August 7, 2008

"Gee whiz, this is so — I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, for appearing so hysterical about this. I'm trying to remain coherent..."

Rush Limbaugh, blowing a gasket over tire inflation — which could kill you, you know!

67 comments:

Kev said...

The link appears to go to a "members only" page that requires a password; could we maybe get a snippet quoted up there on the main post?

Joe R. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe R. said...

Here is the non-member link.

Kev said...

Wow, that was fast. Thanks, Joe!

Middle Class Guy said...

Next the insane asylum will be telling us to dial down out thermostats to around fifty degrees and wear coats indoors to save energy. They will want us to eschew air conditioning to save energy.

The tire inflation thing is getting out of hand and is becoming a comedy. Just like the rest of their so called fixes.

Ann Althouse said...

Link fixed. Sorry.

Ann Althouse said...

Members can listen to the audio...

Much funnier on audio.

vbspurs said...

This photo of Obama is hilarious, LOL. Fill'er up, bub.

And OT, it's me birthday today, yay!

Cheers,
Victoria

Host with the Most said...

Tire Inflation -

Just another example of why Barack Obama is the least qualified major party Presidential candidate in the entire history of the United States.

bleeper said...

Obama has Spoken! Obey! Inflate your Tires - Holy Inflation Will end Our dependence upon Foreign Oil! OBEYYYYYYYYYYY...

In other news, clueless Chicago Pol poses as Cult Leader, fools millions.

George said...

We need a penny-pincher like this guy to be President....here

AJ Lynch said...

Good pic Vic and Happy Birthday!

Bissage said...

I decided to take Mr. Obama's advice one step further so yesterday I bought two new tires.

With all the money I'm saving I'll be able to buy two more tires in no time!

Middle Class Guy said...

Next up- the tire inflation police.

vbspurs said...

Thanks, AJ! I truly appreciate it. :)

I'm off for a celebratory lunch with my parents. Catch you later!

Cheers,
Victoria

AJ Lynch said...

Bissage:

Soon you will be able to afford a tune-up! Then the real savings starts. You graduate to clipping bond coupons ala J. Hampton Worthington and his pals.

AJ Lynch said...

Yes Bissage soon you will lose the posse and have pals or chaps and be enjoying old expensive scotch in today's ice.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Victoria:
You say it's your birthday...

Happy birthday 2U!

Henry said...

Forget tune ups.

People shouldn't be allowed to drive crappy old cars, fully-inflated tires or not. You might as well crash the Exxon Valdez again and light it on fire, as put up with the fuel waste and smog of these old dinasaurs. Even parked, they leak pools of green fluid like a toddler with a head cold.

Some of them don't even have shoulder belts.

Obama needs to follow up on his inflation inspiration, and ban old cars entirely. The American people are sick of half measures.

garage mahal said...

Tire Inflation -

Just another example of why Barack Obama is the least qualified major party Presidential candidate in the entire history of the United States.


Then so is McCain. He agreed with him! Handing out tire gauges and going all gah gah about it? Real mature party.

Chip Ahoy said...

and I want to see if my mileage increases from what I'm getting now, which is about seven and a half miles a gallon, to eight -- I want to see.

Forfeited my sympathetic ear.

Ladies and gentlemen, look at me. Look at me. Don't doubt me.

It radio. Officially incoherent. Ta.

Darin said...

Wait a minute, the media has told me that tire blowouts are a big deal. PEOPLE DIE!!!1!one!!! A tire blows out and people aren't able to control their vehicles and they roll over and DIE!!!! Overinflating your tires can cause blowouts. Won't someone think of the children???

Charlie Eklund said...

I read that the 3% savings actually meant that vehicles with properly inflated tires would improve their gas mileage by 3%. In other words, a car that is getting 30 mpg with underinflated tires would get 31 mpg if the tires were properly inflated.

Is that the same thing as saving, or wasting, 3% of the 20 million barrels the US uses every day? I don’t think that it is. It strikes me that the fuel wasted due to underinflation would be a much smaller amount than that, since it’s a 3% impact on gas mileage rather than on overall oil consumption.

Richard Fagin said...

While at the Schlumberger Belle Chasse, La. training center in Oct. 1978, one of my coworkers complained to the chief engineer that he was keeping the classroom way too cold (with the air conditioner). To which the dear chief engineer replied, "You're not very patriotic, are you. The President said to turn your thermostats down to 65 degrees!"

TMink said...

Good point Charlie. We could save massive amounts of oil ONLY if every car in America has worst case underinflated tires. Stupid or manipulative, you decide.

And McCain's people are handing out tire guages as a form of satire. It is making fun of Obama garage.

Also, Obama said we should all get tune ups. Cars made after 1988 or so do not require tuneups.

Smoke, meet mirrors.

Trey

Revenant said...

Handing out tire gauges and going all gah gah about it? Real mature party.

It is called "a joke". They are, on occasion, not entirely serious.

Freaky, huh?

Hoosier Daddy said...

It is called "a joke".

Rev, this is garage mahal you trying to explain the concept of humor. I think he's still too bitter over Hillary! being upstaged by The One to find levity in anything.

Beth said...

It is called "a joke".

I agree, the GOP is a joke.

Palladian said...

"I agree, the GOP is a joke."

The Democrat party is a 5 part special on "All Things Considered" examining the nature of humor and comparing the manifestations of political humor in the U.S. with "majority world" countries.

Either that, or it's a joke too. A fart joke, probably.

Kev said...

Happy birthday, Victoria! Hope you get to have lots of "caek" today!

garage mahal said...

Freaky, huh?

Not freaky, but it would help the joke along, if McCain didn't come out and agree with Obama I would think? I hope the GOP keeps running on tire gauges and Paris Hilton myself.

Gullyborg said...

Obama may be the first candidate ever to sincerely opine that inflation is a goodthing that will save our economy...

Hoosier Daddy said...

Not freaky, but it would help the joke along, if McCain didn't come out and agree with Obama I would think?

Well to clarify garage, McCain agreed with Obama that keeping one's tire's inflated was a good idea. What he didn't agree with was Bambi's contention that regular tune ups and tire inflation would be a substitute for drilling offshore.

I don't quite understand the Democrat hostility to a corporation that provides a valuable commodity, employs thousands of Americans with very well paying jobs and whose profits benefit the stockholders, many of whom are pension funds of teachers, firefighters, policemen et. al.,

Triangle Man said...

Isn't the concern with offshore drilling that there is a risk of significant pollution, and the certain marring of natural beauty from platforms positioned within view of the coast? So, the benefits of offshore drilling need to offset these (and other?) risks. I see the benefit to me and my fellow share-holders, but what is the big picture benefit of offshore drilling? Is there going to be sufficient volume for a US company to influence global markets by changing output (the way OPEC does)?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Isn't the concern with offshore drilling that there is a risk of significant pollution, and the certain marring of natural beauty from platforms positioned within view of the coast?

I think the pollution concern is always there. Then again the environmentally friendly Norwegians seem to do just fine.

Don't know if the platforms will be that close to the shore. Then again, Ted Kennedy (D) MA was vehemently opposed to that environmentally friendly wind farm proposed on the Chesapeake since it would mar his view. So green is good until it interferes with your view.

Is there going to be sufficient volume for a US company to influence global markets by changing output (the way OPEC does)?

Well assuming the reserves are what they say they are I would say yes. If not, then I doubt the oil company is going to invest the time and effort to construct the platforms to do the drilling.

AllenS said...

Happy birthday, Victoria.

AlgonquinS said...

Happy birthday, Victoria.

Triangle Man said...

HD, I think any productive offshore platform will be profitable for the company that owns it. I am just skeptical that offshore drilling will do anything to "reduce our dependence on foreign oil". As a commodity the source of the oil is largely irrelevant. It's all on the global market.

AJ Lynch said...

Triangle :

So if oil was discovered in Washington DC and it was a gusher and satisfied 100% of domestic demand, would that make us independent of foriegn oil?

garage mahal said...

Well to clarify garage, McCain agreed with Obama that keeping one's tire's inflated was a good idea. What he didn't agree with was Bambi's contention that regular tune ups and tire inflation would be a substitute for drilling offshore.

Again, just because they drill offshore the U.S, it doesn't mean they will sell it to the U.S, or sell it to us cheaper than what we're paying right now. Exxon's exports *doubled* last year. Orders for oil rigs are completely booked for the next 5 years. There are no oil rigs! So that means in 5 years they could start drilling, and have that oil in another 5-8 years, in which they may sell it to us, or may not.

Now, compare these facts to what Obama said about conservation in which there is no disagreement whatsoever from anyone from the AAA to your local mechanic.

Paddy O. said...

"Gee whiz, this is so — I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, for appearing so hysterical about this. I'm trying to remain coherent..."

Victoria's birthday affects us all in different ways...

Happy birthday!

Beth said...

Happy Birthday, VB!

Original Mike said...

Again, just because they drill offshore the U.S, it doesn't mean they will sell it to the U.S

I am so tired of this canard. It doesn't matter who they sell it to. Oil is fungible. What matters is the total supply, not which oil molecule gets shipped to which customer.

Triangle Man said...

AJ, Not really knowing what I am talking about, but all other things being equal, I suspect that a gusher would not make us "independent" of foreign oil, because foreign oil producers will still have strong influence over the global market price of oil. A company who generates output on the scale of 100% of U.S. domestic consumption would likely have enough leverage to manipulate global market prices as well, but every barrel of oil they pump is going to be sold at market price to someone, and not necessarily to a U.S. refiner (i.e. could be exported).

From what I understand, the U.S. currently consumes about twice what it produces.

Hector Owen said...

Happy birthday, Victoria!

bleeper said...

Teddy Kennedy, Chesapeake? Sure, he's got crabs, but he's a far up north Y*nkee. The view he is so concerned about is off Massachusetts. And he was always in favor of offshore drilling, the pictures were in the paper.

AJ Lynch said...

"Fungible". Mike watch your language - you ain't at the Daily Kos. heh.

chickenlittle said...

"From what I understand, the U.S. currently consumes about twice what it produces"

The situation is even worse in Japan which doesn't have any to produce.

I believe monetary forces are driving the current oil crisis rather than supply issues.
In 1963 a quarter bought a gallon of gas. It still does today, so long as it's a 1963 silver quarter. In a sense, the commodities have stayed on par, while the nominal value of the dollar has fallen dramatically.

In order to fix the latest "oil crisis" we need to fix the dollar. That involves actually paying the enormous bills for fighting to keep open access to oil, among other commitments.

The US has plenty of energy: coal, nuclear, gas, wind, and yes, oil. The technical problems are surmountable or irrelevant. Having a higher oil price actually helps bring these alternatives to market.
So quit yer bitchin' y'all

Bissage said...

For years now I have been consuming about twice what I produce.

My personal physician finds that fascinating and has been seeking a research grant.

Revenant said...

So if oil was discovered in Washington DC and it was a gusher and satisfied 100% of domestic demand, would that make us independent of foriegn oil?

That depends on what you mean by "independent of foreign oil", I guess. That's one of those catchphrases that really doesn't mean anything in relation to the global economy.

The ability of the United States to produce all its own oil would prevent other nations from blockading us and preventing us from purchasing the oil we need. It would also help with the balance of trade, but that's true of any natural resource. However, the global oil market is open to all comers. Even if we *could* pump all the oil we need right here, we'd still probably end up buying from the Venezuelans or the Saudis or whoever else had the lowest price. We'd still be "dependent" on them in the sense that loss of access to them would increase oil prices and hurt our economy.

Finally, even if we had a whole bunch of cheap American oil and somehow kept it all to ourselves, we'd still have to care about the stability of the oil-producing nations because the rest of the world economy -- on which several trillion dollars' worth of our economy depends -- is dependent on that oil.

The idea that nations should be resource-independent is one of those fashionable ones that comes back into vogue every twenty years or so. It is nonsense, and it always has been. The reason to drill isn't so that we can achieve "energy independence" -- it is so oil will be cheaper, and more of the money spent on it will be being earned by Americans.

FairestWitness said...

The whole tire gauge proper inflation issue is asinine!! Maybe about 1/2 of 1% of the driving public have improperly inflated tires. The principle and fact that improperly inflated tires adversely affect fuel economy is true, but we're talking about a miniscule number of vehicles. It won't affect a damn thing. What the hell is the matter with Obama and those whom he leads? They are complete imbeciles.

The solution to high gasoline prices is to DRILL FOR AMERICAN OIL.

Cedarford said...

Middle Class Guy said...
Next the insane asylum will be telling us to dial down out thermostats to around fifty degrees and wear coats indoors to save energy. They will want us to eschew air conditioning to save energy.


We may get there in New England, NYC - where the Blue Ones most in Love with The One are also the Ones most against drilling outside SF and Hyde Park, and the ones most dependent on home heating oil.

There would be a certain, glorious long-lasting schadenfreude watching the children of the perpetual voters of Teddy Kennedy, CHuck Schumer, and Chris Dodd huddled in overcoats in breath-frosted classrooms for a few winters...or the school just close for the winter and school - to screams of kids and teachers alike, conducted as Algore want..CO2-less, conducted in sweltering summer with no AC.
Gay marriage in Mass and Vermont conducted by old queens and bull dykes in matching thermal underwear and leather.....

======================
triangle man - I see the benefit to me and my fellow share-holders, but what is the big picture benefit of offshore drilling?

You are bleeding out 700 billion in treasure represented by American property, industry, natural resources, and credit obligation to foreigners every year. Substantially devaluing currency(CPI is way up) mainly on oil-driven inflation and the dollar's collapse with our trillion buck trade imbalance (current account dollars), having Venezuelans recycle petrodollars buying up US potash and phosphorous mines, timberland, etc.

You also kill GNP growth because each dollar spent on domestic oil production - created in the USA wealth - has a 8X money multiplier in the economy - used many times over for jobs (50,000 per billion created if spent on USA oil, lost if spent on foreign oil). But a dollar sent to the Saudis or Hugo Chavez is lost unless the money is spent on productive US investment, not 40 billion worth of Russian weapons, etc.

Triangle Man -

As a commodity the source of the oil is largely irrelevant. It's all on the global market.

You miss the importance of "source". If you don't make something, you have to make and trade something of equal value or you are a poorer nation - unless you take on debt to spectacularly grow yourself up out of debt - something the US singularly failed to do in the supply side, 70% foreign oil, half consumer goods from China Dubya Bush years.

Consider how we bankrupted African nations - we hardly inspired them to make or grow anything exportable by offering them easy credit and stuff cheaper than Africans could make or grow even if they wanted to...so:

1. We dumped piles of USA grain, goods on them and told them they owed us tens of billions, eventually.

2. What stuff was made in Africa, what small percent of the population that did have wealth and disposable income spent off that production tended to spend it on foreign stuff in turn. Losing the domestic money multiplier, trashing any effrt to grow the african nation's economy, producing mass joblessness with political instability and out of control birth rates in impoverished rural areas with no export or domestic market for goods and crafts and in slum megalopolises all over Africa.

The source of the truly massive sectors of consumer spending are all-important. It determines who is a wealthy nation, and who if using excessive imports and piling up huge trade deficits ...is on the road to becoming an African one. The US, by virtue of it's substantial saved wealth, it's once secure position of the dolar being the global reserve currency, and ability to get more "value" in areas outside consumer goods (the tech bubble, the housing bubble, the financial bubble) allowed us far more years of China, the Little Dragons, Eurotrade, and the oil exporters piling up huge trade deficits than any other nation would have gotten away with.
But we have run out of bubbles and the dollar's slow collapse shows the "special rules" of trade imbalances applied to the US-only are ending.

One other thing - in the area of oil, it actually, as with certain other critical areas of the economy (industrial goods production in the past, US ownership of railroads, growing the US agriculture system, esssential defense industries) - makes sense that we also part from the global economy and do direct subsidies or tariffs.

Paying 10 dollars extra for domestic oil, oil shale/coal synthfuel, or 10 dollars extra for wind substitute electricity for natural gas that in turn can substitute for oil - gives the nation far greater benefit in jobs, national security, economic multipliers - than pissing it away to Venezuela, KSA, even Mexico or Canada.

Richard Dolan said...

Rev is certainly right that "energy independence" is not achievable and is probably not even desirable in its most simplistic form. But it is possible to reduce dependence on particular forms of energy, by diversifying supplies and suppliers; and to reduce the financial consequences that come from being as dependent on oil as we (and the other industrialized nations) have become. Two factors were mostly responsible for how we became so dependent on oil and natural gas, to the exclusion of other energy sources. First, until recently the historically low prices at which oil was selling (the price of oil reached an all-time low in constant dollars in the late '90s) basically priced other potentially competitive sources of energy out of consideration. Higher priced substitutes (e.g., nukes, shale oil) couldn't compete at those price levels. And all of the major players remember the shale oil bubble that burst in the '80s when the price of oil came down from its highs at the end of the Carter years. Investments in shale oil became instant losers.

Second, for a long time the energy markets have been constrained by various mandates, some environmental and others regulatory, that have artificially increased the cost of some sources of energy (e.g. nuclear power and coal for electric generation), while diverting resources to other sources of energy (e.g. ethanol) that would be wildly uneconomic but for regulatory intervention. A lot of those regulatory and environmental regulations were imposed decades ago, in response to environmental concerns that have been very substantially reduced by advanced technology. But the regulatory framework did not change with the technology, in part because so many groups had vested interests in maintaining the regulatory constraints.

The idea that the energy markets need to be made more rational, and allowed to take into account current technology and efficiencies, so that our overall sources and supplies of energy become more diversified, strikes me as obvious. Relaxing or removing the constraints on domestic drilling certainly falls within that category, but it's probably not the most important. McCain has taken some significant steps in that direction, both on domestic drilling and on nukes; Team O is much more resistant. McC has also been willing to dismiss uneconomic "renewable energy resources," such as ethanol, which Team O is not.

That the whole thing has come to the political fore because of a temporary surge in gasoline prices is purely coincidental. But the important difference is that Team O and the Dems are too beholden to the environmental groups to accept any really significant changes in the regulatory interventions in the energy markets, while McC is starting to move in that direction. McC's approach may leave a lot to be desired, but it is far, far better that Team O's silliness about inflating one's tires as part of a credible "energy plan."

Revenant said...

Well said, Richard.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Again, just because they drill offshore the U.S, it doesn't mean they will sell it to the U.S, or sell it to us cheaper than what we're paying right now.

garage, you do realize that oil is a fungible commodity no? I don't think anyone with sense thinks that we're going to drill for oil off the coasts and sell it to ourselves. Its about increasing the existing supply, period. Exxon and all the rest don't set the price garage, the market does. All they get to do is set production which determines how much hits the market.

Again, having a difficult time seeing the problem with the oil industry. Profits too big? So what? Compared to say Hollywood or professional sports franchises, Exxon and the like extract a product, refine it and transport it all over the nation which pretty much drives modern civilization. Without them, we're back to the 18th century.

Bruce Hayden said...

I was surprised that Rush didn't get into it earlier, but driving with overinflated tires is dangerous. Not just because of the danger of blowouts, but also because less of the tire is on the road at any one time. Overinflated tires tend to bulge at the middle. (And hence, probably, the comment about hydroplaning).

Also, what about the cost of new tires necessitated by the overinflation? Wearing out in the middle of the tire is an indication of overinflation, and guess what? If you get insurance to cover your tires when you buy them, wearing out early for under or over inflation isn't covered.

The clever thing is that "CRAWFORD: Truth is properly inflating your tires, uh, will do more for, uh, saving money on gas than anything the politicians are going to do right now!" is probably right, but only because drilling won't benefit us for 5-10 years, and properly inflating the few seriously underinflated tires out there would have an immediate payback. Not anywhere near the payback proposed (since it presumes that most of us underinflate out tires), but still greater than zero.

Cedarford said...

Original Mike - Again, just because they drill offshore the U.S, it doesn't mean they will sell it to the U.S
I am so tired of this canard. It doesn't matter who they sell it to. Oil is fungible. What matters is the total supply, not which oil molecule gets shipped to which customer.


Not in an embargo or war.

The "Free Global Market" is essentially an artificial peacetime creation, which even in a time of relative peace like today, requires at least one nation to spend military lives and treasure keeping those "free markets" stable against Arab, Nigerian, Venezuelan nuttiness and transportation routes open.

Russia has kindly reminded the Ukrainians, Poland. W Europeans recently that the "free global market" is a crock of shit when they choose it to be so. They have done oil and natural gas shutoffs to drive home Russia's economic and political clout on certain matters.

No canard. And actually, you are wrong on domestic oil. Legislation from the 70s requires that all N Slope Alaskan oil be sold and refined in the USA to add the domestic jobs and money multipliers on the West Coast and in AK.
Only when that oil was at peak production, and production exceeded refinery capacity (shutdowns, explosions, stupid state reformulation laws) did Congressionally passed Federal Law allow export of surplus to Japan and the other dragons(late 80s, early 90s).

Its quite simple - domestic production is far better than buying foreign. We accept, or should accept small environmental risks - "A thousand garbage dump seagulls summering on the Coast could die, plus 40 comorants and 10 surplus sea lions!! in a drilling accident of very low odds"....Even though most spills are tanker and barge spills.

Revenent - However, the global oil market is open to all comers. Even if we *could* pump all the oil we need right here, we'd still probably end up buying from the Venezuelans or the Saudis or whoever else had the lowest price.

The global market, open to all comers, could end tomorrow on Iran or Hugo Chavez or Russia or OPEC whim.

Again, it is slowly being admitted by once gung-ho globalist economists that "global free trade" only works if there is a mechanism where trade balances are returned to equilibrium or near-equilibrium in the Net International Trade System. Otherwise, and that mechanism appears broken, those with trade surpluses, notably from oil or cheap labor become wealthy and the rest of the world becomes more impoverished.
As is, no one wishes to achieve labor cost parity with China by destroying their labor force's compensation, China still has 300 million underemployed and 2 billion exist elsewhere so wages will not rise to parity and end the competitive edge as Japan's wage rise eventually priced them out of taking over all the world's manufacturing..
And the oil exporters are making so much that they buy everything that they want and still bank 100s of billions which is being used by KSA and others not to buy other nation's goods, but their assets and control of those assets.

Nor do we wish to simply buy foreign oil if it is 50 cents to a few bucks less after tramsportation costs and if we ever dared factor in the military costs the US bears by being so dependent on foreign oil we have no choice but sacrifice a few hundred American lives and tens of billions to hundreds presently (the Iraq War cost) trying to stabilize whacked out oil exporting nations.
Financially, if you consider the environmental risk low and also factor in how other ecosystems in African, Latin, and Asia are being ravaged by fossil fuel production free of environmental laws....then it is financially far better for the US to be making oil shale product, Canadian oil sand, offshore, ANWR product even if we only clear a 30 buck profit on a barrel compared to the Saudi profit of 120 a barrel. Because we create millions of great-paying jobs (solar and wind, sorry to say, do not, given they will be modest (wind) or pitiful (solar) in scale over the next 30 years. AND unlike with foreign oil, we put a 8X economic multiplier at work here to grow our own GNP rather than the Saudis.
Subsidies on US production, tariffs of foreign oil make economic sense. More net jobs, more GNP growth, less dead Americans overseas from securing foreign supply. Subsidy paid for many times over from capital investment return..or tariffs on oil that could directly go into paying for the US transition off oil, for more R&D, conservation, efficiency measures..

The "free market" in oil is slowly driving us to ruin. We need to wake up, get smart, drill and get off our parasitical ways. And I believe the consumer will support that since the "free market" and oil speculators "serving" the liquidity of the "free marlet" have hardly worked in America's best interest.

Our urgent problem is the military danger and fiancial bleeding of the US to foreign oil owners.
Our long-term problem is the needed transition away from finite oil and fossil fuel while making less CO2, factoring in our imigrant-driven population/energy user explosion.

Noble Algore's problem, Pelosi, and a foolishly large chunk of the environmentalist movement - is they place the cart before the horse...insisting the long-term CO2 accumulation issue is more important than the deaths in future wars, risk of economic collapse we now have from our
dependency on foreign eneergy supply (and China destroying our manufacturing infrastructure) on the whacky idea that none of it matters as long as consumers can get "cheaper" stuff as the process of destroying America's economic future and security unfolds.

Methadras said...

From the Rush Limbaugh Transcript...

TAPPER: If engines were tuned up and tires fully inflated, it could save 800,000 new barrels a day.


If this was even remotely true it would put the oil cartels out of business. 800k barrels of oil per day @ current rates is 100 million dollars a day of money not spent on that oil which is 3.65^10 dollars per year not spent on oil. Really? However, what is not mentioned is the money and time people would have to spend to tune up cars, and the energy required for that, not to mention keeping the tires inflated and the energy required to run compressors to make that happen. In effect the world would basically do nothing but inflate and tune up all day long. And thus, I have truly uncovered the Obama Conspiracy all along and that is to subjugate us to the Car Mechanics lobby. So sinister.

vbspurs said...

Hey again, guys! Thanks so much for all the nice birthday wishes!

Thanks very much to Ruth Anne for the Beatles sing-a-long, to Kev for the caek cat (LOL), to AllenS and AlgonquinS for their echoing good wishes, Paddy O. who I'd like to thank for ALL his generosity (you know what I mean, ooh!), to my dear Beth of Nawlins, to Hector Owen as ever!

Good job it was a slow day on Althouse, huh? :)

I'll be live-fisking the Olympics Opening ceremonies on my blog, and undoubtedly, Professor Althouse will be blogging on it too -- so I'll be here too.

Night!
Victoria

Roger J. said...

Victoria--happy birthday! I love it that you are a Miami gurl! Although the Miami that exists now isnt the Miami I grew up in the 1950s

Roger J. said...

I'm telling you: tire inflation is going to be the thing that sinks Obama--it is silly in a small way, but in a much larger way exposes him for the paternalistic nanny state guy he is in his core. And look at the idiots that popped on the threads to justify proper tire inflation--the fool Jakester in the earlier thread talking about lives saved by preventing accidents. Garage? well, he was a hillary supporter, so there's some hope for him, but he's backsliding.

The scary thing is that the Obamabots dont see the humor in it! The Name of the Rose (Humberto Ecco) deals with lack of a sense of humor. I don't trust anyone without a sense of humor. And the lefties seem to completely lack one.

garage mahal said...

Roger
Couldn't help think of you seeing this cartoon.

Fiscal conservative. Haha.

Roger J. said...

Garage--thanks for thinking of me. One of my biggest criticisms of the current president is that he is most definitely NOT a conservative! so I am in total agreement.

On another note: Looks like Hillary's still alive--did you read veni vidi vici's thing about the superdelegates? I would much rather see Clinton on the democratic ticket than Obama. Whats your take--she still alive?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Fiscal conservative. Haha.

garage, you're a smart guy but maybe you can tell us who controls the purse strings in the Federal government.

Original Mike said...

Not in an embargo or war.

True. And in that case, oil can be rerouted. I did not say that U.S. production does not matter. It most certainly does. But, in peacetime, it doesn't matter where the oil goes and meddling in the market, as Congress has done with North Slope oil, is stupid and counterproductive.

Triangle Man said...

Cedarford: Thanks for the detailed and informative responses. Definitely something to chew on there.

vbspurs said...

Thanks, Rog! :)

Arthur Godfrey was unto a good thing you know -- and it just got better!