11 2 mins 11 yrs

Obamses now aims to abolish the SUV.

How dreadful that the riff-raff should be allowed the private vehicle of their choice and that some of them are large, comfortable and built to leave the road. I say do it, Great One, but after you Sir.

Scrap that 6.5 litre, 8-mpg tank with a Cadillac badge, the one which follows you abroad on a C-17 transport plane. Scrap it and the rest of the fleet. Scrap them all and buy an electric vehicle with your own money.

Scrap that absurd Air Force One on which you constantly tour the globe and leave a trail of pollutants and scrap that fleet of helicopters which accompany you.

Obamses, your people need you to set an example in these straightened, environmentally challenged times. Scrap them all and save the world. Drive yourself in your own battery-powered car.

Surely what’s good for the people is good for their servants, yes?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

11 thoughts on “OBAMA DOING WHAT HE DOES BEST: HECTORING, BULLYING AND BANNING

  1. he already proved your last line a falshood by exempting themselves from Obama Care, All the new cafe standards are just another nail in american jobs and american manufacturing.

    As it stands now I have been a Chevy and Buick man my whole life, I will never buy another car made buy GMC or Chrysler ever again. (Although if it’s a pre 1970 V-8 I might be Tempted)

    As for a new car I will buy a Toyota a Hyundai whatever car meets my needs or a Ford and to me Ford always stood for Fix Or Repair Daily, or Found On Road Dead. However they are the last American car company.

    Obama is not alone in his delusion that the Govt can dictate what the people will buy. It is a disiese that afflicts both parties it’s an inside the beltway thing, in the mean time sales fall unemployment raises and top down controled societies always end in revolt or devestation

  2. It is not a ban it is a new standard. According the linked article it means the cars will increase in price.

    If stricter mileage standards had been introduced years ago it might have saved America about an ANWR’s worth of oil – but heaven forbid the ‘drill, baby, drill’ crew should actually pay the real cost of their toys instead of thieving the family silver from future generations. Generational theft is the term those hypocrites use, I understand.

  3. Land of the not very free just doesn’t have the same ring does it. Euro lefties will think it’s great. Another free country (like the UK used to be) falls to the socialism disease. Sad day.

  4. Frank
    "instead of thieving the family silver from future generations. Generational theft is the term those hypocrites use, I understand."

    You mean like the costs that Obama has done and is doing for his destruction of healthcare and capitailism…… LOL

    Oil is abiotic it is a replenishing fluid created by the natural dynamics of the geophysics of the planet,

    God I miss you when they take your toys away at the home.

  5. Pete,

    This is one of your sillier posts. Obama is simply doing what one of his predecessors ought to have a long time ago. Perhaps this way there’ll be some resources left for our children and grandchildren. Or perhaps you believe that America is somehow entitled to consume about a quarter of the earth’s resources.

    BTW I don’t know what you mean by "straightened" times. Seems to me there’s still more than enough crookedness about.

  6. Rabbi Burns –

    Or perhaps you believe that America is somehow entitled to consume about a quarter of the earth’s resources.

    How often do americans use a quarter of the Earth’s resources? Each year, If so, we have four years until Americans use all of the Earth’s resources, yes? I don’t think so.

    However much Americans use, then as long as they pay fair market prices they are entitled to use them.

    Instead of by free and voluntary trade, how would you prefer that resources are allocated; by race, sex, religion or political preference? And who do you suggest does the allocating?

  7. Pete,

    "How often do americans use a quarter of the Earth’s resources? Each year, If so, we have four years until Americans use all of the Earth’s resources, yes? I don’t think so."

    Now you’re piling silliness upon silliness. You know (I hope) that America consumes 25% of the world’s energy each year and produces 25% of the world’s pollution. One doesn’t need to be a mathematician to figure out that if this continues apace, when the world’s resources have run out, the USA will have used up a quarter of them.

    "However much Americans use, then as long as they pay fair market prices they are entitled to use them."

    I do hope your descendants (and theirs) agree with you. Me, I suspect they’ll curse the gluttons and uncaring, self-centred bastards who imagined they were thus entitled.

  8. Rabbi Burns –

    So we go from "resources" to "energy", but the US does not "consume 25% of the world’s energy each year". If you believe this, you must believe the US will use up "the world’s energy" in a few years.

    Shall we assume you mean a quarter of the world’s energy use at current rates is by the US?

    So what? Energy use must take place somewhere and it might be that US energy use is comparatively efficient. What would you prefer, that Americans sit in the dark and cold while less efficient economies use up more energy for less economically useful reasons?

    Human needs demand energy. When fossil fuels become sufficiently scarce investors, entrepreneurs and producers will then move to other energy uses because the price of energy from fossil fuels will rise and the alternatives will then become economically attractive. We aren’t there yet.

    Now please answer my questions:

    – how would you prefer that resources are allocated; by race, sex, religion or political preference? And who do you suggest does the allocating?

  9. Pete,

    Here’s my reply to your tedium: See my previous comments, and investigate the needs of the world beyond your cosy little locality.

  10. Energy use must take place somewhere and it might be that US energy use is comparatively efficient. What would you prefer, that Americans sit in the dark and cold while less efficient economies use up more energy for less economically useful reasons?

    Once again we see the triumph of ideology over reason.

    When you find yourself arguing that American gas guzzlers might be comparatively more efficient than, well, more efficient cars that do exactly the same thing in other countries – it’s probably time to check your work and see where you went wrong.

  11. Yes it was somewhere around 1973 when cafe standards were introduced and it was decided and is still championed today that it was better to make cars lighter and out of less steel and more plastic so they get better gas milage and ignore the cost in human lives that those lighter made cars have cost.

    For every raise in cafe standards 1000s more a year die in auto accidents, ah but what the hell their only people. Each one killed because there was less steel in the car is just one less poluter.

    Like the fraud of how bad DDT was, has cost millions of lives in Africa and other tropical locations from disiese carried by mosquitoes. Millions of babbies have died because a woman wrote a fake book.

    When you take the cost of human life out of the equation which the environmentalist has, your not a champion for anything.

    Your a cheerleader for the death of your fellow man because that is your religion, Man must die to save the Earth, the only shame is all your mothers didn’t feel that way before you were born.

Comments are closed.