Another Bush Lie

**Tachikaze** · 02-05-2006, 18:52

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...hington_nation

The Bush Regime never fails to mislead the US public, especially when Bush's approval rating has sunk so low.

**Duke Malcolm** · 02-05-2006, 19:11

I can't help that the article circumlocutes what the advisor actually said to put its own spin on it...

I thought that what Bush said was almost exactly what the advisor said, except the bit about "the Middle East" being everywhere, and not just the Middle East, but that surely makes little difference...

**Kralizec** · 02-05-2006, 19:13

Well, I wouldn't call it a "lie", since the administration itself corrects her own words.

The other day in the newspaper I read bit about how Nixon and Carter both vowed roughly the same, cutting down the economy's dependence on foreign oil, promises wich were never heard off again later on.

**rory_20_uk** · 02-05-2006, 19:22

The "clarification" that the original speech was merely the "noddy" version of policy to try to engage the general populace is to me very believable.

To reduce oil consumption by 75% seemed a extremely optimistic thing to say - although as he has no need to be in office when that year hits he might as well go ahead and say it.

Again, by "clarifying" that it was only the amount from the middle east that was to be reduced and not America's total - and the amount was purely figurative, and the amount as a percentage of the total from the middle east can in fact increase sounds reasonable.

Sure, it means that the initial speech was effectively meaningless - but it was a hell of a mot more interesting that the truth

**Major Robert Dump** · 02-05-2006, 20:14

Hahaha. Classic. And they always get a court order, too

**KukriKhan** · 02-05-2006, 20:31

Presidents since Nixon have promised, then extended the deadline for, "Energy Independence"

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...jgwNTIwWj.html

Obviously desireable, apparently elusive.

**Major Robert Dump** · 02-05-2006, 20:38

Maybe the administration can fork over a hundred million to the big-3 auto makers to develop a hybrid, like clinton did, only to have them piss the money away and have a japanese auto maker who didnt get any of the "research" money beat them to a hybrid.

**Tachikaze** · 02-06-2006, 06:09

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Well, I wouldn't call it a "lie", since the administration itself corrects her own words.

The other day in the newspaper I read bit about how Nixon and Carter both vowed roughly the same, cutting down the economy's dependence on foreign oil, promises wich were never heard off again later on.

The original statement was heard by many more people. The retraction will be ignored or not even heard by most of the public. The purpose of the original statement was to raise Bush's image. This tool served its purpose on false pretenses.

Under Ford and Carter, any auto maker who wanted to sell motor vehicles in the US was regulated by a high CAFE standard. This standard set the average fuel mileage rating for all of a corporation's motor vehicles. The standard was intended to rise periodically and eventually reach over 40 MPG. Under Carter, the standard reached its zenith. The companies were able to comply up to the point it reached, but complained like mad, and the administrations after Carter have lowered the standard so that SUVs could be marketed freely.

**Xiahou** · 02-06-2006, 06:55

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

Under Ford and Carter, any auto maker who wanted to sell motor vehicles in the US was regulated by a high CAFE standard. This standard set the average fuel mileage rating for all of a corporation's motor vehicles. The standard was intended to rise periodically and eventually reach over 40 MPG. Under Carter, the standard reached its zenith. The companies were able to comply up to the point it reached, but complained like mad, and the administrations after Carter have lowered the standard so that SUVs could be marketed freely.

What's the problem?

If gas is cheap and plentiful, why force people into vehicles that they don't want to use? Now that gasoline is getting more expensive, people are buying less SUVs and more efficiency cars and even hybrids. No amount of government regulations and subsidies (hand outs) were going to make people buy hybrids. High gas prices are though. Yay free markets.

**Just A Girl** · 02-06-2006, 07:43

Polution is the point

**Tachikaze** · 02-06-2006, 08:21

Originally Posted by Xiahou

What's the problem?

If gas is cheap and plentiful, why force people into vehicles that they don't want to use? Now that gasoline is getting more expensive, people are buying less SUVs and more efficiency cars and even hybrids. No amount of government regulations and subsidies (hand outs) were going to make people buy hybrids. High gas prices are though. Yay free markets.

Yeah, air pollution, ground water contamination . . .

Perhaps we might do better to stop oil trade in the Middle East. That can be reduced or eliminated if we cut back on oil consumption.

Don't you care at all about anything but being able to choose which fashionable vehicle to drive? Cars are just tools, not toys or fashion accessories. They should do their job as efficiently as possible.

**Major Robert Dump** · 02-06-2006, 11:51

Lately I've been seeing some little cars zipping around, they are slightly bigger than a cycle with a sidecar, and a few of the drivers I've seen going between cars and on the shoulder like cycles do, exceptr its a car.

Personally, I think its cool as hell, except its a tiny seater that guarantees you will die when you get hit by the soccer mom on the cell phone driving the escalade.

anyone seen these cars? What are they? Seriously, they look like a bumper car from the state fair

**Don Corleone** · 02-06-2006, 23:12

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

Don't you care at all about anything but being able to choose which fashionable vehicle to drive? Cars are just tools, not toys or fashion accessories. They should do their job as efficiently as possible.

I thought Hippies were about freedom. You're advocating forcing everyone to use the most fuel efficient vehicle as possible, regardless of their personal needs or desires. Try going camping in the deep woods with a Prius. Aside from which, if you're going to go around forcing everyone to be as efficient as they possibly can be, why stop with the cars they drive?

I wish it were so, but Americans still drive mass amounts of enormous vehicles and V8 coupes even after the fuel costs have risen. It shows that they have too much disposable income.

Now you're going to take everyone's money away too? Wow, and I always thought the term 'angry left' was just a moniker. What a bleak, scary world you envision for us Tachi....you sound like Napolean in Animal Farm.