backtop


Print 87 comment(s) - last by chunkymonster.. on Jun 1 at 11:42 AM


President Obama stands in front of a Chevrolet Volt and a prototype Ford Focus Electric
Replacing some of the federal fleet with electric vehicles will reduce government fuel consumption by 7.7 million gallons

The Obama administration announced yesterday that it has instructed federal agencies to buy smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles in an effort to meet national energy and environmental goals.

U.S. Present Barack Obama is ordering government agencies to buy cars like the Ford Fiesta, Chevy Cruze and Chevy Volt instead of full-sized cars like the Ford Taurus or Chevy Impala. These instructions are aimed to reduce U.S. oil imports by one-third by 2025 from 2008's import levels, and to place 1 million plug-in electric vehicles on the roads by 2015.

The U.S. government plans to buy 116 plug-in electric vehicles as part of its fleet efficiency effort. Of the 116 plug-in's, 101 will be Chevy Volts, which will be made in Detroit, while the other 15 will be battery electric Nissan Leafs and Think City electric models. These environmentally friendly models will join the government's 600,000-vehicle fleet.

There are exceptions to the rule, though. Obama noted in a memo that federal agencies are not to buy full-size sedans unless absolutely necessary, and said that government employees can continue using full-sized SUV's that can run on alternative fuels like E85. But those using larger vehicles six months from now will have to post that they do so on their websites. 

In addition, Obama suggested that optional equipment should be limited unless it is vital to agency missions. Exceptions will be made for vehicles used for military tactical operations, emergency response and law enforcement. 

The new electric vehicle pilot program will equip 20 government agencies in five cities with these vehicles. All branches of the U.S. military as well as the Energy Department and Veterans Administration will take part in the program, and the five chosen cities will be Detroit, Washington D.C., San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco. In addition, 100 charging stations will be placed at federal buildings in Michigan, California and Washington D.C.

The government hopes to encourage U.S. citizens to adopt environmentally friendly vehicles by leading by example. According to government estimates, replacing some of the government fleet with these electric vehicles will reduce government fuel consumption by 7.7 million gallons, which equates to 385,000 barrels of oil. Obama hopes to have most government vehicles purchased in 2015 be environmentally friendly vehicles.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

"leading by example"
By kattanna on 5/25/2011 11:08:55 AM , Rating: 5
WOW.. almost fell out of my chair on reading that.

what a novel and unique way to lead

;>)




RE: "leading by example"
By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/2011 11:12:26 AM , Rating: 5
It's easy to lead with other peoples money.


RE: "leading by example"
By nolisi on 5/25/11, Rating: 0
RE: "leading by example"
By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/2011 11:21:44 AM , Rating: 2
Non sequitor. Corporations earn their money, the government does not.

If Obama really cared about saving money, he would REDUCE the amount of government employees. Instead we've seen the biggest increase in the amount of government jobs under his administration. Jobs that don't produce anything, grow the economy, and are paid for by all of us who DO earn money and produce.

Who cares what they are driving? That's just trying to bail a sinking boat out with a Dixie cup.


RE: "leading by example"
By Flunk on 5/25/2011 11:29:36 AM , Rating: 1
One drop at a time, you can't solve every problem all at once.

What everyone doesn't want to face here is the real solution to the problem. A constantly increasing deficit isn't a realistic way to live. If they don't increase taxes and seriously reduce services and administrative waste there isn't any way out.

Of course that's not likely to happen, which is a problem with democracy. Sometimes unpopular plans have the best long-term outlook but the majority of voters are so short sighted that they will never get done.


RE: "leading by example"
By Kurz on 5/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: "leading by example"
By adhan24 on 5/25/2011 12:52:39 PM , Rating: 3
It is true that the United States, on paper, recently gained status as king of the tax hill in respect to corporate tax rates, but that doesn't tell you the whole story. We all know that corporations dodge these taxes by using loopholes. While the rates should be lowered, the loopholes need to be closed. Additionally, if personal income taxes are to be lowered (even marginally) the tax loopholes and benefits need to be looked at critically. But I tend to agree with the previous poster on personal income taxes, they could actually stand to increase for the top 2%.


RE: "leading by example"
By Kurz on 5/25/11, Rating: 0
RE: "leading by example"
By Ammohunt on 5/25/2011 2:43:12 PM , Rating: 1
VAT tax? no thanks! dumb idea! Income Flat tax 22% for everyone!


RE: "leading by example"
By Kurz on 5/25/2011 3:46:58 PM , Rating: 3
VAT Tax is not a Sales tax... Look up the definitions... Christ.


RE: "leading by example"
By Ammohunt on 5/26/2011 1:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
you are splitting hairs a VAT is a Sales tax on certain consumer goods. Why is it that becasue i am successfuly i pay more tax then some less so? i am not rich but i am lucky enough to be part of the 50% of people that actually pay income tax. 150Million people in the US do not pay taxes at all how is that fair?. a flat tax on income for everyone ensures everyone pays their fair share.


RE: "leading by example"
By gamerk2 on 5/25/2011 3:53:12 PM , Rating: 4
No, thats a dumb idea; you'd be forcing hte poor to pay that same rate, putting more people on government assistance programs, raising costs in the process. Taxing someone who makes $22k at a 22% rate will cost far more then that in the long run.

Reduce base rates 10% across the board, and remove all deductions. No more tax dodges.

And BTW, a sales tax, while fundamentally anti-competitive [hurts statups compared to established businesses], is FAR more recession proof then other forms of taxation; 1/3 of our yearly deficit is currently due to a decline in tax revenue ($500 Billion or so) due to this recession...


RE: "leading by example"
By DrKlahn on 5/25/11, Rating: 0
RE: "leading by example"
By Alexvrb on 5/25/2011 9:52:28 PM , Rating: 5
No joke. I know someone that has EBT and gets a crap ton of money for food, so they can spend the rest on other things. Sound nice in theory, if they really needed it. They have a job, and they already collect child support for two kids. But they don't work as many hours as they could, because making too much money would actually hurt their welfare! So they willingly limit their income in order to collect more. They have a much newer, more expensive car than I do. They go on vacations I couldn't afford.

Some families really and truly DO need it - it's just sad that it is so easy to abuse it!


RE: "leading by example"
By YashBudini on 5/25/2011 7:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Income Flat tax 22% for everyone!

What billionaire is going to stand for that?


RE: "leading by example"
By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/2011 10:45:12 PM , Rating: 3
??

A flat tax would dramatically LOWER how much taxes a billionaire would pay. Currently the top 1% income earners in this country pay something like 65% of the taxes collected.


RE: "leading by example"
By YashBudini on 5/25/2011 11:43:42 PM , Rating: 1
Have you seen how many IRS forms exist for them to not pay their fair share?

I do realize the Heritage Foundation doesn't supply such data.


RE: "leading by example"
By CyborgTMT on 5/26/2011 12:47:45 AM , Rating: 1
The top 1% also have more wealth than the bottom 95% do combined. So a rough guess would place them at having 75-80% of the income so they shouldn't bitch about having to pay only 65% of the taxes.


RE: "leading by example"
By JediJeb on 5/26/2011 1:27:36 PM , Rating: 3
Everyone thinks that having the top 1% of the richest people paying 65% of all the taxes if fair. But since that is fair, would it also be fair that those same top 1% of people in the country have 65% of the say in what happens in the government?

Most would say no, this is a democracy so every citizen should have an equal say in governing the country. Yet it is expected that the most wealthy should be paying for the needs of poorest citizens. I think it would be completely fair to ask every citizen to pay the exact same percentage in income taxes. If you make a dollar and the tax rate is 22% then you owe $0.22 in taxes, if you make a million dollars then you owe $220,000 in taxes. The rich are still paying the most taxes yet everyone is being asked to pay an equal share of their income. To be honest even welfare payments should be taxed at the same rate, because people who are receiving the assistance paid for by other people should know how it feels to be paying taxes so they better appreciate how the system works.

I myself make about $42k per year, and when I look at my check I pay nearly 33% in taxes when you figure in federal, state, county, city, social security, and whatever other taxes they can find to take out of my check. Why should it be that the less money you make, the more of it you keep? I don't even ask for raises anymore because every time I get one I only see about another $3-$10 more on my paycheck, everything else goes to taxes because I keep jumping up a bracket. This is the same problem they are having in places like Sweden or Switzerland(I cant remember which one now) where they pay no taxes until they hit the $60k per year mark, then they start paying a large tax percentage. There many people refuse raises once they get close to that limit so they can continue to keep their money and receive the free government handouts. This only stresses the financial burden of the government even more as fewer and fewer people are asked to pay more and more to support a growing population who remain in the lower income range.

Fairness is asking every single person to contribute the same percentage. If a person wants to improve their position financially then they need to work harder and look for opportunities to advance to the level which makes them feel comfortable. If I think I need more money, then I will take a second job or look for a better one, not ask others to pay my way in life.


RE: "leading by example"
By YashBudini on 5/26/2011 10:15:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
would it also be fair that those same top 1% of people in the country have 65% of the say in what happens in the government?

Your country protects you and your stuff. There's a cost associated with that. And maybe they do through contributions and lobbyists.

quote:
Why should it be that the less money you make, the more of it you keep?

Well the standard deduction is a flat amount. Basic living expenses also don't vary nearly as much as salaries do. Paris Hilton doesn't count.

People at the bottom strain to pay for food and shelter. The millionaire is p!$$ed he pays more, but honestly the only physical hardship is what?

quote:
There many people refuse raises once they get close to that limit so they can continue to keep their money and receive the free government handouts.

Biting off one's nost to spite their face is an old story. Once I suggested to a friend who insisted they hated taxes that they really want to pay more taxes. They thought I was crazy. I said they want to pay half a million a year in taxes, they asked "why would I want that?" Because you get to keep a lot more. See any movie stars turning down roles because of tax brackets? If you despise taxes that much then don't work at all, and live on what little you get. If that's a win for those people they were beyond redemption in the first place. Such trash comes in many colors, though whites hate to admit that the most.


RE: "leading by example"
By YashBudini on 5/26/2011 10:52:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The top 1% also have more wealth than the bottom 95% do combined.


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread666561/p...

http://lcurve.org/SuperRich.htm

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-ine...
Take a look at the sectin marked "Capital Gain" - Why Washington is closer to Wall Street than Main Street.

There's a reason there are far more numbers at these sites than you could ever find at the Heritage Foundation. They won't even tell you what the average income of the top 2$ is, and there's a reason for that as well.


RE: "leading by example"
By BansheeX on 5/27/2011 4:44:42 AM , Rating: 2
65% is the rate you can TRY to tax them at, but taxing income is much harder to collect than taxing sales. There are all kinds of ways, legal and illegal, that you can hide your income and reduce your tax liability. And there's nothing your effing laws can do about that. And there's nothing your tax rate can do about a millionaire ceasing production and avoiding all income tax. You could have a 100% taxrate on a bunch of wealth-squatting millionaires and collect absolutely nothing. The administrative cost of an income tax plus all its fraud and abuse is insane.


RE: "leading by example"
By SomethingNew71 on 5/25/2011 2:02:01 PM , Rating: 1
RE: "leading by example"
By weskurtz0081 on 5/25/2011 2:13:00 PM , Rating: 3
Look at the purple bars....


RE: "leading by example"
By AEvangel on 5/25/11, Rating: 0
RE: "leading by example"
By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/2011 11:41:41 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Bush increase the size and scope of Govt much further then Obama has.


That's a blatant LIE. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act alone created/saved 450k government jobs. Obama health care? Pelosi herself said that four million government jobs would be created by it (while destroying 800k private sector jobs). And that's probably a conservative estimate.

quote:
Everything else you posting is pretty accurate the Govt creates no jobs that actually grow the economy in a positive way. All the Govt does is steal money from the economy destroying far more jobs then they create.


Now that I think we can agree on :)


RE: "leading by example"
By Dr of crap on 5/25/2011 12:23:19 PM , Rating: 1
Must be a Dem supporter, huh?


RE: "leading by example"
By Jedi2155 on 5/25/2011 12:40:05 PM , Rating: 1
I wonder how many jobs Bush created in Iraq and Afghanistan versus how many he created here.


RE: "leading by example"
By YashBudini on 5/25/2011 7:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
More likely the most in Dubai.

http://www.halliburton.com/locations/



RE: "leading by example"
By AEvangel on 5/25/2011 8:15:55 PM , Rating: 3
It's not a lie....

George Bush Takes over....
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
BY FUNCTION: MARCH 2001 Total Salary $11,369,841,107

George Bush leaves...
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
BY FUNCTION: DECEMBER 2008 Total Salary $ 15,471,672,41

Obama is in office...(most recent data)
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
BY FUNCTION: March 2009 Total Salary $15,105,511,892

The only other Conservative talking point is the $2.15million paid in 2010, which was mainly due to the census workers that were hired and the increased cost of Federal employee pensions.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/au...

No...I don't like Obama...he is no better or worse then any of the other ones...they are all from the same Big Govt Party.


RE: "leading by example"
By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/2011 11:16:15 PM , Rating: 3
Again, your numbers are NOT taking into account the bureaucracies Obama is erecting that will have to be filled with Government workers. And, of course, all of these will require new IRS employees as well.

Again, Obamacare, FOUR MILLION new federal positions. You can't just keep pretending like the federal government hasn't been exponentially expanded. The spending is out of control! The percentage of deficit vs. GDP hasn't been this high since WWII!

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=1...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123569611695588763...

Where are you getting the opinion that Obama hasn't expanded the Federal Government any more than Bush? He's expanded more than EVERY PRESIDENT COMBINED! Get a clue man.


RE: "leading by example"
By AEvangel on 5/26/2011 11:51:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, your numbers are NOT taking into account the bureaucracies Obama is erecting that will have to be filled with Government workers. And, of course, all of these will require new IRS employees as well.


Yes, I am only taking into account current figures not possible figures...the reason for this is last I heard all those republicans we elected were supposed to over turn it Right???

Also I never said Obama had not expanded the size of the Govt, I simply said Bush has expanded it more then Obama HAS and at this time and that statement is correct. Now if the congress and senate do not overturn the recent bills passed then Obama WILL end up possibly increasing it more, if we don't go bankrupt first.

This is my main issue with someone like yourself who is constantly trying to say that Obama is worse then Bush. No he is not, Obama is just as bad as Bush was. They are are all the same lying self congratulating, Wall street lackeys. The only thing Democrats or Republicans for the most part truly support or believe in is increasing the size and power of the Govt at the expense of our Freedoms, both economic ans social.


RE: "leading by example"
By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/2011 6:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
I never brought up Bush or said someone was worst or not worst than him. I never even typed the word "Bush" until YOU brought it up. Isn't it true that you are just assuming things, if not flat out projecting YOUR political beliefs on this topic?

quote:
the reason for this is last I heard all those republicans we elected were supposed to over turn it Right???


You keep bringing up if things will be over turned or not. This isn't relevant. It's clear that Obama's INTENT, expressed and deliberate, is to grow the size and budget of the U.S government to never before seen proportions. Whether or not things get over ruled by judges or politicians later does not change this fact does it?

quote:
Obama is just as bad as Bush was.


Well isn't that a glowing endorsement. I'll sleep better already knowing this. Thanks.

p.s. It's obvious you didn't even click on my links, or you wouldn't still cling to this argument with such fervor.


RE: "leading by example"
By theArchMichael on 5/25/2011 11:37:19 AM , Rating: 1
Wow yeah the federal employees we've seen since...
the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations 20-30 years ago when the population of the country was almost a third smaller.

It could said that the favorable conditions allowing corporations and individuals to acquire the skills, infrastructure and a market for their products to allow them to earn more money is a service provided by governance that may not be quantifiable.


RE: "leading by example"
By nolisi on 5/25/2011 11:40:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Corporations earn their money, the government does not.


The (our) government protects its citizens and their freedom, corporations do not.

I'd also suggest that corporations do not "earn" their money in the traditional sense either. They simply run a calculated game of balance between debt and solvency by eliminating/limiting competition (i.e. choice and by extension freedom) in the marketplace. Thus, they end up getting your money through an overwhelming market presence. They also leverage investment (other peoples money) dollars to accomplish expanded presence in the market place.

I've seen what earning your money looks like- the corporate sector doesn't resemble it. But I suppose when you see BP spill tons of oil all over the gulf, that constitutes earning money.

quote:
Instead we've seen the biggest increase in the amount of government jobs under his administration.


So? I'm glad they've made jobs available to keep people off the street and prevent them from stealing for the things they need. With all the public vagrancy laws in place, I'd rather us spend money on giving them some kind of work rather than simply build jails to imprison citizens. I love hearing conservatives tell people in need to go get a job when the number of jobs is dwindling, meanwhile, let's not create any government jobs to help mitigate the issue.

And so what if there's waste in the government? The marketplace has brought us corporate waste which has consumers paying inflated prices for goods. Waste is a fact of life- if the green movement has to get over it, then I suggest you should as well. Stop crying about everything Obama does just because you don't like the word "Democrat."


RE: "leading by example"
By Kurz on 5/25/2011 12:08:48 PM , Rating: 2
I think the government protects the corporations more often than plain citizens. I see it everyday when a new protectionist law is passed. Corporations have an interest to listen to their employee's needs (Producers) and the Consumers since they can easily take their money someplace else.

Its funny BP actually has their liablity insurance through the British government. The citizens pick up the tab whenever they mess up. We also had a cap on the liablity that BP could pay out. There was less downward pressure from the higher ups for these reasons alone.

If anything its governemnts fault for limiting the amount of liablity BP has to pay. That would never happen in the private sector.

Government jobs do not create Prosperity in a Country.
Government jobs syphon money away from the private sector where prosperity/growth/innovation comes from.

Corporate waste only exists because they pushed protectionist laws through our government. They can be lax with their spending and waste since they have less competition to deal with.


RE: "leading by example"
By chunkymonster on 5/25/2011 3:11:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The (our) government protects its citizens and their freedom, corporations do not
quote:
So? I'm glad they've made jobs available...
quote:
so what if there's waste in the government?
quote:
I love hearing conservatives tell people in need to go get a job...let's not create any government jobs to help mitigate the issue.
quote:
Stop crying about everything Obama does just because you don't like the word "Democrat."


Good job Pelosi, err Nolisi...Spoken like a true Socialist...just in case you forgot, American is a Republic, not a Democracy.


RE: "leading by example"
By YashBudini on 5/25/2011 7:32:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Spoken like a true Socialist

Ah yes, the old standby when nothing substantial is at hand.


RE: "leading by example"
By chunkymonster on 5/26/2011 10:34:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ah yes, the old standby when nothing substantial is at hand.
No "substantial" rebuttal is necessary for blatantly obvious socialist comments like those posted by nolisi...


RE: "leading by example"
By YashBudini on 5/26/2011 10:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
Please identify and quote one instance where this person said anything about "spreading the wealth."

Identifying corruption and flaws in a "capitalistic" system is not socialism, despite what the flag waiving TV personalities have told you.

People that think for themselves don't need such reminders.


RE: "leading by example"
By chunkymonster on 5/27/2011 8:57:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please identify and quote one instance where this person said anything about "spreading the wealth."
What are talking about?!?! Neither nolisi or I commented anything about "spreading the wealth". Please stay on topic.
quote:
Identifying corruption and flaws in a "capitalistic" system is not socialism, despite what the flag waiving TV personalities have told you.
Oh, I see. So, it's okay and politically correct to call out all the corruption in "capitalism" and belittle "flag waivers" but it's not acceptable to criticize socialism or socialist comments made on this forum. Is that the way it is? Your hypocrisy is showing.
quote:
People that think for themselves don't need such reminders.
People that think for themselves realize that socialism has failed and feel-good politics like Obama requiring federal agencies to purchase alternative fuel vehicles is a diversion from the real issues facing our country.


RE: "leading by example"
By YashBudini on 5/27/2011 4:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What are talking about?!?! Neither nolisi or I commented anything about "spreading the wealth".

Socialism is all about "spreading the wealth."

quote:
So, it's okay and politically correct to call out all the corruption in "capitalism" and belittle "flag waivers" but it's not acceptable to criticize socialism or socialist comments made on this forum.

Flag waivers have nothing to do with it. If you combine the two that's your limitation.


RE: "leading by example"
By chunkymonster on 6/1/2011 8:42:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Flag waivers have nothing to do with it. If you combine the two that's your limitation.
I did not combine the two, you did. And, in case you forgot your own post, here's what you said..."Identifying corruption and flaws in a "capitalistic" system is not socialism, despite what the flag waiving TV personalities have told you."...there was no inclusion of the two until your post, it is your limitation, not mine. Again, your hypocrisy is showing.

quote:
Socialism is all about "spreading the wealth.
Socialism is not about "spreading the wealth". Spreading the wealth is the desired end result intended only for the people living under the socialist system. History has proven time and again, socialism is not intended for the socialists. The Elites will never be held accountable for, will never be subject to, and will never live by their own ideologies.

All of this is superfluous and a distraction from the real issues at hand; the devaluation of the Dollar, the emasculation of the American Middle Class, the failure of Keynesian economics, and the impending increase in taxes and government control.


RE: "leading by example"
By yomamafor1 on 5/25/2011 11:47:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Instead we've seen the biggest increase in the amount of government jobs under his administration.


I'd really like to see some back up claims for that.


RE: "leading by example"
By theArchMichael on 5/25/2011 1:43:18 PM , Rating: 2
RE: "leading by example"
By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/2011 1:47:42 PM , Rating: 2
CURRENT, yes. But that's not taking into account the bureaucracies that Obama has made law that have yet to go into effect.

Also unless I'm missing something, it stops at 2006. Where is 06-11?


RE: "leading by example"
By theArchMichael on 5/25/2011 2:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
Here's an article by the washington post which lists executive branch employees, although I must admit I am not familiar with federal jurisdiction all agencies. The numbers seem to be congruent with those from the previous dataset.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/...


RE: "leading by example"
By yomamafor1 on 5/25/2011 2:06:36 PM , Rating: 3
So where's the definitive proof that government employee increase was the largest under Obama Administration? Currently it looks like you just made up another baseless claim.


RE: "leading by example"
By kattanna on 5/25/2011 2:37:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So where's the definitive proof that government employee increase was the largest under Obama Administration?


probably right next to the proof his birth certificate is fake

;>)


RE: "leading by example"
By Nfarce on 5/25/2011 8:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
Allow me to help both you fellas out....

Since President Barack Obama was sworn into office, the private sector workforce has shrunk by 2.6% while shedding 2.9 million jobs while the federal workforce (excluding Census and Postal workers) has grown by 7% while adding more than 144,000 jobs.

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/fed-jo...


RE: "leading by example"
By invidious on 5/26/2011 9:43:39 AM , Rating: 2
Because firing mass amounts of people and paying them unemployment is great for the budget and economy...

Paying government employees less sounds like a much better idea to me. Especially since their jobs and skills are much less competative than private sector jobs but seem to be more highly compensated in most cases.


RE: "leading by example"
By MarcLeFou on 5/25/2011 11:18:52 AM , Rating: 4
Will the government agencies get the 7500$ tax credit from the governement ?


RE: "leading by example"
By Aloonatic on 5/25/2011 11:19:43 AM , Rating: 5
Maybe this was the moment that he came up with the idea of using smaller vehicles?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/05/2...

:o)


RE: "leading by example"
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/25/2011 11:27:01 AM , Rating: 2
When I saw this a few days ago, I about lost it when the limo went "clank".


RE: "leading by example"
By YashBudini on 5/26/2011 5:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
The fool should have borrowed Al Gore's Hummer.


RE: "leading by example"
By kattanna on 5/25/2011 2:44:53 PM , Rating: 2
LOL now thats funny.

love how they pull up the bus to block the press from seeing after the fact.


RE: "leading by example"
By Schrag4 on 5/25/2011 12:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
How does buying 116 EVs for a fleet of 600,000 constitute "leading by example?"


RE: "leading by example"
By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/2011 1:14:21 PM , Rating: 2
Lol yeah.

But remember, what Obama DOES actually doesn't matter. As long as it makes you FEEL good!


RE: "leading by example"
By nolisi on 5/25/11, Rating: 0
RE: "leading by example"
By MeesterNid on 5/25/2011 2:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think he was pointing out the irony in the fact that 116 EVs prompted the "leading by example" remark. Had it been somebody on the right doing something similar to Mr. Obama there would be hysterical laughter, mocking and criticism on a grand scale.


RE: "leading by example"
By drycrust3 on 5/25/2011 4:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
Wait for the next US Government contract, which will be to buy 600,000 bicycles, then you'll understand.


RE: "leading by example"
By Floorbit on 5/26/2011 7:31:56 AM , Rating: 2
Thought congress had to pass a budget that included these in order to do this. I mean HE doesn't TELL anybody what to do. Hes ONLY the president.
BTW dont forget about the ford fusions.

There is something serious fishy about his execution of power.


RE: "leading by example"
By YashBudini on 5/26/2011 10:18:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
what a novel and unique way to lead

Pffft, it's only a theory in most cases and just hypocrisy in the rest.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki