Tire Pressure -- Democratic Facts vs Republican Gimmicks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well after hearing McCain's chuckle and condescending attitude about Obama's remark on fuel efficiency, one can correctly infer that his intention was to humiliate and belittle such a "dumb" remark by Obama. So while McCain did not specifcally use the word "against" in reference to adjusting one's tire pressure, you can clearly infer that McCain was "against" the practical suggestion. You could only have missed it if you were comatose. Maybe McCain is jealous he didn't think of it first.

Nope, he just thought it was ridiculous to offer as some serious solution that'll have a huge impact when it won't. I thought it was funny and I'm laughing (as are many others on the right), but not one single person is "against" maintaining proper inflation in your tires. It's a good idea for everybody, yes. Is it a serious solution that'll have a measureable impact? No.

Now you're just splitting hairs. When you laugh at a suggestion or a solution that has been offered, you discourage practicing it. It's a roundabout "against" strategy.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
My point is that it is easy to take a paragraph out of context without actually reading the Bill, and the proposed amendment to that Bill. Everyone wants to skim over the surface of the issues and pick out only those items which favor their particular candidates and this is the part that saddens me about the whole process. As I have said in other postings, my main concern is where the money is coming from and who they plan to bring in with them. How about a little more following the money, and little less of childish back and forth over tire pressure?

My main point in starting this thread was to highlight how Obama had made a laudable suggestion that could result in real benefit. McCain's reaction was to mock him. Had McCain either ignored Obama or supported the idea, there would not be any childish back and forth. I don't think handing out tire gauges is a mature way of addressing an issue as important as energy. Maybe you do since you seem to be fine with it.

At any rate, in this very thread I posted a link to the Washington Post (I'll post it again now), showing how a McCain bundler is engaging in some pretty shadowy practices and getting thousands of dollars from people who clearly are unlikely to give such sums.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...008080503502.html?hpid=topnews

If you are truly interested in "where the money is coming from", I'd love to hear your reaction to that article.

Also, you are wrong about the vote I referenced. The vote in question was on this amendment:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r102:4:./temp/~r102Yv8ssH::

Its quite short and says nothing about pipelines.