Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (51368)	5/13/2014 9:59:29 PM
From: Eric	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

And Bush Jr.. He flew to the ranch... What? 77 times?? I guess I lost count. Eric

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (51368)	5/14/2014 4:47:45 AM
From: Bilow	4 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 gamesmistress Maurice Winn Paul Smith Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

Hi Wharf Rat; Re: "Bush also traveled seven times to his family’s oceanside compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, covering all or part of 26 days — bringing his total number of vacation days at this point in his presidency to 349 days. (335+26 doesn’t = 349, but remember the “all or part of” caveat.)"; I don't see what your point is here. If Bush wanted to save money he also could have gone on fewer vacations? Fact is that Obama gets a lot more vacations than I do and his lifestyle burns perhaps 1000 times as much carbon as mine does. Same with Bush, as far as I know, but I didn't hear Bush constantly nagging me about what a sinner I am. If these guys want to go on and on about the morality of using carbon they should live a life like Mother Theresa. But that's not what they do. They live like rock stars and burn millions of dollars on fuel. The best of them is Jimmy Carter. I've no doubt that his carbon footprint is 40x larger than mine. And if you got him to push global warming the main lesson to the American public would be that in order to save the environment we're going to have to have a lousy economy. Right now the middle voters are blaming the ongoing recession to Obama's focus on lefty stuff like global warming and "lowering" the cost of healthcare instead of what they wanted; an improvement in the economy. The fact that the Left is unable to see the glaring hypocrisy (of their rock-star leaders preaching self denial) goes a long way towards explaining how they've been unable to convince the middle voters. Sure we'd like to use less fuel. What's the easiest way to do this without damaging the country's economy? It's pretty obvious that an inexpensive start would be to get rid of 90% of the government bureaucracy. -- Carl