint both financially and fuel-wise.

232751[/snapback]

You Sir are totally clueless!!!!! We had a whole thread on this topic alone back in 2004!!! Kerry was fuming mad because he wasnt rated the top Lefty in the Senate over this Bill he endorsed and actually complained that he wasnt given credit for supporting the .50 a gallon tax. Tex, use the search feature and quit reading the Liberal sites!

Just one of 6,050,000 of Links provided: http://www.factcheck.org/article165.html

As we've noted before , Kerry's support for a 50-cent-a-gallon increase in the gasoline tax happened a decade ago, back when regular was selling for a national average of $1.01 per gallon.

232873[/snapback]

Sometimes I want to let you off the hook and just say, "What do you expect? He's an idiot."

But posts like these show how utterly dishonest you are. From YOUR link:

Analysis

 

As we've noted before , Kerry's support for a 50-cent-a-gallon increase in the gasoline tax happened a decade ago, back when regular was selling for a national average of $1.01 per gallon. Kerry's support was so fleeting that the only evidence of it to surface so far are two old newspaper clips in which Kerry complains that he deserved more credit as a deficit-cutter. He never voted for, or sponsored, legislation to impose such a tax, and he doesn't support one now, when the price is just under $1.76.

What I said:

Kerry never sponsored or supported any such legislation.

You never cease to amaze. And you're never man enough to apologize.

[TexasTiger 13,090]

Suppose we all go out and try to buy one of those small cars you are speaking of.  The demand would overwhelm the supply wouldn't it?  Would it be fair to think those manufacturers and dealers of those little cars would then hold the price higher?  Would Schumer & company then be screaming about windfall profits for the small car industry?

One thing is obvious, "if there is anything worse than partisan demagoguery, it is bipartisan demagoguery."

232789[/snapback]

Well of course no major change in consumer trends happens instantaneously, but that's no reason to never attempt changes for the better. Other suggestions like drilling Alaska or off shore & building new refineries won't produce results any faster than car makers can retool, and perhaps no faster than hydrids and alternative fuel vehicles can become readily available. We can say "Well, we can't change things overnight, so we should just keep sucking that Middle East oil teat", or we can say "It will take some time and cause temporary hardship, but if we start to change now we'll be much better off in the future".

Petroleum as a fuel source is doomed sooner or later. Why wait until our backs are catastrophically against the wall before pushing changes?

232798[/snapback]

So if we all were to agree to purchase smaller cars then the dims would agree to drilling in AWR?

The dems & environmentalists will go along with that? The dems & environmentalists will STFU about new nuclear plants? The dems & environmentalists will STFU about new refineries? No one is saying wait till the oil runs out. But what do we do until the new technology is available? We use oil. While we are waiting for that new technology do we want more or less oil? Any oil obtained from drilling in AWR is years down the road. Until the dims decide to allow that, then they should keep their mouth shut about gas prices.

232804[/snapback]

That's sort of my point: If new oil sources are years down the road anyway, why not put the emphasis and R&D money on alternatives right now? Hybrids work NOW, Ethanol cars work NOW. The only delay on these is tooling up for greater production. Would that really take any longer than drilling new fields and building more refineries? The gov't pays farmers to NOT grow crops now, why not pay them to grow fuel instead? By the time we could have AWR gas (or shale oil or tar sands in the longer run) showing up at the pumps, we could be well on our way to not needing oil anyway and make the whole environmental debate a moot point.

232821[/snapback]

Your mistake is in assuming that Tigermike might actually entertain the possibility of engaging in meaningful discourse on a political topic, when, in fact, all he really wants to know is what will it take to get the Dems to STFU!

[DKW 86 7,475]

No Tex...actually...

What the article said:

Kerry's support was so fleeting that the only evidence of it to surface so far are two old newspaper clips in which Kerry complains that he deserved more credit as a deficit-cutter. He never voted for, or sponsored, legislation to impose such a tax, and he doesn't support one now, when the price is just under $1.76.

What Tex said:

Kerry never sponsored or supported any such legislation.

You said he never supported. He flatly did support this bill. Like I said, we had a whole thread on this before.

[TexasTiger 13,090]

No Tex...actually...

What the article said:

Kerry's support was so fleeting that the only evidence of it to surface so far are two old newspaper clips in which Kerry complains that he deserved more credit as a deficit-cutter. He never voted for, or sponsored, legislation to impose such a tax, and he doesn't support one now, when the price is just under $1.76.

What Tex said:

Kerry never sponsored or supported any such legislation.

You said he never supported. He flatly did support this bill. Like I said, we had a whole thread on this before.

232888[/snapback]

What bill? What legislation? In an interview he may have indicated possible support for an idea, but there has to be actual legislation to support and one supports legislation by sponsoring and/or voting for it.

[Tigermike 3,072]

Suppose we all go out and try to buy one of those small cars you are speaking of.  The demand would overwhelm the supply wouldn't it?  Would it be fair to think those manufacturers and dealers of those little cars would then hold the price higher?  Would Schumer & company then be screaming about windfall profits for the small car industry?

One thing is obvious, "if there is anything worse than partisan demagoguery, it is bipartisan demagoguery."

232789[/snapback]

Well of course no major change in consumer trends happens instantaneously, but that's no reason to never attempt changes for the better. Other suggestions like drilling Alaska or off shore & building new refineries won't produce results any faster than car makers can retool, and perhaps no faster than hydrids and alternative fuel vehicles can become readily available. We can say "Well, we can't change things overnight, so we should just keep sucking that Middle East oil teat", or we can say "It will take some time and cause temporary hardship, but if we start to change now we'll be much better off in the future".

Petroleum as a fuel source is doomed sooner or later. Why wait until our backs are catastrophically against the wall before pushing changes?

232798[/snapback]

So if we all were to agree to purchase smaller cars then the dims would agree to drilling in AWR?

The dems & environmentalists will go along with that? The dems & environmentalists will STFU about new nuclear plants? The dems & environmentalists will STFU about new refineries? No one is saying wait till the oil runs out. But what do we do until the new technology is available? We use oil. While we are waiting for that new technology do we want more or less oil? Any oil obtained from drilling in AWR is years down the road. Until the dims decide to allow that, then they should keep their mouth shut about gas prices.

232804[/snapback]

That's sort of my point: If new oil sources are years down the road anyway, why not put the emphasis and R&D money on alternatives right now? Hybrids work NOW, Ethanol cars work NOW. The only delay on these is tooling up for greater production. Would that really take any longer than drilling new fields and building more refineries? The gov't pays farmers to NOT grow crops now, why not pay them to grow fuel instead? By the time we could have AWR gas (or shale oil or tar sands in the longer run) showing up at the pumps, we could be well on our way to not needing oil anyway and make the whole environmental debate a moot point.

232821[/snapback]

Your mistake is in assuming that Tigermike might actually entertain the possibility of engaging in meaningful discourse on a political topic, when, in fact, all he really wants to know is what will it take to get the Dems to STFU!

232884[/snapback]

No what I really would like is for dims to quit being hypocritical liars. But that is not likely to happen, so JSTFU.

[TexasTiger 13,090]

Suppose we all go out and try to buy one of those small cars you are speaking of.  The demand would overwhelm the supply wouldn't it?  Would it be fair to think those manufacturers and dealers of those little cars would then hold the price higher?  Would Schumer & company then be screaming about windfall profits for the small car industry?

One thing is obvious, "if there is anything worse than partisan demagoguery, it is bipartisan demagoguery."

232789[/snapback]

Well of course no major change in consumer trends happens instantaneously, but that's no reason to never attempt changes for the better. Other suggestions like drilling Alaska or off shore & building new refineries won't produce results any faster than car makers can retool, and perhaps no faster than hydrids and alternative fuel vehicles can become readily available. We can say "Well, we can't change things overnight, so we should just keep sucking that Middle East oil teat", or we can say "It will take some time and cause temporary hardship, but if we start to change now we'll be much better off in the future".

Petroleum as a fuel source is doomed sooner or later. Why wait until our backs are catastrophically against the wall before pushing changes?

232798[/snapback]

So if we all were to agree to purchase smaller cars then the dims would agree to drilling in AWR?

The dems & environmentalists will go along with that? The dems & environmentalists will STFU about new nuclear plants? The dems & environmentalists will STFU about new refineries? No one is saying wait till the oil runs out. But what do we do until the new technology is available? We use oil. While we are waiting for that new technology do we want more or less oil? Any oil obtained from drilling in AWR is years down the road. Until the dims decide to allow that, then they should keep their mouth shut about gas prices.

232804[/snapback]

That's sort of my point: If new oil sources are years down the road anyway, why not put the emphasis and R&D money on alternatives right now? Hybrids work NOW, Ethanol cars work NOW. The only delay on these is tooling up for greater production. Would that really take any longer than drilling new fields and building more refineries? The gov't pays farmers to NOT grow crops now, why not pay them to grow fuel instead? By the time we could have AWR gas (or shale oil or tar sands in the longer run) showing up at the pumps, we could be well on our way to not needing oil anyway and make the whole environmental debate a moot point.

232821[/snapback]

Your mistake is in assuming that Tigermike might actually entertain the possibility of engaging in meaningful discourse on a political topic, when, in fact, all he really wants to know is what will it take to get the Dems to STFU!

232884[/snapback]

No what I really would like is for dims to quit being hypocritical liars. But that is not likely to happen, so JSTFU.

232896[/snapback]

Sorry. all he really wants to know is what will it take to get the Dems to JSTFU.

[Tigermike 3,072]

Let's see how this went, the original article presented facts and made comments on those facts. Tex says the facts in the article, written by a nationally recognized columnists, are wrong and assumes we should accept his "facts". David posts facts to prove Tex is wrong once again. Tex in a feeble attempt to change the direction of the thread starts a whining piss match to deflect the complete hypocrisy of the left. Typical.

[TexasTiger 13,090]

The very reasonable Quietfan politely tries to engage Tigermike in a fruitful discussion. One trick pony Tigermike refuses and instead falls back on his only ability which is to attack the Dems in a whiny, childish manner.

Tigermike then mischaracterizes what Tex posted. (Tex did not say it was "wrong" that the gas tax increased 4.3 cents under Clinton, as the "nationally recognized columnist" indicated, but rather offered the perspective she didn't provide, i.e. the gas tax increased a full nickel under each of the previous Republican Presidents. One need not "assume" this facts are correct. They can get off their lazy asses and make the effort to actually research stuff instead of relying on "nationally recognized columnists" for facts.) Tigermike, who is incapable of handling the truth, or even recognizing it when it bites him in the ass, then has to mischaracterize what Tex has posted.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

[Tigermike 3,072]

The very reasonable Quietfan politely tries to engage Tigermike in a fruitful discussion.  One trick pony Tigermike refuses and instead falls back on his only ability which is to attack the Dems in a whiny, childish manner.

Tigermike then mischaracterizes what Tex posted. (Tex did not say it was "wrong" that the gas tax increased 4.3 cents under Clinton, as the "nationally recognized columnist" indicated, but rather offered the perspective she didn't provide, i.e. the gas tax increased a full nickel under each of the previous Republican Presidents.  One need not "assume" this facts are correct.  They can get off their lazy asses and make the effort to actually research stuff instead of relying on "nationally recognized columnists" for facts.)  Tigermike, who is incapable  of handling the truth, or even recognizing it when it bites him in the ass, then has to mischaracterize what Tex has posted.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.    

232939[/snapback]

All this from the master of mischaracterizes. As usual Tex your hypocrisy knows no bounds.