posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 04:42 PM
reply to post by WhatTheory
I guess you don't realize what he actually said. Perhaps you should read it again.
I do realize what he said, and I think you are the one who should read it again since you clearly didn't UNDERSTAND it the first time around.
If he would have just said that it would help save you money on gas then he would have been correct. Unfortunately, that is not what he said.
If people followed his advice they would get better gas mileage. If they get better gas mileage they use less gas. If people are using less gas,
less oil is refined into gas. Therefore, if people followed his advice we would use less oil. If we used less oil, it would be the equivalent of
opening up offshore drilling.
His point is valid, whether or not you understand it.
Obama stated that doing those things will save as much oil as offshore drilling would produce. Two totally different things and it's very dumb on his
part to even suggest such a thing.
LOL - that was priceless!
I finally understand the problem: a shocking lack of deductive reasoning on the part of the pundits and their little minions of darkness.
 Wait, this is even better! I had to edit to respond to this...
BTW, I guess you don't know what 'neo-con' means because I have never been a liberal. You do realize that in order to be a neo-con you must have
been a liberal at one point right?
Okay - so you're saying that no matter how a word is used, its meaning cannot change?
The contemporary usage of the word is clear and no amount of semantic acrobatics will change that.
If you want to argue that the 1800's definition is the only true definition, rock on with that, but language is an evolving creature, and as usage
changes, so does meaning.
Personally, I use the term to describe the new breed of Republicans that make old school Republicans (fiscal conservatives) ashamed of their party.
[edit on 5-8-2008 by WyrdeOne]