Obama says if Americans inflated their tires properly we would save oil!, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 05:31 PM by iamcamouflage
reply to post by buddhasystem



I understand your concerns but I drive cautiously on slippery surfaces and I have been doing this for 5 years, with my past two cars and I have not had any handling or traction problems. As long as your tires are not worn bald, IMO the higher pressure is fine.
Try this experiment, inflate your tire to the 32 or 35psi or whatever is recommended. Put some paint on the surface of your tire and drive for a few feet. Now inflate to 38 or 40psi and repeat the painting and driving a few feet. The footprint between the two is negligible. The surface area lost from the higher pressure is minimal.


reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 05:36 PM by dampnickers
What a waste of time.

It seems to me like you have all been ensnared in the trap that 'they' want you trapped in.

It is a nice little distraction for you to be picking over the minutiae of what Obama did or did not say. A distraction from what others, the real concerns, are saying.

Obama, like McCain has been hand picked for the job of being the presidential candidate for the same team.

The two party system does not, can not and will not work. No matter who you vote for, the same team still gets in.

Wake up dolts! This is your country you are losing.

Obama, as I have already stated, was picked to stir up a little heated debate. McCain, has equally stated some interesting things (and I am saying nothing more than that about him).

What you should be debating is why the 'democracy' only has two parties. Why the 'democracy' doesn't have a third, fourth... sixth, seventh and eighth parties!

Here in the UK (home of the so-called oppressors of American democracy in the 1770's), we have dozens of political parties. Admittedly there are still only the big three, but the smaller parties are growing in size at an exponential rate! Now that is democracy.

Wake up Americans. Wake up. Your democratic system is not democratic. Your presidential candidates do not give a stuff about your tyres, or how much petrolium you might save... They don't want you to save any petrol at all, that's bad for tax collection.

Anyone awake yet?

Anyone at home in those heads?

Any lights on?

Ask yourselves why you only have two parties in America... I have heard talk of a third party... Why are you all bitching about Obama and McCain, and not out supporting the third party? Why not start a party of your own?

Get the political landscape over there whipped up into such a frenzy that the politicos have to sit up and listen. This is what you should be doing.

Instead you go to work, drive home sit on your arse with a cold one in your hand and watch telly... after then you drift onto the computer and whine about what a couple of political candidates (a communist, and a nazi) have to say...

Sigh... here we go again. Welcome to the 21st Century - it hasn't had a brain upgrade yet.


reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 05:40 PM by Grafilthy
reply to post by Digital_Reality




I'm not being hateful, I just don't see him as the messiah the media is making him out to be with the kind of ideas he is coming up with.

I think you just gave yourself away....
As soon as I heard you say "messiah" it was all over for you. You just used the GOP "word of the week" and let us all know how genuinely intelligent you are.
It is rather obvious that there is no point to arguing with you guys on these nonissue issues.

As for your criticisms of his advice.....Ask a mechanic if it will save you gas, then you don't need shallow reassurance from the peanut gallery to see you are staying on your talking points.

Way to think for yourself.


reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 05:45 PM by dampnickers
reply to post by Grafilthy



You are arguing over minute and pointless details.

Who cares about tyre pressures...?

Who cares if Obama is the next president?

As I have already stated, it doesn't matter if Obama or McCain gets in, they are still playing for the same team.

See my post above!


reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 05:46 PM by round_eyed_dog
Originally posted by Digital_Reality
reply to
post by round_eyed_dog



Sigh.... OK, so do you really believe this is a good plausible solution for the offshore drilling problem? Pumping up our tires and getting tune ups...
Come on! This guy wants to be the President of the United States and this is the best he can do.



Actually, I was referring to what the article you cited not fitting your argument and nitpicking the way you posted the topic.

If I was actually speaking directly to the subject, I personally think that adding more offshore drilling is akin to bandaging an amputated limb with a gum wrapper. Alaska's Waters Quietely Reopen to Drilling



reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 06:18 PM by WhatTheory
reply to post by WyrdeOne


Hmm.....again, you did not answer the question and instead attempt to deflect. I will ask again for a third time.

Do you agree with what Obama said that getting tune ups and inflating tires will save as much oil as offshore drilling will produce? Is this what you believe? Let's see how honest you are.....I have my doubts.


reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 06:23 PM by Quazga
Originally posted by Digital_Reality


The first thought that came to mind when I read this was that my tires are not the only thing full of air. If this is his answer to our problems we are truly screwed if he gets elected.

www.time.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



You obviously didn't read very far did you...



But who's really out of touch? The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right..



Reading is fundamental to ensuring you are not citing a piece out of context. You see, you might indirectly give someone the impression that you are deliberately trying to cause misdirection.



reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 07:00 PM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by dampnickers



It called elitist, one is in control and the other is there to give the illusion that the people hold the control. There are more than two parties but much like your smaller ones in England they growing, mind you, not at an exponential rate but we are running on our two hundred something years and we are the strongest country in the world. If you ask me we aren't doing to bad, it only to you guys like what, a thousand or so years to get it down to where you're at? A few people run this wolrd to think that any person in a high ranking government position gives a # about anything but their own is ludicrous. For the record America broke free of Brittish tyranny in the 1770 because Brittain was like a negligent parent, letting the kid do whatever it wanted, than daddy laid down the rules and Junior didn't like it, thus acting out. Daddy didn't like junior acting out, so he laid down some consequences like unrepresented taxes to tax us into poverty.
It just goes to show that no country is innocent, of anything. And the stereo type of Americans being a bunch of lazy redneck alcoholics, like how you like to make it out is about as accurate as the stereotype of the Brittish being a bunch of yellow buck tooth, tea drinking pansies.
I guess the part of what I'm trying to say is you don't live here so who are you to tell us what's going on in the country I live in?


reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 07:05 PM by WyrdeOne
reply to post by WhatTheory



I find it helpful to read the posts of the people I'm debating. Give it a shot, and you'll be amazed at the results.

As I wrote in the post that's third from the bottom on the second page, and in answer to your question, YES - proper vehicle maintenance, starting tomorrow, would save 1-3% gas mileage annually, on the national level. I'd wager good money that there won't even be an exploratory well operational for a decade in the wake of the ban being lifted, and forget about seeing any of that oil on the market until at least 2030 according to the DOE.

According to one estimate, the US consumed about 140 billion gallons of gasoline in 2004. That means we could expect to reduce consumption by between 1.4bn and 4.2bn gallons annually if we took Obama's advice. By the time the offshore wells start producing, the country would have conserved between 28bn and 84bn gallons of gasoline (assuming the wells start producing by 2028).

If you do the math, you will see that Obama's 'no-brainer' suggestion would effectively increase supply far sooner than lifting the ban, and it would pay dividends every year.

It is a far better goal to reduce consumption than to increase production.

There are better solutions to achieving energy independence.

The oil companies and their cronies are using the climate in the US right now to push this thing forward. It's the worst sort of pandering to people's fears and doubts, and while I CAN believe that people are falling for it, I wish they wouldn't.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^