Obama admin to launch high level discussions on texting while driving

[240 is Back]

No, I'm serious.  MSN reported on morning meeting at 10 am est.  teaser for upcoming story.,

I think there might be bigger problems out there.  Ozmo isn't going to be happy about this one.

[Soul Crusher]

No, I'm serious.  MSN reported on morning meeting at 10 am est.  teaser for upcoming story.,

I think there might be bigger problems out there.  Ozmo isn't going to be happy about this one.

This admn is such a joke.  Seriously 240 - the meltdown is faster than I ever would have imagined. 

[240 is Back]

This admn is such a joke.  Seriously 240 - the meltdown is faster than I ever would have imagined. 

Could be you're right.

or it could be Obama is able to balance the larger longterm issues (healthcare, afgh war, and cap/trade) while still limiting the dangers from our daily lives.

I know this very morning, I was almost hit by some lady filling out her Lottery slip in traffic.  Yes, at that very minute, getting these a-hole distracted drivers off the road was more important to me than cap/trade was. 

[Soul Crusher]

Could be you're right.

or it could be Obama is able to balance the larger longterm issues (healthcare, afgh war, and cap/trade) while still limiting the dangers from our daily lives.

I know this very morning, I was almost hit by some lady filling out her Lottery slip in traffic.  Yes, at that very minute, getting these a-hole distracted drivers off the road was more important to me than cap/trade was. 

WTF are you talking about? 

He has only spoken to the Afghan War. General once in 7 months. 

BTW - Cap & Trade will screw you every day of your life if this passes. 

[240 is Back]

WTF are you talking about? 
He has only spoken to the Afghan War. General once in 7 months. 
BTW - Cap & Trade will screw you every day of your life if this passes. 

Bush didn't even consult his sec of defense before invading Iraq.  he admits this.  I believe the Prez has plenty of people to speak with the team surrounding his generals and secretaries. 

no, can you tell me the NUMBER of what my elec bill wil be - WITH and WITHOUT cap/trade - over the course of 30 years?  The data means way more than "youll get screwed dog!"

[Kazan]

Could be you're right.

or it could be Obama is able to balance the larger longterm issues (healthcare, afgh war, and cap/trade) while still limiting the dangers from our daily lives.

I know this very morning, I was almost hit by some lady filling out her Lottery slip in traffic.  Yes, at that very minute, getting these a-hole distracted drivers off the road was more important to me than cap/trade was. 

Again what does this have to do with the Federal Government? This is a problem that should be handled at the state level.

[Soul Crusher]

Bush didn't even consult his sec of defense before invading Iraq.  he admits this.  I believe the Prez has plenty of people to speak with the team surrounding his generals and secretaries. 

no, can you tell me the NUMBER of what my elec bill wil be - WITH and WITHOUT cap/trade - over the course of 30 years?  The data means way more than "youll get screwed dog!"

The WH admitted two weeks ago that the number is at least $1,750.00 a year for every family, but there are estimates that are higher.   

[240 is Back]

The WH admitted two weeks ago that the number is at least $1,750.00 a year for every family, but there are estimates that are higher.   

with all the groups complaining about it, i'm  hoping one of them can give me this answer, with proofs.

over the next 30 years, what will the cost of my monthly elec bill be - without cap/trade?  Factor in rising energy costs and mid-east power to idctate terms as china grows.

over the next 30 years, what will the monthly cost be - if cap/trade passes?  Will it rise for 5 years, the drop off?  What are the total numbers?

From what I can see (so far, in my limited research), NEITHER side can give me these numbers.  If the anti- folks could show it'll cost more over time, I'd certainly reject it.  if the pro- folks can show the LT savings, i would support it.

Where are the numbers, baby?

[Soul Crusher]

with all the groups complaining about it, i'm  hoping one of them can give me this answer, with proofs.

over the next 30 years, what will the cost of my monthly elec bill be - without cap/trade?  Factor in rising energy costs and mid-east power to idctate terms as china grows.

over the next 30 years, what will the monthly cost be - if cap/trade passes?  Will it rise for 5 years, the drop off?  What are the total numbers?

From what I can see (so far, in my limited research), NEITHER side can give me these numbers.  If the anti- folks could show it'll cost more over time, I'd certainly reject it.  if the pro- folks can show the LT savings, i would support it.

Where are the numbers, baby?

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/wh-carbon-tax-to-cost-1761-a-year

[240 is Back]

Thank you.
Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year

Tha't $146 a month.  HUGE increase.  Will this last for 30 years?

Also, what guarantees our costs won't continue to rise over the 30 years, assuming we stay dependent upon foreign oil.

What have the trends been for the last 10 years in terms of rate increases?

i appreciate the numbers, helps a great deal in detemining where i stand.

[Soul Crusher]

Thank you.
Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year

Tha't $146 a month.  HUGE increase.  Will this last for 30 years?

Also, what guarantees our costs won't continue to rise over the 30 years, assuming we stay dependent upon foreign oil.

What have the trends been for the last 10 years in terms of rate increases?

i appreciate the numbers, helps a great deal in detemining where i stand.

Just remember, the people where you shop, purchase goods and services, and from whom you stuff also have to pay these massive energy increases as well.  What do you think they will do when pressed? 

That's right, pass along the increases in the price of goods you buy.  So, you will be hit huge by this.     

[Kazan]

240, you want to answer my question? Why does the federal government need to be involved in this?

[240 is Back]

240, you want to answer my question? Why does the federal government need to be involved in this?

cause states are lazy, and studies now show distracted driving to be way more dangerous than drunk driving.

Reaction time way better for tested drunks than for texting fools. 

[Soul Crusher]

cause states are lazy, and studies now show distracted driving to be way more dangerous than drunk driving.

Reaction time way better for tested drunks than for texting fools. 

You are not a conservative 240 - you are a nanny stater if you believe that. 

[tonymctones]

cause states are lazy, and studies now show distracted driving to be way more dangerous than drunk driving.

Reaction time way better for tested drunks than for texting fools. 

doesnt matter

you get a state driving license, states determine driving standards

this is more over reaching by the govt and you cheerleading...real conservative of you  

[240 is Back]

You are not a conservative 240 - you are a nanny stater if you believe that. 

MB, hugo, and other vets here will attest to my being a true conservative.

This neo-con flavor of "let's bash USA for french dollars on chinese soil" and "let's invade 2 countries we can't beat" was just inventions of the last decade.

33, did you vote for clinton?

[Soul Crusher]

MB, hugo, and other vets here will attest to my being a true conservative.

This neo-con flavor of "let's bash USA for french dollars on chinese soil" and "let's invade 2 countries we can't beat" was just inventions of the last decade.

33, did you vote for clinton?

No. 

However, stop diverting.  You are not a conservative if you believe in a federal ban on texting.   

[Kazan]

cause states are lazy, and studies now show distracted driving to be way more dangerous than drunk driving.

Reaction time way better for tested drunks than for texting fools. 

So you think the Fed should just be able to step in whenever they feel the state is being lazy?

[tonymctones]

So you think the Fed should just be able to step in whenever they feel the state is being lazy?

yup he does or when its in the "best interest of the country"(bail outs)

but the patriot act was horrible and unconstitutional

240 believes in the constitution only when it falls in line with his liberal thinking but when it doesnt he tells it to fuck off...

[tonymctones]

MB, hugo, and other vets here will attest to my being a true conservative.

This neo-con flavor of "let's bash USA for french dollars on chinese soil" and "let's invade 2 countries we can't beat" was just inventions of the last decade.

33, did you vote for clinton?

yet you contradict your conservatism with almost every post 

why is that?

[Kazan]

MB, hugo, and other vets here will attest to my being a true conservative.

This neo-con flavor of "let's bash USA for french dollars on chinese soil" and "let's invade 2 countries we can't beat" was just inventions of the last decade.

33, did you vote for clinton?

So we are going back to the Palin thing, well what about the POTUS bashing the US over sea's? Is that OK because its Obama?

Countries we couldn't beat? I don't know what kinda of mind altering drugs you are on, but the US could level Iraq and Afghanistan in a matter of weeks. The only reason these wars continue is because of the liberal morality and Political correctness, the public doesn't have the stomach for what should have been done and still don't. Winning the hearts and minds is a bunch of bullshit, dreamed up by that assclown Robert McNamara. I don't remember anyone trying to win the hearts and minds of the Germans or Japanese, from the get go it was unleash hell, collateral damage was not a concern. Un-uniformed fighters ( illegal combatants ) were executed. You want to end the wars in the ME, you destroy their will to fight and you leave a lasting impression that the US is not to be fucked with, because the consequence will be dire.

And from the crap you post here, you wouldn't know a true conservative if it bit you in the ass.

[240 is Back]

No.  

However, stop diverting.  You are not a conservative if you believe in a federal ban on texting.    

do you believe in federal laws banning

1) driving without seat belts
2) gay marriage
3) murder

Thanks in advance.

[Soul Crusher]

do you believe in federal laws banning

1) driving without seat belts
2) gay marriage
3) murder

Thanks in advance.

The states should deal with these things. 

[Kazan]

do you believe in federal laws banning

1) driving without seat belts
2) gay marriage
3) murder

Thanks in advance.

1) state mandated
2) should be state mandated
3) What difference does it make, murder is illegal in all 50 states

[240 is Back]

Countries we couldn't beat? I don't know what kinda of mind altering drugs you are on, but the US could level Iraq and Afghanistan in a matter of weeks. The only reason these wars continue is because of the liberal morality and Political correctness, the public doesn't have the stomach for what should have been done and still don't. Winning the hearts and minds is a bunch of bullshit, dreamed up by that assclown Robert McNamara. I don't remember anyone trying to win the hearts and minds of the Germans or Japanese, from the get go it was unleash hell, collateral damage was not a concern. Un-uniformed fighters ( illegal combatants ) were executed. You want to end the wars in the ME, you destroy their will to fight and you leave a lasting impression that the US is not to be fucked with, because the consequence will be dire.

youre right.  Sad that dubya didn't have the guts to stand up to these pantywaist libs.  You can hate on obama's policies, but you gotta admit he has the guts to piss people off and do what he believed in.